Hitler's monster tank

Joined Jul 2012
3,000 Posts | 6+
Abilene, Texas
imagejpeg
The below is from Wikiapedia, I could find a different source if you request
1,000 tonnes (1,100 [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_ton"]short tons[/ame]; 980 [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_ton"]long tons[/ame])Length35 m (115 ft)Width14 m (46 ft)Height11 m (36 ft)Crew20+, possibly as many as 41

150–360 mm (5.9–14 in)Main
armament
2x 280 mm 54.5 SK C/34Secondary
armament
1x 128 mm KwK 44 L/55
8x [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_cm_FlaK_30"]20 mm Flak38[/ame]
2x [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_151"]15 mm MG 151/15[/ame]
Engine8x Daimler-Benz MB501 20-cylinder marine diesel engines
or 2x MAN V12Z32/44 24-cylinder marine diesel engines
16,000 to 17,000 hp (12,000 to 13,000 kW)
Operational
range~120 miles (190 km)Speed40 km/h (25 mph)


The true land battle ship
Here's a gun that was being developed with it before they both got canclled by Albert Speer in 1943:[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1500_Monster[/FONT]
[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]
[/FONT]
The development history of the Ratte originated with a 1941 strategic study of Soviet heavy tanks conducted by Krupp, the study also giving birth to the Panzer VIII Maus super-heavy tank. The study led to a suggestion from Krupp director Grote, special officer for submarine construction, who on June 23, 1942 proposed to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler"]Hitler[/ame] a 1,000-tonne tank which he named a Landkreuzer. It was to be armed with [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_artillery"]naval artillery[/ame] and armored with 10 inches (25 cm) of hardened[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel"]steel[/ame], so heavily that only similar weapons could hope to affect it. To compensate for its immense weight, the Ratte would have been equipped with three 1.2 metre (3.9 ft) wide treads on each side with a total tread width of 7.2 metres (24 ft). This would help stability and weight distribution, but the vehicle's sheer mass would have destroyed roads and rendered bridge crossings next to impossible. However, it was anticipated that its height, and its [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_clearance"]ground clearance[/ame]of 2 metres (6.6 ft) would have allowed it to ford most rivers with ease.
Hitler became enamored with Grote's concept and ordered Krupp to begin development on it in 1942. As of December 29, 1942 a few preliminary drawings had been completed, by which time the concept had been named Ratte ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat"]Rat[/ame]). Albert Speer canceled the project in 1943 before any were actually constructed.
[edit]Propulsion

The Ratte was to be propelled by two [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAN_SE"]MAN[/ame] V12Z32/44 24 cylinder marine [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine"]diesel engines[/ame] of 8,500 hp (6.2 MW) each (as used in U-boats) or eight Daimler-Benz MB 501 20 cylinder marine diesel engines of 2,000 hp (1.5 MW) each (as used in E-boats) to achieve the 16,000 hp (11.8 MW) needed to move this tank. The engines were to be provided with [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_snorkel"]snorkels[/ame] also like those used by German submarines. The snorkels were designed to provide a way for oxygen to reach the engine, even during amphibious operations passing through deep water.
[edit]Armament

The Ratte's primary weapon would have been a dual 280 mm SK C/28 gun turret. The turret was to have been a modified [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsmarine"]Kriegsmarine[/ame]triple gun turret, removing one of the guns and loading mechanism.[1]
Further armament was to consist of a 128 mm anti-tank gun of the type used in the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdtiger"]Jagdtiger[/ame] or Maus, two 15 mm Mauser [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_151"]MG 151[/ame]/15 autocannons, and eight 20 mm [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_38"]Flak 38[/ame] anti-aircraft guns, probably with at least four of them as a quad mount. The 128 mm anti-tank gun's precise location on the Ratte is a point of contention among historians, most believing that it would have been mounted within the primary turret, with some others thinking a smaller secondary turret at the rear of the Ratte more logical. Some concept drawings exist to suggest a flexible mount on the glacis plate. The tank was to be provided with a vehicle bay sufficient to hold two BMW R12 motorcycles for scouting, as well as several smaller storage rooms, a compact infirmary area, and a self-contained lavatory system
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it would be disasterous if it where deployed because the armor would be almost impenetrable and those naval guns could bust anything. But I think the allies would carpet bomb it and I'll bet it would break down like the Tiger. If used today not as devastating. All of our missiles, nukes and if a T90, M1 Abrams, Leopard II, and Challenger 2 tank teamed up, they would have defeated the landkeuzer



 
Joined Jul 2012
3,000 Posts | 6+
Abilene, Texas
Last edited:
Some pictures [FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&va=landkreuzer[/FONT]
 
Joined Mar 2010
9,845 Posts | 31+
You were ment to find out about that one so it would come as a complete suprise when this came lumbering towards you

uberschwerer-kampfschreitpanzer.jpg
 
Joined Nov 2010
10,011 Posts | 3,078+
Stockport Cheshire UK
Last edited:
There is desperate, and then there is desperate.
The fact the German's even considered this design only show's that they knew they were knee deep in the brown sticky stuff.
 
Joined Mar 2012
1,043 Posts | 6+
New Hampshire
imagejpeg

Think it would be disasterous if it where deployed because the armor would be almost impenetrable and those naval guns could bust anything. But I think the allies would carpet bomb it and I'll bet it would break down like the Tiger. If used today not as devastating. All of our missiles, nukes and if a T90, M1 Abrams, Leopard II, and Challenger 2 tank teamed up, they would have defeated the landkeuzer
The Allies probably wished the Germans would've made this. Pouring that much more steel and fuel into a gigantic metal box than wouldn't move and would probably not even be able to depress its guns enough to hit anything, let alone move the turret with any speed. To say nothing of air power. German tankers were constantly paranoid about Allied air attack as they had little defense against planes and they'd have to hide to survive. A metal fortress would be a guaranteed target, very easy to hit, and has no chance to avoid notice. The British could easily just drop a single Tallboy on it, though that might be overkill. Seriously, bigger does not actually mean better in terms of engineering.
 
Joined Jun 2012
5,689 Posts | 2+
Hippy town U.S.A.!
The Allies probably wished the Germans would've made this. Pouring that much more steel and fuel into a gigantic metal box than wouldn't move and would probably not even be able to depress its guns enough to hit anything, let alone move the turret with any speed. To say nothing of air power. German tankers were constantly paranoid about Allied air attack as they had little defense against planes and they'd have to hide to survive. A metal fortress would be a guaranteed target, very easy to hit, and has no chance to avoid notice. The British could easily just drop a single Tallboy on it, though that might be overkill. Seriously, bigger does not actually mean better in terms of engineering.

Agreed.
 
Joined Jan 2011
8,845 Posts | 539+
South of the barcodes
Who'd need to bomb it? It would be pioneering engineering to build a monster that size, every part would be under unprecedented strain and theres no guarantee German metallurgy would be up to it by that point in the war.

You just had to wait for it to split a track link or strip a gear and there was nothing on earth that would be able to fix it.
 
Joined Nov 2012
1,621 Posts | 2+
Pax juxta probitatem
Very interesting thread and Tank ! I wonder whether Churchill would also have ordered that Land Battleship thing to be captured, and brought to London. [ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Catch-That-Tiger-Noel-Botham/dp/1857826604"]Catch That Tiger: Amazon.co.uk: Noel Botham, Bruce Montague: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51v0vAc7qyL.@@AMEPARAM@@51v0vAc7qyL[/ame] He got his wish with a Tiger :)

As with the Maus, Ratte was never completed. But it was large enough to have internal self-contained lavatories, and would have needed six tracks? 17,000 horsepower and about 50 km per hour top speed. Ridiculous perhaps, but it could have crossed most rivers with ease.

Other lunacies: [ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Tank-Fight-Zack-Parsons/dp/0806527587/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365031880&sr=1-1"]My Tank is Fight: Amazon.co.uk: Zack Parsons: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51h9slU2NNL.@@AMEPARAM@@51h9slU2NNL[/ame]
 
Joined Nov 2012
887 Posts | 4+
Virginia
Haven't seen anything that silly since the 2 civil war cannons which used 2 cannonballs connected by a chain and were supposed to fire at the same time. The idea was to cut a wide swath through enemy infantry formations and such.

Of course, they never could get both cannons synched up so the cannonball pretty much swung in a circle around the other gun until it too touched off. Had to be pretty exciting for the gun crew!
 
Joined Jun 2012
7,405 Posts | 485+
At present SD, USA
Seriously, bigger does not actually mean better in terms of engineering.

Yep...

All the size would have done would make it a better target. While high explosive rounds might not work, any armor piercing round MIGHT stand a chance. No amount of armor can make something invincible. Even the Yamato sank (though requiring more than 300 US strike planes to sink it). The Rat would have been damaged or destroyed eventually...

And if the Allies couldn't blow it up, the thing would have run out of gas quickly. The Allies found countless Tiger and King Tiger tanks abandoned because they'd run out of fuel. Making something this big would have only ensured that it remained close to where it was built... meaning it could be isolated and starved into submission.
 
Joined Oct 2010
17,025 Posts | 4,448+
Nothing that big could actually move. The sheer weight would sink into most ground. You certainly could not cross any rivers (no bridge is wide or strong enough).

It's just fantasy that such a tank could be viable at all.
 
Joined Jan 2011
8,845 Posts | 539+
South of the barcodes
As with the Maus, Ratte was never completed. But it was large enough to have internal self-contained lavatories, and would have needed six tracks? 17,000 horsepower and about 50 km per hour top speed. Ridiculous perhaps, but it could have crossed most rivers with ease. http://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Tank-Fig...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365031880&sr=1-1

Maus was completed, or at least the first prototype was and was sent out into combat.

It promptly blew out its gearbox and and had to be destroyed by the crew since there was no way it could be repaired or recovered, which is part of why i mentioned it about the Ratte.

The Turret from the destroyed one was combined with an unfinished hull and the 'complete' Maus was sent to Russia where its sitting in the Kubinka test facility museum.
 
Joined Nov 2011
8,940 Posts | 226+
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Exactly who was it that went around Germany in 1945 collecting all of those cigarette packets and envelopes with sketches on the back and gave them to the History Channel or the Daily Mail?
Every week there is a new story of a sub-orbital supersonic bomber or a missile capable submarine or a Horton Glider, morphed into a supersonic stealth bomber that the "Nazis" were always "weeks away" from deploying.
Just this week UK newspapers have revived a July 1945 story from Life magazine ( itself a re-hash of an article from Popular mechanics of January 1945) telling the tale of "Secret Nazi Space Death Ray". It is a rather twisted tale of the Oberth Space Mirror concept, first mooted in 1928, that was to be used as " a Nazi Death Ray" to destroy London and Washington, irregardless of the laws of optics, physics or available engineering techniques.
The P 1000/1500 tanks is the sort of thing that nine year old boys sketch in their exercise books along with be-finned rocket ships and sports cars with machine guns--not to be taken seriously.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top