What the hell were they thinking?

>>33911991
They weren't.
Reoccurring theme with 1920-1945 Germany.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2O5qJDtvM0

>>33911991
Thinking that tanks were supposed to be land battleships, literally WWI tier thinking. But also it was so people who were desigining shit would be conscripted and send to eastern front, this is also why you can see so many bullshit desings of some super nazi jets that never came to be. People knew war is gonna be over soon so instead of getting send to front to be killed for no reason they were making bullshit desings
>you can't send to die from the hands of slavs and my family raped!
>look at this cool jet im designing, it will change the outcome of war!

>>33911998
>>33911991
>>33912023
These people know little of the mighty P-1000 Ratte. The guns used on it were not battleship - type guns, but of a heavy cruiser class that was not built. The turret for the P-1000 Ratte and the turrets for this unpronounceable cruiser class where very identical, and, as I believe, used both the same turret system and were practically the same turret. These people also know nothing of the armor of this monster, it being 14 inches all around the hull, and I believe that the turret would have had around 600-700 mm of armor on the turret face and turret top, to prevent heavy gun damage to the main guns. Speaking of guns, the main gun battery would have been composed of twin 280 mm 54.5 SK C/34 naval guns. The secondary guns would have been made of 3 12.8 cm KwK 44 L/55 guns, 1 in the front of the hull and 2 of them put into Maus tank turrets placed in the rear of the monstrosity, including a coaxial 7.5 cm KwK 44 (again) L/36.5 in both Maus turrets. 5 quad AA "Wirbelwind" turrets, four behind the main gun battery turret and one on top of the main turret were to be included.

>>33911991
they were thinking we need bigger tonk! we need bigger guns! what is the biggest gun we would like on a tonk? it's a fucking naval gun, no let's make that two!

>>33911991
THEY ARE PUNY
I WILL FINISH THIS
OVERLORD IS WAITING

>>33911991

Tests have been done and it would have been the most powerful singular tank in history...

At the expense of all logic and logistical abilities to get it to where it would ever need to be. But for the reccord, it would have turned the immediate post-war T-55s and Centurions into mush and balistic simulations have shown that it could frontially penetrate an M1 Abrams, so on paper at least it looked pretty neat.

You guys are ignorant. No it would not sink in the ground. They did their math. Also, the tank was meant to be used for a counter assault and when air superiority had been achieved. It would lead the charge and it was pretty much impossible to if the enemies did not have air superiority. If it would break down it would become a bunker so they could hold the line and continue exhausting enemy troops. >>33912079
Exactly

It could have worked if Germany had many more resources available but alas, they did not. And now it was not too expensive to ever be completed you could build 4 of these for the price one battleship and they actually meant to have 4 of them charging the soviets with distance between them

here's a cool video showing its size proportions. There are a lot of bullshit images online.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQEPYGPxcBY

Panthers broke their transmissions every 150km or so, what would this get?

I read you could build about 25 panthers or 1 of these

I rather have 25 panthers

>>33912271

150 transmissions every 0 meters

>>33912079
>>33912187
Unbirth yourself.

>>33911991
Well, is still leagues better than a giant aircraft carrier made entirely of ice.

>>33912272
I'd rather have 40 Pz. IV's

>>33911998

lol fpbp

>>33912322
Outdated and ineffective by 45.

>>33912392
Forget Gallons/km of petrol, It'd be Transmissions/km

>>33912272
>>33912322

Those 25 panthers and 40 panzer 4s will find themselves outmatched against the T-54 and later while the Ratte would be future-proofed for at least a decade. Though impractical, it would have been an effective weapon for its time.

>>33912479
No it wouldn't have.

The RAF probably wouldn't even bother wasting a Tallboy or Grand Slam on it because it wouldn't have been a threat getting stuck in a ditch after its transmission imploded.

>>33912479
Are you also a battleshipfag? You sound like a battleshipfag. Mobility + Reliability > Armor in WW2, almost every time.

None of the Nazi wonderweapons were cost effective. If the ratte was built, the allies would build a counter-ratte weapon en masse, and it would be far cheaper.

>>33912559
>If the ratte was built, the allies would build a counter-ratte weapon en masse, and it would be far cheaper.

They'd probably go the even cheaper route and just bomb the shit out of it from the air and laugh at whoever greenlit this disaster.

>>33912585

>Implying they wouldn't build a giant mousetrap the size of a suspension bridge to trap it

>>33912585
Given that the thing is so damn slow, they'd probably just send out a flight of 500 bombers with tallboys.

>>33912187
What air superiority?

>>33912187
>And now it was not too expensive to ever be completed you could build 4 of these for the price one battleship and they actually meant to have 4 of them charging the soviets with distance between them

There is a difference between being physically able to make something, and it being even remotely practical in reality. Germany wouldn't have even been able to fuel such a vehicle, even if they could have built it. Even ignoring that Germany was in no position to expand its surface fleet, a battleship is still built on known and proven technology. Given Germany's track record with reliability in WW2, there is absolutely no chance the P1000 would have done enough good for the German war effort to offset the massive burden it would have been on the wartime economy and logistic chain.

How are you going to "charge the soviets"? You can't transport it by rails. If it breaks down it has to be fixed in situ. You'd have to literally drive it all the way to Moscow. Nevermind that repairing tracks and loading ammunition would have required specialized vehicles to be built as well.

There was no such thing as "holding the line". It if broke down it would have been bypassed, surrounded, and then probably dismantled by sappers in the middle of the night- such is how strategy evolved during WW2.

>>33912263

>So many different kinds of tank

I've heard German logistics sucked, but goddamn

>>33912070
sauce? I'm not saying that your post is bullshit, on the contrary it sounds about right. I just want to have something to point to other than "some guy on 4chan said it" if I ever say it in real life and someone asks me where I heard it.

>>33912585

>Implying that you could hit anything smaller than a town from the air in 1940's.

File: y wing fighters death star run.jpg (122KB, 1360x680px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1360x680px

Totalitarians are in love with militarized gigantism. Nothing new there.

>>33914460
>implying the ratte is smaller than a town

>>33914460
Yes we could dipshit. There were guided weapons technology in WW2, some even used successfully.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBD_Gargoyle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-N-2_Bat

Even ignoring that, the RAF hit aqueducts, U-boat pens, and battleships with unguided Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs.

>>33911991
Anyone wonder what the American version would be?
>inb4 no fun logistics fags ruin it.

File: 27 Years an Invisible T28.jpg (418KB, 1024x840px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 1024x840px

>>33915103
We already had one.

>>33913766
Bear in mind that most, if not all, of the non-turreted vehicles in that image shared the same chassis as a tank. Also, I believe most of the smaller tanks were fazed out of the war fairly early on, or they were converted to another class of vehicle, such as an SPG, because they were clearly obsolete. German logistics definitely sucked, but it was a much bigger problem than simply having too many different vehicles.

>>33914031
nice meme

>>33914460
even DDs were regularly destroyed by dive-bombers, dipshit
inb4
>oh I meant level bombing
specify next time before saying something retarded

>>33911991
The Nazis were full of terrible ideas. Looking back, I'm surprised they were successful at all

>>33912322
I'd rather have 60 Stugs

than again I'd rather have 80 Hetzers

Honestly they should've produced over 20000 hetzers.

>>33917446
this thing had a specific purpose it was a breakthrough tank would have been fuelded against fortifications your hetzers couldn't scratch. generally as a tank it's a horrible idea it was more like juggernaut.

>>33912187

Why not just lay track and move the gun by rails?

File: 8d2a1ee1552b6c029385b8d888b99c5e.jpg (143KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 800x600px

>>33915124
Hot damn.

>>33918957
that was actually done. but it's easier to use existing railway.

>>33911991
>What the hell were they thinking?
Whoa Claus, that is some good shit! Goddamn, that tree looks like it's eating the sky!
I know Franz, this stuff is the best. Now hand me those pencils, we've got a tank top design. No, not those pencils, the ones that are glowing!

>>33911991
"As long as I'm drawing out this bullshit, they won't send me to the eastern front."

>>33914460
>what is dive-bombing
>what is low-altitude level-bombing
>what are AP rockets
>what are 1st-gen guided munitions

>>33911998
You mean 1920-2017

>>33911991

>11-inch battleship guns on a tank

Holy shit.

>>33912159
>balistic simulations have shown that it could frontially penetrate an M1 Abrams

Still no mission kill

>>33911991
>What the hell were they thinking?
Big