Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte and P. 1500 Monster

[Orionblamblam]

Calling Germans "nazis" is like calling blacks the N word... it exudes hateful racist ideals

If you're talking about "Germans in positions of political leadership from 1933-1945," then, yeah, "Nazi" is not exactly wrong, is it, like calling Russian leaders throughout most of the 20th century commies.

 

[dan_inbox]

Calling Germans "nazis" is like calling blacks the N word... it exudes hateful racist ideals

If you're talking about "Germans in positions of political leadership from 1933-1945," then, yeah, "Nazi" is not exactly wrong, is it, like calling Russian leaders throughout most of the 20th century commies.

"Calling Germans "nazis" ... exudes hateful racist ideals", really? Pots, kettles, black....

Besides, for the populations who endured occupation by Hitler's armed forces, it really felt like they were all nazis, even if in reality some of them discreetly did not partake in the savagery.

 

[royabulgaf]

What exactly wa s the purpose of these thing? As an antitank weapon they are overkill,. Mobile long range artillery? THATS WHAT BOMBERS AND ATTACK AIRCRAFT ARE FOR1 As it whooshes across the landscape at a blinding what, 12 mph? It will attract bombers and attack that have nothing else to do, and pound it into scrap.

 

[gabrielorosco]

What exactly wa s the purpose of these thing? As an antitank weapon they are overkill,. Mobile long range artillery? THATS WHAT BOMBERS AND ATTACK AIRCRAFT ARE FOR1 As it whooshes across the landscape at a blinding what, 12 mph? It will attract bombers and attack that have nothing else to do, and pound it into scrap.

The primary function of the P.1000 was coastal defense. Other considered use was superheavy mobile artillery against highly fortified targets. It was never meant to fight in "open battlefield "

 

[Bottleship]

Seeing how easily mislead individuals calls Germans "nazis" I suggest we call the US "LOOTERS", the UK "SLAVERS" and USSR as "RAPISTS".
Calling Germans "nazis" is like calling blacks the N word... it exudes hateful racist ideals

That is, the Third Reich was not a Nazi state and non-Nazis held leadership positions there? And what does "black" and the word "N" have to do with it? The leadership of the Third Reich is not called "boches", "huns" or "sausage-eaters". Do not confuse the designation of political groups with the nicknames of different nations.
I once happened to study at the university with a German woman (an ethnic German, she did not know German language at all). "What do you know about the Germans?". I make crazy eyes and put two fingers to my lips, depicting a "toothbrush mustache". She was offended. But she liked to drink beer and joke sadistic jokes. It was funny.

 

[Bottleship]

Somewhere I met information that the Ratte was supposed to float, it would be an interesting "monitor on tracks", but all the drawings and drawings known to me do not imply a large hull capable of swimming.

 

[gabrielorosco]

Somewhere I met information that the Ratte was supposed to float, it would be an interesting "monitor on tracks", but all the drawings and drawings known to me do not imply a large hull capable of swimming.

You are right, the P.1000 was never meant to float, only to cross bodies of water shallow enought until a limited hull height.

 

[prof12]

thrashing blade of the Imperium

 

[Archibald]

What exactly wa s the purpose of these thing?

Ever seen Shrek, when he and Donkey get first sight of Lord Fuckwad gigantic Duloc castle ?

https://i.insider.com/5f04cc3d3f7370743d795da6?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp
"Do you think maybe he's compensating for something ?"

The Ratte was the nazis compensating for Hitler short... nose.

 

[Adler]

The 1000 metric ton Krupp P-1000 "Ratte", started construction but was canceled before completion.

Got a source? First time I hear that the Ratte was actually under construction, would be interesting to know how far they got and if anything remains of it; that is if the claim is real.

 

[Dilandu]

Got a source? First time I hear that the Ratte was actually under construction, would be interesting to know how far they got and if anything remains of it; that is if the claim is real.

AFAIK, it never progressed past small models stage.

 

[Brett Davidson]

AFAIK, it never progressed past small models stage.

Those weren't models, they were prototypes. Someone misplaced a decimal point when writing the specs. As a result, they were named 'Ratte' because they were actually crewed by rats.

 

[Dilandu]

Those weren't models, they were prototypes. Someone misplaced a decimal point when writing the specs. As a result, they were named 'Ratte' because they were actually crewed by rats.

Initially they were supposed to be crewed by most Aryan dachshunds, but Reich was kinda short of materials)

 

[Foo Fighter]

Humour apart, no idea why these get designated 'tank' at all. Semi mobile 'Festung' sounds closer to the mark for me.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The mounting of secondary guns is for air defence purposes and it is against attack aircraft that these mobile platforms would have had to fight so they could get a few rounds off. Considering their huge size and rather small AA armament I doubt they would last long in a fight with some rocket and bomb armed strike aircraft.

That's the thing, IMO the Ratte really needed a pair of 88s (or that dual 5cm AA rig proposed for the Panther) and probably a pair of 30mm flakvierlings.

I also suspect that the required thickness of the hull plating for the sheer size of the beast would make it more or less proof against Sherman 75mm and Soviet 76mm guns.

Surely two projects were no practical utility : just for avoid oriental front

Avoiding the Ostfront is a very practical utility if you're an engineer...

 

[Foo Fighter]

Considering a total vehicle destruction rather than a mission kill. What would it take on the front, side and rear of that partially mobile roadblock to get through?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Considering a total vehicle destruction rather than a mission kill. What would it take on the front, side and rear of that partially mobile roadblock to get through?

About the same level of boom as it'd take to blow up a ~1000tonne warship.

A direct hit from a 1000lb or 2000lb bomb. (Most likely threat, snag a few Helldivers and let the USN take the credit.)

Multiple direct hits from 6" or 8" shells.

 

[Archibald]

As we sang in French at the time "J'ai la ratte qui s'dilate..."

 

[Foo Fighter]

Sorry folks, I did not make myself clear. Gunfire was the route of entry I was looking at but, I agree the choice of obliteration would normally be by aircraft. A box of B-17 would definitely clean their clock faces.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I suppose if one gets close enough to a shore a battleship can put some holes in it. Other than that, I'm not sure what would work with the guns of the time. A large enough railroad gun would probably do the job too although you'd probably have to wait for it to be immobilized first.

I suppose if you took the US Army's heaviest towed gun of the day, the 8" (203mm) M1 and got it close and well sighted to fire into a weaker spot you could get through the armor, though that would be a problem if it's still crewed and fighting.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I suppose if you took the US Army's heaviest towed gun of the day, the 8" (203mm) M1 and got it close and well sighted to fire into a weaker spot you could get through the armor, though that would be a problem if it's still crewed and fighting.

Wasn't there a 155mm gun on the Sherman chassis? Ah, yeah, the M12 and M40.

 

[whatismoo]

I also suspect that the required thickness of the hull plating for the sheer size of the beast would make it more or less proof against Sherman 75mm and Soviet 76mm guns.

Sure, but the BS-3, US 90mm, US 120mm AA gun, etc. He'll you could probably drop 203mm on it pretty easily. Not to mention 152/155 long guns.

 

[whatismoo]

About the same level of boom as it'd take to blow up a ~1000tonne warship.

A direct hit from a 1000lb or 2000lb bomb. (Most likely threat, snag a few Helldivers and let the USN take the credit.)

Multiple direct hits from 6" or 8" shells.

Don't forget the Soviet PTAB shaped charge cluster bombs!

 

[Brett Davidson]

At the risk of being facetious, it could be defeated by logistics, economics, and Albert Speer.

Anyway, the Ratte was to be fitted with anti-aircraft guns because it was quite reasonably expected to be a target for aerial bombardment.

Humour apart, no idea why these get designated 'tank' at all. Semi mobile 'Festung' sounds closer to the mark for me.

Is there any official source on how it was to be used? It seems that it could serve as a mobile coastal battery, Imagine some looming over the D-Day landings.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

At the risk of being facetious, it could be defeated by logistics, economics, and Albert Speer.

Anyway, the Ratte was to be fitted with anti-aircraft guns because it was quite reasonably expected to be a target for aerial bombardment.

Humour apart, no idea why these get designated 'tank' at all. Semi mobile 'Festung' sounds closer to the mark for me.

Is there any official source on how it was to be used? It seems that it could serve as a mobile coastal battery, Imagine some looming over the D-Day landings.

I think every Allied bomber pilot in all of Europe would relish the chance to try to drop some heavy bombs on it. If some logistics trouble doesn't cause it to be abandoned first.

It would be quite an impressive war trophy if it isn't destroyed too badly by airpower. Or by its own crew setting off charges because they're out of fuel or the engines and everything else keeps breaking down. Moving it somewhere more suitable after the war would be quite a challenge though.

 

[whatismoo]

At the risk of being facetious, it could be defeated by logistics, economics, and Albert Speer.

Anyway, the Ratte was to be fitted with anti-aircraft guns because it was quite reasonably expected to be a target for aerial bombardment.

Humour apart, no idea why these get designated 'tank' at all. Semi mobile 'Festung' sounds closer to the mark for me.

Is there any official source on how it was to be used? It seems that it could serve as a mobile coastal battery, Imagine some looming over the D-Day landings.

well if you get it that close to the coast it'll just end up getting schwacked by naval gunfire. And that's assuming it won't be in Calais due to the deception planning! But I don't think the 11" guns and/or a handful of flak would hold up well against the sheer mass of 8th Air Force, 9th Air Force, Fighter Command, Bomber Command, Arkansas, Texas, Nevada, Ramilies, Rodney, Warspite, Nelson, 5 CAs, 17 CLs, and 139 DD/DE! There just isn't enough armor available to resist the 1500lbs 14" shells on the US BBs, not to mention the 15"/42s or RN 16" guns. And even if it did manage to survive a hit from battleship shells, I'd be deeply suspicious that the vehicle would work properly afterwards. The shock damage is going to wreak havoc. I would compare to the Soviet ability to obliterate 'normal' tanks with direct fire 152mm shells.

Not to mention that it's big enough to be readily suppressed with rockets and strafing and then doused with napalm or white phosphorous, or delay fused 1000-2000lbs bombs. There aren't enough anti-aircraft guns available to keep it from being destroyed readily.

 

[airman]

The primary function of the P.1000 was coastal defense. Other considered use was superheavy mobile artillery against highly fortified targets. It was never meant to fight in "open battlefield "

Well , so P.1500 Monster was projected as mobile fortress these insane huge projects liked to Adolf.

 

[gabrielorosco]

Well , so P.1500 Monster was projected as mobile fortress these insane huge projects liked to Adolf.

The 1500 is also nothing like we commonly see on the web. There were two versions, a 800 mm and a 600 mm (which was selected for production, named Pazermorser Urling). The 800 mm was 25 m long and wheigt was 1.797 ton. The name "Monster" is also fictious.

 

[ynm]

Considering a total vehicle destruction rather than a mission kill. What would it take on the front, side and rear of that partially mobile roadblock to get through?

If P1000 as in commonly depicted image on the internet, then it is not realistic at all as a tank. The turret alone weight 750 tonnes in naval version with 3 guns. A 2 guns redesign may weigh at least 500 tonnes. Now, the tank is often 3 to 5 times the turret weight, so it must be 1500 to 2500 tonnes at least. 1000 tonnes will be paper thin.

A tiger tank is about 6.5m length, 50 tonnes. This design is about 35m long, so if we upscale the tiger 5 times, that is about 5x5x5 ~ 125x the weight, or 6000+ tonnes, of course the armor is 5x thicker. If keeping the same armor thickness, then we only upscale about 5x5 ~ 25x the weight, about 1000 tonnes but the armor of the tiger mostly less than 100mm, which can be penetrated by almost anything large caliber.

AP round of this time can penetrate about 1.5 to 2.5x the caliber, so 150mm AP can penetrate 250mm armor at point blank. 406mm AP naval gun can penetrate 800mm armor or 9m of reinforced concrete. With 250mm penetration, it can make a hole from side to side. So almost anything on the battlefield can penetrate this P1000 with paper armor, not a mobile castle at all.

And for a tank this large, with only 25mm top armor (equivalent tiger I) is just comically funny. People often think these type of design as mobile bunker or fortress, but actually size is not the matter. Modern ship like destroyer weighs about 10k tonnes, but has only about 50mm hull. If we scales the tiger 125x at 6000 tonnes, the roof armor is only 125mm, and at this weight 6k tonnes, it is most likely will sink to the ground.

The most serious problem of building large land vehicle is the square cube problem. Ship can be build large, but for land vehicle, the ground pressure scales squared (^2) while the mass scales cubed (^3) which mean the ground contact pressure will increase very much above the limit the earth can bear, even with track.

 

[gabrielorosco]

If P1000 as in commonly depicted image on the internet, then it is not realistic at all as a tank. The turret alone weight 750 tonnes in naval version with 3 guns. A 2 guns redesign may weigh at least 500 tonnes. Now, the tank is often 3 to 5 times the turret weight, so it must be 1500 to 2500 tonnes at least. 1000 tonnes will be paper thin.

A tiger tank is about 6.5m length, 50 tonnes. This design is about 35m long, so if we upscale the tiger 5 times, that is about 5x5x5 ~ 125x the weight, or 6000+ tonnes, of course the armor is 5x thicker. If keeping the same armor thickness, then we only upscale about 5x5 ~ 25x the weight, about 1000 tonnes but the armor of the tiger mostly less than 100mm, which can be penetrated by almost anything large caliber.

AP round of this time can penetrate about 1.5 to 2.5x the caliber, so 150mm AP can penetrate 250mm armor at point blank. 406mm AP naval gun can penetrate 800mm armor or 9m of reinforced concrete. With 250mm penetration, it can make a hole from side to side. So almost anything on the battlefield can penetrate this P1000 with paper armor, not a mobile castle at all.

And for a tank this large, with only 25mm top armor (equivalent tiger I) is just comically funny. People often think these type of design as mobile bunker or fortress, but actually size is not the matter. Modern ship like destroyer weighs about 10k tonnes, but has only about 50mm hull. If we scales the tiger 125x at 6000 tonnes, the roof armor is only 125mm, and at this weight 6k tonnes, it is most likely will sink to the ground.

The most serious problem of building large land vehicle is the square cube problem. Ship can be build large, but for land vehicle, the ground pressure scales squared (^2) while the mass scales cubed (^3) which mean the ground contact pressure will increase very much above the limit the earth can bear, even with track.

This is a point. The real P.1000 was meant to have a purpose-built turret, rather than the naval one, as many believe. In the design phase, they indeed considered naval turrets, but the idea was soon abandonned. The final version was meant to have 28 cm or 30 cm barrels, but shorter, to reduce weight.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is a point. The real P.1000 was meant to have a purpose-built turret, rather than the naval one, as many believe. In the design phase, they indeed considered naval turrets, but the idea was soon abandonned. The final version was meant to have 28 cm or 30 cm barrels, but shorter, to reduce weight.

I'd still expect the hull to be pretty solid, 4-6" outer plates, just because it needs to support several hundred tons of turret. 28-30cm guns aren't light.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Pardon me, I came back to this after looking at the wheeled landship thread.

Somewhere I met information that the Ratte was supposed to float, it would be an interesting "monitor on tracks", but all the drawings and drawings known to me do not imply a large hull capable of swimming.

No, it was only capable of deep wading, kinda like a hippo. Running along the bottom of a river of significant depth, but not floating.

 

[whatismoo]

Pardon me, I came back to this after looking at the wheeled landship thread.


No, it was only capable of deep wading, kinda like a hippo. Running along the bottom of a river of significant depth, but not floating.

I would honestly be very curious how it would be protected against napalm and thermite based incendiaries. Also white phosphorous. And large caliber HE bombs, like the 4000lbs HC. Or AP bombs like the 1000lbs AN/Mk.33. Frankly, fording might be when it's most vulnerable due to the tamping effect from underwater blasts.

 

[Cjc]

thrashing blade of the Imperium

It says a lot that the bane blade is probably a much more practical (not to mechion much smaller at only 100 tons) combat vehicles then whatever the hell p.1000 was supposed to do (the p.1500 seems to have mostly been a way to increase the mobility of the 800mm gun wich consdering the surprisingly amount of use the Germans got out of that gun i can understand far better the death star on tracks that was the p.1000).

 

[Scott Kenny]

I would honestly be very curious how it would be protected against napalm and thermite based incendiaries. Also white phosphorous. And large caliber HE bombs, like the 4000lbs HC. Or AP bombs like the 1000lbs AN/Mk.33. Frankly, fording might be when it's most vulnerable due to the tamping effect from underwater blasts.

If I were the Allies and needing to deal with a Ratte infestation, I know I would call up the dive bombers from the Navy to deal with the problem.

 

[Deleted member 69670]

ive looked all over the internet even on Yandex and have NEVER found any authentic or verifiable proof that either of these two designs actually originated in the third reich.

 

[Scott Kenny]

ive looked all over the internet even on Yandex and have NEVER found any authentic or verifiable proof that either of these two designs actually originated in the third reich.

I'm fairly sure that the concepts are historical, but there aren't any plans for them.

 

[Deleted member 69670]

I'm fairly sure that the concepts are historical, but there aren't any plans for them.

that DOES NOT justify the continued allegations that they're authentic. that's assumption

researchers DONT assume

btw the "concepts" if they even were historical would've originated in from the mind of Grotte who following his tenure in the soviet union designing equally outlandish tanks for the most murderous regime the ussr he was never given any real support and held with suspicion ( which is how ALL nations act when engineers spend time in foreign nations then return)

most likely Grotte sketched them up but NONE of the drawing have any German markings on them which most likely means they NEVER got submitted ( Designs that are even reviewed by any official are usually marked

like i said in an earlier comment that was factual. Hitler axed MANY projects like the MAUS E100 and many other ridiculous projects as they were wastes of time, money and resources THIS IS ALL EASILY RESEARCHED VIA YANDEX sorry i don't even used Wikipedia that's a fools errand. ( not saying you do but "facts" tend to originate from Wikipedia for some reason)

Jemiba this isn't "neo-nazi conspiracy theory" its fact that people all too often put too much faith in Wikipedia vas a source of "undisputed evidence" for anything in this case for more than likely fictional super super tanks

 

[Deleted member 69670]

What exactly wa s the purpose of these thing? As an antitank weapon they are overkill,. Mobile long range artillery? THATS WHAT BOMBERS AND ATTACK AIRCRAFT ARE FOR1 As it whooshes across the landscape at a blinding what, 12 mph? It will attract bombers and attack that have nothing else to do, and pound it into scrap.

the purpose of this thing is ALLIED PROPAGANDA. there is to this date NO PROOF it ever existed in Germany

 

[Deleted member 69670]

The Landkreuzer P-1000 "Ratte" (Rat) was to have been an extremely large tank for use by Nazi Germany during World War II. It was designed in 1942 by Krupp with the approval of Adolf Hitler, but the project was canceled by Albert Speer in early 1943 and none was ever completed.
The 1000 metric ton Krupp P-1000 "Ratte", started construction but was canceled before completion. It would have carried two 280 mm guns (mounted in the same type of gun turret used in Gneisenau class warships), a single 128 mm gun, eight 20 mm Flak 38 anti-aircraft guns and two 15 mm Mauser MG 151/15 guns.

The primary armament was a warship-like turret holding a pair of 280 mm naval guns. One such turret was built before the project was canceled, and was installed in a coastal defense battery in Norway.

The Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster was a preprototype ultraheavy tank meant as a mobile platform for the Krupp 800mm Schwerer Gustav artillery piece, in fact, a mobile grand cannon.

If completed it would have easily surpassed the Panzer VIII Maus, and even the extremely large Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte in size, though it would only have enough power to reach up to speeds of 10-15 kph.

It would have been 42 m (138 ft) long, would have weighed 2500 tonnes, with a 250 mm hull front armor, 4 MAN U-boat (submarine) diesel engines, and an operating crew of over 100 men.

It would have been so heavy that it would have cracked pavement behind it and it would not have been able to cross bridges.

The main armament would have been an 800 mm Dora/Schwerer Gustav K (E) railway gun 10 times bigger in diameter than modern tank cannons, and a secondary armament of two 150 mm sFH 18/1 L/30 howitzers and multiple 15 mm MG 151/15 machine guns.

thats a conspiracy theory as there is NO PROOF these projects even originate from Germany. they were ALLIED PROPAGANDA to fear monger their populations