Info on the Landkrezuer p. 1000 Ratte

ZhukovRob · #1 (**permalink**) July 11th, 2009, 02:24 AM

Out of the all the extreme Axis experimental weapons this one seems the most outrageous. Hitler always said "Biggest is best" but come on? I've seen pictures of this behemouth but have almost no cold hard facts about it. Anybody know anything about it?

LRusso216 · #2 (**permalink**) July 11th, 2009, 02:56 AM

I had never heard of this, but here's a You Tube video. YouTube - Landkreuzer P1000 "Ratte", the ultimative war machine!

Here is a link to some other information. Landkreuzer P1000 Ratte

And one more link. Krupp Landkreuzer P.1000 Ratte (Rat)*Super Heavy Tank Project - History, Specifications and Picture - Military Tanks, Vehicles, and Artillery

Wolfy · #3 (**permalink**) July 11th, 2009, 05:39 AM

I think this was merely a theoretical design made by German engineers for play & creative research and it was never under any serious consideration whatsoever.

Sentinel · #4 (**permalink**) July 11th, 2009, 06:46 AM

Nevertheless it would have been awesome if the Nazis had been stupid enough to build one.

Wolfy · #5 (**permalink**) July 11th, 2009, 06:55 AM

They built wasteful monstrosities of this sort like their Rail guns. These weapons could only used a few times and in a few situations before they had to be withdrawn.

OpanaPointer · #6 (**permalink**) July 11th, 2009, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZhukovRob

Out of the all the extreme Axis experimental weapons this one seems the most outrageous. Hitler always said "Biggest is best" but come on? I've seen pictures of this behemouth but have almost no cold hard facts about it. Anybody know anything about it?

Hmmm. Ground pressure. Fording ability. Speed. Fuel capacity. Ammo carrying capacity. Problems, problems, problems.

Remember, Armor + Mobility + Firepower = 1. Mobility would be a negative number in this case. Very fun concept, however.

Von Poop · #7 (**permalink**) July 11th, 2009, 12:57 PM

Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte
P 1000 Rattte

~A

fast1 · #8 (**permalink**) July 11th, 2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrusso216

I had never heard of this, but here's a You Tube video. YouTube - Landkreuzer P1000 "Ratte", the ultimative war machine!

Here is a link to some other information. Landkreuzer P1000 Ratte

And one more link. Krupp Landkreuzer P.1000 Ratte (Rat)*Super Heavy Tank Project - History, Specifications and Picture - Military Tanks, Vehicles, and Artillery

nice, thanks for the vid.

General_Patton · #9 (**permalink**) July 20th, 2009, 08:43 PM

They actually did start construction of this sometime during the war, but they realized that it would require too much manpower and too many resources so they decided to scrap the project. If they had continued working on it, i believe they said it would have been finished by the year of 1949.

Kruska · #10 (**permalink**) July 20th, 2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfy

They built wasteful monstrosities of this sort like their Rail guns. These weapons could only used a few times and in a few situations before they had to be withdrawn.

Well they did a good job at Sevastopol

Regards
Kruska

Kruska · #11 (**permalink**) July 20th, 2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General_Patton

They actually did start construction of this sometime during the war, but they realized that it would require too much manpower and too many resources so they decided to scrap the project. If they had continued working on it, i believe they said it would have been finished by the year of 1949.

I know that Patton was a bit insane

, but were did "you" get this information from?

Regards
Kruska

brndirt1 · #12 (**permalink**) July 21st, 2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Well they did a good job at Sevastopol

Regards
Kruska

What was the "cost benefit" ratio in that single operation of the Dora/Gustav?

How many manhours were involved in construction, transportation, logistics compared to "damage done". Could a small contingent of He-110s have not done the same damage at less cost?

Those things were just silly, hadn't that thing used up its barrel life in the operation? And needed to be withdrawn and re-barreled? Still, makes one shake his head in both awe at the size, and awe at the foolishness.

America isn't immune to "silly" sometimes either, remember the "Atomic Annie" cannon? About as useful as an atomic hand grenade.

Kruska · #13 (**permalink**) July 21st, 2009, 06:18 AM

Hello brndirt1,

you are right about the cost analysis - but sometimes you can't avoid it.

Since the conventional weaponary incl. Luftwaffe failed, the Wehrmacht brought in the biggies - and they did the job.

Perfect example would be the US Army until today viewed upon as a whole - endless ammo, a batallion and weaponary to the extreme to take out a foxhole with two guy's - it just seems that the US have the $$ for that kind of tactical engagements.

Regards
Kruska

Sentinel · #14 (**permalink**) July 21st, 2009, 10:16 AM

To be fair, I think the rail guns "Gustav" and "Dora" were reasonable developments for the specific task they were meant to fulfil -- smashing the Maginot Line.

In the actual war, though, the Maginot Line was bypassed, leaving these guns without a purpose.

The waste of effort was exacerbated by sending them many hundreds of miles to the Eastern Front, instead of a few dozen miles to the West as had been originally intended.

Notwithstanding the above, if the Germans had developed a heavy bomber/penetrating bomb combination like the Lancaster/Tallboy, it would have been a much better and more flexible weapon.