I'm surprised they called it the Ratte after the Maus, as rats are larger than mice. Therefore it should have been named something like the Floh or Amobe (thanks Google translate) or other such smaller-than-a-mouse creature. Ratte would have been a great name for the E100 though.
This sort of thing would have been more harmful to its builder than to the enemy. In the order that problems would appear: 1) So costly and slow to build. 2) How would one be transported to a front? On it's own, such a thing would be very slow, but even its components would be too big to move by rail and it would been giant cranes to assemble, if moved in parts. 3) Once at the battlefield, it would surely be the highest priority target for the enemy artillery and airforce. This means that it would need constant fighter cover and lots of AA guns all around it. Destroying it would be a simple matter of dropping a battleship projectile from a big bomber. Even if it requires 10 planes before there's a direct hit, it would still be relatively easy. The planes wouldn't need to be custom made and could later be used to drop conventional munitions, so there's no waste. Alternatively, if artillery, or something, could disable the tracks, then how would those be repaired? Surely such a high priority target would be kept under artillery/mortar fire to prevent repairs. Repairs, which by the way would likely require huge cranes, winches and other specialist equipment that would take a while to set up. 4) Once destroyed, it would be a big propaganda win for the enemy and a loss of morale for ones own army. Not to mention the epic amount of wasted effort from all the above points.
Lets not forget: 5) material science was not good enough at the time to produce the metal alloys thet could withstand the wear and tear of moving such a monstrous weigth. It would break every other mile. 6) fuel, food, water, parts, and ammo would need to be transported by a full Army supply convoy, that could only ressuply that specific veicule, due to lack of compatibility between weapons and parts with any other thing and the need for special tools for a single specific use. The convoy would need another convoy to ressuply itself and its accompanying defending Army (more likelly two or three full Armies due to the size of the convoys). Take down the fuel trucks, do not even need to shoot the big tank, after maybe a day.
Well, by 10 bombers you mean 200? Then you're getting with an actual chance to hit that size of a target. Remember that WW2 bombers were usually lucky if they hit within a kilometer of the target. Warthunder just makes people forget that non-magical ww2-era bombers & CAS were inaccurate as hell. But I do agree with you that it would've been the main focus of artillery and planes, and even CAS back then would've had a good chance of a hit given the massive size of that thing. It would indeed be rendered immobile and most likely with guns broken.
@@PAcifisti They could also have used dive bombers, which were quite good, but vulnerable to AA guns, if the target expected them. And let's not forget the level of fine aiming that the bigger bombers had when dropping things like the "tall boy" on Tirpitz. The 10 bombers wouldn't necessarily all be shot sown if they miss, so they could be back the next day.
@@SmartassX1 Sure, they would eventually hit but you would probably want it to happen during the same season. Tirpitz is a good example. Tall boy was probably more accurate than the smaller conventional bombs given that it was much heavier and thus more resistant to winds. It was also designed to reach pretty high velocity (1200km/h+)during its descent which further improved accuracy. Yet still, the bombing of a pretty massive target was quite a challenge. The three attacks on Tirpitz managed to score 1 hit for 17, 0 hits for 23 and finally 2 hits for 29. That's a ~4.3% chance to hit a literal battleship (250m x 36m at widest) sized target. 200 bombers to give a chance to hit a 20x10m sized target isn't that far fetched number. Especially if it's moving, given that Tirpitz was practically stationary during the attacks.
There’s a river every 60 km’s In Europe so they say. This vehicle could not utilize any bridge, and how would it be recovered if broken down in a river ?. Albert Speer had to shut down all sorts of wasteful programs like this.
I very much doubt it. While there is no doubt that crazy tank ideas were flying around in Nazi Germany, they were about as likely to get built as the flights of fancy you'd see in the same era on the cover of Popular Mechanics Magazine in the US.
@@super44lover Thank you. But it would nice to have Naval Encyclopedia on CZcams as well since if you look at the Tank Encyclopedia website, you'll see Aerial Encyclopedia and Naval Encyclopedia. To me, it'll be really odd that not all three of them are not in CZcams, only two of them. So, yeah, that's what I think.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Please do. Because it would be amazing and informative to know about them. And besides, you have the naval encyclopedia website. If you have Tank Encyclopedia on the Website and CZcams and Plane Encyclopedia on the Website and CZcams, you can do the same thing for Naval Encyclopedia as well. That's what I think.
Please drop the musical background. It's so loud, I can't hear the narration. From what I could make out over the music, it seemed to be a very informative video--I think!
@@rat_king- you make very valid point there on the size of the model. Could you imagine if the multiverse was real there's a earth that Germany actually built the Ratte.
Some very "special" people online see this and the maus as amazing secret weapons that could have won the war for German which I've always felt shows the mental competency of these types of people, common sense should tell you that both would get stuck in mud incredibly easily and there would be no recovering them.
The ground pressure was low as the video sais. It wouldnt get stuck in mud. It would get stuck because of lack of fuel, and many trying to supply it would die, because allied artillery would concentrate fire on it. Also, in case of a major mechanical breakdown Germans would have to build a repair town around it.
@@Paciat I don't think you understand ground pressure. Every tank can get stuck in the mud it's just these ones are so heavy nothing would.be able to get them out, also it doesn't matter how big it is once something starts sinking in mud it's just gunna displace dirt as it sinks so it would dig itself a massive hole
The aesthetics of this time period were truly fascinating and grandiose. Sadly due to political reasons it's impossible to replicate such aesthetics as you can with _Belle Epoque_, Art Deco or Americana.
It's not self evident what the best size for a tank would be, and is mostly limited by logistic, conversly would battleships have grown indefinitly, if they hadn't become obsolete?
No, because as you state, everything is dictated by logistics. Even the pinnacle of US battleships - the Iowas - had to have a slightly suboptimal hull form because they had to fit into the Panama canal. And in the end, noone wanted the Monatanas because they would have to build new and bigger slipways, floatings docks, repair facilities and bigger locks for Panama canal.
Had these monsters been built, during WW2, they would most likely have suffered the same fate as the Tirpitz...... destroyed by an RAF Tallboy bomb, precisely dropped from a great altitude.
![Nazi Super Tank - P-1000 Ratte - [ Largest Tank EVER ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6mfhalEjUrw/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm surprised they called it the Ratte after the Maus, as rats are larger than mice. Therefore it should have been named something like the Floh or Amobe (thanks Google translate) or other such smaller-than-a-mouse creature.
Ratte would have been a great name for the E100 though.
Ratte is a recent nickname.
One of their project I liked a lot, I mean it from a pure insanely oppressive looking standpoint
Your proto-Baneblade is ready Commissar, and your power sword sharpened for the inevitable breakthrough. Emperor be praised!
@@mashurface Thank you ! May the grace of the Emperor protecg you !
Mr. Grotte, how many engines is this tank going to need?
All of them, herr comrade!
Grottesque!
Underrated comment. Take my applause and carry on, good sir.
This sort of thing would have been more harmful to its builder than to the enemy. In the order that problems would appear:
1) So costly and slow to build.
2) How would one be transported to a front? On it's own, such a thing would be very slow, but even its components would be too big to move by rail and it would been giant cranes to assemble, if moved in parts.
3) Once at the battlefield, it would surely be the highest priority target for the enemy artillery and airforce. This means that it would need constant fighter cover and lots of AA guns all around it. Destroying it would be a simple matter of dropping a battleship projectile from a big bomber. Even if it requires 10 planes before there's a direct hit, it would still be relatively easy. The planes wouldn't need to be custom made and could later be used to drop conventional munitions, so there's no waste. Alternatively, if artillery, or something, could disable the tracks, then how would those be repaired? Surely such a high priority target would be kept under artillery/mortar fire to prevent repairs. Repairs, which by the way would likely require huge cranes, winches and other specialist equipment that would take a while to set up.
4) Once destroyed, it would be a big propaganda win for the enemy and a loss of morale for ones own army. Not to mention the epic amount of wasted effort from all the above points.
Lets not forget:
5) material science was not good enough at the time to produce the metal alloys thet could withstand the wear and tear of moving such a monstrous weigth. It would break every other mile.
6) fuel, food, water, parts, and ammo would need to be transported by a full Army supply convoy, that could only ressuply that specific veicule, due to lack of compatibility between weapons and parts with any other thing and the need for special tools for a single specific use. The convoy would need another convoy to ressuply itself and its accompanying defending Army (more likelly two or three full Armies due to the size of the convoys). Take down the fuel trucks, do not even need to shoot the big tank, after maybe a day.
Well, by 10 bombers you mean 200? Then you're getting with an actual chance to hit that size of a target. Remember that WW2 bombers were usually lucky if they hit within a kilometer of the target. Warthunder just makes people forget that non-magical ww2-era bombers & CAS were inaccurate as hell.
But I do agree with you that it would've been the main focus of artillery and planes, and even CAS back then would've had a good chance of a hit given the massive size of that thing. It would indeed be rendered immobile and most likely with guns broken.
@@PAcifisti They could also have used dive bombers, which were quite good, but vulnerable to AA guns, if the target expected them. And let's not forget the level of fine aiming that the bigger bombers had when dropping things like the "tall boy" on Tirpitz. The 10 bombers wouldn't necessarily all be shot sown if they miss, so they could be back the next day.
@@SmartassX1 Sure, they would eventually hit but you would probably want it to happen during the same season. Tirpitz is a good example. Tall boy was probably more accurate than the smaller conventional bombs given that it was much heavier and thus more resistant to winds. It was also designed to reach pretty high velocity (1200km/h+)during its descent which further improved accuracy.
Yet still, the bombing of a pretty massive target was quite a challenge. The three attacks on Tirpitz managed to score 1 hit for 17, 0 hits for 23 and finally 2 hits for 29. That's a ~4.3% chance to hit a literal battleship (250m x 36m at widest) sized target. 200 bombers to give a chance to hit a 20x10m sized target isn't that far fetched number. Especially if it's moving, given that Tirpitz was practically stationary during the attacks.
There’s a river every 60 km’s In Europe so they say. This vehicle could not utilize any bridge, and how would it be recovered if broken down in a river ?. Albert Speer had to shut down all sorts of wasteful programs like this.
I'm convinced that they would have built it if they had the resources , affective ... No , useful .... Noooo . Unforgettable ABSOLUTELY.
I very much doubt it. While there is no doubt that crazy tank ideas were flying around in Nazi Germany, they were about as likely to get built as the flights of fancy you'd see in the same era on the cover of Popular Mechanics Magazine in the US.
Really cool. Can you make a separate CZcams channel called naval encyclopedia which takes at dreadnoughts, battleships, etc?
Check out Dr Alexander Clarke and Drachinifel
@@super44lover Thank you. But it would nice to have Naval Encyclopedia on CZcams as well since if you look at the Tank Encyclopedia website, you'll see Aerial Encyclopedia and Naval Encyclopedia. To me, it'll be really odd that not all three of them are not in CZcams, only two of them. So, yeah, that's what I think.
perhaps.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Please do. Because it would be amazing and informative to know about them. And besides, you have the naval encyclopedia website. If you have Tank Encyclopedia on the Website and CZcams and Plane Encyclopedia on the Website and CZcams, you can do the same thing for Naval Encyclopedia as well. That's what I think.
Please drop the musical background. It's so loud, I can't hear the narration. From what I could make out over the music, it seemed to be a very informative video--I think!
Guess which unbuildable tank is MY favourite...
Ooooooooooh idk Tasr tank? Lol
Maybe the O-I?
Ooooh wait is it the RATTA?
@@warhawk4494 P1000 "Ratte" I have often joked that a scale model could be made out of a CVRT.
God i love hilarious engineering.
@@rat_king- you make very valid point there on the size of the model. Could you imagine if the multiverse was real there's a earth that Germany actually built the Ratte.
@@warhawk4494 In reality the entire project violates the square- cube law.
@@rat_king- yes but where there's a will,enough panzer chocolate there is a way.
Some very "special" people online see this and the maus as amazing secret weapons that could have won the war for German which I've always felt shows the mental competency of these types of people, common sense should tell you that both would get stuck in mud incredibly easily and there would be no recovering them.
Little known fact, production examples were meant to be magnetic. They would attract every shell and bomb within range!
The ground pressure was low as the video sais. It wouldnt get stuck in mud. It would get stuck because of lack of fuel, and many trying to supply it would die, because allied artillery would concentrate fire on it. Also, in case of a major mechanical breakdown Germans would have to build a repair town around it.
@@Paciat I don't think you understand ground pressure. Every tank can get stuck in the mud it's just these ones are so heavy nothing would.be able to get them out, also it doesn't matter how big it is once something starts sinking in mud it's just gunna displace dirt as it sinks so it would dig itself a massive hole
Couple that with a weird obsession with the Nazis winning.
Yes, this would have been total fodder for dive bombers.
Nobody :
Scrolling shooter boss :
🤣🤣
No scrolling shooter devs are too lazy they just take a tiger and strap lasers and machine guns to it and scale it up 5 times
That's why you should not call tanks landships. Someone might take that too seriously...
I really wish they would've spend more effort building one, spending valuable manpower and ressources on this thing, loosing the war earlier
The soviets didn't lose the war tho?
Big is beautyfull (but not practical)
It looks like one of those tanks that you randomly build in the game Sprocket
The aesthetics of this time period were truly fascinating and grandiose. Sadly due to political reasons it's impossible to replicate such aesthetics as you can with _Belle Epoque_, Art Deco or Americana.
It's not self evident what the best size for a tank would be, and is mostly limited by logistic, conversly would battleships have grown indefinitly, if they hadn't become obsolete?
No, because as you state, everything is dictated by logistics. Even the pinnacle of US battleships - the Iowas - had to have a slightly suboptimal hull form because they had to fit into the Panama canal. And in the end, noone wanted the Monatanas because they would have to build new and bigger slipways, floatings docks, repair facilities and bigger locks for Panama canal.
if mouse was 200 tons that would be way way over 1000 tons for sure...
Had these monsters been built, during WW2, they would most likely have suffered the same fate as the Tirpitz...... destroyed by an RAF Tallboy bomb, precisely dropped from a great altitude.
@Indigo Rodent It would still be very large.
@@JacobA6464 and alot slower
A Bolo ahead of time, and as much as illogical.
would have been slightly more interesting if you did a pro's an con..instead of the standard SOP of silly massive tanks not working..just a thought..
tg 1000 tank
Am I bugging or is this LazerPig narrating?
No, narrator is Elrebelde28 (everyone that worked on this video is credited in the intro and description)
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I saw, but the similarities in voice are uncanny. Elrebelde28 sounds like a calm LazerPig
Actually, to me he sounds like Sir James Mason (a very famous British actor).
No, he's not obscenely drunk.