GERMAN tank "Ratte"

About GERMAN tank "Ratte" Page 2


  International Military Forums > Military Hardware, Gear and Technology Forums > General Military Hardware, Gear and Technology Discussions
User Name
Password

 
November 23rd, 2005   #11
Armyjaeger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Holy ! It can't be real. Too much working. Too much gasoline. Also it could be unbeatable, I think. If Germany invaded Britain sucessfully. How will that huge king tiger bring to USA?
While it may seem unbeatable in ground warfare you're still not outrunning an aircraft with a tank. Even a behemoth like this ratte has its weak point, the tracks, split one of the tracks and the whole massive beast is crippled and I assume it would be one hell of a nightmare for repair crews.
 
November 23rd, 2005   #12
Mohmar Deathstrike
 
 

Re: GERMAN tank "Ratte" info


I want one!

Upgraded with modern armor, ammo, fire control, and engines!
 
November 26th, 2005   #13
CanadianCombat
 
 
 
November 26th, 2005   #14
5.56X45mm
 
 
Seems just about what I would like to have during Rush Hour Traffic.
 
November 26th, 2005   #15
Mohmar Deathstrike
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm
Seems just about what I would like to have during Rush Hour Traffic.
I dunno. You could break thru the road and find yourself in the sewer.
 
November 28th, 2005   #16
FO Seaman
 
 
I did see anyone bring up man power.




 
July 11th, 2007   #17
sandy
 
Now,Hitler's dream come to BF1942.
Sorry,this is joke.


Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers.
Nikita Khrushchev
 
July 11th, 2007   #18
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandy
length 35m
width 14m
tall 11m
Armourment
Maingun 28cmguns twin,
8 88mmguns,
24 3cmAAAs
16000ps

In 1945 August,
Kurup Industry proposed this plan to Hitler.
This tank has used engine for ship and used 28cm of cruiser.
I am assuming you mean August 1944 as by August 1945 I don't think Hitler was entertaining proposals for tanks.


We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
 
July 13th, 2007   #19
SHERMAN
 
 
thats not a tank....too much firepower and armor at he expence of mobilety. tigers and king tigers were slow and unreliable enough, and they were toys compared with this. what roads and bridges can supprot this monster? a tank is not a moving fortress with aa guns , it is a moving cannon with reasonable protection for its crew. we have sp artillery, sp aa guns and infantry units to support tanks on the battlefield, and they shouldent be fielded on their own....


 
August 5th, 2007   #20
AussieNick
 
 
It would be a static fire support position. It'd be akin to taking a chunk of the maginot line and putting on wheels. Useless really. But imagine it in a hull down overwatch position on a battlefield.