And a crew of 7 minumum.

Well, that tank looks darn big! You sure such tanks exist? Cause if there is, the roads that the tank went through could not be used anymore! And such a big tank would need a very powerful Engine!

That picture is the Ratte. BTW, it was bigger than the Mause by a bit. That thing weighs/would have weighed over 1000 tons. I'm not 100% sure whether the Ratte or the Mause ever had a working prototype, but that's definitely the general design. Crazy idea IMHO. The reason it has 2 Main Gun barrels is because its a Battleship's gun turret they were going to use.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

That picture is the Ratte. BTW, it was bigger than the Mause by a bit. That thing weighs/would have weighed over 1000 tons. I'm not 100% sure whether the Ratte or the Mause ever had a working prototype, but that's definitely the general design. Crazy idea IMHO. The reason it has 2 Main Gun barrels is because its a Battleship's gun turret they were going to use.

Yes it was a battleship gun turret. Two 280mm Naval Gun, the prototype was in the works, but was never finished.

I'm not a gunner by any stretch of the imagination...but it seems to me there would be serious recoil/shock issues with main weapons of that size in that time frame. Not to mention ammo storage. Naval main guns use powder charges separate from the shell. Given the space required for a diesel propoulsion system capable of moving 1000 tonnes, as well as fuel and hydraulics, where are you going to store ammo for the main battery and all the other systems? I'd love to be the Stormovik or Typhoon driver with this POS in my gun sight. What a lovely great explosion it would make.

Originally Posted by G Connor

I'm not a gunner by any stretch of the imagination...but it seems to me there would be serious recoil/shock issues with main weapons of that size in that time frame. Not to mention ammo storage. Naval main guns use powder charges separate from the shell. Given the space required for a diesel propoulsion system capable of moving 1000 tonnes, as well as fuel and hydraulics, where are you going to store ammo for the main battery and all the other systems? I'd love to be the Stormovik or Typhoon driver with this POS in my gun sight. What a lovely great explosion it would make.

Pending you can make a hit without being blown from the sky.

The tank appear to have multiple engines, but your question about storage is quite right. But when I look at a sub, it doesn't look to be able to hold everything it does.

Take a look at the weapons and their installation on the model. Nothing has the elevation to serve as an anti-aircraft weapon. Which means the unit would have to depend on mobile flak systems that were relatively simple to saturate and overwhelm.
From an airborne anti-tank perspective, the area over the propulsion system has been, is, and always will be the weak point in armored systems. The skin is usually louvered to facilitate cooling (keep in mind the problem you would have cooling the diesels in this beast) which means it has limited protective capability. Even antiquated Ju-87's equipped with external pod-mounted 37mm cannon were able to take out large numbers of Soviet armored vehicles. (Read Rudel's book "Stuka"). The more capable Soviet Stormovik, British Typhoon and USAAF Thunderbolts would have had little trouble dealing with this target.

Originally Posted by G Connor

Take a look at the weapons and their installation on the model. Nothing has the elevation to serve as an anti-aircraft weapon. Which means the unit would have to depend on mobile flak systems that were relatively simple to saturate and overwhelm.
From an airborne anti-tank perspective, the area over the propulsion system has been, is, and always will be the weak point in armored systems. The skin is usually louvered to facilitate cooling (keep in mind the problem you would have cooling the diesels in this beast) which means it has limited protective capability. Even antiquated Ju-87's equipped with external pod-mounted 37mm cannon were able to take out large numbers of Soviet armored vehicles. (Read Rudel's book "Stuka"). The more capable Soviet Stormovik, British Typhoon and USAAF Thunderbolts would have had little trouble dealing with this target.

I counted 9 AA weapons on the turret. Also you not giving them enough credit. The Germans (makes of the Tiger I , Tiger II, and Paris Gun) had the most heavily armored and protected tanks during the war.

And they died in large numbers at Kursk and Normandy and the Ardennes when they attempted to operate without air superiority.

As for the nominal AA weapons you cited, think about trying to track an aircraft attacking from the rear with a closure of 350Kts. 3.5" rockets or the 37mm has a effective range in excess of 2 miles. The 14.7mm has a range of less than half and a rate of fire so slow you can fly between the bullets. This beast, and the Maus died on the drawing board for good reason.

Originally Posted by G Connor

And they died in large numbers at Kursk and Normandy and the Ardennes when they attempted to operate without air superiority.

As for the nominal AA weapons you cited, think about trying to track an aircraft attacking from the rear with a closure of 350Kts. 3.5" rockets or the 37mm has a effective range in excess of 2 miles. The 14.7mm has a range of less than half and a rate of fire so slow you can fly between the bullets. This beast, and the Maus died on the drawing board for good reason.

One being they didn't have enough time of material to make it.