Multi-barreled tank?

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.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
G Connor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
G Connor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
G Connor said:
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.
Click to expand...

One being they didn't have enough time of material to make it.
 
Just imagine if the Germans have the Materials to make those tanks! I don't even think D-Day was possible ! Those tanks whould have shoot down afew ships!
 
godofthunder9010 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. That tank is neither the Ratte nor the Mause.

The tank in that picture is entirely fictional to the best of my knowledge.

As crazy as the Ratte is, the thing in that picture is rediculous beyond even Nazi imaginations.

The Ratte as designed had 8 flak guns on it.
 
rattetactical-large.jpg


ratte_800.jpg
 
The trouble with making the Mause or Ratte is pretty simple and it goes back to exactly the same lesson learned in WW2 in the Pacific: Big targets like Battleships make very easy targets for combat aircraft.
 
It also would collapse any bridge in the world. 1000 tons!! Know any bridge that could handle that? Several of that? If there is a sinkhole anywhere, the Ratte or Mause would have found them and fallen into them.

Consider the current concept adopted by the Navies of the world. The old monster Battleships are all being decomissioned b/c you can pack more firepower for less expense and maintenance into lots of smaller ships. They're also harder to hit and if you take out 1, you still have all the rest.
 
It's Maus, not Mause. ;)

That last pic of the Ratte looks awesome.

What does it say above the girl? "Kleines" or "Kleiner" "R..."? Kleines/r means "little" or "small".

godofthunder9010 said:
The trouble with making the Mause or Ratte is pretty simple and it goes back to exactly the same lesson learned in WW2 in the Pacific: Big targets like Battleships make very easy targets for combat aircraft.
Click to expand...

Then they should just stick an airstrip with interceptors on top of it :D.
 
Last edited:
Well, with an airstrip, it becomes a mobile tank aircraft carrer! I think it is a Frau. Howcome it is Kleiner?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top