> picrel> 1000 tonnes> 35m long> 14m wide> 11m tall> maus> 188 tonnes> 10m long> 3.7m wide> 3.6m tallThis size to mass ratio makes no sense. Ratte would either have to be very thinly armoured, or be way smaller than the given numbers, or way heavier. Has anyone ever calculated how actually big would 1000t tank be given 150mm-360mm armour values? Definitely not as big as those numbers, the volume of the thing does not make sense. And once we scale it down, there is no way it would fit 2x280mm armament. Maaaybe a single gun? Unless we go for a casemate, then sure, twin guns it is.
Tanks are in fact mostly hollow
No shit the ratte didnt make sense. Only a special kind of retard would think combining 2 AA-vehicles, 2 tanks and a heavy artillery piece into a godawful contraption was somehow preferable to just having 2 AA-vehicles, 2 tanks and a separate artillery piece.
>>64303643We're pretty sure the designers were on crack.
>>64303667Sure, but thats not the pointI'm saying that if this retarded thing was built, either size, weight, or armour thickness would be dramatically different to the numbers given in specification
>>64303677NTA but I'm pretty sure they used Naval Destroyer numbers. A US Fletcher Class was about 115x12 meters with a 5 meter draft. Total displacement, 2050 tons standard load.
Armor is like an exoskeleton, its mass increases by the ^2.x instead of ^3. Compare it to a battleship.It also means its armor isn't that thick so even the swedish panzerfaust would pen it if it hits normal to the surface at its thickest point.
>>64303689Yeah, and destroyer had nowhere near the armour thickness, which would probably be the main contributor to the mass value, and its still way heavier. Point stands, the mass to size to armour ratio makes no mathematical sense
Surely this wonder weapon will turn things around!
>>64303700As I said before, we think the designers were on crack.
>>64303785This thread in no way argues about practicality of the ratte, merely whether specifications were possible to build in the first place from engineering perspective
>>64303791Yeah, I think we all agree that the Ratte would need to be hollow.
You filthy ameridogs won't be laughing once our Rattes chase you back into the Atlantik.
>>64303643>2x280mm armamentthe 3x280mm from the Graf Spee is 600 tonnes, so even a smaller 2x280 will mean that a third of the supposed weight of the rat will be the turret alone
>>64303888Plural of "Ratte" is "Ratten".
>>64304036Rattan?
>>64303643The question OP, which I honestly don't know at all, is what the armor math is exactly not just relative. Like, treating each naively as a simple cubic Ratte would have a side/top surface area of ~1414 m^2 vs 136 m^2 for the Maus, so about 10.42x the surface area. But that's obviously off. The real calculation would be to just figure out exact surface area and then multiply that by however much RHA would be needed then you could see exactly what the weight should be. I'm not a big enough WW2 autist to know any real technical specifics about german RHA but maybe you could use MIL-DTL-12560 as a drop-in close-enough? Steel doesn't vary THAT much. Going ahead and guessing at maybe 7.86 g/cm^3, and going by rough average Maus thickness of 200mm because I'm fucking lazy, I'd get 192 metric tons just for the Maus weight, which is more then the Maus actually weighed. So I'm guess most of the weight is armor but also that you can't just be naive about the exact dimensions because the mass is so high the difference between a rectangle and shape and angles and turret vs hull is very much non-negligible.My assumption is that yes the Ratte would be less armored, but that's not necessary a strange choice either given the size and role. It'd be intended to engage from what further off and with lots of support, and it's also just so much fucking bigger that a lot of choices would be different.This is all just nerd sperging though because the most likely explanation is simply that the numbers wouldn't have worked out the way they did on paper. Like, obviously they didn't build the thing, it was just a wank concept. Major changes between "developer napkin" and "production on the field" is more the rule than the exception. I think you can come up with a vaguely plausible alternate history of a land battleship around then if nuclear reactor tech had run ahead of weapons, but obviously IRL it's not a thing.
>>64303643Still smaller than the Zubr class LCAC
Wikipedia states that Gneisenau turret in Norway weights 800 t. Say a 2 gun turret would be 600t.This would make chassis what, 1200t? say 200t in total
>>64304625The weight estimation is probably only for the chassis. But I'm sure a (non-schizo) autist from /k/ could give a better founded estimation.
you ever think how funny ig is Germany was trying to build rodents of unusual size
>>64303643Bruh, but if the tank had been with such armor, it would be fucked slow and not moving, it would be a little smaller, and the material would not be bleak if ratte existed (this is my opinion) But, how about dora in 194× it's fucking no way
>>64303643
>>64303643Because that isn't an accurate representation of the Ratte design and the actual Ratte would've been used more as a siege gun.https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/projekt-p-1000/
>>64303643>Has anyone ever calculated how actually big would 1000t tank be given 150mm-360mm armour values?A thousand tons of 150mm plate is enough to make a rectangular steel box roughly 9m wide, 9m tall, and 18m long. Or 35m long, 14m wide, and 17... centimetres tall.So yes, the numbers you quoted would be somewhat challenging to achieve.
>>64304925For all the shitting on them the XBOXHUEG guns were useful inbreaking Sevastopol. Were they worth the cost? I don't think anybody can honestly answer that. Yeah sure "if" Germany had a heavy bomber they could have used it for the same purpose and then repurposed it elsewhere but other than the US nobody had a proper heavy bomber during the entire war very concept was somewhat novel.
>>64303643I'mma let you in on a little secret: Schickelgruber had no knowledge of pretty much anything beyond art and architecture. Engineers could therefor waste time and money on completely infeasible designs and thus delay their inevitable Volkssturm "volunteering" until March '45, at which point they could capitalize on the inherant chaos of a slow trainwreck and make a westward B-line to the nearest un-surrenderable Festung that had just surrendered.
>>64304036I played it self so the subhuman amerifilth would understand
>>64303643If a delusional dictator wants his super weapon, he will get his super weapon, professional advice be damned
>>64303643Hitler got the same brainwave that would later be had by Games Workshop writers in the mid 1980's. He was a pioneer in that way.
>>64304274>>64304965when you get to a certain size dunno if "150mm everywhere" actually makes sense anymore vs being more like a battleship with specific armor belt and such along with enough internal compartmentalization and dc to just, well, tank (hurr har) a lot of hits.bigger issue might be lack of vt fuses means no way germany could make the thing survivable enough against air attack. and so big/slow that dive bombers could actually hit it.kinda funny to imagine a few nuclear powered land ones being used for an "unthinkable" winter assault on soviets tho. all ground frozen solid answers lotta weight issues. nuke plant answers heating and water production and fuel logistics issues tho still have to consider ammo but still can imagine driving a train of that shit across the entire continent in heart of winter and its neat.
>>64304743now that you mention it
