Jump to content


land cruiser "Ratte"


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
37 replies to this topic

deveen23 #21 Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:33 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31371 battles
  • 5,488
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    06-30-2011

View PostGehakteMolen, on 24 February 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

not true, it was supposed to get 16000-17000 hp, dedepending on engines.

which would make 16 hp/ton, so actually really good...

Yeah, excellent. For a drawn tank.

GehakteMolen #22 Posted 24 February 2012 - 04:28 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 35260 battles
  • 3,272
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-08-2010

View Postdeveen23, on 24 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Yeah, excellent. For a drawn tank.

in peace time, building a Ratte would have been easy

in 1955 the gers constructed a vehicle of 5900 ton (6x Ratte)

http://de.wikipedia....wiki/Bagger_255

and the technique didnt improve much in those 10 years (in germany) :P

deveen23 #23 Posted 24 February 2012 - 04:58 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31371 battles
  • 5,488
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    06-30-2011

View PostGehakteMolen, on 24 February 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

in peace time, building a Ratte would have been easy

in 1955 the gers constructed a vehicle of 5900 ton (6x Ratte)

http://de.wikipedia....wiki/Bagger_255

and the technique didnt improve much in those 10 years (in germany) :P

And I bet Bagger 255 would do really well on the battlefield.

GehakteMolen #24 Posted 25 February 2012 - 04:01 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 35260 battles
  • 3,272
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-08-2010

View Postdeveen23, on 24 February 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

And I bet Bagger 255 would do really well on the battlefield.

if its possible to built a 5900 ton vehicle in 1955 its possible to built a 1000 ton vehicle in 1945, and tanks (of that time) are ANYTHING harder to construct then a tank, a tank of that size (and of that time) wouldnt need/have any kind of stabilizer, infrared, advanced aiming device or whatever, its just a big bad-ass ``thing`` of steel (like the bagger) with some armor attached to it, and 2 battleship guns.

vs other tanks, bunkers and ground forces the Ratte would be total bad-ass, nothing would be able to stop it, yet vs arty and aicraft, the Ratte is toast.

and 1000 T34 might get owned by a Ratte, but 200 KT`s would also own those 1000 T34, and 300 or 400 Panthers would also own those 1000 T34, the cost of 1 Ratte would be far, far to high, to make it worth the afford.

PoinTeHaWk #25 Posted 25 February 2012 - 04:40 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 3750 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    08-02-2011
Yeah sure, the Maus was big, and yes the Ratte was bigger, now check the "Landkreuzer p. 1500 Monster"

That's a tank!

VGA #26 Posted 25 February 2012 - 05:40 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9498 battles
  • 4,619
  • [8D] 8D
  • Member since:
    09-05-2010

View PostDirkS_69, on 18 February 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

I found some footage of a huge german tank named Ratte. I don't know if it ever was operational.
They built it but it wouldn't fit through the garage door so they had to leave it there. So they lost the war thankfully.

2alertred #27 Posted 26 February 2012 - 12:13 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13706 battles
  • 2,358
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011
Posted Image

I prefer this 1  :Smile_great:   (to bad its just from a game)

GehakteMolen #28 Posted 26 February 2012 - 05:47 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 35260 battles
  • 3,272
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-08-2010

View Post2alertred, on 26 February 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

Posted Image

I prefer this 1  :Smile_great:   (to bad its just from a game)

neah, missle arty would be better then :P

most OP unit ever, (only nukes come close :XD
http://www.microsoft...s_char_mlrs.gif

deveen23 #29 Posted 28 February 2012 - 03:38 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31371 battles
  • 5,488
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    06-30-2011

View PostGehakteMolen, on 25 February 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

if its possible to built a 5900 ton vehicle in 1955 its possible to built a 1000 ton vehicle in 1945, and tanks (of that time) are ANYTHING harder to construct then a tank, a tank of that size (and of that time) wouldnt need/have any kind of stabilizer, infrared, advanced aiming device or whatever, its just a big bad-ass ``thing`` of steel (like the bagger) with some armor attached to it, and 2 battleship guns.

vs other tanks, bunkers and ground forces the Ratte would be total bad-ass, nothing would be able to stop it, yet vs arty and aicraft, the Ratte is toast.

and 1000 T34 might get owned by a Ratte, but 200 KT`s would also own those 1000 T34, and 300 or 400 Panthers would also own those 1000 T34, the cost of 1 Ratte would be far, far to high, to make it worth the afford.

I think you seriously underestimate effectiveness limitation of such big vehicles. Sure, everything is possible, but hell, the Germans had huge mechanical problems even with the Tiger and King Tiger. That thing would take ages to reach the battle zone, and it's not really that the enemy would just sit there and wait for it to come. And you do have similar examples, like those big railway guns which had something like a division-size crew commanded by a general.

Skalski #30 Posted 12 March 2012 - 10:07 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18753 battles
  • 681
  • [OGON] OGON
  • Member since:
    03-08-2011
Well it's certainly not beyond dev's imagination or abilities to add that monster... Although i suspect, that both the pics here and the YT "preview" are both fakes >.>

Then again, a potentially interesting way of doing it right would be making that behemoth count for 15 tanks in the MM. Beasthunt anyone? Another option would be to treat the machine more reasonably, create something befitting historical dimensions and most likely specs, add it as a ridiculously overpriced premium, that would take up more than one tank slot on a normally 15-tank team. Got a rat? Yo don't have a full team.

Oh, almost forgot...
Posted Image

Exocet6951 #31 Posted 12 March 2012 - 10:18 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 34102 battles
  • 2,198
  • [-CTK-] -CTK-
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011
Boss fights in WoT  :Smile-izmena:

Also, shot of tequila for the weekly Ratte thread.
Bottoms up boys.

theMuhaha #32 Posted 12 March 2012 - 10:49 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 7392 battles
  • 722
  • [PMJ] PMJ
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
Goddarnit this thread almost made it a month?

Hey mods, how about lock&scrap?

Vlevs #33 Posted 15 March 2012 - 09:56 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13356 battles
  • 666
  • [ASEAR] ASEAR
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011
It's sort of annoying that everyone regards this thing as a 'tank'. It is not, really. It's a mobile naval / siege battery. Mobile, as in "can be moved". Or a railway gun without the railway. It has absolytely no business in tank warfare. If it was implemented in WoT its guns would take half a match to load first shells - and good luck finding a target the shell isn't wasted upon - 4 times the shell power of T92. Not to mention completely defenseless against any tank closer than 200 m. Arty magnet like nothing you've ever seen (top armor would've likely been ~40 mm-ish). Any player playing this Ratte for full round without smashing his keyboard should receive achievement "Patience of Buddha".

At most, devs might include it as a static map prop easter egg. They'd say "we responded to community's wish to include P1000 Ratte in the game"!

Vlevs #34 Posted 16 March 2012 - 01:36 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13356 battles
  • 666
  • [ASEAR] ASEAR
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011

View Postp0mar, on 15 March 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

Look what dev`s made from Maus,they have to halve it`s frontal armor just that their beloved is-7 could penetrate it,i can`t imagine what would they do with Ratte.
What's your source saying Maus had 400 mm front armor?

Vlevs #35 Posted 16 March 2012 - 09:49 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13356 battles
  • 666
  • [ASEAR] ASEAR
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011

View Postp0mar, on 16 March 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Well,I`m not a tanks specialist but i saw a documentary on dtscovery chanel about this and i read on wikipedia that,in the area of the mantlet, Maus have 460 mm of armor,also the sides nad rear should be thicker.
No. Mantlet isn't among typical armor measurements for the reason it covers very small area and German mantlets have extremely variable armor thickness. ISU-152 has about 300 mm mantlet while nominal front armor thickness is 90 mm.
Posted Image

Vlevs #36 Posted 16 March 2012 - 11:36 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13356 battles
  • 666
  • [ASEAR] ASEAR
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011

View Postp0mar, on 16 March 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

As i said i`m not a tanks expert so i didn`t know that,thank you for telling me.However even without the mantlet Maus armor is still thinner that it should be. In the pictures you attached the armor is thinner then what i read on internet(wikipedia and other sites)>
I checked a few sources and to me it seemed this pic, WoT's stats and the rest were pretty well in line, and there I didn't notice more than 10 mm deviance, apart from turret front that 20 mm less max turret armor in WoT compared to rest. This is quite tolerable for a tank that hardly even existed in steel. Incidentally, WoT devs say they've personally checked the only extant Maus in Kubinka museum.

And Ratte isn't a tank and as such won't be in WoT. ;)

TheDOD #37 Posted 17 March 2012 - 09:53 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7046 battles
  • 1,037
  • [HOV] HOV
  • Member since:
    06-18-2011

View PostHoffmannov, on 18 February 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

already in testing face
Posted Image
ofcourse we wont see it ingame, the whole project was madness and far from possible to realy functionate

WG screw it really op. Ratte as Tier 6? Are you kiddin me?

CoyDK #38 Posted 18 March 2012 - 08:06 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6440 battles
  • 520
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011
The "Ratten" & "Monster" was nazi germanys "wunder" weapons. The ieader was to park the "tank" and then utilize it as a fortress. It was not a "tank" as we would think of it more a moving fortress. The "Monster" was the edge of the nazis weaponology, it would be impossible to buil botht tanks, yet alone use them in combat sins they would like the mouse be unable to move bacause of ground & engin power.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users