Jump to content


P1000 ratte tank already exist in BF1942 (screen and video))


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

Rockarola #21 Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:24 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6982 battles
  • 647
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View Postmarkiz, on 18 February 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

The project was actually conceived at Krupp's (unlike enormous trains made out of concrete it wasn't Hitler's own idea). It was supposed to be (as long with Maus) Krupp's response to Soviet heavy tanks, which at the time were KVs and T-35s...kinda overreaction to the problem (I'm pretty sure they were smoking crack - there's no other explanation for finest German engineers coming up with a 1000 ton tank).

Then they went with the idea to Hitler and he accepted it. Then they've been working on it for over a half year before Speer cancelled it in 1943. So it was stopped at the paper project level - effect of which we can see here.
And btw. I happen to be an engineer, that's why I find it utterly retarded, cause achieving even that stage of project using methods available in 1940's (no cad, no stress simulation, no 3d modelling, only calculations by hand and drawing by hand) takes tremendeous amount of work, manpower and money and it was pretty obvious waste of it from the beginning (at least for a reasonable human being, but not for them - cuz they actually came up with P1500 while working on this piece of junk).

A lot of the German engineers in WW II had also been working on the German railroad guns in WW I, so removing the rails from the big guns seemed like a logical step.
The german military became skilled in modern, fast moving warfare, but most of their designers were still stuck in the "bigger is better" way of thinking.
Just look at Ferdinand, Tiger II, the German battleships, flak towers and a lot of paper projects (Ratte, gigantic battleships and even bigger guns)

Kellomies #22 Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:41 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 15159 battles
  • 4,289
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011

View PostRockarola, on 18 February 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

A lot of the German engineers in WW II had also been working on the German railroad guns in WW I, so removing the rails from the big guns seemed like a logical step.
Eh, superheavy artillery had its uses (mainly when you had to crack serious fortifications - that's what Schwerer Gustav and Dora were designed for, too). But there's kind of good reasons why it was put on railway carriages...
I wonder if there was a vague idea of being less vulnerable to aircraft if the thing wasn't tied to tracks, or something? Seems like a bit of a pipe dream if so, given that the vehicles' speed and agility would've been at a level politely described as "beached whale"...

Quote

The german military became skilled in modern, fast moving warfare, but most of their designers were still stuck in the "bigger is better" way of thinking.
Just look at Ferdinand, Tiger II, the German battleships, flak towers and a lot of paper projects (Ratte, gigantic battleships and even bigger guns)
To be fair, the stupid stuff only started coming to the fore when it became signally obvious (around mid-'42 or so) that "conventional" methods wouldn't cut it by themselves. AFAIK their strategic analysts gave the '42 summer offensives as the deadline after which Germany could not but lose the war already due to resource imbalances, and as we all know those didn't quite succeed...

GIANT BATTLESHIPS OTOH were something most everyone had at least on the drawing boards by the late Thirties, the main reason more of them besides the two-ship Yamato class weren't built being the interwar naval agreements. The Americans had the "Yamato killer" Montana-class in the works too... but then, as it turned out the big-gun surface combatant was teetering on the brink of extinction what with the evolution of naval air power and all that jazz. Can't fault the engineers and planners for not being prescient.

Rockarola #23 Posted 19 February 2012 - 12:00 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6982 battles
  • 647
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View PostKellomies, on 18 February 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

Eh, superheavy artillery had its uses (mainly when you had to crack serious fortifications - that's what Schwerer Gustav and Dora were designed for, too). But there's kind of good reasons why it was put on railway carriages...
I wonder if there was a vague idea of being less vulnerable to aircraft if the thing wasn't tied to tracks, or something? Seems like a bit of a pipe dream if so, given that the vehicles' speed and agility would've been at a level politely described as "beached whale"...


To be fair, the stupid stuff only started coming to the fore when it became signally obvious (around mid-'42 or so) that "conventional" methods wouldn't cut it by themselves. AFAIK their strategic analysts gave the '42 summer offensives as the deadline after which Germany could not but lose the war already due to resource imbalances, and as we all know those didn't quite succeed...

GIANT BATTLESHIPS OTOH were something most everyone had at least on the drawing boards by the late Thirties, the main reason more of them besides the two-ship Yamato class weren't built being the interwar naval agreements. The Americans had the "Yamato killer" Montana-class in the works too... but then, as it turned out the big-gun surface combatant was teetering on the brink of extinction what with the evolution of naval air power and all that jazz. Can't fault the engineers and planners for not being prescient.

I'm not blaming the engineers for their mindset, they were a product of their time.
(I will blame the US tank doctrine in WW II on stupidity)

The German "Blitzkrieg" was highly successful, despite using (sort of) bad tanks...and how did their engineers respond?
By making everything slower, heavier and more expensive.
Hitler was a product of WW I as well, and he also wanted things to be "bigger=better"

I won't argue about the battleships, in spite of what happened in WW I, nobody saw how influential submarines and torpedoes would be.

Zenith #24 Posted 19 February 2012 - 12:26 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 4457 battles
  • 3,237
  • Member since:
    07-05-2010

View PostRockarola, on 19 February 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

I'm not blaming the engineers for their mindset, they were a product of their time.
(I will blame the US tank doctrine in WW II on stupidity)

The German "Blitzkrieg" was highly successful, despite using (sort of) bad tanks...and how did their engineers respond?
By making everything slower, heavier and more expensive.
Hitler was a product of WW I as well, and he also wanted things to be "bigger=better"

I won't argue about the battleships, in spite of what happened in WW I, nobody saw how influential submarines and torpedoes would be.

Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there comes a time when someone is too old and too stuck in their ways to be counted on in times of war. Allied tank doctrine, and the insanely outdated designs of both sides, are a result of this fact. There are several people on the allied side, who quite frankly should have been shot after the war, for the way in which they cost countless lives with their bullshit theories of tank warfare (tank destroyer doctrine for instance). Thank goodness one of the idiots behind it was killed in a friendly fire incident!

Boils my blood every time I see relics from the Great War using tactics from that era, despite the fact that it had been proved time and time again that they were outmoded.

Rockarola #25 Posted 19 February 2012 - 12:57 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6982 battles
  • 647
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View PostZenith, on 19 February 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there comes a time when someone is too old and too stuck in their ways to be counted on in times of war. Allied tank doctrine, and the insanely outdated designs of both sides, are a result of this fact. There are several people on the allied side, who quite frankly should have been shot after the war, for the way in which they cost countless lives with their bullshit theories of tank warfare (tank destroyer doctrine for instance). Thank goodness one of the idiots behind it was killed in a friendly fire incident!

Boils my blood every time I see relics from the Great War using tactics from that era, despite the fact that it had been proved time and time again that they were outmoded.
From "the Great War"?
You must from somewhere east of Poland?

Sometimes being "too old and stuck in their ways" works.
The modern Sniper is the result of soldiers being old-school hunters, but in tank warfare I'll mostly agree with you.
The M1 Abrams is the result of trying to be too ahead of your time.
It's a great tank in 1 one 1 battles, but it's worse than the T-34 for sustained warfare.
It drinks more than Teddy Roosevelt, it's too wide for a lot of cities and bridges, and it'll make KFC out of any soldiers trying to get cover behind it  ;)

_Zylark_ #26 Posted 19 February 2012 - 01:08 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10945 battles
  • 220
  • [DSR] DSR
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011
As the saying goes, you go to war with army you have, not the army you want. It's an axiom you soon find the validity of in Hearts of Iron 3 for example.

So the Germans went to war with superior doctrine, but even for the time mediocre tanks. And due to limited and dwindling resources as the war went on, they went for quality over quantity. Which ironically only complicated matters. Whilst German designs once the bugs was ironed out was very good, they were also very expensive and difficult to produce. Not to mention the plethora of non-interchangeable parts and complicated nature of repairs and maintenance. All put a heavy strain on an already overstretched logistics and manufacturing capability.

The US on the other hand wanted numbers. Plenty of tanks, and yesterday please. So the M4 evolved from early (mainly brittish) experiences of the M3. Much the same chassis and drivetrain. And all built in a modular fashion for ease of production and maintenance. Only problem being, the M4 didn't pose much of a threat against newer German tanks that they were likely to meet.

The real innovators of WW2 tank-design was the Russians. Their tanks might have been crude compared to their German counterparts, but the genius was not so much in manufacturing and details, but rather simplicity and effectiveness of design. Enabling Russia (or the Soviet Union as it was known at the time) to produce some very effective tanks at a staggering pace from very basic factories. When the Germans started to encounter T34s and KVs they was shocked. Their PzIII and PzIV couldn't begin to harm them unless in superior numbers, and it was soon discovered that German tanks did not like Russian winters in the least. Which incidently led to the development of the Panther, that borrowed many of the design features of the T34, except the simplicity ofcourse...

WW2 put tank design into a pressure cooker, and the harsh rules of evolution reign supreme. In this race, each major nation (apart from Japan) contributed some to more modern tanks. Sloped armour was a Russian innovation. Modularity and vertical stabilizers came from the US. And the Germans for their part had good radios, doctrine, optics and accurate guns on their side.

As for the Ratte, it was a flawed design concept, much like the Maus and even Tiger VIB. Too big, too slow, meaning they were a nightmare to relocate and easy prey to allied air-power. The Germans did get it right with TDs though. Much cheaper to produce in good numbers, as one just chopped off the turret of obsolete tanks, improvised some new top-hull, and fitted a much bigger gun in there.

Rockarola #27 Posted 19 February 2012 - 01:15 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6982 battles
  • 647
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View Post_Zylark_, on 19 February 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

As the saying goes, you go to war with army you have, not the army you want. It's an axiom you soon find the validity of in Hearts of Iron 3 for example.

So the Germans went to war with superior doctrine, but even for the time mediocre tanks. And due to limited and dwindling resources as the war went on, they went for quality over quantity. Which ironically only complicated matters. Whilst German designs once the bugs was ironed out was very good, they were also very expensive and difficult to produce. Not to mention the plethora of non-interchangeable parts and complicated nature of repairs and maintenance. All put a heavy strain on an already overstretched logistics and manufacturing capability.

The US on the other hand wanted numbers. Plenty of tanks, and yesterday please. So the M4 evolved from early (mainly brittish) experiences of the M3. Much the same chassis and drivetrain. And all built in a modular fashion for ease of production and maintenance. Only problem being, the M4 didn't pose much of a threat against newer German tanks that they were likely to meet.

The real innovators of WW2 tank-design was the Russians. Their tanks might have been crude compared to their German counterparts, but the genius was not so much in manufacturing and details, but rather simplicity and effectiveness of design. Enabling Russia (or the Soviet Union as it was known at the time) to produce some very effective tanks at a staggering pace from very basic factories. When the Germans started to encounter T34s and KVs they was shocked. Their PzIII and PzIV couldn't begin to harm them unless in superior numbers, and it was soon discovered that German tanks did not like Russian winters in the least. Which incidently led to the development of the Panther, that borrowed many of the design features of the T34, except the simplicity ofcourse...

WW2 put tank design into a pressure cooker, and the harsh rules of evolution reign supreme. In this race, each major nation (apart from Japan) contributed some to more modern tanks. Sloped armour was a Russian innovation. Modularity and vertical stabilizers came from the US. And the Germans for their part had good radios, doctrine, optics and accurate guns on their side.

As for the Ratte, it was a flawed design concept, much like the Maus and even Tiger VIB. Too big, too slow, meaning they were a nightmare to relocate and easy prey to allied air-power. The Germans did get it right with TDs though. Much cheaper to produce in good numbers, as one just chopped off the turret of obsolete tanks, improvised some new top-hull, and fitted a much bigger gun in there.

I couldn't agree more...let me guess, you've read a book or two  ;)


Quote

Generally speaking the two people that kill games in my opinion are game designers and the story writers.

No, I think you are wrong...the only thing destroying games are gamers. If nobody bought the games, they'd put a bit more brains into them!

Rockarola #28 Posted 19 February 2012 - 02:05 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6982 battles
  • 647
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011
Heh, I used to be a raider in WoW, I've also played City of Heroes, Dungeons & Dragons Online, EVE and EverQuest I+II.
I began playing WoT, because a match was only 15 minutes and even my laptop could run it.

How many players do you think are on the consoles, just because it's a lot easier?
I build my own computers, I am pretty good with Windows and Microsoft NET and I don't mind the occasional crash.
PC's are only the superior gaming platform, if you are willing to spend a lot of time and a lot of money.
How much would it cost to build a 95% crashproof PC, with exactly the same specs as a PS3?
More or less than the little box that even women likes in their living room??  :P

Benden #29 Posted 19 February 2012 - 03:20 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 14089 battles
  • 397
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

View PostSagro, on 18 February 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

STUNNING level of detail im allmost blinded by the sheer number of polygons

Then I dont think you would have survived playing that kind of game when it was "top notch" home entertainment :D
Posted Image

By the way, Forgotten hope mod on Battlefield 1942 is maybe the best mod ever created for ww2 warfare but getting pretty old indeed.
(tiny gameplay)

Benden #30 Posted 19 February 2012 - 03:21 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 14089 battles
  • 397
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
double post, sorry  :P
(errr, I also have the feeling that this post is going to be moved to the "off topic" area  :unsure:  )

XxXSpottedYouXxX #31 Posted 19 February 2012 - 04:08 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 23824 battles
  • 8,336
  • [4077] 4077
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
Have WG ever considered to add the P1000 but very alike to the maus in profile and height etc, I'm sure they could add it but not the way it is now obviously it would have to be scaled down to the maus level.

Kellomies #32 Posted 19 February 2012 - 04:39 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 15159 battles
  • 4,289
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
And then it wouldn't be anything like the "real" Ratte, so what the Hell'd be the point...?

Shireknight #33 Posted 19 February 2012 - 10:38 AM

    Player

  • Veteran
  • 13380 battles
  • 1,536
  • [TELOS] TELOS
  • Member since:
    10-04-2010
Moved to Off-topic.

XxXSpottedYouXxX #34 Posted 19 February 2012 - 11:34 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 23824 battles
  • 8,336
  • [4077] 4077
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011

View PostKellomies, on 19 February 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

And then it wouldn't be anything like the "real" Ratte, so what the Hell'd be the point...?

Mainly to stop all the P1000 threads.

_FeeLThePa1N_ #35 Posted 19 February 2012 - 01:33 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 18791 battles
  • 149
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011
Spoiler                     

Quote

The first prototype allegedly met its end when the rear turret inadvertently fired upon the center main turret igniting the ammunition stored in that location.

lol




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users