Nazi Super Tank - P-1000 Ratte - [ Largest Tank EVER ]

Invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/foundexplained
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more.
See important Masterworks disclosures: mw-art.co/37WwvbD.
Discord: / discord
New Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
In 1941, the German war effort was looking for a new type of tank to combat the rise of soviet armor. A tank that would be able to not only take out the best of the USSR but also take hits without flinching. The study would eventually lead to the development of the 200-ton tank - Panzer VIII Maus.
And like all insane ideas during the Nazi reign - when it reached hiters desk, it was instantly approved. On 23rd of June, 1942, the director of Krupp, Edward Grotte, suggested that they could build a 1000-ton tank. It would dubbed a new category of tank, called a land crusier or Landkreuzer , that would weld surplus battleship guns, have 25 cm thick armor and be its own anti-aircraft gun platform.
The P-1000 would have been huge. With a weight of 1000 tons, it was five times bigger than the heaviest NAZI tank of the war, the Panzer 8.
Its weight would have been roughly divided up into 300 tonnes of cannons, with the main gun weighing a casual 100 tons, 200 tonnes of armor, 100 tons of steel track, and the rest held over for engine, crew and cargo. The tank would have been able to hold several motorcycles for scout missions, a infermany, and had its own internal toilet system.
To carry the weight over the ground, and not just sink into a crater, the mass would be spread over six 1.2 meter treads - although even with all this effort the weight of the tank would have obliterated any sort of ground from roads to farms to buildings.
Its actual size was staggering as well, at 39 meters long gun to tail, 14 meters wide and 11 meters high - as big as a four story building. This hight and 2 meter ground clearance would mean it would be able to cross most rivers without any issues .
To power the tank, it would have two desiel engines used in U-boats, with 8400 horse power, with 16 thousand horsepower requires to move the gigantic steel monster. Snorkles located across the frame would supply the engines with oxygen in the case of a river crossing.
The primary weapon of this super tank would have been two 280mm naval guns, the ones left after the planned refitting of the Scharnhorst class battleships. They didn’t want to use 3 gun turret because with the middle gun removed there would be more room for ammunition, sighting and reducing the weight of the tank by 50 tonnes. The cannons would have fired the same shells used by battleships or would have had special armor piercing rounds and high explosive rounds - for dissolving enemy amour or plowing up ground fortifications respectively.
The tank had several other cannons on board, such as a single 128 mm anti-tank cannon, most likely the Pak 44, or rather it’s subvariant KwK 44 used later on the Yagdtiger and Maus, and planned for the E-100 tank. Apart from that there were two turrets in the back equipped with the same gun, and 4 turrets with either double 20 or 37mm anti-air autocannons or quad 20mm guns along with the several machine guns. Its not clear how many crew this tank would have required, but juding by the smaller 200 ton Panzer VIII Maus requiring 6, we can imagine this larger brother would be 20 to up to 41 men, with a commander, multiple gunners and loaders, drivers, radio operators, engineers and scouts, as well as a doctor for the infirmary.
With all these guns, armour and internal toilets, the tank itselve would have only been able to move at a top speed of 40 km/h and have a range with its fuel tanks of 190 km. Even this however, was highly unlikely and doubted from the start Likely it would have required a support convoy, escorts and supply lines much like we see today in a carrier group.
The answer to the question where it would be deployed is quite obvious - Eastern front or Belgium, Netherlands and northern France because of the simple fact that it could traverse mostly, if not strictly, across flat terrain due to it’s weight and dimensions.
The other important question is how it would be deployed, and we can only speculate, but most likely Germans would use it as a mobile heavy artillery platform, using it to destroy enemy bunkers, fortresses, and heavily defended positions. The use against enemy armor is highly unlikely because of the very slow speed and agility, but it could be used as a medium to long range support for the armored units on the battlefield, with extremly accurate fire that could be coordinated during the assault.
But the main question is... would this incredible tank actually work?

[@captain_commenter8796]

Hitler: You see that battleship? Engineer: Yeah..? Hitler: *I want it on the land*

[@koalaforresttankeryschool6331]

Ahahaha funny

[@DocHolliday1851]

I like this thinking.

[@Grant80]

@@DocHolliday1851 agreed hitler was a screw ball but got give it to him. Creating fear factor weapons. It’s a pity was wasn’t built.

[@edgardox.feliciano3127]

@@Grant80 he was probably suffering WWI PTSD from seeing these big metal boxes that were impervious to everything but heavy artillery. He probably wanted to give Germany's enemies the same treatment.

[@Grant80]

@@edgardox.feliciano3127 umm makes sense.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

You can really see Hitler was a ww1 vet in his approval of this design. The problems with this tank are related to mobility and airpower. Neither of which would apply to trench warfare.

[@finlaymcdiarmid5832]

Yeah it could easily be overwhelmed with planes in a special operation since i assume they werent planning on making more than a few.

[@carltonleboss]

Funnily enough, the K-Wagen was the WW1 equivalent of the Ratte

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

@@carltonleboss I'm not so sure it was. The K wagen was a mobile pillbox with guns. Drive up, shoot everything from all sides, drive up again. A bit like a pre dreadnought battleship in that respect: lots of guns of all calibers pointing in all directions. Ratte was more like a modern battleship, designed to engage targets at long range, 1 at a time. Had it been built in WW1 it would have driven around behind the trenches sniping artillery, only advancing over them after the infantry had crossed. Could shrug off anything aircraft could hit it with, and and armerment it couldn't destroy from range. A potent weapon in 1917.

[@arry5432]

@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 with the fact that Western allies could deploy over 1000 aircrafts just for 1 sorty, they'll just bomb it like a war ship

[@finlaymcdiarmid5832]

@@arry5432 they could modify a ground strike aircraft to be faster to get in and out faster and equip it with a few 250lbs/113kg bombs and it would be out of service for a good while.

[@elektronischemusik1903]

"Sir, do you see that mountain there ?" "Yeah, what's up with it Soldier?" "Yesterday the mountain was on the other side of the river"

[@OmegaProxy]

Considering the tank wasn’t built a more accurate title would be “ Largest tank to never exist”.

[@demonstructie]

No I'm pretty sure even larger tanks never existed.

[@OmegaProxy]

@@demonstructie lol You’ve got a point there.

[@doomslayer8884]

Your not wrong

[@sumdumguy6449]

I love that he won't forget about the toilets

[@jtgd]

@@sumdumguy6449 atshole?

[@sumdumguy6449]

I don't think youl gett it

[@Cbrmkn98xs]

@@sumdumguy6449 jesus bro did you have a minor stroke

[@britishneko3906]

well because the U-1206 sank because of it

[@sumdumguy6449]

@@Cbrmkn98xs the link cinsari sent brought me the hub an is sopposed to say ashole

[@dankim7488]

I really wish the Germans were actually able to fully build this monster tank. Just one. Never used in combat but fully finished and operational. And then captured intact by the Allies. And then preserved and put on display in a museum for all of us to see and enjoy today in real life. In fact the tank itself IS the museum.

[@uwuowo4856]

Nah not gonna happen

[@dankim7488]

@@uwuowo4856 well yeah obviously…

[@lyonvensa]

So I'm not the only one who thinks that... Impractical as it is, it's still one of a kind and radical design, and I would love to see it too.

[@dankim7488]

@@lyonvensa the Germans had a ton of very impractical weapon designs in WWII. I wish there was a museum that showcased exclusively all their wacky wonder weapon ideas that never made it to full production and service.

[@juusto7171]

if germany ever made one the war would've ended in 1943

[@ArcadeMusicTribute]

This thing looked so fantastic. I wish they produced just 1 piece of this machinery so that we could see it in a museum somewhere. It would've been so awesome despite being useless :D

[@redwarriorXYTYoutube]

Yeah despite the natzi they are very creative

[@entomologistmaximus5097]

​@@redwarriorXYTKZbin I definitely agree there, morality aside they were extremely creative and you gotta respect that

[@NextGenMusic1006]

"We need better transmission" "Battleship gun?" Actually, do it

[@agent1018]

“Hans, we need better transmission!” “Battleship cannon?” “JA, HANS, JA!”

[@newbasilisk4032]

“Hanz we need a better transmission” “More armor you say?” “Nein. Better transmiss-“ “Bigger Kannone, you say?” “Nein better transmission.” “Ooh. Schlasschiffe Kannoe.” (Silence) “Ja Hanz. JA.”

[@definitelypeacock]

A man of tankfish I see

[@vikingman1628]

hahahaaaaa

[@PopCultureCat]

Mehr Kanonen, Fritz! Und die Toaletten vergessen wir nicht! 😅

[@ErnestJay88]

Great concept on paper, "indestructible tank carrying a battleship gun", but on reality , it just a sitting ducks for an enemy bombers.

[@keck4022]

Indestructible tank with an artillery gun with the biggest caliber capable of penetrating 6m (19,6 feet) concrete or 1m (3,2 feet) steel Except it’s just asking to be bombed to dust

[@ryanthejackalkuhn7]

They would have secured this thing with a shit ton of flak and smaller tanks.

[@youraveragescotsman7119]

​@@ryanthejackalkuhn7 And then what? The Allies can just go around it or use Lancasters with Tall Boys and Grand Slams, escorted by Fighters, to annihilate it. If ONE track on that thing is destroyed, then it is worthless to the Germans because they will never get it fixed in the field and the resources it will take to defend it will leave other sectors open for Allied attacks, thus making it and its defenders easy to cut it off from fuel and ammo resupply.

[@ryanthejackalkuhn7]

@@youraveragescotsman7119 It has 6 tracks. :)

[@youraveragescotsman7119]

@@ryanthejackalkuhn7 One track being removed it still a massive issue, and having more than 2 tracks is a bad idea in itself. Ever wonder why all modern tanks only have 2 tracks?

[@TenOrbital]

The hull looks big enough to include a cafeteria, movie theatre and bowling alley for the crew.

[@doomslayer8884]

Tank repair bay

[@cra0422]

The Ratte always struck me as something the Galactic Empire from Star Wars would have created.

[@invincible3246]

Its basically an AT-AT with more powerful weaponry and no legs

[@airoghaelsoriano8606]

Star wars is based on ww2 General hux speech in German looks like hitler

[@PaulMcElligott]

The 1000-ton weight was very optimistic. The turret mechanism was 600 tons all by itself. Also, entire turret mechanism was too tall to fit inside the tank’s hull.

[@adhdpersonified]

Verified how?

[@fog99uk]

@@adhdpersonified The turret was to be a copy of that on the Scharnhorst, with one of the 3 guns removed, so all you have to do is look at the mechanism on the Scharnhorst.

[@novastjarnancg6521]

@@adhdpersonified The stem or elevator for ammunition delivery was very deep and couldn’t fit in a hull for land cruising, but I think if this tank were to be built I think it would go through a lot of redesigning

[@adhdpersonified]

@@novastjarnancg6521 i was doing an essay, so i woukd off needed this 3 months ago

[@novastjarnancg6521]

@@adhdpersonified well is there a chance that it’s still just marked as late? 🧐

[@Aitelly]

We never knew it ever Existed The Land Cruiser . The Story is represented beautifully. Love that you are doing Tanks also.

[@bocahdongo7769]

It exist. And help to win the war on Middle East

[@PzH-wt7bv]

14000 ton German bucket wheel excavator

[@gamermccoolman9312]

@@bocahdongo7769 what?

[@scootergeorge9576]

Toyota, "Land Cruiser. You asked for it, you got it!

[@randomapche7478]

@@gamermccoolman9312 I think he ment is the Toyota Land Cruiser

[@afterlife697]

I have watched so many videos about this tank design over the years and you have taught me things about this tank that I did not know. I absolutely love your animations and everything about your channel. Please continue to do excellent work, and I will happily be watching. You also taught me new things about this tank that I had no idea about. And I have dedicated a very good deal of my time to knowing about this tank masterful work keep it up.

[@loonboy1996]

I pondered what role this "Tank?" Would be useful for. If this was a science fiction/fantasy design, my only thought is surface-to-orbit defense! Put this in star wars, with a theater shield generator. It would be more usefull than anything the empire has! 😆

[@vtakpanzer7456]

they probably didn't think that through because this tank was designed as a joke by designers lol

[@IshijimaKairo]

"Super Tank" Is an understatement.

[@Hardbass-yl6be]

It's a land battleship due to its sheer size

[@supermaximglitchy1]

Titanic zero

[@Gravity_studioss]

Omni tank

[@noblespartan1858]

Uber Panzer fits it better

[@ryshow9118]

I'm happy to see you included the SuperTrain from a couple months ago in this video 😁

[@Liam-bd7ed]

Gustav

[@theangryotaku3361]

7:51 he says this like its pitifully small, but imagine a four story building moving that fast and with all that armament. it would have basically been a mobile fortress

[@JosephNordenbrockartistraction]

Greed understands the greed of powerful rulers. This blueprint was very entertaining to the ruler's inner child. I can imagine the wonderful sales pitch for this beast if the big guy is having a rough week.

[@lucienfury2606]

The funny thing is if the Nazi's actually made this tank they would've never been able to move the thing. It's weight was only the minor issue. Finding the Fuel would've been the problem

[@yung_drakoo3605]

Could use marine diesel or maybe heavy fuel oil shit u could go as far as using kerosene 💀

[@chronicallyacute9665]

That and they were low on metal

[@manmeh4r]

@@yung_drakoo3605 bruh it could be powered by schneider turbojets or something

[@aM1AbramsTank]

And they ally planes could easily bomb it

[@manmeh4r]

@@aM1AbramsTank it weighs a thousand tonnes a nirmal bomb wont even scratch it

[@lordagmar]

Kind of amazing they just kept going for bigger and bigger. I thought the Bismark and Tirpitz was just thier big battleships till I found out they had plans for progressively bigger and bigger ones

[@crasyhorse44]

this is true for every nation leading up to ww2. All had big ship designs that got cancelled.

[@thesage1096]

@@crasyhorse44 not for us. us New jersey was it and they jus built it

[@crasyhorse44]

@@thesage1096 you might want to look up the montana class before resurrecting week old threads....

[@thesage1096]

@@crasyhorse44 the fabled Montana class was an old urban legend spun up to spook the Russians during the cold war.

[@crasyhorse44]

@@thesage1096 that's hillarious and wrong on so many levels. But i'm guessing nothing I could show you would change your fictional beliefs so you keep on being special.

[@akizeta]

Animation note: When the _Ratte_ is moving and firing, the cloud from the guns should be left behind in the air, rather than moving with the landcruiser.

[@ckdigitaltheqof6th210]

When they desinged this monstrous beast tank, they forgot to make every bodly ratio, equal in bulk, instead, same size nuts & bollts, wielding size mounts etc, were *tiny* versus its size. Thus every arm parts of joints was too tender or vulnerable against attack, compare to the hard shell mini tanks.

[@boostbanause]

I like how the name "Ratte" really fits this beast. Ratte means rat in german, with rats usually being larger than mice, so the "Ratte" was the bigger version of the already enormous "Maus" Wow he mentioned this. That´s what I get from not watching the video fully before commenting :I Eh, point still stands

[@minimalbstolerance8113]

Back in the day, when I was obsessed with Warhammer, I tried (and failed) to write a "weird Ww2" wargame of my own. (Sort of like a cross between Wolfenstein and C&C but for tabletop rather than computer.) One of the units I planned to include was a mobile fortress bigger than the Ratte. It would follow the "family lineage" and be called the "Meerschweinchen" (Guinea pig.)

[@nathanfranks1476]

Like Axis and allies? I know there is a tabletop ww2 game already, but the name escapes me. A quick google search would bring it up

[@rayceeya8659]

No bloody way that thing would make 40KPH. Someone was having a pipe dream. Still would have loved seeing an IL-2 turn one of those into scrap iron.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

I don't think one IL-2 would do much. Admittedly it would be nice for them to have a tank they could reliably hit (they where notorious for counting near misses as kills, sometimes an entire squadron would claim the same tank). Ratte would die a death of a thousand cuts, anticlimacticly disabled and abandoned.

[@rayceeya8659]

@@HALLish-jl5mo Just like the Czar Tank.

[@agwhitaker]

Probably German engineers trying hard to avoid eastern-front infantry service by looking really busy.

[@_abk_3251]

A fucking IL-2 ? Seriously? Been playing too much warthunder or watching Soviet era WW2 documentaries?

[@rayceeya8659]

@@_abk_3251 Never played the game but I love Soviet Era documentaries.

[@Wolfen443]

It was a concept more fitting for WWI actually. But the Idea of large Heavy Artillery or more modern in concept Missile launchers on a rolling monster is still interesting to consider with clearly modern realities in mind.

[@Kyntteri]

Breitspurbahn train 6m wide. Ratte 14m wide. You would need two of these trains running side by side in perfect sync to transport it. I think there's a reason for this selected camera angle :D

[@nathanfranks1476]

Who says you would need 100% of it physically on the train. Im sure youve seen the trailers with the “oversized loads” on the freeway, hauling things that are wider than the transport

[@Kyntteri]

Let's for a moment play that less than 50% would be enough to transport it and then crash into the first tunnel along the way.

[@nathanfranks1476]

@@Kyntteri tunnels would definitely pose a threat…BUT if there are routes without tunnels, then we are in business boys 🤗

[@dukeofwar1003]

going from what is shown in the video, the gunnery crew alone would surpass the 20 crew. 12 crew for the secondary battery, 12 crew for the anti-aircraft cannons, at least 3 crew for the hull cannon and probably somewhere between 20 and 35 crew for the main turret... And that is not taking into account drivers, commanders, medics, engineers and possibly mounted infantry.

[@kingshark-ff4xz]

Plus supporting vehicles. Realistically, big as the P.1000 is and with how many AA guns it has, it would not be NEAR enough to fend off the inevitable 10s of planes diving for this stupid piece of metal.

[@jedironin380]

And don't forget the janitor for the toilets! 😆

[@kingshark-ff4xz]

@@jedironin380 Yep lol

[@dtop668]

@jedironin380 Well, now you're just being silly. That's what the enlisted loaders do in their downtime. 😉

[@CrusaderSports250]

@@jedironin380 my thoughts exactly, going into battle with a loo brush!!☺.

[@user-lc3ud6km5x]

Back in 1931, Edward Grotte proposed to the Soviet Union a project for a TG-5 tank weighing more than 1000 tons.

[@landaoarts9120]

This is like the prototype version of the Imperial Guardsmen's Baneblade Tank.

[@CrusaderSports250]

By comparison the Baneblade would be most practical, and we could have squadrons of them that would be awesome!!☺☺.

[@travisreed1730]

I have a feeling, that if the P.1000 "Ratte" ACTUALLY GOT PRODUCED, it would be a EXTREMELY RARE SIGHT. It probably would be used only for observation posts, and defensive positions, and only would have been seen around late in the war, such as The Defense Of Berlin. Maybe it would have been seen at Stalingrad or somewhere in France or possibly at the Siegfried Line.

[@Hygix_]

6:45 "but wait, there's more" is surely a internet historian flashback

[@ruskiwaffle1991]

I have always imagined the Ratte as some form of mobile coastal artillery that is scattered throughout the Atlantic wall

[@crasyhorse44]

they actuall did used old battleship turrets and guns for this, just not mobile.

[@bocahdongo7769]

Or just you know Keep it not mobile. There's no point outrun the ship anyway. On top of the advantage of static battery was you can crank the power of the gun by absurd amount without worrying about structure damage.

[@charfreak]

@@bocahdongo7769 this is incorrect, the advantage of shore batteries is that you had to knock out the gun turret to put them out of commission rather than sinking the ship it’s attached to. There’s a reason the biggest guns are found on battleships not land batteries - when firing from a ship the ocean works as a recoil absorber so the guns won’t tear themselves apart.

[@bocahdongo7769]

@@charfreak the first point is also right. The second point is... not really I think. Water is incompressible. Not cushion at all like air. Meaning if instant shock transfered to water, it will act like a solid matter anyway. It prove with calculation that Iowa will only move 2 cm away when on full broadside Also, still not explaining why some of the coastal battery has supercharger setup in standard compare to naval gun, even if they had arguably "less structural"

[@charfreak]

@@bocahdongo7769 partially correct - most liquids that are completely constrained are assumed to be incompressible, but a ship floating on water can be pushed down into or across the water which resists this movement acting similarly to a damping element. It’s a known factor and any ship building literature will confirm.

[@jfobel2204]

Disproving this video in a single paragraph. The T-34 began design and production from 1937, into 1940. A year before Germany invaded. The KV series tanks also were already present during the initial invasion. Over half of the 2,000 tanks lost in the first summer months, all were killed by 50mm or below caliber tank fire from over heat-treated metal which made them insanely brittle. So no, the design process of new tanks had nothing to do with Soviet design, but rather inventing solutions before a new problem arises. Something NATO did against the Soviet Union the entire Cold War. The Tiger I and Panther projects were under concept design since as early as 1939, and finalized in 1942 and 43 respectively. Nothing to do with invading Russia, again. The Maus was also a heavier breakthrough tank to potentially introduce the E-Series concepts, later in the year of 1943. The P.1000 Ratte was and already has been, noted as nothing more than a Napkin design made by drunk generals over-rated for popularity in lazy wikipedia articles, and over critical youtubers.

[@joshuawilliams2643]

Too true.

[@porkypile]

It would soften up enemies from a huge distance and then have the smaller armor move in and rip up the rest. Enemy air craft would not be able to ignore it but also they could not easily take the tank out, so it would attract attention and suck resources from the enemy, not to mention shake the enemy forces in their pants. Psychology is an important part of warfare.

[@MartinMizner]

P1000 Ratte: "I fear no man, but that thing" *broken tracks, transmission, bridges and muddy terrain* "It scares me." Edit: also planes and hilly terrain

[@finlaymcdiarmid5832]

You would need a crane to fix broken tracks!

[@MartinMizner]

We can extent this list of *"it scares me"* factors as long as we can

[@mechtechpotato4249]

Even construction and moving to the front.

[@PzH-wt7bv]

14000 ton bucket wheel excavator

[@ValentineC137]

The mud would have to be absurdly deep to pose a real threat

[@deanspanos8210]

And today we have the Toyota Landcruiser. Also built like a tank.

[@Hexigonic]

If the blueprints still exist, we NEED to build one, just as a museum

[@peterson7082]

There were never blueprints. It was just a design study.

[@sparsh415]

I`m a Truck driver and drive 32 ton tipper lorries with their weight spread over 4 axles. We have to be careful on country lanes as the road can crumble if you get too close to the edge. I don`t think there would have been many places at all you could operate without this 1000 ton tank going in and if it did get stuck how would you get it out again?? It would burn through fuel like no tomorrow+ you`d be able to hear the noise the engines generated from miles away so no stealth attacks on the Allies. They made the right decision binning this idea.

[@duncanself5111]

German WWII era panzers are so cool from a design point of view, und das ist uber cool!

[@user-rm9kt8pl7j]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWWsknyGgd6clZo

[@SephirothRyu]

Ah, the rite of passage for every channel like this: covering the P-1000 Ratte.

[@locutus155]

"It would be difficult to finance such a project today." Elon Musk are you listening mate?

[@srice8959]

It’s like the Germans decided to let 4th grade boys design their tanks. I really did draw things like this when I was 9 years old!

[@opul6518]

دقیقا من هم قبلا چیزی شبیه این تانگ طراحی کردم ولی با ابعاد خیلی کوچک

[@doggonemess1]

WWII signaled the death of huge war machines. The only survivor was the aircraft carrier, and that was only because it could surround itself with fighters to defend the ship from air attack. This thing would have been taken out by dive bombers during its first deployment. Additionally, battleships regularly suffered damage when firing their main guns too often. I doubt the structure of this monster could withstand repeated firing without coming apart at the seams. Would have been amazing to see, though.

[@startingbark0356]

Bombers are still around

[@doggonemess1]

@@startingbark0356 Sure, but bombers are just large aircraft. Very few are even close to the size of a large passenger plane. It's interesting that you bring them up, though, as they are huge and slow and not up to defending themselves against modern fighters. They mainly still exist because they can be used to deliver huge amounts of ordinance against targets over which air superiority has been achieved. Both sides also have hordes of the things, so why get rid of them? One thing to note is that there are no plans to build huge bomber aircraft going forward.

[@startingbark0356]

@@doggonemess1 B-52 is humongous

[@comicmoniker]

@@startingbark0356 it's big, but it's still smaller than many commercial airliners. Dogonemess is correct that militaries don't really have much use for oversize vehicles like this tank anymore. Size isn't really an advantage.

[@startingbark0356]

@@comicmoniker basically any ship is tho

[@Hamsteak]

Ahh nice, you finally made this video. Damn what a crazy idea with this land cruiser

[@philcooper279]

If the Germans had achieved air superiority, over the battlefield, it would have been a great idea .

[@kl0wnkiller912]

The actual "landkreuzer" concept originated in France in the 1920s but it was impossible due to not enough engine horsepower to make it move and the metals of the time would not have been able to structurally support such a large mobile object.

[@kaptainkibiroproductions45]

The issue with this thing is that if you want it to move faster than a snail stuck in a spot of glue you can't armor it enough to withstand bombing runs and everything else but then if you do make it truly indestructible you'd basically make something so big and heavy you'd see the continental drift happen before that thing moves an inch.

[@doomslayer8884]

Lol por tank got roasted

[@BenedictF79B]

The best ratte ilustration i've ever seen

[@mechtechpotato4249]

A lot of Nazi tanks had the issues of transmission failure. They had good everything except for transmission. This tank would have very quickly fallen pray to ground attack plains. Maybe even strategic bombers. The mouse had the exact same problem. Ground attack aircraft could nock them out with ease.

[@FedorFox]

german tanks not only had bad transmissions, but the engines on later tanks were also absolute garbage. honestly, their guns were the only major advantage (and occasionally their armour)

[@janbaer3241]

The aircraft's guns wouldn't affect the tank, but they could destroy support vehicles. that would make the tanks useless.

[@FedorFox]

@@janbaer3241 uhm you know planes don't only have guns, right?

[@janbaer3241]

@@FedorFox They had a decent chance of hitting a ship, a large factory or a bridge with a dropped bomb.

[@FedorFox]

@@janbaer3241 yes, and the ratte was the size of a ship.

[@Tyln93]

Allies: "It's not about the size, it's about how you use it." Germans: "N E I N"

[@Clonekiller66]

this tank is the military equivalent of using Duct Tape as a band aid.

[@oler777]

Hey there found and explained I just wanted to let you know at 10:14 you forgot to animate the tail views on the bomb while it’s dropping. Really would like to know how are you produce all these animation so fast

[@michaeldy3157]

With no control of the air these would be easy targets , but even with it , it was too heavy .

[@oli24yt]

love that you animated it plowing over a few trees lol, perfect

[@sirpieman300]

as yes, the first-ever recorded blueprint for ancient terrars first prototype baneblade super-heavy tank.

[@adhx7506]

While the P-1000 Ratte has been in early development stages, there has never been such thing as as "P-1500 Monster". Someone pulled that shit out of his ass somewhere in the last 10 years. There are absolutely no sources for this thing to ever exist even in blueprints. And the earlies of someone talking about it on the internet can be found in like 2013. And by the way; the name is straight up ridiculous and makes no sense the regarding the traditional german combat-vehicle naming that lasts till this day. If you give it a surname its always an animal. Tiger, Elefant or nowadays Leopard. Not monster.

[@BusterBuizel]

Featuring many notable species such as the land battleship, the battleship battleship, and the battle bus!

[@BruderSenf]

when somebody tells you that "he wants a ship but on land" its time to go

[@dogelol_]

The P-1000 Ratte wasn't just a tank, It was a MOVING BASE

[@madhumitadatta6400]

Nice video as always 👍 Mass producing this tank would be a great challenge.

[@raylee49]

hey thx for saying nice to him i will sub to you and him now

[@trk1b28varianrhesa4]

and get destroyed by 50 allied bomber

[@cpchehaibar]

I was hoping you'd make this one from long ago. Thank you.

[@Apophis1966]

With some projects in the armaments industry, I have the feeling that the engineers simply wanted to keep their jobs so as not to have to go to the Eastern Front. The rat was completely brain burned, the monster could not be transported at all, let alone cross bridges. Greetings from Germany

[@kiwigaming09]

We need a giant RC version of this monster

[@CrusaderSports250]

In one sixteenth to go alongside other now inferior models😀😀. One sixth to go along with Armourtec and it would have to be driven and need its own low loader , what a model!!.

[@quillmaurer6563]

The whole thought on this being more an offensive rather than defensive weapon - it was clear that until very late in the war the Germans were still thinking offensively rather than defensively, thinking of "wonder weapons" that would be useful on the offense. Similarly the famous Me-262 jet fighter was initially intended as an attack bomber, as part of the Blitzkreig strategy, rather than for air-defense. I even seem to recall that this initial mindset delayed it's use as a defensive fighter, reducing it's overall impact on the war. It seemed the Germans were in denial that they were on the defensive, perhaps thinking they'd be able to turn the tide of the war back in their favor, all the way until the Allies were over-running Berlin. Though this makes sense, they'd have to believe this to continue fighting at all. Accepting that you're on the defensive and will not again be on the offensive means you're losing the war. If you know you're losing, the best thing to do is surrender under the most favorable conditions, or at least while there's still something left of your country. Or perhaps try to hold back the line until the enemy is more exhausted and thus more willing to accept a more favorable truce. In that case they'd want to begin peace talks right away, say "We'll agree to a cease-fire under these circumstances," but Germany never did. Towards the end some high-ranking officials actually tried to do so, but Hitler had them tried for treason. They must have thought until the very end that somehow they could turn the tide of war in their favor. That if they kept fighting long enough, the Allies would run low on resources (including men) and Germany would be on the offensive again, and these offensive super-weapons would be useful. At first that may have seemed plausible, but this degraded into delusion as Germany's infrastructure, industry, land, soldiers, and so on were bombed into nothing. Towards the end was a mix of optimism - stuff like this - and desperation, such as the Leonidas Squadron of suicide attack (Kamikaze) pilots, and "Volksjager" point-defense fighter aircraft intended to be flown by children. The Japanese were similar. I think they were somewhat more acknowledging that they were on the defensive, but they too were planning to fight to the bitter end. Not out of hope of turning the war back in their favor, but a cultural mindset that they'd rather have every man, woman, and child fight to the death, with a sharpened stick if necessary, to take as many Allied soldiers down with them as possible in their demise, rather than surrender. A couple nukes changed their mind on that, they realized the Americans could obliterate them with hardly any losses, so they decided to surrender while there were still a few of them left. The Italians I'm not as knowledgeable about, but I get the sense they were more willing to surrender, to have something left of their country at the end. Though I also get the sense the Italian people were less on board with the whole Axis thing than the Germans and Japanese were.

[@frankiepentangeli7100]

and then there were the french...

[@bkjeong4302]

The Me-262 was initially designed as a fighter; the bomber variant was put into production only afterwards. Furthermore, the Me-262 actually entered production as a dedicated fighter quite quickly after it was designed-arguably TOO quickly, before its issues were fully ironed out.

[@AttackHelicopter987]

​@@frankiepentangeli7100 that fought valiantly but the officers and politicians fucked the army

[@admiral_alman8671]

Hans, get ze Schlachtschiffkanonen

[@TheKurtsPlaceChannel]

Very entertaining and fun to watch. Thanks for posting this.

[@IndraKurniawan-vk2qb]

Yess More Tank history! Love this series!

[@Dumb-Comment]

It can literally drive on rivers not cross them Not to mention that the AA gun can be mounted on the turrets themselves if needed.

[@baraxor]

With fire control limited to eyeballs, a few AA guns aren't going to make much difference. Putting more AA guns on U-Boats and ordering their commanders to fight on the surface instead of diving only resulted in more losses of U-Boats, not Allied aircraft.

[@TinyBearTim]

Imagine having to explain to Stalin that there is a naval cannon on wheels shelling Moscow

[@matsv201]

I have made a bit of digging onto this "tank"..... It actually make a lot more sense than one might believe. 1: Its not a tank, its a mobile artillery piece. 2: its not a battleship tower, but rather a heavy cruiser tower. 3: The claim that the tower alone would weight 1000 ton is incorrect. Its based on a 3 barrel design. 4: The claim of the front Armour is based on the heavy cruiser class, there is nothing to suggest it would be fully armored, most likely it would not be. 5: For the original drawing i can find the pice was parted up in 9 equally sized bits that would have been 3.2 meter wide and 9 meter long when dismounted. The diesel electric generator would be places in two of those units, and the traction motor in a other. While it sounds like a lot, a single train would be able to transport it. This would compare to say Gustav gun that needed several trains to transport. Compare this to the single barrel 60cm - 600 ton artillery, that Germany did make 6 of, the Rate would actually be a significant improvement. The Ratte would both be much faster to move, and better defended against air-attack then the previews large artillery. Range would also be considerably larger, and targeting considerably better. Assemble and dissemble it would just take a day. And it could go constantly moving, avoiding counter artillery. With 200m2 the average ground pressure would be only 5ton/m2, compare to 8.6ton/m2 for Tiger tank, it had actually lower ground pressure So there is a lot of statments that is just plain wrong

[@iamthem.a.n.middleagednerd1053]

I would say that if you were going to use something like that as artillery to support your Frontline operations far away from the action, then that's perhaps not a bad idea. A large piece of powerful, mobile artillery that is accurate, Powerful and hard to kill from the back lines would be a nice weapon to have, especially against advancing Ruskies.

[@danarabi9038]

Hitler: Will Germany make the P-1000 in the future time traveler: no Hitler: ☹️ time traveler: But Germany made the biggest land vehicle ever Hitler: German technology is the best in the world

[@chadpinas1373]

how about making a huge circle of heavy tanks,medium tanks,and light tank,and the inside of the circle consists of like large amounts of anti aircraft tanks and in the middle is the p-1000 ratte

[@SuLokify]

I have often wondered if such enormous tanks would benefit from walking with very basic legs rather than tracks. With tracks, a single small thing fails and the entire half of the tank is just basically immobile. Legs could get blow off or bent and the tank would still be able to move (think like dozens of stubby little legs on each side, all covered by a thick armored skirt). Probably easier and simpler to replace, it's just a basic chunk of metal for the bottom part, might even be able to use a log or something in a pinch.

[@SuLokify]

And yes, legs would be much much slower, but I think a building-sized armored vehicle would be quite slow anyways

[@Zhonguoria]

Totally INSANE and waste of resources! The V2 rocket should have demonstrated to the Germans that Ratte was already obsolete before it was built.

[@rayceeya8659]

Can't drive on roads without destroying them. Can't cross any bridge. Would have sank into the Russian mud at the first sign of rain. Someone was doing a lot of Pervitin when they dreamed this thing up.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

2 meter ground clearance, and I don't think the ground pressure was too high. I think it could cope with mud. That mud freezing overnight however would be an issue. And anyone trying to follow in its literal tracks would enjoy the mud I'm sure...

[@startingbark0356]

I dont think a tank that large does even need a bridge, it could just cross the river like it was a puddle of water

[@rayceeya8659]

@@startingbark0356 That was the idea I guess but imagine taking that thing through the soft sand of a river. I can't imagine it going well.

[@supermaster2012]

Mud under such pressures compacts and forms a concrete-like substance.

[@startingbark0356]

@@rayceeya8659 depends

[@okaycook1307]

Bro you cannot tell me investing in fine art is more important than big tanks

[@Dcook85]

Yes. Let's build this during a dire steel shortage.

[@adamfreeman1219]

I'd have loved to see a finished version just to laugh at the mpg figures 😄. Regular ww2 tanks chewed through fuel like an alcoholic through jack d. What this would've gone through would've been comical.

[@kakakiri2601]

kruger: this tank is too big, is expensive and can be defeated easily hans: why not me make it bigger kruger: hans youre genius

[@uwuowo4856]

Very funny

[@homefront1999]

I like the depiction of the Ratte here. As a lot of the depictions I've seen like to exaggerate how big this truly would've been. Often times it shows the Ratte being in the clouds it seems. CAS could've been a big issue. But I've seen a lot of people also claim it would be easy pickings for High-Altitude-Bombers/Strategic-Bombers. When we've had big and obvious targets that can't even move. But often times are never hit. If something like this were to exist. Then they would need a more thorough AA system. Such as on the Turret. Leaves a giant blind spot that the Whirblewind turrets couldn't reach or target. Something like the Maus turret I feel would've been unneeded. What with the height of the vehicle you would want a better gun-depression. So we'd probably have an elevated turret or a modified already existing turret meant for greater degree's of gun depression. There's also the fact that they wouldn't be able to shoot unless they are getting flanked or the Ratte decides to show it's side. Firing down on a target would most likely negate a lot of the angled armor of the Soviets and the US. I honestly think 88mm would be better to have. Then the next big issue is that there are only 3-guns facing the front. 2 of them are in a turret. One of them is hull-locked. I can't imagine firing giant BB shells at one T-34 would be worth it. Maybe if your wanting to decommission a group of tanks by firing HE at them. When facing a horde of Russian tanks. I feel 3 slow firing guns won't be enough. Not even mentioning the turret aim speed.

[@richardkidd21]

I'd love a video detailing the interior.

[@douglasthompson2740]

Keeping this in context really shows how the Nazis had no reality in their prioritization because at this same time they were heavily dependent upon horse drawn vehicles for supplying their military. I have read that as much as forty percent of their transport were horse drawn. Instead of hugely expensive one of a kind experiments they should have been building trucks and pragmatic capabilities for moving men and supplies such as even more railroads and moving stock.

[@isoSw1fty]

I think they were trying to win a psychological war with these crazy machines. Build huge to crush enemies spirits so they don't have to put up their manpower....as much.

[@anon-iraq2655]

Horses were better than trucks in their situation, remember germany had a feul shortage all through the war

[@briancolwill3071]

Glad they didn't, though..

[@cr0sad3r70]

Land battleship, literally

[@leandroingrassia]

0:37 The Breitspurbahn locomotive carrying the Ratte is a pretty cool sight.

[@klortikterra4423]

The Ratte in concept is brilliant. but due to the time it was approved and started, we never saw them.

[@comic_the_ace]

it was not brilliant it was a stupid design that would never have worked, albert speer knew this and cancelled the project only after a couple months. if this tank ever actually got built it would be a prime target for planes and artillery.

[@CRITICALHITRU]

"The Ratte in concept is brilliant" And God exists, yes.

[@masondegaulle5731]

Personally I think 40km/h is _fast_ for a 1000t landcruiser tank, considering the IS-2 and M26 Pershing could only do about 40km/h, and the Tiger and Tiger II could only really do about 20km/h unless it's paved road. ...still a spectacularly bad idea, though.

[@vgames1543]

Well, it would still have been very useful as an instrument of intimidation and psychological warfare. Take the american B-52 bomber for example, it is still in use after over 80 years despite being useless nowadays thanks to Anti-Air missiles etc. Because it is such a powerful symbol of the Cold War and nuclear annihilation.

[@crasyhorse44]

The AGM-86 would like a word with you....

[@bocahdongo7769]

It is more like Tirpitz rather than B-52. Yes, it's nice physiological warfare only by Its presence Until several bombers with 5 tons of payload came around. And they helplessly couldn't do anything to stop them, twice. Edit : grammar

[@JohnFrumFromAmerica]

The B52 is not useless it can work as a missile truck dropping cruise missiles. So can take on modern military's

[@V1_V2_V3]

Some peoples: Maus is a bunker in movement! Peoples who know p-1000: are you sure about that?

[@CloudColumncat]

The steel casting method currently used in giant ship guns remains a legendary technology that has been almost forgotten in modern times.Because After World War II, there was no need to use the big guns of super-large battleships.

[@drakeredwingofficial]

I wrote a whole goddamn essay about this thing. Best tank ever.

[@rainerwagner8528]

In my opinion the MAUS was like the FERDINANT a deadborn child! Not enough armament against attacking tank hunters! I heard from someone, who was thrown out a FERDINANT that was hit and exploded by ignition of the ammo! He was the only one because he was thrown out of the commanders place and seiously injured. Likely the MAUS and the LANDCRUISER were helpless against personnel attacks with fire causing small ordnance about the dead ankles in their direct near! They had to be flanked by security troops against enemy personnel and tanks as shown in your film at 4´36"! A further good question is: How is it supported with fuel and ammo? 28cm cartridges are not to be carried on your keychain! However the 28cm fastloading cannon was very successful where and against what should this monster go into battle? Too big, too heavy and a grave of resources which were never available at that time in WW2 !

[@shufflecat3334]

It is amazing to look back at these wild ideas that people actually think were good and to think about what ideas we will look back on today and say "Wow, people actually thought they'd make a human colony on Mars when there was perfectly good robot technology to do anything you'd want on another planet?"

[@westbounder1013]

Ah! It’s good to see our old friend Breitspurbahn again in 0:38! What a delight!

[@matsuhikotakagawa8060]

Honestly, if I had the funds... I really want to build it myself based from the exact blueprint.

[@SWISS-1337]

If this had been done, could have very well changed the result... Imagine 2000 of them... Also surprised its not called "The Flea" like the "Maus".

[@smokayman]

Kinda interesting to watch the internet continually rediscover things like this and make never ending videos about them like it was just discovered yesterday.

[@SirenHeadInWinter]

the reason they cancelled this was because it was too big of a target for bomber planes like the P51 or B17

[@Ikller-xh7qq]

Respect, that you actually also mentioned the Monster^^