Quoted Text
(e.g. the Ratte approaching Moscow)
The more I see this project, the more I am reminded of the "Traction Cities" in the Mortal Engines books...
Armor/AFV: What If?
For those who like to build hypothetical or alternate history versions of armor/AFVs.
For those who like to build hypothetical or alternate history versions of armor/AFVs.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Landkreuzer P-1000 Ratte
barkingdigger
Associate Editor
#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - 02:44 PM UTC
The more I see this project, the more I am reminded of the "Traction Cities" in the Mortal Engines books...
Bonaparte84
Joined: July 17, 2013
KitMaker: 338 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - 03:00 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I think the camo pattern is decided, at least for the front, back, and sides. Nicolas, I hope you won't mind if I use your scheme or a variation of it (your first version)?
Mike
Go ahead, I would be pleased to see some of my "ideas" translated into something physical. Also answered your PM
Bonaparte84
Joined: July 17, 2013
KitMaker: 338 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - 03:42 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Nicolas,
I may be coming it a bit high, but I'm thinking air "supremacy", the German jets put the Wehrmacht on a footing equivalent to Coalition forces in Operation Desert Storm. Otherwise, you've got essentially the Tirpitz on tracks and 617 Squadron had experience of mounting Tallboy attacks from staging bases in the Soviet Union. So for me, the odd PO-2 is all that can get about.
Mike,
didn't think about the Tallboys... Ouch that could hurt.
ANyway, I don't think there is such a thing as air supremacy against swarms of planes on a suicide mission in a last ditch defence. We also should keep in mind that the Ratte wouldn't be able to retract from the frontline swiftly for the night, given its low speed. Therefore, there's a chance that once it's appeared on the front line and remains in the area of operation, the enemy will always have at least a rough estimate of where it is. This applies even more since the Ratte will likely be accompanied by a rather massive support group. Keeping up an air screen capable of avoiding swarm attacks around the clock seems rather difficult.
Finally, with the kind of air supremacy you have in mind, why bother fielding the Ratte in the first place? Then again, whether something really makes sense doesn't seem like a question sensible parts of the German command of the time would be asking themselves.
I don't mean to be harsh with my comments, I'm just enjoying all these what-if questions...
gomomma
Joined: April 15, 2015
KitMaker: 3 posts
Armorama: 3 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 - 05:53 AM UTC
First off let me say... Wow! I created an account on this site just to follow this build!
I also just wanted to point out that if by this "what if" time Hitler had still not invaded Britain then it could have been used as a launching platform for constant air reinforcements from the U.S.
Just some food for the fire that is this awesome topic!
Cross
P.S. yes that is my name.
I also just wanted to point out that if by this "what if" time Hitler had still not invaded Britain then it could have been used as a launching platform for constant air reinforcements from the U.S.
Just some food for the fire that is this awesome topic!
Cross
P.S. yes that is my name.
kapoybana
Joined: February 11, 2013
KitMaker: 53 posts
Armorama: 49 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 - 07:25 AM UTC
Maybe there was a flak landkreuzer also in the works to keep the jabos at bay 
I still think it should look like a french village from above 
I still think it should look like a french village from above 
SGTJKJ
#041
Joined: July 20, 2006
KitMaker: 10,069 posts
Armorama: 4,677 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 16, 2015 - 05:14 PM UTC
Quoted Text
ANyway, I don't think there is such a thing as air supremacy against swarms of planes on a suicide mission in a last ditch defence.
The Americans tried that against the Japanese Kamikaze and after some problems actually got a very good defense working.
None the less, absolute air superiority is a must for the Maus to survive.
Bonaparte84
Joined: July 17, 2013
KitMaker: 338 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 16, 2015 - 06:29 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextANyway, I don't think there is such a thing as air supremacy against swarms of planes on a suicide mission in a last ditch defence.
The Americans tried that against the Japanese Kamikaze and after some problems actually got a very good defense working.
None the less, absolute air superiority is a must for the Maus to survive.
Sorry, I was being unclear. I didn't mean suicide as in kamikaze attacks with planes hitting the target. Instead I meant conventional air attacks with a very small chance of survival, hence "suicide mission". And all of that I mentioned only for the purpose of not ruling out camouflage against air planes entirely.
Looking at the enormous ammount of resources that would need to go into that project, I don't the think the Germans would take any chances with the - even remote - possibility of enemy attack planes getting through the protection screen and destroying the Ratte just because its upper parts were painted red or something.
I like the idea of the Flakratte, though
. 
Darkonar
Joined: November 19, 2014
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 49 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015 - 01:09 AM UTC
Heyo Mike!
As I binge-read pretty much this whole thread yesterday, I noticed an issue that doesn't seem to be adressed, and that is the bulk of the main turret blocks part of the Kugelblitz's firing arc, thus creating a pretty big blind spot in the front of the Beast with no AA cover. Have you considered putting a couple Quad Flak 38's on top of the main turret?
Regardless of this, I look forward to the day when we can all finally bask in the glory of the mighty Ratte once it's completed.
Also, a friend whom I showed this thread to suggested you paint flame accents over the tracks.
Cheers!
As I binge-read pretty much this whole thread yesterday, I noticed an issue that doesn't seem to be adressed, and that is the bulk of the main turret blocks part of the Kugelblitz's firing arc, thus creating a pretty big blind spot in the front of the Beast with no AA cover. Have you considered putting a couple Quad Flak 38's on top of the main turret?
Regardless of this, I look forward to the day when we can all finally bask in the glory of the mighty Ratte once it's completed.
Also, a friend whom I showed this thread to suggested you paint flame accents over the tracks.
Cheers!
TacFireGuru
Joined: December 25, 2004
KitMaker: 3,770 posts
Armorama: 2,263 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015 - 03:25 AM UTC
Nicolás,
I've considered the issue of the blind spot. I don't have a solution for that yet for a couple of reasons.
I'd like to have a hatch on the roof surrounded by a rail (kind of like a U-Boat conning tower without the solid sides). Up there I plan to have a Naval officer and Army/Armored officer...the head Brot's-in-Charge. I'm also considering some form of radar or sighting system for the big guns.
I LOVE quad flaks. A lot. But all the other weapons systems are armored and I think the quad would look "odd" there, even if I used a Wirbelwind turret I have. I'm not sure that another Kugelblitz would work either; considering that half of it sits below the surface.
Mike
I've considered the issue of the blind spot. I don't have a solution for that yet for a couple of reasons.
I'd like to have a hatch on the roof surrounded by a rail (kind of like a U-Boat conning tower without the solid sides). Up there I plan to have a Naval officer and Army/Armored officer...the head Brot's-in-Charge. I'm also considering some form of radar or sighting system for the big guns.
I LOVE quad flaks. A lot. But all the other weapons systems are armored and I think the quad would look "odd" there, even if I used a Wirbelwind turret I have. I'm not sure that another Kugelblitz would work either; considering that half of it sits below the surface.
Mike
MikeyBugs95
Joined: May 27, 2013
KitMaker: 2,210 posts
Armorama: 1,712 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015 - 08:09 AM UTC
Frankly I think a quad flak would look good. Take the Yamato and Mushasi for example. They had 2 triple 25mm AAA mounts on the #2 and 3 turrets. Since your basically putting a battleship turret on your tank, I think it would be reasonable to have AAA mounts on the top of the turret. You could have 2 open top quads near the rear or the midline. Heck, if you want, have 5 or more arranged in a trapezoidal or octagonal pattern a couple of inches from the border of the turret.
TacFireGuru
Joined: December 25, 2004
KitMaker: 3,770 posts
Armorama: 2,263 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015 - 08:46 AM UTC
Quoted Text
You could have 2 open top quads near the rear or the midline. Heck, if you want, have 5 or more arranged in a trapezoidal or octagonal pattern a couple of inches from the border of the turret.
Mike, there isn't that much room on the roof of the turret. I'll put a pic up tomorrow with the Wirby turret shell.
Mike
MikeyBugs95
Joined: May 27, 2013
KitMaker: 2,210 posts
Armorama: 1,712 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015 - 08:52 AM UTC
Well then put 2 quad mounts. Or even 1. But not having a good spread of AAA fire can mean almost certain death for something this big.
barkingdigger
Associate Editor#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015 - 03:34 PM UTC
Given that quad 20mm Flak guns are short-range weapons, they only really defend against strafing ground-attack planes - wouldn't there be support vehicles for this?
I'd go with a squadron of Wirbelwinds and some Flak 88s as the "convoy escort", and use the turret roof for radar, comms, and observation instead. (I quite like that hatch/railing idea!)
Then again, it would be interesting to see what 28cm "canister" rounds would do to attacking airplanes at distances of say 2-3 miles?
I'd go with a squadron of Wirbelwinds and some Flak 88s as the "convoy escort", and use the turret roof for radar, comms, and observation instead. (I quite like that hatch/railing idea!)
Then again, it would be interesting to see what 28cm "canister" rounds would do to attacking airplanes at distances of say 2-3 miles?
TacFireGuru
Joined: December 25, 2004
KitMaker: 3,770 posts
Armorama: 2,263 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015 - 09:31 PM UTC
Space for one Wirby turret:
Like Tom mentioned and has been discussed before a bit, the Ratte wouldn't be out on the Steppes by itself; it'd have a whole train of support vehicles. I'm pretty sure that the High Command would consider this to be too precious a resource not to have a lot of additional anti-aircraft and anti-armor assets.
Still going with the "birds nest" idea on the turret roof (that'll allow me to add some "different" figures to this).
Mike
Edit: The only other option I can see would be to add a Wirbelwind turret to each of the (not sure what they're called) "wings" that jut out from the sloped sides of the turret. Not sure they'd fit width wise, but a consideration. -M
Like Tom mentioned and has been discussed before a bit, the Ratte wouldn't be out on the Steppes by itself; it'd have a whole train of support vehicles. I'm pretty sure that the High Command would consider this to be too precious a resource not to have a lot of additional anti-aircraft and anti-armor assets.
Still going with the "birds nest" idea on the turret roof (that'll allow me to add some "different" figures to this).
Mike
Edit: The only other option I can see would be to add a Wirbelwind turret to each of the (not sure what they're called) "wings" that jut out from the sloped sides of the turret. Not sure they'd fit width wise, but a consideration. -M
TacFireGuru
Joined: December 25, 2004
KitMaker: 3,770 posts
Armorama: 2,263 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015 - 09:38 PM UTC
Needed bench space to work on some little bits and odds:
Pulled some parts from the Tamiya Wirbelwind and Pz. IV kit. Driver's vision front and side ports, lights, et cetera. Needed space to work on those.
Not to mention my Campaign entry.
Mike
Pulled some parts from the Tamiya Wirbelwind and Pz. IV kit. Driver's vision front and side ports, lights, et cetera. Needed space to work on those.
Not to mention my Campaign entry. Mike
mikeo
Joined: April 12, 2006
KitMaker: 325 posts
Armorama: 323 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015 - 10:06 PM UTC
What about kubel turrets at the front corners of the hull? Is there room?
barkingdigger
Associate Editor#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015 - 10:17 PM UTC
Hi Mike,
Have you seen these pics? Your Ratte would have lots of space where the middle gun was removed, if you want a ladder to a roof hatch! Heck, you could get away with a proper stairway...
Looking at your mock-up with WW turret, it becomes very apparent that more than one AA turret is a problem - they'd get in each other's way. Far better to use the space for observation and the odd game of Ping-Pong!
By the way, those "wings" are the armoured covers for the stereoscopic range-finder. Even with radar and centralised fire control, battleship turrets still needed the capability to fight unaided in case of emergencies. The Norway installation has them removed and the resulting holes in the turret slopes plated over with an excessive amount of bolt heads that looks almost Steam-Punk. I assume it relied entirely on a separate FC centre, like traditional artillery.
Have you seen these pics? Your Ratte would have lots of space where the middle gun was removed, if you want a ladder to a roof hatch! Heck, you could get away with a proper stairway...
Looking at your mock-up with WW turret, it becomes very apparent that more than one AA turret is a problem - they'd get in each other's way. Far better to use the space for observation and the odd game of Ping-Pong!
By the way, those "wings" are the armoured covers for the stereoscopic range-finder. Even with radar and centralised fire control, battleship turrets still needed the capability to fight unaided in case of emergencies. The Norway installation has them removed and the resulting holes in the turret slopes plated over with an excessive amount of bolt heads that looks almost Steam-Punk. I assume it relied entirely on a separate FC centre, like traditional artillery.
salt6
Joined: February 17, 2002
KitMaker: 796 posts
Armorama: 574 posts
Posted: Monday, April 20, 2015 - 08:46 AM UTC
I think this is a very import picture. Give's you an idea of the spaces required for the turret. You'll probably be able to repurpose the space gained by the removal of the center gun to reduce the height of the turret levels.
gomomma
Joined: April 15, 2015
KitMaker: 3 posts
Armorama: 3 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 23, 2015 - 02:42 AM UTC
Hey what about doing a Battleship esc AA open circle on the sides (forgot what they are called. are those the "wings"?)And instead of a quad maybe a more ship like heavier gun with only one barrel.
Anyway just something to think about!
Cross
Anyway just something to think about!
Cross
iowabrit
Joined: November 06, 2007
KitMaker: 585 posts
Armorama: 557 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 23, 2015 - 03:21 AM UTC
Or one of the new Takom 12.8 flak zwillings on the roof....overkill?
corsair924
Joined: August 11, 2008
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 322 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 23, 2015 - 05:11 AM UTC
Great job Mike, half way finished.
AS for the AAA.
Murphy's law dictates that if you pierce that armored roof with the turret basket for that AA turret THAT will be the only spot the bombs land on.
I suggest that you place two mounts, on back corners of the turret, build up support under them to level them out.
You might also consider enclosing them. The AAA battery on the Yamato needed to be to protect the crews from the blast of the main guns.
As for two units interfering with each other, I seem to remember most battleships would instal either blocks on the mounts to stop rotation or pipes to deflect the barrels to keep from shooting other parts of the ship
AS for the AAA.
Murphy's law dictates that if you pierce that armored roof with the turret basket for that AA turret THAT will be the only spot the bombs land on.
I suggest that you place two mounts, on back corners of the turret, build up support under them to level them out.
You might also consider enclosing them. The AAA battery on the Yamato needed to be to protect the crews from the blast of the main guns.
As for two units interfering with each other, I seem to remember most battleships would instal either blocks on the mounts to stop rotation or pipes to deflect the barrels to keep from shooting other parts of the ship
TacFireGuru
Joined: December 25, 2004
KitMaker: 3,770 posts
Armorama: 2,263 posts
Posted: Friday, April 24, 2015 - 07:43 PM UTC
Small bit of "detail" work on the front end.
Added two driver vision ports to the front and a small one on the sides. Also added "bullet traps" below the two TC hatch locations and installed the mount for the front gun.
Mike
Added two driver vision ports to the front and a small one on the sides. Also added "bullet traps" below the two TC hatch locations and installed the mount for the front gun.
Mike
TacFireGuru
Joined: December 25, 2004
KitMaker: 3,770 posts
Armorama: 2,263 posts
Posted: Friday, April 24, 2015 - 08:03 PM UTC
Tom and Steve; nice pics. Steve, that one of the turret "basket" is amazing...I figure that things inside would be shifted left and right and back in lieu of vertical.
Thanks Tom for the "stereoscopic range-finder" info. I was thinking of covering them over like the one used as a land-based system. However, being as this is mobile, I'll probably need to add them. The one in Norway has a ground-based unit so didn't need them in the turret.
The option of adding support work and mount for the AA at the rear sides is viable. Considering the probable need to add the "stereoscopic range-finder" wings that may create a problem. Another option [mounted to the turret roof] (discussion purposes only):
Pretty sure these are for AA use, but....why not?
Mike
Thanks Tom for the "stereoscopic range-finder" info. I was thinking of covering them over like the one used as a land-based system. However, being as this is mobile, I'll probably need to add them. The one in Norway has a ground-based unit so didn't need them in the turret.
The option of adding support work and mount for the AA at the rear sides is viable. Considering the probable need to add the "stereoscopic range-finder" wings that may create a problem. Another option [mounted to the turret roof] (discussion purposes only):
Pretty sure these are for AA use, but....why not?
Mike
salt6
Joined: February 17, 2002
KitMaker: 796 posts
Armorama: 574 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 25, 2015 - 03:37 AM UTC
Mike,
I think you could go either way. Built in to the turret or a separate gun control center. On the ships this gave each turret the ability to engage separate targets. Since you only have one turret a control center would not be needed. But it never hurts to have a backup system and it could scan for other targets.
I think you could go either way. Built in to the turret or a separate gun control center. On the ships this gave each turret the ability to engage separate targets. Since you only have one turret a control center would not be needed. But it never hurts to have a backup system and it could scan for other targets.
barkingdigger
Associate Editor#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 25, 2015 - 04:25 PM UTC
Hi mIke,
Those tiny driver's visors made me laugh! I know they need 'em, but they are absolutely lost on that big façade.
I was wondering if something this big might have radar for AA use? Not sure exactly where the Germans got to with their radar development, but if anything deserved the expense, the Ratte certainly did. Not sure where you'd mount it though - the main turret roof seems a bit exposed to me...
Those tiny driver's visors made me laugh! I know they need 'em, but they are absolutely lost on that big façade.
I was wondering if something this big might have radar for AA use? Not sure exactly where the Germans got to with their radar development, but if anything deserved the expense, the Ratte certainly did. Not sure where you'd mount it though - the main turret roof seems a bit exposed to me...
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.