Talk:Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.


It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] My Tank is Fight

In his book, "My Tank is Fight", Zack Parsons has devoted an entire chapter on this über-tank. Hugo Dufort 06:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turret completed?

In most of the more reliable sources I've read, the turret was NOT built, and nothing ever came of the project. The turret in Norway actually was the Gneisnau turret, and the P-1000 had nothing to do with it. I'd like the author of this entry to cite any reputable sources on the validity of the claim that the turret was, indeed, completed and sent to Norway.

  • No, no turret was built, but it was the Gneisnau-turret that was intended to be used in this tank. However, when no tank was build, the turret ended up in Norway instead.
    • I wonder if anyone could provide a picture of this mythical turret. Until one appears, I remain skeptical. --Agamemnon2 11:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turret story debunked

Actually, two Gneisenau turrets were installed in naval forts in Norway. B turret was installed in Fjell Fort in Sotra near Bergen, while C turret is in Austrått Fort in Ørlandet which I visited two weeks ago (the A turret was dismantled and its guns placed in Hoek van Holland near Rotterdam). These are original triple 28cm turrets that were removed from the Gneisenau in spring 1942 after it was partially wrecked by bombers in Kiel on 26th and 27th February. While there was plans to upgrade the class to dual 380 mm turrets, this never materialized. Clearly then the statement "its primary weapons would have been two 280 mm guns mounted in the same type of gun turret used in Gneisenau class warships" is in error.

Now, if someone possibly build a dual turret using the same guns as in Gneisenau I don't know. However, if someone decided to ship this to Norway we would surely have heard of it. The installation of B turret needed the slave labour of 1600 eastern European prisoners of war, while C turret required 3-400 Serb POWs, ferries from the Danish Railroads, a specially constructed harbour and over a year of frantic activity which affected the local population in several ways (like getting their windows blown in during test firings). Had a third turret been installed somewhere we would have found it by now. Geira

And how do we know the one of the triples wasn't earmarked to be the prototype P1000 turret, exactly? Since the guns from the Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were supposed to have been replaced around the time the P1000 project would have started, what stops the Oerlander turret being *both* the P1000 turret and a Gniesenau turret? Boris Dime 06:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My tank is fight image

The book includes a concept drawing for what it'd look like: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Havermayer (talk • contribs) 05:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

  • The article on the P-1000 has already been deleted twice, at least. Repeated AFDs have been unable to find scholarly data on its existence. I trust this Mr Parsons has some actual data to back up the existence of the "Ratte" project. --Agamemnon2 20:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parsons, hoax, and deletion

I've reverted the incorrect claim that this is a hoax originated by Parsons. It may still be a hoax, but if so, it's a much older one.

1. I contributed the initial revision of this article in August 2004. I can't tell the exact date now because the article failed AFD in June 2006 and was deleted (along with its revision history) before being recreated in August 2006 after Parsons book was released. (This recreated version remains substantially similar to my original text, which is perfectly fine, but the record of the original contributors has been lost, which is mildly irritating as well as technically a GFDL violation.)

2. I created the article by following a red link on the Panzer_VIII_Maus page, using as source material the page on actungpanzer.com and the page on panzerschreck.de. I don't remember finding any other sources on Google at that time. Neither of those pages appear to have anything to do with Parsons.

3. In June 2006 the article was nominated for deletion by User:TomTheHand for failing WP:V. TomTheHand stated that he knew about the tank from internet tank forums for years, but when trying to track down a proper source found just how sketchy the available info was. The nominator did a remarkable amount of work before and during the AFD to save the article, including two trips to a university library. During the AFD Parsons then-upcoming book was mentioned only briefly as it seemed to be derived from the existing material and was not an acceptable source in any case. There was a rumour of a German language source but nobody was able to track down a copy. The achtungpanzer webmaster, George Parada, turned out to be a fairly reputable amateur historian and the author of at least one published picture book of "crazy stuff the Nazis nearly built", but did not reply to the nominators email asking about his source for the Ratte material. In spite of my initial bias toward saving the article, I was forced to agree with TomTheHand that the article did not meet the WP:V standard and voted for deletion.

4. The article was deleted, but was later (almost immediately) recreated by someone else. This was almost certainly an innocent mistake since all the above useful information, history, and consensus was buried when the article was deleted (although I see the AFD disussion is still available, if you know exactly where to look, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P-1000). This has caused me to rethink the wisdom of the slash-and-burn salt-the-earth deletion policy, especially as it pertains to articles that will inevitably be recreated. Prominently tagging the article as questionable may have worked out better in the long run. (Protecting it from recreation may have worked as well, at the cost of evoking confusion and outrage in users blocked from recreating it but without being told why.)

--Saucepan 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I recreated it once, bona fide, and when it was deleted, I requested a protection from recreation in a related AFD (for the "Monster") but nobody bothered to listen. Until someone digs up a verifiable source, it is my opinion this thing should be kicked out. --Agamemnon2 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think Achtungpanzer.com is the original source of this hoax. Perhaps it was even created as a Nihilartikel. --Agamemnon2 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm more a wiki-reader rather than wiki-editor, but this has caught my interest. A quick google doesn't find any results (in English) that don't simply refer back to this page. It does appear that this tank is an uban legend more than a reality (how we have such precise technical data on a myth is beyond me). If this counts as an urban legend, would it not be better to keep the page, rather than deleting it which will just spawn remakes of it, but make it clear that the tank is a myth? (if indeed it can be proven [if such a thing is possible] that it's just a myth). 81.157.152.11 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The technical data is rather dubious. For example, ground pressure would be somewhere in the range of 2500-2800 PSI. A quick calculation with the data on the Maus (188 tons) leads me to believe this to be complete gobbledegook (the Maus could only inflict that much pressure if its total ground contact area were approx. 165 square inches). Mind you, these are all very broad, highly inaccurate calculations. --Agamemnon2 13:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, actually, 3.6m width x 35m length x 2 sets of treads gives a ground contact area of 252 square metres. With a weight of 1 kton, this gives a total ground pressure of roughly 4 tons per square metre, which converts to about 6PSI. Which is half to a third that of modern MBTs. Boris Dime 06:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick link for future reference: Marasmusine 11:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly a worthy reference since there is question raised about its cromulence. For all we know, the Achtungpanzer guys set up us the hoax. --Agamemnon2 16:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I didn't add it to the article. But having said that I've just noticed it's already on there. By the way... nice word... "cromulence" Marasmusine 16:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is hoax, then it goes back at least some 30-40 years. A Commando war comic published in the UK in the late 60s/early 70s had a story about a super artillery tank in the Western Desert that matches the description here of the P-1000. I have been searching for this issue but so far unnsuccessfully but it would serve a a source of an imagineering of what the P-1000 could have looked like.SJPONeill 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A P1000 also appears at the beginning of the stage 'Rommel' from the 1997 game Strikers 1945 II. Boris Dime 06:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some specs seem to support hoax

This vehicle has an estimated road speed of 40 kph. Where is there a road big enough to handle it? I'm also curious to know how they planned on deploying it overseas, it's not like it'll fit on any of the ships then in use. The Nazis would have also needed to design a ship like one of the Mighty Servants to move it anywhere.

Then comes the question, how and where was this beast supposed to be serviced? Ships have dry docks, tanks use big garages, and a tank this huge will sooner or later need it's engines replaced. Anynobody 02:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of Nazi Germany's plans were equally or even more far-fetched, and extremely optimistic specifications are a common occurrance in many of their experimental designs. And who says they intended to deploy it overseas anyway? Who says it has to be a practical idea to be a real one, for that matter? Boris Dime 06:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It still does nothing to the credibility of this thing that we still have no sources for it predating the past few years, and yet the article makes a bold assertion that yes, this was a genuine project, challenging one's reason and spitting in the face of due scholarly diligence. In a word, this article is an insult to Wikipedia. --Agamemnon2 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the keyword with Wikipedia is verfiability, not truth. The fact that many people believe this tank did indeed exist and it has been included in published works in multiple mediums (books, a videogame) makes it noteworthy. And numerous other 'paper panzers' have similiarly little contemporary data, such as the GW Grille II.
Indeed, the fact that there is virtually no data on an entire Japanese battleship project (the semi-mythical fourth Yamato lacks even a name), very little data and only a handful of photographs of it's virtually complete sister Shinano, and, hell, the fact the the US military managed to *lose* a 95-ton T-28 superheavy assault gun for 27 years it should be obvious that such a thing is quite capable of leaving little evidence of it's passing. Maybe it's all a big myth. If you can find verifiable sources debunking it, fine and good. Ted Van Gruder 10:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You're asking someone to prove a negative? Fat chance, those on the other side can always whip out a conspiracy theory or a staggeringly implausible excuse. What I want is a source for the technical specs and illustrations, which appear to be a constant in all the internet iterations of this myth. --Agamemnon2 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm asking you to produce a reputable source that claims this is a hoax if you wish to include such claims in the article, which is a positive. There are plenty of sources which point to the notability of this, even if it is one. Boris Norris 09:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

This article needs a picture, either official blueprint or a reimagination by an artist, to clearly sample the proportions of the landkreuzer.


 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.