It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Battlefield domination with a single unit.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:55 PM
Hey guys,

I've been reading up on the German "Ratte" tank, RATTE

And I have a weird question.

Do you think, it would be possible to have a massive fully functioning tank unit, that could dominate the battlefield on it's own?

Would it be possible to make armor that could not be penetrated by missiles or projectiles? Basically conventional arms could not stop it.

It could roam where it pleased, destroying heavy armor and aircraft miles away.

I know this sounds stupid... but do you think it's possible?

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:23 PM
Possible, impractical. Unless it was somehow self-sufficient it would require too many vulnerable supply lines to be able to really go anywhere. Not the mention the powerplant that would have to be nuclear to be at all effective and to dominate the battlefield centrally like that it would have to be able to actually move somewhere at some speed.

One unit risks the possibility of being surrounded. It would have to be impenetrable from all sides and have indestructible anti tank/anti-aircraft weapons.

And than theres cost.

This is why we have dual core processors, share the load. IMHO would not be effective as a mobile, diverse army.


posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:28 PM
i guess it would be a form of terrorism - but a tank with an atomic bomb to expode if disturbed in any way would do it I guess

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:54 PM
Great idea on the nuclear power Blackwidow, that would be the only way to do it, imagine if it wasn't, the fuel consumption would be insane.

Surely, one of these self sufficient battle stations would be cheaper than having over a hundred thousand troops, thousands of tanks and vehicles, hundreds of aircraft, not to mention the fuel cost of all of these.

If the enemy knew, that this massive battle station would be deployed, and their weapons were ineffective, who would stand in front of this mammoth beast?

If I saw such a massive structure, I would be shaking in my boots, and looking at my AK47 with disgust.

Surely though, this obviously is not an occupational machine, and can never do the job of maintaining the peace in a country we recently conquered, those do require boots.

It simply effectively destroys whole enemy armies before the occupation, with zero casulties.

I assume the cost couldnt be more than lets say three nuclear powered aircraft carriers?


[edit on 18-4-2008 by ShooterSix]

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:12 PM
It wouldn't be hard to stop that thing in it's tracks, even if you couldn't destroy it.

All it would take is an extremily cunning trap, and of course you wouldn't be able to get the thing over bridges and i certainly would not want to be sitting in that iron coffin if someone were to try and drive it through a lake.

For an enemy who is undefeatable by conventional means, one may simply employ un-conventional methods - such as detonating a large explosion underground, thereby dropping the thing into a crater it can't get out of without a massive logistical operation which could stall the war effort for weeks, if not months.

It looks nice, and could probably be used as some sort of stationary weapons platform (such as those you see on battleships) that could be manuevored into better firing positions, but one thing i would not do is put that thing on the front line.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:22 PM
Surely it could cross a lake, river, etc. We made tanks water tight in World War 2, I'm sure we could do it to this monster.

About the tracks being blown, I agree, but there has to be a mechanism where the tracks are not visible, and the moving battle station has an advanced mine clearing mechanism thats constantly operating as the machine is moving.

But yes, an explosion underground is worrisome, anyway it could counter that?

Anyway to make armor impervious to nuclear strikes?

I know this all seems far fetched and stupid, but it some ways it makes sense, have a jack of all trades that does everything with 100% efficiency, limiting troop exposure, and simplifying the battlefield.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:24 PM

Well, i suppose you could try and make it fly if you wanted, and stick anti-aircraft missile batteries all over it.

p.s; to date, we know of nothing that can withstand a nuclear blast other than some very serious heavy duty reinforcement, provided that you're several hundred metres underground.

Even then, it's unlikely that a direct hit will not leave you unaffected.

That 'unit' would be annihilated by a nuke, and you can guarentee it that if some general saw that thing coming towards him, the first thing he would think about is that little red button marked 'do not push'.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:51 PM
Incredibly impractical, might be possible.

If it's going to be impervious to tank cannon, it's going to need incredibly thick armor, equivalent to better than a meter of steel. Everywhere. As you might guess, that adds up pretty quick. If you want it to be impervious to even regular sized bombs, it will need to have armor equivalent to SEVERAL meters of steel. Same if you want it to be protected against powerful IEDs and mines, which are quite adept at killing low, tracked vehicles.

If it's nuclear powered, it will have to worry about heat dissipation. Nuclear vessels use the ocean for easy cooling. A nuclear tank would require a huge radiator, which can't be all that well armored, since it needs good airflow. It's weapons will need to be under a degree of armor, since it will draw fire like nothing else, and if all it's guns get blown off, it's not going to do much.

Such a vehicle will HAVE to be tracked. the ground pressure will be enormous. There's no way it'd be able to float in water, given the thickness of armor compared to it's size. It would need to drive across the bottoms of rivers.

It should have multiple sets of treads, because it's definitely going to end up losing a few, and you won't be able to put them back on without huge support vehicles or at a base. I recommend multiple tread pairs on articulated suspension arms, so that it can cross rougher terrain, but the weight and size might be excessive. Each tread should be powered by one or more individual electric motors, so the overall vehicle can be all-electric.

it will probably carry VLS missiles, but I'm not sure what kind of main gun such a thing should have. Several conventional tank guns would be cheaper, and would still be capable of killing enemy tanks out to a few kilometers. Custom built huge naval-style guns might be excessive. not that I have anything against excessive firepower, it's just that you'd not be able to carry as many shells. Railguns might be available by the time someone would build such a monstrosity, and nuclear power lends itself well for an all-electric vehicle.

It will need anti-aircraft protection, and anti-missile systems, because it's a target large enough to use anti-shipping missiles on. It will take a ridiculous amount of point defense to be remotely viable.

All told, it's a bad idea. If your enemy gets just five tanks for one of these, he'll just drive around it with his greater mobility and # with all your support stuff and industry. If you're on the offensive, he'll just lay mines big enough to kill it. Huge piles of high explosives are always far, far cheaper than huge tanks. As huge as it is, it's movements will be limited by the terrain, and therefore predictable.

Likewise, unless you get to the point where lasers make it impossible to have combat aircraft, it will be a bomb magnet. Bombs and missiles can be scaled up much easier than tanks can. Point defense is key.

Having many units is always better, because you can perform many tasks at once. A huge tank just lets you flatten things in your line of sight. Your enemy can easily just note it's position and avoid it. Or they could blow off all it's treads, and leave it. Then you'd have to send another one to drag it back, because no recovery vehicle save for one built specifically for the task could drag such a huge vehicle. For the cost of a few tanks, they could effectively divert a large portion of your forces for hours.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by mdiinican

Thanks for the reply, when reading your points I have to agree with you. I suppose we wont see one of these babies for a long, long time.

I got the idea for this vehicle after reading about the RATTE as I mentioned earlier, and it wasnt produced for some of the same reasons as you mentioned.

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 04:35 AM
reply to post by ShooterSix

If you want to read stories involving something like that, The BOLO series comes highly recommended. I, personally, have never read any of the books, but they're supposed to be good. The BOLOs are artificially intelligent, massive tanks. They are generally the major characters in the books, and have personality.

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by ShooterSix

here's my post on another thread describing the Bolo Tanks


posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 12:00 PM
There's a direct comparison with another type of vehicle.

At 2,000 tons it's very small by WWII naval standards and isn't carrying much armour - easy meat for a battleship which is faster, heavier armed and much better armoured.

People have been looking at giant tanks for decades, and they are invariably highly impractical. If it was a good idea, we'd all have them.

Equally,if you could have impervious armour at that weight, it would have been added to ships long ago. No such thing!

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 01:42 PM
yes ,read the sci-fi short story series , Bolo, The annals of the dinochrome brigade.
By keith lamour.
Its a series of short stories written in the '60's, about self aware combat units.
Giant self aware combat units

I saw an interview with an american armor commander, who served in both gulf wars and the balkans.
He had a lot of very interesting things to say.
First he talked about the changing role of armor on the "battle field".
And he made the point that although the M1 is the finest battle tank in the world, its just that a battle tank.
A vehicle meant to destroy enemy armor. It uses superior speed and weapons range to do so.
Even though there are adverserial tanks out there that, have equal armor and guns, none have the ability to shoot on the move like the M1.
But, the M1 is a terrible area denial tank. its meant to move, not sit around parked on a street corner.
Its armor isnt heavy enough to withstand man portable AT weapons available today.
He predicted that if the US stays in its role in Iraq and afgahnistan
for the long term, that a new class of armor vehicle would emerge.
Tanks in the 150-200 ton range, vehicles so big and well armored that they would be impervious to any man portable weapon or IED.
As he talked about how the main gun on the M1 was over kill for its current role, its like sitting in a small room, shooting roaches on a wall with a hunting rifle, he said.
He commented on how they had success using AA guns to clear buildings of insurgents. The rapid fire cannons have more than the penetration needed to destroy any normal building.
He talked about the need for automatic close in anti-infantry weapons and two or more smaller caliber weapons, 30-40mm cannons intsead of the large bore main gun.
While listening to him I realized he was describing a bolo.

But he also noted that in a classic armor battle speed and the ability to manuver are still paramount.

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:24 AM
If faced with one of these, then you would just refuse to fight it and go around it. Wait for it to break down.

Wonder if it would withstand a tallboy bomb! Nothing is invulnerabe.


posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 05:26 AM
I think this is is yet another example of the fantasy world that some senior German scientists inhabited nearer the end of the war.

They, like Hitler, grasped at any straws to give the Nazi Party the victory they believed they were entitled to.

German industry was nearly bankrupt and destroyed yet, Krupps, Porsche and Henschell [main armaments manufacturers] thought consistently, that bigger was better.

It started with the Tiger I [57 tons], then came the 'Ferdinand' [65 ton] and the 'Elephant' [70 tons]. All were over-machined, far too heavy and cumbersome and were seriously underpowered.

Being underpowered, they were incredibly slow - I think the 'Elephant' could just about manage 8-10 km/h cross country, whilst the equally heavy 'Ferdinand' a staggering 8 km/h road speed. That equates to about
2-3 miles an hour cross-country. The Tiger I was slightly faster, managing up to 20 km/h. (In time for the Kursk offensive, all 'Ferdinands' were upgraded to 'Elephant' standard and Hitler decided to call all vehicles of this type the 'Elephant')

Of course the Jagdtiger was also a monster, weighing in at 68 1/2 tons and the Tiger II or 'King' Tiger weighed 68 ton.

The first prototype of a 'super' or 'wonder' tank was of course the Panzerkampfwagen VII Löwe [Lion] which weighed some 90 tons but this tank never reached production as the Tiger II was favoured by Hitler.

That left the Tiger 'Maus' or 'Mouse'. It weighed an astonishing 100 tones but the Daimler-Benz MB 517 Diesel failed to produce the expected 20 km/h.

To go back to question posed by ShooterSix: 'Do you think, it would be possible to have a massive fully functioning tank unit, that could dominate the battlefield on it's own?'

I don't think so. It may work in science fiction but reality tends to make such machines obsolete before they come off a drawing board.

If such a vehicle were ever to exist, I would imagine that it would be entirely 'self-sufficient' - a nuclear powerpack, advanced self repairing proactive/reactive armour protection system, an ATGW defence system, living appartments for its crew - the list is endless.

Only the limit of man's imagination could prevent such a vehicle from taking shape and as computer technology, nano technology, bio technology and all the other 'ologies' could, perhaps, one day make such a vehicle possible.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:44 PM

Originally posted by ShooterSix

Sweet mother of god...

That think is a beauty...

Its a cross between the Mammoth Tank in C&C Here and the Elephant in Halo 3 Here

It looks so scary... it would install more fear in an enemy then damage... More enimes would flee the battlefield, then would die from its fire...

The thing would have to be a moblie base, able to do EVERYTHING...

Hell, you proble would be able to launch helicopter off it...

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:00 PM
I'd love to see a modern redesign of that beast! I think once nuclear reactors are more portable we'll see more tanks like this one.



[edit on 28-4-2008 by snarf1336]

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 08:16 AM
I wish the Germans would have built onw of these...

The first one would have been Crap, but it would have started something, more and More Countries would start programs to build these things...

A fourm of Anti-Gravity would have HAD to be invented to account for the wieght..

Just would have been cool...

Mabye the US can make one... problay wouldnt work in the Dessert.. but damm...

I mean, wouldnt entire countire surrender to that thing... the sight of it on the battlefield would win every battle...

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 05:56 AM

Originally posted by TKainZero
I wish the Germans would have built onw of these...

The first one would have been Crap, but it would have started something, more and More Countries would start programs to build these things...

A fourm of Anti-Gravity would have HAD to be invented to account for the wieght..

Just would have been cool...

Mabye the US can make one... problay wouldnt work in the Dessert.. but damm...

I mean, wouldnt entire countire surrender to that thing... the sight of it on the battlefield would win every battle...

Or... more likely... a form of antigravity would fail to be developed, and the thing would be canceled due to costs spiraling out of control, and the general impracticality of the idea to begin with.

You could certainly mess up some poor fool's country which doesn't have an air force worth mentioning, but if your own air force outclasses theirs to the point that they can't simply drop a bomb on it (A HUGE slow moving target) , then you can probably just flatten their armor with near impunity from the air.

And that's just as good of a morale breaker.

Also: why wouldn't it work in the desert? The desert is a great place for tanks. Sandy, yes, but mostly flat-esque.

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 07:23 AM
" I mean, wouldnt entire countire surrender to that thing... the sight of it on the battlefield would win every battle... "

No, it would lose very quickly. Look at why the sea-going variety of giant, heavily-armored vehicles became extinct. Carriers can only surivive with large numbers of escorts and plenty of air cover.
Air power rules.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in