Talk:Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte

My Tank is Fight Discussion

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)

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)

Hoax Discussion

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)

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)

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)

As I understand this, the biggest problem with this design is its enormous weight. Some of the references state that if built, the tank would be in the range of 2000 tons, not 1000 as the German designers claimed. Most of the weight would be with the turret and its armor, correct? But what if the Deutschland class 283mm turret was considered instead of the Gneisenau type which had much greater thickness of armor? Same gun type--283mm 54.5 SK with a C/28 rotary mounting but with thinner armor. According to the book "Battleships and Battle Cruisers 1905-1970" by Breyer the Deustchland class turret was 140mm front, 85mm sides, 85-105mm top. Barbette=100mm. This is less than half that of the Gneisenau turret and may have well led to the 1000 tonne estimate. I'm no tank expert, but perhaps the feasibility of the design would have been strengthened. Mytg8 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2008 (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)

Holy carp, Boris might be right! Have a look at this YouTube video and skip to time index 7:53. Tell me that doesn't look at least a bit like a P1000! Vor'Cha 18:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Definitely not hoax

I looked through most of my books, and was able to come up with two books which reference period documents: Special-Panzerfahrzeuge des deutschen Heeres by Walther Spielberger and Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945 (vol. 2) by Fritz Hahn. The information they give is limited (and in German), but it's the best I can find. I recently wrote an article on the P 1000 based on these books, but I'm unsure whether I'd be allowed to link to this article and use it myself as an English source under the WP:SOAP and WP:COI rules. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, this tank or a similar one did make production. I saw it on a youtube video i cant recall with a group of factory women posing in front of it. It was a giant tank with double cannons and the people in the black and white photo were the size of its wheels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It never made production. Not surprisinglyChristian Ankerstjerne (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hoax issue again

I find it incredible that the article doesn't even mention the possibility that the P1000 is a hoax. I will make an appropriate ammendment to the introduction. Getztashida (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits say that some historians believe it is a hoax. Please provide the references. (Hohum ^@) 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will be possible. There has been no scholarly research into the P1000 precisely because it is widely held to be a hoax. It is not possible to prove a negative - however, failing to acknowledge that P1000 has been ignored by historians because it is perceived as a hoax gives the article the appearance of incontrovertiable fact when it is anything but. Getztashida (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You said that many historians consider it a hoax. Presumably you read that somewhere. (Hohum ^@) 16:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Forums like Tanknet mostly - which are inadmissable as a reference if I am not mistaken. It's been a while since anyone brought up the P1000 on tanknet, but if you do no one takes them seriously and you'll find proper, published experts like Tony Williams and Rob Griffin hanging around Tanknet... Getztashida (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, forums are not reliable sources. (Hohum ^@) 23:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You're not being terribly helpful here Hohum. I can prove that to you personally that the P1000 is a laughing stock in the treadhead community if you want - I'll just make a post about it on a forum, allow myself to get horribly flamed and then link the results - but that isn't much use in the long term. I assure you that no one who's seriously studied German WWII tank development thinks it was a genuine project, and nothing resembling it appears in the German archives at all (as far as I know, at least. I haven't studied them for evidence of monster tank projects myself, but I have assured as such in the past). Because there are no primary sources and no one takes the P1000 seriously, there is no scholarship on the subject - so I can't provide references to the effect that no one takes it seriously, and we end up with an entry in an encyclopedia for a design that almost certainly never existed that doesn't even acknowledge the possibility that it's all a pile of made up hokum. Getztashida (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm telling you what the rules for inclusion are. "Personal proof" isn't relevant to wikipedia - WP:RS are. You can't include claims that it is a hoax if it's unsubstantiated. It is mentioned in the remaining references, some of which are poor (and I recently removed an unusable one). Spielberger, however, is respected. That is not to suggest the Ratte was anything but ridiculous. It seems to have been rejected very early in the planning stages, but there was at least a notion for the design at the time. I believe Jentz also mentions it one of his books, although I don't have that one (JENTZ, Thomas L. & DOYLE, Hilary L. Panzer Tracts No. 20-1 - Paper Panzers).

Bear in mind that they actually *built* prototype Maus, and that has universal ridicule. (Hohum ^@) 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Consider my comment above from 2009-07-28 ([[2]]). Walther Spielberger mentions the P 1000, and includes references to war-time German documents. Spielberger, now deceased, was certainly a reputable authority on German armour. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: the hoax theories: here's a recent source that might be useful (in French). Trucks & Tanks magazine, issue 32. Cover story is "Landkreuzer P.1000, le projet secret d'Hitler". It's not a scholarly magazine, but it sure as heck ain't sensationalist. That same issue features a dissection of Arab-Israeli tank warfare written by a French general which is truly illuminating. http://www.trucks-tanks.com/trucks-tanks32.php 93.92.153.10 (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture Discussion

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

Removed WP:CIRCULAR source.

I have removed the following source. Adolf: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Inc Icon Group International ISBN 9780546657081. It contains information taken from Wikipedia (see page ii) and the Ratte section is marked as such, with [WP]. google book view (Hohum ^@) 23:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Turret Discussion

Despite persistent rumors to the contrary, there is no evidence that a turret was ever constructed. I removed a reference to an article that didn't cite any sources. The article's illustration furthermore showed a single-barrel turret in Norway, as opposed to the proposed dual-barrel turret of the Ratte. Likewise, I removed all references to a turret being build at all, in The Netherlands, Norway or elsewhere. The text was speculative, and looked liked it had been appended each time someone new wanted to write about his version of the myth. This gave the text a very staccato appearence. The burden of evidence rest with those who claims a turret was made, and such evidence should be verifiable. Specific claims should be removed on sight, unless backed up by verifiable sources. It might, however, be reasonable to add a short text, along the lines of 'There are several accounts of a Ratte turret being build. Such accounts are usually either too vague to be verified, or refer to actual turrets that are known to come from scrapped Kriegsmarine battleships.' Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

Spring Cleaning

I sorted the comments a bit.Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maus "second largest tank ever built"?

The lede states that the Maus is the second largest tank ever built. However, I could not find mention of any heavier tank...?!? -- DevSolar (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

'Large' can mean several things. The Tsar tanks was taller, and the K-Wagen was longer, for example. I replaced it with 'heaviest'. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion needed

G'day, I have been learning a lot of this tank and frankly quite been interested in it. I've given sources based on other statements given on several other language wiki's, but this has also given some more sources that may provide usefulness. Infact I am surprised that this much coverage can be given for a tank that wasn't even built and super sacred.

I did snatch this up and it's also from one of the sources provided. This makes things very easy to source now. But, can anyone access the sources given in the Russian version of this page? I would like to see what content can be found there. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit: No need for anymore sources and such. Content in that site is found in a 2006 publication too. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 22:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Give me a little bit of time to go over it completely. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Heinz Guderian, saying that;... Link "Krupp" and "Albert Speer" in the body of the article
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The section "History" could be relabeled "Development", since the first sentence reads "The development history of...".(just a suggestion, not req'd for GA) The article "Panzer VIII Maus" could be removed from the "See Also" section, The "See also" section can be removed, since all of the articles are already in the article, per WP:SEEALSO. Standardize locations for the publishers in the references.(just a suggestion, not req'd for GA) Standardize hyphens in your isbn numbers(just a suggestion, not req'd for GA)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thanks for the review, I'll get onto these now. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, it seems the issues and suggestions you raised were rather easy to address so I have done them all in a single edit. Please double check or add anymore comments if you haven't finished with the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through a final copyedit. This is passing. Thanks for your responses.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit and thanks again for the review. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede

Herr Gruber, to avoid an edit war, let's have a civil discussion, shall we? While I see where you are coming from, I highly disapprove of removing text that provides a comprehensive overview of the article that can be simply altered, rather than being deleted. Did you not think of that? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see you'd posted here. The problem with it is it shifts emphasis partway through, going from talking about the politics of the project ("Hitler ordered this...Speer ordered the engineers involved to go and work on something sensible") to the general conceptual flaws of the vehicle ("this was a really bad idea for the following reasons") and back again. This leaves the question of who made the observations that these were flaws, since the rest of it is about the opinions / actions of specific people. It's just not correct paragraph structure to say "however" ahead of something that has no direct relation to the preceding sentence.

It either needs to be in a different paragraph ("if built, it would have had the following problems") or be made more specifically about what those general statements have to do with the cancellation of the project, since the subject of that paragraph is the project, not the vehicle itself. I didn't think it was really needed in the lede since I figure most people can imagine the logistical issues of a tank fifteen or so times heavier than a normal one, so it could be saved for the body of the article, especially since AFAIK Speer's specific rationale for cancelling the P1000 was lack of a role in combat rather than issues to do with weight or logistics. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought my thing would have notified you. I hope my message didn't make me look like a rude prick by the way, if so I'm sorry about that. You do raise some pretty good points. Perhaps an oversight of this prior to removing the sentence(s) could have been made beforehand, owing to my misunderstanding to your edits. My main concern is if the lede doesn't summarise the article, even if people may know as to why it was cancelled. Hm, I believe I can come to a conclusion to keep the lede the way it is now due to my misunderstanding of your edits. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No mention of even the possibility that this is a Hoax?!

So, I get it that the P1000 is the internet's favourite "Those Wacky Nazis" thing, but does not anyone think it might be a good idea to actually admit that some historians think the whole thing is a hoax? No one? Let's be honest, what we know is that there was a request for a feasibility study - that's incontrovertible, it's in the archives - and there's well authenticated photograph of a model of a super-heavy tank that might be the legendary 1000 ton tank proposal, but it looks nothing like the picture of the "P1000 Ratte" that's taken over the popular imagination. The rest of the history and technical content here is all speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23A8:400E:E501:60FE:9DD9:3CA6:2295 (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The article is well sourced. What are the sources you have that say the design was a hoax? (Hohum ^@) 19:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Ken Estes Osprey New Vanguard book on German Super Heavy Tanks for a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23A8:400E:E501:60FE:9DD9:3CA6:2295 (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A quote;

"In the case of the German Army, the evident burdens on the bureaus could have only worsened had they attempted to build, let alone operate, the more fantastic and apocryphal concept designs that supposedly floated through the increasingly byzantine channels of their tank procurement. These fantasies include the projects called Ratte and Monster in the undocumented accounts that have passed through various internet and non-authoritative works.

The very idea that a tracked vehicle could be built to carry a battleship turret of the Gneisenau type with a pair of 280mm naval rifles, as suggested in the Ratte concept, exceeds most powers of belief. Quite simply, if one visits the surviving C turret of Gneisenau that the Germans emplaced for coast defense in the Austratt Fort at Orlandet in the Trondheim region, the realities become apparent. The power supplies, magazines, and machinery required for such a turret would require far more than a 1,000-ton man-made object to simply support it in a static position. There is also a failure to record any likely justification for such a mobile weapon. If not a hoax, it very likely might have been an engineer’s parlor game or other object of amusement. The same criteria apply to the “Monster,” a concept for a self-propelled mounting for the 800mm Gustav/Dora cannon. The three to four railroad tracks required for the Dora gun and its personnel and supporting equipment already exceeded the rumored characteristics of this fantasy fully tracked device." Kenneth W Estes - Super-heavy Tanks of World War II, Osprey Publishing, ISBN-10: 1782003835 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.247.237 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that that's pretty damning coming from a respected author on the subject. I'm aware that Osprey's output is not held in high regard amongst serious researchers, but I would be very surprised if any properly authoritative works have been produced on a subject held in such low esteem by serious academics. Mr Estes opinion on Ellenbogen as a source can be found in post 91 here; http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33612&page=5

He also summarises all the "evidence" we have for the existence of the Ratte in post 110 of the same thread and is not convinced. I should also mention that he quotes his own book in post 83. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.247.237 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The book is a good enough source to include a few sentences saying the proposal may have been a flight of fancy or a hoax. A forum isn't a reliable source afaik. (Hohum ^@) 20:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware the forum isn't a usable source, but I felt it was worth sharing as a warning to us all. The works we are citing might not be as authoritative as we think. The story of the P.1000 Ratte has gained a certain degree of traction amongst popular historians in the last decade or so, no doubt because of it's sensationalist nature, however just because something is widely repeated does not mean that it is true. It doesn't actually take much work to uncover that the whole Ratte story is built on some very flimsy foundations - but that constitutes original research which also cannot be used as the basis for an edit. We are fortunate that a reputable author has deigned to mention this topic in a citable source at all, when I looked back in 2011 I could not find any serious scholarship on the subject beyond Spielberger, and Spielberger only says that Hitler asked for a study into a 1000 ton tank, he gave no specifications nor the diagram that all the modern reconstructions are based on, those come from Ellenbogen, and Ellenbogen does not do a good job of supporting his claims.--Getztashida (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The main addition should have been to the article body, with a short summary in the lead per WP:LEAD. Putting the new text early in the article, and adding "possibly fanciful" to the lead, for instance. (Hohum ^@) 22:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added a more detailed chunk into the "Issues" section, but I'm perfectly happy to follw your lead on this. So long as readers are made aware that this might all be hogwash I'm cool... --Getztashida (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that strikes a pretty good balance. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 22:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

V12Z32/44 engine usage

I can't find any reference to the V12Z32/44 being used in u-boats, but it does seem to have been intended to be used in the German destroyer Z51. However, it seems they were prototypes that never made it out of testing. (Hohum ^@) 15:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Fake tank

I just read the tank encyclopedia article in the P1000 projekt (wich is better sourced than this article) and it is all falling apart. It seems the current images and description of the p1000 are fake created by internet users, as the original drawings don't look even close to this. Someone please look into this, and ask tank encyclopedia for help. It seems the p1000 idea isn't a hoax, but it is wrongly documented, described and imaged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanal expert (talk • contribs) 09:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think so as well. But we still need more sources to prove so and replace the images. 49.188.23.43 (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)