the legendary “Ratte” 1000 ton tank…
Nazi night-fighters preparing to unlease terrible retribution on violaters of the fatherland:
We 266 Libelle or “Dragonfly”. loooks hella like an Osprey, which is to its left
ahh, the P-1500 “Monster”. I don’t think optimus prime was this big… yeah, thats a “King” tiger tank next to it…
Wow! Great pictures. But there’s something which I can’t understand: why did they design so giant tanks?? Those giant ones couldn’t move anywhere without a 8-lane motorway for them…
The Big Canon: isn’t it like those they had mounted on trains?? (Some info - in french, sorry)
Great pictues ,well done.
That first tank is massive! :shock: That’d take up like 12 lanes on a highway :lol:
thats some crazy tank :shock:
I wonder how much fuel those things would use? Must be Destroyer capacity. This was the Hitler view that bigger is best.
Madness indeed.
Good point, if Petrol was already rationed, how would Germany afford to power those behemoths?
That first tank is massive! :shock: That’d take up like 12 lanes on a highway :lol:[/quote]
well, the lack of petrol ensured the Ratte " would never be built. but the “maus” was…
Whats interesting is that the stealth fighter shape plane was flown, and the germans found out that radar couldn’t detect it. the “Ultimate Plan” was to arm this stealth bomber with an a-bomb and bomb new york.
sweet find!,really instersting 
Interesting, strange though, how the USs modern stealth bomber vaguely resembles the HO-IX
i also love that smiley!!!
NSS
PDIPLCDTM (guess it…)
:lol:
yes, increase my rank!! only 700 to go!
Utter tripe! :roll:
I’m going to risk my credibility and apply some ‘aeronautical insight’ to the so called stealth fighter/bomber. It’s guesswork based on limited experience, so I won’t take offence if people contradict my arguments and conclusions.
Firstly, I’ll guess at the size. There isn’t much to scale it against, so I will assume that by the size, shape and position of the cockpit it holds two, maybe three people.
The shape of the aircraft suggests high-speed flight. The wings are swept, but not highly so. Thus, the aircraft must be subsonic. Given aircraft control technology of the time, a transonic region would probably render the aircraft unflyable, and thus limit the upper speed of the aircraftm unless engine performance limitations had already done so. The sweep angle looks rather close to that needed on stealth aircraft of the 1980s vintage to maintain the ‘stealth’ nature. That was in tandem with radar absorbing painttechnology etc of the 80s. The benefit of the radar cross section reducing shape is likely to be offset to some extent by the very fancy aerials sticking out of the front and back. On closer inspection, the aircraft could not pass the sound barrier without wrecking the front aerial due to the bow shock.
Any electrical / avionic types want to pass judgement on the aerials themselves?
To maintain high-speed flight, the wing section would need to be a thin, low lift type. This would give rise to high take-off and landing speeds, presenting a danger to pilots and crew. The required wing shape also doesn’t lend itself well to having a high lift flap system attached.
The engines could be rockets or jets. I’ll discount rockets as they are too inefficient for the likely speed of the aircraft, giving it excessively short range and duration. Being a German-design jet, an Ohain-type axial flow turbojet could plausibly fit in the spaces illustrated. Turbofan technology would be an anachronism. The available engine performance of the period would tally with an approximately two person aircraft powered by two turbojets.
A turbojet is a highly inefficient method of subsonic propulsion. I doubt that there is sufficient fuel volume for more than short air-defence aerial combat in the wings. Taking the aircraft across the atlantic and back would be an entirely different matter. An atom bomb of the time required a dedicated bomber to carry it. To carry one across the atlantic, despite the reservations given above is even less possible.
Brief googling suggests that such an aircraft shape is flyable, even without computer control being used. However, I doubt that it is easily flyable, and without a computer many manoeuvres would be nigh on impossible, especially those requiring yaw stability. Thus, the aircraft would be at a critical disadvantage during a dogfight, where its low radar cross section is no advantage due to combat being visual and it is unable to perform rapid manoeuvring. High speed would be the only advantage, but the Me-262, for example, has this advantage with none of the other disadvantages.
It’s a nice aircraft for pictures and cartoon strips, but I can’t see it being effective with WWII technology. I look forwards to hearing your thoughts, especially the other Aeronautical types on this forum (I know who you are!)
Evil red canopy was a nice touch though
Edited on the strength of fes’s post: Good the RCS angles mixed up. Modern technology will allow wings with as little sweep as 40 degrees to have low radar cross section. As fes rightly said, much larger sweep angles were necessary, even for the F-117.