If you enjoyed this video remember to leave a like and subscribe. I'd also like to hear what topics you want to see covered in the future. Be sure to watch all the Fake Tank Friday videos first though in case I already covered your pick: th-cam.com/play/PLW8JzDrsS3_s9zIKiMV0U0ND425_fxaYC.html
Look at Andy's Hobby Headquarters Panther-Sherman of kit-bashs if you're interested, believe or not these were passed to the WT developers as a April fools tank event th-cam.com/video/U0TzNc7Jc0k/w-d-xo.html
@@zacharyolson1297 on top of that, their leader and ministers were mostly gone or went radio silent in the closing weeks of the war so probably out of the chaos and lack of clear direction and leadership for the various companies like MAN, porsche, Henschel, rheinmetall., etc... ,they would go AWOL and provide any new vehicles they could think of under their own standards or their local remaining divisions standards.
They're the god damn coolest! I don't see how anyone couldnt love the look and designs that many modelers have come up with. The KV-6 is one of the coolest ever, as insane and impossible it is, it's so cool. But the dorks who go around trying to pass them off, without a bit of wink-wink, as real tanks are really ridiculous. They're hurting the hobby by doing such nonsense. I hope one day to make some of my own mash up models but I don't feel I'm good enough yet. Maybe one day, I'll be able to make the quad 50mm AA Panther tank and pretend it's real and get it on Cone of Arc's channel.
The kit-bashed models of them do have a valid use. I can see them being interesting in "What if" tactical wargaming. Sort of a history-adjacent Warhammer 40K hobby.
@@MonkeyJedi99 That's exactly what they should be for! And they're really awesome for a theoretical but clearly not true to life designs. The ones showed here, which are far more reasonable compared to my favorite KV-6, are so cool and based on systems that legitimately at one point could have been designed and built. The issue is people who try to perpetuate them as having any ties to reality beyond a hobbyist's imagination. I love the looks of those really cool super heavy and heavy AA tanks but when people are inevitably fooled by them, it can be an issue when nobody makes it clear that they were never real designs or prototypes or even concepts. Albeit a very small issue but it is definitely one of those things historians probably have mixed feelings about. I'm sure they appreciate the inventiveness and awesome work the modelers do. But really, really don't appreciate the people who then take those models, again like the KV-6, and obfuscate the fact that they are simple a work of alt-history fiction.
i love how they look, i think they could be used in a rts or a game with fictional tanks. It could be some sort of super weapon with a cool mechanic like killing planes, havy tanks, rockets etc. Would be cool
RUSE: The Art of Deception has an O-I for Japan that is essentially a super-heavy Calliope, and the French FCM F1 has a main gun and an AA Gun in that game.
Something else that's overlooked, flakpanzers were meant to counteract(or at least deter) Allied tactical aircraft at low altitude. Which means that 88mm or 128mm weaponry would've been unwieldy and slow to follow and reload because they're meant to tackle high-flying strategic bombers. So in that way they would have performed worse than their much smaller 20mm, 30mm, and 37mm armed counterparts.
These super Heavy tanks always look cool but are so violently impractical especially in a wartime scenario where battle lines change and shift. Their large size and slow speeds also make them very very tempting targets for Air support and artillery. I’ve had to explain this to a friend who is a Maus fanboy
yeah heavy armor really doesnt make sense on anti air vehicles. especially 88s shoot at ranges where aircraft guns cant even reach you and bombs are gonna kill you no matter the armor
They are generally impractical but practical in very limited circumstances. I really don't like the "big target for air power or artillery" argument, since about 1% of the tank losses in the war could be attributed to air power, and it was generally thought of as not a big threat to tanks by the tankers, same as artillery.
@@werrkowalski2985 that’s understandable. In my personal opinion The biggest threat to a super-heavy tank is… infantry, other tanks, and the vehicle itself. The Soviet Super-Heavies are perfect examples of how Super-heavies were horrifically impractical even if one of them lead to the KV-1. I mean. They’re awesome in theory. But what we know of them in practice says… not so awesome
@@TypeZeta2 Did ConeOfArc make any videos on soviet superheavies? I was just looking for them and didn't find any. The main problem with super heavy tanks is just the maintenance and operational costs, they will require more resources for spare parts, more time to be fixed, more fuel to move, they can't move everywhere, and the question is whether all of that is worth the better performance in specific roles such a tank would have, which oftentimes is not. In naval warfare building bigger ships was worth it because there wasn't such an issue with maintenance, but even there before aircraft could be a threat to ships, swarms of torpedo boats were thought to be a major threat to battleships, hence destroyers were introduced.
It's an M3 Lee with the turret removed and the hull mounted gun replaced with what I assume is a 76mm M3 gun. It's actually sort of a real thing, in that a museum built one and it could reasonably have worked if used, however, there's no evidence that any were ever used in wartime.
Hey Cone loving the content, for fake tank friday I would love to see an in depth look of the Leman Russ Battle tank from Warhammer 40k for a fake tank Friday, considering in a universe which is completley over the top a comparably sane ww2 esque tank (at least the hull) holding its own in the grim darkness of the far future I think in would be an intersting episode.
Holy shit I never knew that other Maus hulls and turrets had been made but hadn’t been put together with the rest of the components. I always thought only the 2 running prototypes were only made
@@CrazyDutchguys There were a few additional partially-built Maus hulls. As you can see from the photo in this video, those hulls were even further from completion than the single E-100 hull was.
2:04 That looks like it belongs in something like Red Alert, seriously the picture even looks like a Unit Icon. 2:07 You've all heard of Landships but I present to you the Land Patrol Boat. Honestly the second and third design shown in this video seem kind of cool and nice... Bit stupid though, the twin 128's especially look ridiculous. On the one hand they're fake tanks but on the other I genuinely like the designs.
Those mammoth tanks will always have a special place in my heart. You gotta wonder how much those wacky ww2 prototypes played a part in the design of certain units. Loved that game back in the day!
I feel like people don't appreciate how heavy the single, and especially the twin 128mm AA gun+mounts are. To put it into perspective, the Flakzwilling 40/2 mount weighs 26 tonnes, whereas the destroyer-mounted 4.7" gun in the twin CP XIX mount weighted a little under 24 tonnes, which includes the gunshield, pedestal and extra reinforcement that a naval mount would have. To put such a heavy mount on a tank hull would be impractically heavy
As a scale modeler I would totally build some of these tanks, the are impractical and wacky but look cool, and as long as you aren’t claiming it was real there isn’t much harm that can be done
next episode about fake tanks i would like to suggest about any kind of double barrel tanks such as the apocalypse and mammoth or any other,and why this kind of concept "never" really Made to real life?
honestly doesn't need a Cursed by Design video to explain, though it'd be fun - coincidence *aiming sucks and the extra space required by a whole additional cannon and loader doesn't improve firepower as much as just having a bigger gun would.
I also love them, I do like historically correct models but occasionally you throw caution to the wind and have a little fun, their Ratte is a personal favourite of mine
That Doppel Flakvierling auf Maus at 2:08 defies logic - "Mmmm yes, let's take this hull with 220mm of frontal armour and protect the gun crews with 6mm thick shields, but only from the front! Oooh, and put the driver in a sheet metal box ABOVE the armour!"...
As an avid What-if model maker and a history nerd, I loved this video, however I don't think it's fair to blame model manufacturers for end user disinclination towards researching their subject material. Love your vids, cone! Can't wait for the next one!
The concept of using the raw hulls from standard superheavies is a very unlikely scenario in many ways but I could see the hull design being converted into a waffentager like hull concept where it has significantly reduced armour and just be made to house large weapons to make it cheap enough to use practically as you don't need that much armour other than the roof armour and therefore not need so many speciallised components to handle the weight in an AA and a tank hunter/SPG.
It's also worth noting that the weapon system, I.e 88 to 120mm guns where strategic air defence weapon systems. Intended for use against strategic bombers.
Can you take a look at tanks with APS ? Still waiting for the Favorite tanks from Twitter video 😂, don’t know why but it makes me excited /interested to see your take on the ideas from the community. Great video!!
Those fake tank super heavy models are cool though. I've thought of buying some myself. I've seen tank destroyers and AA based off the E-50 and E-75. Cool concepts that Wargaming will take advantage of eventually.
2:06 that tank remembered me of another design I saw , (I don't know if it was a real or just a "fan made") , named Flakpanther which fired the same type of missile( the Rheintochter R1) and of all of the designs I've seen so far that was the most possible to be made by the germans , and I've seen a lot of people say that some things could have won the war for the axis , but this time I have to say that not really the vehicle but more the missile , the anti-air Rheintochter could have had a major impact on the war and have the allies on the run.
absolutely categorically chould not have put the allies on the run. they had absolutely no way of building something as advanced as an AA missile in the numbers needed to dent the bombing campaign. and even if they did it wouldn't stop the allied ground forces. Wars aren't won by magic wunderwaffe. they're won by sensible tech, logistics and numbers. 1 188 ton tank is nothing against 100 40 ton tanks with wet ammo stowage, APDS ammo, stabilisers and reliable engines (not to mention ammo, fuel and well trained crew)
@@oliverbooth2872 Your argument is totally wrong and I think you type your comment without even doing a basic research , first the Rheintochter program started in 1942 , not some late may 1945 , and by 1943 more than 80 tests were conducted which proved it was a successful design so the mass production of them was totally possible , after all over 3000 of V2 Rockets were build which were produced in 1944-1945.Secondly I think you understanded wrong how the rocked worked , it was not intended to fire at a single plane , because it was not guided , it was fired at a GROUP of planes , more exactly at a formation of bombers , and from the big load of explosive that the rocked had, the shock wave was so intense that no allied bomber could resist and the wings would have broken off. Now imagine what would that mean , if that rocket could bring down almost every group of bombers that entered Germany ... I tell you , no more bombing of the cities so no more countless lives lost ,no more bombing of the industries(that includes the refineries from which oil was made) so more equipment overall in the battlefield , which meant that is no longer 1 german tank to 100 , but 50 or more to 100 , and for your knowledge the Germans had better trained soldiers and tank crews.
@@rmnzir3022 This is exactly the kind of thinking that lead to Nazi Germany making so many resource draining wunderwaffe during the war. you say it started in 1942 like 3 years is a reasonable development cycle. 3 years to design an develop a brand new form of weapon system is insanely short. they managed it but the resource draw to expedite the program is disproportionate. and while the Rheintochter had test firings, it was cancelled ad therefore clearly either not ready or not considered worth the effort. The Rheintochter did indeed have a very large warhead for an AA round, but nowhere near the amount needed to bring down multiple bombers in a single airburst, so why use it over a much cheaper 128mm AA shell that could also 1-hit any allied aircraft. Also lol "every allied bomber entering Germany destroyed" Unlike Britain the Germans never developed an effective bomber interception command structure- your magic jet fighter cant kill a bomber it cant find with the German interception rate of 50% (vs battel of Britain rates of 90%+). You want a magic increase in AA kills? the allies managed it. instead of overcomplicated and useless AA missiles we developed radar-fused shells. massive boost to kraut bombers and fighters killed, Also your prediction of a 100 fold increase in German production if bombing g had ended in early 45 is fantasy. Similarly the V2 was only useful as a terror weapon. It was not only highly inaccurate, it had half the payload of the lwf medium bomber but could not be re-used and was nearly as expensive. The v2 program killed more jewish slaves while making them than enemy population. also by 42 onwards the Germans had inferior crew training and in general inferior tactics. they had functionally no reserves so no rotation of troops to the rear to help train recruits and very little fuel, parts or ammo to spare for training. by 45 they were sending out literal children to fight. Germany lost because of inferior numbers, technology and ideology.
@@rmnzir3022 No one weapon, however fantastical or revolutionary would've made a dent in the grand scheme of things, it was a war of economies and Germany's economy was crippled. I will add what you're suggesting is similar to the Bordrakate-21/Werfer-Granate 21 which was an unguided air-to-air rocket, which even when fired at 800-1000 meters with a timed fuze to burst within bomber formations and a relatively large warhead still only managed 15% or so hit ratings and mostly served to break defensive formations up for attack. Ground-launched unguided AA rockets had pretty miserable performance and offensive rockets in general were known for their poor accuracy and never replaced heavy AA batteries on either side, getting an unguided rocket up to the altitude where it could possibly damage bombers and having it actually intercept them close enough to damage them is a monumental task as evidenced by the entire design strategy of assuming a direct hit is almost impossible and opting for fitting the munitions with large warheads to hopefully burst close enough to cause damage.
I always liked the flakpanzer Drache-kai. Take the Ratte, double the length, triple the width, quadruple the tracks, and add the unused turrets (1 per vehicle for a total of 3 vehicles), of the third Yamato class battleship (Shinano, converted to an aircraft carrier), utilizing only Type-3 starburst anti-aircraft shells. I only ran across a single reference back in the 90s of this. It was about the time the Ratte itself was starting to get out into the wider world. I realize that it was so fake as to be stupid -- still it sounded like fun. Lol
The real reason the Germans never considered mounting Flak guns (particularly 8.8cm and larger) on heavy tanks was due to Flakpanzer doctrine. Flakpanzers were required to maintain a fast enough speed to keep pace with panzer regiments. As quoted by Oberst Thomale at the Panzer und Waffenkommision joint session discussing Flakpanzer design and doctrine (5/43): "A vehicle with a weight of about 30 metric tons and an engine powerful enough for 50-60 kph is needed in order to protect an advancing [panzer] regiment." Thus Tigers, King Tiger's and especially E100 or Maus were simply out of the question. In fact the joint session dictated specific tank chassis considered adequate for Flakpanzer requirement: "Leopard, Pzkpfw-IV, and Panther components are to be favored [in Flakpanzer designs]." With the joint session concluding: "Initially the Pzkpfw-IV chassis will be tried as a Flakpanzer. If this isn't adequate, the Panther chassis will be used." Furthermore heavy Flak guns (8.8cm or larger) were dropped in Flakpanzer designs after experiments with the Versuchsflakwagen 8.8cm Flak41 (PzSfl.IVc) since it was assessed that towed heavy Flak units would prove equally effective as self-propelled 8.8cm guns: "In January 1944 Reichsminister Speer ordered Krupp to cease development of 8.8cm PzSfl.IVc...The 8.8cm Flakpanzer was obsolete for escorting panzers because high altitude aircraft could be engaged by stationary [8.8cm] Flak guns...In addition control of a mobile battery wasn't possible because equipment had not been developed that could transmit firing directions by optical or radio signals between the command vehicle and flakwagen. Connecting cables would have caused too great a hindrance to mobility and tactical flexibility." - Jentz, L. Thomas, "Panzer Tracts No.12-1" Additionally, it was decided that smaller caliber Flak guns would satisfy the air defense requirements for panzer regiments at the joint conference mentioned above: "An option was held [that] Flakpanzer armed with 2cm Vierling, 3.7cm Drilling or Zwilling or 5.5cm Flak-Illing are needed to protect a [panzer] regiment." Field assessments late in the war determined that the 2cm Flak proved most effective against Allied fighter bombers - the greatest risk to panzer units. "In my opinion the problem of whether to use a 2cm or 3.7cm anti-aircraft guns has been decided completely in favor of the 2cm. The Jabo is the Mistvieh. He attacks at low heights. In every case always at an elevation where the 2cm is effective. Most Jabo kills are credited to the 2cm." - Major Petri, Flakpanzer assessment on the West Front, 30/01/45 So nowhere were heavy tanks, much less super heavy tanks even mentioned as a basis for German Flakpanzer design. These E-100 & Maus Flakpanzers are consequently entirely tank fantasies.
As someone who occasionally makes what-if tank models, I can guarantee these people are almost never doing it to misinform, they just don't think they need to clarify that they're making things up. Usually, either they don't know what they're saying is BS (because they've taken someone else's BS at face value) or they're assuming that what they're making up is so obviously false that people will know they're just adding some flavour text to their creations. It's unfortunate that some people are gullible enough to take their fantasy flavour text at face value. The companies making these sorts of kits, however, should know better than to do the same. One interesting creation I designed myself a little while ago was a Raketenjagdpanzer with the X-7 Rotkäppchen ATGM system, based on the Panzer 38D chassis. Building it took some heavy conversion work, but it was one of the most fun projects I've done, and I get why people love making these fake Wunderwäffen: it's just fun to be free of the need to research and check every detail.
this series of videoes kinda makes you wish some one made a warthunder like game but they add every single fake tank to the game with damage models and so on it would be pretty cool driving around in these fake tanks and seeing how well would they face againts each other
Coming from a scale modeller, the people who are really into it tend to be aware of the history, and we like doing some fake tanks cause they are interesting to paint (like 'what ifs'), I think these pictures then get circulated and people use them because there aren't any other photos of the vehicles (cause they didn't exist).
Further to all your excellent arguments there's one other reason the first two designs never existed: the flak panzer existed to give the frontline troops mobile close AA support. The 8.8 and 12.8cm guns were near useless in this role and so do not needing mounting on a protected vehicle. Honestly that ridiculous Maus hull with two wibelwind turrets is the most useful design shown- using the huge hull space to mount moar dakka for fending off allied CAS. still useless compared to just having two wirbels but less dumb then trying to use anti-bomber weapons on a lawnmowing p-47
Honestly, that twin-flak E-100 thing at the very beginning would look great with a few sci-fi gribles. I like the smooth hull with the back platform. Maybe with a kind of rounded shield around the turret, open at the top…
The biggest problem in super heavy AA tanks is how they are supposed to move their turret fast enough to keep up with an airplsne… (Also if u make an video about AA tanks on the panther chassi u should also take an look at the concept of an Panther hull with an kugelblitz turret which some people say actually existed as an field modification)
I actually love making/seeing those obscure Kitbashes and Alt-History Vehicles and fitting background stories. The idea of a superheavy AA tank is just kind of intriguing. Of course they should be labled as such to prevent fake information from spreading.
There's an additional point where the whole "Heavy Flakpanzer" comes apart... WHY would somebody want to build it? The whole point of a Flakpanzer is to provide close AA cover against fighter-bombers or light to medium bombers - as such they have to be able to move with the vehicles they have to cover and need fast-moving turrets in order to track the air targets. Even the Sgt York was a failure because it was too slow to keep up with the tanks, so a Maus wouldn't make any sense at all. And turret traverse on these monsters was glacial as well... which would only have been ok if the AA guns were used for defense against high-flying heavy bombers like the guns in question were supposed to in the first place. But... strategic bombers rarely attack ground formations on the move (outside of War Thunder at least), so why waste resources on a mobile platform? And for rear area high value targets, towed guns set up around the target would have sufficed...
There would be no logic to mount a heavy AA gun on a front line tank, given the 128mm was designed to break up high altitude bomber formations over German cities. Front line German mobile formations needed protection from fast, low level “Jabos”, thus rapid fire 20mm and 37mm auto cannons were the tool of choice. A slow loading heavy flak gun (or guns) on a 100 ton tracked chassis would be a logistical nightmare and useless at its core function. It’s Uber-tank fan boy fiction. Thanks for calling it out.
I think the simpler way to disprove these is just to ask the question of why mount an exposed or barely armored turret to a heavily armored hull, sorta defeats the purpose of having that armor. The only exception would be the 88 dual cannon one but that just obviously makes no sense, I mean how is the crew supposed to aim them and why mount two side by side?
I suppose you could make the case for these as an alternate history “What I’d Nazi Germany won/survived the war” scenario. Eventually, the Germans could have reached the same conclusion the US and Soviets did, ditching heavy and medium tanks for the MBT concept, rendering their heavy and super-heavy tanks redundant. At that point, recycling their hulls for other purposes might make some sense, but all the same objections about mobility and range would still apply.
If that happened I think they would have built a German Kubinka and just moved forward with new designs. Recycled hulls make sense in wartime much more than after a war, the hulls would probably not make good recovery vehicles like the centurion, so the most likely path would have been: design new tank&make museum, keep some tanks for training/reserves/foreign aid, scrap some, and done.
Would have made more sense to convert PzIII hulls to a FlakPanzer configuration, rather than diverting super-heavy hulls for the purpose. Having the 88mm/ 128mm guns would have made sense if trying to knock down heavy bombers at high altitudes, but the main threat to Pz divisions would be low flying Jabos.
Idea For a looooong-term Video (series?): how about making what-ifs about the Tanks of the command and conquer universe? Like how possible are they and how useful they would really be.
I could see them taking off some armor, as they would just need a platform big enough to carry heavy aa weaponry. But the concept of having a heavily armored spaa is absurd, why have that much armor if you’re going to be facing planes and will be usually relegated to rear to mid line fighting?
There is several pictures like these on pinterests, such as the sturmpanzer VIII maus with the 380mm rocket mortar, or the so called "Waffenträger E-100 15cm FlaK 60F"
Some of the best model kit companies have horribly mistranslated and misattributed information in the instruction manuals constantly. I saw one that said the Valentine mounted the 2lber, 6lber and 17lber gun in it's turret. Maybe someone can guess which one was wrong? I think they meant the QF 75mm unless they meant the Archer which wasn't a turret mounted 17lber. But I buy Tamiya models which are extremely accurate in detail, even some of their old outdated models have great authenticity but the instruction manuals are constantly mistranslated and have bad information in them. So, don't ever take your information from model kits whatever you do if there's anyone out there who does that. And I love the idea of mashing up model kits, I think the KV-6 is one of the coolest models I've ever seen. But people need to seriously wake up to reality or learn a lot more about WW2 if they really thought anyone cared to design E-100 or Maus hull AA tanks. In what fantasy world would that be practical or make any sense to waste a perfectly good, modern/cutting edge hulls when older hulls could hold them? It's not logical at all and while the Maus and E-100 were already pretty illogical, it's far more illogical to waste the hulls on AA tanks. As dumb as German super heavies were, that's a whole new league of dumb and people should have known better.
The amount of disinformation, mistranslation or just information we DON'T have from this era will always blow my mind. The World Wars were one of THE most recorded events and they weren't THAT long ago. You'd think we'd be able to hold onto records from less than a 100 years ago.
With how crazy German designs were back in WW2. I'm actually surprised we never got an "All in one" type deal. A tank with AP rounds able to pierce most armor of the time, a fast turret, good armor, and a high rate of fire gun to engage enemy aircraft. Seems like something that would've happened.
One thing I still don't get: If the E series were meant to be standardized versions of panzers, why build the E-100 first? Surely something like the E-50 would be more beneficial to replacing front line tanks.
I'm sure that I read that it was decided that it was more expedient to use existing towed guns and tractors rather than a fully-tracked tank with the same gun.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with fantasy in general, as well as in WW2 designs. It is a lot of fun. However, I don't understand what do the model producers achieve by stating false claims about some imagined models being real, except a few more sells, they should just leave it as is, or just simply state that it was never real. I am quite certain it would not impede their profits since many modelers are very aware of the true history of their models. Those who weren't or aren't will be, thanks to this channel. Cheers.
There seems to be an alternative history among armor modelers which is WWII '46 and WWII '48. They also are stating that the German military found a "crashed" UFO in Bavaria in 1936 and salvaged it for reverse engineering. Which is why (antigravity?) saucer shaped vehicles were trying to be built close to the Czech border in 1944. All this UFO theories combine into building German heavy tanks and aircraft artillery to be marked as '46.
Man, how would the turret traverse manage to track fast moving aircraft? I feel like they'd get a shot off, then struggle to readjust, due to the literal MAUS turret they're using.
I knew there was 2 Maus tanks and one being fully functional but never saw any combat. But I didn't know there was ready to go shells of the the Maus ready to be completed
For those who might have noticed: several of the modelkit-boxarts shown were by the company Modelcollect... while there is nothing wrong with them realesasing as much as they can, their tendency to seemingly pursue every possible combination of their different sprues has resulted in some rather ridiculous "designs". That alone might be worthy a feature on this series @ConeOfArc. As said before, I do not have anything against companies releasing what-if subjects as I am building some of them myself and fully agree with the premise of "please label your fictional history" :)
@@BKohut They are within the Panzer'46 universe. The boxes on the video have been "trimmed" to leave out the tank designation and the brand. Anyone with a two-finger clearance above their eyebrows realizes they're fictional.
@@The_Modeling_Underdog I mean, for sure, just that I remember that they had kinda explicitly had said on the box or in description that they were what-ifs or fictional. They also made some badass mech range, which was fun to build
Obviously, an SPAA with that much armour would be hampered just as much as any other super-heavy tank. They're broadly impractical at their core. However... I can see *one* possible application, at least for the 8.8cm armed variant. It's not a *good* application, but it is one that could, and probably would exist if the vehicle was produced; The 12.8cm gun of the Maus and E-100 was really, really over-gunned. Nothing in service with the Allies needed that kind of firepower at the time, and not really anything in the coming decade would that was produced in large numbers either. Just a few equally impractical prototypes. A variant of the E-100 (or Maus, for that matter) with two 8.8s could be pressed into the anti-tank roll, and *theoretically* engage two targets before needing to reload. Or - more likely - fire a ranging shot, miss, and then have an immediate follow-up shot. Cycling the guns may or may not have been possible, due to potential danger to the loader - but a dividing wall between them may have helped. Is that useful though? Hell no, it is not. The 8.8 could be reloaded quite quickly anyway, being derived from an AA gun. The real limiting factor would have been turret rotation and gun elevation speed. What does it matter how fast you reload if you're not aiming at the target yet? The vehicle would have performed just fine even if it only had a single long-88, like the Tiger B. So, in the end... Just build the Tiger B instead. It's still impractical, but it's at least functional and might break down a bit less. If, for whatever reason though, a commander DID find themselves in an E-100 with two cannons, they might opt to only employ one of them, or perhaps have one gun loaded with AP, and the other with HE at all times - to maintain readiness for different targets. Still not a great idea, but with the slow rotation and limited visibility expected with super-heavy tanks, I can't imagine them ever successfully engaging aircraft more capable than a hot air balloon.
Please do a "Late Obj. tanks" video with the 640 and 490 for exemple, i'd really like to see the history of these as i can't seem to find infos... i've been asking for at least a year man!
As I told Cone earlier, the reason why this stuff doesn’t exist is the same reasons why there are no M26 based SPGs produced in WW2. (Ignoring the prototype) And why the M4 based M40/43 SPGs get produced.
Plus also having nothing flying at the time that was large/armoured enough to warrant a 128mm flak cannon to bring down would likely be a large factor in them not being built. 88s would be more than enough for most planes at the time.
@@Spidehman 88? plane? you can down any plane with 7.7 but need the long range of .50 and 20mm and the extra damange is big the us 37mm tho for ex make it he and auto and put 2 and boom plane exterminator even if fast rpm 20mm and 50 cals are the most efficient
@@Noooo23523 Ideally you want a 20mm-40mm caliber and a lot of Rounds (due to inherent miss's). anything bigger and you need a near miss for the shrapnel.
i created a fictional tank called the sherman m19 which had a 88mm cannon and a fire support variant with a 100mm cannon and an AA variant with twin 53mm AA guns.
The reason these things are fake has nothing to with hulls or production capacity. Heavy AA cannon were used in a battery together with radar, searchlights (that were radar guided themselves) , rangefinders, prediction computers, etc. Heavy AA batteries actually had smaller automatic cannon attached to it to protect the big ones. By late war these things would be useless without all that. For comparison look at a modern Patriot or S-x00 system.
"Why mount aa guns on a heavily armored type, makes no sense" yes I agree, but I could argue many of the decisions being made in late war Germany indeed satisfied the latter of that statement .
Honestly not surprised, anybody could argue the necessity of super-heavy support vehicles, given that they're already too heavy, too slow, too unreliable, and have poor range. Logistical and practical flexibility on the battlefield win wars, not whatever niche a super-heavy fits into.
They may be imaginary tanks but they look so impressive and awesome anyway . l've built many paper panzers in 1/72 / 1/35 scale purely for the What lf ? scenario and why l realise that the chances of such beasts ever being a reality is non existent they sure do look imposing and awe inspiring .
If you enjoyed this video remember to leave a like and subscribe. I'd also like to hear what topics you want to see covered in the future. Be sure to watch all the Fake Tank Friday videos first though in case I already covered your pick: th-cam.com/play/PLW8JzDrsS3_s9zIKiMV0U0ND425_fxaYC.html
Thanks for making interesting and funny content cone!
This topic was actually really interesting, you've earnt a well earned sub!
Look at Andy's Hobby Headquarters Panther-Sherman of kit-bashs if you're interested, believe or not these were passed to the WT developers as a April fools tank event
th-cam.com/video/U0TzNc7Jc0k/w-d-xo.html
Can you do a video on the Mitsu 108 from world of tanks blitz?
Any idea what the turret is at 3:20 in the top left quarter? Not sure if I’m being very dense or if it’s something unique?
I love how all late-war german designs are always drawn in the middle of a destroyed city lol
At least it would be historically correct xD
My personal theory is that many of the crazy projects and wunderwaffen promises were engineers trying to avoid being conscripted and sent to the front
@@zacharyolson1297 on top of that, their leader and ministers were mostly gone or went radio silent in the closing weeks of the war so probably out of the chaos and lack of clear direction and leadership for the various companies like MAN, porsche, Henschel, rheinmetall., etc... ,they would go AWOL and provide any new vehicles they could think of under their own standards or their local remaining divisions standards.
Literally the background of the OKW faction in CoH 2.
@@minhducnguyen9276 you mean like the burning city when you select it on the main page?
I love hypothetical ww2 designs they are so impractical and yet so cool lookin
Was the design team entirely 5 year olds?
They're the god damn coolest! I don't see how anyone couldnt love the look and designs that many modelers have come up with. The KV-6 is one of the coolest ever, as insane and impossible it is, it's so cool. But the dorks who go around trying to pass them off, without a bit of wink-wink, as real tanks are really ridiculous. They're hurting the hobby by doing such nonsense. I hope one day to make some of my own mash up models but I don't feel I'm good enough yet. Maybe one day, I'll be able to make the quad 50mm AA Panther tank and pretend it's real and get it on Cone of Arc's channel.
The kit-bashed models of them do have a valid use.
I can see them being interesting in "What if" tactical wargaming. Sort of a history-adjacent Warhammer 40K hobby.
@@MonkeyJedi99 That's exactly what they should be for! And they're really awesome for a theoretical but clearly not true to life designs. The ones showed here, which are far more reasonable compared to my favorite KV-6, are so cool and based on systems that legitimately at one point could have been designed and built. The issue is people who try to perpetuate them as having any ties to reality beyond a hobbyist's imagination.
I love the looks of those really cool super heavy and heavy AA tanks but when people are inevitably fooled by them, it can be an issue when nobody makes it clear that they were never real designs or prototypes or even concepts.
Albeit a very small issue but it is definitely one of those things historians probably have mixed feelings about. I'm sure they appreciate the inventiveness and awesome work the modelers do. But really, really don't appreciate the people who then take those models, again like the KV-6, and obfuscate the fact that they are simple a work of alt-history fiction.
@@StephenGillie It's a fan model.
i love how they look, i think they could be used in a rts or a game with fictional tanks. It could be some sort of super weapon with a cool mechanic like killing planes, havy tanks, rockets etc. Would be cool
I'm sure there's a MoW 2 mod out there that has most of these fake designs in lol
The double 88mm looks awesome.
WoT
Definitely, if they ever felt like making a new Wolfenstein game set during the Extended War they should go hog-wild with these kinds of vehicles.
RUSE: The Art of Deception has an O-I for Japan that is essentially a super-heavy Calliope, and the French FCM F1 has a main gun and an AA Gun in that game.
Something else that's overlooked, flakpanzers were meant to counteract(or at least deter) Allied tactical aircraft at low altitude. Which means that 88mm or 128mm weaponry would've been unwieldy and slow to follow and reload because they're meant to tackle high-flying strategic bombers. So in that way they would have performed worse than their much smaller 20mm, 30mm, and 37mm armed counterparts.
But you know that Hitler would have ordered them built anyway.
These super Heavy tanks always look cool but are so violently impractical especially in a wartime scenario where battle lines change and shift. Their large size and slow speeds also make them very very tempting targets for Air support and artillery. I’ve had to explain this to a friend who is a Maus fanboy
I believe that’s why they were originally planning on using a 20mm for air defense
yeah heavy armor really doesnt make sense on anti air vehicles. especially 88s shoot at ranges where aircraft guns cant even reach you and bombs are gonna kill you no matter the armor
They are generally impractical but practical in very limited circumstances. I really don't like the "big target for air power or artillery" argument, since about 1% of the tank losses in the war could be attributed to air power, and it was generally thought of as not a big threat to tanks by the tankers, same as artillery.
@@werrkowalski2985 that’s understandable. In my personal opinion The biggest threat to a super-heavy tank is… infantry, other tanks, and the vehicle itself. The Soviet Super-Heavies are perfect examples of how Super-heavies were horrifically impractical even if one of them lead to the KV-1. I mean. They’re awesome in theory. But what we know of them in practice says… not so awesome
@@TypeZeta2 Did ConeOfArc make any videos on soviet superheavies? I was just looking for them and didn't find any. The main problem with super heavy tanks is just the maintenance and operational costs, they will require more resources for spare parts, more time to be fixed, more fuel to move, they can't move everywhere, and the question is whether all of that is worth the better performance in specific roles such a tank would have, which oftentimes is not. In naval warfare building bigger ships was worth it because there wasn't such an issue with maintenance, but even there before aircraft could be a threat to ships, swarms of torpedo boats were thought to be a major threat to battleships, hence destroyers were introduced.
I'd definitely love to hear the story of 7.5cm Jagdsherman. Who came up with that? 😂 It's so ridiculous 😂
It's an M3 Lee with the turret removed and the hull mounted gun replaced with what I assume is a 76mm M3 gun. It's actually sort of a real thing, in that a museum built one and it could reasonably have worked if used, however, there's no evidence that any were ever used in wartime.
@@zoro115-s6b it’s actually supposed to be a deturreted Lee with a 17-pounder. A previous Fake Tank Friday already debunked it.
@@Shaun_Jonesno that is the lancer two different things bro.
Hey Cone loving the content, for fake tank friday I would love to see an in depth look of the Leman Russ Battle tank from Warhammer 40k for a fake tank Friday, considering in a universe which is completley over the top a comparably sane ww2 esque tank (at least the hull) holding its own in the grim darkness of the far future I think in would be an intersting episode.
Holy shit I never knew that other Maus hulls and turrets had been made but hadn’t been put together with the rest of the components. I always thought only the 2 running prototypes were only made
Only two hulls were made and one turret, the turret we are all familiar with. Any other Maus turret never passed the blueprint stage.
@@CrazyDutchguys There were a few additional partially-built Maus hulls. As you can see from the photo in this video, those hulls were even further from completion than the single E-100 hull was.
2:04 That looks like it belongs in something like Red Alert, seriously the picture even looks like a Unit Icon.
2:07 You've all heard of Landships but I present to you the Land Patrol Boat.
Honestly the second and third design shown in this video seem kind of cool and nice... Bit stupid though, the twin 128's especially look ridiculous. On the one hand they're fake tanks but on the other I genuinely like the designs.
"Rheintochter, ready!"
People always like the big tanks, not the smaller vehicles.
Those mammoth tanks will always have a special place in my heart. You gotta wonder how much those wacky ww2 prototypes played a part in the design of certain units. Loved that game back in the day!
I feel like people don't appreciate how heavy the single, and especially the twin 128mm AA gun+mounts are. To put it into perspective, the Flakzwilling 40/2 mount weighs 26 tonnes, whereas the destroyer-mounted 4.7" gun in the twin CP XIX mount weighted a little under 24 tonnes, which includes the gunshield, pedestal and extra reinforcement that a naval mount would have. To put such a heavy mount on a tank hull would be impractically heavy
As a scale modeler I would totally build some of these tanks, the are impractical and wacky but look cool, and as long as you aren’t claiming it was real there isn’t much harm that can be done
next episode about fake tanks i would like to suggest about any kind of double barrel tanks such as the apocalypse and mammoth or any other,and why this kind of concept "never" really Made to real life?
honestly doesn't need a Cursed by Design video to explain, though it'd be fun - coincidence *aiming sucks and the extra space required by a whole additional cannon and loader doesn't improve firepower as much as just having a bigger gun would.
I don't think you read every comments, but I want you to know that I really enjoy your content. Instructive and entertainment ! Thanks for your work!
I can see the maus AND e100 haveing aa guns mounted to the top of the turret but not become the aa it self
Yeah, some 3d skins for both the maus and e-100 has the 2cm flak placed on the turret, in lieu of a roof mounted lmg.
@@iToxicMochi ..and for some dumb reason, the extended range armoured fuel tank mounted on the turret..
...perhaps to indicate it is fake ?
@@razor1uk610fake but cool, unlike you.
0:25 kinda looks like
Body: E100
Turret: Kv5
Barrel: Maus
I love modelcollect 😂
I also love them, I do like historically correct models but occasionally you throw caution to the wind and have a little fun, their Ratte is a personal favourite of mine
Modelcollect and their amazing skill of slappinh any gun on any tank.
But also the cast and fit quality is pretty nice, always enjoyable to build
That Doppel Flakvierling auf Maus at 2:08 defies logic - "Mmmm yes, let's take this hull with 220mm of frontal armour and protect the gun crews with 6mm thick shields, but only from the front! Oooh, and put the driver in a sheet metal box ABOVE the armour!"...
As an avid What-if model maker and a history nerd, I loved this video, however I don't think it's fair to blame model manufacturers for end user disinclination towards researching their subject material.
Love your vids, cone! Can't wait for the next one!
The concept of using the raw hulls from standard superheavies is a very unlikely scenario in many ways but I could see the hull design being converted into a waffentager like hull concept where it has significantly reduced armour and just be made to house large weapons to make it cheap enough to use practically as you don't need that much armour other than the roof armour and therefore not need so many speciallised components to handle the weight in an AA and a tank hunter/SPG.
:O old 1.0 tutel
It's also worth noting that the weapon system, I.e 88 to 120mm guns where strategic air defence weapon systems. Intended for use against strategic bombers.
The Krokodile model i found in Google was interesting and i love the design.
I can't wait for Gaijin to add that to WarThunder and make a special event vehicle with a ridiculous BR lol
1.0 take it or leave it
with the Dual 88 Maus. the model company that did it for an alternate reality series
Can you take a look at tanks with APS ? Still waiting for the Favorite tanks from Twitter video 😂, don’t know why but it makes me excited /interested to see your take on the ideas from the community. Great video!!
I've never once tweeted or posted a Twitter whatever you call it
Paper panzer models are awesome. You can build and paint them however you want and rivet counters can't say anything about your work
Those fake tank super heavy models are cool though. I've thought of buying some myself. I've seen tank destroyers and AA based off the E-50 and E-75. Cool concepts that Wargaming will take advantage of eventually.
2:06 that tank remembered me of another design I saw , (I don't know if it was a real or just a "fan made") , named Flakpanther which fired the same type of missile( the Rheintochter R1) and of all of the designs I've seen so far that was the most possible to be made by the germans , and I've seen a lot of people say that some things could have won the war for the axis , but this time I have to say that not really the vehicle but more the missile , the anti-air Rheintochter could have had a major impact on the war and have the allies on the run.
absolutely categorically chould not have put the allies on the run. they had absolutely no way of building something as advanced as an AA missile in the numbers needed to dent the bombing campaign. and even if they did it wouldn't stop the allied ground forces. Wars aren't won by magic wunderwaffe. they're won by sensible tech, logistics and numbers.
1 188 ton tank is nothing against 100 40 ton tanks with wet ammo stowage, APDS ammo, stabilisers and reliable engines (not to mention ammo, fuel and well trained crew)
@@oliverbooth2872 Your argument is totally wrong and I think you type your comment without even doing a basic research , first the Rheintochter program started in 1942 , not some late may 1945 , and by 1943 more than 80 tests were conducted which proved it was a successful design so the mass production of them was totally possible , after all over 3000 of V2 Rockets were build which were produced in 1944-1945.Secondly I think you understanded wrong how the rocked worked , it was not intended to fire at a single plane , because it was not guided , it was fired at a GROUP of planes , more exactly at a formation of bombers , and from the big load of explosive that the rocked had, the shock wave was so intense that no allied bomber could resist and the wings would have broken off. Now imagine what would that mean , if that rocket could bring down almost every group of bombers that entered Germany ... I tell you , no more bombing of the cities so no more countless lives lost ,no more bombing of the industries(that includes the refineries from which oil was made) so more equipment overall in the battlefield , which meant that is no longer 1 german tank to 100 , but 50 or more to 100 , and for your knowledge the Germans had better trained soldiers and tank crews.
@@rmnzir3022 This is exactly the kind of thinking that lead to Nazi Germany making so many resource draining wunderwaffe during the war. you say it started in 1942 like 3 years is a reasonable development cycle. 3 years to design an develop a brand new form of weapon system is insanely short. they managed it but the resource draw to expedite the program is disproportionate. and while the Rheintochter had test firings, it was cancelled ad therefore clearly either not ready or not considered worth the effort.
The Rheintochter did indeed have a very large warhead for an AA round, but nowhere near the amount needed to bring down multiple bombers in a single airburst, so why use it over a much cheaper 128mm AA shell that could also 1-hit any allied aircraft.
Also lol "every allied bomber entering Germany destroyed"
Unlike Britain the Germans never developed an effective bomber interception command structure- your magic jet fighter cant kill a bomber it cant find with the German
interception rate of 50% (vs battel of Britain rates of 90%+).
You want a magic increase in AA kills? the allies managed it. instead of overcomplicated and useless AA missiles we developed radar-fused shells. massive boost to kraut bombers and fighters killed,
Also your prediction of a 100 fold increase in German production if bombing g had ended in early 45 is fantasy.
Similarly the V2 was only useful as a terror weapon. It was not only highly inaccurate, it had half the payload of the lwf medium bomber but could not be re-used and was nearly as expensive. The v2 program killed more jewish slaves while making them than enemy population.
also by 42 onwards the Germans had inferior crew training and in general inferior tactics. they had functionally no reserves so no rotation of troops to the rear to help train recruits and very little fuel, parts or ammo to spare for training. by 45 they were sending out literal children to fight.
Germany lost because of inferior numbers, technology and ideology.
@@rmnzir3022 No one weapon, however fantastical or revolutionary would've made a dent in the grand scheme of things, it was a war of economies and Germany's economy was crippled. I will add what you're suggesting is similar to the Bordrakate-21/Werfer-Granate 21 which was an unguided air-to-air rocket, which even when fired at 800-1000 meters with a timed fuze to burst within bomber formations and a relatively large warhead still only managed 15% or so hit ratings and mostly served to break defensive formations up for attack. Ground-launched unguided AA rockets had pretty miserable performance and offensive rockets in general were known for their poor accuracy and never replaced heavy AA batteries on either side, getting an unguided rocket up to the altitude where it could possibly damage bombers and having it actually intercept them close enough to damage them is a monumental task as evidenced by the entire design strategy of assuming a direct hit is almost impossible and opting for fitting the munitions with large warheads to hopefully burst close enough to cause damage.
I don't really get why they can't just make up fun alt history designs and always have to pretend as if these things had any basis in reality.
I always liked the flakpanzer Drache-kai. Take the Ratte, double the length, triple the width, quadruple the tracks, and add the unused turrets (1 per vehicle for a total of 3 vehicles), of the third Yamato class battleship (Shinano, converted to an aircraft carrier), utilizing only Type-3 starburst anti-aircraft shells. I only ran across a single reference back in the 90s of this. It was about the time the Ratte itself was starting to get out into the wider world. I realize that it was so fake as to be stupid -- still it sounded like fun. Lol
Ouch @ 2:16 and the "right between the eyes" hit on the Whirbl's upper front plate.
The real reason the Germans never considered mounting Flak guns (particularly 8.8cm and larger) on heavy tanks was due to Flakpanzer doctrine. Flakpanzers were required to maintain a fast enough speed to keep pace with panzer regiments.
As quoted by Oberst Thomale at the Panzer und Waffenkommision joint session discussing Flakpanzer design and doctrine (5/43):
"A vehicle with a weight of about 30 metric tons and an engine powerful enough for 50-60 kph is needed in order to protect an advancing [panzer] regiment."
Thus Tigers, King Tiger's and especially E100 or Maus were simply out of the question. In fact the joint session dictated specific tank chassis considered adequate for Flakpanzer requirement:
"Leopard, Pzkpfw-IV, and Panther components are to be favored [in Flakpanzer designs]."
With the joint session concluding:
"Initially the Pzkpfw-IV chassis will be tried as a Flakpanzer. If this isn't adequate, the Panther chassis will be used."
Furthermore heavy Flak guns (8.8cm or larger) were dropped in Flakpanzer designs after experiments with the Versuchsflakwagen 8.8cm Flak41 (PzSfl.IVc) since it was assessed that towed heavy Flak units would prove equally effective as self-propelled 8.8cm guns:
"In January 1944 Reichsminister Speer ordered Krupp to cease development of 8.8cm PzSfl.IVc...The 8.8cm Flakpanzer was obsolete for escorting panzers because high altitude aircraft could be engaged by stationary [8.8cm] Flak guns...In addition control of a mobile battery wasn't possible because equipment had not been developed that could transmit firing directions by optical or radio signals between the command vehicle and flakwagen. Connecting cables would have caused too great a hindrance to mobility and tactical flexibility."
- Jentz, L. Thomas, "Panzer Tracts No.12-1"
Additionally, it was decided that smaller caliber Flak guns would satisfy the air defense requirements for panzer regiments at the joint conference mentioned above:
"An option was held [that] Flakpanzer armed with 2cm Vierling, 3.7cm Drilling or Zwilling or 5.5cm Flak-Illing are needed to protect a [panzer] regiment."
Field assessments late in the war determined that the 2cm Flak proved most effective against Allied fighter bombers - the greatest risk to panzer units.
"In my opinion the problem of whether to use a 2cm or 3.7cm anti-aircraft guns has been decided completely in favor of the 2cm. The Jabo is the Mistvieh. He attacks at low heights. In every case always at an elevation where the 2cm is effective. Most Jabo kills are credited to the 2cm."
- Major Petri, Flakpanzer assessment on the West Front, 30/01/45
So nowhere were heavy tanks, much less super heavy tanks even mentioned as a basis for German Flakpanzer design. These E-100 & Maus Flakpanzers are consequently entirely tank fantasies.
As someone who occasionally makes what-if tank models, I can guarantee these people are almost never doing it to misinform, they just don't think they need to clarify that they're making things up.
Usually, either they don't know what they're saying is BS (because they've taken someone else's BS at face value) or they're assuming that what they're making up is so obviously false that people will know they're just adding some flavour text to their creations. It's unfortunate that some people are gullible enough to take their fantasy flavour text at face value.
The companies making these sorts of kits, however, should know better than to do the same.
One interesting creation I designed myself a little while ago was a Raketenjagdpanzer with the X-7 Rotkäppchen ATGM system, based on the Panzer 38D chassis. Building it took some heavy conversion work, but it was one of the most fun projects I've done, and I get why people love making these fake Wunderwäffen: it's just fun to be free of the need to research and check every detail.
this series of videoes kinda makes you wish some one made a warthunder like game but they add every single fake tank to the game with damage models and so on it would be pretty cool driving around in these fake tanks and seeing how well would they face againts each other
Nice one. I particularly like the Valentine in the film sections going "ha ha harrrrrrrrrrrr" at the E100 hull.
Well there you have it folks. World of Tanks Common Test server is love with autocannons. And the Flakmaus is one of them.
Coming from a scale modeller, the people who are really into it tend to be aware of the history, and we like doing some fake tanks cause they are interesting to paint (like 'what ifs'), I think these pictures then get circulated and people use them because there aren't any other photos of the vehicles (cause they didn't exist).
I really should finish painting my E-100 SPAA model.
Thanks for the reminder.
Further to all your excellent arguments there's one other reason the first two designs never existed: the flak panzer existed to give the frontline troops mobile close AA support. The 8.8 and 12.8cm guns were near useless in this role and so do not needing mounting on a protected vehicle. Honestly that ridiculous Maus hull with two wibelwind turrets is the most useful design shown- using the huge hull space to mount moar dakka for fending off allied CAS.
still useless compared to just having two wirbels but less dumb then trying to use anti-bomber weapons on a lawnmowing p-47
Honestly, that twin-flak E-100 thing at the very beginning would look great with a few sci-fi gribles. I like the smooth hull with the back platform. Maybe with a kind of rounded shield around the turret, open at the top…
The biggest problem in super heavy AA tanks is how they are supposed to move their turret fast enough to keep up with an airplsne…
(Also if u make an video about AA tanks on the panther chassi u should also take an look at the concept of an Panther hull with an kugelblitz turret which some people say actually existed as an field modification)
Shut up... is fiction, you stupid ape.
*Sees the twin barrel 8.8 Cm Maus*
*Flashbacks to Red Alert, the song Hell March intensifies*
I actually love making/seeing those obscure Kitbashes and Alt-History Vehicles and fitting background stories. The idea of a superheavy AA tank is just kind of intriguing. Of course they should be labled as such to prevent fake information from spreading.
I use several gamertags, one of them is "Flakmaus dual 88mm"
It's just the perfect combination of stupid, cool, and absurd.
There's an additional point where the whole "Heavy Flakpanzer" comes apart... WHY would somebody want to build it? The whole point of a Flakpanzer is to provide close AA cover against fighter-bombers or light to medium bombers - as such they have to be able to move with the vehicles they have to cover and need fast-moving turrets in order to track the air targets. Even the Sgt York was a failure because it was too slow to keep up with the tanks, so a Maus wouldn't make any sense at all. And turret traverse on these monsters was glacial as well... which would only have been ok if the AA guns were used for defense against high-flying heavy bombers like the guns in question were supposed to in the first place. But... strategic bombers rarely attack ground formations on the move (outside of War Thunder at least), so why waste resources on a mobile platform? And for rear area high value targets, towed guns set up around the target would have sufficed...
The infamous Waffenträger auf E100 👍
old WoT...
@@dogeytheboi It's back, on last week, WG nerf it
@@JesseKnight2000 ik, but sadly its strongly nerfed and its only rental
Thank u for ur time and effort teaching us about tanks and history and what's real and fake .Great work
Always a great day when Cone uploads
Average War Thunder player:
"How much Hp does it have💀"
There would be no logic to mount a heavy AA gun on a front line tank, given the 128mm was designed to break up high altitude bomber formations over German cities. Front line German mobile formations needed protection from fast, low level “Jabos”, thus rapid fire 20mm and 37mm auto cannons were the tool of choice. A slow loading heavy flak gun (or guns) on a 100 ton tracked chassis would be a logistical nightmare and useless at its core function.
It’s Uber-tank fan boy fiction.
Thanks for calling it out.
I think the simpler way to disprove these is just to ask the question of why mount an exposed or barely armored turret to a heavily armored hull, sorta defeats the purpose of having that armor. The only exception would be the 88 dual cannon one but that just obviously makes no sense, I mean how is the crew supposed to aim them and why mount two side by side?
I suppose you could make the case for these as an alternate history “What I’d Nazi Germany won/survived the war” scenario. Eventually, the Germans could have reached the same conclusion the US and Soviets did, ditching heavy and medium tanks for the MBT concept, rendering their heavy and super-heavy tanks redundant. At that point, recycling their hulls for other purposes might make some sense, but all the same objections about mobility and range would still apply.
If that happened I think they would have built a German Kubinka and just moved forward with new designs. Recycled hulls make sense in wartime much more than after a war, the hulls would probably not make good recovery vehicles like the centurion, so the most likely path would have been: design new tank&make museum, keep some tanks for training/reserves/foreign aid, scrap some, and done.
Would have made more sense to convert PzIII hulls to a FlakPanzer configuration, rather than diverting super-heavy hulls for the purpose.
Having the 88mm/ 128mm guns would have made sense if trying to knock down heavy bombers at high altitudes, but the main threat to Pz divisions would be low flying Jabos.
Idea For a looooong-term Video (series?): how about making what-ifs about the Tanks of the command and conquer universe? Like how possible are they and how useful they would really be.
Guys wake up ConeOfArc just posted
I’m awake I’m awake!!!
I don't wanna wake up
I'm going to sleep
The Sturer Emil had a 128mm gun but it Had a shorter barrel than what was on the E-100 hull by like half.
Kinda feel like it would just be a flashing “bomb here” beacon
I could see them taking off some armor, as they would just need a platform big enough to carry heavy aa weaponry.
But the concept of having a heavily armored spaa is absurd, why have that much armor if you’re going to be facing planes and will be usually relegated to rear to mid line fighting?
There is several pictures like these on pinterests, such as the sturmpanzer VIII maus with the 380mm rocket mortar, or the so called "Waffenträger E-100 15cm FlaK 60F"
Some of the best model kit companies have horribly mistranslated and misattributed information in the instruction manuals constantly. I saw one that said the Valentine mounted the 2lber, 6lber and 17lber gun in it's turret. Maybe someone can guess which one was wrong? I think they meant the QF 75mm unless they meant the Archer which wasn't a turret mounted 17lber. But I buy Tamiya models which are extremely accurate in detail, even some of their old outdated models have great authenticity but the instruction manuals are constantly mistranslated and have bad information in them. So, don't ever take your information from model kits whatever you do if there's anyone out there who does that.
And I love the idea of mashing up model kits, I think the KV-6 is one of the coolest models I've ever seen. But people need to seriously wake up to reality or learn a lot more about WW2 if they really thought anyone cared to design E-100 or Maus hull AA tanks. In what fantasy world would that be practical or make any sense to waste a perfectly good, modern/cutting edge hulls when older hulls could hold them? It's not logical at all and while the Maus and E-100 were already pretty illogical, it's far more illogical to waste the hulls on AA tanks. As dumb as German super heavies were, that's a whole new league of dumb and people should have known better.
The amount of disinformation, mistranslation or just information we DON'T have from this era will always blow my mind. The World Wars were one of THE most recorded events and they weren't THAT long ago. You'd think we'd be able to hold onto records from less than a 100 years ago.
With how crazy German designs were back in WW2. I'm actually surprised we never got an "All in one" type deal. A tank with AP rounds able to pierce most armor of the time, a fast turret, good armor, and a high rate of fire gun to engage enemy aircraft. Seems like something that would've happened.
They did have an all-around gun tho, namely the flak 88, things can shoot out planes and tanks with correct ammo.
One thing I still don't get: If the E series were meant to be standardized versions of panzers, why build the E-100 first? Surely something like the E-50 would be more beneficial to replacing front line tanks.
8x 40mm mount makes planes disappear
I'm sure that I read that it was decided that it was more expedient to use existing towed guns and tractors rather than a fully-tracked tank with the same gun.
The problem is that the turret would weigh so much that traversing it fast enough to track even bombers would be very difficult.
I just realized the Porsche Tiger of the Cursed by Design series is sitting there, destroyed. After all this time only now do I notice
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with fantasy in general, as well as in WW2 designs. It is a lot of fun. However, I don't understand what do the model producers achieve by stating false claims about some imagined models being real, except a few more sells, they should just leave it as is, or just simply state that it was never real. I am quite certain it would not impede their profits since many modelers are very aware of the true history of their models. Those who weren't or aren't will be, thanks to this channel. Cheers.
I'm surprised that none of Bismarck's stabilized twin 105 AA mounts have grown tracks yet...🤣🤣
3:29 what minifigs look like next to most lego tanks buddy pals
A case of "what if" gets out of hand
There seems to be an alternative history among armor modelers which is WWII '46 and WWII '48. They also are stating that the German military found a "crashed" UFO in Bavaria in 1936 and salvaged it for reverse engineering. Which is why (antigravity?) saucer shaped vehicles were trying to be built close to the Czech border in 1944. All this UFO theories combine into building German heavy tanks and aircraft artillery to be marked as '46.
It's fine to have alternative history as long as it's labeled appropriately. Otherwise you end up with gullible people believing it.
Man, how would the turret traverse manage to track fast moving aircraft? I feel like they'd get a shot off, then struggle to readjust, due to the literal MAUS turret they're using.
Feels like they were better suited to engage slow ass bombers and other ground attack aircraft that aren't know for thrir maneuverability.
I knew there was 2 Maus tanks and one being fully functional but never saw any combat. But I didn't know there was ready to go shells of the the Maus ready to be completed
For those who might have noticed: several of the modelkit-boxarts shown were by the company Modelcollect... while there is nothing wrong with them realesasing as much as they can, their tendency to seemingly pursue every possible combination of their different sprues has resulted in some rather ridiculous "designs". That alone might be worthy a feature on this series @ConeOfArc. As said before, I do not have anything against companies releasing what-if subjects as I am building some of them myself and fully agree with the premise of "please label your fictional history" :)
Didn't they have it labeled like Germany 1946 or WWII 1946 some time ago? Or was it other company with their what-ifs?
@@BKohut They are within the Panzer'46 universe. The boxes on the video have been "trimmed" to leave out the tank designation and the brand.
Anyone with a two-finger clearance above their eyebrows realizes they're fictional.
@@The_Modeling_Underdog I mean, for sure, just that I remember that they had kinda explicitly had said on the box or in description that they were what-ifs or fictional. They also made some badass mech range, which was fun to build
@@BKohut indeed, Fist of War is the range. Really wacky and interesting.
Obviously, an SPAA with that much armour would be hampered just as much as any other super-heavy tank. They're broadly impractical at their core.
However...
I can see *one* possible application, at least for the 8.8cm armed variant. It's not a *good* application, but it is one that could, and probably would exist if the vehicle was produced; The 12.8cm gun of the Maus and E-100 was really, really over-gunned. Nothing in service with the Allies needed that kind of firepower at the time, and not really anything in the coming decade would that was produced in large numbers either. Just a few equally impractical prototypes.
A variant of the E-100 (or Maus, for that matter) with two 8.8s could be pressed into the anti-tank roll, and *theoretically* engage two targets before needing to reload. Or - more likely - fire a ranging shot, miss, and then have an immediate follow-up shot. Cycling the guns may or may not have been possible, due to potential danger to the loader - but a dividing wall between them may have helped.
Is that useful though? Hell no, it is not. The 8.8 could be reloaded quite quickly anyway, being derived from an AA gun. The real limiting factor would have been turret rotation and gun elevation speed. What does it matter how fast you reload if you're not aiming at the target yet? The vehicle would have performed just fine even if it only had a single long-88, like the Tiger B. So, in the end... Just build the Tiger B instead. It's still impractical, but it's at least functional and might break down a bit less.
If, for whatever reason though, a commander DID find themselves in an E-100 with two cannons, they might opt to only employ one of them, or perhaps have one gun loaded with AP, and the other with HE at all times - to maintain readiness for different targets. Still not a great idea, but with the slow rotation and limited visibility expected with super-heavy tanks, I can't imagine them ever successfully engaging aircraft more capable than a hot air balloon.
Just researched the maus after 2 years of grinding from the 2020 German event
Therapist:
Flakmaus isnt real it cant hurt you
Flakmaus:
Home animations: I'll just steal your video and turn it into a tank concept
I audibly laughed out loud when I saw one of these models on display at the Tank Museum in Bovington! I just thought it was silly
就暢想之下E-100底盤下，能裝的自動裝填防空炮，頂多是單管的自動版88mm炮，雙管自動88炮，是連結構上都是不合理，哪怕只是幻想下的暢想設計。🤔🤔
The 88 looks like an adaptation of a naval mount
Please do a "Late Obj. tanks" video with the 640 and 490 for exemple, i'd really like to see the history of these as i can't seem to find infos... i've been asking for at least a year man!
The Maus turret would be so slow and unwieldy it wouldn't be able to track with an Allied plane
0:54 literally the Waffenträger XD
As I told Cone earlier, the reason why this stuff doesn’t exist is the same reasons why there are no M26 based SPGs produced in WW2. (Ignoring the prototype) And why the M4 based M40/43 SPGs get produced.
Is one of the reasons what would the point of self-propelled mobile AA be if it was too slow to keep up with and protect the rest of the army?
Plus also having nothing flying at the time that was large/armoured enough to warrant a 128mm flak cannon to bring down would likely be a large factor in them not being built. 88s would be more than enough for most planes at the time.
@@Spidehman 88? plane? you can down any plane with 7.7 but need the long range of .50 and 20mm and the extra damange is big the us 37mm tho for ex make it he and auto and put 2 and boom plane exterminator even if fast rpm 20mm and 50 cals are the most efficient
@@Noooo23523 Ideally you want a 20mm-40mm caliber and a lot of Rounds (due to inherent miss's). anything bigger and you need a near miss for the shrapnel.
@@captiannemo1587 yea like maybe 30mm but the 37 tank canons used automaticaly are slow and unreliable
The 128mm FLaK does have a (partially) enclosed turrer like the one depicted in WoT
i created a fictional tank called the sherman m19 which had a 88mm cannon and a fire support variant with a 100mm cannon and an AA variant with twin 53mm AA guns.
The maustomatic isn't real, it can't hurt you
The maustomatic:
Considering the size of the AA Guns on a heavy flakpanzer, what would be the Rate of Fire?
The reason these things are fake has nothing to with hulls or production capacity. Heavy AA cannon were used in a battery together with radar, searchlights (that were radar guided themselves) , rangefinders, prediction computers, etc. Heavy AA batteries actually had smaller automatic cannon attached to it to protect the big ones. By late war these things would be useless without all that.
For comparison look at a modern Patriot or S-x00 system.
The 128mm desing looks cool tho ngl
This looks like the Armageddon Steel Legion in 40k would deploy it in battle
"Why mount aa guns on a heavily armored type, makes no sense" yes I agree, but I could argue many of the decisions being made in late war Germany indeed satisfied the latter of that statement .
I would want a Grant/Lee with the BL-10 gun model
Honestly not surprised, anybody could argue the necessity of super-heavy support vehicles, given that they're already too heavy, too slow, too unreliable, and have poor range. Logistical and practical flexibility on the battlefield win wars, not whatever niche a super-heavy fits into.
A super heavy flak platform would actually be super effective... against a Star Destroyer and not much else
i know its fake but that E100 hull with twin 88's looks cool asf
They may be imaginary tanks but they look so impressive and awesome anyway . l've built many paper panzers in 1/72 / 1/35 scale purely for the What lf ? scenario and why l realise that the chances of such beasts ever being a reality is non existent they sure do look imposing and awe inspiring .
At 0:54 and 1:01 how the wtf e100 was SUPPOSED to look like