The Germans did indeed have engines in WW1 capable of producing the horsepower needed for the K-Wagen. If you didn't find any, it's probably because you didn't look at _naval_ engines. The Diesels used in German submarines and torpedo boats generated the horsepower ranges mentioned, and were often used in pairs. If they were using them for the K-Wagen, it might even explain the size of the beast since the K-Wagen would have been roughly the size class of a torpedo boat or U-boat.
For example soviet ЯМЗ-236/238 engine was used in everything from trucks to tractors to a railroad engineering motor coach. Some locomotive engines were likewise as i heard installed on small ships for sake of commanality during total war scenarios USSR was planning for during cold war. So would think germans during ww1 wouldn't have any problem adapting a naval engine block to what can be considered a landship.
even if there are none left, some museum should and i mean SHOULD make a mockup model with some form of inside so people can walk around this behemoth and inside, just to see how massive it was for a tank.
I really don’t see why more companies don’t make mockups of old or prototype tanks, besides money of course. If I had the money I would totally remake a ton of classic tanks
Yeah I mean they already replace parts with unoriginal pieces if a museum started a fundraiser to make mockups of cool nonexistent tanks I'd donate I don't get why it's fine to replace parts but not fine to make copies from detailed blueprints it's not like you need an engine or anything it's just meant to be a cool piece of history and I'm pretty sure the shit that makes tanks run is MUCH more expensive then the guns hull and tracks(although maybe not for the k-wagen due to its sheer size and guns) if I were a billionaire I would 100% commission the Ratte and gustav replicas be built and offer to build it in front of the tank museum or nearbye guarantee it would become the main attraction easily(maybe not feasible though but it would be cool asf)
Sadly it won't happen. I often wonder if dice was woke then heavily and were like nah we ain't gonna give the Germans anything cause Germany bad holocaust bad.....even tho it was WW1 and Germany didn't start it.....
@@johnblack8872 no they probably didn't do it because like 7 Char 2Cs were actually constructed and none of the other maps have side specific behemoths that could have fucked with game balance badly.
I have had a fascination with military hardware and history for as long as I can remember. I have also nurtured a love of doodling pictures of various weaponry since I was a young lad, with no real concern for how “practical” or “realistic” such designs were. These twin passions grew so powerful during my high school years that I had a 3-ring binder full of pictures of tanks, airplanes, etc. to serve as inspiration for my own eccentric drawings. I mention this to explain why, as I was watching this video, I thought “You know, I bet I could fit the turret of a Char 2C on that thing and make it EVEN COOLER!!”
V6 engines were very uncommon, even up to the 1950s, the only V6 engine I can think of that was around at the time was made by Deutz(since 1908) & was intended for marine use so it likely was able to produce 650hp or even more but it would have been absolutely massive.
I was thinking along the similar line- doesn't that sound like someone thought about putting a motor from an U-Boot into the tank? 650PS sounds like a number those motors did achieve in WW1.
@@Tigrisshark Yup. U-Boot WW1 diesel motors acheved up to thousands of HP's, so finding a 650HP engine among them is certainly possible. With the supposed usage of "U-Boot technology" in the development, this seems like the way the research should be heading.
@@jon-paulfilkins7820 Very likely, or in many cases the nomenclature had somewhat different meanings back then. I have seen what today is called a V12 referred to as a V6 in very old documentation, because it's a "V" configuration with 6 cylinders per bank. Looking at the engines in the schematics, the engines look rather long, and are probably not "modern" V6's, as that would produce a fairly short engine. Taking 2 inline engines and building them with a common crankcase and crankshaft to produce a larger engine was common until recently and would produce an engine slightly longer than the inline 6's it was bases on.
People also tend to forget that whilst the Allied engineers were working under better and better conditions with ever increasing resources, the German engineers were working in the context of dwindling resources and in many cases being bombed with increasing regularity - such is not cohesive to perfectly balanced designs in the first place. Then add the mid-late war desperation to find a 'wonder weapon'.
The first plans for the K-Wagen were made with 2x200hp engines, after the increase to 150 tons, 2x650hp engines were planned and still planned, even the tank lost 30 tons thanks to a shorter design. I have checked every U-Boat class of Germans in WW1, and none of them used engines with exactly 650hp. 6-Cylinder diesel engines reaching the expected amount of power are possible, the U-Boat class UB-III had 2 engines with each 550hp, produced from 1916 on. The DMG (Daimler) was planned to deliver the engines, which were already producing engines for the german Air force. But their biggest ever used engine was a 260hp in the Daimler G.III, an experimental giant bomber prototype. While its still possible, that a 6-Cylinder diesel engine can reach the mentioned amount of hp in 1918, its unlikely that DMG were able to develope and deliver such an engine at the start of the production of the K-Wagen. I can imagine, they were simply producing the tanks and were placing weaker engines into them to do some trials till they can replace the weaker engines with the originally planned 650hp engines from DMG.
Well, would you have 5 panzer IVs fighting 5 shermans or one tiger? Using similar tanks like the enemy with knowing that they can easily produce more then you doesn't make much sense but having one heavy tank is a high risk high reward solution. It could hold the enemy off and make them retread and it can be used as breakthrough tank aswell, which suited the German war style at the time. Also the Germans did develop other tanks like the Hetzer for anti tank porposes but the Germans did lack in manpower, time, fuel, factories and supplies in general. Vehicles were rare and because of a lack of time and manifacturing facilities, they based their tank designs on already existing ones or old ones
@@Jacksonflax well, I would say a Panzer IV and Sherman have roughly the same strength if they face each other. So 5 Panzer IVs against 5 Shermans is like a 50/50 and the winning side will most likely have taken damage and lost some tanks. But a heavy on the other side either repealed the enemy tanks or got destroyed, high risk but if you succeed you took almost no serious damage. A sherman most likely can not destroy a German heavy tank from the front (of course there are versions that can and situation which allow them to) so the heavy has a pretty good chance of winning. Now back to your point about 5 tanks. I just took a random number but it is realistic that a heavy can take on 5 Shermans especially the way Germany used heavy tanks in the late war, they positioned the tank on a strategic important point and defended it. The heavy woundn't be able to destroy all 5 tanks but it still completed its job. The remaining tanks wouldn't advance any further and would retreat because they don't have the firepower nor armor to take it on. Same if the heavy would be used offensively but it would be more exposed. Americans had tanks with enough firepower but not nearly as many as shermans so the chances of such tanks clashing into eachother is rather low. American tanks meeting German tanks was already rare (if you look how many tanks Americans used) Now the crazy part. Compare the mass of a Tiger I, about 57 tons and a Panzer IV with about 25 tons. Now picture yourself what's more efficient to use against 5 Shermans, 125 tons of steel or 57
The 1910s, almost 1920s? Absolutely they'd seen cars before the army. And in the army, officers would have had cars, in addition to the fact that Germany had 5 models of armored cars in use.
The Germans realized the only real threat to these tanks is artillery fire, so they attempted to make the tank big enough for artillery to hit it accurately.
Then you have the mud and craters, I mean no man's land wasn't a flat dry surface. Not forgetting debris like barbed wire, it would have been fascinating even a bit scary to see it coming.
I can picture a bunch of overdressed, bemedaled Vons toasting one another and proclaiming how this vunderveapon will push the hated Britishers into the Channel, while a few engineers stand in the corner and quietly shake their heads.
Exactly ! No-one with actual battleground experience would conceive of such a hopelessly impractical machine. The first time it got bogged in deep mud, it would become an oversize pillbox ! Nothing could ever recover it !
@@edwardfletcher7790 Recover it ? Are you mad ? ;) You would next a locomotive to pull that nightmare out of the ground. LMAO Once stuck in mud, this thing is not moving unless you destroy it. It's better than the TZAR tank, but still ridiculous. No soldier was present when a genius created this non-sense land cruiser.
This tank had a similar design from Hungary that replaced some of the turret weaponry with pneumatic tubes that launched rations to troops. Schnitzel, hot pretzels and roasted sausages were all available on the front with a sauerkraut slurpy machine in the back with ten unique flavors! It was a real storehouse of convenience. They called it the Circle K-Wagen.
@@DeltaAssaultGaming welcome to germany where we use metric and comma as decimal separator. Hence the fact that we even say "Sieben Komma sieben" and not "Sieben Punkt sieben"
For the engine, my guess is a submarine engine converted to land usage, like the planed engines for the P.1000. They had engines that could reach 900shp, so it's not exactly a dream to have two 650hp engines.
Very interesting video about one definetely overlooked tank! Now that we got that side of the spectrum covered, how about a video about some of the more reasonable designs made by the Germans towards the end of WW1? The LK I and LK II are certainly interesting and did in fact leave a legacy as being Swedens first tanks...
It's always amazing the speed of technological advancement and industrial throughput war brings. WWII and to a lesser but still impressive extent, WWI, had so many projects that were rapidly adopted. The fact something as monumental as the K-Wagen was nearly completed is amazing.
I love your stuff. I was the first person to produce a "paper panzer line" in 1/72nd scale back in 95'. I made the E-100- Panther Star, Hetzer Star, Panzer-X, Lowe, Barr, and the Hunting E-100. I scratch built them all by hand my first year of college, I was going to be an engineer in those days so I was very proud of the detail, and effort I put into those kits. A man named John Hammond bought them from me at a Historicon convention in PA. in 96 if I remember correctly, he gave me 400 each, and I thought I made a big-time, LOL. They were taken overseas and produced through a company called Skytrek models. I went on for years hand-building master kits to sell to companies just beginning to scratch the surface of this subject, which I foresaw being big but nothing like it truly has become. Eventually, many of the large companies began to do the odd stuff like the E-10, Katchen, E-100, and so on so I began making terrain pieces as well as Fantasy stuff like Rock giants, dino's, Vikings huts, and the like. Around 2010 I fully saw the writing on the wall and understood hand sculptors such as myself were a dying breed nobody had a use for anymore because of the emerging 3D printing tech. So I went on and got certified in Solid Works and now make 3D models for a foundry that produces cast Iron products. When I see stuff like your work I can't help but smile, remembering back when the only info we had for such projects was a paragraph in the German encyclopedia of armor on the E-100, and Katchen. Even then they had the wrong picture for the Katchen, showing the interlaced wheel system of the short Panther hull version which only 2 were produced of. The version that would have been eventually armed with the wired rockets was based on the Hetzer type chassis with the Christie road wheel system, but it is all we had then. Please continue to make your awesome videos, your research is 2nd to NONE!
The engines were to be two submarine engines. There had been several diesel engines around 400 - 1200 hp in services in the Kaiserliche Marine. In addition, the constant back and forth of 6 and 8 cylinder in documentation about the K-Wagen, makes me believe that they might have planned of taking one of the 800-900HP 8-cylinder diesels and shortening it. Thus producing something that ran 6 cylinders with something close to those 650HP. They might have also considered some sort of Körting paraffin-engine, although I am not aware of a model that fits that power rating. Those engines were very very fuel inefficient though. (MAN and Körting built most of the submarine engines, with Körting building paraffin powered ones at first, diesels later. Other manufacturers were - amongst others - AEG, Daimler, Benz & Cie., Deutz, Junkers and Krupp. But MAN and Körting were the really big two) Regarding weight, judging by MAN's surprisingly low kg to hp ratio, the engines used, would have weighted something around 14 tons each, or 28 tons (this is metric tons), probably less. Seeing how that number is from stuff built in 1912, it is quite likely that the weight would have most likely turned out a bit better than that value in later developments. For comparison, the last engine that MAN developed, in 1917, was a ten cylinder engine with 3000hp that still fit in a submarine. Although most submarines of the mid to late war, ran diesel engines of around 1200 - 1500hp. To be honest very few people care about WW1 engines and even fewer care about German WW1 engines, so it's not surprising you didn't find much. As a native German speaker, it's a bit easier, but material is still scarce.
you can tell just by the blueprints that the engines used are of the same model used in SM U-5 series U-boats. this would make sense as these were very out of date by this point in the war, and these engines would have been less desirable for naval use, as newer engines could top 1000hp by this time. anyways, this is a twin engine system. 2-shaft kerosene burning daimler engines with integrated twin electric engines and 11 onboard batteries. this system delivers 600-650 hp depending on operation and instillation. these were pre-war engines, which date to 1908.
Did you include Naval engines in your search? I remember seeing plans for a "landkreuzer" that used literal battle cruiser turrets and was powered by 4 submarine diesel engines
@@watcherzero5256 That is not even close to correct, Otherwise their size would make them utterly useless even for submarines. Usually they'd be about as tall as a person, and weighed tens of tons, not hundreds. SM U94, Was powered by two 1,183 HP engines, For a total of 2,367 HP, and the SUBMARINE was 8.25 meters tall, which would've meant that the engines would be larger than the sub, which also was also only about 825t.
@@snapletgames4086 ya, Germany would have had to had engines that could have had a chance at moving these monsters, and naval engines probably would have been the only ones available, what about a torpedoe boat engine? Would that be smaller than a u boat? If so then those would be able to provide power to a k-wagen.
Nicely made video. It’s good to see something tackling the K-Wagen, as well as mentioning the other super heavy projects going on at the time. While I hadn’t heard of the Trench Destroyer before, I do know there was a British plan called the Flying Elephant. The best way I can describe it is a gigantic bread box or loaf of bread with guns sticking out and fat tracks on the bottom. Iirc it was supposed to have around 6, 8, or more guns; machine guns and cannons. This is all I know about it; I think it was abandoned before the machine left the drawing board. There’s another unique machine that actually did reach production after WWI, the French Char 2C, also known as the FCM 2C. 10 were built. However, they never really saw combat, and all have tragically been lost to time. It went through a bunch of unique retrofits in the period between both World Wars. I think it’s worthy of a video of its own.
Scrapping these was a mistake.The scrap was more useful for the germans than they could ever be.The Allies should have forced germany to build and use hundreds of K-Wagens,so their tank budget would be crippled.
They probably would scrapped them after the Naxis took over and had a huge material bonus as a result... Or maybe they would have modernised them and invaded Poland with them.
Unless the perspective in the drawings is misleading, that tank would have had absolutely horrible ground clearance. That huge flat bottom hull would have gotten hung up causing a major engineering problem to get it unstuck. Imagine doing that under fire. The excess length and weight would mean that you would likely sink into any obstacles you were trying to cross.
The model picture is wrong, it could not have a front machine gun in front of the tread like that. And the front side machine gun locations are in doubt too, because of the bogies for the tracks.
Thanks for the video Cone! My only wonder is did they actually test drive this afv before? I mean that the track design looks like it's undrivable past just forward and backwards. Too long and too thin?
5:11 In my opinion, the modular design would probably involve the sponsons on the sides the K-Wagen split from the main hull while the hull itself would be cut in half between the engine and forward driver and crew compartments...
7:10 I can tell you that higher hp and torque engines were, or were being developed in the aero industry, particularly for the giant all-metal bomber monoplanes being developed - and built - in Germany circa late 1917 thru 1918. Maybach in particular was working on a 600 hp straight six in 1918, and the likelihood that a tank version of this engine was planned for the K-Wagen certainly makes sense. A long stroke aero straight six, with it's high torque characteristics, matches up with the drawings your documentary has provided. Those look like Maybach sixes. ...and take a look at the scale of the engine visa vie the "driver" perched at the front of the K-Wagen. The engine is @5 feet tall. That would indicate a veeery long stroke engine. It is much larger than the 300 hp class straight sixes fielded by Maybach, Mercedes, or Basse & Selve. The cam drive housing and the vertical jackshaft driving the ohc looks to be Maybach design. Could be Mercedes as well.
Its my understanding the engine used for this tank was a MWM RS34.5S six-cylinder four-stroke diesel. It was originally designed for ships and u-boats.
Great video, Ive seen those old photos of this and wondered what it was. The amount of steel used in this thing, always intrigued me and how they would get it moving
This thing looks less like a tank and more like the boss from a side-scrolling shooter video game where you're forced to shoot each of its guns off and then it opens up to reveal that it can fire lasers from its engine.
I might have to update my Char 2C article on the Tank Encyclopedia, your video shows the K-Wagen could possibly be considered a production vehicle and therefore surpassing the dimensions of the 2C
I think if one got sent into the field it’d get crippled from mud build up in the tracks and then get pounded into fragments by artillery that or have a transmission failure
when you think of it, slow speed does not matter in trench warfare. the enemy is not going to escape and one you get into the enemy trenches with the tank and infantry, it is then basically a win.
From what I've heard but I cannot exactly name the source, the original was supposed to be 60ft but I'm not sure. I have further. Confirmed that the original design was supposed to be 165 tons. After doing some math of calculating surface area units per square foot by 30mm and calculating the massz I've concluded that If the armor is continually 30mm and including about 8,000lbs of equipment (estimate) the original length should be around 82ft. This is a reasonable guess, but knowone will ever truly know how long it is.
Someone needs to make a replica of these things. Maybe not exact with the engines and parts, but just in the overall design. We need more big steel coffins.
Oh my God, the General Melchett Award for a total misunderstanding of WWI goes to ConeOfArc. 1) The protracted trench fighting was limited to the Western Front, battles on other fronts were far more fluid, but often with massive casualties on both sides. CF Tannenberg in Russia. 2) The highest casualty rates occured at the beginning of the war in 1914 and would never be surpassed by any other battle including the Somme and Verdun. 3) Technology in 1914 was heavily in favour of the defender. The firepower of artillery and machineguns made combat utterly lethal. It was far harder to use these guns to attack than to defend. Also communications was still mostly by telephone and telegraph, which means that once again defending troops were at an advantage and could coordinate far more easily than attacking troops. 4) This firepower meant that troops anywhere near the battlefield were in danger, that's why troops started to dig in. In fact this problem remained in WWII and it's been calculated that Germany had more troops in trenches in WWII than they did in WWI. This was a necessity since the German army was on the defensive from 1942-1943 onward. 5) Headlong charges rarely happened, but troops still need to advance to take enemy positions. huge changes happened to equipment, organisation and tactics. By the latter half of the war troops advanced behind a marching barrage, while artillery fired box barrages at the enemy positions under attack to prevent troops from leaving or entering the area. In the area itself they used drum fire to bombard random spots of the trench lines, making it much harder for troops in the dugouts to estimate when it would be safe to emerge from the bunkers and open fire on the enemy. The enemy would be bombarded with a mix of high explosive and gas to make things as difficult as possible as fighting wearing gas protection is far harder. The troops that attacked were well equipped for the task, they had grenades, close combat weapons and had close support in the form of lighter, more portable light machineguns, rifle grenades, mortars and in some cases even flamethrowers. They would be ideal for clearing out enemy defenses. 6) Problem is that the enemy kept improving their defenses. Trenches were often pulled back to more favourable terrain that would dominate enemy positions. Rather than continuous defensive lines they created very deep defenses with multiple defensive lines that could support each other and were the springboard for rapid counterattacks. Heavily armed pillboxes were positioned in the front lines, often only opening fire until the second line moved up unaware, forcing troops to halt or even turn back to help their comrades under fire. This means that units were often fighting in multiple directions at once and no longer attacking as a coordinated force. A timed counterattack could break even the most well-planned attack. 7) Tanks did poorly in general, they were useful when available but they were very unreliable and coordination between troops and tanks was incredibly difficult. Often tanks were unaware that troops nearby were under attack and trying to get their attention might cause them to shoot at friendly troops. 8) Attempts were made to use wireless sets to communicate with the advancing troops, but the sets were incredibly bulky and fragile and often useless. 9) The Germans put a heavy emphasis on bypassing any resistance and continue to attack, leaving the second and third lines to clear resistance nests. By then the tactics highlighted above in 5) were further refined with aerial observers, as well as concentrating elite troops into the spearhead of an attack. This meant great initial success, but losses stacked up and the logistics failed. The German army was critically short of motorized vehicles that could bring in much needed supplies so after advancing further than anyone else during the war they were out of range of their own artillery and logistics that couldn't get closer. 10) The allies counter-attacked and what was left of the German spearhead was pretty much annihilated. August 8 1918 was a disaster for the German army, when they not only lost massive ground to the Allies, but incredible numbers of troops were surrendering en masse. Ludendorf declared it a Black Day. 11) The allies had more equipment to bring into the battle and were able not only to stop the German advance, but turn it into a rout, for a hundred days they continued to advance and the German army was unable to regroup and hold the line. Large amount of motorized vehicles helped to move the much needed supplies and artillery and while tanks contributed they were not yet a war winning weapon, they would mature in time for WWII. 12) The major issue is that on the Western Front, the major powers of France, UK and Germany (+ other allies) could muster millions of men and keep them in the trenches, keep them supplied with food and ammo and for much of the first 2/3rds of the war there were enough troops on both sides in such density that any attack could be countered. They all tried to attack and break the line at some point. Even the Germans who had an advantage understood that attacking was useless and stuck to defending fell prey to the temptation to break the Allies in 1916, attacking Verdun and failed miserably. It wasn't until later when the German army had been thinned by attrition and the reserves to plug gaps in the line were unavailable or made of troops of such poor quality they were worse than nothing than the battle finally changed. The Blackadder version is a stupid man's idea of WWI. It was a perpetually evolving conflict where weapons and tactics changed, but as the methods of attacking changed, so did the methods of defending even more effectively. It wasn't until WWII and more reliable communications were possible that armies could coordinate mobile troops very effectively. The allies may not have been winning the early battles to retake northern France and Belgium, but they were not losing either. That is the key to understanding WWI.
That hunting game intro seems kinda awkward. But it's true. My grandfather was a hunter, and he was also a sniper. At least he stopped hunting before WWII because he noticed the wildlife was dwindling. Shame few others had that presence of mind.
While the tank is making his way on the battlefield at turtle speed, dodging bombs craters with a non-turning 40 ft rig, two squadrons of cavalry made a pincer maneuver and approached the tank by the rear and stopped it using grenades and explosives to blow the tracks. Or, the field artillery eventually got it at close range. The end. I think the armistice was signed just on time ! Imagine the crew having to cross the no man's land in these steel coffins while under fire? Pure madness.
In regards to finding the engine, dont forget to look at similar models. It might have wrongly been written as V6 and it was really a V8, a V12(ie, it's not 2 V6s, it's a single V12), an I6, maybe even an W12, H12 or a flat 12 or something. Or it might have been a 350HP engine under design that didn't achieve its designed output, and with perhaps no finished engines taken into service, noone wrote down enough about it for this to be easily apparent. And as others have already noted, most likely, this would probably have used a navy engine. From a submarine, torpedo boat or possibly an engine powering a generator on a larger ship.
The K-Wagon gives me the same reaction as most multi-turreted or "land battleship" designs. It's absolutely ridiculous in every way but it's just SO fucking cool. The idea of a thing that size, with that many people in it, trundling along shooting in all directions, is like something straight out of the brain of my ten year old self.
As soon as tanks get above 70 tons you start to encounter severe problems with ground pressure (which makes the tank more likely to get stuck if the ground isn't extremely hard) and mobility as the amount of power you need to move the vehicle at a tactically practical speed starts to outgrow available technology (and internal space to house such an engine) at an exponential pace.
What about naval engines? At that time navy had started to use liquid fuel powerplants. Some had a oil heated boilers, other had diesel style closed combustiom.
Well, just to play Devils Advocate here: Germany and Italy were on opposite sides during WWI but their aviation mechanics had shared much of the same information and technology just prior to the war. FIAT was already hard at work on the A.14 by 1915 and by 1917 it would hit the skies pushing 725 HP per engine, mostly to power long range bombers. Two engines of liquid cooled V12 production couldve potentially been made by Daimler, Vollmer, or Junkers; all of whom would introduce very similar engine designs just after WWI ended. I think that theres a possibility that two 500 HP engines had been built for the K-Wagens 150ton version, and that it just seemed ridiculous by sheer cost to actually assemble. Engines would've simply wound up in some form of expiremental plane or vehicle anyways, and after WWI would likely have been scrapped as war material and never seen again. Just saying that engines did exist by 1917 that were pushing the required 1000 HP if you linked two of them.
I wonder if it would possible for someone to construct a boilerplate reconstruction some day and put it in the tank museum, like their reconstructed MK IV?
I read somewhere that the British captured the more or less completed vehicle, inspected and possibly tested it, and were pretty disparaging in their assessment of it. It was just too big and heavy to have operated on anything but perfect terrain. The Italians came up with a Fiat monster, a bit like the A7V, which from memory only reached the prototype stage and, again a waddling fortress. I've never actually heard of the American machine you mention before now - 200 tons? Phew! How did they expect that to operate on the churned up fields of Flanders?
its also possible that they intended a 325 hp engine using a detuned 500 hp engine which I can assume was from their U-Boats since they're going to need torque over raw HP
Just a few things to note... Artillery has never been that actuate especaly in the World war 1. So the German engineers likely decided it was a risk they were willing to take for having the best breakthrough tank at the time. Considering the tank was in production at the end of the war the engine was most likely made for it like how the turbine engine of the Abrams was designed for it and was not off the self.
Knowing that a photo of one of these exists is staggering, it definitely sounds like the kind of crazy though experiment and wishful thinking that went on in late war minds. But holy damn the idea that one of these was actually built and ready for fielding is insane.
As far as i know, the planned engines where Aviation engines from Daimler. But the best known and build engines at that time where from BMW who where able to pump out 226 HP each. But a V8 engine was planned by Mercedes at the end of the war.
Huge thanks to Hunting Clash for sponsoring. Download the game for free on IOS and Android: huntingclash.onelink.me/LNzZ/ConeOfArc
Can you,kill birds it the game
do u mean huge tanks?
does the Kamchatka map have torpedo boats though
ruclips.net/video/NcecKa0kn9M/видео.html my new song ❣️❣️😇
Love the new opening!
The Germans did indeed have engines in WW1 capable of producing the horsepower needed for the K-Wagen. If you didn't find any, it's probably because you didn't look at _naval_ engines. The Diesels used in German submarines and torpedo boats generated the horsepower ranges mentioned, and were often used in pairs. If they were using them for the K-Wagen, it might even explain the size of the beast since the K-Wagen would have been roughly the size class of a torpedo boat or U-boat.
True true.
For example soviet ЯМЗ-236/238 engine was used in everything from trucks to tractors to a railroad engineering motor coach. Some locomotive engines were likewise as i heard installed on small ships for sake of commanality during total war scenarios USSR was planning for during cold war.
So would think germans during ww1 wouldn't have any problem adapting a naval engine block to what can be considered a landship.
mans knows his v8s
WW1 German Zeppelin engines also produced similar hp to the amount mentioned.
Indeed, and I wondered if they produced any locomotives engines that might suit such a lengthy beast.
The ancestor of all of German tank traditions, big guns, big armor, and underpowered engines.
And weak transmissions
Oi! name a single tank of WW1 that WAS NOT underpowered!
@@jurten but in the case of the k wagon it was probably been severely underpowered for its weight compared to a tank like the mark 1
@@jurten good point
@@jacobryan4569 I mean, it was 2kph faster than the british tanks so I'd say it wasn't that underpowered.
One sentence to perfectly describe that thing: Tall, big, gorgeous and painfully thicc.
Daebom, *do your thing.*
It is honestly the best looking ww1 tank. Like it’s so sleek lmfao it’s shape is very nice
Borgar
It’s so ugly 😭
@@Billybobjoefromscidk what you're talking about, i'd smash
even if there are none left, some museum should and i mean SHOULD make a mockup model with some form of inside so people can walk around this behemoth and inside, just to see how massive it was for a tank.
I really don’t see why more companies don’t make mockups of old or prototype tanks, besides money of course. If I had the money I would totally remake a ton of classic tanks
a mild steel mockup could end up with an acceptable cost if the reproduction of inner systems isn't pushed toof ar into th eaccuracy/realism
Yeah I mean they already replace parts with unoriginal pieces if a museum started a fundraiser to make mockups of cool nonexistent tanks I'd donate I don't get why it's fine to replace parts but not fine to make copies from detailed blueprints it's not like you need an engine or anything it's just meant to be a cool piece of history and I'm pretty sure the shit that makes tanks run is MUCH more expensive then the guns hull and tracks(although maybe not for the k-wagen due to its sheer size and guns) if I were a billionaire I would 100% commission the Ratte and gustav replicas be built and offer to build it in front of the tank museum or nearbye guarantee it would become the main attraction easily(maybe not feasible though but it would be cool asf)
@@crispylizard4348 the Saudis could easily do it. There wealth is literally impossible to grasp. They could purchase 3 rattes and not even flinch.
>Make the heaviest tank ever
>still no cannon can hit a target directly in front of it.
You don't seem to grasp the concept behind it.
It's a landship. It's meant to go full broadside.
Not the heaviest, but certainly the longest.
It sucks at the most important thing
well, who tf would want to get stuck in front of this thing?
“What is this ‘turret’ thing you speak of Hans?”
In BF1 some of the French/German maps give a team a Char 2C tank as a behemoth. It'd be cool if the Germans would get the K-Wagen instead
This could be marvellous with that US WW1 tank project made real and available, every once in a while.
100% agreed
@@Briselance what tank? I only heard of the skeletal tank
Sadly it won't happen. I often wonder if dice was woke then heavily and were like nah we ain't gonna give the Germans anything cause Germany bad holocaust bad.....even tho it was WW1 and Germany didn't start it.....
@@johnblack8872 no they probably didn't do it because like 7 Char 2Cs were actually constructed and none of the other maps have side specific behemoths that could have fucked with game balance badly.
I have had a fascination with military hardware and history for as long as I can remember. I have also nurtured a love of doodling pictures of various weaponry since I was a young lad, with no real concern for how “practical” or “realistic” such designs were.
These twin passions grew so powerful during my high school years that I had a 3-ring binder full of pictures of tanks, airplanes, etc. to serve as inspiration for my own eccentric drawings.
I mention this to explain why, as I was watching this video, I thought “You know, I bet I could fit the turret of a Char 2C on that thing and make it EVEN COOLER!!”
Honestly, a turret on this thing, slap an Imperial eagle on it? No one would know it isn't from warhammer 40k.
@@Sorain1 IT IS THE BANEBLADE
@@Theakboyy I’m glad I wasn’t the only one thinking that.
V6 engines were very uncommon, even up to the 1950s, the only V6 engine I can think of that was around at the time was made by Deutz(since 1908) & was intended for marine use so it likely was able to produce 650hp or even more but it would have been absolutely massive.
Upvoting this for ConeofArc to see
I do wonder if they meant 6 Vs, what we would call a V12. Translations from other languages can throw up oddities like that.
I was thinking along the similar line- doesn't that sound like someone thought about putting a motor from an U-Boot into the tank? 650PS sounds like a number those motors did achieve in WW1.
@@Tigrisshark Yup. U-Boot WW1 diesel motors acheved up to thousands of HP's, so finding a 650HP engine among them is certainly possible. With the supposed usage of "U-Boot technology" in the development, this seems like the way the research should be heading.
@@jon-paulfilkins7820 Very likely, or in many cases the nomenclature had somewhat different meanings back then. I have seen what today is called a V12 referred to as a V6 in very old documentation, because it's a "V" configuration with 6 cylinders per bank. Looking at the engines in the schematics, the engines look rather long, and are probably not "modern" V6's, as that would produce a fairly short engine. Taking 2 inline engines and building them with a common crankcase and crankshaft to produce a larger engine was common until recently and would produce an engine slightly longer than the inline 6's it was bases on.
I for one, appreciate the honesty about the accuracy of the sources, way to many channels just read things out like they are concrete facts.
So it turns out that even in the earliest days, German tank design theory was a pathway to many monstrosities some consider to be... underpowered.
to be fair, Panzers 1-5 were actually reasonable in terms of overall power and engineering.
@@lordblack998 - In fact the first two were both under armed and armored.
@@lordblack998 Panzer 1-4? Yes. Panzer 5? Definitely not
Don't forget... the gearboxes of terror!
People also tend to forget that whilst the Allied engineers were working under better and better conditions with ever increasing resources, the German engineers were working in the context of dwindling resources and in many cases being bombed with increasing regularity - such is not cohesive to perfectly balanced designs in the first place.
Then add the mid-late war desperation to find a 'wonder weapon'.
"JOHNNY, HOLY SHIT, ITS THE MEGA TOASTER!"
Lol toaster
JOHNNY THE TOASTER IS SHOOTING AT US, WHAT THE FUCK DO WE DO??
@@toastyread2008 transformers style
@@toastyread2008 I don’t know run behind it
@@slendermanminecraft7558 ITS REVERSING INTO US AAA-
The first plans for the K-Wagen were made with 2x200hp engines, after the increase to 150 tons, 2x650hp engines were planned and still planned, even the tank lost 30 tons thanks to a shorter design.
I have checked every U-Boat class of Germans in WW1, and none of them used engines with exactly 650hp.
6-Cylinder diesel engines reaching the expected amount of power are possible, the U-Boat class UB-III had 2 engines with each 550hp, produced from 1916 on.
The DMG (Daimler) was planned to deliver the engines, which were already producing engines for the german Air force. But their biggest ever used engine was a 260hp in the Daimler G.III, an experimental giant bomber prototype. While its still possible, that a 6-Cylinder diesel engine can reach the mentioned amount of hp in 1918, its unlikely that DMG were able to develope and deliver such an engine at the start of the production of the K-Wagen. I can imagine, they were simply producing the tanks and were placing weaker engines into them to do some trials till they can replace the weaker engines with the originally planned 650hp engines from DMG.
So, this is where the German trend of "if it doesn't work well, just make it bigger" comes from.
Well, would you have 5 panzer IVs fighting 5 shermans or one tiger? Using similar tanks like the enemy with knowing that they can easily produce more then you doesn't make much sense but having one heavy tank is a high risk high reward solution. It could hold the enemy off and make them retread and it can be used as breakthrough tank aswell, which suited the German war style at the time. Also the Germans did develop other tanks like the Hetzer for anti tank porposes but the Germans did lack in manpower, time, fuel, factories and supplies in general. Vehicles were rare and because of a lack of time and manifacturing facilities, they based their tank designs on already existing ones or old ones
No, it is 'make it more complicated' the bigness is just a side effect.
@@contentdeleted6428 This theory also assumes that one German heavy would actually be worth 5 mid to late war shermans lol
@@Jacksonflax well, I would say a Panzer IV and Sherman have roughly the same strength if they face each other. So 5 Panzer IVs against 5 Shermans is like a 50/50 and the winning side will most likely have taken damage and lost some tanks. But a heavy on the other side either repealed the enemy tanks or got destroyed, high risk but if you succeed you took almost no serious damage. A sherman most likely can not destroy a German heavy tank from the front (of course there are versions that can and situation which allow them to) so the heavy has a pretty good chance of winning. Now back to your point about 5 tanks. I just took a random number but it is realistic that a heavy can take on 5 Shermans especially the way Germany used heavy tanks in the late war, they positioned the tank on a strategic important point and defended it. The heavy woundn't be able to destroy all 5 tanks but it still completed its job. The remaining tanks wouldn't advance any further and would retreat because they don't have the firepower nor armor to take it on. Same if the heavy would be used offensively but it would be more exposed. Americans had tanks with enough firepower but not nearly as many as shermans so the chances of such tanks clashing into eachother is rather low. American tanks meeting German tanks was already rare (if you look how many tanks Americans used) Now the crazy part. Compare the mass of a Tiger I, about 57 tons and a Panzer IV with about 25 tons. Now picture yourself what's more efficient to use against 5 Shermans, 125 tons of steel or 57
Größer und böser!
I had so much pride in my country when you mentioned the US designed a super heavy tank and then decided to name it the “TRENCH DESTROYER”
this could only have been topped if they named it "DESTROYER OF TRENCHES" instead of "TRENCH DESTROYER"
Imagine being aboard one of these things, alongside 26 other men, when most people had never seen a car before
Never seen? I think most would have at least seen pictures of it and in real life. But most would indeed have never had the occasion to drive one.
I mean, they probably would have heard about ships by then.
@@JonatasAdoM Ships have literally been around for as long as humans have used tools
The 1910s, almost 1920s? Absolutely they'd seen cars before the army. And in the army, officers would have had cars, in addition to the fact that Germany had 5 models of armored cars in use.
Most people in 1914 living in France, Germany, the UK or the US would have seen a car.
The Germans realized the only real threat to these tanks is artillery fire, so they attempted to make the tank big enough for artillery to hit it accurately.
Germany is really dumb at ww's back then.
That's good sportsmanship.
lol.
but to be fair, the shrapnels of artillery would've propably been enough to damage it enough.
The tank would be a nightmare to even steer more over go over sharp hills or very wide trenches.
Then you have the mud and craters, I mean no man's land wasn't a flat dry surface. Not forgetting debris like barbed wire, it would have been fascinating even a bit scary to see it coming.
And that is without even mentioning the logistical nightmare it would have been. Or the maintenance quagmire.
“Out of your friends which are you?
Maus: CRAZY ASS
Porsche Tiger: TRANSMISSION FREAK
E100: *Alien sounds*
Tiger 1: THE FIGHTER
The AdMech called, they want their holy artifact back
I can picture a bunch of overdressed, bemedaled Vons toasting one another and proclaiming how this vunderveapon will push the hated Britishers into the Channel, while a few engineers stand in the corner and quietly shake their heads.
Exactly ! No-one with actual battleground experience would conceive of such a hopelessly impractical machine.
The first time it got bogged in deep mud, it would become an oversize pillbox !
Nothing could ever recover it !
@@edwardfletcher7790 Not even a proper pillbox. With 30 mm steel between the crew and the nearest artillery piece it would have gone in minutes.
@@edwardfletcher7790 Recover it ? Are you mad ? ;) You would next a locomotive to pull that nightmare out of the ground. LMAO Once stuck in mud, this thing is not moving unless you destroy it. It's better than the TZAR tank, but still ridiculous. No soldier was present when a genius created this non-sense land cruiser.
@@MegaBIGJOE64 Ummm I did say NOTHING could recover it ..
@@edwardfletcher7790 You're right ! sorry !
This tank had a similar design from Hungary that replaced some of the turret weaponry with pneumatic tubes that launched rations to troops. Schnitzel, hot pretzels and roasted sausages were all available on the front with a sauerkraut slurpy machine in the back with ten unique flavors! It was a real storehouse of convenience. They called it the Circle K-Wagen.
It was actually called the "Kör K-harckocsi"
4x 7,7 cm guns. :O then they are most certainly the 7,7 cm LeFH 16. Quite powerful with around 625m/s iirc.
7.7 cm
@@DeltaAssaultGaming no in germany such mesures are with a "," such as money 7.500,00 € as to US $ 7,000.00
@@DeltaAssaultGaming Many countries use "," as the decimal separator and "." as the thousands one
@@DeltaAssaultGaming welcome to germany where we use metric and comma as decimal separator.
Hence the fact that we even say "Sieben Komma sieben" and not "Sieben Punkt sieben"
In the war, there were also many truck drivers, so a truck driving simulator sponsor would fit a channel about tanks like a glove.
For the engine, my guess is a submarine engine converted to land usage, like the planed engines for the P.1000. They had engines that could reach 900shp, so it's not exactly a dream to have two 650hp engines.
Very interesting video about one definetely overlooked tank! Now that we got that side of the spectrum covered, how about a video about some of the more reasonable designs made by the Germans towards the end of WW1? The LK I and LK II are certainly interesting and did in fact leave a legacy as being Swedens first tanks...
As much as engineering disaster it is, you gotta hand it to the German that they get the aesthetic of these machine down quite nicely.
If the aesthetic is shoe box then sure
Ahh yes this box is very aesthetic
Funni big toaster
Maus: who are you?
K-wegen: I'm your great grandfather
I'm gonna love this episode!
The Father of Heavy Tanks.
Its a superheavy
The Mark 1 and other variants are Heavy tanks
Regarding the engines used, I'm thinking that they would have used some sort of marine engine.
Definitely !
It's always amazing the speed of technological advancement and industrial throughput war brings. WWII and to a lesser but still impressive extent, WWI, had so many projects that were rapidly adopted. The fact something as monumental as the K-Wagen was nearly completed is amazing.
I love your stuff. I was the first person to produce a "paper panzer line" in 1/72nd scale back in 95'. I made the E-100- Panther Star, Hetzer Star, Panzer-X, Lowe, Barr, and the Hunting E-100. I scratch built them all by hand my first year of college, I was going to be an engineer in those days so I was very proud of the detail, and effort I put into those kits. A man named John Hammond bought them from me at a Historicon convention in PA. in 96 if I remember correctly, he gave me 400 each, and I thought I made a big-time, LOL. They were taken overseas and produced through a company called Skytrek models. I went on for years hand-building master kits to sell to companies just beginning to scratch the surface of this subject, which I foresaw being big but nothing like it truly has become. Eventually, many of the large companies began to do the odd stuff like the E-10, Katchen, E-100, and so on so I began making terrain pieces as well as Fantasy stuff like Rock giants, dino's, Vikings huts, and the like. Around 2010 I fully saw the writing on the wall and understood hand sculptors such as myself were a dying breed nobody had a use for anymore because of the emerging 3D printing tech. So I went on and got certified in Solid Works and now make 3D models for a foundry that produces cast Iron products. When I see stuff like your work I can't help but smile, remembering back when the only info we had for such projects was a paragraph in the German encyclopedia of armor on the E-100, and Katchen. Even then they had the wrong picture for the Katchen, showing the interlaced wheel system of the short Panther hull version which only 2 were produced of. The version that would have been eventually armed with the wired rockets was based on the Hetzer type chassis with the Christie road wheel system, but it is all we had then. Please continue to make your awesome videos, your research is 2nd to NONE!
Welp, I’m staying up until 3AM until I can watch this
Same lol
hey you should do a video on the history of antitank rifles up to their obsolesence
The engines were to be two submarine engines. There had been several diesel engines around 400 - 1200 hp in services in the Kaiserliche Marine. In addition, the constant back and forth of 6 and 8 cylinder in documentation about the K-Wagen, makes me believe that they might have planned of taking one of the 800-900HP 8-cylinder diesels and shortening it. Thus producing something that ran 6 cylinders with something close to those 650HP. They might have also considered some sort of Körting paraffin-engine, although I am not aware of a model that fits that power rating. Those engines were very very fuel inefficient though.
(MAN and Körting built most of the submarine engines, with Körting building paraffin powered ones at first, diesels later. Other manufacturers were - amongst others - AEG, Daimler, Benz & Cie., Deutz, Junkers and Krupp. But MAN and Körting were the really big two)
Regarding weight, judging by MAN's surprisingly low kg to hp ratio, the engines used, would have weighted something around 14 tons each, or 28 tons (this is metric tons), probably less. Seeing how that number is from stuff built in 1912, it is quite likely that the weight would have most likely turned out a bit better than that value in later developments. For comparison, the last engine that MAN developed, in 1917, was a ten cylinder engine with 3000hp that still fit in a submarine. Although most submarines of the mid to late war, ran diesel engines of around 1200 - 1500hp.
To be honest very few people care about WW1 engines and even fewer care about German WW1 engines, so it's not surprising you didn't find much. As a native German speaker, it's a bit easier, but material is still scarce.
you can tell just by the blueprints that the engines used are of the same model used in SM U-5 series U-boats. this would make sense as these were very out of date by this point in the war, and these engines would have been less desirable for naval use, as newer engines could top 1000hp by this time. anyways, this is a twin engine system. 2-shaft kerosene burning daimler engines with integrated twin electric engines and 11 onboard batteries. this system delivers 600-650 hp depending on operation and instillation. these were pre-war engines, which date to 1908.
Did you include Naval engines in your search? I remember seeing plans for a "landkreuzer" that used literal battle cruiser turrets and was powered by 4 submarine diesel engines
Submarine engines were two storeys tall and weighed hundreds of tonnes.
@@watcherzero5256 that would explain their proposed use in the 1000+ ton landkreuzer design.
@@watcherzero5256 That is not even close to correct, Otherwise their size would make them utterly useless even for submarines. Usually they'd be about as tall as a person, and weighed tens of tons, not hundreds. SM U94, Was powered by two 1,183 HP engines, For a total of 2,367 HP, and the SUBMARINE was 8.25 meters tall, which would've meant that the engines would be larger than the sub, which also was also only about 825t.
@@snapletgames4086 ya, Germany would have had to had engines that could have had a chance at moving these monsters, and naval engines probably would have been the only ones available, what about a torpedoe boat engine? Would that be smaller than a u boat? If so then those would be able to provide power to a k-wagen.
Nicely made video. It’s good to see something tackling the K-Wagen, as well as mentioning the other super heavy projects going on at the time. While I hadn’t heard of the Trench Destroyer before, I do know there was a British plan called the Flying Elephant. The best way I can describe it is a gigantic bread box or loaf of bread with guns sticking out and fat tracks on the bottom. Iirc it was supposed to have around 6, 8, or more guns; machine guns and cannons. This is all I know about it; I think it was abandoned before the machine left the drawing board.
There’s another unique machine that actually did reach production after WWI, the French Char 2C, also known as the FCM 2C. 10 were built. However, they never really saw combat, and all have tragically been lost to time. It went through a bunch of unique retrofits in the period between both World Wars. I think it’s worthy of a video of its own.
Yes! I can finally say "I told you so" from when the A7V video came out. Great work again :D
Great video! you could have had some metric units for the length of the thing though, but otherwise it was really interesting
Scrapping these was a mistake.The scrap was more useful for the germans than they could ever be.The Allies should have forced germany to build and use hundreds of K-Wagens,so their tank budget would be crippled.
They probably would scrapped them after the Naxis took over and had a huge material bonus as a result...
Or maybe they would have modernised them and invaded Poland with them.
So far as I remember they begged the allies to at least allow them a test ride ... the request got denied.
I’ve loved this tank for years it’s one of my favorites and I’m so glad you made a video on it
Unless the perspective in the drawings is misleading, that tank would have had absolutely horrible ground clearance. That huge flat bottom hull would have gotten hung up causing a major engineering problem to get it unstuck. Imagine doing that under fire. The excess length and weight would mean that you would likely sink into any obstacles you were trying to cross.
The model picture is wrong, it could not have a front machine gun in front of the tread like that. And the front side machine gun locations are in doubt too, because of the bogies for the tracks.
German Army: "How large should the K-Wagen be?"
Joseph Vollmer: "Yes"
all the WW1 tanks i can think of off the top of my head are the K-Wagen, A7V, Mk I - IV, Tadpole tank, St Chamond, Ft-17 and Fiat 2000.
If the war had continued for another year, we might have seen these monstrosities facing off against Mark VIIIs.
I just wish that one had fought with another tank somewhere.
thats what im talking about
WW1 tanks have some of the coolest looking designs
In one of my historical magazin is an article about "Kaiser's tank dreams" with a parameter tabele wich says that engine power of K-Wagen is 960kW.
Kaiser
6:20 Turned this youtube video into Movie Recapped. I can't unhear that background music LMFAO.
Thanks for the video Cone! My only wonder is did they actually test drive this afv before? I mean that the track design looks like it's undrivable past just forward and backwards. Too long and too thin?
5:11 In my opinion, the modular design would probably involve the sponsons on the sides the K-Wagen split from the main hull while the hull itself would be cut in half between the engine and forward driver and crew compartments...
7:10 I can tell you that higher hp and torque engines were, or were being developed in the aero industry, particularly for the giant all-metal bomber monoplanes being developed - and built - in Germany circa late 1917 thru 1918. Maybach in particular was working on a 600 hp straight six in 1918, and the likelihood that a tank version of this engine was planned for the K-Wagen certainly makes sense. A long stroke aero straight six, with it's high torque characteristics, matches up with the drawings your documentary has provided. Those look like Maybach sixes.
...and take a look at the scale of the engine visa vie the "driver" perched at the front of the K-Wagen. The engine is @5 feet tall. That would indicate a veeery long stroke engine. It is much larger than the 300 hp class straight sixes fielded by Maybach, Mercedes, or Basse & Selve. The cam drive housing and the vertical jackshaft driving the ohc looks to be Maybach design. Could be Mercedes as well.
hey coneofarc! Im glad to see that someone other than me appreciates the lesser know tanks of history!
Its my understanding the engine used for this tank was a MWM RS34.5S six-cylinder four-stroke diesel. It was originally designed for ships and u-boats.
Great video, Ive seen those old photos of this and wondered what it was. The amount of steel used in this thing, always intrigued me and how they would get it moving
This thing looks less like a tank and more like the boss from a side-scrolling shooter video game where you're forced to shoot each of its guns off and then it opens up to reveal that it can fire lasers from its engine.
I might have to update my Char 2C article on the Tank Encyclopedia, your video shows the K-Wagen could possibly be considered a production vehicle and therefore surpassing the dimensions of the 2C
Just got my cone plush- it's great.
That ww1 giant German super tank should have been added to battlefield 1 good job on the video keep up the good work nice job 👍😎
I think if one got sent into the field it’d get crippled from mud build up in the tracks and then get pounded into fragments by artillery that or have a transmission failure
when you think of it, slow speed does not matter in trench warfare. the enemy is not going to escape and one you get into the enemy trenches with the tank and infantry, it is then basically a win.
Meanwhile at the German Development office in 1917:
“HANZ WE NEED A BETTER TRANSMISSION”
> Ja, Hans
> *JA*
Seeing the sheer size of that geartrain in the photos makes me think they took it seriously, but man would it move slow.
I wish they at least kept one as like a display
Awesome. Great stuff man.
Good ol conie, finding a reason to put a hunting sponsor in a ww1 tank video
A footage of A7V on the move, a rare thing to find
From what I've heard but I cannot exactly name the source, the original was supposed to be 60ft but I'm not sure. I have further. Confirmed that the original design was supposed to be 165 tons. After doing some math of calculating surface area units per square foot by 30mm and calculating the massz I've concluded that If the armor is continually 30mm and including about 8,000lbs of equipment (estimate) the original length should be around 82ft. This is a reasonable guess, but knowone will ever truly know how long it is.
Someone needs to make a replica of these things. Maybe not exact with the engines and parts, but just in the overall design. We need more big steel coffins.
Oh my God, the General Melchett Award for a total misunderstanding of WWI goes to ConeOfArc.
1) The protracted trench fighting was limited to the Western Front, battles on other fronts were far more fluid, but often with massive casualties on both sides. CF Tannenberg in Russia.
2) The highest casualty rates occured at the beginning of the war in 1914 and would never be surpassed by any other battle including the Somme and Verdun.
3) Technology in 1914 was heavily in favour of the defender. The firepower of artillery and machineguns made combat utterly lethal. It was far harder to use these guns to attack than to defend. Also communications was still mostly by telephone and telegraph, which means that once again defending troops were at an advantage and could coordinate far more easily than attacking troops.
4) This firepower meant that troops anywhere near the battlefield were in danger, that's why troops started to dig in. In fact this problem remained in WWII and it's been calculated that Germany had more troops in trenches in WWII than they did in WWI. This was a necessity since the German army was on the defensive from 1942-1943 onward.
5) Headlong charges rarely happened, but troops still need to advance to take enemy positions. huge changes happened to equipment, organisation and tactics. By the latter half of the war troops advanced behind a marching barrage, while artillery fired box barrages at the enemy positions under attack to prevent troops from leaving or entering the area. In the area itself they used drum fire to bombard random spots of the trench lines, making it much harder for troops in the dugouts to estimate when it would be safe to emerge from the bunkers and open fire on the enemy. The enemy would be bombarded with a mix of high explosive and gas to make things as difficult as possible as fighting wearing gas protection is far harder. The troops that attacked were well equipped for the task, they had grenades, close combat weapons and had close support in the form of lighter, more portable light machineguns, rifle grenades, mortars and in some cases even flamethrowers. They would be ideal for clearing out enemy defenses.
6) Problem is that the enemy kept improving their defenses. Trenches were often pulled back to more favourable terrain that would dominate enemy positions. Rather than continuous defensive lines they created very deep defenses with multiple defensive lines that could support each other and were the springboard for rapid counterattacks. Heavily armed pillboxes were positioned in the front lines, often only opening fire until the second line moved up unaware, forcing troops to halt or even turn back to help their comrades under fire. This means that units were often fighting in multiple directions at once and no longer attacking as a coordinated force. A timed counterattack could break even the most well-planned attack.
7) Tanks did poorly in general, they were useful when available but they were very unreliable and coordination between troops and tanks was incredibly difficult. Often tanks were unaware that troops nearby were under attack and trying to get their attention might cause them to shoot at friendly troops.
8) Attempts were made to use wireless sets to communicate with the advancing troops, but the sets were incredibly bulky and fragile and often useless.
9) The Germans put a heavy emphasis on bypassing any resistance and continue to attack, leaving the second and third lines to clear resistance nests. By then the tactics highlighted above in 5) were further refined with aerial observers, as well as concentrating elite troops into the spearhead of an attack. This meant great initial success, but losses stacked up and the logistics failed. The German army was critically short of motorized vehicles that could bring in much needed supplies so after advancing further than anyone else during the war they were out of range of their own artillery and logistics that couldn't get closer.
10) The allies counter-attacked and what was left of the German spearhead was pretty much annihilated. August 8 1918 was a disaster for the German army, when they not only lost massive ground to the Allies, but incredible numbers of troops were surrendering en masse. Ludendorf declared it a Black Day.
11) The allies had more equipment to bring into the battle and were able not only to stop the German advance, but turn it into a rout, for a hundred days they continued to advance and the German army was unable to regroup and hold the line. Large amount of motorized vehicles helped to move the much needed supplies and artillery and while tanks contributed they were not yet a war winning weapon, they would mature in time for WWII.
12) The major issue is that on the Western Front, the major powers of France, UK and Germany (+ other allies) could muster millions of men and keep them in the trenches, keep them supplied with food and ammo and for much of the first 2/3rds of the war there were enough troops on both sides in such density that any attack could be countered. They all tried to attack and break the line at some point. Even the Germans who had an advantage understood that attacking was useless and stuck to defending fell prey to the temptation to break the Allies in 1916, attacking Verdun and failed miserably. It wasn't until later when the German army had been thinned by attrition and the reserves to plug gaps in the line were unavailable or made of troops of such poor quality they were worse than nothing than the battle finally changed.
The Blackadder version is a stupid man's idea of WWI. It was a perpetually evolving conflict where weapons and tactics changed, but as the methods of attacking changed, so did the methods of defending even more effectively. It wasn't until WWII and more reliable communications were possible that armies could coordinate mobile troops very effectively.
The allies may not have been winning the early battles to retake northern France and Belgium, but they were not losing either. That is the key to understanding WWI.
That hunting game intro seems kinda awkward. But it's true. My grandfather was a hunter, and he was also a sniper. At least he stopped hunting before WWII because he noticed the wildlife was dwindling. Shame few others had that presence of mind.
While the tank is making his way on the battlefield at turtle speed, dodging bombs craters with a non-turning 40 ft rig, two squadrons of cavalry made a pincer maneuver and approached the tank by the rear and stopped it using grenades and explosives to blow the tracks.
Or, the field artillery eventually got it at close range. The end.
I think the armistice was signed just on time ! Imagine the crew having to cross the no man's land in these steel coffins while under fire? Pure madness.
i aint even mad about the sponsor bro gotta make a living somehow
im downloading it if the promo still on
The largest tank ever miss made.
Tsar tank: Hold my beer
That looks like a very very early target for early bomber biplane tests at minimal risk
In regards to finding the engine, dont forget to look at similar models. It might have wrongly been written as V6 and it was really a V8, a V12(ie, it's not 2 V6s, it's a single V12), an I6, maybe even an W12, H12 or a flat 12 or something.
Or it might have been a 350HP engine under design that didn't achieve its designed output, and with perhaps no finished engines taken into service, noone wrote down enough about it for this to be easily apparent.
And as others have already noted, most likely, this would probably have used a navy engine. From a submarine, torpedo boat or possibly an engine powering a generator on a larger ship.
It was planned to use U boat engines. These were in production at the time this tank was designed.
It looks like someone tried to draw a MkIV Landship from memory
The K-Wagon gives me the same reaction as most multi-turreted or "land battleship" designs. It's absolutely ridiculous in every way but it's just SO fucking cool. The idea of a thing that size, with that many people in it, trundling along shooting in all directions, is like something straight out of the brain of my ten year old self.
As soon as tanks get above 70 tons you start to encounter severe problems with ground pressure (which makes the tank more likely to get stuck if the ground isn't extremely hard) and mobility as the amount of power you need to move the vehicle at a tactically practical speed starts to outgrow available technology (and internal space to house such an engine) at an exponential pace.
I like how the most replayed part is when the sponsor ends XD
I wonder if there's "alternate prey" hunting like hunting dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, or fantasy creatures (Womp Rats, Oliphaunts, Gryphons).
I have seen games like that but I believe Hunting Clash is just modern animals.
Can't believe no one took the one nearly complete K wagen as a war prize. Like holy shit that would have been a cool thing to steal.
Slowest getaway ever.
@@imasspeons but who could stop you?
They have a big ass rectangular roof top,and none of the engineer think:we can strap a gun or two on top of it.
What about naval engines? At that time navy had started to use liquid fuel powerplants. Some had a oil heated boilers, other had diesel style closed combustiom.
The kwagen Must’ve sounded like a box fan plus a metal pole hitting a ceiling fan
Well, just to play Devils Advocate here: Germany and Italy were on opposite sides during WWI but their aviation mechanics had shared much of the same information and technology just prior to the war. FIAT was already hard at work on the A.14 by 1915 and by 1917 it would hit the skies pushing 725 HP per engine, mostly to power long range bombers. Two engines of liquid cooled V12 production couldve potentially been made by Daimler, Vollmer, or Junkers; all of whom would introduce very similar engine designs just after WWI ended. I think that theres a possibility that two 500 HP engines had been built for the K-Wagens 150ton version, and that it just seemed ridiculous by sheer cost to actually assemble. Engines would've simply wound up in some form of expiremental plane or vehicle anyways, and after WWI would likely have been scrapped as war material and never seen again. Just saying that engines did exist by 1917 that were pushing the required 1000 HP if you linked two of them.
Hope they bring out a model of this beast in 1/72 and 1/35 scales .
I wonder if it would possible for someone to construct a boilerplate reconstruction some day and put it in the tank museum, like their reconstructed MK IV?
I read somewhere that the British captured the more or less completed vehicle, inspected and possibly tested it, and were pretty disparaging in their assessment of it. It was just too big and heavy to have operated on anything but perfect terrain. The Italians came up with a Fiat monster, a bit like the A7V, which from memory only reached the prototype stage and, again a waddling fortress. I've never actually heard of the American machine you mention before now - 200 tons? Phew! How did they expect that to operate on the churned up fields of Flanders?
its also possible that they intended a 325 hp engine using a detuned 500 hp engine which I can assume was from their U-Boats since they're going to need torque over raw HP
Looks like it would make a great camper!
Just a few things to note... Artillery has never been that actuate especaly in the World war 1. So the German engineers likely decided it was a risk they were willing to take for having the best breakthrough tank at the time. Considering the tank was in production at the end of the war the engine was most likely made for it like how the turbine engine of the Abrams was designed for it and was not off the self.
Knowing that a photo of one of these exists is staggering, it definitely sounds like the kind of crazy though experiment and wishful thinking that went on in late war minds. But holy damn the idea that one of these was actually built and ready for fielding is insane.
As far as i know, the planned engines where Aviation engines from Daimler. But the best known and build engines at that time where from BMW who where able to pump out 226 HP each. But a V8 engine was planned by Mercedes at the end of the war.
Beautiful exterior design.
When the battleship ruled the seas, it seems only natural that armies would want a land battleship.
I’ve always been fascinated at the picture of the 2 in the factory, but that thing looks like it would high center about 10 feet into no mans land.
9:13 kinda surprised they were not exported/kept alive for the British and French to study it