Descriptive rating plateaus

Since there could be many differences between players of much higher / lower ratings, I was curious if anyone has tried to map the ratings out in a more "basic" way.  Regarding official ratings:

What does a 1500 have over a 1200?

What does an 1800 have over a 1500?

What does a 2100 have over an 1800?

What does a 2400 have over a 2100?

What does a 2700 have over a 2400?

Surely these ratings have different "skill" peaks.  What I mean is, you don't get 2400 out of "luck", you must know the game inside and out, know end game theory, opening theory, and have a very good understanding of Chess.  So the differences between a 2400 and a 2700 seem like they would be far less pronounced than say an 1800 and a 1500.  I may be wrong, but that's why I made this thread, to discuss!

A 1200 is a Goth tribesman, a 1500 is a Roman Legionary, a 1800 is a modern infantryman, a 2100 is an Italian Tank from WW2, a 2400 is a German tank from WW2, a 2700 is a modern day tank.

Haha.  Not quite what I expected, but I'll take it. :D

To be fair its a hard question to assess.  I know some 2000 players over the board who have terrible opening knowledge but awesome middlegame skills.  Peoples strengths do lie in different areas.  Usually a 1200 will leave pieces hanging much more often.  Beyond that its a gradual strengthening in all areas.  Not many 1500's would think in terms of "dark square weaknesses" or attacking squares rather than pieces.

 if any .