Photos from Alternate Worlds
- Thread starter Tetsu
- Start date
- Status
Y...shut up.
How else do you expect me to replicate troops marching? From a distance, everyone looks the same, even in OTL.
Why do they have 19th century uniforms and muskets while boarding a spaceship?
Hapsburg
Banned
Parade Uniform. I said that in the description. And they're not 19th century, it's closer to wehrmacht uniforms.
1. It's a bolt-action rifle, not a musket.
2. Parade rifle. You don't expect them to heft around the standard-issue .50-cal assault rifles without their powered armor, do you?
To revive this thread, here are some of the Morey Engine powered Battlewagons built in the years preceding the Eurasian War.
British Mark II Battlewagon (Model 1880)
Russian 'Landship 1878'
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1889/rustankmr5.png
British Mark II Battlewagon (Model 1880)
Russian 'Landship 1878'
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1889/rustankmr5.png
If those are windows in that top turret that can fit a man, that means six pixels are now 2 meters. That means the entire tank is about 100 meters tall!
The cannon turret has a diamter of six meters! What madness! The wheels are 48 meters tall! You've fit an entire aircraft carrier on land! Good GOD!
The cannon turret has a diamter of six meters! What madness! The wheels are 48 meters tall! You've fit an entire aircraft carrier on land! Good GOD!
If those are windows in that top turret that can fit a man, that means six pixels are now 2 meters. That means the entire tank is about 100 meters tall!
The cannon turret has a diamter of six meters! What madness! The wheels are 48 meters tall! You've fit an entire aircraft carrier on land! Good GOD!
View attachment 17952
Uh, they don't fit a man
They're slits in a tank hatch.
And Fenwick, you're right, those are two MGs on the side. That thing on the top is a commander's cupola, so he can get a better view.
Thande
Donor
Those are some very impressive drawings, Blochead. I do wonder about the rationale, though - the Russian one looks rather like the British tanks from OTL WW1 and has full tracks for defeating trench warfare, whereas the British one doesn't have tracks at all by the look of it. Exactly what theatres of war were these designed for?
I do wonder about the rationale, though - the Russian one looks rather like the British tanks from OTL WW1 and has full tracks for defeating trench warfare, whereas the British one doesn't have tracks at all by the look of it. Exactly what theatres of war were these designed for?Those are some very impressive drawings, Blochead.
Well, here's the reason why: the first 'motorwagons' of that size were developed by Americans for transportation where the railroads had not yet reached. They used pedrails because they were easier to maintain and allowed for a smooth ride. An American proposed arming them for combat, but the US Army wasn't interested and thought it was impractical for fighting Indians. So he proposed it to the British government, which liked the idea a lot more. In the late 60s and early 70s, the British one was used in Southern Africa and the Middle East, where the nature of warfare meant that trench combat had not yet developed. The Russians, however, had more experience with trench and defensive warfare from fighting against the Prussians and in Manchuria. The conditions of the steppe especially meant that traditional wheels were not as effective, so instead the Russians opted for treads and a lower profile design.
However, neither design has been used in major combat against another European power. Once Britain and Russia go to war in Persia, the designs will start to change and you'll see trench warfare on the WWI scale rather than in localized or colonial conflicts.
And thankyou for the comments.
Thande
Donor
Well, you've obviously put a good deal of thought into this and I broadly agree: if the 19th century is any like ours, Britain will be more interested in putting down petty rebellions by the Boers or random Indian groups, while Russia will have more experience in trench warfare against industrialised foes.Well, here's the reason why: the first 'motorwagons' of that size were developed by Americans for transportation where the railroads had not yet reached. They used pedrails because they were easier to maintain and allowed for a smooth ride. An American proposed arming them for combat, but the US Army wasn't interested and thought it was impractical for fighting Indians. So he proposed it to the British government, which liked the idea a lot more. In the late 60s and early 70s, the British one was used in Southern Africa and the Middle East, where the nature of warfare meant that trench combat had not yet developed. The Russians, however, had more experience with trench and defensive warfare from fighting against the Prussians and in Manchuria. The conditions of the steppe especially meant that traditional wheels were not as effective, so instead the Russians opted for treads and a lower profile design.
However, neither design has been used in major combat against another European power. Once Britain and Russia go to war in Persia, the designs will start to change and you'll see trench warfare on the WWI scale rather than in localized or colonial conflicts.
And thankyou for the comments.
I wonder if any Great War will be like ours - only, instead of Europeans facing enemies with machine guns of their own for the first time, it will be them facing enemies with tanks of their own... chaos ensues (though it probably wouldn't be a static stalemate like our WW1).
Well, I'd say something but I'd spoil the update on the war, wouldn't I?
But yes, this will be the first conflict where both sides have tan- erm, battlewagons. I will say the Russian tactics in using them for conventional warfare will be more effective initially.
Eh, the Wolverine in Mexican Intervention is about 500 tons...
Perhaps a few hundred years of TL in the future, I will grant you your wish
.- Status