Who Would Win 2018-09-24
Moderators: Bookworm, starkruzr, MrFireDragon, PrettyPrincess, Wapsi
Forum rules
When two threads are posted for a day's comic, the thread posted first becomes the starting post. Please delete the second thread and add your post to the first thread. When naming the thread: Comic Name YYYY-MM-DD
Thanks guys! This keeps the forum nice and neat.
When two threads are posted for a day's comic, the thread posted first becomes the starting post. Please delete the second thread and add your post to the first thread. When naming the thread: Comic Name YYYY-MM-DD
Thanks guys! This keeps the forum nice and neat.
- lake_wrangler
- Posts: 4300
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:16 am
- Location: Laval, Québec, Canada
- jwhouk
- Posts: 6053
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:58 am
- Location: The Valley of the Sun, Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
Raise your hand if you think we've just found Daylla's love interest.
Yep, thought so.
Yep, thought so.
"Character is what you are in the dark." - D.L. Moody
"You should never run from the voices in your head. That's how you give them power." - Jin
"You should never run from the voices in your head. That's how you give them power." - Jin
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
Well, looks like I was wrong about flowers sprouting out of Castela's head. But hey, it's kind of funny to see Daylla geeking out with the new guy.
There is no such thing as a science experiment gone wrong.
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
But, what's spouting out of Daylla's head...
- jwhouk
- Posts: 6053
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:58 am
- Location: The Valley of the Sun, Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
Well, due to the lack of coloring in the comic, you can't see that Daylla's eyes are starting to sparkle...
"Character is what you are in the dark." - D.L. Moody
"You should never run from the voices in your head. That's how you give them power." - Jin
"You should never run from the voices in your head. That's how you give them power." - Jin
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
And if Napoleon had machine guns...
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!
My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
- oldmanmickey
- Posts: 1656
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
Most teachers have no idea the learning opportunities alternate history presents.
Dear, don’t bore him with trivia or burden him with your past mistakes. The happiest way to deal with a man is never to tell him anything he does not need to know. L. Long
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
- Opus the Poet
- Posts: 2456
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:24 am
- Location: Surrounded by Hell
- Contact:
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
If Gatling had sold his gun to the Confederates instead of Union generals, how different would the Olympics be today?
I ride my bike to ride my bike, and sometimes it takes me where I need to go.
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
No real difference. Fixed fortification weapons had little to no impact on the War of Northern Aggression. Gatling guns, at that point, weren't terribly mobile.Opus the Poet wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:40 pmIf Gatling had sold his gun to the Confederates instead of Union generals, how different would the Olympics be today?
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
- AnotherFairportfan
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
Mongoose
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
We'll have to see on that. If Daylla turns to Castela, full of glee over the new guy, and we see that Pickle is staring at him wide eyed and with a garden on her head, then we'll know we're in double triangle territory.
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
In his "Rebel In Time", Harry Harrison looks at a somewhat similar question. What might have been the implications if the South had been given the plans to the Sten gun, prior to the start of the war?Bookworm wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:17 amNo real difference. Fixed fortification weapons had little to no impact on the War of Northern Aggression. Gatling guns, at that point, weren't terribly mobile.Opus the Poet wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:40 pm If Gatling had sold his gun to the Confederates instead of Union generals, how different would the Olympics be today?
The Sten was/is a World War II machine gun, simply and cheaply made... most of the parts could be made in simple workshops. It wasn't terribly accurate or reliable. On the other hand, it was quite portable (unlike the Gatling), and given plans and knowledge I suspect that industry in the 1850s probably could have manufactured a working version of it.
If the South's infantry had had man-portable machine guns during the Maryland campaign, the Battle of Antietam and the war might have ended very differently.
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't brass cartridge ammo just starting to be available in the early 1860s? I'm under the impression the common muskets and most rifles of the war were still muzzle loaders.
Breech loading ammo alone would have been a game changer in mass quantities.
Breech loading ammo alone would have been a game changer in mass quantities.
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!
My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
You are correct on both points. As I understand it, most of the issue weapons in the 1860s used paper "tear open and pour" powder cartridges.Atomic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:16 am Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't brass cartridge ammo just starting to be available in the early 1860s? I'm under the impression the common muskets and most rifles of the war were still muzzle loaders.
Breech loading ammo alone would have been a game changer in mass quantities.
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
Yes. Much like the 'Kentucky' Rifles during the American Revolutionary War, the bulk of the brass cartridge weapons were in private hands. There were cavalry groups that had them, but the most commonly used weapons were still cap locks and flintlocks. The rimfire cartridge was invented in 1845, but the successful centerfire cartridges weren't until the 1870's. (I understand that the changeover was insanely fast once Winchester came out with the cartridges)Dave wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:29 amYou are correct on both points. As I understand it, most of the issue weapons in the 1860s used paper "tear open and pour" powder cartridges.Atomic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:16 am Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't brass cartridge ammo just starting to be available in the early 1860s? I'm under the impression the common muskets and most rifles of the war were still muzzle loaders.
Breech loading ammo alone would have been a game changer in mass quantities.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/01/ ... -fire-gun/
Now, the _original_ 'machine gun' would be Lenonardo Da Vinci's organ gun.
http://www.da-vinci-inventions.com/33-b ... organ.aspx
33 barrels, intended to be fired 11 barrels at a time, so that you could fire multiple rounds while allowing other barrels to be cooled or reloaded.
interestingly enough, I believe that most of the soldiers in the Civil War were issued three sizes of balls. (ammunition, not the ones that hang low). That way, when the barrels were getting clogged by the potassium nitrate of gunpowder, you could switch to a smaller ball and continue the battle. Most people couldn't take the time to boil water to clean the barrel in the middle of combat. That would also have been a problem for the Gatling gun - even with six barrels, you'd have to stop and clean them pretty frequently.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
Harry Turtledove has a number of books like that.Dave wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:59 amIn his "Rebel In Time", Harry Harrison looks at a somewhat similar question. What might have been the implications if the South had been given the plans to the Sten gun, prior to the start of the war?Bookworm wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:17 amNo real difference. Fixed fortification weapons had little to no impact on the War of Northern Aggression. Gatling guns, at that point, weren't terribly mobile.Opus the Poet wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:40 pm If Gatling had sold his gun to the Confederates instead of Union generals, how different would the Olympics be today?
The Sten was/is a World War II machine gun, simply and cheaply made... most of the parts could be made in simple workshops. It wasn't terribly accurate or reliable. On the other hand, it was quite portable (unlike the Gatling), and given plans and knowledge I suspect that industry in the 1850s probably could have manufactured a working version of it.
If the South's infantry had had man-portable machine guns during the Maryland campaign, the Battle of Antietam and the war might have ended very differently.
The problem with those, however, is the same thing that plagued industry for a long time. Until true machine tools were developed, so you could mass produce parts, every item was hand made, and tolerances weren't tight enough for assembling reliable rapidly moving machinery. Even round gears weren't always cut correctly.
Frankly, the War of Northern Aggression has always been a sore spot for me, because I'm a believer in sticking to your contracts. (Ask me in private and I'll send you something that you can use to drive so-called historians nuts, especially liberals)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
The Sten wouldn't have worked for the Confederacy . . . they couldn't have made the ammo. "Black" powder would have fouled the Sten into uselessness, and smokeless hadn't been invented yet.
Not to mention that the cartridges were too precise to be manufactured in the quantity needed.
Most of the mechanical machine guns would have worked, though . . . even if they had to have the reloadable chambers like the early Gatlings.
As far as the Gatling's utility in combat, that was primarily a function of grossly inadequate tactical doctrine . . . the armies didn't know how to use them correctly, so they only used them in fortifications or other fixed positions.
And there was a version of Leonardo's organ gun that was being made by Billinghurst, among others.
--FreeFlier
Not to mention that the cartridges were too precise to be manufactured in the quantity needed.
Most of the mechanical machine guns would have worked, though . . . even if they had to have the reloadable chambers like the early Gatlings.
As far as the Gatling's utility in combat, that was primarily a function of grossly inadequate tactical doctrine . . . the armies didn't know how to use them correctly, so they only used them in fortifications or other fixed positions.
And there was a version of Leonardo's organ gun that was being made by Billinghurst, among others.
--FreeFlier
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
The Gatling gun, at least in it's original format, was NOT a good mobile platform. You can buy replica kits online that are fully legal to own and use, if you want to try it. (They're based more off of the 1881 design than the original)
In any case, it used a hopper design, as well as paper cartridges with a percussion cap. That means that if you can't keep the bugger under cover, it's worthless. It wasn't until the 1881 designs that it came into its own as a true field weapon, capable of using fully sealed brass cartridges. That meant that the ammunition supply was reasonably transportable without having to worry about the weather.
A better design would have been the Puckle Gun, if you wanted to use the rimfire cartridges available in the 1860's. Think of it as being a giant revolver, but with a rifle length barrel (or bigger). That would make it a good weapon to use against artillery and haulage, if you moved the round up to the .80 caliber or higher. (Destroying carts and oxen cripples the ability of an army to stay fed, or move)
(Edit - sorry, in the 1860's, at some point, Gatling did move to a brass cartridge. I doubt it was usable during the war itself with those cartridges. Also, the early ones wouldn't be very good. )
In any case, it used a hopper design, as well as paper cartridges with a percussion cap. That means that if you can't keep the bugger under cover, it's worthless. It wasn't until the 1881 designs that it came into its own as a true field weapon, capable of using fully sealed brass cartridges. That meant that the ammunition supply was reasonably transportable without having to worry about the weather.
A better design would have been the Puckle Gun, if you wanted to use the rimfire cartridges available in the 1860's. Think of it as being a giant revolver, but with a rifle length barrel (or bigger). That would make it a good weapon to use against artillery and haulage, if you moved the round up to the .80 caliber or higher. (Destroying carts and oxen cripples the ability of an army to stay fed, or move)
(Edit - sorry, in the 1860's, at some point, Gatling did move to a brass cartridge. I doubt it was usable during the war itself with those cartridges. Also, the early ones wouldn't be very good. )
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
- ShirouZhiwu
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24
The South had an industry disadvantage. Even if they had the plans, the factories of the North could out produce them.