Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Need to talk about the day's episode of Wapsi? This is the place to do it. Play nice! ^_^

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.
User avatar
lake_wrangler
Posts: 4300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Laval, Québec, Canada

Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by lake_wrangler »

User avatar
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

Post by jwhouk »

Raise your hand if you think we've just found Daylla's love interest.


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
Alkarii
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:02 pm

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by Alkarii »

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.
User avatar
jeffepp
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:53 am

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by jeffepp »

But, what's spouting out of Daylla's head...
User avatar
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

Post by jwhouk »

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
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by Atomic »

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
User avatar
oldmanmickey
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by oldmanmickey »

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
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:59 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by Bookworm »

Atomic wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:45 pm And if Napoleon had machine guns...
Harry Turtledove fan?
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
User avatar
Opus the Poet
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:24 am
Location: Surrounded by Hell
Contact:

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by Opus the Poet »

Atomic wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:45 pm And if Napoleon had machine guns...
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.
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:59 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by Bookworm »

Opus the Poet wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:40 pm
Atomic wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:45 pm And if Napoleon had machine guns...
If Gatling had sold his gun to the Confederates instead of Union generals, how different would the Olympics be today?
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.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 6402
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by AnotherFairportfan »

Mongoose
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
eee
Posts: 849
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:23 am

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by eee »

Alkarii wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:40 pm 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.
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.
User avatar
Dave
Posts: 7584
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by Dave »

Bookworm wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:17 am
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?
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.
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?

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.
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by Atomic »

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.
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
User avatar
Dave
Posts: 7584
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by Dave »

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.
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.
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:59 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by Bookworm »

Dave wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:29 am
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.
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.
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)

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.
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:59 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by Bookworm »

Dave wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:59 am
Bookworm wrote: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:17 am
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?
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.
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?

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.
Harry Turtledove has a number of books like that.

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.
FreeFlier
Posts: 2492
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:33 pm
Location: Land of the webbed feet

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by FreeFlier »

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
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:59 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by Bookworm »

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. )
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
User avatar
ShirouZhiwu
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Who Would Win 2018-09-24

Post by ShirouZhiwu »

The South had an industry disadvantage. Even if they had the plans, the factories of the North could out produce them.
Post Reply