StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Sketches and doodles of steam powered TANKS!

The year: 1860, The place: alternate universe, The scenario: Ominous steampuffs on the horizon...

Well, it's still not quite the Westworlds universe, what with faster than light travel in the 1800s, but it is still very cool.

Those things need alot more valves and dials and whirring bronze gadgets. Plus the guy visible and working dozens of levers to drive the thing.

Those things need alot more valves and dials and whirring bronze gadgets. Plus the guy visible and working dozens of levers to drive the thing.

I need more references, back to watching STEAMBOY for me I guess...

Good preliminary drawings, I can't wait until you really get into it, I've seen the quality you're capable of.

I admit that while my tastes are usually more high tech I'm willing to make exceptions when it comes to steam power

Look for the Warhammer Fantasy steamtank if you need some reference.

Awesome stuff.

YAY! he dun it! they look cool. I like the reference pics of normal tanks. they halp out. Thank you!!
I asked him about if he could do them

Hey The Jazz Intern, I'm glad you like them. I'll make a better one soon...

Soon is here now! Here is a "finished" Steam tank!

That looks awesome. It's probably just the sloping armour on the front, but I'm getting 40k vibes from this one.

NoXion wrote:That looks awesome. It's probably just the sloping armour on the front, but I'm getting 40k vibes from this one.

Same thing with me. Major 40k vibes, which is a good thing. Keep up the work Muffin.

That steam-car in the middle of the second pic reminds me of RL armored cars used in WW I and WW II by Poland. Fun stuff, overall. Wish I could draw. =/

I'd like to offer some advice - but I'm afraid people will start throwing rotten fruit and grenades at me for being a spoilsport...
If you want criticism, feel free to ask; otherwise, I'll just shut up.

I like the pic of Steam AFV 2.

Just a note. You *really* want some armour on the sides there, covering the drive train-- that's just begging for some daring infantryman to run up with a satchel charge and blow it to pieces.

Aside from that, very cool idea you've got going. Even looks halfway possible...

I do believe they did experiment with steam-powered tanks at one point in time. VERY early on in tank-history.

Very cool looking, one of them could use a flamethrower, the only steam tank built in real life used one as its main armament, steam pressure is excellent for operating such a weapon.

Elheru Aran wrote:Just a note. You *really* want some armour on the sides there, covering the drive train-- that's just begging for some daring infantryman to run up with a satchel charge and blow it to pieces.

A satchel charge isn’t going to work real well with 1860 explosive technology, I’d be way more concerned about a cannon ball going through the boiler, with the resulting release of scalding high pressure steam.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Very cool looking, one of them could use a flamethrower, the only steam tank built in real life used one as its main armament, steam pressure is excellent for operating such a weapon.

Elheru Aran wrote:Just a note. You *really* want some armour on the sides there, covering the drive train-- that's just begging for some daring infantryman to run up with a satchel charge and blow it to pieces.

A satchel charge isn’t going to work real well with 1860 explosive technology, I’d be way more concerned about a cannon ball going through the boiler, with the resulting release of scalding high pressure steam.

That was my concern. It looks wicked, but that boiler is exposed as hell except from the front, and even a stray shot that dings that could cause all sorts of shit to happen, not least of which is the venting of scalding steam, potentially into the crew or accompanying troops. Still, it's a cool design and very period.

sweet. My favorites are the top one on the second page, and the last page's one. Totally rock'n Muffinkin- what aam i saying?!? Hes ALWAYS rockin'!

I'd like to offer some advice - but I'm afraid people will start throwing rotten fruit and grenades at me for being a spoilsport...
If you want criticism, feel free to ask; otherwise, I'll just shut up.

Advice and constructive criticism is welcome. I'm looking for inexpensive ways to improve my works.

Well, OK then; refering to the "finished" tank:

1) The drive train. This looks like you're using reciprocating engines, which looks nice and is fine for the intended period.
But they're big, heavy, and weak; it appears rather unlikely that a reci would be able to move an armed and armored vehicle through any other terrain than along a nice and not too steep road.
I see four solutions here:
a) ignore it.
b) switch to turbines; they are a quarter-century too "modern", and don't give you that proper "steam locomotive" feel, but they should work.
c) give up the off-road mobility, and make an armored road locomotive; this would probably use normal wheels, since tracks are unnecessary on roads, and create extra roll resistance.
d) give up the armor (and most likely the armament), and make it an off-road tractor; since it's supposed to be a tank, that's no good.

2) Put armor over the boiler, and any steam lines. These things are dangerous.

3) Lose the turret. It's extra weight that's not absolutely necessary, and as such a bad idea for a terminally underpowered AFV.

*ducks*

) The drive train. This looks like you're using reciprocating engines, which looks nice and is fine for the intended period.
But they're big, heavy, and weak; it appears rather unlikely that a reci would be able to move an armed and armored vehicle through any other terrain than along a nice and not too steep road.
I see four solutions here:
a) ignore it.
b) switch to turbines; they are a quarter-century too "modern", and don't give you that proper "steam locomotive" feel, but they should work.
c) give up the off-road mobility, and make an armored road locomotive; this would probably use normal wheels, since tracks are unnecessary on roads, and create extra roll resistance.
d) give up the armor (and most likely the armament), and make it an off-road tractor; since it's supposed to be a tank, that's no good.

2) Put armor over the boiler, and any steam lines. These things are dangerous.

3) Lose the turret. It's extra weight that's not absolutely necessary, and as such a bad idea for a terminally underpowered AFV.

*ducks*

Good points. I hadn't even considered turbines, but now I have a new design brewing in my head...
Armoring the boiler is definately a good idea and will be implemented in future designs.
(whines)But I like the turret!(whines) Realistically I agree that the turret may not be necessary, especially when period warfare seemed focused more on artillery and massed infantry. I had a "landship" sort of philosophy in mind with this beast and thought of it as a battleship on tracks focused on battlefield domination. Hence the rotationg turret as a means to project force in a 360 degree arc and suppressing the enemy in ways fixed weapons just couldn't do.

When one considers that this vehicle, with all its size and armour, likely wouldn't be moving too fast, a turret is actually a pretty good idea; it makes the most use out of the limited number of guns that this tank has. It's not like a WWI tank, with machine guns bristling out of any available orifice; it's more along the design ethos of a WWII tank, IMO (feel free to correct me, Muffin). With this, not only do you capitalize upon being able to fire in different directions, you can also fire to the sides-- which may be important if you get surrounded by enemy units, and as this tank wouldn't be going too fast, that's a situation that'd happen pretty easily if the bad guys counter-charged.

I could almost see it using a pair of barbettes (or "sponsons") like the early British tanks, though. It would allow paired fire forward, and one gun to each side, without the added height and mass of a turret. This is a fairly good painting of a Mark V of 1918, which actually is almost identical to the prototype Mark I of January 1916. While they carried a pair of 6pdr cannon and four 8mm machineguns, an earlier steam tank might carry a pair of 3pdr and either a Nordenfelt or Gatling style machinegun (hey, I'm brainstorming here ).

I could almost see it using a pair of barbettes (or "sponsons") like the early British tanks, though. It would allow paired fire forward, and one gun to each side, without the added height and mass of a turret. This is a fairly good painting of a Mark V of 1918, which actually is almost identical to the prototype Mark I of January 1916. While they carried a pair of 6pdr cannon and four 8mm machineguns, an earlier steam tank might carry a pair of 3pdr and either a Nordenfelt or Gatling style machinegun (hey, I'm brainstorming here ).

I was thinking of the mkIV tanks when I drew this, but I omitted the sponsons for more armor. I felt with this design that slightly less firepower was counterbalanced with greater protection. Armament wasn't really focused on this tank, just guns that look cool.