FA+
Shop
745
Views
Views
12
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Traditional) / Doodle
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 967 x 1280
File Size 272.2 kB
Report this content
★
More from stevegallacci
A typical US Land Cruiser that was used to patrol the US/Canada boarder at the end of the 19thC. By the turn of the century, all the Great Powers had fleets of land ships, which, of course, were made obsolete by the proliferation of battle Zepplins, which would dominate the nature of warfare for much of the next century.
Category Artwork (Traditional) / Doodle
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 967 x 1280px
File Size 272.2 kB
Just firing ports for small arms. Casement style heavy arms, though tried on other ships, were not considered useful enough versus weight and the risk of getting snagged on trees or particularly rough terrain. Gatling guns could also be fitted on the bridge wings to cover the hull areas as well.
Well, it all started with the four land monitors that broke the siege of Petersburg VA in the winter of 1864. They were little more than steam-powered tracked tractors (using small switch locos) but they demontrated the value of mechanical force on the battlefield. It wasn't too long until all the major powers developed all kinds of mechanized war machines, under the common name of land cruisers. Especially as many actually looked like amphibious warships. As mentioned above, battle Zepplins put an end to the LC as the modern aeroplane is slowly wresting dominance of the sky over the airship.
Note, all of these bore little or no relationship to the later "tank' that we all now know and love, other than the use of tracks(though not all LCs actually used them). In fact it seems odd that the armored vehicles of WWI seemed to have gone to re-invent the notion of mechanical warfare, though in a much more conservative and ultimately more efficient form.
I'll be writing more on these facinating contraptions soon.
Note, all of these bore little or no relationship to the later "tank' that we all now know and love, other than the use of tracks(though not all LCs actually used them). In fact it seems odd that the armored vehicles of WWI seemed to have gone to re-invent the notion of mechanical warfare, though in a much more conservative and ultimately more efficient form.
I'll be writing more on these facinating contraptions soon.
My personal faves are the old Brisitsh "Lambeth" class. The fore and aft treads were geared so they could be winched up and over obstacles.
from whence we get the Lambeth Walk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYdmk3GP3iM
from whence we get the Lambeth Walk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYdmk3GP3iM
That was an unsuccessful attempt at recreating the glory of the early land cruiser on the cheap without applying the lessons learned from that earlier era. But it also touches on the dual path that the various land cruisers took.
Type one was an armored carapace over an often very elaborate drive and suspension system but lacking much functional volume but also avoiding the attendant weight issues. Type two had a more conventional ship's hull or analogous structure, often amphibious (all American hulls had that as a requirement), and counted more on brute force more than elegant mechanisms to drive themselves. The Bellinghams were a good representation of the latter while the Lorraines were something of a composite. They didn't have the full volume of a ship's hull and were not amphibious, and did have an armored skirt (the concave curved skirt was a signature of the French types) to cover a somewhat elaborate drive system, but the bottom was largely enclosed and the volume was all usable function space, while the classic type one would be more horseshoe crab-ish.
The Tzar Tank took the minimal concepts of scale in the big wheels (Russian land cruisers were all wheeled) and elevated fighting compartment without any larger hull or carapace.
Type one was an armored carapace over an often very elaborate drive and suspension system but lacking much functional volume but also avoiding the attendant weight issues. Type two had a more conventional ship's hull or analogous structure, often amphibious (all American hulls had that as a requirement), and counted more on brute force more than elegant mechanisms to drive themselves. The Bellinghams were a good representation of the latter while the Lorraines were something of a composite. They didn't have the full volume of a ship's hull and were not amphibious, and did have an armored skirt (the concave curved skirt was a signature of the French types) to cover a somewhat elaborate drive system, but the bottom was largely enclosed and the volume was all usable function space, while the classic type one would be more horseshoe crab-ish.
The Tzar Tank took the minimal concepts of scale in the big wheels (Russian land cruisers were all wheeled) and elevated fighting compartment without any larger hull or carapace.
Comments