NationStates

futur interceptor and accompanying scout UAV
gonna colour and do a writeup but tired now

>fan blades

radar operators get W E T

I see an SU-101 Warsaw in the makings.

As we all know, NATO reporting names are assigned starting with F for fighters and B for bombers. What would W stand for?


(click for bigger)

"I see 'em. Big bird. Putting it off my eleven. What's the word of the day? Mess with 'em or stand off safe?"
-- Ross

The Su-70 Fantail was the Russian counterpart to the NATO F-39 Suborbital Interdiction Picket. Although Russian aircraft development was somewhat restricted during this period due to international isolation, the Su-70 was considered a capable aircraft, if relatively outdated.

Su-70s were replaced in Russian service by the orbital-defense MiG-103 Furnace, having been involved in few major conflicts - most notably the UN intervention in Korea in the 22nd century. Two Su-70s were shot down by PRC J-50X UCAVs, the only combat losses of the type.

Like most fighters of the era, the Su-70 operated in cooperation with a wing of recon UAVs, in this case the RB-7R Storozh. These drones flew in formation with their parent aircraft, providing long-range sensor coverage and defense against jamming. However, unlike the F-39, the Su-70 could not carry its drones on board, which limited its endurance.

W means W I D E

Basically just modifying existing things, mostly israeli stuffs. Specifically I added a grenade launcher to the tavor, knee pads and elbow pads, moved the scope to the other helmet, and recolored it. For some reason it seems weirdly compressed in nation states. The 10 man squad arrangement is 3 fireteams of 3 plus one leader, similiar to the chinese or marine raiders arrangement. I figure 10 guys can more easily fit in an APC than 14+, but still gives you the rule of three marine configuration. Also easily broken down in to two teams of three for anti-tank warfare, like in a bradley or LAV-III.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7841/461 ... 4139_o.png

the walkways return

Walkways are great. A lot of times, vehicle configuration is designed in such a way to promote crew safety and comfort, given that they tend to spend many hours inside of the vehicles. A turret for a tank is often so big not just so a soldier can move around, but so he can do so comfortably, and walk from one end of the tank to the other, albeit a very short distance. With automated, remote controlled systems, this space can be reduced, not only by removing the room needed for a standing person, but also for the person to move around in. Autoloaders have the potential to allow for turrets to be smaller, for example with the M1 abrams autoloading turret shaving off at least 8.5 tons, and with the M1 abrams being up armored over time, likely more. By changing the hull to compensate for this fact, you can shrink it down even further. Designs like this can be found in the Japanese Type 10 tank or Russian T-14 Armata, and in theory in various designs in the U.S., such as the future ground combat system which was supposed to have a 40 ton tank. To give you an idea of just how open the inside of many tanks are, the Merkava tank, when the turret is taken off, can hold up to 10 men plus drivers, and it is actually a popular APC known as the Namer. You don't really need all that empty space if you don't have to worry as much about crew placement and safety, and they can all be sitting in a chair side by side.

Another thing that people don't take in to account is the emphasis on crew safety; the arrangement and placement of tank ammunition is usually designed in a way to prevent accidental fires, and allow them to be easily put out if they occur. In WWII this was a pretty serious design concern, and has influenced tank design ever since, with the U.S. for example having "wet" storage, that is literally putting water around the ammunition, and other methods that reduced how much ammunition you could store, just to prevent fires for quite some time. The israelis have a fireproof box for each round, which reduces how much ammunition the tank can carry by a fairly wide margin. With an automated system with no human beings inside, the problems of an accidental fire should the tank be pierced are largely eliminated and thus, this isn't as much of an issue, allowing you to shrink the turret further. Thus, design configurations of tank rounds can be changed to allow for maximum storage in as small an amount of space as possible, rather than in a way that promotes crew safety. Automated systems don't just remove the space needed for a crew member, but don't require comfort or safety, and thus can be even smaller than you might expect. Therefore and thusly, removing areas designed for soldiers to walk around in and grab things like, tank rounds, can be removed.

If you were worried that a fire might damage equipment, you can use fire suppression systems that would ordinarily kill a soldier, such as by suffocating them or being toxic, which is a further improvement at fighting fires inside of a tank. When you remove the whole, human needs to stay alive and be comfortable from the equation, vehicles can be a lot smaller, an example of that being a lot of drones vs. larger sized aircraft.

Manokan Republic wrote:Omg, are you sixth circle from deviant art? I think you're stuff is really neat, particularly the thought you put behind them as well, like with your 70mm antiaircraft gun xD

I've perhaps spent too much time trying to come up with a concept of how such a thing might work.

That's me! To this day I regret not choosing a DeviantArt username that's not more immediately relevant to my NS nation, but alas, it's maybe a bit too late to correct that.

If you go back far enough on one of these threads, you can actually find the discussions that we had prior to the lineart considering the effectiveness of the concept! Much like the Otomatic that got me thinking down these lines, the essence of the design is its inherent trade-off - on one hand, yes, it has sufficient reach to challenge today's breed of attack helicopters more effectively than a 35mm weapons system, but you pay the price in terms of ammunition stowage (which decreases steeply as a result of the vastly larger rounds). What that means is that it's highly unlikely that such a vehicle would actually be able to serve as a dual role air/ground support vehicle, because when you're an anti-air vehicle with a stowed ammo capacity of ~70 rounds, you're going to need all of those to be AA optimised.

That's not to say that I think the core principle is necessarily a bad one; with developments in contemporary smart rounds, it's probably going to be fairly good at hitting helicopters and drones. It's just not going to be trawling around the battlefield destroying anything lighter than a tank, sadly.

NeuroNet wrote:Love these vehicles! (Not my scale, but the detail is well done.)

I suggest a tweak just to the descriptions. If you're going to field wheeled APCs with a high suspension, may as well include that they have shaped MRAP hull bottoms. Two layers of protection if you have blast resistant seats already, and a shaped bottom could imply better amphibious ability for crossing rivers, essential for rapidly mobile light forces.

Kind thanks for the kind words! you're absolutely right, the APCs are designed to fit V-hulls (though in retrospect, the lineart could perhaps better reflect this) - that having been said, there isn't enough room on the small graphic to describe this, so it'll probably have to be mentioned in the upcoming write-up. The amphibious thing is rather critical though, and I hope to draw up an MA12 fitted with waterjets at some point soon.

Manokan Republic wrote:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7841/46152214695_7315fd4139_o.png

For the vehicle top right, next to the Merkava and over the Abrams...

Question: What caliber is the gun system sticking out between the Chaparral/Sidewinder rails in the turret? IMHO the turret is a tiny box barely room enough for an operator, but if you remove the crew seat, I don't expect there's room for a gun mounting, recoil mechanism and loading assembly for any large caliber (over 30mm) piece...

NeuroNet wrote:

Manokan Republic wrote:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7841/46152214695_7315fd4139_o.png

For the vehicle top right, next to the Merkava and over the Abrams...

Question: What caliber is the gun system sticking out between the Chaparral/Sidewinder rails in the turret? IMHO the turret is a tiny box barely room enough for an operator, but if you remove the crew seat, I don't expect there's room for a gun mounting, recoil mechanism and loading assembly for any large caliber (over 30mm) piece...

It was left ambiguously vague and isn't particularly well drawn given how small it is (with my art skills on bitmap being rather poor), but I'd like to imagine it's a 30mm or 40mm turret, even if that seems ridiculous. The idea in my head is it being unmanned and the little hump it's seated on being where the ammunition is predominately stowed. The closest example to a similiar weapon would be AAV-7 chaingun mount, which stored it's ammunition in a drum underneath the gun. In the case of this picture, I'd say it's lightly armored and has other systems attached to it, like FLIR's and missiles and what have you. As it's designed to be pointed upwards for dual use as an anti-aircraft weapon, I figure the gun itself may appear tiny, as what you are predominately seeing is the barrel and not the rest of the gun or ammunition. In essence, the ammunition and the like is stored underneath the gun. The barrel also has a very large thermal sleeve on it, so it's not a 40mm caliber barrel you are seeing, but something drastically larger which, throws off the appearance in regards to proportions. Antiaircraft guns are often times more maneuverable and smaller than guns located inside of turrets, [1][2] sort of like the pandur's main gun. To be fair the way I imagine it in my head is not the way it's normally done, and thus part of the reason why it's maybe not a good idea for the design. It's also the case that many 30-40mm turrets don't actually store a lot of rounds in any case, like for example the Stryker dragoon only holds 150 rounds, and 75 of each type, while a lot of the 40mm CTA weapons have like 50-70 rounds total. However, I probably will change it's appearance later on since it looks weird. Perhaps ironically, I almost didn't include it in this picture out of fear of someone asking this exact question, I did it mostly for color contrast xD

Chainguns also have the potential to be significantly smaller than comparably sized autocannons, so for example while the CV-90 has like a 10,000 pound 40mm bofors cannon in it, an 800 pound 40mm chaingun can theoretically replace it, which is obviously substantially smaller. [1][2] With it being electrically operated, and not recoil operated, the mass of the parts is lower and you also have reduced recoil. Think of it as an electrically operated break action, or perhaps more closely resembling a lever action or pump action. Single shot guns can be much smaller than semiautomatics, and as the weapon doesn't rely on the recoil of the round but electricity to operate, it can retain the small size and high reliability, but fire nearly as fast as many automatic weapons. It requires an external power source, which is ideally powered with a hybrid engine, but if not then there are various electric generators which can be used, such as a Wankel engine like used in the M1 abrams which, actually a real thing. Think of it as a really small electric generator. So, essentially there doesn't need to be room for a large recoil assembly. The 40mm CT is also a cased telescopic round, being substantially smaller and lighter than traditional 40mm bofors rounds.

Anemos Major wrote:you're absolutely right, the APCs are designed to fit V-hulls (though in retrospect, the lineart could perhaps better reflect this) - that having been said, there isn't enough room on the small graphic to describe this, so it'll probably have to be mentioned in the upcoming write-up. The amphibious thing is rather critical though, and I hope to draw up an MA12 fitted with waterjets at some point soon.

If you do waterjets, you can designate it a Marine Corps version of the MA12. Militaries who are looking for cost saving options would likely buy a WAPC that could self propel with the action of its wheels turning on slow moving rivers and/or fording shallow water bodies (general performance for typical vehicles that can is 2-3mph on a river with equivalent speed currents; faster current rivers would require an engineer float bridge company with J-Boats or M-3 Alligator self propelled ferries). When the Marines have to execute a combat landing without high speed landing craft or LCACs, a cheap military would want WAPC with waterjets to handle the surf. Soviet and Polish Cold War Naval Infantry executed assault landings very efficiently with their BTRs and PT76 tanks.

While I am a friend of the USMC, I always thought the AAVP-7A1 was under-armed to use as an APC and too slow on land, even though it was efficient as an infantry landing vehicle. Even with upgraded slat armor (which weighs it down at sea) way slow to keep up with Abrams tanks on the move. (RIP the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle!)

Cheers!

Manokan Republic wrote:

It was left ambiguously vague and isn't particularly well drawn given how small it is (with my art skills on bitmap being rather poor), but I'd like to imagine it's a 30mm or 40mm turret, even if that seems ridiculous. The idea in my head is it being unmanned and the little hump it's seated on being where the ammunition is predominately stowed. The closest example to a similiar weapon would be AAV-7 chaingun mount, which stored it's ammunition in a drum underneath the gun. In the case of this picture, I'd say it's lightly armored and has other systems attached to it, like FLIR's and missiles and what have you. As it's designed to be pointed upwards for dual use as an anti-aircraft weapon, I figure the gun itself may appear tiny, as what you are predominately seeing is the barrel and not the rest of the gun or ammunition. In essence, the ammunition and the like is stored underneath the gun. The barrel also has a very large thermal sleeve on it, so it's not a 40mm caliber barrel you are seeing, but something drastically larger which, throws off the appearance in regards to proportions. Antiaircraft guns are often times more maneuverable and smaller than guns located inside of turrets, [1][2] sort of like the pandur's main gun. To be fair the way I imagine it in my head is not the way it's normally done, and thus part of the reason why it's maybe not a good idea for the design. It's also the case that many 30-40mm turrets don't actually store a lot of rounds in any case, like for example the Stryker dragoon only holds 150 rounds, and 75 of each type, while a lot of the 40mm CTA weapons have like 50-70 rounds total. However, I probably will change it's appearance later on since it looks weird. Perhaps ironically, I almost didn't include it in this picture out of fear of someone asking this exact question, I did it mostly for color contrast xD

Chainguns also have the potential to be significantly smaller than comparably sized autocannons, so for example while the CV-90 has like a 10,000 pound 40mm bofors cannon in it, an 800 pound 40mm chaingun can theoretically replace it, which is obviously substantially smaller. [1][2] With it being electrically operated, and not recoil operated, the mass of the parts is lower and you also have reduced recoil. Think of it as an electrically operated break action, or perhaps more closely resembling a lever action or pump action. Single shot guns can be much smaller than semiautomatics, and as the weapon doesn't rely on the recoil of the round but electricity to operate, it can retain the small size and high reliability, but fire nearly as fast as many automatic weapons. It requires an external power source, which is ideally powered with a hybrid engine, but if not then there are various electric generators which can be used, such as a Wankel engine like used in the M1 abrams which, actually a real thing. Think of it as a really small electric generator. So, essentially there doesn't need to be room for a large recoil assembly. The 40mm CT is also a cased telescopic round, being substantially smaller and lighter than traditional 40mm bofors rounds.

That does clear things up. I always picture the gun mounts as I remember them from my days in the Fleet (USN). You tend to have the action, stabilizing suspension in the mount, etc. My eye saw that gun barrel as a copy of the Merkava main gun, very thick. Perhaps for later versions of the drawing, it could be thinned out with a smaller caliber barrel look, as 20-30mm dual purpose guns don't need giant thermal sleeves due to rates of fire and ease of swapping out a bad barrel compared to that of a tank.
ModEdit: Repaired quote/spoiler tag

NeuroNet wrote:That does clear things up. I always picture the gun mounts as I remember them from my days in the Fleet (USN). You tend to have the action, stabilizing suspension in the mount, etc. My eye saw that gun barrel as a copy of the Merkava main gun, very thick. Perhaps for later versions of the drawing, it could be thinned out with a smaller caliber barrel look, as 20-30mm dual purpose guns don't need giant thermal sleeves due to rates of fire and ease of swapping out a bad barrel compared to that of a tank.

I agree, and I just am having trouble deciding on how to make it look xD Or perhaps the art skills to execute it. I messed around with some variants, and none of them really look right to my eye, except for the bottom right one's, which are fundamentally different designs. I've mulled it around in my head and I'm still not sure on how to do it. xP

Anemos Major wrote:

Manokan Republic wrote:Omg, are you sixth circle from deviant art? I think you're stuff is really neat, particularly the thought you put behind them as well, like with your 70mm antiaircraft gun xD

I've perhaps spent too much time trying to come up with a concept of how such a thing might work.

That's me! To this day I regret not choosing a DeviantArt username that's not more immediately relevant to my NS nation, but alas, it's maybe a bit too late to correct that.

If you go back far enough on one of these threads, you can actually find the discussions that we had prior to the lineart considering the effectiveness of the concept! Much like the Otomatic that got me thinking down these lines, the essence of the design is its inherent trade-off - on one hand, yes, it has sufficient reach to challenge today's breed of attack helicopters more effectively than a 35mm weapons system, but you pay the price in terms of ammunition stowage (which decreases steeply as a result of the vastly larger rounds). What that means is that it's highly unlikely that such a vehicle would actually be able to serve as a dual role air/ground support vehicle, because when you're an anti-air vehicle with a stowed ammo capacity of ~70 rounds, you're going to need all of those to be AA optimised.

That's not to say that I think the core principle is necessarily a bad one; with developments in contemporary smart rounds, it's probably going to be fairly good at hitting helicopters and drones. It's just not going to be trawling around the battlefield destroying anything lighter than a tank, sadly.

Hehe, I understand, but I figure that you could still shoot an APC as there's a lot of cross over between anti-aircraft armor piercing rounds and anti-vehicle one's, although, it wouldn't be as good for anti-vehicle work. But since it's so crazy powerful, it would perform alright.

Also smart rounds are the way to go! I recently found a 76mm AA-gun that has similiar properties to what you might want this one to be, with smart rounds and everything, so that's promising in terms of ballistics although, it's rather huge, particularly given it's not a chain-gun or similiar weapon. It holds 80 rounds and is only 7.5 tons, so as a turret, even in it's exact configuration as it is now, it's not that bad. It has a 20km range with the DART rounds fairly easily, so that's pretty nice helicopter engagement. The 40km is only against ground targets, utilizing "Vulcano" rounds which fly extremely high in the air, and then free-fall the rest of the way to be guided to target.

Blam, got it. Now just to make it look good with missiles...



EDIT:

tag

Manokan Republic wrote:Hehe, I understand, but I figure that you could still shoot an APC as there's a lot of cross over between anti-aircraft armor piercing rounds and anti-vehicle one's, although, it wouldn't be as good for anti-vehicle work. But since it's so crazy powerful, it would perform alright.

Probably not, actually - an AHEAD round might have some luck shattering the external sensors of a vehicle (maybe), but it's probably better used against its intended targets. Even loading, say, a handful of APFSDS rounds for anti-vehicle work would be shaving a shocking amount of stored AA capability off the vehicle - in an ideal world, you'd have some other vehicle with a big cannon to stop vehicles from getting to your SPAAG

Manokan Republic wrote:Also smart rounds are the way to go! I recently found a 76mm AA-gun that has similiar properties to what you might want this one to be, with smart rounds and everything, so that's promising in terms of ballistics although, it's rather huge, particularly given it's not a chain-gun or similiar weapon. It holds 80 rounds and is only 7.5 tons, so as a turret, even in it's exact configuration as it is now, it's not that bad. It has a 20km range with the DART rounds fairly easily, so that's pretty nice helicopter engagement. The 40km is only against ground targets, utilizing "Vulcano" rounds which fly extremely high in the air, and then free-fall the rest of the way to be guided to target.

So, funnily enough...



My idea isn't the most original thing in the world - what I sought to do was essentially to bring together the Otomatic and the Pantsir in one handy turret!

Korva wrote:

Region Map
Korvan administrative regions:
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

How would I go about making my own custom soldiers and tanks with the waving custom flags on the tanks or insignia on the uniforms as seen in some of these photos?

Anemos Major wrote:

Manokan Republic wrote:Hehe, I understand, but I figure that you could still shoot an APC as there's a lot of cross over between anti-aircraft armor piercing rounds and anti-vehicle one's, although, it wouldn't be as good for anti-vehicle work. But since it's so crazy powerful, it would perform alright.

Probably not, actually - an AHEAD round might have some luck shattering the external sensors of a vehicle (maybe), but it's probably better used against its intended targets. Even loading, say, a handful of APFSDS rounds for anti-vehicle work would be shaving a shocking amount of stored AA capability off the vehicle - in an ideal world, you'd have some other vehicle with a big cannon to stop vehicles from getting to your SPAAG


So, funnily enough...

My idea isn't the most original thing in the world - what I sought to do was essentially to bring together the Otomatic and the Pantsir in one handy turret!

I realize the ammunition volume would be tiny with current designs, which is in part why I tried to come up with ways to increase ammunition volume xD Also I figured your stuff was based on something in RL, which is always the smart way to go. Adding missiles to an antiaircraft gun is not really all that difficult, so that's a smart design idea. I like the concept of it also being used like an infantry fighting vehicle, so it's dual purpose, as it's fitted with missiles and a giant gun, but that's more so for the sake of utility than it's probable use in the field. You could for example if you were like, fighting a terrorist organization, use it as artillery or for anti-infantry purposes instead, particularly with those 40km air bursting, guided vulcano rounds like used in the french 76mm gun. 70-100 rounds for a self propelled artillery gun, roughly on par with power to an 81mm or 100mm mortar, but with a really long range, is still pretty cool. Basically, in situations where anti-air operations aren't seen as particularly important, you could still use the vehicle as improvised light artillery and an infantry fighting vehicle.

But, as I'm still a bit silly and love talking about this stuff, I always like to optimize how the designs could be. The initial thing you'd do to save on size is to use a chaingun, as a part from a regular cannon which is typically smaller (a 40mm bofors cannon is like 4,000 to 10,000 pounds, while a 40mm chaingun is 800 or so pounds), and then use a separate ammunition piece stacked underneath the main gun instead of one that moves with the turret like a lot of other guns. This allows for larger volumes of ammunition to be stored since it's separate from the main gun, and allows for a smaller motor to move the gun around and consequently a smaller amount of armor since the ammunition is stored internally. I've been looking at how much ammunition you can store in a single vehicle recently, and it's sort of dawned on me that a more ideal arrangement could result in higher volumes of ammunition, far beyond that of what's used in a lot of vehicles, like how some vehicles have like 24-70 rounds, instead of several hundred. I'm honestly not sure why many country's haven't done it yet, other than the fact that it might be less armored or they intended for a crew member to be inside which, necessarily takes up the space where all the ammunition would be. You also lose 100% rotation and can only rotate 1 full 360 degrees, as if the ammunition doesn't move with the gun, eventually the belt get's caught. There's a surprising amount of flexibility in belt links though, and stowed vs. ready rounds are already a thing.

One such thing that is actually an area of mathematics is shape packing, and in particular "circle packing", which is trying to come up with as dense and arrangement of circles as possible in a given area. You can just by a slight difference in arrangement increase the amount of spaced used in a particular area, so it's possibly to more densely shove in ammunition if arranged correctly although, you still need to compensate for the belts and some empty space just for good measure. But basically, there is an entire field dedicated to making stuff pack down as much as possible. While I realize that as rounds get bigger they get exponentially harder to store, there are still some methods you can use to store more rounds. So for example, if you wanted to fill a 6 x 6 foot circle with ammunition, like with the drum on the AAV-7, the amount of ammunition you could store vertically, if you had a 3 inch or 75mm wide cartridge (the 40mm is only about 60mm wide at the base, so this is assuming a somewhat larger cartridge or lots of empty space), than out of 28 square feet, or 4000 square inches (from inside the circle), arranged with 80% packing density (the hexagonal method), you could store 570 rounds, which is a lot. The rounds would be stored vertically, so effectively the base of the cartridge is a bunch of little circles, but that seems like a lot of ammunition, way beyond what is normally stored in most guns, based on how much area is present. Even if it's drastically reduced for some reason or another, like cut in half, that's still a lot of ammunition. Furthermore you could probably use a wider base, such as 8 x 8 foot, or even stack the drums on top of each other, so you get like 2-3 drums or so, which is a lot more ammunition. I've seen it used before, just not frequently. It could be that they want the turret as low profile as possible, the raw volume of ammunition isn't considered necessary or the size of the gun has always been too huge, but it seems like you could store a lot more ammunition if you were so motivated. Ammunition belt drums are already a thing, used on the 20mm vulcan and 30mm antiaircraft guns, basically a lot of aircraft guns, although in my head I always imagine it more wide than thick. But it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to place such a thing under the gun, underneath or inside the turret, and dramatically increase ammunition capacity. Furthermore as it's largely pulling ammunition from the side, instead of upwards, there would be less impact from gravity, and an assisted belt-feeding system, sort of a hybrid between a linkless belt and a belt system, would remove a lot of the problems anyways.

Anglomir wrote:How would I go about making my own custom soldiers and tanks with the waving custom flags on the tanks or insignia on the uniforms as seen in some of these photos?

Open MS Paint, Paint.net, GIMP, Photoshop, or some other program and start drawing.

Anglomir wrote:

Korva wrote:

Region Map
Korvan administrative regions:
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

How would I go about making my own custom soldiers and tanks with the waving custom flags on the tanks or insignia on the uniforms as seen in some of these photos?

You have to be really good at drawing. I'm a cheater-cheater pumpkin-eater, so I steal/copy other people's drawing and modify them slightly. Sometimes they turn out completely different, so you can sort of think of it as drawing over an existing stencil. Eventually you can change so much it's nothing like the original, but it's still basically stealing. The easiest thing to change is colors, but it's more time consuming with more complex drawings. With some programs, you can apply a filter, to make it lighter or darker, or sometimes change colors in a way. Why does everyone's drawings on nation state's look so similiar, like it's from some kind of program? Honestly I have no idea. It's probably because everyone steals from each other so a style has developed over time.

The sekrit to being a good artist is in how well you can copy other people's stuff. Half of being a good artist is about being able to appreciate the beauty, of art, and how else does one appreciate it but acquire it, through purchase of through copy? To be a good one artist, one must ADMIRE other art, so copying it and stealing it is halfway there to being a good artist. Ponder this wisdom! That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. I mean, when Leonardo drew the Mona Lisa, he was just copying real life and modifying it. What is the difference with copying other art and doing the same xD In all seriousness I don't really care too much about copying artwork but some people do. My advice is just to modify existing stuff and try to credit the original artist as best you can.

I found some time to upload railroad stuff in JG scale to my national factbook.

Here is the link

Dare I say it, if I have time on rare occasions when work isn't in the way, I would consider doing color schemes and liveries for your nation's railroad fleet.

I have a few militarized railroad stock drawings (armed locos and cars) that will post eventually.

Did a battle rifley thing give criticismz plz


bigger gunn

Manokan Republic wrote:

Anglomir wrote:How would I go about making my own custom soldiers and tanks with the waving custom flags on the tanks or insignia on the uniforms as seen in some of these photos?

You have to be really good at drawing. I'm a cheater-cheater pumpkin-eater, so I steal/copy other people's drawing and modify them slightly. Sometimes they turn out completely different, so you can sort of think of it as drawing over an existing stencil. Eventually you can change so much it's nothing like the original, but it's still basically stealing.

you can just trace over real pictures at the same scale, it requires about as much skill as copying and editing some junior general templates but you get something that feels a bit less like stealing (copyright of the photos aside)