Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Digital Art / Professional Harry WilsonMale/Australia Recent Activity
Deviant for 6 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 247 Deviations 2,596 Comments 51,250 Pageviews

Newest Deviations



RM- Vanguard and Vantage by Harry-the-Fox
RM- Vanguard and Vantage
YAY! Got a smidgen of free time between assignments!
I wanted to get this one up as the team has been waiting. Some rough ideas of possible Vanguard Superheavy Tank Destroyers (or alternatively, Vantage Self-Propelled Artillery).
I left some minor design notes next to the individual tanks, but a few more points:

Just to be clear, I have NOT altered the standard Vanquisher chassis at all to make this. This design is 100% compatible with a normal Vanquisher- just remove the central and rear turrets (and mounts they were placed on) and slap the new mounts directly on top!

A few images depict weatherproof mantlet-sheaths with only SINGLE guns sticking out (double guns looked odd when I tried it- but I'm convinced I can still make this work)
Double-barreled tanks however also look pretty good on a single-axis, it invokes the 'superheavy tank' feel, without concealing the mini-turrets in front.

If the rectangular-turret designs prove too big, this is easily fixed by either shortening the front-to-back length of the turret body, or simply sliding the whole thing 'backwards' a few meters.

The round turrets may look a little smaller due to (a) a sloped platform and (b) they're completely circular, rather than elongated like the above- both can be adjusted.
Also, I've designed them to have guns mounted HIGHER than on a true tank, thus have a mantlet that protrudes upwards a bit. This allows them to peer over the mini-turrets from a SHORTER platform.
RM- Tank roof attachments by Harry-the-Fox
RM- Tank roof attachments
Just some more food-for-thought, crazy ideas (and a few fancy attachment concepts- applying a stereotypical early-mid cold-war Russian design)).
PS- sorry I left out "other" attachments- I decided to instead illustrate the main ideas)
These run around an idea of maximum design flexibility- but with all feasible technical drawbacks included.
Due to turret space or the design of some attachments making various layouts of roof-mounted components and access hatches less-than-ideal (that is, some objects would take up room needed for hatches, or would block vision of commander Cupolas), I thought it would be an interesting mechanic if the player were given some influence in the design and layout of these components- with the very non-ideal technical limitations factored in.


1: Crew survival-
The motivation behind this idea was partly love for the 'pilot' mechanic in Zero Hour (a very fine reward for preserving your soldiers), and the 'hatches' idea (which I will expand upon below). Basically, a tank has a human crew- and said crew need hatches to get into the tank, and also to quickly escape it when it is scuttled by enemy anti-tank weapons. Thus raises a new dichotomy- if players gained some kind of strategic benefit to their crew surviving- would they be willing to miss out on mounted weapons being attached to the roof instead? Alternatively, this could instead be simulated as a simple armour bonus.

2: Obscuring
Some attachments would stand in the way of others- and this could be a good thing. Suppose the Aurora missile-defense laser was incapable of defending the tank's portside flank because a SAM launcher was blocking its view? This would create a new layer of strategy: Do I bother to build two components knowing it would create a vulnerable point? Do I err to a short component that doesn't block sight (crew hatch) to stop this happening? Or do I deliberately embrace this handicap and tempt enemies into trying to chase my portside flank, herding them into some kind of ambush?

3: Positioning for size considerations:
Some components could fit neatly onto a circular turret base, with no issues- others might be a little problematic (the SAM launcher, for one). Hence why it may be worthwhile to consider some attachments take up more space than a smaller component spot, with more 'breathing room'.
It also extends into broader questions: should some components even BE a single node grafted onto a hull, or something more substantial? A fire-command module? A pillbox? A quad mortar array?

Continuing from the crew-survival idea; there are plenty more (plausible) uses for crew hatches. Perhaps when the tank is out of combat, the crewmen would climb-out and administer some field repairs? Re-arm the missile launchers (maybe in combat if you will)? Also, as most of these components are short (or outright flat) features built into the hull, a huge advantage of including them is that they would NOT block the vision of other components- becoming highly complimentary for that reason alone.

-Commander's Cupola; Typically this is used to spot targets for the gunner (potentially speeding up rate of fire, or acquiring a new target- not affected by other components obscuring vision so much) or threats (widened vision?). Naturally these advantages should come at a cost- and typically Tank commanders don't stick their head to re-arm external weapon systems in the heat of combat (or probably ever), so it simply trades the rearming bonus for that.

-Gunner's hatch. Many tanks have a roof-mounted machinegun, maybe one that is either on an independently pivoting base, or fixed with a miniature forward-facing pivot. Although not the biggest obstacle, this may block vision of other attachments- and would certainly not be able to shoot through other components. Once again, the cost of this advantage is that the machinegunner is probably predisposed to manning said gun rather than reloading duties.

These answer a simple question: What possible drawback could there be for decking a tank with missile launchers and mortars? Why would I even need specialist mortar/rocket launching vehicles?
The answer is that true-to-life, missile weapons are only safe when externally mounted, and mortars, lacking a more sophisticated and spacious loading system are typically plain muzzle-loading weapons. Placing such weapons on the roof of a vehicle specialized more for, well, being a tank, would push out the typical components needed to re-arm these weapons, effectively rendering them one-shot-only attachments (making specialist alternatives using the exact same armaments far more desirable- and alternatively, making less powerful roof-mounted tank components more viable). An additional advantage is that the 'Crew Hatch" would have a special complimentary function of overriding this handicap.
-SAM- based on real-life Soviet short-ranged SAM designs- but made much more petite
-ATM- again based on real soviet designs- with a solid 'roof' plate protecting the top (but placed on a slope-shaped mount so players viewing from above can clearly see the rockets poking out further forward)
-Mini MRLS- based off a real design mounted on some Russian vehicles (wrapped in the typical IFV turret hulls)
-Mortar- a bit more unique- an attempt to convey a mostly internal-mounted mortar (the open lid cap I think is a nice touch).
Well this is embarrasing (AKA RM- Pact Drones) by Harry-the-Fox
Well this is embarrasing (AKA RM- Pact Drones)
So here I was, happily designing away some drone ideas for the RED MARCH project- and then I took a look at the start-of-semester preparations for university and realized I'll probably be subterranian for the rest of the week.

As I had already mostly completed the rough drone designs (and promised the team "I've almost completed the designs! Expect to see them any day now!") I decided that as the most abstract designs (the ones that require the most detail) were finished, and the ultra-basic designs were reasonably tidy, I decided to submit it prematurely- so at the very least my poor team has SOMETHING to work with.
(PS- promise I'll re-do any of the rough designs if they have any initial promise- and of course I plan to create some original 'plane' style designs too)
Dunkleosteus Size by Harry-the-Fox
Dunkleosteus Size
Finally got this one done- though I might retouch it later when I get some more information.
This has been quite an interesting process to put together such an amazing creature. It's been something I've been itching to redo since my last version- which was more amateurish than this version.
While this one is still heavily amateurish, I worked with a lot more scientific references and cross-comparisons to ensure it was more accurate to life (still fairly hard to find, as, like Megalodon, most of the body simply doesn't preserve).

The first thing you might notice is the size. This is based on one of the largest intact jaws. Larger fragmentary remains suggest this animal could have grown much larger. BUT I decided not to try it as Dunkleosteus'  jaws change shape quite a bit as it grows up (Snively, Anderson and Ryan, 2009), so there can be room for error. That said, this version is about the same size as most of the famous museum displays. As we know, the rest of Dunkleosteus' body doesn't fossilize- so people have been forced to kinda just make up the rest of the body- UNTIL NOW! (well recently)
From there, I located a number of fossils of newly discovered Placoderms whose bodies DID preserve (somewhat). Although smaller (sometimes vastly so), they still have the tubular headcases implying cylindrical bodies. Of various sizes, the 'skull' base width-to-tail length remained surprisingly consistent. Which was a good thing, as it makes a much safer bet that Dunkleosteus would have had something similar (and the length I added was pretty general between these varying lengths too).
From there I checked how the rest of the fish would 'fit' together- and luckily enough, the other placoderms could also answer this. Their pectoral fins are consistently located at the front of the cavity above the breastplate. The pelvic fins occur immediately behind the tip of the breastplate. The dorsal fin then starts immediately behind, and behind that is the anal fin- which is mostly immediately before the tail itself.

The second that this version is more 'fishlike' and simply covered in skin and muscle, rather than external plates. This part is based on research into modern fish; while they also have (mildly) similar skull configurations (and even have 'eye bones')- they are still covered in soft tissue. Naturally the contrast between solid plates and 'boneless' (possibly cartilaginous) bodies is pretty bizarre; but not so strange when you consider bone typically begins as cartilage anyway- and becomes bone through a process of ossification. More importantly as the bones of either fish were clearly directly connected to muscles (including those to make the jaw move) that would often force the plates to shift and move, having protective skin covering these joints from above, rather than underneath, simply makes further sense. You can see such mechanics on groupers.

Another issue with many old depictions of Dunkleosteus is that it shows the head as a cluster of tightly locked plates- leaving extremely little space for the gills (the likely way the Dunkleosteus breathed). Looking at other Placoderms and modern fish- it is clear the plates were looser apart, and the head tilted 'upwards', making the top of the head more level with the spine and lifting the mouth. This leaves plenty of space for gills (and slightly lengthens the fish too!).

Finally there is the matter of its jaws. It seems to be functionally similar to a 'beak'- which is not actually unusual on fish at all (except that this one is humungously wide and made of lots of fanged plates, rather than one solid piece for each mandible).
The lower mandibles show a fairly typical form- a beaklike protrusion simply comes from the jaw- which is easy to infer from modern fish). The upper jaw seems to be a separate plate housed inside a big wide mouth- which kinda made it easier (just have a mouth, then have the beak inside).
The last touches were colour- a lot of fish with substantial skull bones have different skin textures around their heads than the rest of their body- and I decided this should be no exception. The texture has been taken from various Groupers, with some improvisations mixed in.
RM- Vandal variants by Harry-the-Fox
RM- Vandal variants
Lol- after being held up for much of this week (with both work and the sheer overwhelming number of possible designs):
I wanted to introduce the rough general ideas for the VANDAL superheavy assault tank.
As before- an extremely vague sketch to gauge any initial interest in designs: I've eliminated a LOT of nice-but-impractical designs, and kept these ones simple to begin with. Any that stand out as better will be refined properly :)

Basically, it carries the most destructive weapons:
A-the Red Mercury gun- basically a super-hot molten-temperature 'flamethrower'. Note, the inclusion of fuel tanks would replace the position of the mini-turrets,
B-assault guns, (for standard combat)
C-Mortar. Depicted here assuming it fires 'up and over' rather than pointed forward and used as a shorter-ranged mega-strong gun (as Soviet artillery sometimes DID do apparently when (successfully) improvising against tough targets).

The guns are variably shown mounted on ports:
A-Circular sockets (these might need to vary a lot between fore-facing guns (Mercury and Cannon) or diagonally (Mortar- THOUGH the mortar could simply be fore-facing if the same design is used). Varied designs are shown. Compatible both fixed-gun AND turreted designs.
B-A standard Soviet-style 'hinge' joint (most tanks have this, though typically they're fixed as they're mostly turret mounted- fine for the Mortar and Mercury gun- not quite ideal for the cannon. Compatible for ALL designs- built to insert into a flat base- the curvature of the other designs would simply follow the curvature of the mount.
C- Square port- based directly off a real-life WW2 Soviet Assault tank- and thus ideal for the cannon. As shown, the Mercury fits just fine. The mortar could potentially fit- but would look like a shortened cannon

For hull design, I settled on three approximate preferences.
All components have been designed to be cross-compatible with each hull, weapon mount and armament- as I've shown a little bit here).
1- round-domed chassis with a fixed gun (advantage of this is lowest ground clearance, potentially larger guns, and smooth strong armour)
2- polygonal chassis with fixed gun (most reminiscent of WW2 designs- one advantage is it would allow the same SOCKET version of the gun ports for ALL weapon types- I can of course smooth the edges more- but left the vertices on purpose to show geometry)
3- Turreted versions. (slightly taller, but naturally better at aiming and acquiring targets; mounting dual weapons is easier as the turret does the pivoting- making internal space redundant. Furthermore, it is still WAY shorter than the Vanquisher, yet more robust- making it an extremely tough nut to break; though more vulnerable than the shorter turretless variants) FINALLY, the turreted version can easily mount dual versions of ANY of the weapons OR singular- merely that the latter can be MUCH larger).
*I also tried long cylindrical roofs spanning the length of the tank- but these leave less room for attachments- so I left it out

AND finally, a bit about the Chassis length and layout
A- length. AS you can see, the standard Vanquisher chassis is VERY, VERY long for a fixed-gun tank. I've depicted ultra-SHORT versions (but can easily depict lengths in between!)
B- mounting stuff. Once again, I simply left the other details off to show the general space of the tank. I DID however show the fuel tanks on the Mercury versions to convey how length might affect them.
C- Mini-Turrets. As most designs have a typical raised forepart of the hull (or an actual turret) and a lowered rear, mounting mini-turrets will typically mean they only engage targets trying to sneak up on the tank (certainly an advantage in itself). This typically is only possible on a LONG hull- BUT the middle tank simply mounts the minis straight onto the roof- negating this problem entirely. The downside to doing this is the commander/spotters only have 180 degree vision (forward)- which isn't a big deal if the gun can only shoot forward anyway :P

Hope you like it!
The joke is I didn't submit an April Fool's artwork this year (but as I did two last year, it makes up for it)!

(In truth I'm a bit tied up with assignments and an apprenticeship this year)

Anyway, let's hope the internet came up with better pranks than "We found the missing Malaysian Air plane" today.
  • Mood: Neutral
  • Listening to: DEATH METAL and chillout
  • Reading: Uni shit
  • Watching: Doomsday Prepper (funny shit)
  • Playing: Nothing- have to work
  • Eating: Random junk
  • Drinking: Thai Tea


Harry Wilson
Artist | Professional | Digital Art

1) Can I use your artworks?
My answer is usuially... Yes! Just ask for permission first, and what you plan to do with it, and ensure you retain my watermarks on it.
Non-profit use I often allow- but IF you are making something for profit, I do expect to be PAID :P

2- Do you take commissions or sell publishing rights to existing images?
YES. ALL of them! Notable past clients I have done this with include Penguin (Dorling Kingsley), Deisterweg and Ken Derby!
Also, if you want alterations, you will be happy to read my * point in the next question :)

3- How do you work?
In Photoshop (using layers). I simply draw the sketch, colour in beneath it, and apply 'attached' layers over the base colour for shading and such. Each character or object is often a (complete) stand alone layer I do separately and reposition in the overall artwork later- designed so I can move it around where I want, and alter the colour as required. Because I ALWAYS retain the original photoshop file, I can alter the images to suit any new preferences easily.
*In other words, if you wanted an image with the Spinosaurus by itself, I would simply click and drag it onto a new background in mere seconds (it is actually complete and high-detailed).

4) I noticed an error on your works- mind if I chime in?
YES! You are most welcome! I have had some excellent feedback about horizontal Titanosaur posture, and corrected Russian translations in the past, among many other excellent suggestions that have been a huge benefit.
-My only gripe are people who are upset at feathered dinosaurs or <20m Megalodons.

5) Are you a Furry?
NO. The ears are a joke.

6) Are you a metal-head?

AdCast - Ads from the Community


Add a Comment:
NicklausofKrieg Featured By Owner 2 days ago
Your works are very much more than decent, but hardly any of them have comments? I'm amazed!
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner 13 hours ago  Professional Digital Artist
Yup, so disappointing :(
PS- can say the same for your works- I especially love your turn-of-the-century infantry and arms (been trying to do a bit of that myself)
XXXPIMPMASTERXXX Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2015  New Deviant Student Writer
Thank you very much I appreciate your Cooperativeness!
XXXPIMPMASTERXXX Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2015  New Deviant Student Writer
What do you use to make your art? Please and Thank you.
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Photoshop- mostly using standard brushes, actually.
Jellywolf78893AJ Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2015  New Deviant Professional Artist
rawr ur fabulars you helped me for one of my dino reports 
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
A pleasure!
Jellywolf78893AJ Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2015  New Deviant Professional Artist
Extraxi Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2015
Happy birthday to ya! :w00t:

Hope you've had a great day!
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Sure am mate, cheers!
Add a Comment: