Expeditiionary Force Artillery (1 Viewer)

[Scott]

Nice figures but not full crews and the cannons are too small but judge for yourselves.

 

[Scott]

 

[Scott]

 

[CHuDWah]

OK, a bit of nitpicking - the crew have sidearms and the bugler and NCO have what appear to be cavalry sabers or infantry swords. From what I've read, those weapons were issued only to officers (although a few crew may have carried non-regulation sidearms) - the artillery gladius (short straight sword) was issued to crew but often discarded as useless in the field.

 

[Scott]

OK, a bit of nitpicking - the crew have sidearms and the bugler and NCO have what appear to be cavalry sabers or infantry swords. From what I've read, those weapons were issued only to officers (although a few crew may have carried non-regulation sidearms) - the artillery gladius (short straight sword) was issued to crew but often discarded as useless in the field.

Right you are! These figures have some issues. There is a war game figure look to these sets. I'm also guessing that the sculptor is not a student of the era. The bugler is getting painted as a dismounted cavalryman and the NCO who would have been issued a straight sword with baldrick, is going to the infantry. The set is confused with cavalry gear such as the high boots with trousers tucked in on the gun crew.
Perhaps the artillery set was meant to be horse artillery that accompanied cavalry rather than field artillery. Probably not. Unless there are photos of CW artillery in action other than drills in camp, you have to depend on period illustrations for what CW artillery crews looked like. Since all field artillery had to move quickly, personal gear was worn or stored on the horses rather than dropped on the ground.

 

[Scott]

I was hoping the cannon from this set could be an 1841 mountain howitzer but no, it's too big.