Historical Accuracy (3 Viewers)

[Rob]

Freedom of speech is crucial for all collectors,we pay our money so we surely are entitled to an opinion.For me the trouble only comes when it gets personal or a thread is taken way off course by the resulting argument.

As passionate as some are about Historical accuracy,some others are as passionate about their favourite producers.There is nothing wrong with either of these standpoints.I don't believe for a minute that there are mobs of people just waiting to descend on anyone who doesn't like a certain product,its the stuff of fantasy in my view.We are all adults here (even if some of us are really just 8yrs old within!)and we can exchange likes/dislikes/moans etc without it becoming nasty.Its a sad day if we fall out with someone over Toy Soldiers,it is after all only a hobby.

Freedom for rivet counters and Flag wavers alike I say!

Rob

 

[maddadicus]

Generally, born trouble makers will always be in the middle of every controversial discussion on any forum. At least this forum made the decision, early on to weed them out and to control the more vapid comments...I WOULD LIKE ACCURACY IN SCALE, PLEASE, at least consistent among a given mfg. I do not get hung up over the rivets of a release, since I still look at these as toy models, not museum pieces..If I do not like an incorrect or not pleasing to the eye paint job, I will repaint to my whims and re-decal to my tastes. If a vehicle did not belong to a certain battle, if I like it enough, it can be in any battle I choose..Accuracy discussions can be instructive unless there are more experts than collectors who really love the model, because it just looks pretty neat..Michael

 

[Njja]

Geez I am generally considered a "Born Trouble Maker" and I hope I'm not

weeded out! I think actually we should all try and be tolerant of each other.

Okay, I know thats not the comment you would expect from a "born trouble

maker" but that only kicks in when someone else decides what I should do or

say.....for me!

As I stated eariler, there is always going to be someone somewhere to point

out any error someone might make, no matter how careful their research. This

really isn't a big deal as long as the rest of us simply let them have their say

and move ahead with our purchases. It really doesn't matter to me if a vehicle

has 1 to many bolts or the wrong hanger attaching a shovel on the side.

I'm certain no manufacter makes a mistake on purpose, its simply a mistake.

As long as no one labels me a "slacker" (or worse) because I don't feel the

same way they do.......who really cares?

 

[marco55]

This is interesting as I was reading on another forum about this accuracy issue.Now most of the guys on there are figure painters and most take the oppisite view as to accuracy (maybe because they are artists).For one thing as far as uniforms go there were too many variations,especially pre-1900.You can see it in old pictures.Look at some US Army photos during the indian wars or the civil war no two guys are dressed alike.The Confederates uniforms were gray,butternut,brown blue and all shades in between.They wore kepis,slouch hats,top hats,sombreros,and everything else.I think the more you try to make the figures alike the more unrealistic they look.
Mark

 

[Njja]

This is interesting as I was reading on another forum about this accuracy issue.Now most of the guys on there are figure painters and most take the oppisite view as to accuracy (maybe because they are artists).For one thing as far as uniforms go there were too many variations,especially pre-1900.You can see it in old pictures.Look at some US Army photos during the indian wars or the civil war no two guys are dressed alike.The Confederates uniforms were gray,butternut,brown blue and all shades in between.They wore kepis,slouch hats,top hats,sombreros,and everything else.I think the more you try to make the figures alike the more unrealistic they look.
Mark

...........................................................................................

Excellent point! I know many officers during the civil war purchased their uniforms from different tailors that oftern plyed their trade in the military camps. You can easily imagine the variety of attire in the middle of a battle.
I would be the guy wearing the suit of armour with the cast iron kettle on my head......digging a hole!

 

[uksubs]

Freedom for rivet counters and Flag wavers alike I say!

Rob[/QUOTE]

Well said Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

This is interesting as I was reading on another forum about this accuracy issue.Now most of the guys on there are figure painters and most take the oppisite view as to accuracy (maybe because they are artists).For one thing as far as uniforms go there were too many variations,especially pre-1900.You can see it in old pictures.Look at some US Army photos during the indian wars or the civil war no two guys are dressed alike.The Confederates uniforms were gray,butternut,brown blue and all shades in between.They wore kepis,slouch hats,top hats,sombreros,and everything else.I think the more you try to make the figures alike the more unrealistic they look.
Mark

Good point Mark, as you suggest, the same was true in many respects for the Napoleonic Wars. On campaign, there were almost as many variations as soldiers. Officers in particular were notorious for having different fabrics and variations on their unit standards and after a few months sleeping and marching in the rain, sun, dirt, brambles and even snow, very few uniforms were uniform at that point.

 

[thebritfarmer]

How about this take on it?

The movie Zulu has many inaccuracies as do a lot of movies. Do these inaccuracies make the film any less enjoyable any less popular, not always. Zulu is a brilliant movie, one I have watched many times and which I still enjoy.

Just thought I would add another way to look at things

 

[fmethorst]

For me historical accuracy breaks down like this:

Historically Accurate: This requires some form of documented evidence that has general acceptance among people that study the period in question. This can include written, photographic, film/video, audio and to a lesser extent artwork (i.e. paintings, charcoal drawings etc). As one travels back in time this level of accuracy is increasingly difficult to achieve.

Historically Plausible: This requires that the unit, uniform, equipment, vehicle etc. existed in the time and place being depicted but doesn't require the same level of rigor applied to the details as "Historically Accurate". For example, we don't need to verify that tank with turret number 123 was at coordinates X on such and such a date to qualify for this catagory. It does; however, need to be a vehicle that was actually operated by the unit being depicted in the area being represented.

Historically False: Basically anything goes. An example of this would be Elefant tank destroyers in Normandy or the Ardennes.

I'm not about to claim that any one category is "correct" since collectors are free to enjoy the hobby any way they like. The only thing that doesn't sit right with me is when a manufacturer claims something falls into one of the first two categories and two minutes with "Google" proves otherwise. Part of the problem is that some manufacturers have ranges that each new piece must be shoehorned into regardless of historical context. A solution to this would be to either only release pieces appropriate to those ranges or to do away with the ranges completely and release more generic pieces.

 

[damian]

For me historical accuracy breaks down like this:

Historically Accurate: This requires some form of documented evidence that has general acceptance among people that study the period in question. This can include written, photographic, film/video, audio and to a lesser extent artwork (i.e. paintings, charcoal drawings etc). As one travels back in time this level of accuracy is increasingly difficult to achieve.

Historically Plausible: This requires that the unit, uniform, equipment, vehicle etc. existed in the time and place being depicted but doesn't require the same level of rigor applied to the details as "Historically Accurate". For example, we don't need to verify that tank with turret number 123 was at coordinates X on such and such a date to qualify for this catagory. It does; however, need to be a vehicle that was actually operated by the unit being depicted in the area being represented.

Historically False: Basically anything goes. An example of this would be Elefant tank destroyers in Normandy or the Ardennes.

I'm not about to claim that any one category is "correct" since collectors are free to enjoy the hobby any way they like. The only thing that doesn't sit right with me is when a manufacturer claims something falls into one of the first two categories and two minutes with "Google" proves otherwise. Part of the problem is that some manufacturers have ranges that each new piece must be shoehorned into regardless of historical context. A solution to this would be to either only release pieces appropriate to those ranges or to do away with the ranges completely and release more generic pieces.

I draw the line at historically false. Elephants at Alamein or Normandy I object to as well as non-existent vehicles.
If it is simply a marketing problem so the vehicle is described as being at Normandy but wasn't but can be used elsewhere, like the Berlin 1945 then that is OK.

 

[The Military Workshop]

This reminded of a print I published several years ago.
The subject was a Royal Australian Air Force Huey doing a Dust Off in Vietnam. The artist was a Vietnam veteran who was his battalion photographer and had taken thousands of photos including of Hueys,. We were even able to get a still serving Huey that had been in Vietnam and a Veteran pilot to "pose" it for the artist.
When the painting was finished we took it to an Infantry Veterans reunion. Pretty much the first persom to comment on it said "Wrong markings" He then explained he had never seen an Aussie helicopter in Vietnam which was true as they were not there in the early years. He wanted a US Huey in the image !
At the subsequent print signing a RAAF mechanic commented upon a particular item not being correct. One of his mates pointed out the item had been added after the first guy had completed his tour.
The Vietnam War Memorial in Canberra features a very well known image of Hueys dropping off Australian soldiers on the ground. The only problem is it is a US Huey and RAAF veterans are not happy by the error. A significant error by the archtect.
It is a great image but wrong country's Huey.
Just me rambling !!
Regards
Brett

 

[damian]

This reminded of a print I published several years ago.
The subject was a Royal Australian Air Force Huey doing a Dust Off in Vietnam. The artist was a Vietnam veteran who was his battalion photographer and had taken thousands of photos including of Hueys,. We were even able to get a still serving Huey that had been in Vietnam and a Veteran pilot to "pose" it for the artist.
When the painting was finished we took it to an Infantry Veterans reunion. Pretty much the first persom to comment on it said "Wrong markings" He then explained he had never seen an Aussie helicopter in Vietnam which was true as they were not there in the early years. He wanted a US Huey in the image !
At the subsequent print signing a RAAF mechanic commented upon a particular item not being correct. One of his mates pointed out the item had been added after the first guy had completed his tour.
The Vietnam War Memorial in Canberra features a very well known image of Hueys dropping off Australian soldiers on the ground. The only problem is it is a US Huey and RAAF veterans are not happy by the error. A significant error by the archtect.
It is a great image but wrong country's Huey.
Just me rambling !!
Regards
Brett

Do you have some images or links for us.
I am not familiar with these paintings but they sound interesting

 

[The Military Workshop]

Damian,
The Dustoff image can be seen at
www.themilitaryworkshop.com/category.php?catid=16
(note we have nearly finished our new web page and that site not been updated for a while so don't get excited by the many retired K&C items there !)

The other image used on the War Memorial can be seen on the Australian War Memorial web page www.awm.gov.au and go into shop and then posters area and the one I mentioned is 7 RAR image. Actuall link is
cas.awm.gov.au/TST2/glbx.accept_login?screen_name=shop_pkg.pr_home&screen_parms=acid=&screen_type=BOTTOM
but looks odd.

Worth a look around the War Memorial web site as has many photos.
Regards
Brett

 

[tullock]

This is interesting as I was reading on another forum about this accuracy issue.Now most of the guys on there are figure painters and most take the oppisite view as to accuracy (maybe because they are artists).For one thing as far as uniforms go there were too many variations,especially pre-1900.You can see it in old pictures.Look at some US Army photos during the indian wars or the civil war no two guys are dressed alike.The Confederates uniforms were gray,butternut,brown blue and all shades in between.They wore kepis,slouch hats,top hats,sombreros,and everything else.I think the more you try to make the figures alike the more unrealistic they look.
Mark

The Confederate quartermaster depot system established early in the war provided its troops with plain,robust uniforms for the duration of the conflict.The Richmond depot in Virginia supplied The Army of Northern Virginia,the Columbus depot in Georgia supplied the Army of Tennessee and the Houston depot in Texas supplied the Trans-Mississippi Army.Each depot had its own unique style of uniform and all three (along with numerous other facilities)provided several hundred thousand uniforms EACH year to Confederate troops.Richmond depot 2 jackets had a 9 buttons and epaulettes,Columbus jackets were trimmed in blue on the collar and cuffs as were Houston items.Poor dyes often faded uniforms to a tan colour,but all were still 'uniform'.It would be nice to see our top manufacterers doing a bit of research and producing accuratly clad rebs.As far as I can see only Britains produce figures in Richmond uniforms,the rest give us the usual (and mythical)ragged reb.A quick glance at the numerous photos taken at Antietam,Gettysburg,The Wilderness,Spotsylvania,Petersburg and Richmond all show Confederates uniformally dressed.No rags,no patches.To put this in context Oscar T Weisinger of the Richmond clothing bureau set out early in the war to issue three full uniforms per year to Confederate troops.By 1863 he was using 8 million yards of woolens and 8.5 million yards of cotton goods in the manufacture of uniforms.This was besides the tens of thousands of imported items coming in from Britain and a quarter of a million State issue uniforms.to quote from Harold S Wilson's excellent book 'Confederate Industry'....." The issues for 1864 alone amounted to 744,851 pairs of shoes,458,130 field jackets,695,832 pairs of pants and an abundance of shirts".
Shortly before the Gettysburg campaign Lee's entire Army was resupplied with new uniforms(these are easily distinguishable on the Gettysburg photos).If I were to use only the current Confederate figure sets from many of our top manufacterers it would be almost impossible to build a diorama of this battle that was anything like accurate.
Jeff

 

[damian]

Damian,
The Dustoff image can be seen at
www.themilitaryworkshop.com/category.php?catid=16
(note we have nearly finished our new web page and that site not been updated for a while so don't get excited by the many retired K&C items there !)

The other image used on the War Memorial can be seen on the Australian War Memorial web page www.awm.gov.au and go into shop and then posters area and the one I mentioned is 7 RAR image. Actuall link is
cas.awm.gov.au/TST2/glbx.accept_login?screen_name=shop_pkg.pr_home&screen_parms=acid=&screen_type=BOTTOM
but looks odd.

Worth a look around the War Memorial web site as has many photos.
Regards
Brett

Thanks

 

[damian]

The Confederate quartermaster depot system established early in the war provided its troops with plain,robust uniforms for the duration of the conflict.The Richmond depot in Virginia supplied The Army of Northern Virginia,the Columbus depot in Georgia supplied the Army of Tennessee and the Houston depot in Texas supplied the Trans-Mississippi Army.Each depot had its own unique style of uniform and all three (along with numerous other facilities)provided several hundred thousand uniforms EACH year to Confederate troops.Richmond depot 2 jackets had a 9 buttons and epaulettes,Columbus jackets were trimmed in blue on the collar and cuffs as were Houston items.Poor dyes often faded uniforms to a tan colour,but all were still 'uniform'.It would be nice to see our top manufacterers doing a bit of research and producing accuratly clad rebs.As far as I can see only Britains produce figures in Richmond uniforms,the rest give us the usual (and mythical)ragged reb.A quick glance at the numerous photos taken at Antietam,Gettysburg,The Wilderness,Spotsylvania,Petersburg and Richmond all show Confederates uniformally dressed.No rags,no patches.To put this in context Oscar T Weisinger of the Richmond clothing bureau set out early in the war to issue three full uniforms per year to Confederate troops.By 1863 he was using 8 million yards of woolens and 8.5 million yards of cotton goods in the manufacture of uniforms.This was besides the tens of thousands of imported items coming in from Britain and a quarter of a million State issue uniforms.to quote from Harold S Wilson's excellent book 'Confederate Industry'....." The issues for 1864 alone amounted to 744,851 pairs of shoes,458,130 field jackets,695,832 pairs of pants and an abundance of shirts".
Shortly before the Gettysburg campaign Lee's entire Army was resupplied with new uniforms(these are easily distinguishable on the Gettysburg photos).If I were to use only the current Confederate figure sets from many of our top manufacterers it would be almost impossible to build a diorama of this battle that was anything like accurate.
Jeff

What does UK Reb say about this?

 

[The Military Workshop]

To quote Jeff
"Shortly before the Gettysburg campaign Lee's entire Army was resupplied with new uniforms(these are easily distinguishable on the Gettysburg photos).If I were to use only the current Confederate figure sets from many of our top manufacterers it would be almost impossible to build a diorama of this battle that was anything like accurate.


The argument about accuracy of the Confederates at Gettysburg only applies if the manufacturer has stated those figures are from Gettysburg. Since there were a lot more battles I think "generic" Confederates are acceptable. If the Confederates are not from the right tailor or stores for Gettysburg then perhaps they are corrrect for at least one other battle sometime during the war.

For example the first series of K&C ACW figures were from Antietam ( I won't even bother trying to research their tailor). The more recent K&C leaflet on the Confederate cavalry and wounded etc describes them as from before and after a light cavalry skirmish which I guess rules out Gettysburg. The previous infantry releases leaflet does not specify a battle or year. I guess further analysis is needed to work out which battles they can not be used for. If the Britains ones are OK for Gettysburg then I guess that means collectors can not use then for earlier battles.

To steal somebody else's line I am sure that if Confederate collectors want to know which tailor is appropriate for which battle then I am sure they will get in touch.

Now I am concerned. Are the Highlanders in my Culloden display wearing the correct tartans for those who attacked Barrel's Regiment ?

Just my thoughts but I am pretty sure most manufacturers do not have the time or the knowledge to get everything right 100% of the time.

Regards
Brett

 

[The Lt.]

I suspect if you asked 100 different collectors you would get 100 different degree levels because each collector makes up there own mind based on personal taste & opinion and personal knowledge. For example, I wonder how many people think the 24th at Rorke's Drift was a Welsh unit.

OZ are you saying the 24th Foot at Rorke's Drift was not a Welsh unit? If so your wrong they were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Wales_Borders

 

[OzDigger]

OZ are you saying the 24th Foot at Rorke's Drift was not a Welsh unit? If so your wrong they were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Wales_Borders

Hi Lt, As it says in the link you provided it didn't become the South Wales Borderers until 1881, The Battle of Rorke's Drift was in 1879.

I have no books on the Anglo-Zulu War and must depend on the web: http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/fact-fiction.html

Btw guys, nurse said I am only allowed One forum debate per week otherwise she'll have to up my meds, so there endeth the matter as far as I'm concerned

 

[Spitfrnd]

....The argument about accuracy of the Confederates at Gettysburg only applies if the manufacturer has stated those figures are from Gettysburg.

That is exactly the point of this discussion. It is the representation by the manufacturer that is important. The rest is purely a matter of collector taste.

...Since there were a lot more battles I think "generic" Confederates are acceptable. If the Confederates are not from the right tailor or stores for Gettysburg then perhaps they are correct for at least one other battle sometime during the war.

Well for collector's with an interest in being exactly correct for just a few battles or with unlimited budgets or museum curators that may be true but for most of us on a limited budget with broader interests a bit more flexibility is required. It would be nice to have a different set of figures for each battle you desire to represent; especially if someone else would pay for them. Personally, I am content to use my Waterloo redcoats at Corunna or anywhere else on the Peninsula or 1814 France, shako variations and all.

....For example the first series of K&C ACW figures were from Antietam ( I won't even bother trying to research their tailor). The more recent K&C leaflet on the Confederate cavalry and wounded etc describes them as from before and after a light cavalry skirmish which I guess rules out Gettysburg. The previous infantry releases leaflet does not specify a battle or year. I guess further analysis is needed to work out which battles they can not be used for. If the Britains ones are OK for Gettysburg then I guess that means collectors can not use then for earlier battles.

Again, that is up to the collector. It is the manufacturer's job to say what battle or period they are made for, the rest is up to the purchaser.

....Now I am concerned. Are the Highlanders in my Culloden display wearing the correct tartans for those who attacked Barrel's Regiment ?

We each have to decide what concerns us. That would not bother me any more than such variations have bothered many highly revered historical artists. The Zulu movie analogy is quite apt.