New Releases For December 2010 (1 Viewer)

[mikemiller1955]

MIKE.......
You are going to have to get 2 extra men for each of
those cannons to put the ball in the barrel, that is
some beast. Have a good day.

Manitous...I told John it looked huge...he said it was the angle of the camera...hehehe...I don't know...I may be wrong...but I think he actually said the wheels were smaller than on a 6, 8 or 12...I do hope it is a big as it looks and I hope we get a dozen men to man it...I think Nicholas once told me that some crews for a gun this size could be as large as 14 men...I think John's artillery crews for 1812 are some of the best I have seen...I am so hoping John starts going after artillery crews in a big way...I think everybody likes these figures...he has created some really unique poses...

 

[mikemiller1955]

I'm really hoping this howitzer and crew are coming out next month...I'm telling you...JJ is really making a nice crew on both sides...a hefty crew...it's great that he's devoted to this part of the battle...these will look great on anybodies shelf...I hope we will get a 12 pounder for Towson's company along with a few (lots and lots) more figures and maybe even a 6 pounder for the US side...

the British side should be just as impressive if he adds their 5.5" howitzer with the 24 and 6 pounders...these could be the biggest artillery crews ever made...

can you imagine crews with 11-12-13 men...plus both foot and mounted officers...this is what I want...a really impressive artillery slug fest...

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Manitous...I told John it looked huge...he said it was the angle of the camera...hehehe...I don't know...I may be wrong...but I think he actually said the wheels were smaller than on a 6, 8 or 12...I do hope it is a big as it looks and I hope we get a dozen men to man it...I think Nicholas once told me that some crews for a gun this size could be as large as 14 men...I think John's artillery crews for 1812 are some of the best I have seen...I am so hoping John starts going after artillery crews in a big way...I think everybody likes these figures...he has created some really unique poses...

Half of them would be trained artillery crew who did the loading, aiming, and firing and half would be untrained muscle to reposition the gun after each round was fired.

Terry

 

[old tank]

Terry...........
Thanks for information on crews for cannons. I was thinking
it must have been hard for the crew of 3 to 4 men, the way
you explained it sounds more reasonable. Thanks

 

[Phantom Warrior]

By the Napoleonic era, 24 pdr guns were considered to be position pieces and not field pieces. British 6 pdr and 9 pdr cannon had 5 gunners and 4 additional crew. French field artillery crews varied in size. 12 pdr had 8 gunners and 7 infantrymen; 8 pdr 8 gunners and 5 infantry and 4 pdr had 6 gunners and 4 infantry.

Austrian guns had 6 gunners and 6 Handlanger for the 3 pdr up to 12 Handlanger for the 12 pdr. Russian guns had 10 gunners plus 5 caisson crew and their position guns had 12 gunners and 7 with the caissons.

Terry

 

[marktheviking]

Have added the December releases to our website and will have them available at the London show on the Saturday December 4th.
Mark

 

[Dragoon]

According to the Osprey book Niagara 1814, on July 4 1814, a detachment of British forces under Lt. Col. Pearson put up fighting retreat - halting behind numerous creeks and pulling up the bridges. These actions greatly slowed Scotts brigade as it advanced northward toward Chippawa.

What's amazing is part of Pearson's force was these two massive 24 Pounders! Its hard to imagine manhandling these two and a half ton guns down a muddy road in the constantly changing circumstances that make up a fighting withdrawal. At one point a company of US troops flanked the big guns in an attempt to capture them, but were charged by a detachment of the 19th Light Dragoons allowing the British gun crews time to move their pieces out of danger.

The Battle of Chippawa would be fought the next day. - Ken

 

[whdamon]

A closer view of the 24 pounder with figures to gage the human scale. Certainly looks like lots of room for a larger crew.

Also a photo of the Tri plane at Chicago......with the "silver" cowel......until a previous post noted it was released with a red cowel, I didn't pick up on the change. Not being a plane guy (although this piece of fine art will gain priority in the monthly allocation of resources to my collection), I really liked the look of the silver version, but I suspect the red is more accurate??.

As a side note, I was able to look at a Jenkins Sopwith that arrived at a fellow collectors barracks last week, and was impressed that the "spinning" prop was actually attached to the engine that also spun inside the cowel. I find this kind of attention to detail one of Johns draw.....I just naturally assumed it spun on its own...shame on me for under estimating this talented Historical artist.

Walt Damon

 

[UK_BOD]

Have added the December releases to our website and will have them available at the London show on the Saturday December 4th.
Mark

Thanks Mark.

Order already given - possibly more to follow.

Andy

 

[mikemiller1955]

What's amazing is part of Pearson's force was these two massive 24 Pounders! Its hard to imagine manhandling these two and a half ton guns down a muddy road in the constantly changing circumstances that make up a fighting withdrawal. . - Ken

Ken is this true...5,000 pounds on wheels...that's like pushing a full size SUV on two wooden wheels...up hills...down hills...through streams...I wonder how many horses pulled this piece...4-6-8?

 

[Fraxinus]

I think the 2.5 ton figure estimate is simply for the gun barrel. Add maybe another 1,500 - 2,000 pounds for gun carriage. At this weight, I would guess a minimum of 6 horses with considerable help from the gun crew.

The gunpowder powder charge was 8 pounds for direct fire. Assuming 50 shots per day in siege, that is 400 pounds of gunpowder and 1,200 pounds of cannonballs. From a pure logistics standpoint after you add up all the secondary elements, somewhere around 30 horses were needed per gun in a siege train. For field artillery, the number dropped closer to 20 horses per gun.

The 24-pounder was a good "offensive" siege cannon against thick bastion walls and such, it had the desired hitting power. A 18-pounder was a good "defensive" siege cannon, as the attackers earthen ramparts were not nearly so thick as the forts', so you did not need the massive hitting power of the larger guns when playing defense, and the 18-pounder used significantly less gunpowder than a 24-pounder and not much loss in range. Although they may appear toy-like, swivel guns remained a defensive favorite because of the low powder usage.

 

[Dragoon]

Ken is this true...5,000 pounds on wheels...that's like pushing a full size SUV on two wooden wheels...up hills...down hills...through streams...I wonder how many horses pulled this piece...4-6-8?

In John's December release info. it states that the 24 pounders were 4963 lbs. including carriage. True behemoths.

These big guns might have been pulled by oxen, don't know for sure.

It states in Osprey's Niagara 1814 that these guns were cast as experimental pieces during the previous century and were the heaviest field pieces used by either side during the war.

 

[Combat]

Also a photo of the Tri plane at Chicago......with the "silver" cowel......until a previous post noted it was released with a red cowel, I didn't pick up on the change. Not being a plane guy (although this piece of fine art will gain priority in the monthly allocation of resources to my collection), I really liked the look of the silver version, but I suspect the red is more accurate??.

As a side note, I was able to look at a Jenkins Sopwith that arrived at a fellow collectors barracks last week, and was impressed that the "spinning" prop was actually attached to the engine that also spun inside the cowel. I find this kind of attention to detail one of Johns draw.....I just naturally assumed it spun on its own...shame on me for under estimating this talented Historical artist.

Walt Damon

Some nice discussion of the 425/17 triplane on the forum linked below (note this is different discussion than the one I posted under WWI planes thread about the color). It was something of a mystery plane as few, if any authentic photos exist and some changes with the plane occurred in April 1918. The Germans also changed markings late in the war. So there are questions about the color of the cowl (white, red or metal), the underside paint (some claim it is blue), and the rudder. Anyway here is the link and picture of the modelers plane (see his explanation for some differences with John's plane which depicts the final version):

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/models/45570-1-48-fokker-dr-i-finally-complete.html

"425/17 first appeared with the early style crosses as on my model. It then underwent a transformation to the later crosses (the rudder was white on that one and the crosses rather crudely painted over) and it was in that final form MvR was shot down in this machine in April. So my model would represent the tripe as it appeared in maybe March and you'll see both styles in model version quite a bit with the latter probably being more common."

 

[mikemiller1955]

In John's December release info. it states that the 24 pounders were 4963 lbs. including carriage. True behemoths.

These big guns might have been pulled by oxen, don't know for sure.

It states in Osprey's Niagara 1814 that these guns were cast as experimental pieces during the previous century and were the heaviest field pieces used by either side during the war.

Dragoon...thank you for that precise info...that clears that up pretty well...

 

[Combat]

Another bit of info from the 425/17 discussion:

"there is a lot of controversy about this aeroplane. There are indeed all sorts of theories and debates about the underside and the struts, and the white / natural metal cowling. There is a section of a strut from 425 / '17 and it is all red. Most of the pieces I have seen - and I even have some small samples, are from the underside and it was all red too. There are countless pieces of this aeroplane in private collections, due to the fact that it was literally torn apart by Australian soldiers, and there is a very good chance I will be able to acquire more pieces as I find them, provided that the owners are willing to sell them. As Dave said, the confusion about the white or natural metal cowl has been solved for many years now. It seems that one of the prototypes was confused with 425 / '17 at some time in the past. The latest theories I have heard about the undersides and struts being blue seem to be again, confusion with other aeroplanes. MvR flew quite a few different aeroplanes, and there were other pilots who had quite a lot of red on their aeroplanes. MvR was the main one but he wasn't the only one. No one had as much red on their aeroplane as MvR, but some pilots came close."

 

[lancer]

Another bit of info from the 425/17 discussion:

"there is a lot of controversy about this aeroplane. There are indeed all sorts of theories and debates about the underside and the struts, and the white / natural metal cowling. There is a section of a strut from 425 / '17 and it is all red. Most of the pieces I have seen - and I even have some small samples, are from the underside and it was all red too. There are countless pieces of this aeroplane in private collections, due to the fact that it was literally torn apart by Australian soldiers, and there is a very good chance I will be able to acquire more pieces as I find them, provided that the owners are willing to sell them. As Dave said, the confusion about the white or natural metal cowl has been solved for many years now. It seems that one of the prototypes was confused with 425 / '17 at some time in the past. The latest theories I have heard about the undersides and struts being blue seem to be again, confusion with other aeroplanes. MvR flew quite a few different aeroplanes, and there were other pilots who had quite a lot of red on their aeroplanes. MvR was the main one but he wasn't the only one. No one had as much red on their aeroplane as MvR, but some pilots came close."

Good post. Red was, in fact, the ID color for Jasta 11. Some part of every plane was suppossed to be painted red, such as nose, struts, a wing, etc. But no one but Von Richthofen was allowed to paint their aircraft all red. As stated above, von Richthofen flew many different aircraft and most were not all red but had only a portion painted red. 425/17 was all red and may have been the only all red aircraft he ever flew. He flew an Albatros D-3 and D-5 that were red everywhere but under the wings which were a sky blue type color. -- Al