Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 1,939 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: I worry about history #192314
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Regrettably I gave up expecting better of the BBC some time ago.

    As you say Frederick would have been miffed to think he was a sideshow.

    I suppose if you are trying to sell the idea to the Americans (no doubt there will be articles in BBC History and History Extra) you make it about them.

    Also – ‘a battle’ ? I’m a bluff old traditionalist – ‘to battle’ can have the wider meaning of struggle. ‘A battle’ however means organised (more or less) groups trying to kill each other in a specific area of real estate over a specific period. A succession of battles is a campaign and a group of them is a ‘War’. Otherwise it would be the Seven Years Battle.

    in reply to: Twilight of Divine Right – Wimpfen #192293
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Thanks for posting. This and your (latest!) White Mountain aar have reminded me I meant to get back into Thirty Years War using ToDR some time ago. The Rugby World Cup and subsequent slough of despond put it right out of my mind.

    I have as a result of your posts ordered a few more figures from Pendraken this afternoon with the idea of testing a different basing for Early Tercios. At the moment my basing is generic for all infantry (intended for another set of rules some years ago, but I’m not rebasing my existing Regiments/Tercios). My cavalry is all the same as well, which means I still need lots  of light horse to do White Mountain! I can either rebase  and buy fewer, or stick with the system I’ve got and buy lots more. I think we know which way this is going!

    I think Nick has been on your blog to help with the defensive fire point. I would just add that there is provision for infantry (and cavalry) to fire outside of the contact procedure but the ranges are 1/2 and 1/4 base width respectively! Most combat is intended to be dealt with via the ‘contact’ morale phase which rolls up close range fire, melee and morale into one procedure. I like that as it cuts out a lot of (I think) spurious detail and ends up with the same result in the end.

    Thanks.

    Guy

    in reply to: Russian dragon’s teeth #192141
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Saw the first vid some time ago – inconclusive as most things are in propaganda war – Russian film shows they work brilliantly, Ukrainian video shows they are worthless.

    Not seen second video  until now- very annoying commentary – again who do you want to believe? Lots of weasel words. Ukrainian losses  (as they say) may – or may not – be linked to pushable dragons teeth.

    I suspect unfamiliarity with hastily learned western assault tactics with unfamiliar kit and Russia not running out of artillery shells as predicted by western ‘experts’ from day 3 of the conflict are more likely culprits  but we probably need to wait for proper analysis of ongoing battles to determine what – if anything – went wrong.

    Obviously the superoptimistic manoeuvrist school just got a bit of a kicking (might need to rewrite those doctrine manuals about now – oh look! We have!) but the ‘facing the main enemy’ General Haig revisionists may yet be right if Russian logistics fall over eventually.

    If dragons teeth (crap or otherwise) have played a part in slowing, channelling and stopping advances then they didn’t do it on their own and were never intended to. Layered, combined field defences covered by fire may have.

    British Land Operations doctrine used to say: ‘The requirement for Mission Command and the Manoeuvrist Approach has not changed, however the latter is focused on the enemy – and in this complex and dynamic environment manoeuvre has to take account of a much broader audience than simply the ‘enemy’ WTF that means. It goes on to say – ‘Put simply, doctrine is not just what is taught, it also captures a set of beliefs – the beliefs that underpin how we practise our profession.’

    Possibly realising this was based on management speak which didn’t actually say very much, the new up to date October ’23 version (no doubt taking into account the reality of Ukrainians trying to manoeuvre somewhere in accordance with western doctrine) tries to be a bit more practical:

    ‘3.14. The manoeuvrist approach is a blend of disruptive manoeuvre and
    destructive firepower (attrition and manoeuvre).’ Shooting things is in favour again.

    The new version is here: Joint Doctrine Publication 0-20 Oct 23

    in reply to: Making paint stick to soft plastics #192128
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I am informed (how reliably I cannot tell) that undiluted pva glue is the ideal base coat on soft plastic figures (shrink wraps them with a layer that accepts acrylic paint very well). Worth trying on one at least I should think. (Don’t dilute and don’t panic when the lumpy appearance when wet makes you want to wipe it off and start again apparently)

     

    in reply to: Russian dragon’s teeth #192110
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    If you’re deploying mines ad hoc to channel advancing armour in a fluid battle yes – artillery and air delivered work very well, but if you’ve got a few months to do it while digging tank traps and placing dragons teeth and siting your trenches to cover them you may as well lay the mines (dug in or surface, a/t or a/p) without having shell and rocket bursts and cluster bomb delivery overhead, thanks. Of course if someone breaks through then you can seal them off with the air and artillery delivered stuff.

    in reply to: What's on your painting desk/table/corner #192102
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I’m getting ‘Error 404 Page Not found’ for the pic.

    Ooh! Ok now!

    in reply to: Russian dragon’s teeth #192093
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    ‘New Russian’ Dragons teeth – technically deficient (crap) (probably). To lay concrete platforms and secure the teeth to them = massive increase in cost both financially materiel and time. I presume someone did the calculation and thought ‘chuck ’em down’ (or more probably ‘I can make a fortune out of this and who is going to come back and argue later?)

    Anti tank  ditches dug by MDK-3s,  not BTM-3. The latter is an infantry trench digger.

    MDK-3 Wagner anti-tank trench

    As for crossing them – the Chieftain (pipe fascine) comment was a bit tongue in cheek. I presume somewhere we have some of the Challenger based Trojan versions in working order (big presumption). If not, someone can borrow the Kodiak (Leopard 2 based AEV).

    Mines etc – if you want to make life ‘orrible for engineers then you attach anti-personnel mines to obstacles and in the path to them as well as anti-vehicle devices. However when you haven’t signed the mine ban treaty (as the Russians, USA and China haven’t – and frankly why the hell would you?) you can scatter them about and let someone else find them when they try and get at your defences. You should of course still be neat and dig your anti-tank mines in.

    I suspect everyone involved has better uses for steel than hedgehogs (although it is worth noting that Russia is/was a major exporter of steel and one of the largest producers in the world).

    Interesting planning game to be had I think – Wagner and Russian officials allocating resources (and costs) to devise the best (most easily milked without making it too porous) defensive layout on a front. Lay it out on the table and see how it works.

    (Similar sub-game on other side – devising best strategy to breach using various kit mixes and tactical doctrines and available personnel- then try it one the defence).

    in reply to: Russian dragon’s teeth #192053
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Brian, the ” passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously” is NCS himself – it’s his signature – it isn’t aimed at you.

    There are a few of us about though, so welcome back!

    Cost effective?

    I’m going to explain why I can’t answer. It may sound like waffle but it’s not.

    I don’t know the cost of the three methods you outline.

    You’d have to know the cost of Russian concrete, producing the moulds for the dragons’ teeth, transporting them (what’s the current cost of diesel fuel in Russia?), hiring civilian contractors or the opportunity cost of using logistics corps or engineering units to do it rather than shifting ammunition and rations and shaping the battlefield elsewhere in other ways.

    Then you have to work out the cost of digging an anti-tank ditch across a comparable line of defence – engineering vehicle, military or civilian, labour – civ or mil – diesel, repairs, etc. Are they under fire?

    Same for hedgehogs – as you say, steel is relatively expensive, then you have to transport it, construct the things, cost of labour and placement etc see above.

    That would be how much each costs.

    Then how easy/possible is it to produce enough of each to cover the required frontage?

    Then how effective is each of the methods? You can’t say how cost effective they are until you know whether they all stop tanks. Ditches do. Dragons teeth do (the jury appears to be asking the judge for more time re the current Russian version) and hedgehogs do. But how effectively? Is there a metric? Somewhere no doubt there is, but it will be from an older conflict. [John – re crap Czech hedgehogs there appeared to be quite a lot of them in Ukrainian photos near the beginning of the war – mostly being decorated by artists].

    Time is a major concern as well as cost- no use having a Rolls Royce answer for a mile of front if you need to deter attacks on four hundred miles of front asap.

    Three of one or one of each? Each produces a different tactical problem for an attacker. Bridging a gap or making the ditch sides traversable requires different kit and approaches from dragons teeth and hedgehogs.  You need to rotate your vehicles and engineers and kit as you approach each different task. (What happened to the Chieftain AVRE fascine tank?) all of whom are vulnerable as they approach and deal with the different obstacles. If you put all your eggs in one basket and have say three ditches, then the speed of attack is potentially greater as the same teams clear all three. (assuming they’ve got three fascine tanks per attack) However the defender might kill the only units capable of crossing the ditches in the first attack and then the attacker is stuck. The Russians got hung up on a river crossing early on like this.

    I think the concern was that if you have time and sufficient resources you wouldn’t use just one a/t defence over another, you’d use layered defences as the Russians have – at least ditches and dragons teeth together with mines, pre registered artillery and interlocking fields of mg fire and a/t missiles. And you won’t be using all this to necessarily stop an attack, you’ll be seeking to channel it into killing zones.

    As for claiming to be expert – I don’t think NCS did, and I certainly don’t, not re field obstacles.

    I agree with you that playing with toy soldiers doesn’t have to mean abandoning any relation to what happens in real life. Tanks that hopped over ditches or wafted aside dragons teeth (although the Russian drop and forget variety may suffer that fate to an extent) would not be welcome on my table.

    In a game you can allocate pioneer or engineering points and allow defenders to produce their own defensive solutions on the table. (and attackers select engineering assets). If you are replicating real world decisions and tactics it is an unfortunate truth that you never have enough of what you think you want beforehand and seldom any of what you need in the event.

    Why the ‘scatterable’ dragon’s teeth? – don’t know, but perhaps availability and speed and a desire to be able to attack through them yourself later might be ideas.

    What do you think? And how can you turn these thoughts into something usable on the tabletop?

    PS – I’m pretty suspicious of any material publicly available during a conflict. We live in an era where winning the public perception in the media (social and mainstream) is a major front. Whether it is worth it strategically I guess is open to debate – but where? Try having a sane conversation about Ukraine or Israel online and see how far you get.

    (Hope I haven’t been too passive aggressive!)

    Guy.

    in reply to: A moan about dices #192021
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    The only dice I have with special faces are A,K,Q,J,10,9 from my Sixth form days (happy misspent youth).

    in reply to: Yeah, but how big is it? #191905
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    90cmx90cm or

    150cmx90cm or

    180cmx120cm or

    there’s a folding table tennis table in the garage. – 9’x5′ which I no longer have the space to unfold thanks to the accumulated junk.

    in reply to: One Way to Model… #191867
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Interesting.

    Especially as I would largely be in agreement about M. Bonaparte. (If I ever commented on things like that – which I don’t because it draws the ire of the faithful).

    Re your completion of something – I add my applause. An achievement not to be sneezed at.

    Nice job.

    I cleared my gaming table of accumulated ‘stuff’ about six weeks ago for a planned series of games.

    That cluttered the painting area to stagnation. The Rugby World Cup then occupied my time and during the hiatus the cat occupied the blanket I had put on the table for the games.

    Having eventually evicted him I removed the blanket and started building 10mm houses for the Thirty Years War.

    I am now back to square one with added cat hatred.

    in reply to: You’re having a ****ing laugh #191793
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I can understand why a lot of things happen – doesn’t mean I have to like them or not express surprise.

    Having said that – if I lived in a third floor flat in a city and had nowhere to grub a up a few stones in the garden, or store 25kg of gravel, I suppose I might fall for it too.

    (I used to go to a model shop in Belfast and the guy behind the counter used to always include some basing material for free in the bag. Times change I guess.)

    in reply to: Other Partizan Pics #191754
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I am baffled Andrew – by your bafflement

    Where was Whirlwind baffled by the Kriegsspielers?

    Whatever or wherever this was – playing Kriegsspiel solo seems to defeat the object a bit. I mean, the enjoyment comes from not knowing what the enemy is doing and where until you find them and work out what is going on. You often don’t know where your own troops are or are doing as well come to that.

    Still, each to their own. Love the maps.

    Excellent report Whirlwind.

    Love the idea of tracing the development of tactics on the Western Front in WWI over an afternoon! Different and positive approach to the usual mud blood and endless poetry  school.

    in reply to: DBMM or FOG #191729
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Yes.

    My caveat wasn’t aimed at you Chris.

    Rather it was based on a remembrance of attending a club in the North West of England many years ago and being told they had a fun based approach to games.

    And they did: with number crunching, extended tables of modifiers and factors, and much recording of casualties which never appeared to do much to the game. I’m not sure I ever saw a game carried through to anything resembling a conclusion, realistic or otherwise. I remember thinking I should have pinned them down on that elusive concept; ‘fun’, before I committed to turning up every week.

    in reply to: DBMM or FOG #191722
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Yes. I’d also say beware of statements that they want ‘fun’ however. Fun doesn’t have a very precise definition. My idea of fun may be your idea of hell and vice versa. You really have to pin down what their idea of ‘fun’ is.

    But remember, it isn’t a job interview, it’s far more important than that.

    in reply to: Project Slow Burn #191596
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Ah! Thanks Mike. Sorry to intrude. I always enjoyed these games/stories and I was trying to pinch an idea or two and couldn’t find them, that’s all.

    in reply to: Project Slow Burn #191588
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Whatever happened to this? and why ‘Deleted User’? I spent ages looking for this -couldn’t remember the name – user or post. Glad I found it but baffled.

    in reply to: ‘Bandera’s Boys’ Some thoughts. #191546
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    As we used to say in the 80s ‘I hear what you say’.

    For me however, ‘rehabilitating’ an enthusiastic proponent and exponent of the final solution feels open to a slightly different response than a Whig history of Empire nobody reads any more.

    in reply to: Quatre Bras game test, Bloody Big Battles #191400
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Siborne’s map is quite useful: Atlas to Siborne’s History of the Waterloo Campaign

    The dimensions of the battlefield look to be pretty much okay to me.

    Bossu wood was cut down shortly after the battle and there is nothing of it left to see now (and wasn’t in the aerial photo in Jac Weller’s 1967 ‘Wellington at Waterloo’).

    Even though it is relatively untouched compared to Waterloo battlefields change – they aren’t battlefields to farmers and locals, they’re the place they live and work. Hedges and woods get grubbed up and planted, boundaries change, ponds get filled in, rivers channelled and redirected, soil creeps down slopes etc and two hundred years later it all feels different.

    Nice job Vincent.

    in reply to: Russian dragon’s teeth #191294
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Andy Callan made us play the Battle of Tanga back in the early 80s. He revealed the bee issue as the game developed. We lost.

    I’d like to say the experience prepped me for a real life™ wasp attack in Cyprus ten years later but we beat a retreat then as well, hence my anti-personnel comment about Slovenian Wasp Nest Booby Traps.

     

    in reply to: Russian dragon’s teeth #191286
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Just on the off chance there might be some anti- tank jelly barrier weapons in development I googled the term – no joy so far but for some reason third on the list of results was this:

    M3 Multi-Role, Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System

    I was never aware the Charlie G had a jelly barrier round (I haven’t found it in the manual but it must be there surely or it wouldn’t have turned up in the search results, would it?).

    Anyway, a fun read on a quiet evening after the rugby.

    (Slovenian wasp nest booby trap feels more anti-personnel to me)

    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Thanks for that Patrice, downloaded it. Looking forward to reading it and searching out the changes!

     

    in reply to: Russian dragon’s teeth #191228
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I think that was what NCS was getting at.

    The original thread in another place, and the related video ‘analysis’ which prompted it, is very narrow in focus. It led to a rather strange discussion about ‘Which is better: dragon’s teeth, mines or tank trap trenches?’ Which rather missed the combined nature of defensive belts, including the preregistered artillery and a/t  weapons you mention.

    Sure you can send in a bulldozer, when you’ve filled in the tank trap and taken casualties, and recovered the bulldozer and sent in engineers to get shelled and then drive through the dragons teeth to get blown up by the mines and shot by the etc… It’s not usually an either/or.

    John, like the obstacle table, remarkably elegant considering where you claim it comes from!

    I am not now nor have I ever been anything to do with assault engineering, although I have lurked at times behind lots of wire, shamoolies, things that go bang and the like. They rarely went ‘whoosh!’ and never went ‘bang!’ I am pleased to say.

     

    in reply to: Napoleonic Cavalry – what did they really do? #191090
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    OotKust –  Thanks. Dave I agree entirely about the having to arrive bit about the lancers – it’s just that I doubt a rank (it was one rank only of the mounted cavalry that fired from what I have read) of dragoon fire would be likely to stop a move to contact unless the lancers were seriously poor or seriously disordered already.

    Stephen  – Thanks – wise words I shall now tactically withdraw/run away!

    Chris – Thanks, pretty much as I thought – except for this Clausewitz bloke –  who’s he? :^)

    Thank you everyone for reassuring me that I haven’t missed some major revision in Napoleonic history (this time anyway).

    in reply to: Napoleonic Cavalry – what did they really do? #191083
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    What pushed me over the edge about this was an attack in an online Kriegsspiel. A regiment of dragoons received a lancer regiment’s charge, firing their carbines/musketoons/muskets at the halt pre contact. They routed the lancers. This felt odd.

    I was not involved so have no game axe to grind, and I have a healthy scepticism of the supertrooper view of lancers. I would however expect dragoons firing at the halt against attacking lancers to be roughly handled unless there were some extraordinary terrain, training and morale advantages.

    If it had been a one off I would have shrugged. But the use of dragoons in fire combat appears to be a standard and charges to contact by them penalised amongst some gaming groups. I would expect dragoons v horse to be at a significant disadvantage in the seventeenth and possibly early eighteenth centuries but not later.

    Interesting to hear of Haythornthwaite quoting the 20th Chasseurs at Eylau example. Captain Parquin’s account has the Chasseurs, at the halt, shooting down almost the entire front rank of Russian dragoons (advancing at the walk). This did not stop the attack however and the combat was indecisive. The dragoons retired in order but then received most of their casualties from the fire of the square of the 27th Legere during the withdrawal.

    This was a light cavalry unit shooting, something I always believed they were more likely to engage in given their role away from the battlefield. Dragoons always appear to me at least to have more of a heavy/medium cavalry role on the battlefield in this period.

    I am not suggesting that dragoons, or any other cavalry unit, never shot their weapons, either on foot or mounted (although reloading on horseback in the middle of a battle sounds like a recipe for disaster, not to mention physically challenging) but as a standard procedure in battle it feels unlikely. Does unlikely mean rules should not allow it to happen? I don’t think so. I’m generally one to allow a player to do anything they like, however anachronistic or plain dumb it may be. Just make sure that it gets the outcome contemporaries would expect.

    Cossacks. I am probably being as anachronistic in my view of what a Cossack was in this period as those who see dragoons as mounted infantry in this period.

    in reply to: Napoleonic Cavalry – what did they really do? #191064
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I thought everyone knew that the role of cavalry is to give tone to what would otherwise be a mere vulgar brawl: https://magazine.punch.co.uk/image/I0000LEv5mpE01Cg All the best, John.

    Well absolutely, and I find it hard to believe that loud shooty things lend anything to proceedings except more smoke and vulgarity.

    in reply to: Artillery in the 1799 Campaign #190927
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Never underestimate the psychological effect of something making a bigger ‘bang’ than a musket firing at you if you only have a musket.

    I suspect a 2lb or 3lb ball requires a rather large ‘sniper rifle’ – about 30-40 times the mass of a musket ball (1.14 oz approx).

    in reply to: Automatic Fire in RPGs #190768
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    This is an interesting site – fun video and informative (?) results.

    Full auto, semi auto and single shot AK

    15yds range

    It’s on a  US range but this is the reverse of a Gee Whizz! US weapons site.

    Spoiler: 3 close together targets – two round burst gets more rounds on target at much the same speed as full auto mag dump (and you have a lot of rounds left) while semi auto single shots get best hit ratio but at nearly double the time.

    When would you use full auto? Trying to scare someone or at less than 15yds range? Or if you were not military trained and wanted to get something on target as a last resort (although I suspect you’d lose any sense of aim after the first couple of rounds).

    in reply to: Buying Board Games from the US in the UK #190313
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Me too!

    2nd Chance Games, or Spirit Games or Zatu, or BoardGame guru

    I fell over at the postage cost from the US well before I got to the VAT and processing charges.

    in reply to: What Is a War Game? #189529
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I suspect that if you run a wargame often enough with enough variables tweaked, you will get all results – so nothing is  a ‘surprise’ – but picking the right result as a prediction is another flight of B5N Kates arriving on your doorstep.

    in reply to: Italian artillery doctrine #189415
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Thanks for posting that John.

    Tantalizing to leave the key phrase out!

    I am now convinced that the key to my tabletop failures is almost certainly due to my failure to deploy flanking chickens.

    (I regret I am clueless as to what gali. fianch. may be in context – sorry).

    in reply to: Cleaning Roman Mail #189180
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I’m not sure we know enough about armourers guilds to be sure exactly how they worked as ‘closed shops’ within skill groupings.

    The Armourers Guild was established in London in 1322 but they didn’t get a Royal Charter until 1453 so the records in the early period are scarce/non-existent. There appear to have been lots of craft guilds all working together, whether in one workshop or not is unclear, to produce armour products. How much was organised as a production process by a wholesaler or retailer is again not clear.

    If you want to get a full idea of what we don’t know, there is a very interesting thesis, available online here  by Brad Kirkland (which I don’t think has ever been published in book form – which is a shame as I’d buy it but I suspect that might be the extent of the sales). This will give you a great background on the English armourers and few mentions of European practices.

    It will also tell you what a kisser did (if you didn’t already know).


    @Patrice
    – hijack away, after all this is supposedly about cleaning Roman mail, but I’d much rather talk about medieval guilds and being paid to organise re-enactors/living history performers (seems an impossible task given those I know).

    in reply to: Cleaning Roman Mail #189096
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Which seems more likely than a legion carrying around barrels and/or sacks to roll/shake the damn’d things in. But I don’t know and neither does anyone else apparently cos nobody bothered to write down instructions to legionaries, mail for the cleaning thereof. (Or if they did legionaries scratched them out and wrote smutty letters on them instead).

    [Professional re-enactor? Wait a minute – you mean people paid you to dress up as a knight/legionary/varlet etc?]

    in reply to: Cleaning Roman Mail #189089
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    You are however correct there is no sign of serious metalworking – this must be the front of house –  no sweaty smithing of any sort going on in sight of the customers. Bit odd all round – or not – never ran a fourteenth century armourers.

    in reply to: Cleaning Roman Mail #189081
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    The pink and green objects  – Brigandines? Jacks? Possibly Gambesons – not hauberks.

    Cotton? Unlikely.

    Linen/cotton mix – fustian, later applied to wool as well – possible.

    Quilted – possibly – something with plates in by the look of em.

    I’d initially assumed the grey things hanging on the pole were coifs but there doesn’t appear to be any representation of a hood – so mail aventails? Whatever they  are they look like mail to me.

    in reply to: Cleaning Roman Mail #189079
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Not sure why it isn’t mail.

    The piece on the chest being haggled over (possibly) and the bit being worked on, both look a bit maily/scaly to my eyes and the illustration is on a page of a register of Bolognan manufacturers/engineers/makers of weapons/armour.

    What the guy with the barrel is looking so happy about is anyone’s guess (maybe Max  is right and he knows the winning number) but it looks a bit like an early Indesit mail cleaner/dryer to me.

    I am as you know a sceptic about the process and the automatic assumption this is what Romans did, but this is a contemporary picture of someone spinning a barrel (with a flap for putting something in and out) in a medieval workshop/retailers. Must suggest something (horizontal integration of grease treating of armour?) related at least I would have thought.

    And another thing…

    Something I have found references to in my barrel search is a thriving second hand trade in armour and armaments. I’ve wondered about all those weapons that don’t turn up on what medieval battle sites we have identified, as have minds more focused than mine and everyone presumes they were stripped from the dead but what then? Stored in armouries to provide tourist attractions for Mittel Europa and London Towers? Or stuck on the wall in a house in Staffordshire? Or possibly flogged to an entrepreneurial middle level armourer who straightened the weapons out, sharpened them, cleaned the armour and mail, deloused the hauberk and sold them on ‘as new squire honest’ to… well an aspiring squire?. It looks like the latter was a thriving trade.

    Yes that new Lochner stuff looks very flash but you can’t beat a tried and tested Milanese suit can you? A classic sir, just ignore the bullet hole, those things will never catch on will they?

     

    in reply to: Cleaning Roman Mail #189051
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    While meandering through some sources (medieval not Roman) I came across this:

    MATRICULA SOCIETATIS FABRORUM CIVITATIS BONONIAE

    Matricole Carta 37a

    late 14th century – I presume he isn’t churning butter to grease the mail.

    Still  not Roman.

    in reply to: Magister Militum closing up shop #188982
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Pretty sure we are.

    Einstein died and four months later there I was.

    [Edit – Flipping heck! I might well have bought the ACW at Alumwell. Something odd going on here).

     

    in reply to: Magister Militum closing up shop #188979
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I wonder if the business will sell as a whole entity?

    MM has always seemed bit of an eclectic mix of scales, genres and brands that don’t quite connect.

    I am tempted to stock up on the old Chariot Miniatures 10mm ACW they sell alongside the GHQ ones. I have a lot of the Chariot ACW I bought at a show many years ago before MM got them (or maybe not if my Remington ad memory is in play) and I can’t see anyone else buying and producing them.

    Hmmm. Decisions.

    in reply to: Magister Militum closing up shop #188978
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Damn!

    It felt like the same era as ‘You’ll wonder where the yellow went when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent!’ and ‘With Harris on the handle the bristles won’t fall out!’

    I can take it I’m wrong.  (Lie) but I am worried about the fact I still want to argue about the facts.

    And definitely not ‘young’ in ’79.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 1,939 total)