[OotKust]

Guy Farrish wrote:

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

Probably very true Guy- having been to Waterloo battlefield way back when (no, not the original!) I’d not want to:

• face Brits and riflemen only 750 yards away, and
• face any French ‘Grand Battery’ of 80 guns even knowing the shot in wet conditions was ineffective, mostly, probably…

cheers davew

[OotKust]

Heroy wrote:

Suvorov’s guns are usually called “2-pounder” in Russian and most French sources. 40x 2-lber Piedmontese mountain guns were to be taken from Austria’s Italian arsenals… – and

That said, I think they were really these Piedmontese 3-pounders –

I agree from reading same. Naming ‘of things’ often IMO a confused mixture of nationality/ locality/ degrading comments based on who and where, and how they [writers/ authors] felt about them.

I think I read somewhere Massena also had some, just because, some artillery is better than none I guess… however ineffectual they may have been at the time, I think disposed of quickly, which is why they are generally discounted as ‘real’ guns.
I’m guessing they were more like an oversize sniper rifle and about as useful in assaults.
fwiw- d

[OotKust]

Andrew Beasley wrote:

A bit of cork, sculpt-mold and 30 mins I realised I slipped up and forgot to add paint to the plaster mix

Never mind- in fact I vary the look by actually daubing a wet brush with paint into the wet plasters, forms a trail of peaks and valleys that show contours that based figures can still move on.
**Cleaning with warm water, hand soap if necessary quickly removes any left on plaster/ medium and you’re good to go again.

Nothing sacrosanct about terrain techniques- sure in the old days stiff plasters used to crack and show white; modern plastics are more flexible and apart from the odd tree come loose from its base (PVA repair) I’ve not had problems.

Just on paints- again nothing special- realising that kids ‘poster’ paints that sell for $8 for 300ml is a helluva lot better value than some poncey pseudo-special shade for ‘modellers’ at 30ml at the same price!

A friend gave me some of his mrs’ overage paint packets and I continue to use those that are friable a decade later. A red poster paint brand I can blend from scarlet to crimson in a matter of seconds depending upon my needs.

The effects, coverage and ultimately wear of the (matt sprayed) end product is just the same. Cheers dave

[OotKust]

Heroy wrote:

“The strange [French] mix of sizes …. defies explanation” Hmmm …. disorganization of military administration 1790-1800 followed by too-rapid deployment of large army formations

Sorry A. I was trying to refer to the odd composition of the Garde Artillerie Volante prior to 1806. Seems obtuse having 3 composite sizes where normally two were typical. After all, his Garde? Hardly would there have been a reason of shortage, if he were not ‘driving it’.

Personally I don’t see any much missing ordnance in any of the Divisions or Corps in main theatres any time from 1796; except Armée d’Italie a little ‘light’ sometimes.

Certainly in 1804/05 the standard Cavalry Brigade/ Division (sizes differed even if they were called Divsions) from Armée d’Angleterre in the West, to the final campaign in Moravia- their companies dwindled from full (6 piece) companies to half size (3 pieces varying) by Austerlitz. The ‘Situations’ clearly show this attrition and is one of the things I am expecting Dawson to comment on.

We know N. put a great deal of faith and support in all arms having attached artillery to force a situation in their favour- even avant-garde cavalerie, That companies were split and reassigned to separate bodies is obvious in some cases.

We also have Davout of all people reporting his loss/ lack of team horse trains, and so voluntarily left his 12 pounders behind at some point, in favour of more mobile pieces.

Approaching midnite so will leave it there.

In addition:

“Russian …. Leib-Garde that remained at ’10’ mixed pieces”
Their Guard used the same types of pieces as the Line…

Again not so much the gear, but the sticking with 10 pieces, not 12 minimum. But I get your point about ratios, but again a small abstract seems pointless vs the ‘normal situation.

Annoying to create ‘large’ batteries then find that they were, at times, divided piecemeal, assigned to ‘replace’ the former infantry assigned pieces/ crews.

Only adds to the lack of relevance caused by gaming rules- and hence my reason for advancing the morale effect rather than the ‘hits’  as primary effect.
OTOH I’d suggest respectfully that ‘elitist’ thoughts/ factoring would be relevant only when the protagonists are in close combat, not firing.
On the basis that technical competence would be near universal, while skill and courage in close quarters, yes relies on an unshaken belief in yourself.

regards dave

[OotKust]

Andrew Beasley wrote:

Just spent 4 1/2 hours picking through the box of figures and found 1 dice, 318 15mm and 32 28mm:

Can’t seem to find any Napoleonics that match those troop types!
Hah!
Well Andrew, as they said, do whats best for you.
I have a menagerie of storage boxes/ icecream containers and pill bottles (hey pre-Diabetic for 15 years you collect stuff). Now i really need to economise as well (on space taken in a 2br flat).

Figures, well, my ‘well defined’ plans evolved 25 years ago, and have been subject to variation since reforming and recogitating since 2018.

For two years I made good progress on the French (about 20% to start/ complete); a little side action on Austrians; but revisionist planning meant I’ve adopted the Russian army ‘ancilliary’ components buying since ’22 to assist the Austrian enemy. Most documented here anyway.

To get space back (and reduce use of the large desk in lounge as my painting table quite so long); as well as ROI make one hobby pay for the other (+ reference books of course!)  I have to sell off the N Scale models that I accumulated.. I hope the economy holds out …

Scenery is there forever mate- get it made up and use it every time. There’s nothing special about ‘scale’ trees- the ‘mania’ of ratios and scales is one of the rorts perpetrated on modellers. You have scale trees? I can find a bigger real one, which will be, in scale! Not shrunken little messes!
Best of luck, dave

[OotKust]

Skip wrote:

Always looking for goal of drawings or photographs of guns and vehicles.

Happy to share the urls I’ve collected and scour routinely 3-6 mths. Might need to make another album on flickr to hold the pics I’ve scraped from various places.

[Edit 24sep23]
I checked my graphics dbase and I have only 14 specific items on Ru arty, ranging from drawings to actual museum pieces published on Ru fora…
Skip send me a PM and once my email is functional I can send all to you,

-d

[OotKust]

For ease of reference, I re-post this here (was Other Russian Matters..)

I picked up from academia.com an abstract entitled ”Russian Field Artillery in the time of the Napoleonic Wars: Myths, Reality, Questions” – (The experience of historiographical inquiry) by Konstantin Igoshin.

The abstract makes for a compelling read, but I don’t have the paper.

Included is this commentary about ‘Araksheevs Model 1805’ origins.

In 1904, in an attempt to fill the gaps in the understanding of the history of the development of Russian ordnance, Colonel (and later Lieutenant-General) A. A. Nilus (1858-1941), an instructor at the Mikhailov Artillery Academy, would publish a continuation of Strukov􏰑s text in the form of a two-volume textbook on the History of the Physical Elements of the Artillery.12 A scholar with considerable personal experience, and the author of a series of academic treatises and inventions, Nilus was one of the leading early 20th Century specialists on Russian ordnance.
…

An interesting development in recent scholarship was a 2008 book by another amateur historian and model maker-collector, C. V. Voytsekhovich, entitled The Russian Field Artillery 1382-1917,31 and described by the publisher as a 􏰔short guide to the history of the development of Russian artillery systems􏰑. The book includes several illustrations and photographs of items in museum collections in Moscow, St Petersburg, Sofia, and Stockholm, as well as sketches and scale schematic diagrams, most of which were made by the author himself. The monograph contains a section dedicated to the artillery of the Napoleonic era.

The body of sources and literature cited in that section cannot be described as complete by any means:…

A study of the historiography, the body of published sources (including 19th Century periodical literature, statutory legislation, instruction manuals etc.), and archive material has revealed that perceptions of the organisation and equipment of Russian field artillery during the Napoleonic wars established in 20th Century and recent academic and popular-academic literature do not entirely correspond with reality.40 Indeed, it would be wrong to refer to these topics and this period as well-researched.

The historiographical tradition has created an artificial break in the reformation of the artillery, propagating the unsubstantiated view that 1805 marked the introduction and application of a new system of artillery weaponry. As a result, there is almost no evidence in academic circulation today regarding the development and implementation of the new technical decisions, or the creation of a standardised system of artillery equipment. Accounts of the structural changes of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries have been brushed aside, including evidence relating to an event of such crucial importance as the abolition of regimental artillery. The transformation and renaming of artillery subdivisions during the reform of the organisational structure in 1802-1811 (and earlier) has also received insufficient attention. Reliable production figures are lacking, and information on the rearmament of the Russian artillery is fragmentary. The theory of deploying the artillery as combat troops, the development of manuals and instructions is still only in the early stages of research. The same can be said for the state of knowledge on personnel training, with the exception of the officer corps, which has been considered in a range of studies.42
Source [42] is: 42 Krylov V. M., Kadetskie korpusa i rossiiskie kadety [The Cadet Corps and Russian Cadets] (St Petersburg, 1998); [The Officers of the Russian Army as Participants in the Battle of Borodino: a historical and sociological study] (Moscow, 2002) .

Seems would be an interesting read, being ‘ultra-modern’ as current period nomenclature goes…

---

To respond on some of the issues added:

“artillery required educated personnel – more than the other two arms?”

Certainly the ‘technical corps’ of many nations had seen advancement and improvement since and before Vauban etc. Our gaming doesn’t often allow for such ‘aptitude’, yet you won’t find an actual OB without such personnel.
For myself this is why I do model such personnel, well in the process. Regardless of rules and ratios, I believe these important.

“one six pounder does exactly the same as any other six pounder”- Russians might agree,… the French did not always have universal “modern” 6-lbers but instead a mix of captured 3-lbers and older 4-lbers & 8-lbers.

And the fixation on minutae is lost in the obviousness of such a statement. Yes however even slightly less effective 4-pdrs and associated 5.6p howitzers could efface the difference with higher poundage enemy, using advances, aggression and tactical advantage for more static opponents. Such a matter doesn’t ‘factor’ in at all- the narrative remains the ‘technicalities’ nearly all the time.

The strange mix of sizes to his design in N. Garde artillery – 2-4s, 2-8s, 2-12s (sometimes) or 2 5.6pHowitzers defies explanation.

---

[Added Edit]
However I believe he was experimenting with that- these documents survive but no relation on why, when or how they may be ‘replaced’ in a more normal manner. I cannot conceive that he would do this to his Garde permanently, whilst the rest of the ‘line’ remained fixed in traditional companies by type and strengths… elucidation requested!

Similarly perhaps, the Russian mix and 12-14 gun line batteries, remain relatively constant- but those LeibGarde that remained at ’10’ mixed pieces, until 1810(?) again an anachronism.
-d

[OotKust]

Linking

OotKust wrote:

Minifigs Horses- Adapting and Utilising

---

[OotKust]

Just adding this as I bought Dempsey’s ‘Napoleons Soldiers’- the epic masterpiece on the a.k.a ‘Otto Manuscript’- not the painters name but the 20thC person who ‘sold’ the originals prior to WWII…

But I digress… it has multiple examples of ‘white’ habits as described.

http://warfare.cf/19C/FrenchWhiteUniforms1806-7.htm?i=1

Whilst doubt is now thrown on the exact/ potential original date of the paintings uniforms- gouache as Dempsey describes, they cannot be taken as less than fine examples of the variation, or similarity if you go glass half full way, of such military creatures between 1804 and 1809 inclusive.

That uniforms of any nation weren’t and couldn’t be replaced wholly and army wide, let alone all over the continent, is patently misrepresented by ommission almost always.

We are now far more pragmatic about the implementation of such variables, where were units; how were they supplied; need fr replacements etc. all applicable.

Copied across to Reply To: General Truths of Napoleonic French Uniform so you don’t have to read twice!
regards _d

 

[OotKust]

Just adding this as I bought Dempsey’s ‘Napoleons Soldiers’- the epic masterpiece on the a.k.a ‘Otto Manuscript’- not the painters name but the 20thC person who ‘sold’ the originals prior to WWII… subsequently sold then donated to NYPL.

But I digress… it has multiple examples of ‘white’ habits as described. ((Edit))

This site in addition___
http://warfare.cf/19C/FrenchWhiteUniforms1806-7.htm?i=1

Whilst doubt is now thrown on the exact/ potential original date of the paintings uniforms- gouache as Dempsey describes, they cannot be taken as less than fine examples of the variation, or similarity if you go glass half full way, of such military creatures between 1804 and 1809 inclusive.

That uniforms of any nation weren’t and couldn’t be replaced wholly and army wide, let alone all over the continent, is patently misrepresented by ommission almost always.

We are now far more pragmatic about the implementation of such variables, where were units?; how were they supplied?; need for replacements etc. all applicable.

[Edit +spelling] Not having seen the book when first released,  in 1994 – (I thought I was buying a reprint of 2005), I’ve scraped various images from the net over time- nowadays a less than satisfying effort than in past. So for £6 who would ignore such a bargain- Caliver Books to the rescue!

And in excellent condition, well worth having ‘even if’ most of the content is later than my envisioned use dates- nevertheless GuyDs descriptions are themselves useful for highlighting differences and similarities over contentious points.
Relevant to an acid, or is that caustic, critical thinker…

regards -d

---

[OotKust]

Review

1805: TSAR ALEXANDER’S SECOND WAR WITH NAPOLEON – THE RUSSIAN OFFICIAL HISTORY

Not really, no point, however I did buy the second volume and found it generally (sic) softer, prosaic and less frantic- measured due to the lower martial and greater political content.

The last third was quite hard going in that the politics involved, whilst amusing, isn’t that interesting except again, at the duplicity of so called ‘allies’.

If it wasn’t for much better battlefield maps and grainier Russian battle/ OB content (ie Friedland), I’d not have thought essential.
Regards, davew

* * * * * * * * *

[OotKust]

Ah yes, the shako!
So many depictions- mostly we are familiar with the 1808 ‘style’, full dress version (elites with plumes and on occasion some fusiliers shown (fantasy??), plain plates or eagles, large cocardes front and top, brass chinscales and extensive plaited cords with racquettes dropping, mostly to the right.
With or without leather reinforcing chevrons etc. Numerous variations existed and many an illustration shows these too.
{Edit Nov23}
Many features [of chapeaux, shako and helmets_] are legacy attributes of their respective regiments. Familiar history and artifacts were not given up quickly under men who rose through the ranks of the Revolution, and now commanded N.s regiments!

However, re-reading the superb article* by Frédéric Berjaud on his site http://frederic.berjaud.free.fr/1eleger.htm on the !er Legere he includes this snippet quotation from a Rousselot plate text:-

Some precision on the shako: that applied in 1804 – “had to comply with the one that describes the order of the 4 Brumaire YEAR 10 (October 26th, 1801).
Felt, with leather top turned down on body, includes a cockade on the left [side], retained by an orange braid fixed by two brass buttons and concealing the fob [whalebone shaft] of the plume;
a brass plate “cut out in the form of horn”, representation of which, and an attachable mobile visor with hooks.
This shako was ornamented with green cotton cord  terminated by racquettetes and glandes, and a green tall plume of 21 inches  (567 mm)” (Rousselot, Plate 5).

He does poke I think some errors suggested in Osprey/Haythornthwaites ‘Napoleons Light Infantry’.

An outstanding relic is shown, sadly neither detail nor in colour, and IMO a somewhat erratic addition of a non-original cord, both in form, colour perhaps (too light, maybe it’s yellow/ chamois?) and placement.

#11e face: A shako after 1804; perhaps of 1806, being attributed to the 1st Light – in Collection Titeca, Brussels (photo private collection).
It does not seem that it is can be model 1801/04 with a removable visor, nor the model 1806 with fixed peak; perhaps a modified model 1806?

The regulation plate (hunting horn with 1 in the centre, the cord and the plume placed on the left side, as in 1804 will be anyway noted; this last is fixed in an olive or ‘bulb’ pompom.

Clearly there are glands/ tassels [both sides] that are a darker colour, most likely green, so the ‘replacement’ of a heavier braided cord seems a convenience rather than authentic.

Nevertheless a good example that few model manufacturers have created, the ‘early’ Empire being less popular.

Lucky for me Miniature Figurines created one, a single entity, that I have used and extensively customised as well; many of my elites have been similarly ‘adjusted’ to the earlier version.

cheers -d

[OotKust]

Motivation?
SHow… rentertainment paralysis!?
Yeah same reasons I cant watch modern sci-fi CGI enhanced crap; no subtlety, unbelieveable anti-physics… bring back the cowboys n injuns… or F-Troop!

[OotKust]

Andrew Beasley wrote:

This video popped up in my feed…
The painting gives a nice result for a pond – not sure its workable for a river though.

thanks Andrew, interesting. I’m not sure who wants ‘elevated’ water, a single layer would suffice for gaming I’d imagine
-and the resin worked well. (Again seen its use in railways etc).

I’d reduce the steps (I guess if he’s selling commercially…) by not covering all the paint layers, less glue and paint waste etc. But the effect is good, if the fish needn’t be present at all.

My ‘lake’ made over 40 years ago for a specific scenario has appeared in a few games, is usually a logistical nightmare usually (ie have to march around it…)- it comes in halves so it can attach to an edge.. pix to follow.

Edit- Uploaded to my ‘Technical’ album on Flickr- two views linked there:-

IMG_6921 by DaveW, on Flickr.
My body tells me its nap time after a few hours of chores… cheers d

[OotKust]

Alexandre my thanks in your confidence.
Just Premiere ADC Major Barbanegre (Jean Baptiste) Ofc604 as a Gr à Ch to complete next.

[OotKust]

Whirlwind wrote:

@OotKust, Thanks, interesting. Is doing up older Napoleonic figures your ‘thing’? Was quite curious about the small batches.

Heh heh, thanks for asking.
Well, these are figures that used to be units, back in the 70s/80’s when working life really kicked in and fouled up my hobby time.

The small numbers are because I set aside shako wearing infantry- recall I customised French into ‘bicornes’ in preference to shakos- utilising the very good Spanish fusilier model, but also creating bicorne heads for the ‘French’ body fusiliers and elite companies (ie milliput epaulettes etc.).

So my mission was to create a complete Division (of IV Corps of la Grande Armée) in bicornes, perhaps the gaming Army in toto, though I never really tried the latter.

As I said various shako wearing infantry were set aside- but never sold off; some units stripped (I had the megalomania of the 70’s and painted many diverse units, but hardly any pure ‘French’; those demobbed units are the result here. By 1980 I had started to focus on an OB, hence my trip to France in 1984 for research.

I also had technical problems when I rushed matt spraying figures a couple of times over the years- too many turned yellow shade and so I’d rather decided to repaint them by touch-ups rather than full stripping of units. From my ‘bulk’ storage WIP/ Planning drawers another- an old representation of the 28eme de ligne – various officers and special figures have been taken for ‘living’ units rather than leave everything dormant:

You can see 5 of the shooting figures that I’m turning into tirailleurs. I was never happy with combining the extended bayonets ‘firing’ pose in with other poses anyway. So in a way [and my mind resolves] it solves a problem, and enhances reality of French tactical usage (deployed 3rd ranks or companies…) on occasion.

Here are a regiments worth (2 bons) of fusiliers- my customisations; elites with sabre-briquets, epaulettes and large plumes (actually one is a master figure you can see rhs); the unpainted are new purchase Minifigs of the Revolution range (very limited) and not at all the correct scale size either! And a few other randoms.

These pics from when I methodically catalogued the lead pile in mid-late 2019 and restirred my ‘projects’ status, including writing notes and later a diary of progress/ planning changes AND why!

While these sat in a cardboard box in this chocolates tray, others like the 28eme above were in a metal parts box, so movement was minimal. These are my ‘go to’ spares for random command figures should I choose not to start from scratch.

Many, like the ‘new’ Grenadiers of the Reserve have uniform peculiarities that require conversions, so like ‘Deadhead’ at the other place, I batch my work, but only on a unit basis.

And the megalomania continued to expand- since I also added the ‘enemy’- in 1990s a decision to create the split Austrian corps at Austerlitz; and by 2021 also the Russian army units in ‘supporting roles’ to the Austrians.

I did this for two reasons- gaming here became fragmented in the late 90’s and 25/28mm Napoleonics was no longer popular mainstream (15mm was); and the need to host games with both sides fielded was the impetus to create the Austrians. Much agonising done, I chose WF for them rather than continue with Minifigs for other than French! [Gamers of interest will note that you don’t have to worry about any ‘Hungarian’ units of infantry as they were not ‘called out’ to war in 1805.]

And so too- so many damaged bayonets meant a special unit- so the 6th Bn/ KK IR #23 Salzburg was born. The only ‘complete’ Austrian infantry regiment that fought at Austerlitz, and rather well for a short time, even the ‘reserves’ of the 6th Battalion (no it was NOT the depot battalion!). They are not quite as pristine when standing in ranks (pic taken 2022 so some progress from this). They are nearly ready for debut…

Hope this isn’t too overwhelming or boring to read again… cheers dave

[OotKust]

kyoteblue wrote:

I’m retired but no longer have a place to paint. Sucks getting old.

Suddenly Kyote, I’m believing the same- multiple health defects in a single month, all of which increase fatigue and reduce stamina to sit and work, then the comp gets screwed up as well!

Whirlwind wrote:

How are you getting on with that pile of figures OotKust?

Thanks Whirlwind- meh, many have progressed to ‘glue on horses’ time; diverted to the terrain for a while.

I did put Soult and his entourage aside now that I’ve reviewed their progress and understand what I must do.

Now back to sampling some ‘revised’ figures that need electric drill/ engraving work before a leap in progress to another unit – the First Carabiniers.

My Garde ADCs and officers also mostly complete. Making the most of Garde Grenadiers a Cheval for both regiment, Gen de brigade commandant and Etat-Major de la Garde ADCs.

In the regiment (only a few untouched figures actually) I’m refurbishing a 1970’s paint job, better detailling of the riders and also correcting the ‘lace’ on the horses schabraques. Some ‘new’ paints will be required as I’ve shorn off officers to use as ADCs etc. That after deciding all Garde regiments will have two Aigles/ Entendards present.

As well as the ‘tirailleurs’ above (6 plus added 3 new available) I’ve pulled from storage box a pair of fusilier battalions that were part painted after modifications a long while ago. One normal French (tho Spanish figures with French shako heads):

and another a ‘German’ conversion- an 1806 style French 3rd Battalion* re-equipped with captured supplies, herewith from 2020:

*The premise I’m using is that, for an ‘expansion’ of certain units in 1806/07 campaigns, different uniforms are a bonus and thus some of my ‘two battalions only’ IVCorps can get a modest expansion from the ‘wealth’ of demobbed infantry in the lead pile from many years back; also have much command and elites, though by my reading will need less of those soon!

In the wings are my ‘opponents’- old WF Austrians (only two battalions worth creeping along; and ‘new’ 1799 old style Russians in a polyglot of uniforms looking like proper campaign messiness.
Completed 4 new Russian guns/ unicorns- nice looking units!

In the cooler/ wet moments, well here researching… all the titbits that make it unique. Even did a sample pair of Garde Dragoons- again figures I’d never anticpated but I have some mismatched horses that may look good and otherwise I wouldn’t have used. But throw nothing away… oops…

Take care, dave

[OotKust]

OotKust wrote:

those annoying pointy sticks firing types into the 3rd rank ‘deployed’ tirailleurs we all hate.

Here’s a not very glamorous pic of these refurbishments, still quite a few details to repair/ touch-up, but working along, they will be 3 men instead of 4- though these are just posed on a larger base, as tirailleurs and swapped in and out of units to show the ‘expanded’ skirmish line.

Something along with my mock-up Marshal at

OotKust wrote:

#190678

,
regards -d

[OotKust]

[/quote]

Heroy wrote:

A vast and complex topic ….

Indeed Sir, well handled. I wasn’t going down the French path per se, rather an invigorated investigation of Russian working knowledge- a serious regarding of the Western psyche is required- ditto Austria- the peoples are less different than semantics and biases of historians/ analysts/ gaming traditions would profess to offer.

A bit like a lollipop will calm down the werewolf- NOPE! He’s still gonna rip someones head off!

TBC____

[OotKust]

Another time and place- a mock-up basing for the commander of La Garde Imperiale a Cheval- finally Marshal Bessiéres appears after years of research and customisation in Minifigs™ 25mm scale.

He appears with his Etat-Major- both personal and military staff, regimental Chasseurs and ADC’s.

The group is probably one figure light at this stage, but all present were known or likely to be in attendance, given the protocols of a marshal of the Empire. Larger pics available here:-

IMG_6910_sm 46% Bessieres Command 2023.

A further view from a rear 3/4 shot:-

IMG_6913_sm Bessieres Command- 1805 by DaveW], on Flickr.

 

[OotKust]

Well finally got those river sections out and pixed… plus two styrene/ resin real, real old curves from the 90s.

1- My sections- developed as above- 470mm long by 120 wide edge to edge (not 475mm as I wrote);

 

2- The styrene commercial products- curves with my colourations and what paint is lost in the distant past now. I’ll ‘recover’ with my current ‘hobby’ water paints to match some same sized units- 60mm river on 110mm overall widths.

Two different styles yes, but I’m happy with that.
By making additional sections, banked and ‘unbanked’ alluvial river courses, only one likely will appear at any given battle.

At least I’ll not be attempting any Switzerland style terrain if I can help it (despite the obvious affinity with Suvorovs Campaign 1799.

cheers -d

 

[OotKust]

As a kind of [delicately] “how we assumed that everyone did it…”

Russian Uniforms and Military Conventions

Despite the 170 years of  A.V. VISKOVATOV (1853)
TRANSLATED BY MARK CONRAD, 1998

ruling the information on Russian matters, by publishing publicly the actual Imperial Decrees etc., it seems that not everything went that way. (Reasoned elsewhere*).

Conrad gives two examples from above, since I needed the dragoon version-

1. 16 December 1815— In Dragoon regiments, trumpeters are to have grey horses, and other ranks — dark colors (116).
2. 16 December 1815— In Cuirassier regiments, trumpeters are to have grey horses, and other ranks — dark colors (51).

https://marksrussianmilitaryhistory.info/V11/V11.htm#d

The implication, being, that such greys were not commonplace, despite as revisionist folk point out- V. was in error in many places as he never checked reality, merely printed what he was given.

Of course it may be that, perhaps somewhat like the French, such a decree was ‘establishing’ a convention already under way.

*JGingerich discusses accuracy and highlights three names of modern authors who have minutely examined some of V. issues-

126. Leonov, Popov, & Kibovsky include a photograph of a relic hussar shako with lace…

The subject is not important, just the names. I’ve not followed up, and I don’t have a copy of JG actual pages about this either!
– – –

As I’ve raised ‘artillery’ elsewhere,

I picked up from academia.com an abstract entitled ”

Russian Field Artillery in the time of the Napoleonic Wars: Myths, Reality, Questions” – (The experience of historiographical inquiry) by Konstantin Igoshin.

The abstract makes for a compelling read, but I don’t have the paper.

Included is this commentary about ‘Araksheevs Model 1805’ origins.

In 1904, in an attempt to fill the gaps in the understanding of the history of the development of Russian ordnance, Colonel (and later Lieutenant-General) A. A. Nilus (1858-1941), an instructor at the Mikhailov Artillery Academy, would publish a continuation of Strukov􏰑s text in the form of a two-volume textbook on the History of the Physical Elements of the Artillery.12 A scholar with considerable personal experience, and the author of a series of academic treatises and inventions, Nilus was one of the leading early 20th Century specialists on Russian ordnance.
…

An interesting development in recent scholarship was a 2008 book by another amateur historian and model maker-collector, C. V. Voytsekhovich, entitled The Russian Field Artillery 1382-1917,31 and described by the publisher as a 􏰔short guide to the history of the development of Russian artillery systems􏰑. The book includes several illustrations and photographs of items in museum collections in Moscow, St Petersburg, Sofia, and Stockholm, as well as sketches and scale schematic diagrams, most of which were made by the author himself. The monograph contains a section dedicated to the artillery of the Napoleonic era.

The body of sources and literature cited in that section cannot be described as complete by any means:…

A study of the historiography, the body of published sources (including 19th Century periodical literature, statutory legislation, instruction manuals etc.), and archive material has revealed that perceptions of the organisation and equipment of Russian field artillery during the Napoleonic wars established in 20th Century and recent academic and popular-academic literature do not entirely correspond with reality.40 Indeed, it would be wrong to refer to these topics and this period as well-researched.

The historiographical tradition has created an artificial break in the reformation of the artillery, propagating the unsubstantiated view that 1805 marked the introduction and application of a new system of artillery weaponry. As a result, there is almost no evidence in academic circulation today regarding the development and implementation of the new technical decisions, or the creation of a standardised system of artillery equipment. Accounts of the structural changes of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries have been brushed aside, including evidence relating to an event of such crucial importance as the abolition of regimental artillery. The transformation and renaming of artillery subdivisions during the reform of the organisational structure in 1802-1811 (and earlier) has also received insufficient attention. Reliable production figures are lacking, and information on the rearmament of the Russian artillery is fragmentary. The theory of deploying the artillery as combat troops, the development of manuals and instructions is still only in the early stages of research. The same can be said for the state of knowledge on personnel training, with the exception of the officer corps, which has been considered in a range of studies.42

Source [42] is: 42 Krylov V. M., Kadetskie korpusa i rossiiskie kadety [The Cadet Corps and Russian Cadets] (St Petersburg, 1998); [The Officers of the Russian Army as Participants in the Battle of Borodino: a historical and sociological study] (Moscow, 2002) .

Seems would be an interesting read, being ‘ultra-modern’ as current period nomenclature goes…

-d

 

[OotKust]

You’re all on holiday then?
-d

[OotKust]

Norm S wrote:

not in anyway learned enough on the subject to add much to this conversation,

Learned and erudite summation enough Norm! Thanks, I will come back in detail…

Skip wrote:

By my reading, officers are by division

Indeed Skip, the ‘specialist’ regimes within armies don’t get [as] much recognition (publicity) compared to ‘exceptional’ generals/ leaders…

Soon…

[OotKust]

Well hidden away, never before seen even a reference on any forum or web site- did you know about it?

https://www.junibis.be/

‘Site dédié à la cartographie de la Campagne de Belgique en Juin 1815’.

Not in my interests but may bring something (not apart from great map definition) to gaming arena…

cheers -d

[OotKust]

A French point of view:-
https://www.napoleon.org/en/magazine/interviews/antoine-bourguilleau-by-playing-wargames-the-historian-may-end-up-asking-questions-they-have-never-asked-themselves-june-2020/

This may be old, but is he right? I was seeking further information on ‘transforming’ historical play on the table, or campaign maps indeed.

Some complex replies, perhaps complicated by translation and not intent.

“This is not just an exercise in style but allows the historian to take a step aside and reflect on what might have happened. But it substitutes one story for another. Wargaming creates not so much of a narrative as a narrative material. By playing wargames, the historian may be led to ask questions that they have never asked themselves before,…”

Perhaps I should assume a new nom-de-guerre, since neither an historian (official) nor particularly successful gamer- General Thinksalot…
-d

[OotKust]

Mark O wrote:

Great post and discussion

Thank you Mark for comment- really appreciate from someone of your status in the community.[Yes I have looked over your site and info frequently, just never comment…].

I’m replying simply because I may be gone for some time, err no- just in an hour getting laser eye treatment at our favourite public hospital, so no doubt I shall be quiet rest of the day, I’m guessing…
regards davew

[OotKust]

Andrew Beasley wrote:

Caution- caustic! Cannot say I’ve seen that – we use it for filler sprinkled on superglue.

Ok, I perhaps meant alkali- closer to that than normal pH so can cause irritation…

Alice suggested,,,,  baking power.

I didn’t want to point out the obvious- not baking??? But then, if you wanted a paste, well flour is used for old wallpapering right?? So yes, for CA I’d stick with soda- I see the link explains same.

Apologies for adding confusion- my brain is adled as I’ve been competing with a gone-wrong restore on my MacBook since Saturday. Blahhh…
cheers dave

[OotKust]

Andrew Beasley wrote:

Alice suggested baking soda / baking power.

Caution- caustic!

[OotKust]

Norm S wrote:

I have tried doing home made on the rear of plastic self adhesive floor tiles ….. but never particularly successfully.

I understand- while I use 600mx2 carpet tiling for some feature areas (and photography…) you’ve given me an idea-

-those polyurethane flexi- leatherette type materials; made for wall coverings/ scenes -easily cut and shaped [rather than rigid square banks] however probably easily recoloured with water flow even if not equipped with actual ‘banks/ edges’ attached.

I shall enjoy a trip to my local emporium of cheap and discounted goods (materials their forté)- dave

[OotKust]

Tony Hughes wrote:

When I make my basing grit I start with builders sand,

I’m sure for headstones it will be the powder of grit needed; and although I’ve used cleaned ‘free’ beach sand in the past (and still have it) I love my aquarium sand- good for the fish, great for modelling too!
-d

[OotKust]

The original name means nothing to me. Grout and paste would likely still be too large?

However Andrew- try actual ground [up] pumice powder… I have it being a volcanic country; alternate/ including I use incense ash ([RECYCLING…!]

for my scenic effect on ground… no reason a thin dab of PVA wash and then covered in ash couldn’t help make the textures you’re after. You can build up layers of it too.
Thin washes of PVA to stop it chunking up -as it naturally contracts and congeals mass as it dries remember!
Good luck -d

[OotKust]

I’ve not left, but thinking about a million issues (cant find anything because of the clutter!) and have scanned those blogs that may have a snippet of use.

One guys ‘marshes’:

which I agree is not a river, but its a close relative! Because…

And from an ‘Ancient’- both player and period, the weather must have been very anti-climactic back in those days…

The latter is leaning toward what I will do for my ‘wide’ river aka Northern Italy and Piedmont plains etc.

And why ‘marshes’- a bit more water in this example than I’m thinking- well I’ve never seen the Winter Goldbach stream (Austerlitz) modelled at any time except as a strip.

So as narrow as the channel(s) were, the complete feature was marsh lined, sodden (despite snowfall and icing over) and too wide for any random crossing.

It appears both sides were cogniscent of this- perhaps the reason for the withdrawl of the Austrian sappers and bridge train.

I would caution that some maps I’ve seen provide erroneous indications that any of the water courses here were passable- there were emphatically not except by the narrow defiles at villages/ bridges/ weirs all around the battlefield.

Now I really must get my partially done scenics photographed as promised…
-d

[OotKust]

Not quite relevant to JGs post on cossacks, I’ve been humming and hahhing since getting one sample pack a year back, about whether to buy more similar SYW Cossacks as a nod to modelling their  ‘irregular’ status and look vs the very ‘uniform’ other models around. My one painted sample as per –

OotKust wrote:

Toll

This is a Wargames Foundry SYW ranges  Characters pack. https://tinyurl.com/sywcoss

Whilst the Perry metals are nice, I’m not sure size wise that they haven’t gone too far!

I also have the Eureka set as an expansion, that while not planned initially (ie outside the 1805 OB and general guideline/ plan) will make for a respectable ‘guerilla’ force when it comes to their ‘time’ in 1806/07 scenarios.
-d

[OotKust]

You call that a river?
Just a fordable stream in our parts, my how the empire has crumbled…

[OotKust]

Skip wrote:

Either way, not doing a historical battle, wonder if those who are get this close, just Units I toss into battles with if I want already made up oob.

I understand what you are getting at, but I detest the ‘magical’ rule of ‘Rules’ and ratios. And yet I’ve spent more than half my life dealing with statistics and electrical physics.

The dogma of ‘exactness’ in numbers by ‘Rules’ is mind-numbingly tedious- if ground ratios were used what height should figures be? Not 15mm or 25/28mm thats for sure.

And yet look, when given an opportunity, 6mm-1/300 micro gamers still make toy like formations etc. And crow about how marvellous they appear… not!

Yes I know, I’m not about to convert anyone and  I’m not the mainstream kind of gamer (any longer). My focus changed many years ago to merely creating the best impression of what I am modelling- the parameters have changed along with my [mis]fortunes and yes, I’m doing it for myself.

I had often provided games- scenarios/ umpiring and usually supply the figures for friends or club games; encourage newcomers and provide information support to those who ask for it.

From BP to Shadow of the Eagles etc. we use the relevant rules and gentlemanly play, to enjoy ourselves without the textbook/lawyer battles of the old days. McEnroes were a no longer…

But yes I agree, representation and versatility is a better way of gaming [armies] than what I find in Barkerese like DBMM etc. with which I am dabbling a little.
cheers -d

[OotKust]

[OotKust]

Brian the Kiwi wrote:

Hi Dave, Are these still available? If so I am interested and am NZ based:) Kind regards, Brian

Clearly Brian you havent got my PM…

Drop me a txt to 027 (on 2Degr);

## deleted info##

cheers dave

[OotKust]

>>And it was a fluid situation, I think : men trickling in from when Friant’s division first entered the battlefield until the rnd of the day. What count do you report ?

Sorry had a laptop problems- again–

I will research and get back to you-

Certainly concur Friants Div must have been strungout what with a night-time forced march; no more than 3-3.5 hrs sleep then another 10+ ~15 kms march in the fog, fortified before leaving K.Raygern c-0530 with a triple ration of spirits.

My notes say “After 1000~ Friant leading with Lochet arrived opposite the West of Sokolnitz and given broad information on the Russians occupation and positions,…”

We know Davout helped rally and reorder/ reform the 108eme and 3eme de ligne together approximately WNW of Tellnitz. He also was aware of the accidental clash between the retiring 26e Legere (going South) and his 108eme -going North. So he must have spent about 45 minutes soldifying their ranks and encouraging the wounded before Friant finally arrived North of his position.

It doesnt appear he was with GDV Friant, but arrived there outside Sokolnitz very soon afterward. But IIRC he went off rather quickly to hurry along GBD Kister as well, no doubt based upon information provided by Friant and/ or aides.

Funny some fools writing about them have ‘inverted’ the Brigade numbering in sequence of ‘arrival’; whereas their designation by ie Generals ‘seniority’ , was actually 3-2-1 due to their respective ‘start’ positions and distances they had to cover.

The disparity between regimental strengths in Moreaus 1800 army and tthe 1805 one is amazing to me. Again I say, figures N. could only dream of… his Marengo (Berthiers Army of Reserve) force very nearly wiped out.

TBC…….

[OotKust]

>>but maybe a little interesting ….

Sorry had a laptop problem and then accidentally cut off my fibre… oh dear… ! About 10 hours ago.

Anyway, yeah I’m familiar with some of the numbers and certainly the nuances of this somewhat ‘composite’ force.

Most gamers don’t realise- I say with some caution, because many only follow gaming rules, and ‘scenarios’ written to work those rules, rather than have an in-depth knowledge of what they are trying to recreate.

It became apparent to me, that a Marshal, in charge of his own Second (#2) Infantry Division, a nearly complete Dragoon Division (5 regiments), and a detached/ attached for over two weeks Dragoon Regiment (1er Dragons) that he assigned, mid-forced march to GBD Heudelet.

This makes not a gamers army, but it sure could be. The rest of Davouts Corps, as noted, was ‘in service’ on the far side of Vienna, and hence couldn’t achieve N.’s infamous ‘last minute dash’ to reach the battlefield that he ordained time and again. A day later they were part of the ‘pursuit’, but not the day of battle.

Of course what Davout did, apparently without any written orders, or even verbal- no records exists AFAIK, either beforehand or on the day, was take over those bodies of troops from Legrands Division (#3) of Marshal Soults corps that he found in-situ along the Goldbach and the key villages [of Tellnitz and Sokolnitz] they held. He incorporated these units, obviously with the acquiesence of those Generals, since their own Marshal was no-where to be seen the whole day. And he both informed and cooperated with GBD Margaron who’s command had been sliced down to pretty much to just the 8e Hussards as the far right (Southern wing) flank guard.

Trying to make that work under most rules would be a disaster. On the numbers I have many of them and the same Returns/ Situation as Nafziger used and published. I’ve not concerned myself with actual numbers, with exceptions, but with the role of regiments and their battalions in the structure.

My notes contain “15e Legere- 2 cies – only 64 men total (*) described as “Voltigeurs”. This is from Davouts reports I think. And it points to the attrition in manpower that occurred, not in the campaign segments prior, but also in the 90km forced march from Vienna over 3 days and nights.

The 15e Legere [1er/ 2eme] battalions of chasseurs you notE above as 12 companies [Edit- the Carabiniers having been detached], also had received a heavy dose of conscripts (again Davout) and thus their actions were exceptional in very constrained environments. They may well have suffered a setback had they been in open country against a greater mass of men, rather than the environs within Sokolnitz Village.

I’ve taken the Napoleon-Series Officers Killed/DoW data and am reworking the numbers to show them by unit- so a spreadsheet is required. This will give us some more notional information about the losses and combats.

On the 108eme de ligne– another unit of some stature from Hohenlinden no less, exactly 5 years earlier…

Regarding the successful and surprise assault of Heudelets’ 108e de ligne (and 15e Legere Voltigeurs) bayonet charge through Tellnitz; after the initial action against the 7e Jaeger, they reformed in the Northern quadrant of the villages roadways.

Having done so Duffy on p110 states:

He [Oberst Baron Mohr with the Hessen-Homberg Hussaren] launched an attack… the Austrian hussars laid about them with all the greater zeal because they mistook the 108th for Bavarians, whom they hated.

I wondered about this;  Why did Austrians think the 108th were Bavarians? and
Why did they ‘hate’ them?

Surely a friendly ally a few months earlier could hardly have caused an affront to have such a reaction.

One must understand there was smoke residue from the several hours intermittent combat and fog/ mist still blanketing the area, which is how a couple of squadrons could manoeuvre and perform a flank attack on a unit that was otherwise in line and facing the East.

So I can see that there could be grounds for mistaken identity, after all there was the ‘friendly fire’ incident only minutes later as well.

Do we have any corroboration of this encounter as its source is not noted, though it does follow the brief statement from the KreigsArchive documentation he used?

My mind goes to pale greatcoats perhaps being worn (which my unit are not!), whether grey or pale blue would be subjective when viewed in the circumstances given. I can’t see any other reason that could lead to such an act.

Despite the effusive Austrian wording of the encounter, “cutting down MOST of the force, scattering the rest”, no Eagle was taken, although the days tally of officers killed and wounded was 15 according to Martinien. Certainly the IIICorps losses were extensive for the direct elements included in combat.

So although the 108e ‘broke’ into a rout across the northernmost bridge of Tellnitz, they soon rallied out of sight of the Russians who did not pursue- and neither did the successful Austrian cavalry, probably due to the hanging fog, which must have been relatively dense still about 0830, deep in this lower part of the Goldbach valley.

The rest of the Division was yet to arrive and fight, over Sokolnitz. Davout wasn’t at this Tellnitz skirmish either- he was off looking to guide Friants other brigades toward Sokolnitz, and doing his own reconnaisance there himself.

I think the motions of all these esteemed Generals were inspiring. Their level of excellence and cooperation was simply superb. I’d say that initial reports may have quoted high numbers, because as in all things, the technicalities weren’t known, and therefore slight inaccuracies formed.

I agree that the popular ‘Engish language’ history has been smudged to make the numbers stack up and support the propaganda that it was all due to a very nice plan.

I can’t see that Davout would have changed his views and documents except when corrected by his own ‘Situations’ and generals reports as they came to hand.

When I visited Vincennes I had no intimate knowledge of the level of intervention by Davout (III Corps), and hence, no intention of ever modelling it. So I have no original data on them of which I’m aware, as I was totally focussed on Soutls IV Corps d’Armée. But I will check. Certainly I have Situations for the Cavalry Reserve and its constituent Divisions (all of them).

Thanks
davew

[Author]

Posts