Hi,

Thanks for the comparison, any chance of posting some pictures to show the differences?

Thanks and regards

 

According to Osprey, the 8pdr was 200cm from base ring to muzzle : otherwise the barrels were visually very similar. ... buy the book !
The carriage on the 12 was slightly longer , and the cheeks were thicker.

If , by any mischance, DiD have made the 8pdr, that's only good news, because we would have both !

 

Postscript : I begin to wonder about some of these dimensions given in books ,all in centimetres :~

Old Osprey : 8 = 207cm 12 = 231.5

New Osprey : 8 = 200 12= 229

Napoleonic : 8 = 218.4 12 = 211
Artillery,
by Dawson,Dawson,Summerfield.

So someone's not doing it right , but who ?

 

Postscript : I begin to wonder about some of these dimensions given in books ,all in centimetres :~

Old Osprey : 8 = 207cm 12 = 231.5

New Osprey : 8 = 200 12= 229

Napoleonic : 8 = 218.4 12 = 211
Artillery,
by Dawson,Dawson,Summerfield.

So someone's not doing it right , but who ?

Tony, I just recently got the Dawson book and while I think it is generally a good book----in just a few glance throughs, I have already found quite a few errors and typos including the one you pointed out where they list the French 8 pounder as longer than the 12. In my copy they actually left the decimal place out on the 8 pounder so it reads 2184 cm, which is what initially drew my attention to it.

I also spotted a real screw up on the bottom of page 17 where they describe how an anti personnel canister round is supposed to function. They describe it as rupturing on impact with the ground--spilling out its contents (iron balls). Canister rounds were designed to rupture in the air after the round left the barrel spraying the iron balls out like a giant shot gun. I can't imagine anyone who has studied muzzle loading artillery to not know this and wonder how this statement even got into the book.

I think the book could have been the definitive Napoleonic artillery reference to date, but it does seem marred by a slight lack of competent proofreading and editing.

Cheers

 

Hi ludlow67,

if you explain me how to post pics I will try to make some,especially one from the pushed in handle which is really a pity considering the high price.(I think I will write to SS because of that)Otherwise the different tubes and slightly different colours,the cannons are nearly the same (also in the geometry problem which is slightly visible and not too bad).Overall,the DID is better made (apart from the quality of the paint job of the gun tube),but,as Mr Barton already pointed out,the SS version is more accurate (gun muzzle,wheels) and especially the limber is really cool.I also found sizes for the 8 pounder now:200 cm according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_de_8_Gribeauval and Osprey Napoleon's Guns 1792-1815 (1) (I don´t know what version), but also there is a mention of 190 cm (http://poudrenoire.forumactif.com/artillerie-f33/canon-gribeauval-t2951.htm).Very strange indeed.

If posting of pics isn´t possible here ,I can send pics of the handle problem to any interessted collector.The overall pics on DiDs and SS homepages are quite good though (apart from paint and geometry problems).

P.S.I forgot to mention that the small black "rings" (thin metal) on the wheels of the SS version come ff very easily.Another bad point.

 

Hi, guys! This is my first post on the forum, and while I am not a 1/6 collector in the strictest sense, I am a builder and collector of model artillery.

I got started collecting model cannons in 1968 when I was in the US Army artillery, and have built or collected close to 60 or 70 models. (I have lost track since some are still packed away after my last move.)

Anyway, I also recently purchased both the SS and the DID Gribeauval 12 pdr. cannon models, and I pretty much agree in your statements that the paint and finish of the DID model is simply better than the SS model although the SS model is more accurate. However, this is not true of the barrels. The DID barrel (with the exception of its oversized dolphins) is fairly accurate while the SS barrel is grossly oversized by between 10 and 13% according to whichever reference book one goes with.

Once again according to which ever reference one uses, the DID barrel could be anywhere from undersized to oversized to spot on. However, as I mentioned before, its Dolphins (lifting handles) are grossly oversized.

Here is a picture to illustrate:

The DID barrel measures 14 & 3/8 inches, which at 6X would be 7ft 2 & 1/4 in. or 224.15 centimeters

The Soldier Story barrel measures 16 & 1/2 in, which at 6x is 8 ft 3 in. or
or 251.45 centimeters

As you have already noted the barrel lengths given in the various references for the 12 pdr. vary from 211 cm in the Dawson book to 91 in./231 cm in at least one of the Osprey books. I have a third source (Roundshots and Rammers by Harold R Peterson) with a scale drawing that puts the barrel at 88 inches or 223 cm.

I trust this last book as much as any of them, which would put the DID barrel right on the money with the SS barrel way over scale. As best as I can judge, the SS barrel is about a scale foot too long and of course since it appears to be in proportion, its diameter and bore are also too large.

This is really evident when one tries to mount the SS barrel in the rear travel trunnion position on the carriage. With the ammunition box mounted in its travel position, the barrel over laps it and will not seat in the trunnion mounting cutouts. The only way to mount the barrel flush in the travel position is to remove the ammo box completely ---which sort of defeats its purpose in the first place.

One of the problems of the stats from these books is that during the 18th and early 19th centuries there were no universal standards of weights and measure like there are today, so a French inch or ounce was not the same as an English imperial inch or ounce--and these inconsistencies were also true of Prussia, Russia, Spain, and so on.

Most of Europe did not convert to the metric system until the late 1800's and of course the US never has. The problem is that many of these reference books have tried to convert the measurements given in the old imperial systems of a particular country to the modern metric system and so a lot of the texts are riddled with inconsistencies. Simply going to all the museums around the world and taking new measurements could correct this, but that might be a pretty daunting task.

Lastly, there is the question of the finish on the two barrels. I'll admit that the SS barrel appears more attractive in its attempt to replicate the verdigris that brass or bronze will acquire if left unattended to the elements, but for a working artillery piece this is also incorrect. A bronze barrel would probably have to set out in the elements for 40 or 50 years to reach the color represented on the SS barrel.

While Napoleonic gun crews would not keep the barrels gleaming in the field as they would when in camp or barracks, they would still keep them basically clean and free of any major oxidation.

So, even though the DID barrel's gold/bronze paint does not look that much like real bronze, it is still a more accurate representation of a active working field piece.

I'm not sure what it would take to replicate the look of real bronze--- other than replacing it with an actual bronze barrel, but of course that solution would be very costly.

I hope this info is of some use to those interested.

Cheers

P.S. I also meant to mention that I did not spend a lot of time trying to measure the diameters and distances of the various reinforcing rings, astragal rings, cascables, bores, or trunnion sizes of the two barrels. However, even though the the SS barrel is too large, overall it appears to be proportioned better than the DID barrel--especially the dolphins.

 

P. S. Here is a dandy little free 750kb program that I use that will easily convert most popular units of measure from one form into another.

It comes in real handy for modeling:

http://joshmadison.com/software/convert-for-windows/

Of course it knows nothing of 18th century imperial measurements--lol

Cheers

 

F/O , Thanks for these observations :~
I haven't seen either of the models in the flesh yet , so your thoughts are very welcome. My initial preference for the SSt version were based entirely on the pics they put up : it just looked better !
I agree with all your points.

The pictures that I have of the 12pdr in the Musee de l'Armee also look more " barrel heavy " than the DiD version , which also influenced me somewhat.
So it looks like the DiD version is more accurate..

My faith in " Nap Artillery " by Dawson et al was similarly wobbling : I only just bought it , and , like you , have found some obvious errors. I also presumed " 2184 " was a typo and corrected it.
Their section on British artillery is somewhat confusing ,and they are yet another British reference book that has failed to notice that there are a pair of original light 6pdrs parked in the Tojhusmuseet in Copenhagen , complete with their limbers !

On the matter of the barrel material , it has long been the tradition amongst artillery modellers to turn the barrels in brass : although that would have added a little to the cost , I still think it would have been a much better choice than base metal , painted.

And as to the actual length of the Gribeauval 12 pdr, given the confusion , would it have been too difficult to contact someone at the Musee de l'Armee , and ask them to go and measure it ?

 

vs. 1:1 real version

Some real pics:

========================================
Ss's drawing:

==================================================

 

Thanks everyone for the information and comparisons. For me its simply a case of wanting a display piece of artillery from the right era to go with my 1/6th figures and i'm not too hung up on it being accurate to the nearest centimetre. Hoping to build a field display and some artillery men just for the pleasure of looking at it.

regards to all.

 

I meant to ask anyone who also has the SS model if theirs has the same problem as the model I received?

The metal parts meant to simulate the iron work on the carriages of both models appear to be chemically treated to look black rather that simply painted black as they were in real life.

However, while the metal on the DID model looks fine, the metal work on the SS model has streaks and spots of rust almost everywhere.

Example:

Outdoor flash shot which really shows off the poor mottled paint finish and rust on the SS model:

I also agree that the barrel scale inaccuracies are not that critical when simply viewing the models, and either should look good to display with scale figures. However, I think the SS model needs a total repaint of both the wood and metal while the DID model will do much better as is. To me the green color of the DID model also looks closer to the French olive green I have seen described and depicted in the various references than the very dark green used on the SS model. In fact the color of SS version more resembles modern US Army olive drab to me.

A shot of both side by side

Also note that the barrel implements for the SS model are scaled correctly for its barrel while the DID implements are undersized and actually shorter than the simulated bore of its barrel.

Still, it does seem odd that these two companies would issue such detailed cannons when neither company has produced any period artillery figures to go with them. I know that DID has also just released a period British 9 pdr. which I will probably also buy, although I am running out of space to display such large models--lol! I'm aware there are a couple of Napoleonic figures presently available--just none in artillery dress. Modeling a French or English Napoleonic artillery uniform from scratch would be a job I wouldn't want to take on.

Ignite has a fairly nice looking figure of Napoleon, and since he was artillery trained and such a proponent of this branch, I have seriously considered picking one of them up to display with my models.

P.S.
I have already contacted a friend who has a machine shop about having brass barrels turned from solid brass stock for both models, and even though he will give me a break, a single barrel will cost me more than I paid in total for both models, which would put a bit of a crimp in my budget at this point. As an added benefit, the brass barrels could be loaded and fired, but I don't think either the DID or the SS carriages are constructed with metal or wood sturdy enough to withstand the forces of this type of activity so that feature becomes a moot point.

Cheers

 

Sorry Forward Observer,but I think you made a mistake in measuring the barrels.They were measured,according to Osprey,"from the extremity of the base ring at the breech to the muzzle",so not the whole barrel including the cul de lampe and bouton,but only to the plate-bande de culasse (a good pic of the tube details and names on the reenactor site http://www.8ra.be/tube.jpg).The DiD tube is therefore 34,1 cm long, the SS version is 38,7.If you take Osprey informations (8 Pounder 200 cm,in 1/6 inch 33,33 cm-12 Pounder 229 cm,in 1/6 inch 38,16 cm),the DID version isn´t far away from the 8 pounder and the SS not far away from the 12 pounder.(That is at least the thing I try to believe because I start to be angry because of DiD and SS unability in making research).I now found a new mention of a short 12 pounder version (Canon de 12 court Year XI system):Length: 210 cm (http://wapedia.mobi/en/File:Canon_de_12_court_Year_XI_system.jpg)
The other points I totally agree and I also have remarked the rust on the SS version.You were lucky,FO,to get a gun tube with handles that are perfect.Mine was obviously from a monday production.

 

Sorry Forward Observer,but I think you made a mistake in measuring the barrels.They were measured,according to Osprey,"from the extremity of the base ring at the breech to the muzzle",so not the whole barrel including the cul de lampe and bouton,but only to the plate-bande de culasse (a good pic of the tube details and names on the reenactor site http://www.8ra.be/tube.jpg).The DiD tube is therefore 34,1 cm long, the SS version is 38,7.If you take Osprey informations (8 Pounder 200 cm,in 1/6 inch 33,33 cm-12 Pounder 229 cm,in 1/6 inch 38,16 cm),the DID version isn´t far away from the 8 pounder and the SS not far away from the 12 pounder.(That is at least the thing I try to believe because I start to be angry because of DiD and SS unability in making research).I now found a new mention of a short 12 pounder version (Canon de 12 court Year XI system):Length: 210 cm (http://wapedia.mobi/en/File:Canon_de_12_court_Year_XI_system.jpg)
The other points I totally agree and I also have remarked the rust on the SS version.You were lucky,FO,to get a gun tube with handles that are perfect.Mine was obviously from a monday production.

Although, I did not spot this information in the Osprey book I have, I cannot argue the point and will admit that it could make sense to not include the cascable and rear barrel swell in the listed length of barrel. I haven't thoroughly digested enough of the Dawson book to see if their lengths stats also conform to this method.

Using this info to adjust my original numbers, I get the following:

The SS model:

From the outside edge of the base ring to the end of the button of the cascable on the SS model is about 1.25 inches which at 6X would be
7.5 inches or 19 cm. Subtracting 19 cm from my original 251.45 cm for the SS model barrel would bring it to 232.4 over all.

This is much closer to some of the measures given in the Osprey texts, but still too large for the other texts I have--plus there is still the question of why the barrel will not fit in the rear trunnion position with the ammunition box in place. Of course this could be explained if SS alternatively happened to have gotten some of the carriage geometry wrong.

The DID model:

The distance to be removed measured .875 inch which at 6X would be 5.25 inches or about 13.3 cm. Subtracting that from my original total of 221.15 would result in a new length of 207.85 cm which of course is too small unless one uses the highly suspect measurement from the Dawson text.

(be advised that my dial calipers are packed away right now, so I am tying to make do with the carpenter's ruler seen in my first picture)

At this point, I have no clue if which barrel is the closest although there is still the nagging issue of the SS barrel rear trunnion position conflict. The big thing that is missing from all of these books are scale drawings. The Peterson book I have is the exception and it has a single scale drawing of the 12 pdr. It includes a legend shown in feet, although it is not reproduced in any recognizable scale ratio, so it will take me a while to check all the dimensions if I dare trust it.

I have a trip planned to England and Europe next year, so maybe I'll just visit the Musee de l'Armee and measure the blasted thing for myself.

Cheers

 

First , this is a refreshingly well-informed and courteous discussion , from which I am learning things : thanks everyone.

I agree that we can get excessively wound up about precise dimensions , and they are both nice models , though it is surely part of a model company's duty to do the research properly in the first case , especially when they are producing expensive items like this.

FO , may I cheerfully disagree about the paint colour ?
The French green was made from lamp black and yellow ochre : if you try this yourself , you will get a dark olive green rather than an apple green.
Russian guns of the period were very like the apple green on the DiD model you have.

I thinK the SST green looks about right for the French colour ... .... and though the rust is regrettable , it is probably realistic , because any paint on the wheel rims wouldn't last very long !

On the subject of the DiD British 9pdr, though the first pics I saw had the major problem that the barrel was the wrong proportions to fit the cascabel onto the elevating screw , they have now corrected that : and it looks now pretty good .

The present lack of artillerymen may in time be rectified......

 

First , this is a refreshingly well-informed and courteous discussion , from which I am learning things : thanks everyone.

I agree that we can get excessively wound up about precise dimensions , and they are both nice models , though it is surely part of a model company's duty to do the research properly in the first case , especially when they are producing expensive items like this.

FO , may I cheerfully disagree about the paint colour ?
The French green was made from lamp black and yellow ochre : if you try this yourself , you will get a dark olive green rather than an apple green.
Russian guns of the period were very like the apple green on the DiD model you have.

I thinK the SST green looks about right for the French colour ... .... and though the rust is regrettable , it is probably realistic , because any paint on the wheel rims wouldn't last very long !

On the subject of the DiD British 9pdr, though the first pics I saw had the major problem that the barrel was the wrong proportions to fit the cascabel onto the elevating screw , they have now corrected that : and it looks now pretty good .

The present lack of artillerymen may in time be rectified......

Tony,

You may be correct about the color, and I have seen the formula that you mention several times in print although many authorities still say that that the colors are quite subjective due to the fact there were no color or paint standards during this period. In other words what is sold as yellow ochre today may be different than what was available 200 years ago.

I also had come across this site that sells paint for Napoleonic miniatures which led me to believe that the French green was much lighter, but who knows if their claims of "authentic" are correct since their main goal is really to sell paint.

http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/paint/napoleonicset2.asp

Of course the Russian green shown is pretty close too being more apple green as you mentioned.

Actually, it's probably more a case of me simply wanting the DID color to be right because the finish looked so much better than the crappy SS paint job, and I didn't want to have to repaint them both.

Thanks for the comments and opinions.

Cheers

 

Vive l´Empereur,

I tried to reply to your correction about the barrel lengths, but for some reason my posts seem to have not gone through due to needing moderation.

If this get duplicated twice, I apologize.

Short story--is that if your information of how the lengths are measured is correct then of course my first conclusion about the barrel sizes would be exactly the opposite---with the DID barrel being undersize and the SS barrel close to correct.

However, there is still the nagging issue that the SS barrel cannot be mounted in the rear travel position with the ammunition chest in place. Of course this could be explained if SS alternatively got this part of carriage geometry wrong.

I guess I'm simply going to stop worrying about it and start planning a repaint of one or maybe both models.

Cheers

P.S. Once again if my other two posts get added, I will edit out as double posts

 

Hi Forward Observer,

well,as you have been in the artillery,you might better know than me.I upload the page from Osprey where the mention of "from the extremity of the base ring at the breech to the muzzle" can be found.By the way,it was Tony Barton who first informed me about how to measure the DiD barrel.All I think now is from the length,the DiD is an 8 pounder,the SS an 12 pounder.What do you think abouit the thickness of the tubes?
Like you,I preferred the DiDs version of green.I also saw several guns of reenactors in this colour (on the web).But as Tony Barton points out it may be different.I do not like the rust and the quality of paint either but finally it looks like a battle-used gun (like in reality).
Does anyone have links to reenactors of the British Napoleonic artillery or does someone have informations about the British artillery?

 

The upload of the correct pic failed.Sorry.

 

The only Osprey book I have on the period is "Artillery Equipments of the Napoleonic Wars" #96 of the Men at Arms series. It is more general in nature and only has one table of barrel lengths covering all nations.

Although it doesn't mention how the measurement was taken, it certainly makes more sense to not include the area behind the breech ring for uniformity.

My actual artillery experience was with modern weapons---well, modern as of Vietnam in 1969. My unit over there was heavy 8 inch howitzers and 175mm guns. I think those weapons were phased out by the army several years ago.

I have been looking for my dial calipers to take bore and outside diameter measurements, but in going to the storage room on the back of my condo to search for it, I discovered the floor flooded. It appears that my hot water heater has developed a leak. I will probably be up all night trying to salvage what I can and assessing the damage. but will reply back if I discover any more pertinent info.

Cheers

 

Thanks everyone,Thanks Forword Observer's photoes and comments and opinions!

 

Very interesting post.
What is the general consensus on the DID French 12 pdr and the DID British 9 pdr pieces?
That 12 pdr to an uneducated viewer like me, looks a lot like what I thought cannons looked during the American War of Independence.

These DID pieces are apparently available, but not available in many of the retailers I checked out. And on ebay the British piece is shown only from vendors in the Far East..maybe they have been released recently...

Thanks in advance for any insight. from no cannons, to so many it is somewhat dizzying! jajaja!

E

 

Mr Barton,

I've seen your excellent WWI figures and dioramas on here and know of your interest (and expertise) in the Napoleonic era as well. Any plans to make a diorama with any of the above artillery? My own idea is basically a field or farmhouse wall setting but is there a "good" scene that would lend itself to displaying these pieces well?

regards

 

A diorama would be nice : but until some artillerymen come on the market , we are a bit stuck trying to bring it to life.

When the British 9pdr comes out , I shall probably make a Foot artilleryman to go with it ; but I do live in hope that figures will follow the guns from both manufacturers : but that's optimism , not private intelligence !
We need a Line or Guard Foot artilleryman for the French gun ( 12pdrs were too heavy for the Horse Artillery ) , and a Foot artilleryman for the British 9dr , though at Waterloo the RHA had them as well.

As to setttings : these guns were mostly used in the open field , though if expecting to be in a static position , they might build a breastwork of some kind to protect them from counter-battery fire ; always a good idea. And advantage would always be taken of walls or banks as cover if the situation allowed. But remember , the earthwork would have to be pretty substantial to stop a roundshot of similar calibre.

So the setting could be pretty flexible.

 

Hi F/O,

posting the pic wasn´t possible but here is the very long link to a free copy of (most) pages of the Osprey book where you can find all the measure indications of the Gribeauval versions:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hb...SSv_tHpTd-QaosaXICA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=&f=false
This should work.
A very interesting link to the Imperial Guard Foot Artillery re-enactment group: http://footartillery.googlepages.com/
They have a fine reproduction of the 12 Pounder.To tell from the pics,the SS version is definately oversized.

Mr Barton, a british gunner would be wonderful.You could maybe make a limber for the british gun too.

 

Vive l´Empereur

Thanks for the links. I think that particular Osprey booklet is now out of print because I could not find a copy at the few on-line sources I tried. My Osprey book does not list the method of measure and only gives the data in what appears to be the current US imperial units (no metric numbers) while the book you linked to has in both the metric numbers and the old imperial French units.

I see this data posted at Wikipedia with no mention of the fact that the imperial measurements are not US/ British, but are instead 18th century imperial French. This is would really throw anybody in the US for a loop if they tried to use the imperial measurements and one of the reasons that people should be careful when using Wikipedia as a reliable source.

Anyhow, it appears that if one takes the Osprey data the SS barrel is correct and the DID barrel is under sized.

On the other hand, if one uses the Dawson book data, the SS barrel is too large and the DID barrel is close to correct. There are also two scale drawings in the Dawson book done by one of the authors that infer that these measurements are from the muzzle face to the button of the cascable. The drawing in my 1969 Peterson book tends to agree with the Dawson book. However, we know the Dawson book has errors, so any data given may be suspect.

I decided to take Tony Barton's suggestion and ask the Musee D L'armee directly, so I emailed the link given on the English version of their website for the curator group.

I sent it in English since I do not speak French, but hopefully I will get some sort of response and will post the results if I do.

I did note that the carriage colors used by the reenactment group closely match the colors used by DID, but I also noticed that their replica 12 pdr had an Iron barrel rather than one made of bronze. This is understandable since a reproduction bronze barrel of this size would be beyond the financial limits of most groups like this.

I may not be buying any more cannons right now since I was just informed by a plumber that it is going to cost me about $1300 to have my hot water heater replaced. Actually, only $550 is the hot water heater installation--the rest is stuff needed to get everything up to the city building codes----not a great way to start a week off with.

Cheers

 

Hi egonzinc,

although located in Germany,I bought my DiD Gribeauval from Modellersloft in GB.They got it shortly after it´s availabilty was announced on DiD´s homepage.As the 9 Pounder has been announced as available since about a week by DiD,I hope that Modellersloft will sell it shortly.I will get it for sure although it´s missing it´s handles.(DiD always makes mistakes)
The Gribeauval was also used in American war of Independence (f.ex.at Yorktown),provided by France,so your impression is true.And as the both present versions don´t have the "N" on it,maybe they are supposed to be pre-Napoleonic guns?

 

My Soldier Story 12 pounder arrived yesterday. I know very little about Napoleonic artillery and am more interested in using it to "reverse" engineer back to a cannon of the 1640s. Based on references for 17th century artillery, cannon of that period are surprisingly similar. Certainly, some modifications will be needed (it is nice not to have to worry about the shade of green as it will need to be repainted) but it is far from a completely different animal.

Can someone please save me having to buy books on napoleonic artillery that I don't need for any other purpose and please answer the following? How many horses would have been required to pull (a) the French Giebeauval 12 pounder and (b) the British 9 pounder?

Thanks

Allan

 

Answers to a) and b) : six.