Prussian Artillery 1866

[cameronian]

Its all a bit confusing .... in the beginning was the C61 6pdr, it had the distinctive bulbous breech and the belling to the end of the barrel, the carriage did not have diagonal bracing, I believe it did have wire seats but I can't lay my hands on a source other than the one Mollers has produced (Reilly) which I think we must accept as accurate. The C61 6 pdr illustrated earlier stands in the square in Saarlouis, barrel original (minus breech) but the carriage (no seats) is a reconstruction and so must be suspect. The C61 6pdr was at Koniggratz.

The C61 6pdr was replaced by the C64 6pdr, for our purposes the barrel was the same but the carriage now had diagonal steel bracing struts due to some modification to the axel bushes (I think to reduce weight). If it had seats in 1866 I think it likely it still had them in 1870. The C64 6pdr was at Sedan.

There was no C61 4pdr.

The C64 4pdr had the square breech, the barrel was straight and without the belling (almost said bell end   ). I don't know if it had seats or not, ditto braces, sorry. The C64 4pdr was at Koniggratz.

The C64 4pdr was replaced by the C67 4pdr. The main difference was in the breech mechanism, the original(s) having been little more than prototype(s) and bedevilled with problems. The C67 4pdr barrel is pretty much identical to the C64 (for our purposes), the carriage did have seats and did have diagonal braces (below). The C67 was at Sedan.

As far as seated horse artillery is concerned, I just can't believe it. The gun flails and bounces even at a gentle canter, the gunners wouldn't stand a chance of staying on, and if it went over (which they do) ... nasty.

[FierceKitty]

*Does happy dance because he got something right*

Pictures, please.

[Chad]

Cam

I have seen that photo.

To my eyes (old as they are) that appears to be the gun carriage as modelled for PPW16 which is described as the C61 6pdr, which was my original query. I have previous had models from PPW15 which is described as the C64 but the carriage looks nothing like that.

Thanks for all the help, but I will just swop the barrels from the two packs and leave it at that.

Chad

[Leman]

"I have previous,"  -  you are a criminal

"I have previously,"  -  you had something earlier

English, eh? it's a bugger!

[Chad]

Have you got nothing better to do?

[Leman]

No - having to let stuff dry.

[Chad]

 

[mollinary]

Possibly?  I've been looking through a lot of old emails trying to find the original conversations, but I'm sure you gave us info on them.

Hi Leon,

Memory is a funny thing, but after not thinking about this issue for days, the answer suddenly popped into my mind.  I found this "fact" when sorting out my old copies of  WI before moving back to the UK. Rushing to those that I kept,  I found, in Issue No14 from October 1988, an article by Mike Tomczak on the equipment and organisation of Prussian Artillery 1870-71. Four pages of gold dust, its main source is W.Witte "Die gezogene feldgeschutze C/61, C/64 und C/64/67 1870/71 (Krefeld 1971). This was an expanded version of an 1867 publication which included material on 1870-71. The article includes a nicely detailed drawing of the 4pounder gun carriage C/64 taken from Witte. The caption includes the words "this picture shows the arrangement of the axsitze (axle seats), each seating one man, on which men rode into battle. Such seats were not present on the guns of the horse batteries." 

So, now at least I know I did not make it up!

Mollinary 

PS the article contains another gem, although I hesitate (a bit!) to reveal it.   "The 6pdr had the barrel of 1861 (C61) with the gun carriage and limber developed in 1864. A new 6 pounder barrel introduced in 1864 proved unsuitable and the barrels were finished as the C61, although they were slightly lighter".

M

[cameronian]

Was it the barrel or the breech mechanism that was unsuitable? I know the C61 6pdr started life with the Wahrendorff piston breech which they changed to the Wesener wedge for the early C64s, changing back to an improved version of the Wahrendorff design after the war of 1866. I infer from this that the wartime performance of some of the Prussian 6pdrs was sub par too. Ha, give me a good muzzle loading 8pdr every time.

[mollinary]

Hi Cam,

From another source, it was the breech mechanism that proved unsatisfactory. Hence the reversion to the original type. This has piqued my interest, so I am now in the process of getting a copy of the Witte book from Fortress books in the Netherlands.  As they say: "There's no bore like an old bore!"    

Mollinary

[Chris Pringle]

Heresy, I know, but this whole debate strikes me as a good argument for gaming in 6mm where these details don't matter!

Chris

[Leman]

It is beginning to sound like this will run and run to no effect and no detriment to gaming the period. More importantly, what about the complete lack of 6pdrs in the ACW range. At least the APW/FPW has discernibly different models, even if they're not 100% accurate. I suppose I am used to the make do and mend approach to wargaming in the 60s and 70s.

[cameronian]

You are many things my dear friend but boring is not one of them, keep up the good work.

[cameronian]

It is beginning to sound like this will run and run to no effect and no detriment to gaming the period. More importantly, what about the complete lack of 6pdrs in the ACW range. At least the APW/FPW has discernibly different models, even if they're not 100% accurate. I suppose I am used to the make do and mend approach to wargaming in the 60s and 70s.

From a gaming perspective I'm with you; personally I use the braced carriage to denote 6pdrs and the unbraced to denote 4pdrs, end of. On the other hand the sheer joy of delving isn't to be dismissed so lightly.

[Chris Pringle]

From a gaming perspective I'm with you; personally I use the braced carriage to denote 6pdrs and the unbraced to denote 4pdrs, end of. On the other hand the sheer joy of delving isn't to be dismissed so lightly.

Oh, I agree, notwithstanding my previous comment. The explosive bolts in the spats of late-model Stukas are unlikely to become relevant on my wargames table any time soon. But my life is richer and better for knowing they existed.

Chris

[Leman]

Agreed. Just don't let those things rule the roost of your approach to gaming.

[cameronian]

Absolutely right ... so its a minus 1 modifier for 6pdrs with the Wesener wedge breech then 

[mollinary]

I hope everyone will game as they wish, whatever that involves, regardless of what others may think!   In accord with Cam, I suspect, I enjoy the research as much as the games.  When I offer information on here it is intended to help, not dictate to, people as to how to put together their forces,  I have gained enormously from other peoples' expertise shared on this forum, and share what I find out In tthe same spirit. I try and remember to quote my sources, so that others can make up their own minds. My own forces have many inaccuracies, partly owing to their evolution over time, identified as a result of my own gradually improving Google-fu.    Putting them right is not my highest priority, but if I am starting something new, I would like to get it right if possible.  Oh, and Cam, what a both a roll on a D100 against the chance of a breech explosion? 

Mollinary

[Leman]

Well that's spurred me on to have a re-read of the 1866 book, especially as I'm now gaming a lot of RF&F. On Mollinary's last point, I started collecting PP WWI Belgians some time ago. On closer inspection, I have discovered, after painting, that the arrangement of gear on the back of the figure is inaccurate: haversack and entrenching tool have been transposed, and the rolled tent is depicted (which the infantry no longer carried). Oh well, thinks I. I needed reinforcements; guess what, the figures had been remodelled with the equipment now in the right position (but the tent is still there). Oh well ...... plough on.

[Ithoriel]

Heresy, I know, but this whole debate strikes me as a good argument for gaming in 6mm where these details don't matter!

Chris

Or to play 10mm Ancients? Where next to nothing is known for certain about "uniforms."

Edited to change "unicorns" to "uniforms" .... perhaps predictive text has been looking at the new High Elves? Not sure how I managed to switch the darn thing on tbh.