I recently ordered PPW16 described as C61 6-pdr. On the gun carriage they have two half boxes, which I take to represent nets, and diagonal bars running from the wheels to the side of the carriage. From pictures I have seen these are the C64 4-pdrs as from other pictures the 6-pdr had neither nets or the diagonal bars. I have mentioned this to Leon and he has suggested I raise the question on the forum.
Any advice/answers gentlemen.
Chad
If they are the same as the1870 6 pounders, the box is a seat either side of the front of the gun where two gunner sat while limbered?
Lemmey
I don't know. If that is correct, then they would appear to be identical to the C64 4-pdr. That leaves me with the problem of what to use for the C61 6-pdr.
Chad
Picture of 4pdr
The 6 pounders have boxes, the 4 pounders don't.
6pdr. No diagonal bars
Easiest reference is - shock horror - Wikipedia.! Look under Krupp Artillery, and then C61. You will find four pictures of the 6pdr. As ML says they have boxes, and foot rests, but the other differences from the 4pdr are the bell at the end of the barrel , and the round rather than square breech. The Hessian artillery monument at Froeschwiller has the barrels of both 4pdr and 6pdr guns set into the tower to act as frames for the glassless windows! :o
Mollinary
*Does happy dance because he got something right*
Mollinary
Have tried but cannot find them. Can you give me the link.
Chad
Hi Chad,
I just google "Krupp Artillery". About the third result was commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/category:Krupp_artillery Then I looked under C61.
Showed four pictures.
Hope this helps,
Mollinary
Mollinary
Got it. I posted one of those pictures above, but to me it bears little resemblance to the C61 in PPW16 which has the bars either side of the carriage joined diagonally to the wheel support and what look like open boxes/half seats either side of the barrel. Given the diagonal bars and the 'seats/boxes', it looks more like the 4pdr picture I also posted above.
I will have to ask Leon to send me a sample C64.
Chad
Mollinary
I am afraid I am not yet convinced. I now believe PPW16 has a 4pdr carriage with 6pdr barrels. I also looked at some PPW15 I painted last year as 4pdrs. From the photos and your comment on the barrel, I think these are 4pdr barrels with a 6pdr carriage.
Chad
I have swapped barrels and carriages when I read a couple of years ago that only the 4 pdrs had the seats for gunners.
Hi Chad,
The difference in the Pendraken guns is in the barrels, not the carriages. As you point out, the carriage for the six pounder may not be 100% accurate, but I don't know of anyone else who even does a six pounder in 10mm. Magister Militum only do a four pounder as their "Krupp Artillery". Pendraken do produce two carriages, one with the seats, one without. As far as I recall, counter intuitively, the horse artillery does not have the seats because all the gunners are mounted?! So both carriages are suitable for four pounders. To re-produce the 6pdr carriage shown in the Saarlouis photo you could take the one without the seat, cut off the struts, and add a couple of boxes? A bit of a poser, really!
Mollinary
Mollinary
The PPW15s I painted last year do have a different carriage to the PPW16s. So I have ordered some of the former and will switch the barrels as Leman has done.
Chad
PS Google Prussian Horse Artillery 1866 and have a look at the photos on the Victoriaswars.com site
Chad,
I am getting more and more puzzled as we whizz around the net. Firstly why does googling Prussian Horse Artillery 1866 get us photos of a Krupp gun taken from the Egyptians at Tel- El-Kebir? In 1866 the Horse Batteries were equipped with the light 12pdr smoothbore shell guns! The gun in the photos looks very much like a bronze C64 to me.
Mollinary
OK. I think I have found an authoritative source, at least for 1866, which should put most of this to rest. Interestingly, I think it highlights the dangers of us trying to generalise from individual photos on the web, particularly when they deal with a period in which weapons were changing and being adapted year on year, and many variants existed. My source is "Memorandum on The Prussian Army in Relation to the Campaign of 1866". By Lt Col Reilly CB, RA, published in 1867. He was sent by the British as an observer to the army, but arrived after the fighting. He spent his time gaining an intimate knowledge of how the Prussians fought, and finding out details of their equipment. I started this research for other purposes, and much of that should come out in Holdfast's and my book on Koniggratz, due out next year, but on to the artillery:
I) each corps had "4 batteries horse artillery - 12-Pdrs. (Not rifled.)
4 ". Field artillery - 6-Pdrs. (Rifled)
6. ". Field artillery - 4-Pdrs. (Rifled)
2. ". Field artillery - 12-Pdrs (not rifled)
"Such, at least , was the equipment during the late campaign, differing from that laid down in the Regulations."
6Pdr guns. "The gun carriage is of wood.......... The axle tree is made of cast steel with horizontal arms. There are two seats on it, and these are furnished with fixed foot rests, handles covered with leather, and a back of wire network." So, they should have seats! Now, should they also have supporting bars? Well Reilly is silent on this matter, but does include a detailed drawing of the carriage of a 4pdr. On it the bars are shown, and clearly labelled as "Rear stays of axle seats". This might be taken to imply that similar stays existed on the 6pdr carriage, as it also has the seats.
Hope this helps.
Mollinary
TBH not really, but I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist about it. And anyway my guns have been modelled for 1870, when horse artillery had converted to the 4pdr. At least I can tell the difference between a 6pdr and a 4pdr whern they are on the table.
Now, can anyone help an aged amnesiac, and tell me where I picked up this idea that HA 4pdrs didn't have seats? I remember asking Leon for seatless carriages after I discovered it, but cannot for the life of me remember where I got it from! :-\ :-\
Mollinary
Leon, did I tell you?
Quote from: mollinary on 13 August 2015, 04:28:38 PM
Now, can anyone help an aged amnesiac, and tell me where I picked up this idea that HA 4pdrs didn't have seats? I remember asking Leon for seatless carriages after I discovered it, but cannot for the life of me remember where I got it from! :-\ :-\
Leon, did I tell you?
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.
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.
Quote from: mad lemmey on 11 August 2015, 07:57:37 PM
*Does happy dance because he got something right*
Pictures, please.
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
"I have previous," - you are a criminal
"I have previously," - you had something earlier
English, eh? it's a bugger!
Have you got nothing better to do?
No - having to let stuff dry.
:)
Quote from: Leon on 13 August 2015, 05:40:21 PM
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 :-bd :-bd
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
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.
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!" ;D ;)
Mollinary
Heresy, I know, but this whole debate strikes me as a good argument for gaming in 6mm where these details don't matter!
Chris
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.
You are many things my dear friend but boring is not one of them, keep up the good work.
Quote from: Leman on 18 August 2015, 09:34:55 AM
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.
Quote from: cameronian on 18 August 2015, 10:33:15 AM
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
Agreed. Just don't let those things rule the roost of your approach to gaming.
Absolutely right ... so its a minus 1 modifier for 6pdrs with the Wesener wedge breech then ;)
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
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.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 18 August 2015, 08:25:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 19 August 2015, 09:55:59 AM
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.
It would take a stronger argument than that to make me play ancients. I'd rather play unicorns - they'd be more historically accurate than most ancients games at our club.
Chris
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 19 August 2015, 11:06:06 AM
It would take a stronger argument than that to make me play ancients. I'd rather play unicorns - they'd be more historically accurate than most ancients games at our club.
Chris
Each to their own Chris, I'd sooner play Sumerians vs Sassanids (preferably in the context of a campaign game) than refight a battle we already know the result of but it would be a dull old world if we all liked the same thing.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 19 August 2015, 12:17:57 PM
Each to their own Chris, I'd sooner play Sumerians vs Sassanids (preferably in the context of a campaign game) than refight a battle we already know the result of but it would be a dull old world if we all liked the same thing.
Each to their own, indeed. Different people want different things from games. Even round my BBB table you'll get quite different motivations. One player might be all about winning; another doesn't care what happens so long as he gets to do some spectacular charges; another will be really into the insight the game gives you into historical events; and yet another will just enjoy the colourful spectacle, the nice terrain, and the pretty uniforms.
Chris
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 18 August 2015, 08:25:00 AM
Heresy, I know, but this whole debate strikes me as a good argument for gaming in 6mm where these details don't matter!
Chris
Tank that man out anr trample him with elephants.....
IanS
By all means trample me with elephants.
So long as they are historically accurate.
And in 6mm or 10mm scale.
Chris
Anyone have a picture of a historically incorrect elephant? 😈
Chad
Try googling "medieval elephant picture" and you will find loads.
Chris
(http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/.a/6a00d8341c464853ef017ee3d493aa970d-500wi)
the ears are not as large as I believe they were on elephants from 1357.
Didn't know plastic surgery on elephants started in 1357. 😜
I think that's a very early experiment in genetic modification.
Elephant crossed with a warthog, a cat and a dog ??.......(Maybe a bit of horse ?)
Cheers - Phil
Actually its a tapir with tusks !
They got the tusks and trunk right, but how did they fail on the rest? I'm assuming an oral tradition and the odd tusk making it to market where the scribe lived, but someone must have mentioned the ears!
Quote from: cameronian on 22 August 2015, 10:59:01 AM
Actually its a tapir with tusks !
THAT makes sense ! :-bd
Cheers - Phil
Don't beasts like that roam the Brecon Beacons, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights ?
IanS :o ;)
Noooooo.
Those beasties, pictured, have all been eaten by the melanistic panthers that live in that area.
Tsk !.....I thought everybody knew that. ;)
Cheers - Phil
If there's nothing to eat, why are the panthers still there ??
IanS
A question. In the back of my mind I have the notion that Hohenlohe Ingelfingen mentions the number of shrapnel rounds the 12pdrs fired in 1866, am I wrong, does anyone have the answer ?
Hi Cam,
Haven't looked at H-I since you started a similar thread in August Last Year. My recollection is that he did not give the figures, but Reilly does. The grand total for Elbe, 1st and 2nd Armies is 462 rounds of shrapnel from the 12pdr guns, a fraction over a third of the total shrapnel rounds fired by the army. The rest were fired by the 6pdrs.
Mollinary
Thanks for that. I must say the Moises Reilly memo is intriguing, it goes against everything I have ever read or heard concerning the steel barrelled guns, ie that they did not fire shrapnel. If you remember, Grof was emphatic, as the regional archaeologist one would think that he of all people might have unearthed a Prussian shrapnel round somewhere, do we even have an idea how the fuze was constructed/worked ?
Hermann von Muller's "Die Entwickelung der Feld - Artillerie in Bezug auf Material, Organisation und Taktik von 1815 bis 1870: mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Preussischen Artillery auf Grund Officiellen Materials" published in 1873, makes it very clear that one of the main reasons that the short 12 pdr was retained was its superior performance with canister and its ability to fire shrapnel. He presents a table (no date given) in his discussion of the period from 1850 - 1860 indicating that, for the Prussian short 12 pdr the limber carried 20 shells, 15 shrapnel and 5 cannister rounds and a total, including in the ammunition wagon, for the battery of 510 shells, 288 shrapnel and 96 cannister rounds. There then follows an extensive discussion of the development and testing of shrapnel. After four pages of detailed discussion and chronology of tests conducted he states that on the eve of the 1866 war;
"Influenced by the opinions prevalent at that point and on the basis of the 1865 tests, the General - Inspection der Artillerie declared in May of 1866 that it was, as a matter of principle, opposed to any introduction of shrapnel in the field artillery, citing as major reasons:
a) The observation and correction of rounds is nearly impossible;
b) The differences in burning time and thus in the intervals are too great, so that reliable functioning cannot be counted on;
c) Serving [the gun] while firing with shrapnel is too complicated and requires greater calm that can be expected in combat.
At this state of affairs the war broke out in 1866 and the shrapnel question that was thus brought to a standstill was not reopened until after the war, which will be discussed later."
So, due to unresolved problems, primarily with the fuse, the Artillery Inspectorate flatly declared just prior to the outbreak of the 1866 war that shrapnel was not ready for introduction to the field artillery. The war broke out at that point and the question was not raised again until after the war was over.
August von Witzleben's "Heerwesen und Infanteriedienst der Koniglich Preussischen Armee",10th Edition published in 1868 states unequivocally that the ammunition issued to the Prussian artillery at that time included shells (Granaten), incendiary rounds (Brandgranaten) and cannister (Kartatschen) with no mention of shrapnel.
Then there's this, and it is from the single most qualified source on the Prussian artillery of 1866. On p. 242 of volume II of "Aus Meinem Leben", Prinz Kraft zu Hohenlohe - Ingelfingen describes how he is en route to Kostelitz and on the way finds a bare hill that provides a good view of the Neu-Rognitz, Burkersdorf and Rudersdorf (Soor) action. The situation is difficult to interpret since it appears that the 'wrong' side is facing the 'wrong' way. He is viewing the action through an excellent naval telescope that allows him to see individual 'atoms', (soldiers). As an artillerist of course he pays close attention to the shellbursts. Suddenly he realizes that the shells from one side are all bursting on impact with the ground. Shells from the other side are not only bursting upon impact but also in the air.
"Suddenly I was struck by another circumstance. In the troops on the right, all of the enemy's shells burst on the ground. In the troops on the left, some burst on the ground, but one also sees explosions in the air. Now I knew that the Austrians had shells that exploded on impact but also shrapnel with Brennzundern (burning fuze) that explode in the air. We however, at that time, only had such shells that exploded on impact, therefore on the ground. Those troops over which the enemy shells were exploding must therefore be Prussian. How though, could a Prussian force be there on the left with their backs toward Austria, the Austrians on the right with their backs toward Prussia? In any case, the observation of the artillery made it clear that I saw advancing Prussians and retreating Austrians."
Was Reilly correct in his conclusions, did the Prussians, perhaps for political reasons or simple hubris, lead him to believe that their weapon system was more advanced than it really was ?
Hi Cam,
I have sent you a link to Hohenlohe-inglefingen's letters. Together with a summary of what Reilly says. I do not believe Reilly is duped by the Prussians, there is far too much detail contained, and his writings clearly indicate he is aware of the problems. To summarise my e mail for the board, Shrapnel is, as you would expect, available and used by the 12pdr Smoothbores. The 4pdr rifled guns, the most numerous, and the guns with the highest number of rounds fired per gun, did not carry shrapnel. The 6pdrs, did, but did not have a timed fuse for it, and 85-90% of the ammunition they expended was shell. It is possible they only resorted to the inefficient shrapnel when running short of shell in the limbers. According to Reilly, only 1,239 rounds of shrapnel were fired in total in the Bohemiam campaign, as opposed to some 28,980 rounds of shell and 173 rounds of canister/case.
Mollinary
I suggest that, when you get Volume 12, you remove pp 197-202 which is where the Reilly Memorandum is located as Appendix D, since it will clearly be upsetting to you. Perhaps we should have had a warning in the Introduction to the effect that this book contains descriptions which the faint-hearted may find distressing. We will consider this when we next venture into print.
Thanks for the link, I already have PKZHI's 'Letters on Artillery'. I'm still a bit sceptical. Shrapnel isn't shrapnel if it doesn't burst in the air, your suggestion of a percussion fuze is original but how would you envisage it working? MR states (I'm presuming the quotation was from him) that the 12pdr smoothbores had shrapnel fuses 'fixed for the single range of 2,000 paces' but on page 60 Inglefingen says the 3rd Horse Artillery battery equipped with 12pdr SB engaged the Austrian guns with shrapnel at 1000 paces, one of them is wrong and I wouldn't put money on it being the Prince. The weight of evidence, indeed all the evidence bar Capt MR, seems pretty categorical, there was no schrapnel round for the steel breech loaders.
You must, of course, come to your own conclusions. All I can say is that Lt Col Reilly was at the time, late 1866, writing an official report for the British War Office, specifically on the technical issues. He opens his remarks on the artillery with the sentence "The Prussian Field guns, ammunition, fuses, etc, are well known at Woolwich." So he does not appear to be writing for an audience unaware of the technical complexities. Beyond that, I am afraid I do not personally possess the expertise to engage in a technical discussion on fuses of the 1860s. I am seeking advice from someone who may.
The Prince, a highly respected officer, was, I believe, writing a number of years later, for a less technically accomplished audience and, in the case of Schweinschadel, about an action he admits to not being present at. I imagine both of these distinguished officers would be bemused, and possibly also a little amused, at our attempts to make sense of things they would have regarded as self evident!
Mollinary