|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 21, 2017 17:38:22 GMT
More excellent figures. Well done and keep up the good work!
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 20, 2017 16:11:20 GMT
I notice that Hannants (UK) are expecting the following re-stock:
8251 1808-12 French Chasseurs Action PSR link (hurray!)
Along with the arrival of the new French infantry set (hurray!).
But is apparently not expecting:
8219 1808-12 French Chasseurs (Marching)
8252 1808-12 French Chasseurs Command
Can HaT please say if we are to expect a re-release of these 2 sets any time soon?
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 20, 2017 14:05:10 GMT
good evening, so the next batch E29F is French Nap only. 8234 French Greatcoats 8294 1815 French Marching 8296 1805-1812 French Marching 8297 French command plus restocks Great! start saving money. Cheers. CPN
Now these are on their way, I have taken a closer look at 8294 1815 French Marching.
I notice that the elite company figures have both plumes and shako cords. Whilst plumes were officially re-introduced (and, of course, are easy to remove if that is one's preference), I understand that cords were not, and I think most of us are familiar with the coloured chevrons that were used instead, at least by grenadiers.
A good comparison is here:
That said, I have seen illustrations showing cords on elites wearing Bardin uniforms - there is one in an Osprey volume - but it seems to have been non-regulation, atypical and probably rare by 1815, so it seems an odd choice.
There appear to be 2 alternative heads with shakos on the test sprue, and they do not appear to have cords, so I imagine this is to allow the corded shakos to be replaced. If HaT can confirm what is included, that would assist planning.
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 19, 2017 12:52:11 GMT
Well put me down for some uhlans
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 16, 2017 21:45:56 GMT
My reading suggests that the 2nd Carabiniers had helmets, while the 1st and 3rd had not received these before Waterloo. I'm using the Osprey book as a secondary source. Beyond helmets, each regiment later received single breasted coats. At Waterloo all three regiments wore double-breasted coats. I chose to depict the 2nd Carabiniers with the plastron buttoned back to reveal the facing color. A source you may know is the Vinkhuijzen Collection housed at the NY Public Library, but available online here: digitalcollections.nypl.org/collections/the-vinkhuijzen-collection-of-military-uniforms#/?tab=navigationMany countries, many periods, but images for the Netherlands Armies can be found under Netherlands, Belgium and Holland, and 1815 or thereabouts using the side bar for navigation. The images are not necessarily primary sources, but they are pre-1910. Interestingly they have a set of plates showing the South Netherlands Chasseurs (the 5th and 10th South Netherlands Chasseurs which became the 35th and 36th Chasseur Battalions in the combined numbering of the Netherlands Army) with "belgic shakos", so these shakos are not a 1960s assumption as the Osprey author asserts, but probably date back to the 19th century. Whether they were ever issued is another matter, but this is how I will model them. My figure ratio (and hence ground scale) has gotten progressively lower. When I started the project, I had thought 1:40 or 50, and then 1:33 or 40, and now 1:20 or 25. I model in "ideal" squadron or battalion size, generally 6 figures per squadron. The Netherlands infantry battalions are mostly 24 figures, although the Nassauers are 36. My French infantry battalions are at 24, British mostly 32, although Guards and some Lights are at 48 figures, while KGL have 24. The Hanoverians will have 32-figure battalions. I like the look of "large" battalions in as close order as I can base them, just feels Napoleonic to me. Kay
Thank you, Kay. That is all very interesting and helpful. I will certainly follow up the references in relation to the Carabiniers.
I, too, tend to rationalise battalion size. I tend to concentrate on the figure numbers matching the numbers of troops in a brigade or division (fairly approximately), rather than try to depict the strength of each individual battalion to the nearest 20; I tend to use average battalion sizes.
As I mount on company bases, and I like the figures 2-deep, I find that I tend to standardise the battalion sizes in order to allow them to break down into companies of the same size and of even numbers. For instance, my Spanish battalions have 4 companies, so are either 24 or 32 figures, depending upon how strong the historic battalion was, so that each company is a 2-deep stand of 6 or 8 figures.
French Line battalions will be 24 or 36, based on 6 companies of 4 or 6 figures. In the mid-Napoleonic period, they will often be 36. For Waterloo, I suspect that historic battalion sizes will result in most being more conveniently 24.
The Old Guard at Waterloo, divided into 14 battalions, allows 4-company battalions of 32 as a convenient compromise.
Prussian battalions are 4-company units, conveniently resulting in battalions of 32 or 40.
The British pose the greatest difficulty here, with 10-company battalions. Many British battalions in the field were nearer 500-600 than the nominal 1,000, and I wondered about basing the flank companies separately, as two 2-deep 4-figure companies, with the centre companies based by division, i.e. four 2-deep 6-figure divisions, each representing 2 companies. The flank companies are disproportionately large, but this seemed the best compromise, and results in a total of 32 figures (your choice, I note), which is not a bad size for a typical British battalion at 1:20.
I entirely agree with you concerning the use of larger number of figures, reasonably closely ranked. I am told this is very much "the Grand Manner", and the implication seems to be that this is a rather old fashioned way of doing things, recalling Charles Grant, perhaps, but, for me too, this just feels more Napoleonic.
James
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 16, 2017 18:31:05 GMT
These are marvellous. I am particularly impressed with the way you have converted the Carabiniers.
What is the latest thinking on old versus new uniforms and who wore what?
What figure ratio do you use? I tend to end up with squadrons of around 5-6 figures based upon 1:20.
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 16, 2017 10:20:24 GMT
There are, I think, a very great number of figures already available that represent the local difficulty that flared up briefly in part of North America in the mid 1860s!
On the other hand, Austria was the most frequent and persistent enemy of Revolutionary and Napoleonic France over a period of some 20 years during which she probably committed more troops than any other Allied nation. A MAC infantry release with alternative head-gear opens up a good deal of the Napoleonic Wars to the 1/72nd gamer and complements the French and other Coalition releases HaT has already produced and which it is about to release.
It seems more logical to reinforce the excellent Imperial Napoleonic period releases, where HaT now dominates, than to embark upon what would be a new period for HaT (new save a single set of Zouaves), but which is one well-trodden by many others.
Not that I am against any release for any period, but I sense that HaT has a lot on its plate already and it seems to me that supporting the existing range with re-releases and making a limited number of additions that complement and fill gaps in existing ranges, probably has the best claim on its resources at present.
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 15, 2017 19:16:26 GMT
More excellent figures.
I certainly plan to field Mamelukes with the Chasseurs when I tackle Waterloo!
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 15, 2017 19:00:51 GMT
So no one thinks 8146 line infantry in greatcoats is worth restocking? A great set with early war greatcoats to accompany the upcoming late war greatcoats sets, I suspect most focus so on late war Napoleonics, but surely this set with its 96 figures should be made available again? A pefect set for anyone interested in battles like Austerlitz. I think you are quite right. This is a quality set, very useful, and just what is needed to tax those Austrians in helmets.
I have added them to my list!
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 14, 2017 17:51:20 GMT
HAT 8170 French Guard Chasseurs for restock please................ Agree. I'd love some sets. Plus, head swops with the forthcoming 1/72nd Elites in great-coats ("8234 French with greatcoats marching") would be on the cards.
So far, my pleas are for:
8170 French Guard Chasseurs PSR link 8219 1808-12 French Chasseurs (Marching) PSR link 8251 1808-12 French Chasseurs Action PSR link 8252 1808-12 French Chasseurs Command PSR link 8229 1805 French Artillery PSR link 8171 1805 French Elites PSR link 8146 1805 French Line Infantry in Greatcoats PSR link 8186 Peninsular British Infantry PSR link 8304 British Infantry Command PSR link 8147 Nassau Infantry PSR link 8174 Brunswick Cavalry PSR link
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 14, 2017 17:44:25 GMT
Well, this has prompted me to look at these rules.
I like the idea of the ADCs rules, to represent the friction of the chain of command. To me it seems that historically some Brigades are ready to leap into action and execute commands as soon as they are received, whereas others are, well, less ready! Good to reproduce this. The dependence on the number of Brigades allows for some distortions and the apparent removal of Divisional command is an odd consequence, but that might be something to modify on a house level. They look like a good set of rules allowing manageable games at Divisional level.
I am seriously considering a purchase of these rules.
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 14, 2017 17:37:21 GMT
Magnificent, indeed!
Once again the composition and presentation is compelling.
The detail is exquisite and the pictures certainly repay repeated viewings and careful study.
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 14, 2017 13:07:50 GMT
EDIT: I have just managed to "like" my own post! How sad!
Hot chicks like their own posts on facebook all the time. You're in good company.
Clearly, some of them are more internet savvy than I had imagined ...
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 14, 2017 10:07:35 GMT
That was an enjoyable read, for a number of reasons, so thanks for posting.
It is useful to learn something of this rule set.
The pictures reinforced my notion that 1/72nd is pretty much the ideal scale for Napoleonics, even if most of the wargaming world would disagree, much better than 28mm, however exquisite, crowded onto a base. I don't know, 1/72nd just looks right to me, always has.
I don't see too many photographs of large Napoleonic games using 1/72nd figures, and this is a particularly nice collection. Also, if I may say, the photographs are taken at a good angle and distance; there are a lot of aerial views and distance views of wargames that do not engage as well as these pictures do.
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 13, 2017 14:27:34 GMT
Well, since no one seems to know what he looked like or what he was wearing, good luck with that!
I gather that candidates on canvas are as follows, but, of course, neither artist met Ferdinand Schiess, and I believe there are no known portraits or photographs taken from life.
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 13, 2017 13:18:39 GMT
Thank you, that makes sense (and some very nice figures), but, of course, HaT merely create a pressing demand for 1808-1812 Fusiliers and Command in great-coats!!
So, if these are worth re-scaling to 1/72nd (despite being confined to "elites"), dare I ask, are not the British Peninsular Light and Heavy Cavalry sets worth re-scaling from 28mm?!?
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 13, 2017 13:08:43 GMT
What would be great is a rough estimate. Include caveats, disclaimers or fuller explanations.......but many of us plan projects and knowing it's possible it is 1-3 months or more likely 1-2 years helps. We aren't asking for a legally binding contract - but a good faith guesstimate so we can plan projects. Thanks I have learnt to buy on release, or, where I have missed out, promptly on re-release, in order not to miss out for good! This is not a fool-proof tactic; I missed out on the Napoleonic French Chasseur sets and have not seen them since. I also failed to buy 1806 Prussian cavalry, not realising that I would need them in the future for Spanish cavalry, but here HaT sent me all the sprues I wanted direct (thank you again, HaT).
The general rule, however, is buy what you think you'll need, because it may not be available just when you do want it, e.g. if I had not binged on Marching Prussians when they came out, I'd have nothing to brigade with the Landwehr when it arrives. That must be a gap of, what, 3 or 4 years?
Sometimes this means buying figures where there is not enough available for a given period/war/campaign, but I am happy to do so on the basis of what is announced, believing it likely that eventually there will be other stuff to go with it. All being well we will get more 1808-1812 French to fight the Spanish and the Brits, and, perhaps, some Austrians to open up a second front. All being well my decision to purchase 7YW Prussians will come good when 7YW Austrians are made. There are many such examples.
If sets in development are made, I am much less concerned with when. What mucks everything up is when an announced set is abandoned. For instance, from what I have heard, it is likely that I will live to see Bardin-uniformed marching French infantry, which is good, when I have lots of Prussian infantry stashed away and the Landwehr on order, and the arrival of the French will, finally, justify these purchases. Of course, the loss of the matching Command set is therefore a significant blow. The 'least-worse' alternative I have come up with is the mini-set produced by Zvezda, but the HaT set would have been better and much more cost effective.
Similarly, ambitions to tackle British involvement in the Peninsular have been spiked by the news that the Light and Heavy Cavalry will now failed to appear in 1/72nd scale, as announced.
So, I would put in a plea - re-issues support new sets, but re-visiting announced, but abandoned, sets is every bit as important as considering brand new sets.
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 13, 2017 9:34:12 GMT
We appear to be discussing this set:
It has always puzzled me slightly. So far as Line Infantry is concerned, the set appears to represent flank companies/elites only, though is not so labelled.
I would suggest that they may not prove a suitable basis for conversion to Revolutionary infantry; I believe that greatcoats were introduced from 1805.
As has been mentioned, for the period 1805-1807, there is a dedicated HaT set of great-coated infantry.
So what are these?
Well, if these 3 poses represent the entire set, they must be elites only, in Line Infantry terms, because they all have epaulettes.
Further, they wear both cross belts suggesting they carry a sabre (the hilt is visible on the left-hand figure), so post-1812, they could only be elite/flank companies.
I do not think they are suitable for later period elite companies, however, because they wear shako cords. In 1810 both shako cords and plumes were discontinued, though may have continued to be issued/worn until stocks were exhausted. From the 1812 Regulations (effective from1813), elite shakos were supposed to have braided chevrons in any case.
So, on the face of it, these figures would suit Line Infantry Grenadier and Voltigeur companies c.1807 to c.1810-12.
Even so, there are some possible oddities. These figures are wearing trousers over their gaiters, suggesting campaign dress, and greatcoats, suggesting cold, or foul, weather, but uncovered shakos and the cords and plumes that I am sure many soldiers would have wished to reserve for parade wear. I accept that these items could be worn in the field, so I daresay that this is a legitimate combination, but a shako cover would have hidden a multitude of sins.
Though hard to make out, the shako plate doesn't particularly suggest the lozenge plate typical of the Line Infantry in the mid-Napoleonic period. It seems possible that the picture shows an eagle plate. The later eagle-above-crescent plate introduced by the 1812 regulations would be inconsistent with the presence of cords, but there seem to have been plenty of eagle plates used by the Line, particularly earlier in the post 1806 period, though I think the lozenge or diamond shaped plate would have been more typical.
All in all the set has rather a "Young/Middle Guard" feel to it, e.g. Fusiliers-Grenadiers (in which case the great-coats would be blue). The combination of epaulettes and shako furniture, including the possible eagle-design plate, suggests this to me.
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 10, 2017 18:00:10 GMT
I am completely chilled on the matter of Landwehr hitting the old welcome mat; they will arrive when they arrive.
However, I do have the comfort of an email from HaT asking me to make my bonus choices (which I did), so I know that HaT knows who I am, where I am, and that I am expecting a package in due course.
So, I would say to Giovanni that if he has had an email on the subject of Landwehr, it seems pretty unlikely that he will not receive the figures in due course.
EDIT: I have just managed to "like" my own post! How sad!
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 10, 2017 17:54:22 GMT
Just to complement: Hat has already given us awesome prussian line infantry, envied by those playing other scales, and now we have landwehr infantry comming. They should continue concentrating on expanding their prussian range, with the addition of an updated prussian artillery kit (which the admin mentioned is on the works), landwehr cavalry and late cuirassiers. All stuff that is completely lacking in the market, from any manufaturer. Couldn't agree more.
The Prussian artillery set would bear revision. Perhaps this is an opportunity to consider how horse artillery might be added?
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 9, 2017 21:33:23 GMT
Dear Hat Adm, I'm one of the crowd funders of the Prussian Landwehr and I've already paied for 4 sets of them. I see that they are included in E29B as "awaiting shipping". I'm asking: shall I do anything else to receive them? Thanks Giovanni. I received an email, so, I assume mine will find their way to me in due course. Have you been contacted?
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 9, 2017 19:17:27 GMT
Brunswick Artillery has been mentioned on this site. I'd support that.
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 9, 2017 11:32:28 GMT
I, too, have no problem with the separate packs on the HaT Prussians, and neither did PSR: " All the figures have their pack, sabre and pouch as a separate piece which fixes to a peg on the back, which works very well and fits snugly without gluing for the most part...it generally improves the look of the figure a good deal too." This: " In theory just one pose is required for such a set – that of a man marching as per the regulations, but here we find four different ones. Basically these poses illustrate the change from standing to attention (‘Shoulder Arms’ or portez vos armes) to marching (‘Support Arms’ or l’arme au bras). Standing to attention involves supporting the musket on the left shoulder by holding it under the butt (pose one above). The soldier then takes the weight of his musket with his right hand (pose two), bends his left and places the lock of the musket in the crook of his arm (pose three), and finally withdraws his right hand (pose four). Therefore the last pose is the one seen when moving across a battlefield, on parade or just on guard duty. All the poses are fine, but we would have liked to have seen many more of pose four since this is the most useful one, yet all poses are present here in equal numbers. Also of note is that two of the poses have their right foot forward, and two the left, so they cannot all be placed in formation together anyway." is not from a review of a HaT set, as one might have supposed, but relates to Waterloo 1815's set 61, '1815 French Line Infantry Fusiliers Marching': link
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 8, 2017 13:28:59 GMT
Thanks for replying to the questions. I would love to see some of the above pictures come to fruition, and I'd be be more than happy to see it done piecemeal. Start with the basics of a British infantry set and a Continental infantry set and gradually work your way through to the more specific topics of artillery, cavalry, Hessians, irregulars etc. If you could get the sets to blend in with the difficult to get hold of Accurate infantry sets then I'm pretty sure you're on to a winner! HaT 7YW Prussians for the Hessians?
|
|
|
Post by Edwardian on Nov 8, 2017 13:26:32 GMT
I am interested in the 7 Years War generally, but I am most interested in the global imperial struggle between Britain and France and Spain, so I am equally interested in:
- British involvement in the Continental campaigns, e.g. Minden
- The Caribbean theatre, e.g. Havana
- French v. British in the Indian Subcontinent, e.g. Plassey
- French-Indian War
If someone would produce decent MAC sets of British and French infantry and artillery, literally a world of possibilities open up. Sourcing or converting troops for the "exotics", i.e. troops peculiar to each theatre, would be great fun, and some suitable figures are already available in that regard. There are good forest Indian figures for North America, for instance, and I daresay HaT or Revell 7YW Austrians would do well for the Spanish in the Caribbean.
I realise Redbox do some very nice British infantry, but they are no substitute for a MAC set. I would really love to see a plastic 1/72 set of French infantry (with no turnbacks) and artillery sets.
|
|