"Russian Army Gun Carriage Green" Topic

Wandering around the web, I observe that the green color of Russian gun carriages varies widely in its interpretation by artists and wargamers. I've seen turquoise, verdigris, sea green, grass green, forest green, olive green, light, medium and dark. If this can be taken to mean that there is nothing definitive to go by, then I guess it would be reasonable for me to go back to basics and mix some yellow ochre and a little black. Any thoughts?

I like a forest green with a black wash over it

I suppose the reality of marching guns all the way from the frozen wastes of the Motherland into the heart of central Europe would leave the poor old cannon in a pretty variable state.

Mud, rust and stains over a crackled mildew green would probably be as accurate as you can get.

I like to take a romantic view of Russian artillery for my Russkies – given the religous sanctity they placed on their guns, and the fact that the barrels were made from melted down church bells "voluntarily donated" to the army in many regions.

So in deference to a romantised view of history – I go for a dark green, black stain, and gloss varnish for the Russian gun carraiges. The gun barrels for the Russians, I try and leave in a highly polished state with minimal sooting on the barrel.

The gunners can be tattered and filthy, but the guns should be spotlessly clean.

On that note, the odd Orthodox Priest carrying a Sacred Ikon could likely be present in the average massed Russian battery I think. Possibly a clean shaven civilian Dandy named Pierre – "Fresh from Moscow, just paying visit" might work as well.

Wasn't the colour described by contemporaries as Apple Green?

Just to confuse the issue further!!!! :o)

I always see listed as Apple-Green, but to me that is lighter and brighter than what everyone including me makes it.

Yes I have been going for apple green in the past, but the almost Khaki Mustard yellow shown in the sequences of the 'War and Peace' film make me wonder…

As for them being in a battered state, no, I suspect that paint and grease would have been applied to any damage at the end of a day's march before anyone even thought about putting a kettle on….Much as today I imagine…

That said I have a lot to do in a little time, to catch the Borodino Bicenntennial in a month, so Army Painter Green it is! BTW having spent last night assembling Perry 6 Pounders – they are gorgeous!

As far as I know, the copper-based pigment used from the time of Tsar Paul through 1815 gave the rather bright "apple-green" color, and that this might tend toward a less bright, "dusty" and less glossy look over time. The darker green, with more blue and less yellow, dates from shortly after 1815.

Apple green is correct. Osprey gives some nice images in Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars.

The Foundry Russian Gun apple green is good enough for me.
link
No mixing or mucking around.

It might be reasonable to use the Search button instead, but of course that requires a degree of self-reliance and wit frowned upon in these parts.

The Russians didn't have their own word for "apple green" so no one called it that. The best we can do is look at museum displays and it seems a mid green more yellow than blue is about right.

Turquoisy blue-green is interesting.

If you want a really in-your-face shade of Apple green, have a look at Vallejo Park Green (70969) . great shade for fantasy figures, might work OK on Russian guns as well maybe, depending on the look you are after.

Its certainly different.

Foundry's got it right: link

Cant link the dang photo by itself though …

Seroga is completely correct. As the original poster lives in North America, let's use a 'local' reference point: utility poles, such as those used for mounting and carrying electricity and telephone cables; specifically, those treated with chromated copper arsenates (or 'green salt') wood preservative. Depending upon age, there can be some variation in the intensity and brightness of the 'green', but that would be the overall effect to strive for, as this traditional treatment was used on most Russian artillery, wagons, and train equipment.

"The Foundry Russian Gun apple green is good enough for me."

yes, looks fine, £8.00 GBP a go though!!!! Ouch!

"The Russians didn't have their own word for "apple green"

How about зеленое яблоко (zelenoye yabloko)?

:o)

I thought the Foundry "Russian Gun Apple Green" colour was close:

Well, as touched on above it was a a mix of natural pigments and would probably have been applied by the crews so it is unlikely that two would have been the same. There are surviving examples but it is unlikely that they still have the original paint…
I tend to go with a a dark dull green to differentiate from French guns.

"How about зеленое яблоко?"

Well, that's more like "green apple", or even "un-ripe apple".
The spelling is, to be more precise than is needed, зелёное – with the umlaut thingy included.

One could try :
цвет зелёного яблока / tsvet zelënogo yabloka / color of a green apple

One would like to have something like яблокейский (sic) – which would not be really a Russian word, but might perhaps be understood as an intentional malformation similar to "apple-ish". Similarly, someone might get the idea correctly from яблок-зелёный цвет (sic).

I tried both of these on my wife – and she was at first puzzled and then started a scandal about my poor education.

Really, Russians don't have much in the way of a word for "apple green"

:-)

Greystreak,

I agree, that color looks fine to me, for a new/clean look.

I think you really nailed the whole half-company. Nothing leaps out at me as "off" – nothing, zero, zilch! Very impressive.

Also, I think you painted the miniatures "better than they were cast" in terms of detail and a life-like look. Again, very impressive.

Отлично!

Looking at the Foundry colors linked above, I think mixing in a little of the "Light" version in proportion to the degree of aging will work for that "gun we dragged back from Poland all the way past Moscow and then forward all the way to Paris" …. nice color research, it appears.

You can't beat English for words, a long time ago I read there is litteraly over 1 million words. There is around 43,000 in French

Great painting by Greystreak – but the guns seem to very small – did the Russian use toy guns in the Napoleonic Wars ;-)??

The Russians mainly used 4 foot 6 inch wheels and these look to be barely 3 foot. Still to finish my book on Russian Ordnance. The M1805 illustrations are done. Still troubled by the Tsar Paul as lacking good plans.
Stephen

The 6-lber cannon and 1/4-pud unicorn should have the 4 (Russian) foot diamter wheels (120 cm). But, the larger 4-1/2 foot ones from the 12-lbers and 1/2-pud unicorns could be fitted if needed/available.
The Russian gunners were picked for size, and Russians were generally taller than French (actaully because, it appears, fewer lived in cities or towns – congested living being linked to reduced growth). They might average in the 170-175 cm range.
So, maybe it is not so far off in the miniatures we are seeing. Hard to tell from the angle we are seeing.

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

The following is a bit "technical" and partly in Russian, but if it can help Dr. Summerfield ….

These drawings were done recently (I think for Eureka miniatures) in Australia :

In essence, these drawings were based Smirnov's "Arakcheyev Artillery", but appear to incorporate a series of backdatings that were listed as changes from the guns of the Emperor Paul to the designs obr. 1805, as described in a dissertation by Jurkevich :
"Началось с улучшения конструкции лафетов и передков. «Лафеты оставлены прежней конструкции, но значительно облегчены в оковках; прежние передковые ящики уменьшены значительно на легких передках, а на батарей­ных сделаны такие, что в них, в случае надобности, могло помещаться не бо­лее 4-х зарядов; вместе с тем приспособлены небольшие ящики между лафет­ными станинами 12-фунт, пушки меньшой пропорции, 6-фунт, пушки и 1/4-пуд. Единорога конных, с тою целию, чтобы класть туда некоторую принад­лежность, а при необходимости даже четыре или пять картечных зарядов.
От сих перемен оказалось возможным 1/2пуд. единороги и 12-фунт. пуш­ки сред, пропорции возить на 6 лошадях вместо прелших 8».
Обращает на себя внимание и некоторое изменение конструкции подъ­емного клина. Громоздкий S-образный стопор рукоятки клина заменен миниатюрной собачкой с задержкой, препятствующей собачке произвольно опускаться на зубчатое колесико клина.
Были усовершенствованы и колеса. В 1803 г. в полевой артиллерии было принято два типа колес: боевое для батарейных орудий и боевое для легких орудий, всех передков и зарядных ящиков. Конструкция колес была значи­тельно упрощена, что коснулось оковок и шин."

See also PDF link

Mikhail Presnukhin is working on what might be a substantial new addition to the available material on this topic.
His comment on the Australian plans :
"перечислять все ошибки нет смысла, они не только в деталях, но даже в конструкции и форме лафета."

Other comments:
"Сразу вопрос по стволам , в казенной части все ещё были гербы и прочая литейная мишура , ящики на лафетах появились после 1805 года , серьги на колесах были одной и той-же формы . Гнёзда под правило и оковка хоботовой подушки всё-таки характерной формы и не изменялись радикально еще очень долго. Клиновой механизм выглядет немного иначе чем на картинках."

Краткое обозрение состояния артиллерии с 1793 по 1848 год. СПб 1853 год. (До этого публиковалась по частям в Артжурнале)
С. 235. (6) От инспектора артиллерии Челищева к Аркадию Ивановичу Нелидову, 12 апреля 1798 г. № 819 «Сколько где состоит осадной, полевой, конной и полковой артиллерии и на сколько комплектов при ней снарядов, также пороху и свинцу, а равным образом и на сколько где при батальонах находится лошадей для полевой артиллерии, имею честь препроводить при сем ведомость … При чем уведомить честь имею, что в баталионах по новому положению ни обоза, ни фур зарядных к орудиям еще не приуготовлено, и потому на случай нужды лошади к орудиям назначены по положению прежнему».
В полевой артиллерии
Единорогов ½ пуд. 173
Пушек 12 ф. прежней констр. 173
Пушек 12 ф. н. к. средн. проп. 65 (в Петербурге и Москве)
Пушек 12 ф. н. к. меньш. проп. 63 (в Петербурге и Москве)
Пушек 6 фунт. 163
В конной артиллерии (в Петербурге)
Единорогов ¼ пуд. 35
Пушек 6 фунт. 23
В полковой артиллерии
Единорогов ¼ пуд. 105
Единорогов 8 фунт. 156
Единорогов 3 фунт. 16
Пушек 6 фунт. 12
Пушек 3 фунт. 233

в РГВИА:
- о британских орудиях, которые были нам даны взамен потерянных в Голландии, и которые мы увезли в Россию
- о трофейных орудиях, которыми заменяли в Италии потерянные при Бассиньяно и выбывшие из строя из-за износа лафетов, эти же орудия со всеми принадлежностями и обозом также были доставлены в Россию
- о потерях матчасти в Италии и Швейцарии
- о временном прикомандировании российским частям австрийских орудий
- о получении армией Суворова перед альпийским походом пьемонтских горных орудий и прикомандировании пьемонтских же артиллеристов
- о материальной части Донской конной артиллерии – в сети есть моя статья в интерпретации "Родины" "Бог войны на Дону"
- о матчасти роты конной артиллерии Игнатьева в Италии

Преснухин Михаил Александрович

link

Dear Seroga
I supplied these to John Chadderton of Eureka Minatures and his colleague Paul Caspall on the understanding that they would not be published. They were work in progress as we have only the side elevations from a German source.

They will be part of my forthcoming book on Russian Artillery and the plans were commissioned by me and not Eureka. As you realise I am unhappy that they have been posted.

Although comments in a language that I can understand would be helpful.
Stephen

Shall I ask the Editor to delete the links from here ?

I did not host the images, I found them on a Russian forum, from someone asking for comments to assist Eureka. You were credited, among others, as working with or being used as a source for Eureka.

For the comments ….

In genreal, the drawings do correctly reflect the several differences noted by Yurkevich, and are a good start.

Mikhail Aleksandrovich was the most negative when saying something like why bother with details when the shape of the carraige is wrong. But, he is perhaps over-critical, and not without conflict of interest.

The other comments were ….
- Pavel's artillery barrels were usually cast with the arms and other decorations
- boxes on the carraiges was obr. 1805 addition
- the "серьги" lit. "earrings", here the metal fitments on the side of the wheels were all the same shape
- the shape of the place where you would use the lever(s) or handspike(s) to move the piece seems off (the comment was a little obscure, I think the idea is that it is shown not enough similar to obr. 1805, that there was a metal pillow there …. but [my comment] the obr. 1805 version was a moving target, and even subject to field and depot modifications!)
- the wedge lifting mechanism doen't appear really correct

I think these comments were based on looking at museum example(s) in Petersburg, not a set of period drawings – raising the question of the provenance and typicality of the example(s).

The remainder of the Russian stuff is a list of inventory of the (mostly) modernized "M1796" pieces as of 12 April 1798 (O.S.), followed by a list of "oddities" or non-standard pieces described in various archive documents found by Mikhail Aleksandrovich, which he will be includig in his book.

May I say, without offense, that these Russian researchers can be rather touchy, and at times even nationalistic – quick to critique and dismiss the work of foreigners?

Just to add some details:

Copper seems to have been in abundant supply in Russia considering the amount of it you see on uniform equipment from an early period [pre-SYW]

There are some caveats to the apple green:

1. Green, basically the copper-based or the cruder yellow-ochre mixed with charcoal, were fairly unstable colors under prolonged exposure to sunlight. If you've ever seen a flag with green and or blue and red left out, you will notice that the blue and especially the green will fade much faster.

2. Paint had to be mixed when needed. There was no storing it for future use in most cases. Artillerists in all armies had formulas for mixing paint for the gun carriages etc. That means two things: The first is that all mixtures were not equal, shades varied, and second, materials were used that were at hand, which meant on campaign, if the ingredients for 'Apple Green' wasn't available, the yellow-ochre/charcoal version which is a much darker olive green would be used.[More often by the French.]

3. Color discriptions varied two hundred years ago and there weren't as many colors to chose from. "Pink" for instance, was a red after the flower of the same name. The color "Apple Green" is a construct of what old gun carriages look like, paintings of the period, and of course the formulas. The problem is that gun carriage colors like green age badly, and actually darken when not exposed to the sun, as does the green in oil paintings. And of course, the linseed oil or other oils used as a base darken with age also. And unevenly…

Which is to say, uniformity in color probably didn't exist to the degree it does today, particularly with green, and a variety of shades, lighter or darker could be considered 'apple green.'

Bill

Are the ones marked "Norman Swales" really yours, Dr. Summerfield ?
As I look again, these so-named for Mr, Swales seem to have drawn more comments on the details than the others (examples: the "earrings" on the wheels, the pillow where the levers go).
I, for one, think yours are quite fine.

Dear Seroga
I have been working on the book with Norman Swales for the last 4 years attempting to understand the Russian Ordnance. The examples in St Petersburg of "Tsar Paul" ordnance are not period and have been put together from parts. The few models pre-dating 1805 are from the 1780s and not Tsar Paul.

We have a problem that seems to have confused people.

- Seven Years War Ordnance of

- c1780 the Russians started to modernise their ordinance and introduced the Richsmaschine from the Prussian M1768 System.

- Gatchina Ordnance was design by Arakcheev (1792-1795)

- M1796/1797 Tsar Paul Artillery

Now from the information from the files you have directed me to does not include that for the 3-pdr Battalion Gun and the 8-pdr Unicorn. So these were not part of the Tsar Paul system? Dated to the 1780s changes.

Thank you for your assistance. We have a great deal of difficulty getting answers from Russia.

Stephen

Also, we have a great deal of difficulty getting answers in Russia!
:-)

The pieces from the posted 1798 list полковой артиллерии /regimental artillery have 8-pder and 3-pder unicorns. I think these could be considered "in" the system of Emperor Paul, the 3-pder unicorn technically lasting into the first years of the system of Graf Arkcheev. The 8-pdr unicorn seems to have been quite similar to the 1/4-pud unicorn (see Nilus), and so might have had a lower priority for replacement until 1803/1805.

Would these be newly cast? Not likely, but I think they were considered as accepted under the newer штат / establishment of 1796/1798. The 8-pders would be interim pending completion of the 1/4-pud unicorns.

The 3-pder cannons would be also be older tubes, interim awaiting 6-pounders. These would have been a higher priority for replacement than the 8-pder unicorns.

The 3-pdr unicorns would be for the jäger …. and only a few of these seem to have been on hand, which interests me as I have longwonder ed how much these were used by the jâger.

The listed "Пушек 12 ф. прежней констр." is 12-lber cannons of the "old construction" or "prior model", assumedly the ca. 1780's types.

New "Euler" carraiges for any of the older tubes could have been made up in the artillery companies – or even the better infantry regiments – by the noncombatant master woodworkers and metalworkers.

I generally agree about the museum examples, hence my prior caveat about the comments based on them.

By the way, I think Mr. Swales captures the so-called "apple green" of a typically used in-service piece rather nicely – which was the original question.

Dr. Summerfield,
I assume that you asked Steven H. "Sensei" Smith which drawings or other period information were available for the artillery of Emperor Paul ?
Mr. Smith raked the archives pretty carefully (during the Soviet years!) for this kind of thing, and would share the "best" he had or knew about, I am sure.
If someone else came up with a previously-lost "something" that was much better, such as a set of engineering drawings, then they would have said so by now, and likely published them in Russia.
And that has not happened, not at all.

Well with nothing else the cats out of the bag as far as the drawings go. But the apple green color is what I'm after too. Now do I as I did with my entire Prussian ordinance and re-paint them to a more correct color or change to lighter shade for new carriages?

Dr. summerfield,

These are likely well-trodden paths for you , but ….

For vintage 1780's artillery there is the Petersburg Museum of Artillery, Engineering and Signals.
Архив Военно-исторического музея артиллерии, инженерных войск и войск связи – Ф. 57. – Оп. 1. – Д. 17. – Л. 2, 11.

There was the book of designs ca. 1792 by Euler "Собрание чертежей артиллерийских орудиев по пропорции, ныне употребляемой, уменьшенные противу натуральных в 14-ю долю", and likley other of his papers in the personal collection of Prince Lvov in Ratch's day. I believe that the Prince, his family and his collection are all no longer in this world.

The likley best set of drawings for the obr. 1796 system was made as schoolwork in the 2nd Cadet Corps in 1801, in Captain Efimov-2's class on artillery design. Drawn from life, they will begin to show the changes that were included in the proposals of 1802/3 and the approved system obr. 1805.
Отдел рукописей Российской национальной библиотеки – Фонд Эрмитажного собрания № 139. – Л. 44-45, 72-73, 81-82.
nlr.ru/coll/manuscript

The papers of Bazin Aleksey Osipovich / Базин Алексей Осипович (1743-1816) might have something – and I have never seen them published.
They were at the Rumyantsev Museum in General Ratch's day. And if nobody ate them or used them for rolling smokes during the siège, might still be around in Petr. or maybe moved to the State Library in Moscow.
link

For the obr. 1805, I can actually help. Here is the Atlas of the drawings, in lovely detail.
PDF link
PDF link

@Seroga

"The likley best set of drawings for the obr. 1796 system was made as schoolwork in the 2nd Cadet Corps in 1801, in Captain Efimov-2's class on artillery design. Drawn from life, they will begin to show the changes that were included in the proposals of 1802/3 and the approved system obr. 1805.
Îòäåë ðóêîïèñåé Ðîññèéñêîé íàöèîíàëüíîé áèáëèîòåêè – Ôîíä Ýðìèòàæíîãî ñîáðàíèÿ ¹ 139. – Ë. 44-45, 72-73, 81-82.
nlr.ru/coll/manuscript"

How to find this? Is it available digitalized?

Thank you Seroga

You have been of great assistance.
Stephen

@von Winterfeldt
It was in a footnote to Yurkevich's dissertation (or a similar one). I have never seen the manuscript drawings. But, this (and the Euler designs of 1792) are the closest to "official 1796" drawings that I have found in any citation, so I made a note of the location in the manuscript collection. Not digitized as far as I know, or woul dhave given a link!
The manuscript collection located just off Nevskiy Prospekt in Petersburg. One could call them, and I would imagine some will speak German or English. There is also an email contact on the page I linked.

Some of the images poste by Seroga have been removed at the request of Eureka Miniatures on behalf of the owners (Stephen Summerfield and Norman Swayles).

Dear Mr. Editor,

Those were not "Seroga's" images.
I found them on the internet – without restrictions, on a public website, without any copyright indication, not even in Russian language. I provided only links to where I found them. It appeared, where I found them, that an authorized representative of Eureka was putting them for public comment, and was not in any way asserting any intellectual property right in the images.
I did not copy the images, download them, host them, share them or anything similar.
When it was mentioned that the images perhaps should not be have been put online, I offered to request to you that my links be removed. See my prior posts.
Please, I do not want your post to leave the impression that I provided materials that, even notionally, infringed on anyone's intellectual property rights.
Thank you.

Hi Seroga

The plans were posted on the Russian forum (in Russian language) you found them by a colleague assisting Eureka with their research. He was unaware that this was inappropriate.

I asked Bill to remove the images on behalf of their owners, Stephen Summerfield and Norman Swayles, as it is my responsibility to do so. I would have contacted you beforehand to let you know what was happening, but there appears to be no way to privately contact you.

You are entirely innocent in all of this.

Please accept my apologies.

Thanks, Paul – or – "Bol'shoe spasibo"!
:-)

I am "new" here, and did not want to get an undeserved bad reputation.

There was no need to contact me – nor apologize for anything. I was volunteering to contact the Editor myself, if Dr. Summerfield wanted this.

I think your firm would do these in 28mm, yes? If so, I can't see that anything would look "off" if you relied on Dr. Summerfield's and Mr. Swayles' drawings. They looked really good to me, although I am no expert of course.

Yes, 28mm.

Alas there are a number of details we are struggling to get to the bottom of. The Tsar Paul I period is a niche within a niche! Trust us to pick it! ;)

Thanks for your understanding. (A pity we can't contact you privately though; you'd be quite an asset!)

Cheers.

Dear Seroga
Thank you for your comments and observations as this has resolved many of the problems arising from attempting to draw the Tsar Paul System.

Your links have confirmed the existance of the M1780 system where the Richtsmaschine was introduced from the Prussian M1768 System. These guns were used in parallel to those of the Tsar Paul System introduced c1797.

This plus the guns produced for Gatchina in the 1790s complicate small number of illustrations that have been available to us and the few extent guns cast from 1797-1801.

It is hoped that we are able to come up with as near as possible version of the M1780, Tsar Paul and M1805 system.

Alas my Russian is very poor being able to deal with the technical aspects.

Thanks for your input and comments. I am starting to understand and the view of Russian Ordnance in the west will hopefully be better appreciated. Remember that Peter the Great collected together the most influential minds in St Petersberg at the start of the C18th. The introduction of the Unicorn took over 50 years for the rest of Europe to realise that short howitzers were poor weapons for accuracy.

The other side is the various time that British (and particularly Scottish) Engineers were employed to improve the Russian Arms making. This can be seen with the evolution of designs especially when looking at the iron ordnance.

Comments and corrections are always welcome.
Thanks
Stephen

History repeats itself… :0
TMP link

You can't beat English for words, a long time ago I read there are literally over 1 million words. There is around 43,000 in French.

Of course, of those 1 million words, over 940,500 of them are obscene Liverpudlian and Glaswegian slang words that are absolutely unintelligible to any normal outside listener.

Still doesn't beat the Russian profanity dialect ('Mat'?), where every single word is the equivalent of the English "F-bomb"…

I must learn that language, there are some people in serious need of appropriate weapons-grade vocabulary (when American militarese is inadequate, you know it's bad!)

Here's a modern interpretation of the color.

link

Just FYI:
verdigris was the pigment used for green paint by the Russians in the 18th and early 19th Centuries. Copper is a plentiful resource in Russia. It is one reason their brass metals had a higher than average concentration of copper.

It isn't surprising that they chose green as their military color. Until the 19th century, verdigris was the most vibrant green pigment available and was frequently used in painting. It was basically Copper oxide or a Copper resinate, the same thing that turns copper green.

Verdigris is lightfast in oil paint, as numerous examples of 15th century paintings show. However, its lightfastness and air resistance is very low on other materials like wood, particularly if unvarnished, varnish having a tendency to brown in sunlight.

Copper resinate, made from verdigris, is not lightfast, even in oil paint. In the presence of light and air, green copper resinate becomes a stable brown copper oxide.

This degradation is to blame for the brown or bronze color of grass or foliage in many old paintings, although not typically those of the "Flemish primitive" painters such as Jan van Eyck, who often used the normal, more expensive form of verdigris, copper oxide.

In addition, verdigris is a fickle pigment requiring special preparation of paint, careful layered application and immediate sealing with varnish to avoid rapid discoloration.

Verdigris has the curious property in oil painting that it is initially bluish-green, but turns a rich foliage green over the course of about a month. This green is stable on oil paintings.

Verdigris fell out of use by artists as more stable green pigments became available.