Tango01 | 13 Dec 2014 12:53 p.m. PST |
Here's a tutorial on modeling 15mm wheatfields for your wargames terrain collection
Main page link Amicalement Armand |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Dec 2014 1:30 p.m. PST |
Cheap and effective! Bookmarked for later. Thanks, Armand. |
Jcfrog | 13 Dec 2014 2:12 p.m. PST |
Nice; the pb with these: miniatures tend to look a bit airborne on it. it you cut it in small bits then it takes ages to set and pick up. |
Murphy | 13 Dec 2014 3:38 p.m. PST |
What is "Coir Matting" in the US? |
TiberiusAugustus | 13 Dec 2014 3:53 p.m. PST |
They are coir doormats. I found mine at Home Depot. |
Martin Rapier | 14 Dec 2014 2:40 a.m. PST |
Yes, they are just doormat. I have several hacked up lumps of doormat in my terrain box. |
deadhead | 14 Dec 2014 3:35 a.m. PST |
Grassing the edges is a great touch. Tried this a few times in 28mm. In every hardware store these mats just scream out "Wheatfield" but they are too dense and not tall enough for Napoleonic scenery in 28mm. 7ft high was par for the course back then, not like modern crops. Also have to remember THE Battle was fought in June. So my yellow/brown wheatfields and the apples on my orchard trees are "slightly" wrong. For wargames use very effective though. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 14 Dec 2014 4:26 a.m. PST |
I have some doormat awaiting some modelling – I like the edging too; very simple but effective. |
Tango01 | 14 Dec 2014 1:02 p.m. PST |
Glad you enjoyed it boys!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
deadhead | 14 Dec 2014 1:12 p.m. PST |
Great to hear from Michael Collins though. I was sure they had shot him in his own county. How he then orbited the moon I have never understood…..mind out with the cutting. It is murder to slice. One slip and a finger is gone! |
PKay Inc | 14 Dec 2014 8:50 p.m. PST |
"7ft high was par for the course back then, not like modern crops. " I've never seen 7 foot high wheat. |
deadhead | 15 Dec 2014 3:53 a.m. PST |
You would have back then. Remember the scientific work that has gone into producing more efficient modern crops. It is variously termed "Rye" "Grass" "Corn" etc in contemporary accounts but, esp at QB it was a major risk factor in reducing visibility. Pre-Industrial revolution it grew two metres easily….a waste of course for the farmer. Confusingly, what in US is called a "Cornfield" (and there are plenty of those still at Waterloo) UK farmers call maize. It is animal feed only. A US style cornfield is impenetrable without a machete and hard work. |
Mike the Analyst | 15 Dec 2014 6:47 a.m. PST |
True that shorter stems mean less waste today but in the era the longer stem straw was needed for thatching |
Dynaman8789 | 15 Dec 2014 7:19 a.m. PST |
> A US style cornfield is impenetrable without a machete and hard work. As kids I used to play in my Uncle's cornfield, it was think but certainly not needing a machete. I imagine it would cause problems for formed troops though. |
Redcoat 55 | 15 Dec 2014 7:24 a.m. PST |
I cut mine in sections to allow units into it. There are extra small sections that allow a piece to be removed, a unit inserted, and then an extra piece put in to fill in most of the field. If the pieces take into account your standard unit size when deployed in line it is not as putzy as it sounds. To keep a field from moving I place them on a bare field base. |
deadhead | 15 Dec 2014 12:28 p.m. PST |
Thatching…..yes! Nothing goes to waste. I had imagined just straw for bedding. Did the Netherlands go in for thatching much though? I know SOME use in 1815, but most pantiled or slate roof. I can only say that, last time at Waterloo, last year, I was with my two (then) 18 year old sons (built like brick out houses) and we faced a field of maize (Corn, to the rebel colonies), just west of LaBellAll and the three of us realised we could not even make an impression on it (let alone what the Belgian farmer might have said) Wheat (for bread) is a thin stalk with a fluffy bit on the end. Rye, Grass (for animal feed) etc is even thinner and fluffy on the end. Maize (corn) (which in Northern Europe is not fit for BBQs, but for animal feed) is a chunky thing with leaves coming off its stem right to the top. You do not walk through that, just flattening it as you go. |
138SquadronRAF | 15 Dec 2014 12:44 p.m. PST |
I've never seen 7 foot high wheat. That's because grain has changed over the past couple of hundred years. Duffy in his works on the 7YW several times mentions the height of the ancient style wheat grown in Bohemia. |
1968billsfan | 16 Dec 2014 4:54 a.m. PST |
American cornfields WERE quite penetrable up until about the 1930's when the type of powered equipment changed. There is a discussion and references about this in TMP at TMP link "More than you ever want to read about ACW cornfields" |
1968billsfan | 16 Dec 2014 6:56 a.m. PST |
Wheat is a grass. It was not 7 foot high and isn't now. Old varieties of grain are still well known an include spelt, einkorn emmor and durum wheat (all about waist high at best) and other grains were oats, barley, rye, and the pseudo cerials amarth, and buckwheat. Grain sorgham and proso millet were uncommon crops but even they grow to only 3-4 foot in height. I can not find any reference to a 7' high wheat. Maybe a corn (maize) or sunflower but they were for either much warmer climates or much colder, short season climates……. If you known of and can document 7 foot high wheat (or other grain), please document it. I think there is some incorrect information out there. |
deadhead | 16 Dec 2014 7:16 a.m. PST |
The terminology can be confusing but I consulted my neighbouring North Yorkshire farmer. What "corn" is depends on date and location. The term seemed to be used for any grassy thing with a tufty bit on the top. US cornfields I understand to be thick chunky leafy green stems…..growing something that you can barbeque and eat with butter on. In Northern Europe the climate does not allow that, you get maize for feed for your critters. The fields of this at Waterloo are (today anyway) all but impenetrable on foot. Like bamboo jungle……….. Wheat, rye etc (impressed by the list offered by 1968billsfan!) is now bred for efficiency and, so rapid growth with short stems and little waste. Countless references to Waterloo (in truth more at QBras where it proved a far greater issue) say whatever was growing was over the men's heads. Was this not just before modern "supercrops"?…….. The other possibility is that we are indeed totally wrong and the concealment was due more to relatively minor dips and ridges with waist high crops. |
1968billsfan | 16 Dec 2014 7:26 a.m. PST |
link Gives the length of typical wheats from the perspective of thaching use in England. So for 15mm figures fully ripe wheat would come to the belt or top of the stomach at the very highest- on poorer land or during the growing, it would be much shorter. I can't see standing men, disappearing in a wheat field unless the wheat at the top of a hill or ridge was to block a view. Maybe a hats-off, sitting solder could be somewhat hidden on a level field, maybe such soldiers laying on the ground in a hollow within a field would be hard to see. |
devilinthedetails | 16 Dec 2014 7:53 a.m. PST |
I suppose this could be a particularly short soldier :-P
|
Mike the Analyst | 16 Dec 2014 8:09 a.m. PST |
Reed bed straw can grow to quite a height link This tends to be more in wetland areas. Not sure how much of the QB area would be suitable for this. |
matthewgreen | 16 Dec 2014 8:28 a.m. PST |
The contemporary evidence from people there at QB is unequivocal about the height of the crops, and their descriptions could be quite detailed. They usually (or often anywat) referred to it as "rye". This detail goes as far as lancers planting a lance to give the location of units that would otherwise be unseen. On a number of occasions units bumped into each other by accident. The evidence is overwhelming I'm not sure how to reconcile that very knowledgeable references by 1968billsfan – but clearly times have changed. |
deadhead | 16 Dec 2014 8:59 a.m. PST |
You have to admit…he does seem to know what he is talking about and he concedes cultivation has altered growth patterns.Just not that much. We are always reminded how recollections can be unreliable and tales get passed down. Robinson in The Battle of QB 1815 even has a chapter called "A field of rye as tall as our grenadiers". Adkin (p155) quotes 42nd Highlanders "stalks of rye up to our bonnets" and shows a photo of archaic crops (but without any scale to judge). Clayton's new book on Waterloo (not finished it yet but highly impressed) talks p218 of Halkett's Brigade pushing through rye "of an extraordinary height, some of it measuring seven feet". I have to admit, if it really did grow to that height, how could it stand up to Belgian rain and winds? We may never know, other than saying it did seriously impede visibility. |
Marc the plastics fan | 16 Dec 2014 10:01 a.m. PST |
|
deadhead | 16 Dec 2014 10:09 a.m. PST |
PC demands we call them achondroplastics…..not midgets. like Eskimo and Innuit…..even that is I gather a daft distinction. Quite funny actually, the plastics bit! |
Tango01 | 16 Dec 2014 10:45 a.m. PST |
Well, average of tall people on that Era was quite different than now. Even Napoleon is considered a man of short stature according to today requirements, but it wasn't on those days. Amicalement Armand |
deadhead | 16 Dec 2014 11:30 a.m. PST |
Oh what a good point…….the folk were shorter (well established that is) not that the crops grew higher (much doubt now). It takes someone to do the lateral thinking! |
1968billsfan | 16 Dec 2014 12:47 p.m. PST |
devilinthedetails 16 Dec 2014 6:53 a.m. PSTI suppose this could be a particularly short soldier :-P Perhaps, but notice that the camera shot was taken from about the height of the soldier's waist. The tallest stocks seem to be about 5' just at his shoulder. Do you have more information about what the picture is of? |
1968billsfan | 16 Dec 2014 1:11 p.m. PST |
Cultivation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ryes, which are planted and begin to grow in autumn. In spring, the plants develop and produce their crop.[5] Fall planted rye shows fast growth. By the summer solstice plants reach their maximum height, of about a 120 cm (4 ft) while spring planted wheat has only recently germinated. Vigorous growth suppresses even the most noxious weed competitors, and rye can be grown without application of herbicides. Rye is a common, unwanted invader of winter wheat fields. If allowed to grow and mature, it may cause substantially reduced prices (docking) for harvested wheat.[7]
|
1968billsfan | 16 Dec 2014 1:19 p.m. PST |
link Click through a couple of pictures. There is a bit of conflicting information out there. While some say rye is a 4-5' crop when harvested, some others who talk about raising rye for a specialty straw for race horses talk about well fertalized rye reaching 7'. Seems like 5-6' tall rye, capable of hiding soldiers is sensible. Rye is grown primarily in Eastern, Central and Northern Europe. The main rye belt stretches from northern Germany through Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Latvia into central and northern Russia. A 1900 map shows the general areas that rye is grown. Note that rye is lower yielding than wheat, less valuable to make bread and store, but will grow in poorer soils with less care and a shorter growing season. It might be good to think about how the crop types might affect military strategies…..see link |
Lion in the Stars | 16 Dec 2014 2:41 p.m. PST |
The tallgrass prairie will certainly get ~7 feet tall. And modern cornfields are easy to enter if you go with the rows. It's just crossing the rows that is tough. Older US planting style would really make a tough mess, though. Mound planting of corn with pole beans and squash makes for an absolutely impenetrable mess. |
1968billsfan | 17 Dec 2014 12:28 a.m. PST |
Lion in the Stars Actually not really. There are sorta three eras in growing corn in fields. The earliest colonial methods did follow the Indian method of mixed corn/bean/squash. This worked for small fields and small areas of cultivation. It was not the method for bigger fields nor during the ca. 1800-1920 periods. Then farmers generally used a horse drawn cultivator to control weeds and pile dirt onto the corn base, rather than hand hoe weeding. They worked in two directions and there was not the barrier effect of a solid wall of corn(maize)stalks with a narrow aisle. If you could cultivate and get a horse through, it was not a problem for someone on foot, although you could get misdirected and lost. Modern practice is for dense plants in one direction and no-till with herbicide control of weeds. See for more discussion and references: TMP link "More than you ever want to read about ACW cornfields"
|
devilinthedetails | 17 Dec 2014 3:10 a.m. PST |
@1968billsfan link It also appears that the soldier is walking along the furrow, a foot either side could affect the peceived hight of the crop by a similar amount… |
1968billsfan | 17 Dec 2014 10:00 a.m. PST |
Dear Devil.et.al. (by the way, there is another picture of a standing Brit soldier in the rye field at link The rye is not up to his shoulder, so its about 5' tall) I am now willing to concede that rye fields could have 5'-6' or even 7' high plants, when fully ripe and that these could easily hide even standing soldiers. Rye has an interesting history PDF link in that it may not have been a deliberately nurtured and developed cereal but was a weed that got carried along with wheat culture, so it is a younger and less hybridized plant. A theory is that as wheat culture spread to colder and more marginal climate and land, that rye became the survivor grain from poor harvests. Eventually becoming a deliberately cropped grain of its own. In some regions, by local custom , a mixture of wheat and rye is grown, since the rye is more hardy and will yield at least something in bad years.…… A problem with grass-related grain plants is lodging, where a tall skinny plant gets knocked down by its weight or wind or rain. This makes it hard to harvest, and lowers yields. Also, people want to harvest the grain rather than the less valuable straw. Therefore the natural progress of selective breeding and landraces is for shorter plants- (especially in the last 50 years there has also been a lot of crossing with short stemmed Japanese rice and wheats.) So we might expect to see a progression to shorter plants over time- at present 3'-5' rye seems to be the common size. With some research, I did find a few suggestions of the shorting of rye during historical times. S. R. Roux et.al. (Plant Breeding and Seed Science 48 22 (2003)https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/publication/combining-ability-vs-population-performance-of-genetic-resources-in-rye compared the yield of 19 older landrace rye with adopted populations and their crosses and found that the older varieties had less grain yield but also were 9" taller. Unfortuately, no data on the height of the older varieties (but a chemical stunting was done on the samples to decrease the lodging). This suggests that rather than 4'-5' the older varieties might have been 5'-6'. ……Another source is an article on Waldstauden Roggen (Forest bush rye) at link which discusses an old rye ("Grossmutter des Roggens") primitive rye that might be self-perpetuating. Look at the picture in the article- the stuff is 7' tall. I suspect the older taller rye types have been fading away during the last 200 years by slow selection for better varieties. |
deadhead | 17 Dec 2014 1:05 p.m. PST |
I have only been involved in this forum for about two years, but I can never, ever, recall an occasion where someone has produced such authoritative evidence to support his case, researched further and expressed a doubt and then, finally, produced high level evidence, contradicting what he said in the first place. Now that earns respect. This is academic integrity (seriously) I think your last posting is important for future researchers/writers. I wonder how accessible it will be. |
deadhead | 17 Dec 2014 1:06 p.m. PST |
timed out? What is that about? |
1968billsfan | 17 Dec 2014 2:01 p.m. PST |
Deadhead: Thank you for your kind comments. Most people who know me would say that now I am even arguing with myself. |
matthewgreen | 18 Dec 2014 8:23 a.m. PST |
But the process of arguing with yourself has added clarity to people who dip in and out like me. From now on rye means rye. Not wheat. Not corn. That's what those troops in 1815 were pushing through. Thanks for your contribution. |
deadhead | 18 Dec 2014 12:25 p.m. PST |
Talking to yourself is not a sign of madness. It is when you start arguing that you have a problem. I think 1968billsfan's contribution here has been really important, as clearly a true expert on horticulture, who has clarified something that is actually of some importance for 16th June 1815 anyway! |