"Artillery metal fittings paint color" Topic

So like many, I have been painting the iron/steel parts of my RA artillery black. But some recent photos of repro artillery made me question that. The repro stuff was painted a darker shade of grey, and the iron, except for the wheel rims, where painted grey as well.

So it made me look at the Morier paintings of RA artillery:

link

So they kind of look grey as well. Then I looked at some of Troiani's stuff, which seems mixed – grey and black.

Then I looked at Peale's portrait of Washington:

Seems like some black paint there. Then I looked at the Warley Camp series

link

Hard to say for sure. Clearly the wheels are, but not sure about the rest of the fittings.

I'm told that the past curator of Fort Ligonier had all their artillery repainted darker and painted the iron parts grey after having a closer look at the Morier paintings in person:

link

Here is the response from one the men who helped recreate that train of artillery:

I wish I could give you a quick answer. I posted a question about carriage paint years ago on the artillerist Yahoo page and got no response. I have been taught by the smiths at CW that hardware on house and buildings was normally painted the same the wood. I posed this question to the contractor and the then director of Fort Ligonier when we first did the guns. Then he gets a closer look at the Morier paintings, so they decide to go with changing to a darker shade of grey and the iron the same color as the wood. If you look at the painting with Congreve, you will get a different idea, also a later. So this is the theory that the contractor came up with: "getting the guns ready for a campaign, they wanted to get another coat of paint on the carriages to help protect them, so they didn't take the time to paint the iron a different color, ie. black. When in garrison and the artillerist have time, then paint the iron black." While this goes against the norm of what civilians did on architectural hardware, might be a good theory. Also might be substantiated for later periods, ie. Rev War. The model of a grasshopper that is in the RA museum definitely has its iron painted black. The original 5.5" howitzer they have also have on a full size field carriage, no paint on the replacement wood or ironwork. The other question could be thrown out, did they even bother to paint the iron. It will obviously wear off the streaks on the wheels very quickly once being rolled around, especially on campaign. Wrought iron naturally resists the weather, did they simply oil it? That will darken it and preserve it for a campaign. Most field & traveling carriages were not built to last forever, instead they were frequently built for a particular campaign. If they were shipping them overseas, would the paint differently? So the arguments can run in circles until someone sees things in writing. Our supposed experts have not answered this question with any written documents, or at least they have shared them in a place I have seen. Nor would I rely on a painting to be the definitive answer for all, especially in different time periods.

Thoughts/information on the topic?

Even today in modern armies there are variations in the way things are done, especially when spread around the world on operations. In the 18th and 19th Century this would certainly be the case writ large. Yes, officially British artillery were meant to be with blue-grey woodwork and black metal fittings. That there would be variations comes as no surprise. The logic expounded above makes perfect sense. Soldiers on campaign, maybe thousands of miles from home would do the most practical thing while maybe paying lip service to the spirit of the regulations.

All grey ordnance of different hues is not unlikely. Paint was to protect the equipment. In the field, the 'look' was secondary.

My only comment on the well known Warley Camp series is that they need to be taken with a pinch of salt. There is a great deal of 'artist's licence' here, not just regarding colours but also the lay out of the troops themselves (e.g. a lot of the guns are in shadow making them darker).

Yes, officially British artillery were meant to be with blue-grey woodwork……

Noooo – very much a wargamerism, I'm afraid. Very light grey – almost white in harsh sunlight – with no hint of blue at all; the mix was white lead oxide and lamp black (see Carl Franklin's "British Napoleonic Field Artillery" for the exact proportions, which dated from the 1760s at least) although I expect they varied somewhat around the world, as you suggest. Look at the Fort Ligonier link and see how the appearance gets lighter as you get closer. Or here's a British gun carriage (bottom right) at Saratoga Park:-

link

Artilleryman:

You said, "Yes, officially British artillery were meant to be with blue-grey woodwork and black metal fittings."

Can you support that statement, as I'd sure like to see that.

"…while maybe paying lip service to the spirit of the regulations"

Can you provide what regulations you are talking about?

"My only comment on the well known Warley Camp series is that they need to be taken with a pinch of salt. There is a great deal of 'artist's licence' here, not just regarding colours but also the lay out of the troops …"

Can you expand on this statement? What is wrong with the painting? I know the artist spend a lot of time sketching model soldiers before he painted the work, likely did a lot of research too. I am curious what you think is wrong with it?

The past director of Fort Ligonier had his artillery park painted a darker shade of grey after seeing the Morier painting in person. He had the iron work painted too. I realize that was 1758 he was representing.

I'll see if I can find some links to the guns used recently in a film shoot.

Here are photos of the guns at Yorktown (with iron painted black)

link

It does make one question why they would bother painting the metal fittings black, especially once mounted on the gun carriage.

In reply:

I am probably guilty of habit by calling the colour blue-grey. It is certainly a light hue. The decription is my own from when trying to explain to an Army QM what colour paint we wanted to touch up a cannon on display.

I am away from my sources abroad at the moment, but painting grey with black metal fittings is mentioned a few times in a number of sources as being the regulation. The accounts of the Master General of the Ordnance in the 18th Century talk about the application of white lead which would come out light grey apparently. Metal parts would be protected against rust with black lead (I believe) hence the colour scheme. The regulations, were original direction from the Board of Ordnance which would then be continued by usage and tradition. And practicalities aside, it looks smart.)

Once in the field it would be easier just to paint everything grey which has a logic, hence the 'lip service'

As to the Warley Camp series, the artist emphasises the play of light and shade and is really concerned with an artistic effect. Colour therefore depends on position and the representation of that light and shade e.g a light grey gun in shadow looks like a dark grey gun. Also if you look at the terrain, its style is very much that of late 18th Century landscape painters rather than a truly accurate depiction. Most obviously, elevation tends to be emphasised.

As to the soldiers and ordnance; again stylisation is important. The overall effect is good and the individual ldiers and guns are probably accurate, but some details jar such as the lines being far too straight and the artillery pieces being deployed far too close to the infantry and thus inhibiting both elements operation.

So all in all, my comments are based on previous experience and information collected even when I cannot remember from exactly where. However, it is a useful exercise when someone calls you on something and you have to consider 'Now why do I believe that?' or 'Where did I pick that up? Thanks for the prod Deadhead.

I've seen some people paint their minis a rather gaudy shade of blue-grey, thus why I asked. I'm not as up on artillery stuff, so again, why I asked – and wondered about such things. I did find the Morier paintings interested once I started looking closer at them.

It would be interesting if anyone had any orderly books or diaries of artillerists from the AWI period.

Very light grey – almost white in harsh sunlight – with no hint of blue at all; the mix was white lead oxide and lamp black (see Carl Franklin's "British Napoleonic Field Artillery" for the exact proportions, which dated from the 1760s at least)

Are you referring to the section on 'Color of Artillery Equipment' on pages 36 and 38 of Franklin's book?

Not sure if this will help at all.
I also fell into the wargaming trap of painting my Indian artillery a nice shade of blueish grey and yes it looks nice on the gaming table. Luckily I'm somewhat of a careful painter so I mixed very little blue into the mix. If anyone ever asks me I'll say it's the reflections of the sky that gave a bluish tinge.* grin*
But the metal work is definitely black. Obviously most guns found in a museum are often? repainted to keep them in a pristine state.
But when I asked about the colours of the seat paddings on British artillery I got several pictures of those (ranging from off white to nearly dark brown with use) But most showed the metalwork also to a degree. On a brown ( ie unpainted) gun the railings around the seats were brass (I would have thought iron and was proven wrong once again) and on most grey ones they were black. But one picture showed a distinctive GREEN tinge to the black. No explanation for this except that perhaps different kinds of paint were used in the field? Then again why would you coat brass with lead paint? It doesn't help much against corrosion does it?

I've been guilty of doing a more blue-grey on some of my guns, probably because of an earlier and unwarranted assumption that what worked for the Napoleonic period would work for AWI.

My more recent British guns are lighter grey with black fittings, but I think I may just paint some all over light grey with a black wash/drybrushing to bring out details.

Great stuff.

Are you referring to the section on 'Color of Artillery Equipment' on pages 36 and 38 of Franklin's book?

Yes, although the extrapolation backwards to the mid-18th C is mine, drawn from various sources. Whilst they are unlikely to be original, all the "restored" British gun carriages I have seen at AWI battlefields have been very light grey, similar to the colour plates in Franklin's book. As a former gunner, what are your views on this?

I have been using Ceramcoat Rain Grey lately to paint British artillery for the NWF. It is grey but has sort of a light bluish tint to it depending on the lighting.

The gatling gun being carried by the elephant is painted in the rain grey color by Ceramcoat.

Both gun and elephant are grey. How wold you describe them?

Colors are hard to describe unless you can reference an object of that same color or have a sample. I converted the picture to a black and white so that the bluishness of the rain grey of the gun is not so prevalent.

The pictures of the artillery at Saratoga are lighter because they've been in the sun for years of exposure. I would wager that wasn't the original color of the gun carriages.

Black is definite for the iron work.

There is a period 5.5-inch gun carriage at West Point with howitzer which is a solid light to medium gray carriage. It belongs to the West Point Museum and they are quite good historians.

I would think that the shades of gray would vary depending on the available paint, especially away from the arsenals in Britain.

I'm surprised that they painted the gun barrels (and steel wheel hoops) at all, wouldn't the paint get burned off from the heat and chip from the explosion of firing?

Simple oiled steel resists the weather pretty well.

Usually, iron barrels were painted, bronze/brass barrels were not.

Lion:

To your question about the iron tube – not really. There would be usual wear and tear, but the paint was put on to protect against rust. How do I know this? I ran a re-enactment unit for a couple years that owned both an iron and bronze gun and we did maintenance on them.

All the AWI and Napoleonic era British field artillery that I have seen at the RA museum in Woolwich, and at reputable museums / displays (e.g. Cowpens and Guilford Court House) are grey woodwork, black metal fittings, and unpainted barrels.

Regarding the barrels, the re-enactor artillery company that demonstrates at Shiloh has two pieces that were actually used in the battle. They are both brass. I was surprised to see them highly polished. The group's lead historian told me that gun crews were expected to keep brass or bronze tubes polished, although of course the bronze wouldn't be bright. Even though it was purely cosmetic, it was considered a sign of sloppy maintenance if they were not immaculately polished. Iron barrels were painted (black) and BTW had to be re-painted after any action in which they were fired more than a few times as the heat damaged or even removed the paint.

Wow – is that a 32-pdr?

No, it's actually a 4-pdr; we've just re-painted it a lot…