"Limbers for Light Guns " Topic

Nice work!

Main page
quindiastudios.blogspot.com.ar

Amicalement
Armand

A steel tube with bronze rings? Really?

That horse collar is just a hot mess too.

The gun would be hitched to limber, not the poor horse.

Historygamer – I think your comments should be aimed at the blogger not Tango01.

Historygamer – The gun depicted in the picture is a galloper or grasshopper gun, typically seen in the 17th century, not the 18th. No limber involved. The barrel looks a bit long and heavy for this type of gun, but it is possible.

I think the AWI 3 pounder galloper or grasshopper gun used in the southern campaign was indeed a split trail that was harnessed very much like that. How the horse was expected to turn is puzzling.

Historygamer: Google Rostaing cannon

hystory gamer hello I also think your post is disturbing a bit; would you be able to show some of your works instead? there is a different way to post comments in my opinion, even if they are correct or not, which is avoid sarcasm , please just point them out couteously… Tango posts are inspiring and helpful in most cases and I appreciate them very much as most of us do…
Thank you and Best Regards

Samuraifreddy

It was common practice to move a galloper or butterfly gun in this fashion, and doesn't affect a horse's ability to turn at all (think of a two-wheel carriage or surrey). These guns are relatively light, weighing between 500-600 pounds.

The trail of the gun should be kept as low on the horse as possible. Although the trail could be directly connected to the collar, it would be much better to attach it to the backband, giving the horse a lower center of gravity and more freedom of movement.

These are Warfare Miniatures?

First off, this is the 18th century board, and the blog clearly says that his game is 17th century (King William III). So no, it's not an 18th century gun or topic.

Honestly, I don't even know where to start on that model. I am more than aware of light guns – I work with them at historical events around the country all the time. I have never, ever seen a light gun with a long tube, steel barrel, and copper fittings.

Here is a picture of a galloper gun –

link

Note the main means of moving them on the field is by hand, not by horse.

Note how short and light the iron barrel is on the real one and on the other models pictured.

The posted gun is not a galloper or butterfly gun with that long barrel, by definition.

If you go to the website of the gent who made it, one of the other models looks more realistic in the attachment to the horse/harness – than the one posted – which looks like someone is trying to choke that poor horse.

That model gun shows what appears to be mixed metal – which as far as I know, was not a period gun. It appears to have a steel (???) barrel and copper (???) on the bands. Can anyone can show me a period gun like that, as I'm open to learning new things.

Is it nicely painted? Sure. Is it historically correct? Willing to learn if someone can show me, as a model doesn't make it correct.

I have shown my figures on here many times. I game in 15mm AWI. My limbers and guns are separate pieces used for gaming. The one above is a diorama, so it would be an apples to watermelon comparison.

To see what a rig like that should look like, google "galloper gun" and hit images. Lots come up. None look like that. The arrangement on that model, if real, would lead one to call PETA as they seem to be trying to choke that poor horse to death. The gun is an entirely different matter.

link

Caveat – perhaps the trails on that model gun are just wedged there as the gun is removable to use in a game. I don't know. I just believe the way it is presented is wrong, as is that gun being passed off as a light gun drawn by a single horse in that arrangement.

link

link

link

link

18th Century Limbers
Light limber – for 1 horse/ox single file
Code Description Price Qty
EQ14 Light limber – for 1 horse/ox single file
link

To show only a few….

Amicalement
Armand

Tango,

I believe that you are missing the point of some of the discussion here. Your opening pic from Clarence's Quindia site shows a 17th century Galloper, not a limber. Your first link in your post above also shows a Galloper, no limber involved. Your other links as well as the larger pic posted clearly show 17th/18th century limbers, whether single-horse or not.

Here's the issue: You started this discussion with a pic from Clarence showing a 17th century piece, then titled said post""Limbers for Light Guns " Topic", then posted this discussion in the 18th Century Gallery. Even if you don't read Clarence's actual copy, any one familiar with the period in which Clarence games, or with the "Williamite" era would recognize the uniform of the crew member as being a 17th Century uniform.

First of all… the thread was not posted with the intention of a "discussion"… only to enjoyed it or not…

Second… I copy the original tittle… if you don't like it you don't agree with it… it's your problem… contact the owner of the site and complain there….

Third… I put the thread here and tried to crossport to "Reinnaisance"… but because of the bug or other reasons that I don't know… I cannot did that… what a big problem!!…

I have not read Clarence… and probabley never did… this is a Toy/Miniature fórum and I have showed here some pics about them that I liked a lot… simple like that…

Armand

Unless the Editor locks it, I would imagine all threads are open for discussion. That's what makes them interesting; otherwise there is not much point.

Of course, such discussion should always be polite and civil.

So, Tango should be drawn and quartered because he posted a picture of a late 17th Century cannon on an 18th Century board?

Much ado about nothing it seems.

Surely anything posted on a discussion forum has the potential to be discussed, as by very nature invites discussion. Non? If it isn't to be discussed surely it is an advert, or worse could be considered spam?

Tango, Clarence is the author of the blog from where you lifted the pictures, not a historical text.

As a galloper gun it is very inaccurate, but anyone who has taken the trouble to read Clarence's blog would know, these are items made up from his 'bits box'.

I don't think the basic models themselves came from a bits box. Scroll down to the third photo in the link below. If the model is not accurate, it appears it the sculptor is at fault.

link

Ah, TMP…

I really try to stay away from here, specifically because of threads like these, but three people have reached out to inform me of the discussion, so I eventually had to drop in.

Let's start with the constructive bit, even though it was offered with sarcasm and pedantry. Observations about the material of the gun are absolutely right. I've got guns for the ECW, AWI, and Napoleonic periods, all painted in one color, so why I chose to pimp these is beyond me. It's the kind of thing that will bug me too, now that I'm conscious of it, and I'll probably paint out the trim when I've got a slow hobby day. Sincere thanks for that.

As to the rest, lots of examples provided show maybe people aren't familiar with my period.

There's no such thing as a grasshopper gun or a light gun or field gun or any other regimented division of artillery in the late part of the 17th century. They were falcons, and minions, and sakers, and… well, lots more. There was little standardization in my period – a saker might fire balls as light as 4 1/2 pounds up to 7 1/2 pounds and trying to model this on the tabletop results in the abstract application of ‘Field Guns' for such weapons. The term ‘Light Gun' in this instance is a game term and meant to differentiate between the smaller ‘grasshopper' or Small Caliber (in BLB) and Field Guns. The guns depicted above would be minions, average 3 1/2 pounders, with barrels around 7 feet long, so I don't see the problem there.

There also wasn't a standardization of carriages yet. You might find a small saker with either type. The smaller guns normally had split trails and these were indeed harnessed directly to horses. There also wasn't a dedicated artillery train. Often local farmers or merchants were hired to transport the guns to the battlefield and were then withdrawn from the lines, meaning if you lost your position, you probably lost your guns too. I can't speak to the horse collar as I didn't sculpt the model, but Warfare isn't the only range to offer horses in this style – check out the Perry Napoleonic artillery trains. I don't have a reference as it's hard enough to find out what the soldiers wore in this period, let alone the horses, but I'm willing to bet the sculptor didn't simply invent them. Again these horses may have been pulling plows the day before the battle…

The position IS too high, but as I pointed out in the blog, the guns aren't attached. It was either balance them where they sat comfortably or leave the trails on the ground, which probably would have sparked a different outrage. I have a two-horse team with a true limber at a proper angle, but that was only possible because it IS glued down. There are also no traces of any kind on the models and the chap leading the one horse must be using the Force because he doesn't have a rope in his hand. Never mind the fact that he's in the uniform of Drogheda's Regiment of Foot which was nowhere near the location of my scenario, possibly not even raised in early 1689, and what I mentioned above about civilian drovers. Don't get me started on the number of buttons on his coat.

This IS a gaming piece, simply meant to mark a gun being drawn down the road (not around the battlefield as one comment suggests above, which would indeed be done by manhandling), rather than just turn the gun around backwards or place a ‘limbered' counter as I've seen at other tables. It's flattering you've decided it's a diorama so should somehow be held to a higher standard than your toys. If we met at a show or a club and exchanged experiences and information, I doubt the encounter would be unpleasant, so I'm not sure why the internet brings out this sort of behavior. I welcome discussions and questions about my work, but at the end of the day, they are toy soldiers.

Thanks, again for pointing out the two-tone guns and thanks, Tango, for feeling these were worth sharing…

A votre service mon ami… thanks for your good guidance about the theme and congrats for the good work … again!. (smile)

When I mention "discussion" was not pointing a civil or technicall one… I pointed to a "personal" discussion as give names to a fellow member… or as you said… using sarcasm and pedantry…

Amicalement
Armand

And within this pedant's tea party you can find all of the reasons why people
Forsake these Boards
Never post anything
Get a particular impression about our hobby

Clarence, there are Talkers, Do-ers and Critics. You are the second. Don't know anything about many others on this thread.

Can i add this to my Famous Wargamer Fueds thread?