Monday 25 April 2022

The Emperor's Cannon

I have just finished making this master model of a French 12-pounder for Michael Perry's Franco-Prussian War range. This one took over forty hours of intense concentration and that's not including the more leisurely time spent in research. I'm happy with the result, in terms of historical accuracy, detail and practicability for the wargamer who is the end customer. But I found this quite heavy going at times, and after the Prussian 6-pounder I have promised to do, I would need a lot of persuading to do any more artillery masters.

The model is built entirely from styrene, apart from the drag-brake chain. (What's that? See below.) I gather some people who build such masters use various modelling putties, and good luck to them, but that approach is outside my skill-set, so to speak. Using styrene strip and rod enables me to trim and sand each of the hundreds of pieces down to an accuracy of a fraction of a millimetre and they are easily assembled with liquid styrene cement. (The main sections of the barrel and trail assemblies are brass-rodded together for strength.) We end up with a master of seven parts in this case: the carriage, the barrel, two wheels, the trail-spike, the elevating screw and the brake chain. These parts are just pushed together here to show what the completed thing will look like

The downside of a styrene master for the manufacturer is that you can't put it into a vulcanising machine to make a production mould, because it won't stand the high temperature involved. So in intermediate stage is required:  The parts are first moulded in resin, which reproduces them very faithfully, and these resin parts will stand up to the heat of the vulcanising process. The customer ends up with a little kit of seven white metal parts to assemble with superglue, but it's obvious where everything goes and there are locating holes and pins on the parts for a positive fit. 

The historical gun is formally designated a "Piece de 12 rayee (rifled), Modele 1858", itself a conversion, by adding rifling on the La Hitte principle, of the smoothbore Model 1853 gun-howitzer. The latter had actually been designed by the Emperor Napoleon III himself, quite an artillery expert in his younger years, hence it was known as the "canon de l'Empereur". This was the state of the art when it came to field artillery in the 1850's: a "shell-gun" firing both solid cannonballs and spherical explosive shells. It was copied in the USA as the "12-pounder Napoleon" and served as the mainstay of Civil War artillery. Gun technology was moving forward very fast at this time however, and an officer called La Hitte devised a practical system of rifling that approximately doubled the range. The main field piece built on this principle was the newly-designed 4-pounder, a gun I modelled earlier. It was felt some heavier metal was required for the corps and army-level reserve artillery and so 1853 12-pounders were bored out to fill this role.

Whilst we're on 19th-century artillery-lore, they struggled a bit with terminology at this time. Traditionally guns were designated by the weight of solid iron cannonball they fired, so a 12-pounder fired a ball that actually weighed 12 pounds. The calibre corresponding to this size of shot was around 120mm, but that was first used to designate artillery pieces shortly after the Franco-Prussian War. Gunners were so familiar with the traditional labels that they kept them even when the guns actually started to fire projectiles of quite different weights. Firstly the spherical explosive shell with a timer fuse and then the "cylindro-conical", ie pointy shell with either a timed or "explode on impact" (if you're lucky) fuse. So the gun here fired a shell weighing something like 25 pounds, but it fitted the bore which had once accommodated 12-pound iron cannonballs. That's the real reason for these confused designations, though the water was, and still is, sometimes muddied by the argument that 25 pounds is "basically 12 kilogrammes". 

Finally, if your patience with artillery-lore isn't exhausted, I'll explain what the "drag-brake" or "drag shoe", the chain business on the side of 17th to19th artillery pieces is all about. It answers a problem that most of us wouldn't think of. When on the march, if the gun (or a wagon or whatever) is being towed down a sharply-sloped road, it rolls forward and can bang into and injure the nearest pair of horses in the team. So the drag shoe is deployed. It is a kind of skid or ski on the end of a retaining chain, which was fastened underneath one wheel to stop it revolving. You would think they'd need one on both wheels for this to work, but apparently not: the gun skidded and slid down the slope, moved by the tow horses rather than gravity, and at the bottom the drag shoe is hooked up again. This fitting isn't something you often see on a wargames model, and I had to think about how to make it in a way that will cast and can easily be assembled by the customer. But being pleased with the arcane knowledge of what the heck it's for (a secret now shared with you, dear reader), I couldn't resist making an effort to model it. So probably I shouldn't moan about how long it took, should I?







 

9 comments:

  1. One of my artillery modelers used some kind of white plastic material, brass rod, and green stuff. All of the pieces performed well in the vulcanizing process. I wish I knew what the plastic material was.

    Sorry to hear that you aren’t taking any commissions as I’d like to add that curious looking SYW Russian 3-pounder with the little coehorn mortars on the axle, adding to the Minden Miniatures range.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jim. I take that as a compliment, but I'm sorry, I'm really not taking any commissions these days. This project was a one-off. I wish I had the energy to work more hours and enjoy it, but I'm retired and the few hours a day that I like to spend on my own projects are about the right level for me.

      I always enjoy seeing your SYW-based activities. It was my big period for a good while in the 80's and 90's. I even wrote a couple of pieces for SYWA Journal back then!

      Delete
  2. The detail here is sublime....you obviously have a very steady hand and the patience of Job!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More the latter than the former, I'm afraid! A lot of bits come out wrong, and you just have to do them again, or maybe try a different approach till they come out right. I got there in the end, but as I say it wasn't enjoyable at times. But I regard it as something of an honour to be part of the Perrys project.

      Delete
  3. Superb work there John. This takes me back to many years ago when we still made stuff from styrene, ABS and Ureol. That's long since gone due to the advent of 3D printing. I did miss making stuff by hand, but for a business 3d printing was no brainer from a financial point of view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Steve. That sounds interesting. What field did you do that modelmaking/ business in? I agree the good parts of making a detailed model are satisfying, absorbing certainly. I have no clue how to make use of a 3D printer, and am a bit technophobic really, by modern standards.

      Delete
  4. Brilliant - very interesting to hear about the process (and about the drag chains!) and a superb final result.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That is wonderful and impressive sculpting John - no idea how you do it - I do hope that you are invoicing Michael on an hourly rate!! :-)
    Just a thought, but if this is for a metal casting, don't you only need to make one wheel - they can make a production mould from one master wheel??
    cheers
    Simon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Errm, that's a logical point about not needing to build two master wheels. It doesn't take half so long to make a second wheel the same, and it's stress-free, as you already have the technique and the dimensions worked out, but I suppose it would save a few hours work. I'm sure I must have thought this through at some point, surely it must have occurred to me, errm... I suppose the real answer is that I want to make a nice model that I can enjoy looking at, blogging and showing off to my pals, whereas a gun with one wheel would take 90% as long and wouldn't really be a nice model. That's quite an amateurish take on it really, but I'm not primarily making these artillery masters as a money-making exercise.

      Delete