There's been a bit of a delay in photography and hence blog posting, owing to the monstrous heat here in recent times. Now that we are back to proper British summer weather, real rain and decent cloud cover, I can get on with those tasks that require both hot lighting and constant jigging about the place. As my last-but-one post on flexible tarmac roads sparked some interest, I thought I'd show you the unmetalled roads, "dirt roads" as the Americans say, which I made last year.
The era of battlefields covered in such roads lasted well into World War Two, at least outside western Europe, but in terms of wargames terrain I hadn't previously bothered with them, on the basis of being sceptical about any significant impact on battlefield movement speeds. Let's face it, they were rutted earth at best and deep mud at worst, so no easier for marching troops than the adjacent open fields of grass or crops. At a strategic or (ahem) operational level they did help because they led you roughly from one identifiable place to the next and they would pass through, around or over the obstacles you might find if you tried to go directly across country. But we found ourselves playing the Franco-Prussian War, where the battlefields were covered in roads and in the rules we were then using they had an impact. After one or two hopeless attempts to "suggest" the edges of roads with rocks and bushes, I thought it was time to try the approach that had worked for tarmac roads a few years earlier.
A good look at battlefield maps suggested something like forty-five feet of road would do the job, together with a smaller amount of cobbled roads, which I'll discuss another time. About half the total length comprised 12" sections, a quarter was shorter pieces (8", 6", 4" and 2"), the remainder being junctions and curves of various radii.
So these were strips of felt, broadly as described before. I decided on a width of some 48mm in all: just enough for the bases of most of our troops to march along them, without the board being covered in road. The edges of each section were cut in irregular waves, and I went so far as to chamfer the thickness of the felt at along the edges, using my scalpel in a diagonal chopping motion. This probably didn't make much difference to the final appearance, so feel free to omit it!
Unlike the tarmac roads, earthen ones obviously called for plenty of texture and at least a suggestion of ruts. After experimentation, I decided to do two strips of decorator's caulk, along which ruts were made with the handle of my scalpel. The space between them, and to either side was then covered in PVA and the whole surface piled high with sand and grit. When dry this was brushed off.
For painting the first coat was a pot of emulsion I had got mixed at the DIY store, a sort of camel colour. Over that went darker washes of different browns to get some colour variation. Then finally a couple of lighter drybrushes. I was aiming for a sort of camel colour, which is what historical paintings mostly show. Perhaps I got over-excited sloshing on my home-brewed washes (none of your Agrax Earthshade here!), because the final result was OK but a bit darker than I'd intended.
Finally, static grass was applied along most of the edges and in strips down the centre. I used fairly short fibres, because I needed them to stand up, but didn't want bases on the road to be "floating" too high in the air. The grass was drybrushed a yellow-green, which I always think improves it. I added patches of flowers and weeds, but somehow I don't think they benefitted the final appearance, so I wouldn't bother another time.
Thank you. Straight forward and mindful of the materials needed throughout the description. They look very good, which speaks to your eye for detail. Now I must look for your tarmac road article.
ReplyDeleteThanks, pancerni. The tarmac roads article is only two posts earlier, and perhaps you have found it by now. So far I haven't done tutorial articles as such, but in some cases there is sufficient information for the reader to try the same techniques. Several people have shown me how they've copied my style with buildings, which I take as a great compliment.
DeleteVery effective John. I tried something similar earlier this year on a test piece, but it ended up with too much pva and so was too stiff when dry. This seems a much better approach and I will do another test strip to see how I get on.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Steve. Yeah, you only need enough PVA to hold the texture on just about, so dilute it a bit. It's all going to get painted, so that will hold the piece together more firmly. What we are aiming for here is a road section that isn't "floppy" exactly (in the way of a latex road section), but that will accept and retain vertical bending, so as to got up or down a slope.
DeleteGood result. Personally, as someone who has done a lot of bushwalking and four-wheel driving, I find any path/road, even rudimentary ones are generally much faster to travel on than passing over open ground. Even perfectly flat, well maintained ground like a cricket oval is slower to walk across than a dirt/gravel path, in my experience. So I think they have use and tactical value from a wargames perspective, even if progress would be slower than on a metalled or paved road.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very simple but effective way of making realistic roads John....I may well copy it at some stage...thanks for the post!
ReplyDeleteThanks, fellers. Interesting comment, Kym. I honestly don't know if marching columns of troops would move any faster up a dirt road or across country. The regulation speed was quite slow compared to an individual walking. Both nineteenth century and WWII-era manuals advised officers to reckon on 4 kph, so about 2.5 mph, whereas an individual walking will go at 3-4 mph. Perhaps the truth is that movement along an unmetalled road would be a little faster, 10% maybe even 20%. But in rules terms is that enough to bother about?
ReplyDeleteThe key thing isn't the speed of individuals, it's the time it takes to reform the formation after negotiating obstacles. If you're pushing the pace already then the men will have to run to get back into position, so a road that's free of obstacles can make a real difference to your speed when moving large bodies of troops.
DeleteIncidentally this is also the reason why famously Napoleonic troops manoeuvred faster in column than in line.
There's a great rundown of the drill involved at https://rodwargaming.wordpress.com/miltary-historical-research/military-historical-research/obstacle-avoidance-drills/
Sorry Speedyfrenchy, Just noticed your comment here and the one below. The diagrams and explanation you link to are very good indeed. Personally, I was aware of the the broad methods used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to negotiate obstacles, but this gives documentary support. I don't think we are in any disagreement here. The speed of a unit varied with the width of its formation, had a random element to it, and would also be affected in practice by the level of training and experience of the unit concerned. Other things being equal, you would move a little faster along a (non-muddy) earth road than across country. But in wargames terms we generally don't want to bother throwing a dice and making a calculation every single time we move a unit, so we have to make decisions about what factors would likely have a *major* effect on speed.
DeleteI think, if the rules differentiate between marching and other movement, marching should be faster on any sort of graded road/path - then it can be up to scenario design to decide if the road in question is good enough to confer any benefit or if it is just a goat track used by local peasants.
ReplyDeleteAlso vehicles I think would be at risk of getting bogged off road but not on any rudimentary graded road, unless the scenario calls for a road reduced to impenetrable mud or similar.
The fact that roads and crossroads are so contested and important in all military campaigns speaks for itself.
But, troops moving tactically in combat will always be moving slower than a march so would get no benefit from being on a road over being on broken ground, in fact may be more visible on a road!
Sorry Kym, only noticed your comment just now. This word "graded" is very much an Americanism -we don't really use the term in English English, and don't have an equivalent word either. Talk about "separated by a common language"! As far as I can tell from a quick google what you call a "graded road" is one that was built by the macadam system, or at least has some sort of gravel surface. My later post about surfaced roads tries to summarise the history of this kind of road. They didn't exist until after the Napoleonic Wars, but in Europe they were scarce again by let's say WWII. Perhaps they are more of a thing still in other parts of the world, including the US?
Delete