Strelets Forum

Welcome to the Strelets Forum.
Please feel free to discuss any aspect of 1/72 scale plastic figures, not simply Strelets.
If you have any questions about our products then we will answer them here.

Strelets Forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Let those who have eyes see

Yevgen Chernov
I agree with Strelets. Just take an example Hat with their Austrians and British cavalry for Napoleonic period - Hat is those company who asks the customers their opinion, try to do the things historically correct, etc...

Take a look how much time are they taking to produce their last sets. I think it goes more than a year.

I am not old (34 years old) - but with this speed (1-2 years per set) I would get the new French firing musketeers when I will be 50-60. Take into account that we received already 5 sets of WSS range (Strelets started it at the end of 2019).

For sure all figures will have some failures. In general I am very happy with Strelets for their output and the speed they are producing them.

Please keep going!

Kind regards,

Yevgen
Yes Yergen, HaT make the point of saying that their production can take over twelve months from conception/design to marketing.
The main reason is that the science of plastic injection has some very strong demands on precision. Once HaT has committed to the extremely expensive die (thousands of dollars) they are stuck with it. To be viable the die has to last for a number of years and for hundreds of runs: Sets like "The Rocket Troop", first produced in 2002 are still in production today.
In fact all of their sets can have re-runs: Something not possible with Strelets copper moulds.
That in itself could be a good thing as it means that after a limited production, Strelets can have a subject re-sculpted with improvements. e.g Boer Infantry.

This Forum is for the input by fans and for the most part all of the contributors offer constructive criticism and interact with enthusiasm.

This is a fabulous site with exciting news and very knowledgeable participants.

Re: Let those who have eyes see

Strelets
Dear Graeme,

with all due respect, had we discussed all our would-be sets, we would have never finished any.
My comments weren't intended to tell Strelets what I think you should be doing, they were directed to the guys who found fault with the recent WSS infantry sets.

Some of those guys obviously have a sound knowledge of the period and I believe Strelets has shown an interest in expanding the range with cavalry, artillery and perhaps other nations. If any of the forum members know of good, accurate online sources for WSS cavalry and artillery why not post links now. If Strelets hasn't already started work on the sets the information might be useful.

Re: Let those who have eyes see

I'm bound to say that, having studied the Strelets 'defence' of the short barrel, I remain unconvinced for the reasons already given by others in response to it, so I'll not repeat them.

Both the illustrations I have seen of musketeers in the style of uniform depicted by these miniatures and the regulations of the period argue for longer barrels for matchlocks, consistent with contemporary flintlocks, and Master Kunz's illustrations show this perfectly.

My main concern is that, if this was intended as a WSS set, it's off piste anyway due to its obsolete weaponry, so, even if accurate, it would be limited to an early period and so not something I would have bought more than one or two sets of. As it is .... je regrette ...

Re: Let those who have eyes see

Lot of complaints, so i haven't read all at the end - just one comment of a historian:

To all which really are in anger about how little details in sets has gone – You should maybe know that history sometimes don't match with historical informations/introductions (especially when they're designed as short overviews), even if these infos aren't unacademic/willfully wrong.
Historians & Archeologists tend to generalize dates & versions of stuff to be able to write text in a way which is at least halfway readable.
Sometimes "knowledge" is "state of knowledge" even if it's about hats/caps/coats/whatever of newer times, cause even not each 18. century officer/historian/politician was really happy and in zeal about describing new clothing. That was "whatever-stuff for whatever-people".

Surviving of versions of stuff is the other problem. To make this comment funnier let's say e.g. a drum with a somehow different design isn't known to us for a special date, if a cannonball hit the few guys which had such a drum.

Also please moan about (maybe-)length-differences of 1mm just if you're able to sculpt & produce plastic figures in such a quality... (You might determine it's not that easy).

Re: Let those who have eyes see

Good point, let's not bother trying to be accurate.

Re: Let those who have eyes see

Edwardian
Good point, let's not bother trying to be accurate.
Well not bothering will be much, just proof the sources before complaining would be enough i think.
(the discussion went further, national usement of terminology became an argument - well, in this times the higher ranks in military has been made up from nobles and maybe-nobles from all over europe. Do they all have been in constraint to use the "national common" terminology?)

little add: relating to my first post: I trust more in the past than in my academic fellows:wink:

Re: Let those who have eyes see

Strelets is right about the lenght of the french rifle

The french army used muskets (firing with a wick) from around 1520 until around 1700, at the beginning the lenght of the french muskets barrel is 1,20 meters long and 20mm caliber, but after a period the barrel lenght became adjusted to 90mm long with a caliber of 18mm.
The French army used a lot of different model of Muskets with different lenght of barrel. Only the caliber is uniformised by a rule in 1666, not the lenght.


In 1717 is created a silex rifle to replace all the muskets, the caliber is 17,5mm, the lenght of the entire rifle is 1,59 meter, and from 1717 to 1777 there was 11 different model of this rifle !!! including change in the lenght with a shorter barrel to save weight.



https://www.musee-armee.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Support-Visite-Fiches-Objets/Fiches-Louis-XIV-Napo-Bonaparte/MA_fusil-1717.pdf

The Strelets set is perfectly accurate, this is not my favorite period but it's an interesting subject. give us more napoleonic set, not the one standing, but attacking !!!:wink:

Re: Let those who have eyes see

"Strelets is right about the lenght of the french rifle"

"The Strelets set is perfectly accurate"


Dear Sir, I've read the article for which you have provided the link. What do you mean by "rifle"?

The relevant section is:

"Sous le règne de Louis XIV, la
production des armes de guerre
portatives est confiée au directeur
général des magasins d’armes du roi,
Maximilien Titon (1621-1711). Directement sous les ordres de Louvois puis
des secrétaires d’État de la Guerre qui
lui succèdent, Titon fait fabriquer les
armes du roi par les manufactures de
Saint-Étienne, Charleville et Maubeuge.
Seul le calibre des armes fait l’objet
d’une réglementation en 1666."

First, in essence, this article is not about the musket but about the fusil. No discussion is needed as for the length of the fusil during the WSS period (one of which has been found at Quebec, dating to 1697-1716). It was "5 pieds", i.e. c. 160cm:

http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/bouchard_russel_aurore/fusils_de_tulle/figures/fig_p_036.html


In the article it is just mentioned that, under Louis XIV, just the calibre, not the length of the "armes de guerre portatives" or "armes du roi" (be they fusils or muskets) was officially regulated, in 1666. Logically, this makes the length of the Strelets WSS-muskets not "perfectly accurate". Also, we are no longer in 1666.

The Musée de l'Armée has several 17th century muskets (which were officially abolished in 1699, as already mentioned, so actually obsolete and rarely used during the WSS). Unfortunately, they have not been sufficiently documented online ( in terms of dates and dimensions).

I've already mentioned elsewhere what Bardin had to say about the length of the 17th century French musket (Dictionnaire de l'armée de terre, 1841, s.v. mousquet):

"Les mousquets d'infanterie du dix-septième siècle ne furent que de deux espèces, de rempart ou de campagne ou à serpentin; ... ceux de rempart avaient sept à huit pieds; ceux de campagne en avaient cinq, et servirent aussi dans l'origine aux dragons..."

As a matter of fact, no muskets from the WSS period seem to have survived and Jean Boudriot and Michel Pétard - who are (were, Boudriot has died recently) experts in the field of French "armes à feu" - do not deny this and explain very clearly in the introduction to "Les armes à feu des troupes de la marine" (s. here: http://pub33.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=2833323740&frmid=6&msgid=1070648&cmd=show) how they came to their conclusions regarding the muskets in use till c. 1700 (references to the regulations of 1674 and 1689 for the navy, "traité des armes" by Gaya -1678, mémoires d'artillerie by de St.-Rémy). As they do not explicitely mention the musket as a weapon in use after 1700, they apparently do not think that it was still in use (definitely not in quantity) during the WSS.

As for the length of the musket barrel in the 1680s, Boudriot and Pétard insist that it is still 120 cm:

"... à ce sujet, Seignelay écrit le 9 janvier 1684 au chevalier de Léry à Toulon: '... à l'égard des fusils, on ne s'en est point servi jusqu'au présent, la platine rouillant à la mer, et comme les ressorts se rompent et sont hors d'état de servir, c'est pour cette raison que l'on a éstimé que de bons mousquets valaient mieux.' Ledit mousquet de l'époque pèse de 3 à 3,5 kg avec un canon de 120 cm; et une baïonnette-bouchon en complément ..." (Marine Royale ..., p.81)

Boudriot and Pétard also include a representation of an illustrated document dated 1703-1705, i.e. early WSS era, which shows all firearms used on a French galley at this date. 100 fusils, and not a single matchlock musket, despite the fact that only a few years earlier, in 1684, muskets were deemed better for use at sea than fusils ... (p.265-267).

I'll try and see whether I can find more contemporary(!) information and muskets and, perhaps, you could do the same and let us know.

Re: Let those who have eyes see

Le Mousquet


Un mousquet (de l'italien moschetto) est une arme à feu portative à canon long, crosse d'épaule et platine à mèche.

Utilisé dans les armées jusque vers 1700, c'est le fusil à silex qui lui succéda. Toutefois, sous l'influence du mot anglais musket, ce nom est parfois employé actuellement pour désigner toutes les armes anciennes à poudre noire employées du 16ème au 17ème siècle, y compris les fusils à silex et les fusils rayés à capsule.

C'est l'ancêtre de notre fusil actuel. Le mousquet a été inventé pour pallier le manque de puissance des arquebuses. La longueur moyenne des canons des mousquets était de 1,20 m et les balles pouvaient avoir un calibre de plus de20 mm. Puis progressivement, les canons furent ramenés à environ 90 cm pour un calibre maximum de 18 mm.

C'était l'arme de prédilection des Anglais durant la guerre de sept jours et les guerres Napoléoniennes.

https://sites.google.com/site/gunsallweapons/1450---1700

the early muskets were 120 cm and the late Muskets (applying for the WSS conflict) were 90 cm, I can find such assertion in plenty of historical research in french language.

If I find something more I will post here.

From what I understand is that the length of the musket can virtually be anything because there was no regulation about the length, only about the caliber, in such period there was no mass product and not even factory, each model was hand made and you couldn't replace a part of a musket by taking the same one in another musket the size wasn't exactly the same, so the repair wasn't easy. France bought muskets from many different sources.

Re: Let those who have eyes see

Try again. :relaxed:

Re: Let those who have eyes see

Dans les premières années du XVIIème siècle, l’infanterie française se servait, sur les champs de bataille, de mousquets du calibre 200 à 22, et pour la défense des places de mousquets de 12 à 16. La cavalerie portait des arquebuses raccourcies, des pistolets et des carabines rayées, le tout à rouet ; mais ces dernières armes ne tardèrent pas à être remplacées par de petits mousquets à rouet, dit mousquetons, qui étaient plus faciles et plus prompts à charger, parce qu’ils ne réclamaient pas l’emploi du maillet.

http://www.odile-halbert.com/wordpress/?tag=mousquet

----------------------------------------------------------------

see the length of these 2 muskets of the same early period :

this one is 1,495 meter :
https://basedescollections.musee-armee.fr/ark:/66008/20180241



This one is 1,355 meter :
https://basedescollections.musee-armee.fr/ark:/66008/1001I


you won't find two muskets of the exact same size ! as I said it's hand made, no mold !

Re: Let those who have eyes see

ADM

You seem not to understand what this discussion is about. We are talking about French infantry (and dragoon) arms and French terminology. In French, a "mousquet" was always used to describe infantry type matchlocks. Infantry flintlocks, on the other hand, were called a "fusil" - and this was so from the late 17th throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries. Things are different in English and German. From the 18th century, the terms "musket" and "Muskete" respectively were used to describe not only matchlocks but, in a general sense, all infantry arms, i.e. flintlocks as well and, eventually, flintlocks alone (as matchlocks were no longer used).

Regarding cavalry weapons things are different again. Flintlocks only were used which in English and German were called "carbine" and "Karabiner" respectively. The French, on the other hand, appear to have used the term "carabine" only rarely and used the term "mousqueton" instead (why this was so is explained here, for example, in French: https://blackpowderonly.forumactif.org/t8183-carabine-fusil-mousqueton) .

So don't mix up "mousquet" and "mousqueton", and don't mix up "mousquet" and "musket". The link you provided does exactly this, for which reason it is worthless and contributes nothing to solve our problem. The same goes for the lengths given for infantry weapons there as they may refer to either matchlocks or flintlocks, of any time, and of any nation.

Your links to the Musée de l'Armée matchlocks are irrelevant as well, as the weapons shown there all date from the early 17th century and tell nothing about the length of the last matchlocks in service in the French army.

Re: Let those who have eyes see

I know what is mousquet, mousqueton, fusil and also their english counterpart, there's no confusion at all.
I'm just showing you that short infantry Mousquet (and also a version for the cavalry) existed during this period and you can see some of them here :

http://www.passionmilitaria.com/t17151-quelques-reconstitutions-d-armes-du-xvii-siecle

those are accurate copy from museum.


The need for a short musket was to save weight, the barrel of those weapons was thick and heavy, because the infantry had to walk on very long distance, and when the silex rifle appeared those infantry regiment still received short rifle and were designated light infantry because able to move faster and quickly. This french tradition started with the "mousquet" and lasted for a very long time.

The french short "Mousquet" suplanted the long one in infantry regiment before it was replaced by silex rifle (so it was the case for the war of spanish succession). can you prove it's not right ? you have to accept reality even if it hurt what you've learnt.:wink:

Re: Let those who have eyes see

Dear ADM,

"premier quart de XVIIe" and "debut XVIIe" in your link means 1600-25 and not 1700 and after.
It´s eventually misunderstanding or?

Re: Let those who have eyes see

Yes it's misleading just read this comment on the previous link :

------------------------------------------
L'arquebuse a disparu de l'armée Française vers 1627 pour être remplacée par le mousquet plus court et plus léger.
Il a été lui même remplacé par le fusil à silex en 1699.

translate :
The arquebus disappeared from the French army around 1627 to be replaced by the shorter and lighter musket.
He was himself replaced by the flintlock rifle in 1699.
------------------------------------------------

this link cover the whole period, you can even see the first model of silex rifle who replaced french "Mousquet"

The arquebus mostly used during the 30 years war (1618 – 1648) needed a wood fork to sustain their long barrel, a short barrel mean no more accessories to maintain the barrel while firing, A short Mousquet for infantry already existed when the Long mousquet (but not as long as the arquebus) replaced the Arquebus, and finely the short Mousquet became the norm in the infantry, it was considered an improvement of the long french mousquet before it was replaced by silex rifle.

Re: Let those who have eyes see

ADM

I disagree. Can't follow your reasoning as I see no evidence for what you say.

As mentioned before, the barrel of the "mousquet" of c .1684 was c. 120 cm long according to Boudriot and Pétard.

Now let's see what Manesson-Mallet has to say in his 1684/85 "Les Travaux de Mars", tome 3.

p. 32:

"Explication particuliere des parties du Mousquet ... A. ... le Canon; ... on l'a reglé à trois pieds & six poûces de longueur, sur une ligne d'épaisseur vers sa bouche, & de quatre [I read: pouces] à sa culasse ..."

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10431291/f52.item.r=Les%20Travaux%20de%20Mars,%20ou%20L'art%20de%20la%20guerre.zoom

This is 3 pieds 10 pouces or c. 124 cm in total, which neatly corresponds to what Boudriot and Pétard say.

Cf. p. 33:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10431291/f53.item.r=Les%20Travaux%20de%20Mars,%20ou%20L'art%20de%20la%20guerre.zoom

and although the "mousquet" looks rather short on p. 33, its true length becomes perfectly apparent on p. 35:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10431291/f55.item.r=Les%20Travaux%20de%20Mars,%20ou%20L'art%20de%20la%20guerre.zoom



Regarding the fusil, he says:

p. 36:

"Le Fusil ... a d'ordinaire quatre pieds & dix poûces de longueur ...", i.e. c. 157 cm, which is the total length.

and further:

"Le canon qui est long de trois pieds & huit poûces se distingue en Corps & en Culasse..."

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10431291/f56.item.r=Les%20Travaux%20de%20Mars,%20ou%20L'art%20de%20la%20guerre.zoom

So, the barrel of the fusil - which like that of the mousquet is looked upon as consisting of the actual tube and a lock section - has a total length of c. 119 cm, which is slightly shorter than that of the "mousquet".

Cf. also p. 37:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10431291/f57.item.r=Les%20Travaux%20de%20Mars,%20ou%20L'art%20de%20la%20guerre.zoom

Re: Let those who have eyes see

At least we agree about one thing, there's no complete information about French mousquet for the period of the Spanish succession war, which leave the field open for many possibilities, according to the information available.

Of course I'm not contesting your information but it can't be considered a rule for WSS period, I've studied the french army and from the tactic and deployment you can understand what kind of weapons they have. And for me it was the short mousquet for sure. This short infantry mousquet existed for sure and long before WSS, there's no doubt about it. several sources confirm it.

Look at this amasing model,
a mousquet-revolver built like a colt pistol of the old west, with 5 shots !!! :

https://www.europeana.eu/portal/fr/record/2048001/Athena_Plus_ProvidedCHO_KIK_IRPA__Brussels__Belgium__AP_10374232.html

dated of 1632 !!!

Not only that but also with a silex platine, 78 years before it was adopted by the army !!! nobody could believe this if such model was not preserved in a museum, you will also notice the different size of all those mousquet on the other photos !

here are 2 mousquet for the 1700 period :

https://www.europeana.eu/portal/fr/record/2048001/Athena_Plus_ProvidedCHO_KIK_IRPA__Brussels__Belgium__AP_10374135.html?q=mousquet#dcId=1583517971499&p=2

but it look more a royal gift than a military model

So the lesson is : everything is possible !

Re: Let those who have eyes see

Let's agree to disagree. :upside_down_face:

Re: Modifying French Musketeers firing? Is this a solution?

Murat
Quick progress from masters to mouldings.

It would seem that once the masters are posted, then they are completed and not for alteration: i.e. not for changing; as the finished plastic figures still have the short-barreled 'muskets' that so many 'Forumners' picked up on.
I'm not expanding into the WSS (reluctantly: it's a time & space issue) so I don't have a dog in the fight.

But, if I was, and I found the short muskets to be anathema, I'd modify them: either remove & replace entirely, or simply add on the requisite mms.

I don't think I'm alone in having a very full 'bits box' with lots of muskets on redundant figures. I have, on many occasions, modified "inaccurate" figures in the past and I doubt I am alone in this practice.

OK, is this a solution or am I being naive?

Re: Modifying French Musketeers firing? Is this a solution?

Paint dog
Murat
Quick progress from masters to mouldings.

It would seem that once the masters are posted, then they are completed and not for alteration: i.e. not for changing; as the finished plastic figures still have the short-barreled \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'muskets\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' that so many \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'Forumners\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' picked up on.
I\\\\\\\'m not expanding into the WSS (reluctantly: it\\\\\\\'s a time & space issue) so I don\\\\\\\'t have a dog in the fight.

But, if I was, and I found the short muskets to be anathema, I\\\\\\\'d modify them: either remove & replace entirely, or simply add on the requisite mms.

I don\\\\\\\'t think I\\\\\\\'m alone in having a very full \\\\\\\'bits box\\\\\\\' with lots of muskets on redundant figures. I have, on many occasions, modified \\\\\\\"inaccurate\\\\\\\" figures in the past and I doubt I am alone in this practice.

OK, is this a solution or am I being naive?
I think you have a point there, Paintdog. On the strength of the nice command figures (including the extra serjeants) in this set, which can add variety to my growing French and allied WoSS force made up of multiple sets of fusiliers, I've been looking again at this new set and my original attitude is softening somewhat. I too have a large bits box, and it just so happens that some forthcoming conversions using up some sets of old Revell Prussian SYW figures will release a few dozen 'spare' long musket barrels with bayonets; I can use these to modify these French musketeers, and a bit of trimming around the lock ie: taking away the match cords, will allow these to serve as flintlock-armed infantry. For variety, it will be good to have some French still with the older and larger cartridge box carried over the shoulder.

I may also convert some of these to serve as dismounted cavalrymen of the period, or dragoons with carbines. With the long coats it will not be obvious unless close up that gaiters and shoes painted a dark grey-black are not actually 'riding boots'.

All part of the fun of this hobby of ours.:relaxed:

Re: the Zvesda challenge

Minuteman

All part of the fun of this hobby of ours.:relaxed:



If it's not fun, it's not a hobby.

I'm currently smiling as I assemble large numbers of the somewhat fiddly Zvesda SYW grenadiers. Not to mention, cutting off mitres & gluing on the HaT extra tricornes.

I must admit the process is....challenging....but the final effect is pretty good.

Re: Modifying French Musketeers firing? Is this a solution?

I'm not persuaded by the "short musket theory", though the debate has made an interesting read. Since I am also unpersuaded that matchlocks would have made an appearance at Blenheim or Ramillies, let alone later, that is no great loss to me.

I'm with Minuteman, however, in thinking that Paint Dog is onto something with his conversion suggestion.

If flintlock barrels are added and the locks changed, I think there is a threefold gain. As Minuteman has said, it gets us some real "early war" fusiliers with the shoulder-belt cartridge box, and it also gets us some useful variety in command figures.

Third, as the figures also have examples of both horizontal and vertical pockets, it would allow us to supplement the figures in Set 236, giving us a second version for several poses within each pocket type. That could improve the look of the formations significantly.

In short, if converted to flintlocks, Set 234 confers many of the benefits of a second fusilier set, which, given that Set 235 appears to be dedicated to Grenadiers, is just as well.

Of course, I have to assume that battalions can carry a mix of cartridge box types in a single unit, as if a phased issue of replacements.

There is a limit to how many I'd want to convert, but I would certainly try a couple of boxes.