Here is a photo of the Paragon Mexicans that will be in 2017 possible earlier. Once again you will have four different poses with removable heads. This is test shots, we have not heard if they will be in different colors or not. As we get more details we will pass them along.
Cool, you can never have too many Alamo Mexicans, no back packs either always a plus.
Some interesting Russian made 1/32 Napoleonics on French e-bay, I don’t think I saw before http://www.ebay.fr/itm/TECHNOLOG-5-FIGURINES-1-32-NAPOLEONIC-FRENCH-INFANTRY-FRANCAIS-NEUVES-/151952809481?hash=item236117de09:g:NPkAAOSwT6pVq38U
There more cheaper seller of these Mark.
Most Russian seller sale them more cheap, these are gamers series sets, most fantasy, some historical, made for children the play shooting with cannon and catapult base in computer games. Start coming in 90’s,the set in particular was cover by admin not long ago, they are around for some time.(there is total of 47 sets of different 5/4 poses 52/54 mm scale and other smaller or larger size too. Some playset come with fantastic style castle/fortress. Others are combined armies.The figures come with out base for the purpose of shooting and knocking then easy. Additional bases could be bought as well.
Napoleonic so far they did two Russian, two French ,two or 3 Cossacks,one Scottish and two others that are post Napoleonic era.
There samurai,two ninjas,three roman and few knights and Viking sets as well.
no ww2 ,but plenty futuristic and space troopers and mythological/fantasy sets
Few early Russian fantasy folklore sets were done, now hard to get, plus caveman nice sets too. Those were in 60 mm scale I should said
here is a link of sample seller, I list same under other response. Sorry.
gamershttp://www.ebay.com/itm/5-Grenadiers-Historical-Figures-6-Soft-Plastic-Tehnolog-Russian-Toy-Soldiers-/121657329745?hash=item1c53578851:g:3ZYAAOSwNSxVXYa8
Sorry,here
http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-French-Napolean-Army-Historical-Figures-5-Soft-Plastic-Toy-Soldiers-/111676413510?hash=item1a006ed646:g:xf8AAOSwKrhVXX5W
Thanks again for the info Erwin,you are always right on top of these things !
I do not like to much Alamo. The reason is personal and also was a very small and too short war .The later Mexican /American war was more important and not coverage in it. Uniform in that were different , some from Alamo could be used but no all. Few figures had been done either because political sensitivity of the war end result or else.
But less not forgot was the first large war in which US attack another country and defeat it by using great fast strategy and first time regular army plus many future great officer of civil war included Grant and Lee fought(ironical Grant under Lee command)
I live Alamo x all you fan and enjoy the see all the beauty of the battle showed in all other collectors collection/pics.
Now I’m getting attracted specially because honesty after looking these figures, even the detail is not deep and not finished yet;the poses and uniform for first time is extremely accurate. That is the real infantry Mexican uniform and shako, not short depicted by TSSD and tide uniforms made by others such Marx and Conte.
These paragon figures are very like metal K&C figures with hung loose uniform, loose pants and tall Mexican shako. The poses are more 3D than any else I had see in Mexican x Alamo plastic before. No back pack is a correct detail. At Alamo the back pack were drop in camp before advance by orders and also common training tactical used when attacking walls position to take off weight.
The figures lack many over equipment added in other previews figures and are not correct x that battle and anatomy looks too.Ironically the ugly faces BMC Mexicans have the uniform pretty much well done.
TSSD have a French Napoleonic style shako, too short and wrong shape.
So I guess I’m starting to enjoy the Alamo fan club soon.
But will do other battles of the Texan/Mexico war better I guess.
So I may need Texan on horses as most small battles were fought on horses partially.
Erwin, all you had to do to “fall in love” with the Alamo is grow up seeing John Wayne’s “The Alamo” and Fess Parker playing Davy Crockett… The history of it came later. 😉
I am very much looking forward to adding these guys to my ranks; just don’t know if they’ll get here in time for my 180th Anniversary project…
I always say when it comes to the Alamo any addition is a welcome addition. Except maybe the Conte Mexicans I though they were horrible. The defenders even though half weren’t really designed for the Alamo were welcome.
Awful figures but they’ll sell
Peter
Collectors are desperate for new figures as they are tired of same old. How many Marx pioneer walking with the turkey can you use? So they will buy a figure set if it is in the time period they collect and their budget.
Sorry.I don’t see any awful of predone figures test shot. So far anatomy, poses and uniforms are the best in Alamo Mexican see or least better than conte,Marx,TSSD and BMC. The detail is not finish yet so will have to see after product done.
Heads looks ok as few paragon had issues before.
About material ,if same as others is good x conversion and will work x converter.
About selling. I had never heard of Alamo figures not selling well before; even the ugly BMC sold and sale a lot still, incredible European buy then for conversion to others armies.
US collectors that count for least half of plastic toy soldier collectors in the world are many buyers of Alamo era figures. Same way as US civil war.
So they will sale good I bet.
I had also sold to few S American collectors and with exception of CONTE Mexicans ,even Marx are bought by them as well suitable for any south America and central America war of independence war era. These will be definitely. But the 4 poses is always a killer ,I think is a new deal now to reduce cost in order to pull a set out.
My observation. Tx
best..
Erwin, you are right, the BMC guys still sell pretty well. The Texians, for the most part are crap (the character poses are passable and I’ve managed to do some knife-work and paint to make the shooting poses presentable); but the Mexicans, if shy on detail are passable and can be painted up to pass. I know I bought a bunch of them for just some of their better poses to use in the background for numbers. I can’t believe the prices some folks are asking for them though, now. What is even more amazing to me is knowing there are people PAYING those prices…
So yes, these guys should sell well.
Wayne I’m afraid the prices in BMC come after owner unfortunately passing.
Some times this create the collector pricy idea in some sellers and become high market. I notice same in others sets, but also as BMC-Alamo was first playset ever done it had become more pricy I guess!!?
The good news is find them in bulky lots not name as BMC and there you got deals.
I got enough and paint all of them to different regiments.
I agree:The paint erase most funny faces. Some of the poses were done unique never before as the ones firing from elbow position and kneeling up.
I’ve thought the same thing about the passing of Bill and the price of the figures. Some folks don’t realize that unless the molds are lost or destroyed those figures will be produced by someone somewhere down the line. I know I about panicked the first time Airfix and ESCI went out of business; but those molds and figures have resurfaced again and again.
I agree with you about the poses; I wish someone would do them with better sculpting. Another positive aspect of the BMC guys is they don’t have back packs and therefore are among the most accurate of the Alamo Mexican figures as far as that is concerned. Sadly, CTS (which are, for the most part some nice figures) followed the Marx example and had the guys outfitted in full kit. I’m still using them, but in photos will probably only show them from the front.
They just don’t work
Peter
In what way do they not work?
You are not the only one who has not been excited with Paragon’s figures.
The anatomy is not very good, they look like several bits stuck together, not a unified design.
Because of the removable heads the bodies, neck / collar have to remain in one plane, so there is no alteration in positioning when the heads are turned.
Non of this series has interested me.
I used to collect Alamo figures but that is one period I have knocked on the head due to considerations of space
I disagree.As far I see they are test shot not finished,so body mass may look bulky,action human anatomy is correct in extremeties and movement.
The head and direction looking could change with out moving neck/uniform.It works that way.The high collar neck stay in place as u move your head to sides.
Best
Also why do modern makers insist on posing firing figures aimimg the rifle in a modern way ?
You got hot blowback from muskets and percussion caps. Soldiers of the period 1700 – 1870 were trained to hold the head back and straight when firing.
Also speaking as a Film an TV costume and uniform maker the high collar would and does move. One of the reasons that soldiers were issued with a leather stock – which veterians quickly lost.
Peter .You are correct about the lack of head/face position in some firing poses but…
Sorry in this case again I have to disagree base in what I see in these figures and my field experience.
Let see.
Muskets varied in percussion and blow back as some call it with the spam of making and year.
Drill firing do not call in 1769 for that simple move as described before shoot.
Just before shoot..
First Indicate to aim by closing your face weapon(that is clearly what pose in left of picture is doing).Then when ready to shoot separate and close eyes to just about press trigger.(last pose in right) has the soldiers exacting doing that=look well how his face and head are move separated from weapon percussion system in purpose.
Now that is for not trained soldiers in aiming and hit target.
Soldiers do not have to separate your face from weapon when properly trained.
You can shoot a musket as depicted in figures easy. All do I had done it myself in past as part of my two reenactment of AWR and VHS done .So I will provide you w this sample taken This you tube link with an old man firing a real life replica musket with bullets, look closely please.https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVyEQ7KBWC08A5IhXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3lmcC10LTkwMQRncHJpZANLNThZTXI4ZFFGR29TZndqSFIyaFZBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzIyBHF1ZXJ5A2ZpcmluZyBtdXNrZXQseW91IHR1YmUEdF9zdG1wAzE0NTMzODgxMjk-?p=firing+musket%2Cyou+tube&fr2=sb-top-search&fr=yfp-t-901&fp=1.
So yes. It could be done, you can hit target and not face damage as provided in sample, you can do it w real replica muskets firing real bullets with your face close to muskets as depicted in most old and new figures. The recoil in muskets generally is not strong as later models.
What happen most reenactors and movie extras are afraid and won’t do it x safety or else.
About others Paragon poses.
Other two poses(MIDDLE) are in hand to hand combat at high level(in my opinion correct base in stature of normal Mexican person versus tall American Texan )
My perception is most figures with face close to weapon cap-firing mechanism are aiming as standard training before shooting and it is not a new issue or else.
As far I know it go back in making the early figures .It start long long ago in this galaxy I should said.
A call to arms have the older Matchlock musketeers(worst in smoke burn effect to face) firing with face almost molded to weapon . So I assume is aiming…
So same was done when designing x Airfix Napoleonic,Britain,timpo,herlad ….
No much in cherilea,charben as no many firing of course on those sets/brands
Now in Accurate. Hat, many of Replicants too
and of course all over place brands.
Few Hat and Italeri among others had done the other pose.
It is common practice in making firing position doing it; not a new or old toy soldiers maker problem. It is even done in new very high mark pricy metal figures too.
I Guess the option for that exact moment of firing pose are very small as not many doing it .
Incredible the Paragon pose on left of right above and BMC cheap Chinese Mexican plus BMC ARW figures were depicted with poses as you said.
So if all are aiming before firing which is my opinion , they are fine, but if are shooting them are all wounded in action wile performing their duty. Self inflict casualties armies-LOL!!
About uniform neck, Mexican regular infantry did not use leather coats at all, neither wool material or barely ; too hot and too expensive, they had it done of cotton and sack, linen and others.
I have close neck uniforms reproduction and unless the neck is too tide to your own neck, which would be odd and wrong sized ,you can move freely with out having the cloth part of it moving with your head direction.
In well depicted pictures and else ,even the hard officer engraved design long neck uniforms were done in way you can move your head to sides with out the interfering with neck part of uniform, otherwise the designer of uniform did it wrong.
It would make non cense having a close neck moving w your head direction or rotating, is like have a tie moving to your neck rotation direction every time you move it, will bother you and looks odd.
Best regards..
sorry the link must be more exact this.google
please google
(Shooting the 1766 Charleville Musket,you tube.)-should be first with white/grey old men .
where it is firing real life bullets and replica with full power.thanks
Here some other interesting reenactment of Alamo video with musket firing ,using soft cloth uniforms .
I don’t see hold the head back and straight when firing. And this are most amateurs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aXIYSvFOiU
Yeah they do sell I sold all my Conte Mexicans, most still in the blisters. I kept the defenders or at least most of them. I sold all the buildings but I kept the resin guys and the unpainted metal figures. They never reached the higher prices though.
The Conte guys are beautifully sculpted giants. I have a ton of them painted up but will have to strategically place them in the pix so the size doesn’t show too much. I guess I’ve just gotten into the habit of “making do” – paint job, a knife slash here and there…
I really think these new guys will paint up nicely and the poses might lend themselves to conversions…
I could be wrong, but I think the Paragon Mexicans were designed for the later stages of the battle after they had gotten over the walls. The guys clubbing and bayoneting without a doubt are for that time frame. Since, the guys shooting are not shooting up I would think they are for the same time frame.
When I decide on the pose for my conversions more often than not I have a vision in my head of where and how he should be used, when I set them at shows I try to put those guys into the situations I imagined when I made them. That’s how I view these Paragon Mexicans, they fit a specific situation in the battle. Keeping that in mind I think they more than adequate for that scenario.
Good point Ed. There were different stages to the battle and the guys in the more formal poses fit the early stages of the advance on the walls; then there’d be the stage at the foot of the walls with all hades breaking loose and chaos; then there’s the final stages of hand-to-hand, individual combat, small skirmishes, and cleaning out the interior. These guys definitely have the feel of desperation during those chaotic last phases. Their strength may be a weakness. I don’t know that I’d want hundreds of them but a number of them in the crowd will definitely lend realism – and again, with conversions even more usable. As to style of sculpting, its a matter of taste – if some think they are on the “rough” side – after the first few minutes of the kimshi hitting the fan all the spit and polish tends to disappear and the Mexicans were on the tail-end of several weeks of hard marching with poor logistical support. I think I can make these guys work. Bring ’em on!
Me? I don’t want any two guys the same if I can help it. I hope others don’t either so that’s why I make conversions for sale. I think the Alamo has a little bit of everything for everyone, you can have your formal attack stages, swarming the wall stages while other parts of the fort are in the assault stage with massed formations. The best of both worlds. Or you can just do an over the wall scene with all the hand to hand and everything else entailed in that stage. Last but not least if you so desire you could even have your after the battle scene with dead and wounded laying around, not quite as exciting, but different.
If they are firing Brown Besses, aiming is pretty pointless, that’s a point and fire weapon.
Ed theoretically you are correct .Still the training did ask for order in aiming as you should no close eye on enemy before.
The musket had a smoothbore barrel; it had no rifling grooves in the barrel that spun the bullet making it more accurate. By today’s standards, muskets are not accurate due to the lack of rifling. A rifle bullet will spin, allowing greater accuracy. Owing to this lack of accuracy, officers often at battlefield did not expect musketeers to aim at specific targets. Rather, they had the objective of delivering a mass of musket balls into the enemy line.
Now this is a concet implement out of nesesicty because of many factor I will mention bellow.
I should point out as many other in culture ,it is a miss conception in inaccuracy of muskets.
A musket correct loaded and aim does hit the target pretty well. I had done it and I’m not an experts.
Of course we are talking 35-40 yards maximum. Not too bad for maximum range of the weapon used
Now this IS what happen in history and at battlefield during war most time.
Most soldiers are under pressure during the fight and because they musket need so many steps and time to fire it will give litter time to aim at target. So NCO often prefer the not aim order and was very well used,specially at mid/long range(of the time) in order to advance fast towards enemy or position.
Smoke in massive firing line after first two round shots usually obscure visibility so aim after the 2nd shot won’t be any good as you won’t see any unless the smoke is clear by strong wind in opposite direction. Still you place/position the barrel as accurate direction possible towards target .
Sample out of 50 men in reality about 10-15 miss fire their weapon(no shot) come out. This happen because the stress,nervous and speed of loading plus the incorrect amount of powder often not pour during the action on the rush and also in cases were inexperience row recruit(most armies were that) were afraid of firing and pour less powder thinking weapons will explode as some time had happen and the fear spread easy.(The explosion explanation was giving at training if told by trainer in order to teach not pour too much or too less and be accurate.
Lets not forget other facts.
The weapon if damp and not dried before battle often miss fire a lot.
The bullets(round lead balls) were in most case not factory mass produced but locally (town and cities small factories made) and in field done, meaning wrong size=caliber less weight were often mass used.
British and few others armies at beginning procure their armies with correct possible ball/bullets and powder, but once war start supply shortest give chance to above field production.
The smoothbore barrel was the main reason of inaccuracy but the variation of bullet size often add to the problem during the accuracy negative effect.
We have cases (sample Americans during the revolution war .They cut and add nail to balls so the will do more harm or splint in air /target to cause more lethal wound, this also often cause miss fire and explosion /jam in barrels/percussion too creating the spectrum of fear of accident.
Regulars armies prohibit this but militia often did what they want.
The most armies in the world were not trained at all but made of recruit who barely shoot a real ball before action and were train in using blank powder only if ever trained to shoot. Sample Mexican armies among them. Mexican armies during the Alamo period were recruit of local areas as Mexico was in chaotic civil war with not money and barely standard army. Many forced conscript never had a chance to ever practice a shoot.
British army did train in aiming a lot and wide recorded from early 1750 till after Napoleonic about it on training. That is why was way better in firing range against French and others in many battle. They prefer the advantage of fire power as did with Bows long rage fire back in medieval era versus hand to hand or else combat.
There is plenty record/data of British aiming and hitting targets with muskets during revolutionary and Napoleonic wars at long range with devastating power. But same times others account said the opposite and others are pure exaggeration.
British and (Prussian before 1806) were the only professional infantry armies of the world as France after revolution loose the trained army professional.
Napoleon infantry was very low recruited and overextended ,also multinational ;Veteran often given others main guard priorities. Front lane were very poor trained, so prussian,austrian,spaniards,italian and russian after 1806 during Napoleonic wars.
However some French/allied unit practice targeting under napoleon’s orders.
Britain after seen the French good use of skirmish light infantry(chosen shooters) with musket during first Indian or French/British American war in America ,rapidly implement the sharpshooter units first with special musket and right after with first rifles copping the German early jager corps units of Frederick II .
So the aim was used and implement ,it depend in moment and battle were to use.
The musket within it is range has good accuracy. It has a point if correct used.
For more specific data you me read the well documented historical link from the Napoleonic association org that I’m part of and offer various important data worth reading.
http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm
I’ve seen people fire a Brown Bess and at 30 yards he had trouble hitting the target and the target was a silhouette of a man. Allegedly he was an expert marksman. The one time he did the target he was aiming center mass chest and hit the target in what would have been an ankle. Aiming wasn’t as important as getting a lot of guys lined up to fire at en-mass.
Interesting experience but I guess that person most be either w eye side problem, never actually practice or most probably weapon was a bad replica that often happen too. I had not hit target before at less distance but do most to other factors
I had also hit target several time farther(.(70cm square plate) and I’m not considered an expert myself at all!, there is plenty firing videos in google showing it with same weapon. But things happen, I’m positive. It was not an accurate weapon compare to later of course .
Yes you are right Aiming wasn’t as important in (line battle formation) but in other battle tactic cases was.Forward advance skirmish units or companies does aim to hit, the assaulting line infantry firing upon defensive position or walls too as not sense of massive volley fire over walls, soldiers need to choose target to hit it back their walls. In forest or deep woof same, soldiers engaged in target shooting separated all time.
At Alamo that is why Mexican barely kill any even at close range plus many were poor trained.
It was practiced and in training manuals as well, it was used as well others tactics, Again shooters were always taken from experience soldiers generally.
Like I said before it all depend of the battlefield and moment and muskets are accurate if proper used at the era range. That was my point only.
The aim before/during fire did give great result ,even by militias.
Sample :In what is call battle of Concord or concord retreat ,the American rough militia inflict heavy casualties by firing choosing aim targets versus british massive line formation company fire response.
In their accounts afterward, British officers and soldiers alike noted their frustration that the colonial militiamen fired at them from behind trees and stone walls, rather than confronting them in large, linear formations in the style of European warfare. This image of the individual colonial farmer, musket in hand and fighting under his own command, has also been fostered in American myth: “Chasing the red-coats down the lane / Then crossing the fields to emerge again / Under the trees at the turn of the road, / And only pausing to fire and load. To the contrary, beginning at the North Bridge and throughout the British retreat, the colonial militias repeatedly operated as coordinated companies, even when dispersed to take advantage of cover. Reflecting on the British experience that day, Earl Percy understood the significance of the American tactics:
Here is what he said.
“During the whole affair the Rebels attacked us in a very scattered, irregular manner, but with perseverance & resolution, nor did they ever dare to form into any regular body. Indeed, they knew too well what was proper, to do so. Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob, will find himself much mistaken. They have men amongst them who know very well what they are about, having been employed as Rangers against the Indians & Canadians, & this country being much covered with wood, and hilly, is very advantageous for their method of fighting. Shooters choose their target with well accurate fire using same weapons as we had. Our respond from line fire is not match.
At The Battle of Kings Mountain the militia and continental fire in small squad/company groups and disperse right before royalist try respond back with massive fire. The battle last about 1 hours ,the result is well known(American 29 death) royalist 290.Patriots used less men in skirmish fire battle formation and advantage of terrain tactic, royalist did not.
At the battle of new Orleans and small American force hold the ground against much large British force and inflict massive casualties wile very few to their own.
Among many British mistake during that battle was the lack of accurate independent fire that was suppose to be done by the The 95th Rifles .They never took direct support action and the regular infantry responding fire with line massive fire against defensive fortify position inflict almost not casualties in the American.
Many British high ranking officer were kill that day by good expert musket marksmen at mid/far range according too battle records,others by cannon balls/else at closer range.
The killing of British officer was also used my American during ARW when chosen target my militia with musket manage take down many of them during war battles, it well recorded. So the weapons did have an accuracy within it is capabilities.
Still; it was general used in massive frontal action as you correct said.
Erwin, no doubt there were muskets involved in the incidents you described, but some Americans – particularly militiamen, preferred the Kentucky rifle, also known as the “Long Rifle” they often used for hunting. I have no doubt there were at least a few present at Lexington/Concord and during the long march back to Boston. But personal accounts from that ordeal by British soldiers say the rebels threw everything they had at them – muskets, rifles, squirrel guns, there were even some stories of British soldiers getting pelted with rocks from sling shots. I actually pity those guys and what they went through when I read about it.
There were ten Rifle companies authorized by Congress in June 1775 in response to the outbreak of hostilities, and the commands of folks like Morgan had more than their share of riflemen, though no doubt most regular units used muskets – cheaper and faster loading than rifles. Again the key was massed fires, making the enemy keep his head down, hitting as many as possible so you could close into bayonet range. If I remember correctly, most muskets used at the time weren’t accurate past fifty meters (by accurate, I mean being able to hit a human). Some were worse than that. The Brown Bess had the reputation of being one of the better muskets while the French among the worst. Boney prized the bayonet and cannon over musket fire.
One of the problems with Mexican troops was their habit of firing almost from the hip to avoid the kick. Some have chalked this up to the quality of Mexican powder which was poor (several accounts of the Alamo said the Texians found the powder stores they captured from Cos almost useless as it was diluted so greatly with charcoal, either due to cost-saving measures or corruption). The idea is that they would have to double or triple the powder charge to get their weapons to fire the projectile (wonder at that if the powder was weak wouldn’t a triple charge give the kick of a normal one of good powder?). And the other was poor marksmanship training. In any event, holding the weapon that way caused them to shoot high, on average, thus making their fire even more inaccurate than it might otherwise have been. Considering the inaccuracy of musket fire already…
I heard it was a fairly common practice to load the Brown Bess with buck and ball to improve the accuracy, sort of like a minor shot gun. I would guess a grooved hunting rifle would be much more accurate than a smooth bore musket. I’d hide behind a tree too knowing the British tactic off firing as a group, and after they have fired shoot at them with my much more accurate hunting rifle. Makes sense to me.
Yes it does work ;but again you have to practice to do that way, it is dangerous too as could damage the weapon if you pour less powder, you have to add more in that case ,but just not too much. In case of BB musket as you use a reduced ball caliber to add the pellets(generally 4 to 6 maximum).At close range and forest was great,at distance loose effect but ball still could got it far range. British and French used alike too.
At museum there several in display that were found with it stock as miss fire and left in field or else, if it happen with pellets inside the weapon become useless pretty much and will take time remove it. So very important practice correct amount and loading using that way.
American used till civil war too. Sample at Pickett’s Charge . But it produce more smoke than usual too. Interesting to know if was used at Alamo,I bet they did(Texans)
Most militia/Colonials did not have the grooved hunting rifle musket, the ones from PA and areas with more German immigrant did, it was start to get imported by late 1760 to America. However well made factory grooved muskets(first rifles) were far accurate/range than standard muskets but slow to reload ,those way used in run and hit or fire and move/retreat tactic as the opposite with musket will have twice chance versus you to fire back. It was improved after Napoleonic wars and by 1840 with minie balls and different powder too.
Many used actually old musket and French or British from previous wars but because they practice so well in hunting daily life they had in many cases better target aim practice. Also American colonial(many European born still) adopted the hit and run Indian tactic. Now when American face standing line and massive fire of course the not aim was common and there was a matter of faster and cold holding wile see next to you falling. In most cases British cold stand was superior in that case and many battles American new recruits run after few shots.
Another think is bayonet charge not well trained till mid late in American side.
Militia often panic when see massive formation of British or hessian charging towards them with bayonet .I mean I had too if see that scene and my comrades not standing ground or firing back, hell is like see a large massive wall full of spike, if the one front you won’t hit you, the one next will pock you like a pig. It is scary tactic and lethal. Many battles with infantry in standard fields were won with bayonet charges as you said the amount of shoots and not accuracy did not much damage many time.
I won’t argue how many rifles there were in the Continental Army as I know there were more muskets – there were rifle companies though; it would be interesting to see how many there might have been.
You make a great point about withstanding a bayonet charge – it was a weakness Washington fretted over and Morgan and Greene took advantage of British overconfidence at Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse.
Actually, withstanding a bayonet charge is one of the most extreme tests of a disciplined army – along with withstanding an artillery bombardment and conducting an organized withdrawal in the face of an advancing enemy.
Even some of the finest Armies in the world have broken under the threat of cold steel; militias in the ARW really had no chance. It was a testimony to the training program of Steuben and others when American Continentals were able to begin to hold their own.
Very glad I could spur such an interesting, spirited and enlightened conversation. I will try my best to provide you with more reasons to debate by making more Alamo Mexican sets, Alamo defenders, Plains Indians, and French and Indian War.
Gene
Welcome, as you can see we have a passionate group of readers. Keep us informed on your future projects.
Got a question for the Alamo guys. My collecting tends towards ACW & marching bands/musicians, but I’m wondering if there might be an Alamo figure I could use to depict John Burns. For those of you who are not familiar with Burns, he was a 60+ year old curmudgeon who lived in Gettysburg and tried to join the Union army at the outbreak of the war but was turned away because of his age. When the battle began, he put on his frock coat and top hat, picked up his flintlock, and headed for the sound of the fighting. He attached himself to the Iron Brigade and saw a little fighting and was wounded. Made it home and was celebrated as a hero, Lincoln visited him, etc. If you’ve never heard of him, look him up on a search engine; an interesting tale.
Anyhow, I was wondering, are there any Alamo figures wearing a top hat and frock coat carrying a flintlock that I might find loose at a show sometime that I could paint up to be Burns? I figure, short of getting someone to do a conversion, that’s likely the only way I’ll ever get a Burns figure.
Any thoughts?
By the way, to chime in on the smooth bore inaccuracy/buck and ball discussion, there was a British Major Hanger who, at the time of the AWI, once commented, unlucky is the soldier killed by a ball aimed at him at a distance greater than 30 yards. Also, some of the reading I’ve done tends to lead one to believe that buck and ball was a common practice not only during the AWI, but also among troops armed with smoothbores as late as the ACW. Rather effective at close range since it mimics the effect of a shotgun.
I also saw a comment above about re-enactors not aiming their weapons “level” at the other side. An acquaintance who is an active ACW re-eneactor once told me that they purposely aim high for safety’s sake, even though they only load powder and paper wads. If that comment duplicates another response, I apologize.
George .Some of Alamo defenders made by BMC ,CTS and others I think have that style hat/head. Civilian long coat body figures may be from cowboys resent poses as TSSD or Austin? But I will live it better to Ed =expert in Alamo conversion as I’m an amateur in Alamo figures and conversions.
I had been in enactment and participate as member x years.
It is common practice when firing within 150 yards least to aim high, it is because many reenactors are not well use to musket loading and firing handling and had some times left ramrod inside accidentally in the run and shoot it, but also some had actually pour real or else balls before reenactment to practice shooting and either forgot or else and actually shoot it.
I had heard of many accident of various type worldwide in such events ,it happen a lot. Most are people with history fan heart but lack of military instruction and many are not focusing during the training.
In 2008 at Fort Ticonderoga battle “battle of Carillo-1758″(a large reenact done every year and I’m part of ) , it happen and one person was hurt, the reenactment was suspended and precautions taken since it with review and check of every weapon before reenactment start.
A few years back at one of the Gettysburg re-enactments, a French fellow actually loaded his cap and ball revolver with not only powder, but balls also. Shot a guy and almost killed him. They caught the Frenchman trying to leave the country. Don’t know what happened to him. You just can’t be too careful with firearms. Been a shooter most of my life and have a few scary tales to tell myself.
You right and now w more nuts loose ,you never know if one want to use opportunity do in the reenactments.
Conte has an Alamo figure keeling firing a flintlock with a top hat, but he’s wearing buckskins at least the coat. I suppose he could work for your purposes.
George,
If I had a picture of the coat you’re looking for it would be rather easy to do a head swap of the top hat guy to a standing firing, Conte made defenders wearing various coats, which one your looking for exactly is what I’d need to know.
I’ll see if I can find a photo to send you. Don’t know if I still have your e-mail, if you still have mine, send me a quick one and I’ll respond. Thanks.
There’s several pics on the internet of the Burns statue on the Gettysburg battlefield (he’s not wearing the hat, though). For an example, think of Chief Dan George in The Outlaw Josey Wales.
I took the top hats from the silly BMC defenders and put them on the brown Accurate Rev war continentals (the three with long cape-coats). I used them for both Alamo and also Battle of New Orleans.
The only statue I saw of him at Gettysburg ,he is depicted wearing a complete different civilian clothing, but I understand it is wrong ;base in historical account he wear what you said George.
So I guess the best bet is google the Gettysburg archives pictures!?
I would say perhaps the Conte Top Hatted head on maybe one of the TSSD or Paragon bodies (here I’m thinking of the guy with the rifle raised above his head). The “Jocko” figure might work with the “Thimblerig” head. The Mel Gibson figure might work except for the unfortunate hat stuck on his back.
George,
I found a picture of him on Wikipedia, will that work?
That’s the guy, Ed. Could you do a conversion for me?
While I was laying on the sofa yesterday waiting for the storm to pass, I watched a Gettysburg documentary that I had not seen before. There was a segment on Burns and I heard a tale about him that I had not heard before. Apparently, a couple years after the battle, he was wandering about on McPherson’s Ridge and claimed to have seen a shadowy figure in the woods, dressed in a civil War uniform, and beckoning to him. He hightailed it off the ridge and never went back, claiming that he was not ready to leave this earth yet. Ghost or dementia, who knows. There are plenty of ghosts in and around Gettysburg. My fraternity house was haunted (not by a Civil War era ghost) and I saw her one night (let’s not get caught up in whether or not the sighting may have involved beer or recreational chemicals, I know what I saw). Anyone interested in ghost stories, there is a great series of relatively inexpensive paperbacks about ghosts in Gettysburg. Some seem plausible. Once saw a video that was either a masterful forgery or the real thing showing soldiers crossing an opening in a patch of woods. I could ramble on, but these tales are more appropriate for a ghost site, not a toy soldier site.
If I can match the coat or close to it I can do one. I think I got the right coat. See the Barszo Minuteman with the frock coat and imagine that hat is a top hat instead. If that will work for you, I’ll make him.
I don’t have any Barzso minutemen, but looking at images on line, looks like there are two that might work. One is standing firing and the other is walking with his rifle in the crook of his right arm. Could not determine for sure if either is wearing a swallowtail or frock coat, but they look like good candidates for a Burns conversion. Which one do you think would work best?
Neither is wearing the swallowtail type coat . They both have a coat that is evenly cut all around. I think either will be pretty close but not 100%. I had selected the standing firing. He has old musket with a powder horn with a tomahawk in his belt. If you think he’ll work I can put the top hat on him, without or with out the feather in the top hat. Let me know and i’ll make him if you think he’ll work for you.
Hmmm, the coat is really not a problem, after all, this is not for a doctoral dissertation. The tomahawk is kinda out of place, but who’s to say the old John may not have had a ‘hawk, too? Maybe convert both figures for me? I’m sure I can come up with a use for a second fellow. Whadya say?
I could be completely wrong on this, but I was sure that TSSD’s Union Infantry set had a figure in it intended to be the civilian John Burns who joined in the fighting at Gettysburg. It was the standing firing pose without a hat, and it looks identical to the John Burns statute in Gettysburg, including both hair and clothing. In fact, when TSSD first released their Civil War figures, the website gave a human name to each figure, and the hatless firing figure was named John Burns, I believe.
I looked at Nick’s site and Kent Sprecher’s site (sometimes his photos are best) and didn’t see anyone that looked like Burns. Maybe my eyes are failing (no surprise at my age) or perhaps the set has been discontinued. Unless I missed something, looks like Ed’s conversion(s) may be the answer. Thanks for the suggestion.
On Nick’s site, under Union infantry, it would be the pose without a hat, standing firing his rifle, and not in a uniform like the other poses. The appearance is the same as in the John Burns statute, which has the short jacket rather than the 3/4 length. The John Burns statute and the TSSD figure both have the short jacket unbuttoned. But it’s just my opinion and recollection. I’m sure Ed can give you pretty much what you’re looking for.
Went back and took another look (this time Comcast actually let me enlarge the photo!!!) and I see the fellow you are talking about. Looks like he could be old John. I’ll have to look around, I think I have that set unopened, although about a year ago, my lovely wife organized and put away many of my soldiers; can’t find a stinkin’ thing now. I’ll still have Ed do the conversion(s) and then I’ll have three options. Thanks for being persistent.
I’m sure you’ve already done this, George, but if not, please google “John Burns Gettysburg images”, and you’ll see the statue of Mr. Burns. I just think it bears an uncanny resemblance to the TSSD figure in every single aspect.
George,
I made you one already , I don’t have your e-mail address anymore or your address. If you like him I’ll consider making another one.
Okay, great. I’ll look through my old e-mails, see if I still have your address. Just in case, Paul, could you send my address to Ed too? Thanks.
I think the TSSD guy is actually wearing a short cavalry jacket. I have cut away the rock he’s standing on and reattached his foot to the base. He’s kind of in an awkward pose the way he was made, the back leg is straight at a weird angle to the body.
I painted John blue and the left the tomahawk
Don —
I’m real familiar with that statue. Went to Gettysburg College ( a long time ago, just after the glaciers receded northward ) and have been an amateur student of the battle for most of my adult life. I had three relatives serve in the campaign, one buried in the National Cemetery and as a result, I usually make several trips to G-burg a year. This year may be different as my knees are not healing as rapidly as I’d like. I find the place to be most compelling. There are several places where I stand and get emotional almost to the point of tears. A lot of good men died there, of course that can be said for any battlefield.
George, like many people on this board, I’ve visited Gettysburg. But since you attended Gettysburg College, you may be interested in knowing that the year I graduated from high school (1975), I took the 8-day motorcoach Civil War Battlefield Tour sponsored by the monthly magazine Civil War Times Illustrated, which was headquartered in Gettysburg. The tour both started in Gettysburg (at the downtown Holiday Inn) and then ended back at the same location in Gettysburg 8 days later, after hitting all the Virginia battlefields, along with Antietam in Maryland and Harpers Ferry in present-day West Virginia. It was conducted by Professor Klein of Franklin and Marshall College just outside of Gettysburg, and our Assistant Tour Director was William Davis, the famous historian who went on to write so many best-selling Civil War books.
It was the first time I was able to visit actual Civil War battlefields, and to do it as a guided tour in the company of other people interested in the Civil War remains one of the memorable highlights of my life, just before starting college that Fall.
About 10 years later, I had occasion to revisit Gettysburg with my wife, and we stayed at the same downtown Holiday Inn.
Although I actually don’t remember the John Burns statue, that would be understandable, considering that Gettysburg has more than 2000 monuments and markers, and I always had an emotional predilection for the ones commemorating the Southern side.
I’m hoping at some point to visit Gettysburg one more time, probably in conjunction with the Gettysburg Toy Soldier Show held each May.
Anyway, it was a great trip, both times.
Welp, when you graduated high school, I was finishing my junior year at G-burg. The Holiday Inn on the Diamond (the Square to non-locals) is no longer a Holiday Inn, forget which chain owns it now, but they’ve done a really good job of giving it a face lift. If you and your wife go, it is a nice place to stay. There’s a bunch of good B&Bs if that’s your style. I also highly recommend hiring a battle field guide (I can recommend an excellent one) for a tour. A three hour battlefield tour is usually about $75 plus tip. The show used to be at the Inn on the Diamond, now south and west of town at a convention center. Nice location, better space than the hotel but not a real big show. Let me know what year you go ’cause I usually attend and I’ll look for you. Oh also, the new visitor center is really nice if you are not a well read student of the battle. They saved and restored the Cyclorama and installed it there; very impressive. I have to control myself or I’ll prattle on forever.
Contact Gary Dutko he lives there, I’m sure he can give you a tour. I think he did it part time for a while.
Gary has accompanied me on a tour or two. He claims not to be an expert on the battle, but its hard to live there and not know more than the average bear.
I’ve known Gary for a long time, only met him once in Texas. Haven’t been to Gettysburg since 1981 and that was more or less by accident.
And talking about Gettysburg.Much is always mention about Pickett’s charge, the cemetery ,the bushes hills fire fight and stand of iron brigade ,but few talk about Custer charge and hold General Stuart cavalry advance.It is that part a very important part that decide the fate of last confederate action and with out cavalry the charge of lee pickets division would not have a success!?
Why I never heard that much about it?.
If some one may correct me ,please do so as I’m not a visitor but red a lot and see not that much about that part of battle.
I think you are referring to the engagement at what is called Cavalry Fields on the east side of town. Lee sent Stuart’s cavalry around the Union right with the idea of attacking in the Union rear, near Culp’s Hill. If successful, Stuart could have cut the Union supply line on the Baltimore Pike and/or diverted reserves from the Union center, giving Pickett a snowball’s chance in Hell of breaking through the Union center.
Unfortunately, it was a fool’s errand. Stuart’s men and horses were tired and hungry from their forced march south from the Harrisburg/Chambersburg area. Many of the horses needed shoes and it was reported that some men were asleep in their saddles. Had Stuart’s men been fresh and rested, perhaps the plan would have worked, but sadly, for the sons of the South, it was too much to ask of them. They gave Custer a good fight, but just weren’t up to the task.
Like most of the rest of the Battle of Gettysburg, in my opinion, this was the South’s last hurrah. Between the loss of Gettysburg and the fall of Vicksburg on July 4, 1863, the South had lost the war, but didn’t know it. They fought on for almost another two years and a lot of brave men lost their lives as a result. Oops, there I go, sounding like a history professor. I tend to do that when the subject of Gettysburg comes up.
Hope this answered your question or broadened your statement.