Pontoonier Miniatures British

[traveller]

Can anyone tell if these have the right kit for Egypt 1882? It is a bit hard to tell from the pictures:

http://newlinedesigns.co.uk/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=490_492

[Sterling Moose]

I love these figures.

[traveller]

I love these figures.

Love is not enough  I want to know if the uniform and equipment is the right one!!!

Sculpted by Mr Hicks they do look nice...hard.....to ....resist   

[Paul Hicks]

They are ok for Egypt. The thing with British infantry of this period is that unit to unit used different configurations of the web equipment. I think the main thing would be the colours of the uniform.

All the best

Paul

[traveller]

They are ok for Egypt. The thing with British infantry of this period is that unit to unit used different configurations of the web equipment. I think the main thing would be the colours of the uniform.

All the best

Paul

answer directly from the source! Many thanks!

[traveller]

One additional question to Paul: would the separate heads from the Empress Zulu British range be possible to use with the Pontoonier British? Same size?

[Paul Hicks]

Yep should fit no problem

[Plynkes]

Osprey says that apart from a couple of cavalry regiments puttees were not worn in the Egyptian campaign. So that (fairly major) bit of kit detail is wrong.

[Paul Hicks]

I have been sent a message by Mr Mike Snook who is an author on the period and has written a book for the Perry's which is due out soon. He sent me this message

Dear Paul
 
Oh no they're not!! The 1882 Egyptian campaign was fought in home service kit by units mostly from Blighty. The infantry wore boots and gaiters not putees - and they could not have been wearing the 1882 pattern valise equipment (which is what you have sculpted on your Burma figures), because no kit is issued in the same year as its purported pattern. In Egypt they wore 1871 pattern kit with noticeably smaller pouches and only a mess tin on the back. I believe your Burma fellows have some sort of roll low down on the back? You could not my friend have given that poor fellow on LAF a worse steer!!
 
Regards as ever
 
Mike   

Mike is a great guy and has helped me in getting the Empress line bang on in regards to detail. Once again sorry for the mix up and I will do my homework better in future:).

Paul

[Svennn]

FFS! They are just toy soldiers, playing pieces, meeples, representations etc. not museum exhibits.

I was going to use these for some Brits in China but could not get hold of them at the time so painted Empress in khaki jackets. They are in a thread somewhere. Puttees/Gaiters are quite different but on a 28mm fig is a different web pattern really that noticeable/important? Are the differences any greater than one sculptors interpretation of a piece of kit over anothers?

I say get some, enjoy painting them and then enjoy playing your game. Far more important in my mind.

[Plynkes]

He specifically asked for this information. He deserves a correct answer ("it doesn't matter" is not all that helpful a response to such a question). Not the same thing at all as having a go at someone out of nowhere over slightly incorrect figures. Now he is armed with this information he can make his own choice as to how suitable they are. I don't see a problem here.


Bit more: He mentions using Empress heads. Only sticky point here is the Pontoonier helmets are more correct for Egypt (as they have pugarees) than the Empress ones he would be replacing them with. Something to bear in mind (Sorry, Svennn! ).

[traveller]

Thanks all for your comments and efforts. Sorry if I stirred the pot... Those miniatures are just beautiful and will find employment elsewhere, if not in Egypt. It would be interesting to know where else a "Burma similar" kit was used? Regarding the Empress heads, I was thinking of the bareheaded fellows.

Paul, considering your impressive sculpting output, it is a bit hard to keep track of where your creations end up. I found these just by chance. Would it be possible to list which traders that sell your stuff?

[fantail]

I'm no expert but I think that the Pontoonier British would be okay for the Battle of Ginnis 1885. Puttees,Pugarees and 1882 pouches.
Andrew

[Paul Hicks]

Just got another email from Mr Snook which should help

All the best

Paul

 
The chap who has now appeared in the same thread to suggest they could be used for Giniss in Sudan in 1885 is absolutely spot on. In that battle, (and that battle alone, when home service red was worn by special order), they would have plain red home service frocks, blue trousers and khaki puttees. The exception is the DLI, who did not have their home service frocks and wore khaki ones. The figures are ideal for that battle and could be coupled with Michael Perry's highlanders playing the part of the Camerons.
 
Regards
 
Mike

[traveller]

I guess it would be fellows like this:





Figure 1 – Corporal 1st York and Lancaster Regt, in Khaki drill warn with puttees (first adopted during the 2nd Afghan War) and khaki cover for his white helmet; another Indian practice.
Figure 2 - Private of the Black Watch 1884 in Serge Grey.

Figure 3 – Private of the 3rd Grenadier Guards in his ‘English’ khaki. His white helmet is stained and he wears his battalion badge on his puggaree.

Figure 4 – Sergeant of the 10th Hussars, from one of the Indian garrisons. This is based on a painting of the 10th’s charge at El Teb by G. D. Giles, who was attached to the 10th at the time.

Figure 5 – Mounted Infantryman in Bedford cord pantaloons, blue puttees, ankle boots with spurs. The frock coat colour depended on the men’s parent regiment.

Figure 6 – A private of the 19th Hussars in grey serge frock and Bedford cord pantaloons worn with home service knee boots
Figure 7 – Indian Officer of the 15th Sikhs

Figure 8 – Royal Marines Light Infantry with stained helmet and equipment. Although, Count Gleichen who accompanied the Camel Corps up the Nile observed the arrival of the RMLI company with “snowy-white” helmets and belts and pouches “freshly piped-clayed”.

The image was taken from the December 1984 edition of Military Modelling.

Thanks to Duncan at:http://osborneradloff.blogspot.com/2009/10/suakin-field-force-1884-1885.html