A forum to discuss HaT products, ETS, uniformology, modeling, painting, and other essentials associated with HaT products.
Is it universally accepted that the same sculpts are suitable for both sides, bar the odd head swop?
Contemporary reports tend to describe the Union troops as much more uniform in their appearance, while the Confederates, often short of supplies, tended to have an altogether shabbier and makeshift aspect. They often had no boots and went short of basic kit; they had to forage for equipment wherever they could get it.
I suppose it comes down to the old argument about toy soldier looking like they're on parade rather than in a battle.
I think we should have more variety when it comes to hats, many kepis and forage hats but really only one slouch hat that works with the Confederate side. I'd like a second sprue with heads with stetson hats, panama hats, bowler hats and so on. Seems this set is more for ACW Union and very early Confederates..
Also vote for the ACW period dammit!
We can't let the others win can we?
We also need some short soldiers and fat or old soldiers that was beauty of acw and revolutionary war DIVERSITY
Separate sets please
Another vote for 2 separate sets.
The more poses, diversity through poseable/separate parts and number of figures per box, the better I would think.
Thanks for asking.
Are there any masters yet? Pictures?
For me it would be 2 sets. Marching and command. I have many other units that could use the command so being able to get those separately would be preferred. In relation to heads the current drawings have a lot of fatigue caps. I think it would be better to almost have a 50/50 split of hat and caps. Federal units in the western theatre would have primarily had hats and the confederate units would have a lot more hats than caps. If you go a similar line to the SYW Prussians marching there should be enough heads in the box to do all figures in hats or all in cap, then maybe 2 heads per Sprite with the distinctive Iron Brigade hat. Units of this brigade could use some standard hats anyway but this would allow a complete unit or two to be made from a few boxes. Similarly, the command should allow all the figures to be in hat or cap. The command set will need at least double the number of flag bearers to drummers. I would suggest 2 foot officers. 2 flag bearers, 1 drummer and one mounted command as a minimum. Thanks for your consideration.
They look great! I would go for 2 sets but more floppy style hats or enough heads to do all floppy or kepi plus a few of the more exotic types.
Speaking of hats, all of the kepis look too similar. I'd like to see 1 or 2 bummer caps. I'd also like to see some kepis with crossed rifles, crossed cannons, crossed sabres, etc. on the round top and or on the front. And also for the command set, I'd like to see at least 1 nice Stetson hat. Thanks for asking.
My post was in response to CSA USA's post where he requests "I'd also like to see some kepis with crossed rifles, crossed cannons, crossed sabres, etc. on the round top and or on the front."
I was just pointing out that none of the ones mentioned would be appropriate. You have a horn on the hat for the Iron Brigade, which is correct. For the rest I think it would be best to leave off insignia, just as you have already.
Insignia on either Union or Confederate infantry could be on the front or on top (more Union than Confederate which would be more likely to have none) and would vary from being the horn, to company designation, to having both. Later in the war the Federal/Union troops would also have had Corp markings. Where these were all placed would be different from regiment to regiment. For the purposes of this scale of figure where you'd be looking to create generic troops to be used in as many units as possible and allowing these to be used for both Confederates and Union troops, they are better off not being shown. As I posted previously I think adding more heads with hats to get a little more variety and including enough on the sprue to put all the figures in either hat or cap would be appropriate. Other than that the figures look great and appropriate.
Here are three kepis, called "Bummer", or "Forage", or just "Kepi". The first one is (like) Stone Wall Jackson's kepi. The second and third are Union and Confederate.
My idea of a "Bummer" style kepi is that the top round piece hangs down over the front even touching the visor sometimes.
As far as insignias on the top or front, even a blank oval would look nice for the infantry just like the command hats have already. Oval, diamond, clover, cross, bugle, all look nice and if the customer doesn't like it, just trim it off. I think some of the infantry hats should have something rather than nothing.
Copy and paste the links below into your browser and wait for 5 - 10 seconds for the individual pictures - It's Google search and takes it seems like forever to open up from the full page to individual link's pictures - sorry. Links:
I've read that forage and bummer caps are the same thing(?)
Your origin post requested a Bummer style cap. I maintain the second and second last are of that style. Its difficult being only a front on view but would appear to be of that style. What you have pointed to now is a particular way the bummer sometimes fell. If HaT want to include yet another cap then yes this is one way it could be shown.
As I've pointed out Insignia would be different from unit to unit. If HaT wants to include a horn either on top or the front on some of the caps or hats (and I believe more heads with hats are required to cover both sides accurately) it wouldn't be unhistorical. They shouldn't be put on all as it will mean chopping this off for most Union and nearly every Confederate unit that these figures are used to represent as it is my understanding the insignia would be rarely seen for them once on campaign.
It would not be appropriate to have ovals like the command set as an oval insignia badge (usually embroidered) was what the officers used, therefore not seen for the regular soldiers. I'd question with the colour sergeant and musicians would have had oval insignia as well but I guess these could be cut off too.
Sorry if I'm being particular on this subject but it is one I am very familiar with and would prefer HaT produced a historically accurate set of figures rather than taking suggestions like crossed rifles that didn't even come into effect in the US army until 10 years after the civil war was over.
I think I've said enough now on this subject, and will leave it to the powers to be as to what they move forward with.
I would agree that no insignia, and perhaps one with a horn, would be the most appropriate option. Let's save the sword and cannon badges for the cavalry and artillery where they belong.
Also, technically I believe the bummer (forage) cap and the kepi are two different types of headgear, the former with a droopy crown and worn by Union rank and file, the latter with a stiff crown surrounded by a small ridge and worn by Union officers and all ranks in the Confederate army. So ideally, for the marching set there should be enough forage caps for every figure to make a proper Union regiment, but it's not necessary to have enough kepis for every single figure since they'll be mixed in with slouch hats anyway. For the command set only the standard bearer and drummer really need a forage cap, whereas a kepi would be appropriate for all the figures, so the proportions should be reversed compared to the marching set.
Actually, while pedantry mode is switched on, taking a closer look at the masters, I would argue that for strict historical accuracy the marching set should be split into two separate sets - a Confederate set with the figures in waist-length shell jackets and a Union set with the figures in the mid-length sack coats. The figure with the long frock coat could be put in either set, both, or in the command set as an NCO.
Not sure how realistic it would be to expect this, though.
Anyway, that's enough for now.
Here's a cap I'd like to see. Just scroll down a little. It's got the shape, too. BTW, I'm well aware crossed sabres and cannons are not right for infantry. I'd rather some hats with some insignias from infantry because they did exist. There's heaps of photos all over the google. At this scale you could hardly see details anyway, and if it bugs some, cut them off. I thought this was supposed to be a generic set with options. I support the something is better than nothing choice. Not on all, of course. But something is better than nothing.
I agree that specific corps insignia would be nice, but going down that road, if all your various caps have the same insignia you're limited to modelling one specific unit, and if you have various types of insignia you can't put them all in the same unit.
How about generic forage caps and slouch hats in several variations for the basic infantry set, and then a separate set just of heads? Then you can have all the unit insignia you want, Hardee hats for the Iron Brigade, the Pennsylvania Bucktails' caps with, well... bucktails, and maybe even some early war shakos. That would also have lots of potential for various contemporary European and Latin American wars. Italian Wars of Independence, Napoleon III's Mexican fiasco, War of the Triple Alliance, Prussia's wars against France/Austria/Denmark etc. Other than colonials and a bit of ACW, the latter part of the 19th century is awfully neglected in our scale...
You're killing me. I think you and Neilad are way overthinking this thing. Does anyone actually read what I wrote?
I never asked for every single kepi to have an infantry insignia on them.
There are no bummer kepis in HaT's line up with the look I've put how many links to? Did anyone actually look? Jeezus.
I know what crossed cannons mean, and crossed sabres, and diamonds, and bugles, and clovers and what not.
Let me repeat myself, I thought HaT was making one set suitable for making in Grey and Blue, and having enough parts to make CSA and USA troops marching.
One or two kepis with CSA and USA insignias is not unreasonable to ask for (not every single one I never asked for) but "none" is just "wrong".
Hefay, you have some great ideas. I originally recommended 2 sets - Grey and Blue combined with some generic heads for both sides.
But separate sets and more work and more cost for HaT so nobody has to buy more than 1 or 2 sets. Combine them, and everyone will have plenty of extras with only a few sets.
But nobody seems to want to have to buy more than 1 box to make 2 complete armies. Same old; same old! 20 reasons why we can't have 1 simple bummer cap with an infantry insignia for each CSA USA side so one expert can have his set of boring, nothing.
I was basing my understanding on this part:
How about corp badges on a separate sticker sheet? Maybe a bit small for the caps but badges could be removed and replaced depending on what unit you want.
Maybe decals would work better than stickers, but I think that would be an ideal solution to the debate. Perhaps instead of two bonus figures have one bonus figure plus a decal sheet to keep costs down?
AGREED need more exotic early war uniforms and different sized people and what about vagabonds they played a big part in the war on both sides the righteous and the union
Not to be pessimistic but judging by the photos of figures and the heads these look more like 28mm figures to me, at least bigger than normal 1/72 figures which will make it hard placing them next to figures from other ranges..