HMS Bellona 1760 by SJSoane - Scale 1:64 - English 74 gun, as designed

[Siggi52]

Hello Mark,

 

with that what I know is Druxey right. Then you could shorten the ropes easily to store the guns during voyages, or move the guns. A good example is the model of the Royal George (1756) https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66456.html at the NMM. Here a screen shot

 

 

And there is no turn of the rope around the cascable. I don't know where, but I remember a picture where the breach rope was sized there with a small rope around the cascable.

 

I hope I could help.

 

 

[druxey]

I have reservations about the Royal George sectional model. If you look carefully, the trucks of the guns have black iron rims - something that would never have been the case on shipboard guns. Only land-based batteries would have had iron-shod wheels. Secondly, there appears to be no difference in size between the lower deck battery, presumably 32 pounders, and the guns above. The quarter deck guns were 12 pounders - they should be considerably smaller. The inboard paint scheme is questionable, too. The model has been 'improved' by obviously 20th century labels. What else might have been improved or altered as well?

[Siggi52]

Hello Druxey,

 

may be the black rim at the wheels are only black paint. The guns at the GD where 42 pdrs and at the MD where 24 pdrs according to R. Winfield's British  Warships in the Age of Sail 1714-1792. They have at the breech nearly the same size. The NMM write, that the model was made 1756 and ok, the color. You like more white ships, without much color. But the ships in those days where colourful. And this was a 1. rate! 

 

Please have also a look at Falconer's cross section of a 74 gunner, there you see the same thing.

 

[druxey]

I won't argue with you about the sizes of 32 and 24 pounders, Siggi, but those 12 pounders on the quarter deck look much too large. Why would anyone want to paint the truck rims black? The paint would mark up the decks that they kept scrupulously clean. It is not logical. As for my comments about paint, my understanding was that lower decks were whitewashed, as there was limited light - my comment has nothing to do with any personal preference! Yes, I've seen blue painted inner bulwarks on contemporary models (also blue-grey and grey-green), but only in cabin areas. I stand to be corrected in my remarks.

[SJSoane]

The Falconer drawing is about the right time for the Bellona, and is contemporary. So a good guide here. I see the breech rope lying on top of the button, not wrapping around, and also more permanently seized around the bulwark eyebolt without a hook.

 

It does seem very hit and miss whether that breech rope would stay in place in the heat of battle, when the gun is run out and the rope is slack. In a recoil, it looks like it could slip up over the top of the barrel, or even slide down and catch the carriage below, allowing an unexpectedly long recoil. Maybe just a light seizing run around the button that the Falconer drawing does not show?

 

Mark

 

[shipmodel]

Hi Siggi, Druxey and Mark - 

 

I am greatly enjoying your discussion.  To add my two cents -

 

The one consideration that has not been mentioned yet is how the gun would act during recoil.  If the rope is fixed around the cascabel, either by a loop and a seizing or by a cont splice, then if the gun is anything but exactly perpendicular to the bulwark, the shock of the recoil will be taken up unevenly, leading to a torque on the rear of the barrel, which could not be good for the gun or the gunners.  In extreme cases I guess it could overturn the carriage.  Leaving the breaching rope to run free, whether with a loop or without, would even up those stresses.

 

Dan

 

[druxey]

Interesting comment worth considering, Dan.

[AON]

I believe the CG (centre of gravity) is low enough that this would not normally happen.  So long as the men stood clear to the sides they would survive the recoil.

 

With the camber of the deck and a calm sea everything helps the gun crew reposition the gun too early.

 

They need to haul it back away from the gun port to have access to clean, swab, and reload.

 

Then haul it back out to fire again in record time... back breaking work with ringing in their ears and smoke in their eyes.

 

Then the normal condition is they would be on a tack, heeled over,  and in rough seas... with someone firing back at them.

 

Logically the breech rope is a large size to withstand the strain.  The wheels are different sizes front to back to assist in range, compensate for the deck camber, and adjust the CG.

 

This rope would be wrapped and seized until a better idea was implemented (the ring cast into the cannon to eliminate the need to seize the line)... sort of an ISO2000 concept... constant improvement.

[dvm27]

From Building the Wooden Walls, Brian Lavery, 1991:

 

" Gun Tackle - The thickest were the breech ropes, 7 1/2in in circumference on a 32-pounder, and one was used for each gun. The middle part of the rope was turned round the button of the gun, and seized on to it; each end was then led to a ring bolt on the side of the ship and attached to it, probably with a bowline. The tackle was intended to restrain the recoil of the gun when it was fired. It was long enough to allow the gun to run someway back from the port and so be reloaded, but not so long that it ran onto the coamings and other fittings near the centerline of the ship".

 

When it comes to English ships I can think of no better source than Lavery. I'm not quite sure how to interpret "seized onto it" but perhaps seizing under the button as Druxey suggests is what he is referring to. Lavery is also very specific in describing the carriages and makes no mentions of iron hoops on the trucks.

[Siggi52]

Dear Druxey,

 

starts now the same procedure as with the paneling of the outer walls? There also all pictures, paintings and sketches I posted where in your eyes fantasy, artistic freedom or you could’t see anything. But at least it turned out, that I was right.

 

So why are the outer circumstances, the color, the wheels and the cannons now are an argument that all the rest is not true? That model is from 1756, may be a little fancier then an original ship. We don’t know what the artist would show us with this model. The white wash came later and also red wheels on cannons made the floor colourful, not only black one. But they are ok. I never heard something against that. At the Victory these wheels where not painted.

 

We agree with the fastening of the breech rope to the rings bolds at the walls. So it’s also at the Victory. I think Falconer did’t show that knot, because it did’t matter. Every man knows, that there has to be a knot. And he shows clearly, that the rope is only laid over the cascable. And that you could all see at that model, so why it’s not useful?

 

I thought that we are here in this forum to share wisdom to build better models. But if it’s not liked to have an other view, or find something out, I let it. I have nobody to ask how I build my ship, and at least it’s not important for me, how other build theirs. So many build there ships in Hahn style and others in druxey style. I was really shocked to see the double curve you build in your wales. Did you never noticed that you are the only one who build it so? And the port lids, only two models I found have that step around the lid! But nobody noticed that before! And nobody, except mtaylor, liked it. Thank you for that Mark.

 

Druxey, I liked the support I got from you over the time. But you should also be more open for others, who found out something different, or noticed something you have overseen.

[oldpaperone]

A few exaples from my library. The guns were lashed when not in use, often with multiple lashing ropes. Different when made ready for action.The first three are from Boudriot’s 74 gun ship book. 

Edited Sunday at 12:22 AM by oldpaperone

[paulsutcliffe]

Another option that may be of interest is David White in the AOTS Diana armament section shows the breeching rope lying over the cascable and a ring but says in the text, the ring is a grommet seized to the cascable, so similar to siggis photo but with a ring tied on to the button

Regards

Paul

[mtaylor]

The problem I see with this discussion is that we have no authoritative source other than Falconer and his drawing leaves a lot open for interpretation.  And there's a problem with Falconer.. it appears that he's only showing the training tackle or the "run-out" tackle and method of stowage.  If you look at the lower of his drawings, the "breech rope" goes from the button down to the eye bolts on the carriage, which in my opinion if used for firing would cause the gun muzzle and front wheels to rise.

 

What I'm seeing as pertains here is mostly second source info, not just here in this discussion but many involving the rigging of guns, even the masts and more.  Much was left up to the discretion of such things to the Captain.  We have tales of captains re-rigging and changing things that could be changed.  So what's correct for rigging guns?  All of them?  Some of them?  Basically, it boils down to best guess unless we can get that time machine working. 

[Alex M]

Are you sure that Falconer show breeching rope in his drawing? It is too thin to be a breeching rope. I think, he show an extra Tackle used to held the gun in position. D. Steel show a cut splice in his drawings and I think, it is only right methode to bring the breeching rope aroung the cascable of the gun.

 

Regards

Alex

Edited Saturday at 10:33 PM by Alex M

[Hubac's Historian]

You know who might have a clear and practical answer to this question?  Henry - AKA Popeye2Sea.  He serves aboard the U.S.S. Constitution, and has a tremendous working knowledge of rigging, and of gun rigging.  Maybe send him a message.