Jump to content
The Journal is now Digital Read more... ×
dafi

HMS Victory by dafi - Heller - PLASTIC - To Victory and beyond ...

Recommended Posts

It is surprising, isn't it, just how many details on this ship are in grey area territory.

 

If the ports were present, I am pretty sure the men would have used some kind of ad-hoc method of covering it/them - canvas, leather or wood perhaps.

 

But the question remains, why only 28 cannon for the middle deck? They were certainly designed with the entry ports in mind, I think. But in the real world, in the midst of all out war, long blockades and thousands of nautical miles away from home, I guess anything goes.

Edited by chris watton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That too is my opinion, the 28 guns are one of the strongest hints for the port. At no time that were 30 guns recorded in the books, for me a "must" if the door would have been replaced by a gunport, otherwise the first two or the last gunport would have been idle.

 

At least for bad weather there must have been a cover, and in my opinion not only canvas or leather.

 

But that is the interesting bit on this ship: Although believed to be that well explored and boring and a hundred thousend times being build - there are still so many open questions. And I love to stir a little bit in that pot - a friend of mine would call it "fascinating" ;-)

 

XXXDAn

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I always like to visualise and try out my thoughts, here are some versions on a mere speculation basis. 

 

Single board on the outside

Victory-130807_0201.jpg

 

Half doors opening outside:

Victory-130807_0205.jpg

 

Single board on the inside:

Victory-130807_0202.jpg

 

Half doors on the inside (like quarter galleries)

Victory-130807_0207.jpg

 

 

... just works out on the inside.

Victory-130807_0208.jpg

 

And a version like on fire ships as seen in construction and fitting: Half board on the bottom and half lids on the upper half.

Victory-130807_0210.jpg

 

Cheers, Daniel

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought... If you go with a door, typically ship's doors open outwards so that water pressure would force the door tighter into it's frame (just like the gun ports), making it easier to keep weather tight.

 

A door opening inwards risks getting blown open by the first wave that decides to crash the party. ;)

 

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for my personal opinion seeing those tests: I also would discard the inside board for the same reason Andy gives. The half lid doors are one more gap that could leak, on top the inside half doors have a slight problem with the deck because of the thumbledom and a even bigger one because of the hanging knees, that prevent opening more than 90°.

The fire ship doors is a too sophisticated feature and I believe it would have been shown.

 

The "single outside board solution" would give some intersting thoughts. It just requires battens or a small recess like the gun ports inside the opening to be pressed /pulled against. This could be done by some eyebolts and some simple lashing from the inside. As it is not part of the structure and not a permanent fitting, this could explain why it is never represented in the models - it was seen as a mere board. Another hint could be the panelling of the inside of the door frame, this one looks much more like an internal fitting than an outside part of the ship.

 

But as mentioned before, these are pure speculations, hard proves still missing. But perhaps it allows to get a closer idea, what we are searching for, like special construction details. The only thing I found so far is, that NMM´s plans of Nelson and Caledonia show the usual gunport arrangement of eyebolts around the entry port, as if this port also was used for guns on occasions. And seen the concave outside of the hull, those breeching-eyebolts in the middle would already guarantee a secure lashing of the board against battens or recess ...

 

 

Here still is a small color variation of my personal favorite:

Yellow door at the end of 1804 before Nelson took possession of her and ...

 

Victory-130807_0201.jpg

 

... after he introduced his checker on the port lids :-)

 

Victory-131007_0200.jpg

 

XXXDAn

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is: would Nelson recognise this entry-port....

 

There is a nice model in NMM showing Victory as she was supposed to be n 1803 without the entry-ports.http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66474.html

There is alos a model that shows victory as she was supposed to be in 1805 sith entryports and even a platform outside the hull....

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66475.html

 

The one without is assumed to be the contemporary model

 

 

Jan

Edited by amateur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first one contemporary, but as build or as supposed to be build or a study? Some odd features especially around the bow.

The second one is as build, as the channels are sitting lower and the gallery is still open.

 

As I said before, there are seemingly more hints (not proves) that she was without.

 

XXXDAn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if that door was added later on when Victory wasn't being used as a warship for easy entry? I read the Wikipedia article:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory

 

and noticed this particular paragraph:

 

In 1889, Victory was fitted up as a Naval School of Telegraphy. She soon became a proper Signal School, and signal ratings from ships paying off were sent to Victory, instead of the barracks, for a two-month training course. The School remained on Victory until 1904, when training was transferred temporarily to HMS Hercules, and in 1906 the whole School was moved to a permanent establishment at the Chatham Royal Naval Barracks.[38]

 

I would guess that they added the door at that time as Victory wasn't expecting to be put to sea ever again. Those are just my thoughts on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is: would Nelson recognise this entry-port....

 

There is a nice model in NMM showing Victory as she was supposed to be n 1803 without the entry-ports.http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66474.html

There is alos a model that shows victory as she was supposed to be in 1805 sith entryports and even a platform outside the hull....

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66475.html

 

The one without is assumed to be the contemporary model

 

 

Jan

 

 

Note the important wording in the description on the 1803 model - "Model also shows further modifications which were proposed after Trafalgar which were not carried out".  Even contemporary models represent many different things, probably in a world before CAD design it was the most effective way to convey ideas for real world discussion rather than attempting to be a definitive reference manual for how the ships looked at a particular time.  All this is speculation without definitive proof...which is why its so fun because no-one is wrong :-)

Edited by Beef Wellington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I still do not give up the dream, that one day my lower gundeck will be finished, I managed to prepare some ...

 

Victory-130806_0195.jpg

 

... and to do some more ...

 

Victory-130806_0196.jpg

 

... to come closer to this dream of mine.

 

XXXDAn

 

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love the stern decoration in this photo 

 

i will remove this post - if your unhappy with me posting it

post-846-0-07983600-1381321252_thumb.jpg

Edited by Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would that be the design after they closed the stern in and then before the big repair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note the important wording in the description on the 1803 model - "Model also shows further modifications which were proposed after Trafalgar which were not carried out".  

As Wellington mentioned above - this line submits the model to suggestions of your wildest dreams ;-)

 

XXXDAn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts, if I may.   The photos reference by Jan have interest in that the model with the entry port doesn't have the boarding ladder going above the entry port.  As I recall, entry ports were for the exclusive use of the brass.  Everyone else had to go up and over the top.  Is this a faulty assumption?  The model says "yes, everyone boarded the ship via the entry port".  

 

The other two pic show "without entry ports".... if they weren't there, and there's only 28 guns, which ports would have been empty?  Unless the very formost were used as a bridle port.  Curiously, many of the contemporary models and paintings show the ports, yet the photo from 1909 doesn't.

 

A pity we don't have a time machine....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the pot is empty ...

 

Victory-131014_0235.jpg

 

... time to do something more important and worthy ...

 

Victory-131014_0233.jpg

 

... as both scuttles for the vent trunks were mere black holes. So they got their wooden cases and look much more in tune now  :-)

 

Victory-131014_0231.jpg

 

And here some fresh impressions from the shipyard.

 

Victory-131014_0236.jpg

 

Victory-131014_0239.jpg

 

Victory-131014_0246.jpg

 

Victory-131014_0250.jpg

 

Good night, Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question, not on your fantastic technique, but on the reality of gun-handling....

 

Quite often, you see ringbolts placed in the deck, and a tackle rigged (sometimes even two) to haul back the gun in order to sponge out and load.

Seeing how far the gun has to be run backwards to get the sponge in the barrel, I was wondering: were should the ringbolts be placed to get the system working?

 

Jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Sirs :-)

 

Jan, the tackle in the back usually is a single one (only the French had a double tackle for 36 or 46 ponders). It was hooked into the ring that was as much at the center line as possible. At the Vic, the plans show the rings more or less at the line that coaming/gratings give.

At the last picture with the reloading of the gun, the rings are situated just beside the anchor cable, which is just enough for the tackle to work.

 

Here two more of the rings to be seen.

 

etch_Victory-bolts_9249.jpg

 

XXXDAn

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan,

 

Dafi is correct. The ringbolts were normally positioned as near to the centreline, behind each gun, as was possible. This would give the tackle the maximum amount of room to operate and be effective. However, depending on the gun's position, I am not sure that the guns always entirely cleared their ports, and there are instances of the rammer and sponger having to operate with their implements out of the port. Incidentally, the gun's own recoil would normally return it to the loading position.

 

Regarding the entry ports, Goodwin in his 'Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man of War', says that they were fitted between 1660 and 1810, although some ships continued their use after that date. That is presumably why early 20th cent. photos of the Victory show her without an entry port. He also states that the first use of entry ports, port and starboard, was from 1671.

 

As to their use, I think Mark is right, and that they were for the use of senior officers only. I may be wrong here, but I'm not sure lowly mids and lieutenants would have been allowed to use it, unless they had special dispensation.

Edited by Stockholm tar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model shipcraft.

The Nautical Research Guild puts on ship modeling seminars, yearly conferences, and juried competitions. We publish books on ship modeling techniques as well as our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, whose pages are full of articles by master ship modelers who show you how they build those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you what details to build.

Our Emblem

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
×