Mark P

Good Evening Jonathan; I would say that you have summed it all up nicely, and made the best decision in the circumstances. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Jonathan; I would not take the presence of an eye bolt in the rear of a kit's gun carriages to be any evidence that the real Revenge would have had such a thing. Certainly the Navy did not issue train tackles as separate items until much later; and in the 17th century one of the gun-tackles was used as a train tackle when needed. If you are depicting your guns in the run-out position, then the train tackle would have already been detached anyway, as it was only used to retain the gun in its recoiled position for loading. However, the whole issue of train tackles is closely linked to the method of using a ship's cannon. There has been some considerable discussion of this recently on MSW (see topic 'the early use of cannon at sea') which discusses the evidence that in the time of Revenge, the guns were fired from a fixed position, with no recoil. In these circumstances, there would certainly be absolutely no need for train tackles at all. May advice would be don't fit them, and if possible, remove or don't fit the eyebolts in the rear of the carriages. All the best, Mark P

Thanks Louie; That is logical enough, although I have never thought of that before. One for the pub quiz: 'Who is the queen of Scotland?' All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Louie; Thank you for pointing that out. I do believe that you are correct, and the author is referring to James I of Scotland, whereas I am indeed thinking of a different James; the first of England. Ooops! All the best, Mark P

Congratulations on completing her, Vladimir; A very lovely model, and built with remarkable speed. There is a lot of good detailing on her, and I agree with the others above: it has been a pleasure to watch her taking shape under your hands. I hope that whatever well-earned rest you take now will not last too long, and you will be back in the workshop on your next project; which I look forward very much to following. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Louie; Thanks for posting this. The extract from Matthew Paris is especially interesting, as you say, giving reasons to obtain the weather gage long before gunpowder had any part in it. I also rather like the description of James I & VI as 'able and spirited': not something with which most historians or contemporaries would agree, I suspect. Although he could exhibit examples of intelligent reasoning, and he did somewhat to encourage maritime exploration, his indulgence of flawed favourites, and his willingness to allow demonstrably corrupt and venal men to continue for many years as administrators of the Navy, despite their exposure by two special commissions, should be taken as more indicative of his character; which overall tended towards indolence and indulgence. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Syrgem; I can certainly confirm that Jonas Shish, Master Shipwright at Deptford during at least part of the Protectorate period, and the reign of King Charles, was familiar with the use of cast lead as ballast. However, the only use he refers to, and which I know continued into later periods, is in Royal yachts; which did not exist in England prior to the Restoration in 1660. So you are probably already aware of this. I have seen no earlier reference to this practice. It is possible that this began with the Dutch presentation of a yacht to Charles on his Restoration, if that yacht was so ballasted. Charles, who took a deep interest in ship design, would doubtless have been aware of this if it was so, and this could have been the source for the introduction of cast lead ballast in English vessels. But this is entirely conjectural. The ballast was cast to fit between the timbers, under the keelson, then sealed over by the ceiling of the hold (there's a clue there to the origin of the word, methinks) The reasoning was that the maximum amount of hold space remained available, not being occupied by shingle or iron ballast, both of which took up a larger volume for the equivalent weight. In later yachts, additional ballast in the form of further cast lead pigs was distributed along the sides of the keelson; presumably not over the limber passage, though. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Mark; I have seen contracts which stipulate that a thicker deck plank is to be used below the columns. This could refer to the binding strakes which run parallel to the centre line. I don't remember exactly which ships and periods this occurred in. Druxey's suggestion of carlings being used seems reasonable also, although a 4" deck plank supported by the ledges would also take a fair amount of weight. In the 17th century long carlings were used to form a raised line each side of the centreline, making the outer edge of all the hatchways, but again, I cannot remember if these seated the columns also. I will have to do a bit of checking back through some contracts. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Mark; I have done a bit of looking through the draughts on Wikimedia, and besides the Dorsetshire, there are plans of the Hampton Court and Weymouth? with similarly detailed deck plans. All of them show the knees abutting the carlings with rounded ends, not cut off square. See below a plan from Inflexible, which, although it is dated 1790, when she was converted to a store-ship, shows the deck beams from an earlier period. Doesn't show any knees, unfortunately; but the carlings are far enough from the side for the knees not to need shortening in any way. Following on from some of the comments above, here is the deck plan of the Stirling Castle of 1775, showing the improved sweep with rollers and other parts of the steering mechanism, which will be of interest, even if it is from a later period. Then there is the deck plan of Vengeance, 1774, showing just what you need. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Siggi; I hope that Mark won't mind me answering for him, but if you are asking about what I think you are, this is a deck beam structure using half-beams; which is a fairly common method of fitting the deck beams in the after end of the deck. It allows for shorter beams to be used than are otherwise required. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Matle; It is well worth reading; as it is subject to copyright, I cannot post it or a link here. I can say that there are many accounts in the literature of the 16th-early 17th centuries which describe sea fights, all in the context of firing the bow guns, then the broadside guns, then the stern-chasers, then perhaps the other broadside also, and then moving away to reload. This was a common tactic for all nations, commencing with a 'charge' towards the enemy, before firing the bow guns. There are multiple references to this kind of tactic by many contemporaries. The ultimate aim originally was to soften up the enemy ready for boarding; which gradually developed into standing off and battering each other with broadsides. Regarding the wheeled truck carriage, this is also discussed by Rodger in his article, with the view that the wheeled carriage was not developed as part of allowing for recoil, but more to allow the guns to be run out at the beginning of an engagement, and withdrawn inboard at the end of it. The idea of using the recoil was seemingly adopted much later than we might expect, part of the possible proof of this being noticeable increases in the sizes of gun crews in the first decades of the 17th century, with repeated running out being the main reason for this. All the best, Mark P

Thanks for your reply Matle; I do agree with you that it seems to be a rather daft idea to load outboard (in the Van de Velde sketch mentioned, a member of the gun's crew is sitting on the barrel outside the port) but according to the tactics of the period, the reloading was carried out away from the enemy, so while not being shot at. Nonetheless, it does seem rather inconceivable. Your mathematical workings are a welcome addition, and you are correct in that I did indeed ignore that, responding instead to the seeming intent of 'silly'. I will try to avoid such limited views henceforth. 🤐 The other points re broadside development had been discussed previously in the thread, and can only be settled in the mind of each reader, as there is no solid consensus either way. Rodger's article is interesting because it provides a lot of good reasons to believe in the development of full broadside fighting rather later than has been frequently stated in other works. I started this thread on the assumption that most modellers, and other readers on this site, will not be aware that there is much of a debate on this subject, lying as it does at a time in history before that which inspires the majority of models. If this thread succeeds in widening the debate slightly, that will be a beneficial outcome. The Vasa replica is a wonderful bit of film, which has been mentioned on here before, and I imagine that most people seeing it would be very glad not to be on the receiving end of cannon-fire. It obviously gives a solid and reliable basis for the mathematical calculations you show. All the best, and thanks for your contributions, Mark P

Good Evening Matle; Thank you for your thoughts. I cannot help but feel that to some extent you are indulging in hindsight: you know what came later, and are inclined to dismiss other practices as unlikely or 'a silly idea'. Outboard loading of cannon is mentioned often in the sources, and is actually shown in a sketch by one of the Van de Veldes (elder or younger, don't remember which) who are widely regarded as the greatest marine artists of the 17th century, and very good authorities. I suggest that if possible you read the article I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, which is by a well-respected author; is much longer than my brief paragraphs (24 pages) deals with the the subject in depth; is well-researched (it does cover much more than purely Anglo-centric sources and has over 150 references to relevant works, most of them either contemporary, or nearly so) and is well-written. I am not saying that this will necessarily change your mind, but at least you will understand the debate, and the relevant factors and writings much more clearly. For example, neither the author, NAM Rodger, nor I, made any claim that breechings did not exist, only that there is evidence that they were originally not used to restrain the gun during recoil; more specifically in the article, it mentions that they were used to secure the guns to the ship's side during stormy weather. This article (and thousands of other interesting ones) can be found on the website of the Society for Nautical Research, although if you are not a member of the NRS, you will be unable to access this resource. All the best, Mark P

Thank you for the further clarification, Dan; In other words, the difference in projectile velocity is unlikely to have been noticeable, and cannot have been a factor in whether or not cannons were allowed/encouraged to recoil when fired. This will help when considering the process behind the changes outlined at the beginning of this thread. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Dan; Thank you for the explanations above, which all seem well grounded. You have summarised matters more clearly in technical terms than I could have done, which certainly helps. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Jaager; Thank you again for your further thoughts, which are very welcome, as they encourage further consideration. The comment re the nose gun is interesting, and may well be true, although it is perhaps (and I only say perhaps, not knowing any facts) subjective more than it is the result of careful analysis. I remember hearing a similar comment about the A10 Warthog, the tank-busting 'Flying Cross'. Remarkable machines, they were, and presumably the F86 was similar: an airborne Gatling gun with a high rate of fire and lethal projectiles. However, a ship's cannon is only fired once, not many times a second, so the result would not be comparable, I suspect, as it is not cumulative, even if the relative masses of the two objects are in the same proportion in either case. I am not arguing that the discharge of the cannon has no effect on the motion of the ship, only that it is most likely to be a very small proportion of the total energy generated, if the cannon cannot recoil. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Jaager; Thank you for your thoughts. Although my study of physics was somewhat less thorough, and I remember very little of lines of force, I suspect that you are probably incorrect here, but certainly correct that some of the energy would be turned into heat, and therefore light also; but that would be a constant with or without recoil. My reasoning re the force would be that as the cannon is immovable, no energy can be used in moving it, although a much lesser amount may be used in attempting to move it. If the cannon cannot move backwards at the same time that the ball is starting to move forwards, then the only viable escape route for the expanding energy lies in pushing the ball down the barrel (disregarding windage around the ball, of course; but that would apply equally in either scenario) It could perhaps be contended that if the cannon cannot recoil, then the energy is in part dissipated by instead moving the ship's side to which it is attached; but as that is a considerably greater mass than a cannon-ball, I believe that the ball would move much more than the ship. It would be interesting to know how much force was exerted on the ship's timbers by a non-recoiling cannon, as compared to a recoiling one being brought up short by its breeching, at which point considerable kinetic energy would need to be absorbed and dissipated over the structure. A corollary of this would perhaps be that a non-recoiling cannon would be more liable to explode. All interesting stuff! All the best, Mark P

I have just finished reading a very interesting article in Mariner's Mirror, volume 82 (1996) no.3 p301-324. This was written by NAM Rodger, and is titled 'The Development of Broadside Gunnery'. This discusses, amongst other points, the evidence for the development of broadside gunnery as opposed to the use of bow & stern chasers, which latter seemingly continued much longer than most of us might suppose. Several points arise which I will try to summarise here, as they will be of interest to fellow modellers: Firstly, in 16th & early 17th century ships, the heaviest guns were frequently mounted to fire forward over the bows, as tactics generally dictated that the bows were pointed at the enemy in an attack, and not the broadside. The broadside guns were angled forwards, or 'bowed', as much as possible, to allow them to participate in the action. Secondly, the guns were loaded and fired relatively infrequently, being re-loaded in progression by a team of gunners once the ship had wore (assuming she had the weather gage) and moved away from the enemy fleet. Thirdly, the guns were fired from a fixed position, and were not allowed to recoil inboard, with re-loading carried out from outboard (this is a reasonable method if the ship is not engaged broadside to broadside with an enemy vessel) Rodger gives examples of early writings which support these arguments, and also dismantles some previously quoted texts which seem to support broadside firing from an early date, by showing that they have been mis-translated. One piece of evidence cited is Sir Henry Mainwayring's 'Seaman's Dictionary', written in the early 1630s, which specifically states that breechings are not used in a fight, but only at sea, chiefly in foul weather. An advantage to firing without allowing a recoil, not stated by Rodger, but which may well be a good reason for it, is that all the energy produced by the explosion of the powder is used to propel the shot from the barrel. By allowing recoil, the amount of energy necessary for this is thereby not used to propel the shot. The amount of energy necessary to move a 1-ton cannon backwards, especially if up a sloping deck, would be considerable, and would represent a noticeable reduction in the force of the cannon-shot, presumably. With the development of broadside firing (which Rodger shows was probably not fully developed until the mid 1620s) and a much more rapid rate of fire (early gun-crews were too small to allow individual running-in and out) it presumably became apparent that an increased rate of fire, brought about by allowing recoil and allocating much larger gun crews, outweighed the loss of projectile force. There is a lot more there, and I recommend the article to all with an interest in this era. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Kate; It looks to me like what is called an 'open heart', which is used to set up the lower end of one of the principal stays of a sailing ship, with a lanyard (a length of rope passed repeatedly through each of a pair of hearts, placed end to end, and about 3 feet apart) The two metal loops of one heart would have been fastened to the end of the stay, and those of the other heart would be fixed to a firm anchorage point. The lanyard was used to pull it all taut, and could be adjusted if necessary. The stays were large diameter ropes which ran down and forwards from the top of the masts, to a fixed point on or near the deck or bowsprit. I believe that open hearts were also sometimes used to set up the bowsprit shrouds in some merchant vessels. I am not fully qualified to comment on the date, but I would suspect it to be of either 19th century date, or early 20th. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Gentlemen; Another interesting point re the rabbetting of timbers in the stern is that the planking of the ship's side was actually set into rebates in the outer stern timbers, which would have needed to be made thicker than the other timbers by the size of the planking, to accommodate this. This is stipulated in quite a few contracts from the later 18th century. I suspect that it is a detail too far for modellers though, as most of this joint is covered by the quarter galleries and associated carvings. All the best, Mark

Good Evening Kevin; Yes, it was common practice for merchant vessels to imitate the Navy paint scheme; as you surmise, this was indeed to discourage predators of all types. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Vladimir; She's coming along beautifully. Thanks for sharing the pictures and your progress. There is a lot of good detailing there, and a nice method of building the boats. Keep up the good work; I look forward to seeing what you will do next. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Gentlemen; Just as a matter of caution, and for future reference, the ring-bolts shown in the drawing in Allan's post above look like ladies' earrings: very delicate and lightweight (no reflection on Allan; but whoever drew it appears to have been in error) The contract for 'Warspite', 1755, one of the first 74s, states that on the gun-deck (which would be for the 32 pdrs) the ring bolts each side of the gun-ports are to have rings with an internal diameter of 5", and to be made of 1 3/8" diameter iron. On the upper deck, for the 24 pdrs, as in the illustration, the rings are to be 4 3/4" internal diameter, and to be made of 1 1/8" diameter iron. As a rough approximation both these indicate that the metal forming the ring is around one quarter of the size of the hole in the ring. Which would look much more capable of restraining a 2 ton plus cannon on recoil. As these ring-bolts are for the breechings, as are the ones in the carriage cheeks, I would believe it a fair supposition that they should be the same. See below a plate from Robertson's mathematical treatise of 1775: (yes, I agree, not the first place one would look for gunnery-related items, but a very good contemporary source, nonetheless) All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Gary Sir; It all depends upon what sources the author uses. Don't fret too much; certainly the floors were once covered with brick. I did read somewhere, don't remember if it was a modern book, or a contemporary document, that brick stoves were done away with because the maintenance cost of them was very high. Re the joints in the lead, these would almost certainly be what we over here call 'welted' seams, where the edge of one sheet is completely enclosed in a folded edge of the adjoining sheet, and then the two are beaten flat. All the best, Mark

Good Evening Mark; Glad to be of assistance in any way with such a delightful build. I have the Dorsetshire draught on paper, and the upstand is most definitely a side view, not a section. Taken in conjunction with the contracts specifying that cants are laid, I would surmise that what you see is actually a timber edging around the hearth (to contain spilt liquids, probably, and ashes) with a slot in the top for the lead to be tucked into for a tidy finish. Cants, as I am sure you recall, are frequently laid on the deck under the bulkheads, and are also used to receive the outer ends of the manger boards. It seems to be a term for a timber with a slot in it; derived, one must assume, from a passing resemblance to something which has fascinated men for millenia. Hence, I think it is safe to interpret the draught and the contracts in this way. Note that the cants, or slotted timbers, are laid, which in construction terms implies that they are positioned horizontally. Additional structural strength would not be necessary on the deck, as this was supplied by fitting a couple of very large carlings below the stove area. It is also likely that the stove was supported either on feet, or on small areas of brickwork, to leave a mostly void area below the stove, allowing air to circulate and prevent direct heat transmission to the lead and deck. This was certainly the case with the earlier brick stoves. The Brodie stoves, once in use, were fitted by specialist contractors, not dockyard staff, so it is possible that if bricks were used for this purpose when iron stoves were introduced, they were fitted by the contractors, and so were not mentioned in the contract, being a specialist item. All the best, Mark P