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

As mentioned, a wider swing is neither necessary nor advisable.

thanks so much, Gary and Siggi. That makes perfect sense. It is confirmed by the section of HMS Dorsetshire from NMM, below. Here the sweep and gooseneck are clearly in between the beams, and also one beam back as you suggest. This shows what looks like a sheave in a fixture in the side,  not a free-hanging block as Lavery shows in the Bellona book....
 
 
 

 
It doesn't allow any wider swing of the tiller, but it fits constructionally.
 

 
 
 

Alan,
 
There are other videos of the firing of this gun. In the video posted above you can see a vertical piece to the right of the hull siding. In other videos from a different angle this part was a flat sheet parallel to the hull siding. The splinters from the shot ripped the sheet to pieces, showing the effect of the splinters on anything inside the ship. The cannon ball was unlikely to strike a crewman because it was relatively small, but the spray of splinters was much larger and caused the most damage to the crew.
 
One thing to consider - and was briefly mentioned - is that whether or not the gun was fixed or recoiled on wheels, the energy of the recoil was transferred to the ship in both cases. It was transferred directly from the gun to the hull when the gun was solidly attached to the hull. When the gun was on wheels and recoiled the force of the recoil was transferred to the ship through the breeching. But much of the recoiling gun's momentum was lost through friction (heat) so the momentum transferred to the ship was smaller. You can see this in the video - the gun had slowed considerably before it was stopped by the breeching. In later ships the gun tackle absorbed much of the recoil energy.

Mark, 
I feel we might be talking past each other. The 16th century was a long period, full of experimentation and technological and tactical development. Even at the same time and place, different types of vessels were used with very different purpose and armament. For example, I focused my post on the pure-bred warship of the latter half of the 16th century in the Baltic - these were largely artillery ships. For the earlier type of breech-loaded heavy iron guns common during the end of the 15th and first half of the 16th centuries, having little recoil makes more sense. 

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

Apparently more than about 25 degrees of rudder become ineffective: the rudder then acts like a brake. So I think that you are safe, Mark!
 
Read Hutchinson:
 
http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Seamanship/Hutchinson(1777)_p38.html

Hi Mark. Am not sure but in the AOS Bellona shows on page 65 that the sweep is set back by one beam compared to what you showing and maybe that is were the goose neck fitted on the back side of the sweep. It shows blocks further forward on the end of the tiller and looks like the tiller rope is going from those blocks, through a eyelet then to a block at the side. Finally going fwd to be guided up to the wheel. How right this is am not really sure. Will see what I come up with. I added a photo of my sweep with the rollers. You just make them out on the far right and far left side with bolts holding the rollers in place. Gary

Mark here is a photo from Brian Lavery  book Building the  wooden Walls, The design and construction of the 74 gun ship Valiant and shows the tiller and ropes  which seems to be the same as what's in Bellona. Says it comes from the NMM and gives a date of 1760. 

Hello Mark,
 
I would agree with Gary, that you should set back the sweep between beam 24 and 25 and follow Lavery's sketch at page 65 of his Bellona book. But I set the blocks for the tiller rope in front of the 24. beam and fitted my sweep between the beams and then it works. I hope the picture explains better what I mean.
 

 

 

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

Broadside naval gunnery tactics did not come into widespread practice until after the Spanish Armada (1588).  The English were considered to be early adopters of trucked carriages.  An entire class of ships (race built galleons) was developed to maximize forward firing artillery as that was the predominant gunnery tactic of the day.  Most reloading was accomplished while the ship wore away from the enemy to come back around for another assault.  Spanish naval tactics still relied heavily on boarding actions and so their gunners only were expected to get off one or two shots for an entire engagement.
 
Regards, 

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
 
 

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