Jump to content

Steve20

NRG Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    168

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Steve20

  1. Steve20
    Attached is an Argentine archaeological paper on HMS Swift, a 14-gun sloop-of-war. She was launched in 1763 and went down off Patagonia in 1770. The paper is dated 2006, so the archaeology findings may not be the latest, but the paper contains some interesting information. Archaeological Research on HMS Swift.pdf
  2. Steve20
    The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture, 2nd Edition, 1812, David Steele. For scantlings of shot racks on upper, middle and lower (gun) decks, Steele states ‘.......the upper sides gouged and hollowed to the size of the shot at one-third of its diameter, keeping the shot two inches asunder in the clear.' Elsewhere, in a general statement, Steele states that shot garlands '.......fitted against the head ledges and coamings of the hatch and ladderways, or against the side between ports, to contain the shot; for which purpose they are hollowed out to near one third of the shot diameter, so that the balls lie in them about one inch asunder.' By 'asunder' Steele means apart. A hollowed out depth of one-third of the shot diameter doesn't seem a lot, so this tends to give weight to the argument that shot was kept in place, by some means or other, when the ship was heavily rolling and pitching.
  3. Steve20
    I would just like to add more clarification to my last post. Elliot’s work in improving concentration of fire entailed the accurate pointing of individual guns, and reading Steven’s description of Elliot's method of achieving this (Steven’s, page 40-43), it does looks like Elliot's experimental work would have been done using perhaps a few guns. The resultant triangle or quadrant boards, once fully developed, could then have been placed in any ship for broadside configuration and final testing. Some Description of the Methods Used in Pointing Guns at Sea, Captain John Stevens, Extract from pages 40&41. Triangle or quadrant boards were constructed (see fig.13), containing a quarter of a circle, described from the apex of the triangle a, with a radius of about one foot, the arc, c d, being divided into degrees, or points, half points, &c. These boards are placed behind the gun on the deck, with the base, e f, parallel to the keel, and the centre of the circle, a, in the axis of the piece prolonged to the rear (i.e., in the vertical plane in which the axis lies). During the time the gun is being trained the board is moved also, in order that its relative position to the gun, as above described, may be preserved. The trigger line is held so as to coincide with the axis of the gun, prolonged to the rear, as a h ; ……...
  4. Steve20
    Thanks Frank. I would much prefer to use Chucks laser cut parts, but making myself produce them is helping me to get better at this.
  5. Steve20
    Hi Gary, Thanks for the input. I do think John Stevens wording on Captain Elliot is not as clear as it could be. When he says it was believed Elliot enhanced the method of concentrating fire on board Victory (page 40) his meaning was that Elliot’s work on Victory was experimental. Elliot probably only needed a few guns for his trials and these could be moved around the Victory decks if needs be. Elliot would not have needed to fire a broadside. Stevens says that it must have taken Elliot much ingenuity, care, and labour to perfect the application (the enhanced method that is) and this would be consistent with Elliot having plenty of time on his hands because Victory was at the time only a guard ship. Reading the text a few times, this does seem to be the case to me, and this then leads one to conclude that Victory was probably used to further develop the method of gunnery that was applied by Brooke on the Shannon.
  6. Steve20
    I don't want to move away from the subject of how shot was secured on deck - I hope someone can come up with a definitive explanation to this. In the meantime, here’s a document on naval gunnery that may be of interest to some. It was published in 1834 and written by Captain John Harvey Stevens, Royal Marine Artillery, Director of the Laboratory of Instruction Portsmouth. It’s titled ‘Some Description of the Methods Used in Pointing Guns at Sea’. For those, like me, who prefer to flick through the technical parts you'll find that it touches on Congreve Rockets, gun sights, and how the Shannon gunnery was performed. It also corroborates Daniel Pascoe on breast pieces and/or sweeps in that they were used to stop gun carriage trucks jamming in the waterways during oblique pointing. What's more, it has interesting diagrams of the Congreve and Hookham sights on the last page. Some description of the methods used in pointing guns at sea 1834.pdf
  7. Steve20
    Have you tried the ordnance records at The National Archives (TNA). They have information on the fitting and arming of warships. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/board-ordnance/ As well as looking for the issue of carronades to ships, it would be worth looking for the issue of 68 pound shot and other carronade specific shot size. A less likely possibility is the TNA ADM records (Admiralty, and Ministry of Defence, Navy Department: Correspondence and Papers).
  8. Steve20
    I note, though, that Daniel Pascoe is not so sure about this: Page 372. The Hazardous and Great Storm Wrecks are providing a much better understanding of the different types of shot and how it was stored and distributed around the ship. The evidence from the Hazardous in particular shows that there were several types of shot, all of which served a different purpose, and their location on the gundecks demonstrates that the ship was prepared to use all types immediately. However, what is still poorly understood is how the shot would have been secured on the decks so as not to be a danger to crew or equipment. In the conditions that the Hazardous was lost in one would expect that the shot must have been secured in a way that stopped it coming out of its holders. The evidence from the Stirling Castle demonstrates that the guns were given double security during rough conditions and I suspect equal attention would have been given to the shot to avoid serious injuries from this becoming loose.
  9. Steve20
    Thanks Dan, Gravity it seems to be, then, as there's no other explanation. I guess the people in those days must have long since determined the depth of concavity required and took it for granted that everyone knew it.
  10. Steve20
    There're some answers to questions here, Allan, and some new questions, also. But more than anything, I'm reminded that the crews of these ships were highly skilled and the masters of improvisation. They would think nothing of striking topmasts in a gale or building a boat out of the wreckage of their own ship to effect a self-rescue. Modifying gun carriages, and other gear, to make it better suit its purpose must have been routine for them, so variations to the norm must be more common than we might have expected.
  11. Steve20
    This question is most perplexing as the archaeological findings prove that cannon balls were kept on deck, even though the crew must have known that weather conditions were deteriorating. Similarly, there would have been times when the ship was hit by a sudden change of weather, such as a squall, yet loose shot doesn’t seem to have been reported as a problem. It’s hard to believe that the racks on deck alone would have kept the shot secure when sea conditions worsened, yet there doesn’t seem to be a method of keeping the shot in place that’s really plausible.
  12. Steve20
    As they've found no evidence of how the shot was kept in place it must have been with something that's since disintegrated - so could be netting.
  13. Steve20
    Attached is a dissertation written by marine archaeologist Daniel Pasco and titled ‘Archaeological Evidence for the Development of RN Gunnery from 1545- 1811’. It focuses on evidence from the wrecks of the London (blew up 1665), Hazardous (wrecked 1706), Invincible (wrecked 1758), Colossus (wrecked 1798), and the St George (wrecked 1811). It has a lot of very interesting information; far too much to summarise here, and many of the findings deserve a topic of their own. If you have an interest in naval gunnery during this period, I recommend you read it. The dissertation made me realize the importance of archaeology in filling the gaps in the historic record and appreciate that archaeology uncovers what was actually done rather than how it should be. It’s disappointing that there’s such a lack of funding for maritime archaeology otherwise we’d see more papers like this. What’s worse, though, is that a lot of archaeologic evidence is being lost forever. Here is the dissertation (note that it's 47MB): Archaeological Evidence for the Development of RN Gunnery.pdf Here’s a link to Daniel Pascoe’s website, which has more interesting information. https://pascoe-archaeology.com/
  14. Steve20
    A beautifully finished model, Rusty.
  15. Steve20
    Hazardous dust is the same whether you breath it in your hobby or at your work. The air filtration on the above mask is good, but equally important to me is knowing that nothing is slipping in through the face seal. This has happened to me, and others, at work (oil & gas construction) and I only noticed it when small particles got into my mouth, which happened more than once. Very small dust particles getting into the lungs would not be noticed. I’m not saying this is a common occurrence, but real-world situations (which includes those at home) can cause a reduction in face seal integrity, therefore, I like having a mask where I can check on this. The reason I posted this here was just to let people know about another product that they can throw into the pot when making their buying decision.
  16. Steve20
    Thanks Gary, I'll start with the Victory Report to the Vicotry Technical Comittee.
  17. Steve20
    Thanks Gary, You're very knowledgelable on the Victory and you clearly know a lot about the renovations, also. Unfortunately, there's very little info on the renovations given to museum visitors and although the museum guides are helpful, they've not been informed of much either. Hope you can share any more info you get. Also, it would be interesting if you can give a pointer to where the raw info is. Steve
  18. Steve20
    I recommend a safety mask I use when sanding wood because it allows you to check for leaks in the seal around your nose and mouth. Leakage here is a potential safety hazard that can be overlooked, and I’ve sometimes found when I make a (very quick) pre-start check using the PressToCheck system that unfiltered air is leaking into my mask. A minor adjustment on the face fit and another check by pressing on both filters can confirm that I have an air-tight face seal. They make three grades of filter for different levels of protection and they sell a half mask and full face mask that are compatible. 1. P3 (F-4003), Solid + Liquid Particles 2. A2P3 (F-4123), Organic Vapours + Gases with boiling points greater than 650C Solid + Liquid Particles 3. ABEK1P3 (F-4713) Organic / Inorganic/Acidic Ammonia Vapours and Gases plus Solid and Liquid Particulates Here is the tech spec: TS-PressToCheck_V4 Tech Spec.pdf And here's a video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pkW5IaluM
  19. Steve20
    Here are some pics of the Victory middle deck port side with the planking recently removed. As it shows some frames that may be older than the others, I thought pics may be of interest. If anyone knows when these frames might date from, please let us know. Middle Deck. Port side looking towards the stern. Middle Deck. Port side looking towards the bow.
  20. Steve20
    Back again with more contemporary information and I promise it to be my last - in this topic that is. However, as it’s fairly compelling info I thought I should post it. This time it’s from the USS Constitution. All her carriage guns appear to have two pairs of outhaul tackle rings and the way they are rigged supports the theory that one pair is used for outhaul and one for the traverse - see pics below. It is possible that the outhaul tackle could be used, as Gary says, to secure the gun, but it appears that outhaul is its prime purpose. I think the traverse tackle is providing too much lateral pull to be used as an outhaul, but have a look at the pics and decides for yourselves. The first pic BTW is the starboard bow gun.
  21. Steve20
    That is a good point, Gregory, and I've no answer to it.
  22. Steve20
    Sorry for coming back again on my post, but it did strike me as possibly more than coincidence that the only two gun carriages seen with two pairs of outhall tackle rings are the bow guns. Just want to throw possibilities into the ring for everyones consideration. Steve
  23. Steve20
    You're absolutely right, Gary. The breeching-bolt ring on the bow gun is undersized. But hopefully we can put the Victory reproduction errors aside as my post was to offer a possible explanation to Allans original question of why gun carriages have two pairs of gun tackle rings.
  24. Steve20
    For sure, Allan, the breech rope should be passed through the breeching-bolt ring that you indicate. The fact that it's not done on the Victory bow gun is possibly an oversight as they have done this correctly on other guns. See the last pic that I posted above and the pic, below. For whatever reason though, that still leaves two pairs of tackle rings on each Victory bow gun and I hope my proposal above might still warrant consideration.
  25. Steve20
    I didn't know about the riders, Gary, but I've seen some of the iron strapping. It's particularly evident on the orlop - see pics, below. It's wrong that you're not allowed to see the British Library records. There's no good reason to restrict access so long as they confirm your ID and ensure you're aware of how to suitably handle them. The National Archives at Kew are really good about this; they make it very easy to view their records. Orlop Deck. Port side looking forward - Cable Tier (aft entrance to Port Carpenters Walk can be seen on left) Orlop Deck. Forepeak, looking to Starboard

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

Model Ship World ® and the MSW logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,929,264 & No. 6,929,274, registered Dec. 20, 2022)

Helpful Links

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 “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem ®

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

Nautical Research Guild ® and the NRG logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,999,236 & No. 6,999,237, registered March 14, 2023)

×
×
  • Create New...