uss frolick

The French also had an unusual way of rigging their iron 24 and 36 pounder carronades after about 1805. The breach rope was one continuous loop that ran outside the hull through special scuppers and sat in a lead trough that ran below the outside bottom of the port cill. Odd. It must have evened-out the recoil when the carronade was trained at an angle, but it made the breach rope vulnerable to enemy fire. The US Navy carronades of the period were double breached for extra security. But one of the breaches ran through the hull in lead scuppers and ended in a knot or a fid, while the other was secured on the inside to a ringbolt in a British fashion. I'm not sure which was the main breach, and which was the backup, or preventer breach.

The French also had an unusual way of rigging their iron 24 and 36 pounder carronades after about 1805. The breach rope was one continuous loop that ran outside the hull through special scuppers and sat in a lead trough that ran below the outside bottom of the port cill. Odd. It must have evened-out the recoil when the carronade was trained at an angle, but it made the breach rope vulnerable to enemy fire. The US Navy carronades of the period were double breached for extra security. But one of the breaches ran through the hull in lead scuppers and ended in a knot or a fid, while the other was secured on the inside to a ringbolt in a British fashion. I'm not sure which was the main breach, and which was the backup, or preventer breach.

That's the French method of rigging the gun tackle.

That's the French method of rigging the gun tackle.

That's the French method of rigging the gun tackle.

That's the French method of rigging the gun tackle.

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 ; ……...   
 

 
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 

Hallo modeller_masa.
 

Stunning!

OK, 
 
Having sailed in the Navy for a lot of years, I'll observe a couple of things - Firstly - everything has a place, and it should be in place.
 
Secondly, on a Navy Ship, most of those 'places' were designed to properly hold those things, and keep them in place.
 
A big factor in objects on a ship is inertia - but I'm certain you all know that.  A cannon, on wheels, even when secured in place will still have some range of motion - the flex or stretch in the lines will enable this.  
 
The weight of a cannon and its carriage is huge - the 3 pdr I have in my garage takes an engine hoist to move safely into and out of the bed of my truck. 
 
Cannon balls are round, but they are not on wheels, nor are they loose rolling about on the deck.  In looking at pictures online of HMS Victory and other ships, there are cannon ball holders either behind the guns on the deck, or on the bulkhead beside the guns.  Those holders see at least 1/3 of the ball sitting into the wood, with only maybe 2/3 of the ball exposed.  The deck ones, in heavy seas, would not require a lot of effort to toss a blanket on top of them to ensure they wouldn't roll anywhere.  The bulkhead ones?  I suspect that if you looked closely at them, you'd find wear spots where they'd have a cover tied on to help keep them in place.  
 
Before a ship was to sail in the modern Navy, we'd always do "secure for sea" rounds on the day before sailing.  Are things tied down, are they secure, did they use rope instead of a bungee cord (NEVER use bungee cord!) 
 
I suspect that the same applied for the age of sail.

When a ship is alongside and open for tours, you don't see the chains holding the helicopter in place in the hangar.  They're all disconnected and hung up along the bulkhead, and are practically invisible to a visitor.  They're looking at the fancy helicopter, not the chains and clips and such.
 
If you asked a visitor to a ship how a helicopter was secured, they'd probably not have a clue.  You'd need to be a member of the Air Det to know which chains go where, which tie down points to use, which shackle point on the helo is appropriate for use and so on.
 

I remember seeing a picture of the well-preserved wreck of the Schooner USS Hamilton, lost in 1813 on Lake Ontario, in which the six-pounder shot racks - in that case, just long troughs at the base of the bulwarks - were nearly empty, even though the crew slept at their guns that fateful night, prepared for immediate action. Had the shot been netted in, they would still be there, but the net would probably be gone.
 
I also remember seeing a thrilling, realistic painting in National Geographic Magazine of the Swedish Warship Kronan sinking. It was an interior view of the ship on her beam ends, with debris and cannon balls airborne, flying towards the faces of the terrified crew! I no longer have that issue from the early 1980s. Perhaps someone here does, and can post?

If netting, then there should be evidence on the boxes of holes, nails or small cleats to hook the net, with which to properly secure the shot. You definitely don't want 32-pound shot flying about in a gale ...

Thanks! What great reading, especially for the St. George 1811. Those portable shot boxes are especially fascinating. But what kept the shot in place during heavy seas? Netting?

Wicker?

Thanks Steve, much appreciated.  
 
cheers
 
Pat

If netting, then there should be evidence on the boxes of holes, nails or small cleats to hook the net, with which to properly secure the shot. You definitely don't want 32-pound shot flying about in a gale ...

If netting, then there should be evidence on the boxes of holes, nails or small cleats to hook the net, with which to properly secure the shot. You definitely don't want 32-pound shot flying about in a gale ...

Thanks! What great reading, especially for the St. George 1811. Those portable shot boxes are especially fascinating. But what kept the shot in place during heavy seas? Netting?

Thanks! What great reading, especially for the St. George 1811. Those portable shot boxes are especially fascinating. But what kept the shot in place during heavy seas? Netting?

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/
 

If the subjects of volume III are the small cruisers, then what will Volume IV be? Fourth Rates?

If the subjects of volume III are the small cruisers, then what will Volume IV be? Fourth Rates?

The below pics show elements of the bow, keel and stern, which I believe date from the 1800’s and perhaps even earlier.
 
(I've since found out that they date to the time of launch in 1765 - Steve)

Еvery craftsman will find it differently, for me making a latrine is the most difficult part of the model. The work will take a long time, so I will post the results by the way of proceeding.
Have been working with the drawings , and made patterns.
I decided not cut the elements out, but to bend in parts with the following gluing.