Gunport Stops - only mentioned by Steel 1805 - Identification ?

[druxey]

OK, I've rotated things to a more 'normal' point of view. No more cricked necks! I hope this simplifies things for our discussion.

[Mark P]

Good Evening Wayne;

 

I have to disagree with you on that last bit.  Scuppers were actually cut through the waterway in all the illustrations I remember,  with the inner lead flange nailed to the waterway.  The waterway did not cover the scuppers.  Although I find it hard to believe that the report could miss something so seemingly obvious,  given its level of detail,  there is most definitely a strip of timber running along the junction of the deck and spirketting.  This timber is not in the same plane as either of the adjacent areas of planking,  and occupies the spot where a waterway would be. 

 

Not to fit one flies in the face of everything ever written about this area of ship construction at this time.  Look again at the picture no 30,  with the corner of the standard cut away,  and a length of timber running through it (remember the spirketting is at the bottom of the picture)  Look at the picture no 25,  which again shows a length of moulded timber at the junction of the spirketting and the deck planking (arrowed by Archnav)  This timber is quite clearly not shown on the coloured drawing of the excavation. 

 

All the best, 

 

Mark P

Edited February 27, 2018 by Mark P

[trippwj]

No worries, Mark.  Differences in interpretation happen.  Take a look at the 2002 (I think it was) report where Trench 2 is discussed.  No indication of the waterway there (this area is adjacent ti the area shown above).  In addition, the profile of the excavation also does not show one.  It is idd, that's for certain!  That scupper does not appear to protrude beyond the planks.

 

I am still working through some of the reports.  The absence of a waterway would seem significant, though I am wondering if it was common on all decks or only on "weather" decks?

 

 

 

 

[archnav]

12 hours ago, Mark P said:

Secondly,  I believe that the dimension given in Steel refers,  as you say,  to the distance by which the outer planking of the port lid overlaps the exposed frame timbers,  which are left uncovered around the gunport when the ship's planking is stopped short.

 

Thirdly,  you are correct in your thoughts:  it is indeed the method you use to extract part of the pdf and then write all over the extracted part which I am unable to master.  A brief pointer would be very welcome.

Hi Mark P,

 

thank you, for a so much better discription of the (by myself) misunderstood measurement. Now everyone has an idea of what is meant by Steel.

So by the way...shame on me for my bad english, I apologise...school was long time ago...34 years...always had A+...and now...so frustrating As druxey said so excellent: Language...the greatest barrier to communication

 

Puuuhh.....need more coffee at 08:30 AM...sunny day...temperature: - 13 degree Celsius, or 8.6 degree Fahrenheit (brrrrrrrrrrrrrr)

 

Coming now to your question about the computer programme. For to extract the pics out of a PDF-document, I simply open it, look for the pic I need, marking it with the left button of my mouse (so it`s getting framed), using the right button and the option to extract this into a jpeg file. Using WIN 10 pro / German version, I don`t know if this is equal in it`s functions with your`s. I`m no computer expert, just a user. I think, you have more chances to get help, from english speaking people here.

 

The programme I use to insert coloured frames, lines, arrows and text, is called "PhotoScape". A very simple but effective little program for free download.

I also don`t know if there is an english version available.

Edited February 28, 2018 by archnav

[archnav]

11 hours ago, trippwj said:

On a related note, I do not believe that, given the level of attention shown to documenting the survey, they ommitted the waterway, but rather it was not there.

Hi Wayne,

 

as we concluded some post earlier (page 2), the waterway is still existing..only hard to identify on the photographs. Look twice and you will see.

 

By the way, thank you very much for extracting the text from the Investigation Report above ! I`ll be studying all the reports in the next few weeks. I think there are some more things to discuss.

[archnav]

Thank you guys ! More intensive and deeper investigation in every single report is needed, before one can make safe statements.

So give us all a little time, don`t hurry

 

For some anticipation to discuss, on other objects found around the wrecksite, try to imagine, how a lower fore/main shroud deadeye, much wider in diameter than that of a 110-gun warship of that period (17") and so much wider than that for a 74-gun ship, gets into this wreck ?

57 cm in diameter - more than 22" ! ???

Interesting isn`t it ?

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by archnav

[trippwj]

3 hours ago, archnav said:

Hi Wayne,

 

as we concluded some post earlier (page 2), the waterway is still existing..only hard to identify on the photographs. Look twice and you will see.

 

By the way, thank you very much for extracting the text from the Investigation Report above ! I`ll be studying all the reports in the next few weeks. I think there are some more things to discuss.

I disagree, as it is not clear if that is a waterway ir a ceiling plank.  As noted, though, difference in interpretation are allowed. 

2 hours ago, archnav said:

Thank you guys ! More intensive and deeper investigation in every single report is needed, before one can make safe statements.

So give us all a little time, don`t hurry

 

For some anticipation to discuss, on other objects found around the wrecksite, try to imagine, how a lower fore/main shroud deadeye, much wider in diameter than that of a 110-gun warship of that period (17") and so much wider than that for a 74-gun ship, gets into this wreck ?

57 cm in diameter - more than 22" ! ???

Interesting isn`t it ?

 

Given she had undergone some recent repairs to her rigging at a remote port, it is conceivable (to me) that there may have been a need for a block yet none of the correct size available, so a replacement was used.

 

[druxey]

The size of that recovered deadeye is strange. The photos show a groove about 11cm in diameter, or a little over 4" This implies that the line around the deadeye would be in the order of 12". According to Steel, a 100 (or 110) gun ship had 17" deadeyes and 11" shrouds. Is it possible that this artifact did not, in fact, come from Colossus?

[archnav]

4 hours ago, trippwj said:

I disagree, as it is not clear if that is a waterway ir a ceiling plank.  As noted, though, difference in interpretation are allowed.

Sure Wayne, difference in interpretation are allowed.

But, a typical waterway plank of that time with it`s concave rounded edge to the inside, giving a seat to the ceiling planks of the ships side and the planking of the deck, is exactly that, what is visible. So to me as a student of Naval Architecture for many years, the fact, that such a typical waterway plank is clearly visible, it makes no sense that this should be a part of the ordinary ceiling. The concave rounded edge is the key to identification, ordinary ceiling plank is as plane as all the other planks for that reason.

[archnav]

4 hours ago, trippwj said:

Given she had undergone some recent repairs to her rigging at a remote port, it is conceivable (to me) that there may have been a need for a block yet none of the correct size available, so a replacement was used.

This could be likely but, when this was done while her repair (in 1796 I believe) and the biggest deadeyes in the RN measured only about 17" in diameter, why should they fit out a ship with a deadeye that was wether established, so nor produced by contract in the roperies ? In any case, this question arises.

 

The ship came home from the battle of Aboukir. So maybe she got damaged in battle. To bring down the enemies Masts and Rigging was mostely wanted first. Was she involved in battle ? Who knows this by heart ? Otherwise I will have a look into literature.

Big ships of the french were involved....remember the explosion of such a big ship of the line, L´Orient ! What dimensions did her deadeyes have, or that of other First Rates ? This may be another interesting point of investigation...maybe the "Colossus deadeye" was a souvenir ?

Not sure yet but the report (I think) says, that none of the irons of the lower deadeyes, matches with the diameter of this one big deadeye...mysterious !

[trippwj]

As I recall, she suffered major damage to her rigging in 1797 and was repaired somewhere in the Mediteranean.  Her first trip back to Britain after that was also her final voyage when she foundered.  It is perplexing, to say the least!

 

[archnav]

Another interesting find: HMS Belleisle, Trafalgar 1805 (Painting by Col. Wyllie)

Note the "half-ports" of the upper deck.

 

[druxey]

The Wylie painting is 20th century, so he may have been mistaken in showing half-lids to the ports. The lid thickness in the painting is suspect as well! However, the image is full of atmosphere and activity.

[Mark P]

Hi Archnav;

 

Thank you for the info in extracting the pictures.  I will give this a try and see what I achieve.

 

Don't worry too much about your English;  the meaning is generally very clear.  All those A+ weren't given for nothing! 

 

One possibility for this big dead-eye is that it was used to repair a stay.  As for being found at the aft end of the ship,  this is not a reliable indication of where it started out.  The ship was gradually broken up,  and falling masts could have gone in a curve that took them and any dead-eyes far from their original positions.  The action of waves would do the same thing;  or even some of the previous attempts to salvage cannon or other useful items from the wreck.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[archnav]

Thank`s druxey, didn`t now that.

 

In case of "half ports", Steel 1805 says:

 

Upper Deck: (110-gun ship down to 16-gun cutter)

PORTS - each port to be fitted with half ports made of deal, thick...1 1/2"

lined with deal, thick...3/4"

Holes for guns, diameter...27

Hole, lower part above the sills...4"

Flap, On upper part to hang with hinges, deep...7"

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by archnav

[archnav]

30 minutes ago, Mark P said:

Don't worry too much about your English;  the meaning is generally very clear.  All those A+ weren't given for nothing! 

Thank`s a lot Mark P !

In german forums, most of the members doesn`t speak english at all. So the cirlce of english speaking peope is very small. In addition, reading and understanding is very difficult, if not impossible for them. So much of their interpretation is false. No reproach, but a fact. But some of them do very well and are of much help to others.

Unfortunately, only a few have an extensive library, especially in English literature.

I am very thankful and happy to be here - I hope to contribute a lot more constructive posts here.

[druxey]

Surely the half-ports, if fitted, would have been removed and stowed away for combat?

[jud]

We left the Bloomers on when we fired these, AP round makes it a 365 pounder or 8" 55. Expect the half ports were done both ways. Had more fun with the Bofers.

jud 

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by jud

[archnav]

14 hours ago, druxey said:

Surely the half-ports, if fitted, would have been removed and stowed away for combat?

I`m not sure, that these were stowed away for action. The missing "hinge" for the lower flap of the half-port in Steel indicates, that the lower one of these two flaps was removable. Remember the two small battens fixed an both lower sides of the MGD port sill - perhaps a "washboard".

If such a simple fixture was also given to the upper deck ports, it would have been very easy to take this board out. These lower flaps had to be fixed somehow, right ?

The upper flap just had to be raised and secured....ready.

For a smaller ship like a frigate, brigantine or ship-sloop, the gun may have been permanently ran out while sailing (see the Steel data for the holes) and the lower flap may have been in use as that one on the gun deck of a bigger ship. (airing while sailing)

Comprehensive investigations of models would be important. Are there examples ?

The next point of investigation arises: When and how exactly were these half-ports fitted,  used at sea and in preperation for battle ???

 

Holy Moly !

Edited March 1, 2018 by archnav

[druxey]

Questions, questions - always more questions! I agree that those slides would have been ideal to hold the lower halfport/washboard. With gravity, there would be no need to hinge them. I still feel that a ready source of splinters would have been stowed away when clearing for action. The upper halves must have been detachable.

[archnav]

Today, I`ve taken a look in some of my books. Not very much is written on "half-ports". Though some have interesting sections also regarding "bumpers".

 

I`ve made a little list here in the hope, that everyone of you do have these books in your library:

 

1) The NRG: Ship Modeller`s Shop Notes Vol.I - Pages 121 - 123

2) Milton Roth: Ship Modeling from Stem to Stern - Pages 204 - 208

3) Charles G. Davis: The Built-Up Ship Model - Pages 117 - 119

4) Jean Boudriot: The seventy-four gun ship Vol.II - Pages 164 - 167 and Plate XXXIX between Pages 172/173

 

Searching for more...

[archnav]

17 minutes ago, druxey said:

Questions, questions - always more questions! I agree that those slides would have been ideal to hold the lower halfport/washboard. With gravity, there would be no need to hinge them. I still feel that a ready source of splinters would have been stowed away when clearing for action. The upper halves must have been detachable.

I´m not sure about my guess (that`s just what it is)... The statements in the books shown, give more information.

I'll search more sources, maybe I'll find more. 

[archnav]

By the way...

 

if these "half-ports" mentioned in Steel`s work, are the same type the french used at that time,

it is clear why models do not show any of these !

 

The french version shows, that these very completely removable and only used in harbour.

 

The so called "washboard" is also shown. It is very close to the finds in the gun port of HMS Colossus, remember the wooden "battens" for a thin washboard to slip down into it, with a semi-circular hole for the gun barrel to fit into.

Maybe this was a standard fitting in preparing a ship for service. That`s why David Steel mentioned it.

One can also speculate, that half-ports were in use already before 1800, because Steel took about 20 years to ask his sources and arrange all informations before he was able to write his work down. Examples for obsolete Informations existing in case of Masting and Rigging.

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by archnav

[archnav]

Hi guys,

 

the fallowing links, showing these wooden timbers (bumpers) below the gunports. They`re only fixed on 19th century models of the NMM. So the question arises again, if it was possible, that these "carriage-stops" were fitted long before - see HMS Colossus. Unfortunately, no model before 1800 existing, nor any other evidence except the wreck of this seventy-four gin ship !?

These models also show the mentioned half-ports, washboards and port-lids.

 

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/68891.html

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/68912.html

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/68944.html

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66743.html

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/68960.html

 

Couldn`t find any more...maybe anyone has more information about these details ?

[jud]

Safe to assume that the Laws of Physics remained constant during the years in question as they do today and knowing how much effort went into building and outfitting a ship, avoidable damage was not the norm. Bumpers on the Bulwarks or rounded contact projections on the carriages with a sacrificial contact point at every port only makes sense. Thanks for the continued research you have done. You have filled in the missing link that has been bothering me about the common depiction of gun ports.  jud

Edited March 10, 2018 by jud