Deck mounted ring bolts for relieving tackles and stoppers

[Beef Wellington]

Hoping someone can clarify as I can find nothing in my (admittedly modest) reference materials, looking for late 18th century Royal Navy practice.  Its clear that each gun would have had a ring bolt located behind it to act as a relieving tackle for the gun, and should be mounted in location allowing the bolt to be secured in a deck beam (although models seem to show these perfectly aligned behind the gun in question).  In certain location there would also be a need to for stoppers to keep the anchor cable taught on the bits, I'm assuming similarly mounted.  Given that the stoppers (according at least to Lever) appear to be 'semi-permanent' being formed around a thimble to attach to a bolt, and there is a limited number of locations for the bolts to be installed in beams, the questions below arise:

 

1. Were stoppers indeed semi-permanent, or would they have been removed between uses
2. Would the same ringbolts have been used for both relieving tackles and stoppers (not sure how they could serve both purposes with a stopper attached)
3. Would ring bolts have been doubled up somehow in locations where both a relieving tackle and a stopper would be needed?

 

Many thanks in advance for insight.  Basically, trying to determine the ringbolt arrangement.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by Beef Wellington

[wefalck]

Stopper for what ?

[Beef Wellington]

Hi Wefalk, stoppers for keeping anchor cables taught on the bits.  I've clarified my question above.

[BANYAN]

In my more 'recent' experience in the Service, stoppers (and nippers) were only temporary and never left rigged unless when used as sea lashing.  BTW stoppers were used to hold the cable/rope while being transferred or adjusted, not to permanently take the load.  It is possible that some stopper ringbolts may have been utilised but only if the required position was coincidentally co-located.  A stopper needs to take the load inline with the load of the cable/rope being worked, and must therefore be correctly positioned.   

 

There may have been some allowance or tolerance for the dual use of a ringbolt, but I think it may be better practice for dedicated ringbolts for stoppers.  The direction of the eye of the bolt would govern the alignment of the ring, and therefore the ease/ability of working with that ringbolt - if dual purpose, it is very likely the eye direction would have been opposed to one of the 'needs'.

 

That said, the inhaul tackle was used to pull the gun back (out out of battery) and it may not have been so critical to be directly/centrally behind the gun.  For example, if a gun had been aimed using spikes to take it off axis/boresight, the inhaul tackle would no longer be directly inline/behind - thus my argument that it being absolutely central may not be so critical - short answer, it might be possible some ringbolts were dual purpose.  

 

I am sure more knowledgeable people will  provide a better answer.

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

 

[Mark P]

Good Evening all;

 

Ring bolts were provided behind each gun in the deck, usually set into either a deck beam (the structure of English warships was that a gun-deck beam was always sited directly below the centre of each port) although 17th century ships had a longitudinal carling close to the centre line each side, and the ring-bolt was set into this, at its junction with the deck beam, presumably passing through both. The train tackle was not used to run in the gun during battle (although it presumably was during some types of gun exercises) as the recoil of the gun would bring the gun back inboard as far as the breeching would allow.

 

The train tackle was used to prevent the gun running back out during re-loading. In the earlier periods, guns were only issued with two tackles, and it was presumably necessary to un-hitch one of the two gun-tackles to use behind the gun for a train-tackle.

 

Concerning stoppers, I believe that there might be some confusion with 'nippers'. The ship's anchor cable, being very large diameter and stiff as a result, was not passed around the capstan. Instead an endless loop of rope was passed around the capstan, similar to the way of connecting the ship's wheel, but with the other end passing through a large block in the bows (17th century practice was a little different, but followed the same principle) and this moving rope was temporarily tied or 'nipped' to the main anchor cable with short lengths of rope to enable the movement of the rope to be transmitted to the cable. As the rope came close to the capstan, the nippers were untied, and taken back to the bows to repeat the operation. This was normally an operation carried out by the ship's boys, hence a common term for boys being 'nipper'.

 

Stoppers were used once the anchor had been 'let go', and was on the sea bed. The main strain of the anchor cable was taken by passing it once around the end of the riding bitts. However, as it was not unknown for bitts to break under the repeated straining of a ship riding at anchor in rough weather, stoppers were used as a back-up and to take some of the strain. In the sailing navy these were short lengths of rope made fast to ring-bolts in the deck, and lashed to the anchor cable. Normally three or four were used for each cable. These were left in place until it was time to raise the anchor.

 

I have not seen additional ring-bolts fitted for stoppers, and the train tackles were only rigged when the guns were in use, so there would seem to be no problem with a ring-bolt serving a dual purpose.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Mark P

[CapnMac82]

The other issue on stoppering the rode was that natural fiber roe has a minimum radius it can be bent through/around (wire rope also has such a radius, too).

So, the larger dimension cables could not actually be bent around the bitts for the diameter being too small to not damage the line.  (There's a concurrent issue of just how you pull enough slack in the rode, while it riding, to bend it around the bitt.)

 

Large circumference cables also have considerable weight as is (with a bit more when wet).  There's considerable expense in making up a cable, too, so there's a financial incentive to keep it attached to the ship.  So, it's my supposition that it was probably common practice to pass a Sling (a rope made up in a loop with a long splice) around the rode and lash that off to the nearest bitt, knighthead, or similar structural object to hand.  And, that this was done both hoisted or set.  Hoisted/housed because you'd not want a random wave to "grab" the cable and start it up out of the cable tier.

 

Now that's just my 2¢
If informed by personal experience sailing vessels and Naval Service (and just a fe Sea and Anchor Details).

[Mark P]

Good Morning All;

 

I can understand Mac's thinking, but there is no need to get slack in the cable. The procedure was to make the inboard end of the cable fast to the bitts before the anchor was let go. The anchor would then hit the bottom, and the ship would be allowed to fall off until brought up by the cable becoming taut. Standard practice was for the cable used to be be three times the depth of water in length. 

 

That the cable was given a half-turn around the top of the bitt pin and then a similar turn, in the opposite direction, around the end of the cross-piece is shown in various contemporary illustrations. The cross piece for a third-rate 74 was around 18" square. The anchor cable for a third-rate was around 7" in diameter.  For a first-rate it was between 7" & 8" in diameter, and in 1745 a ship of this rate would have carried 9 different cables of varying lengths for its largest anchors. A third-rate, along with most other rates, carried 7 cables, most of them about 100 fathoms (600 feet) long. They could be joined to allow anchoring in water over 200 feet deep.

 

Mac is right to mention the expense. The Royal Navy, and presumably other Navies, placed a high value on anchors and cables, which were very expensive. There are regular mentions in the archives of dockyard personnel, or crew members, selling the cut-off ends of cables. When caught, they would be severely punished. It is hard not to feel sympathy for some of them, though, a common (and very true) defence being that they had not been paid for two or three years, and their wife and children were starving.

 

A consequence of this high value was that anyone who salvaged an anchor, or anchor and cable, was well-rewarded. The Navy would sometimes commission a non-Navy vessel to go and sweep an area where a ship or ships were known to have left anchors and cables.

 

Below is a page from Darcy Lever's 'Young Sea-Officer's Sheet Anchor' (from Dover Books) showing the bitts, cable and stoppers (the cable is shown much thinner than in reality, and the knees to the bitts are much too short in both length and height) Note that the stoppers are used on the aft side of the bitts.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited August 5, 2019 by Mark P

[Beef Wellington]

..Appreciate everyone's input....

 

Mark, glad you posted a picture of Lever, that is the picture that prompted my question but was reluctant to post a copy.  The other reference is from Page 75 of the AOTS Diana book.  Basically, this identifies 6 ringbolts for stoppers (5 aft and 1 fore of the bitts).    In the same deck space there would need to be at least 3 ring bolts/rings to act as relieving tackles due the cannon placement.  Given that there are exactly 7 deck beams within this section for this class of ship, and assuming that any bolt would be placed through a deck beam, clearly there needs to be some duplication, especially considering cannon placement and the bitts. (Considering one side only for simplicity)

 

The picture and description in Lever suggest stoppers attached via a thimble which would appears to be semi-permanent (?), versus a relieving tackle that could be attached at will via a hook.  So trying to apply some logic here, unless there were two ring bolts installed in certain beams which I haven't seen represented anywhere, there are certain positions where a ring bolt would need to serve both purposes.  Would the thimble be placed directly into a bolt as illustrated in Lever, or is it possible it would be placed on a ring which would then easily permit the dual function.

 

I'm also guessing (!) that not all ring bolts would have stoppers as illustrated on the page referenced above, and that 'ring ropes' pictured would also have been used to help secure the cable and would be easily removed when not needed.  I know this is a really pedantic question, but the practical side of me is crying out for practicality here...

[Mark P]

Good Morning Jason;

 

Regarding the AOTS volume, David White was/is a very knowledgeable person, and if he says that there were separate ringbolts, I would tend to take his word for it. My only qualification on this matter is that I do not remember ever seeing any such ring/eye bolts in either models or books. However, as has been said before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

 

Concerning duality of function, it is very unlikely that train tackles would need to be rigged at the same time as the ship was anchored. This is only likely in a defensive posture in face of superior force, which was rare. So the same ring/eye bolt could perform different functions as required.

 

Having said that, you are quite correct that Lever's stoppers do look pretty permanent. My best advice would be to do as you think best, but with the balance of probability being as per David White's volume if you are building a model from the late 18th century or after.

 

All the best,

 

Mark 

[CapnMac82]

On 8/4/2019 at 10:25 PM, Mark P said:

 The cross piece for a third-rate 74 was around 18" square. The anchor cable for a third-rate was around 7" in diameter.

The 3 to 1 rule (or circumference of line) bending rule has a long history in maritime use (as in pre-dating the 1st edition of Knight's Modern Seamanship).

 

So, a 7" lnie really "wants" a 22" bitt crossbar to not damage the rode.

 

For perspective, a 7" diameter line if a bit bigger than most of our thighs, and, typically made up of individual lines laid against the lay of the rode.  This is not a casual thing to take hold of and fetch up a loop into.  Probably even more so in the limited room of a forepeak.

 

As to bending off the rode before letting go, that suggests hauling up and flaking out a lot of rode.  In a 10 fathom anchorage, you are asking to flake out 50 fathoms of rode--300' [91m] of 7" [17-18cm] line.  Which is rather a lot of line to get out on deck, to let run freely.  (everything I have read of RN practice is that 1:3 was considered short scope, and that 1:5 was considered more prudent, if on ground that was "well holding.")

 

I also have a lifetime of being aroun Bos'un' and CPO (people would would have been Mates, back i nthe day).  A s rule they are a frugal and conservative bunch.  Suppose the tide goes out and you need to take in 5 or 6 fathoms of rode, or lay out another 10 as a storm brews up.  Far easier to cast off a stopper lashed to the bitts and make the adjustments as opposed to figuring out how to take the strain off the rode snubbed on the bitts.

 

But, then again, I might just be crusty and old and garrulous (I rather hope not, but, still . . . )

[Beef Wellington]

I very much appreciate everyone's input on this.  Here is where I landed in terms of representing on a model (see photo approx. 1/2 way down in post below), photos show things way better than I could describe, so would welcome any thoughts or comments on the arrangement as modelled as its not too late for me tweak.  Models of course don't have to conform to the rules of practicality, and seek to perhaps be more visually appealing, but its still nice to give a nod to actual practice.