Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Keith Black said:

....why would a model maker offer up a product that would possibly be met with ridicule?

How familiar are you with the Mamoli product line?   They have some kits that I really like, but they have some weird stuff that is easy to ridicule.

They have many kits that are re-boxed with slight changes and different names.   Some are made up names, but some are inexcusable, like their Beagle and Endeavor..

 

I'll get back with some more later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s very dangerous to assume that just because there’s a model of it, it must have historical validity. This is why I’m curious to see whatever information inspired either the model or the kit. I’d like to see the source material and get the back story.  And people keep asking but I assure you that I have no further information about the model in the photos. A friend emailed me the photos and asked my opinion of the model but no information beyond that was provided to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think I may have found something.

 

Having found that more than one kit manufacturer has borrowed from Architectura Navalis Mercatoria, by Chapman, I took a look..

Comparing this excerpt from the Mamoli plans.

mamoli-marseille-.jpg.aec77bdbf7448fdd651d77461ca3c749.jpg

 

Lo and behold, from Chapman, plate XL with no useful description.

 

Marseille1.thumb.jpg.07eb4ebbe1f23fae983154ad22b92640.jpg

Note the detail of the gun..

 

I'm pretty sure at least one other kit from Mamoli,  Hunter, a cutter, was based on a Chapman drawing.

They followed the basic lines but went crazy with some other details, that may be pointed out in a log if I ever get around to building the kit.

Edited by Gregory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great detective work, Gregory! From the Chapman drawing of the swivel cannon carriage detail, the carriage mount appears to be both deck and through bolted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the swivel and elevation system. Trunnions are set so the gun could be aimed down very close to the ships hull and if aimed forward or aft could get closer, would expect some boarding hazards to be part of the rigged for action arrangement, also would expect 3 guns to be assigned one target and move on together to the next, at least that is how I would start the action were I in charge of the battery. Photo; M 79, M 16 and concussion grenades were our anti boarding tools, swimmers did get through once and left 3 mines, comand detonated, one of the 3 had a low order detonation, made us hard to approach unannounced. What do you tell your gun crew, when you and they all heard the SEAL holler up from the water below you, say there was a mine under us and he was going to attempt to disable, then recover it, while we kept the gun manned?

999845230_DIRECTFROMCEARCLICK001.thumb.jpg.69d89eae53695fa77ee4586f2e52e6fa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gregory said:

FWIW Here is the detail of the gun.

 

Hello Gregory,

Is it just me? I see NO provision for recoil: the gun would have to tear the mounting apart to recoil even an inch. Chapman has shown what I take to be long screws/bolts securing the gun 'stand' to the structure and the trunnions are centered so no wriggle-room there.

Is it possibly a one-off rig for ceremonial use? A big loud salute to the chief with no shot loaded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I was wondering about that also.   Mamoli's story was that it was a training ship, but they had a way of making stuff up about their kits.   Chances are,  Chapman's drawings are the only only information we have on this ship, and  in the absence of another source,  what was going on, is open to speculation.

 

 

Edited by Gregory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Swivel guns also had no provisions for recoil movement and I am sure that if an oversized propelling charge, coupled with to much shot were used, damage would be done to these guns as well as Swivel Guns. Because of that, I suspect that complete cartridges containing powder and shot were made up in advance to avoid inadvertent overcharging also with the benefit of faster reloads. Recoil energy is always there, it can be controlled in several ways using mass, time and distance. Mass alone can be used and any residual forces that pass through to the ships hull would cause it to do its thing and flex. Ships hulls are flexible things or they would be quickly destroyed by all the reversing forces acting on them, so residuals remaining from firing these small guns would not cause any excessive stress to the hull. From the drawings, it would appear that the flexibility of the hull was used to do just that. We know that Swivel Guns did their jobs in spite of no recoil system other than the flexibility of the ships hull and the timber it was mounted to, we also know that the people using this equipment had some first hand experience and knew what the upper limits of loading would be to avoid immediate destruction of the mounting. Our Saluting Battery aboard the Helena CA 75 was a 40MM Bofors Breech Housing and all the Breechblock operating system, using a modified sear, originally designed to fire when the breech was latched on closed, (ram a round, the rim on that round released the extractors setting the block free to close and fire the round), needed modification so the firing pin was released using a lanyard so the timing could be controlled with a closed breech. A short section of barrel was screwed and locked into the housing and the whole thing bolted solid, with a bit of elevation to a mount with 4 legs bolted to a ring welded to the deck, all rigid except for the hull it was mounted to, a lot of energy was stored into those 40MM full sized blanks. This gun arrangement looks like a legitimate and useful rig in the hands of trained crews and leaders, will there be failures, yep, to long in service, defects and overcharges would be expected, but even a 10 percent failure would not put this vessel out of the fight it was intended to be in. Now some clown with his 30 pound Parrott Rifle would quickly would quickly ruin their day.  

 .

Edited by jud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bruce d said:

 

Hello Gregory,

Is it just me? I see NO provision for recoil: the gun would have to tear the mounting apart to recoil even an inch. Chapman has shown what I take to be long screws/bolts securing the gun 'stand' to the structure and the trunnions are centered so no wriggle-room there.

Is it possibly a one-off rig for ceremonial use? A big loud salute to the chief with no shot loaded?

Trunnions are where they are to act directly into the mass to their rear when firing, Looks like the they are held in place from the front by that block secured in place by bolts. Well designed mounting intended for a specific, but repeatable use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wondering if this might be a privateer? 

 

These guns, not being run in and out, wouldn't need large crews, so you could easily man them all. And, that many guns might be intimidating enough that an enemy merchant ship might just heave-to rather than be hit by a large broadside and they might not need to be fired at all.

 

And if they are fired, it might be enough to fire once. They obviously aren't for protracted broadside exchanges, for reasons you are all describing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jud said:

Now some clown with his 30 pound Parrott Rifle would quickly ruin their day.  

Parrott Rifles didn't come into service till much later (1860's) with the Marseille being from the 1760's but point taken. Had a British ship such as Victory (1765) chased her down, they would have swivel danced those three pounders but once me thinks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Keith Black said:

Parrott Rifles didn't come into service till much later (1860's) with the Marseille being from the 1760's but point taken. Had a British ship such as Victory (1765) chased her down, they would have swivel danced those three pounders but once me thinks.  

Parrott's and other rifles were the tools of our Civil War after stronger iron was available and improved casting methods were developed, Used it mainly because of the impossibility or intent of these ships intentionally coming under fire from shore guns or even larger guns afloat in ships. These ships were never intended to be the targets of shore batteries or ship in a slugfest, expect they operated along rivers and within sheltered waters against small craft filled with men armed with cutting weapons, perhaps some muskets, but mainly equipped for boarding. If you notice the design, the pivoting part of the mounts were just dropped into place. A half dozen pivots with guns could just be dropped into the solid fixture, another dozen without the guns for a slower but still quick change. These guns I expect were 1 pound guns, don't think a 3 pounder would allow repeat firing and this vessel was set up for sustained intense fire and that would require more men than could comfortably be carried as Ships Company for extended periods, manpower was probably supplemented from support vessels, they manned the guns while the crew worked the ship or oars.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jud

 The thought that the swivel mounted cannon were three pounders came from the YouTube video on page one and Mamoli's product description. Unfortunately, Chapman's drawing of the "Marseille" per Gregory gave "no useful description". Per Mamoli in their description of the model they state "Reconstruction was carried out on original drawings of a ship meant for shooting training". I don't think this ship was designed for littoral combat or another type of combat but in fact was conceived as gunnery training vessel.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quote Chapman's description:

 

Schooner (privateer)

Guns: 2 6-pounders on the quarterdeck (Not so! They are definitely shown on the forecastle.)

Swivel guns: 32 3-pounders

 

Pairs of oars  10

Provisions for 2 months

Water for 1 month

Crew 100 men including officers

 

Figures 1 & 2 are drawings of a crotch made of wood for the swivel guns; using a such a crotch the guns can be trained and fired exactly as if the swivel guns were mounted in a carriage, which is seldom the case for they usually stand in an iron crotch.

 

Figure 3 shows how the cylindrical pivot at the lower end of the crotch rests in the sockets in the wooden frame which is bolted to the side of the ship.

 

Anyone interested in F H Chapman should read his biography by Daniel G Harris. Beautifully illustrated and engagingly written, it is thoroughly recommended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind you need to take any comments from Mamoli with a grain of salt.  While they created kits of well documented ships such as Victory and Constitution, they marketed any number of kits that were no more than the figment of someone's imagination, while loosely based on actual historic drawings..  I think the Marseille is one of those, and merely based on the Chapman drawing.    Chapman does list the ship as an unnamed privateer.  That doesn't compute to a training ship in my mind. 

 

Some notes on Mamoli kits:   The Mamoli we knew over the years went out of business as the result of a fire, or so I heard.  Dusek acquired the rights to their kits and is reproducing them now in limited amounts.

I do not know if any effort is being made to clarify or correct any of the documentations as it was presented by the original Mamoli Co.   I do not believe the Marseille has been resurrected by Dusek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Gregory said:

Chapman does list the ship as an unnamed privateer.  That doesn't compute to a training ship in my mind. 

 I agree, no it doesn't. My confusion maybe influencing others so I'm gonna have a cup of shut the heck up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the National gallery of Victoria in Melbourne a few days ago and there's an 1860 painting by Thomas Robertson called "Hobson Bay" which has a navy ship in it which appears to have this sort of pop-up cannons on it - it's the ship immediately to the right of the one with the white funnel (you can zoom right in and see them) - https://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/explore/collection/work/75821/

 

Steven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have read the whole topic from the start. Still do not understand what all fuss is all about.

The Chapman's description reads "3-pounder swivel guns". Great! The swivels/falconets had all kinds of light carriages (most common metal fork-like), never seen the one Chapman had drawn anywhere else, but since it is Chapman, maybe they were in use. OR they were of his design. Does not matter. What matters is that the swivels were up to 3 pounds, no more. Obviously because of recoil reasons.

Now let's look at the model in the beginning of the topic. 3 pounders? I may be wrong, but they strongly seem like 6-8 pounders to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put little reliance on the photos of the model to determine projectile weight, the close up reveals little uniformity and I suspect they and their bores are not to scale. 3 Pounders would create plenty of destructive force to overcome the swivel mounts, I say that because of the forces generated and strongly believe for that setup, (as it is later displayed in drawings), to be reliable for extended periods, would require 1 pounders, Lots of half inch lead balls in a 1 pound shot load. Take another look at those guns, crudely displaying configuration and mounting method makes for a poor detail guide..                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      7DC2FAB7-0570-4579-BC39-EA790768EE46.jpeg

Edited by jud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Mamoli, folks..  They created a model based on a Chapman drawing..  It has little other basis in reality, especially where the physics of the cannon as modeled are concerned..

 

The thing to consider here is whether or not the Chapman drawings accurately represent the possibility of a 3 pounder piece..

Edited by Gregory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gregory

 The carriages from the model Frank posted photos of are very different from those shown in the YouTube video of the model made from a Mamoli kit. The cannon from the model Frank posted photos of very one to another suggesting to me that they are scratch built and not from a model.  What say ye?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to check that out..

 

I agree, Frankie's model doesn't look like it came from the kit, but could be based on the Chapman drawing.

 

I think the question remains, would  3 pound swivel guns  be unworkable as drawn by Chapman?

Edited by Gregory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

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

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
×
×
  • Create New...