L'Hermione Main Deck Gun Rigging

[Spike1947]

Well, after researching as much as I could from the many contributors to this and other forums regarding how cannon should be rigged I made the call. For the main deck 6-pounders I went with breaching lines and frapped block and tackle. I made the choice to coil a small amount of line at each side of the gun rather than try to have all the line taken up with frapping. Unfortunately I went with french coils next to unfrapped block and tackle on the 10 cannons that are visible on the gun deck. I guess I'll just need to direct any inspecting admiral to the gun deck as quickly as possible. I had used zip seizing on the block and tackle on both decks. That worked well and looked okay on the 12-pounders that didn't have frapped lines but it would have been better - and easier - to leave that seizing off the rigging that was going to be frapped. I think the look on the main deck is more of a ready-for-action look than the coiled lines. I plan to bend sails to some of the yards and have some furled or perhaps on clewlines. My hope is to give the appearance of a ship at sea rather than at anchor.

 

Richard

 

Current Build: AL L'Hermione

[mtaylor]

I think the lines look very acceptable.  Ok.. scratch that... very good.   

 

Do the plans show an eyebolt with a ring on the deck for each gun behind and in a line along the hatches?  The line would be followed (gentle curve like bulwarks) fore and aft with one "set" for each gun used to pull the gun out of battery if the recoil didn't get back far enough or if it needed to have the shot and ball removed.   They do add a bit more "eye-candy". 

[Spike1947]

The plans actually show no gun tackle at all. They only call for the breeching lines drawn tight to the bulwarks. This is a very unrealistic use of the breeching lines and, based on the comments in the forum, one that should never be shown/used. I decided not to add the train tackle that the inboard eye bolts and rings you mention would be used for but I had not considered adding those as a fixture. The photos I've seen of the L'Hermione modern replica don't show the train tackle or even the deck attachment for that train tackle. The illustrations of the 6-pounders on the main deck appear to have attachments for the train tackle at the rear of both sides of the gun carriage. This suggests that there would be be two train tackle for each gun. I've seen some indications that the French used only a single train tackle. Can anyone comment on the preferred or correct answer to this; is it one or two train tackle on French war ships of the late 18th and early 19th centuries?

[mtaylor]

The French had the bolts and rings down the deck behind the guns.   As for the guns themselves. there were two eye bolts (one on each side at the rear.   They did often use only one tackle to pull the gun to the rear.  

 

I'm attaching a drawing from the La Belle Poule which is a tad earlier in the period than your ship.  I hope this helps.

 

 

 

[Spike1947]

Thanks mtaylor for the diagrams. I can see the ring bolts at the side of the gun carriage that would be the attachment points for the gun tackle to run out the cannon but there is no rings or attachments shown at the rear of the gun carriage to help with the question regarding the use of one or two sets of training tackle. The attached image is one of the few I've seen that shows a French cannon with all the rigging. That image shows a single training tackle. Is that consistent with what you you expect to see for the era in question?

[mtaylor]

You can add that eyebolt as in the picture you show but it was actually British and possibly American method.

 

On the plans, there's two sets of eyebolts.  The two rear most were for the training for in hauling the cannon.  The two in front of the rear trucks are for running the gun out after serving.   These plans are from ANCRE for Belle Poule, so I don't doubt their accuracy.

 

Zu Monfeld shows similar for the period.  I'll include it for comparison along with a top view of it in place and rigged.  Note that in practice the crew would often only use one in haul and that the in hauls were normally not attached unless absolutely needed.  They often just loosened one tackle and ran it back to the eyebolt in the deck.  It saved time actually. There was much traffic with powder monkies, gunners, officers, etc and the in hauls just got in the way.

 

 

 

[dafi]

Just for clarification, Gerard Delacroix mentioned on his old vanished forum on the 14.10.2006 concerning the french guns:
"Il faut déjà savoir que seuls les canons de 36 (et les rares 48) ont deux palans de recul. Tous les autres calibres n'en ont qu'un."

 

 

Only the heavy 36-pounders and the more rare 48-pounders hat two training tackles. All smaller calibers only had one.

 

All the best, Daniel

 

@G. Delacroix

 

[Spike1947]

Thanks to mtaylor for the great illustrations of continental gun rigging. I only wish I had seen them prior to completing the gun rigging on my Hermione project. Also "Danke" to Daniel - dafi - for the comments related to Gerard Delacroix. It's easy enough to see that I now have two answers to the same question. I'm thinking that I will add the eye bolts and rings for the attachment points for the training tackle but I will not actually rig the tackle. There seems to be a general consensus - supported by sound reasoning and common sense - that this tackle would not be deployed until actually needed for eminent action. So now I only need to decide, one or two attachment points for each gun :-).

 

It's one of the great things about this forum that a question from a novice wooden ship builder can get useful responses from someone that is a three hour drive away and someone that is 9 time zones away.

 

Thanks, Richard

[mtaylor]

Thanks for that Daniel.  The ANCRE monographs all show the dual training tackles and eyebolts on the rear.  I'll have to note the change on my Belle Poule plans.