Carriage Gun Rigging

[allanyed]

Welcome to MSW Michael.  It would be nice if you would post a little intro about yourself in the new member section.

 

Regarding your question, Caruana gives similar dimensions and is specific that these are circumferences.   For breechings he has a table on page 385 in volume II of The History of English Sea Ordnance for various years from 1723 to 1765 as the sizes changed, especially in 1747 so the era is part of the equation as well as the gun size.

 

Allan

[Gregory]

Lavery says the following about breeching and tackles..

 

There are tables in various references, giving rope and block sizes.

Someone else may provide more detailed information.

 

PS

 

I see post #12 in this thread has a table of rope sizes.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Gregory

[Dr PR]

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this discussion! There is a lot of good information here!

[dafi]

As this topic came up newly, I can add some better pictures of Thorsminde, taken this summer :-)

 

Fascinating to see the 1812 mounts. A total of 3 are on display in 2 rooms. I had to climb a little behind the display, but fortunately no one complained 🙂

 

You can see the mounting holes of the cheeks in the front and on the side.

 

In the last picture you can see a label on the axle. I also never noticed the doubling up under the axle, possibly to serve as a slide if a wheel is damaged in action.

 

In another room is another carriage. What is fascinating here is that two layers of paint seem to have survived: Ochre over red.

 

You can see the play of colours here. Red and ochre paint?









More difficult to see, the inscription of the rear end, to be read from the left: St. George

[dafi]

The interesting thing is, that the carriage is exactely identical with the drawing from Mr. Rivers sketchbook and showing Victory´s carriage.

 

 

XXXDAn

 

 

[allanyed]

THANK YOU for posting these photos Dafi.   The details that can be seen are terrific, including the cleats which we rarely see on model carriages.    These show up on paintings of Victory but not sure they are even on the replica carriages today.   I am not sure when they came into use, as the earliest I can find is 1795, in Caruana's English Sea Ordnance volume I page 382. These drawings also show the breast at the front of the carriage.

Allan

 

 

 

[dafi]

On 9/21/2021 at 5:24 PM, allanyed said:

I just noticed something on the painting I posted above which gives me pause.   There is a double block hooked to the carriage which means there is a double block at the bulkhead as well, but even then it appears that the line starts at the double on the carriage.  This would have the loose end coming from this block which would be in the wrong direction.    From everything I have found to date, there were never two double blocks, even  on 32's which were the largest guns on Victory.   So much for accuracy on this painting (which was done quite a few years after Trafalgar) 

Just realised on a picture I posted in the Gibraltar thread, that there too were double blocks hooked in the back of the carriage. Here clearly the standing part comes from the other hook. More intriguing in your picture is the use of a cablet as breeching line.

[dafi]

On 10/27/2022 at 12:56 PM, dafi said:

... More intriguing in your picture is the use of a cablet as breeching line.

 

Just realised, that todays Constitution has cablets as breeching lines. Surprising, as they are meant to be more stiff than normal right handed lay, therfor more danger of breaking under the violent bent at the breech. Par opposite the Victory has (or at least had for a long time) lefthanded breeching lines, probabely as they are more flexible, means less breakable and also better absorbing the shocks. Any Idea of that?

 

XXXDAn

[mtaylor]

That could be intentional for "viewing purposes".   Gives a more rounded shape to look good.

[SaltyScot]

On 9/6/2019 at 12:20 AM, Dr PR said:

Later guns had a breeching ring cast into the barrel above the cascobel, and the breecing line passed through it.

 

Phil, how much later was this done? I am researching the tackle for my Lynx build right now and rather like the look of this (that you linked in your feed here from archjofo):

 

 

Here the breeching lines do not rest on the cascobel but pass through the ring you mentioned. Would this have been done after 1812? There is no description in my kit's instructions as to how the guns are to be rigged, so I thought I would ask you  

[Kenchington]

Mark,

 

There weren't before/after ways of rigging a gun carriage. Gun and carriage designs changed over time, between organizations that ordered their manufacture (e.g. the English Ordnance Board for your schooner) and between different designs for the same user (e.g. long guns vs. carronades). You are fortunate that there is a wealth of information on naval gunnery from the period of your build.

 

If your model has long guns (not carronades), then British warships (and other Ordnance Board-supplied units, such as fortress artillery) of that time had Blomefield-pattern guns, with a ring above the cascabel as an integral part of the casting -- as in the image you posted. The breeching did indeed pass through that ring (which is why it was there).

 

Trevor

[SaltyScot]

1 hour ago, Kenchington said:

If your model has long guns

 

It does indeed, Trevor. The kit supplied cannons do not have that ring so I may have to get creative on that. As always, your input is much appreciated and it was good to hear fro you.

[Kenchington]

2 hours ago, SaltyScot said:

The kit supplied cannons do not have that ring

Then they are (or approximate to) the older Armstrong pattern. (Long out-dated, in Ordnance Board issue, by 1812 but let's not quibble!) So the breeching needs to loop around the cascabel, with the loop seized (at least in full-size, maybe just glued in scale).

 

The Duke of Kent (Queen Victoria's dad) was Governor of Nova Scotia in the 1790s and used his pull to have the defences of the Halifax fortress updated. We still have a whole lot of Blomefield guns here. 

 

Trevor

[Dr PR]

Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models (page 167) says the breeching ring was found on English cannons from the late 18th century and early 19th century.

 

But where did the guns on the Lynx come from? There probably is no record of that, other than they were put on a vessel built in America.

 

Then did the British change out the guns on the Lynx/Musquidobit after it was captured?

 

I looked for the history of the vessel after it was captured and didn't find anything, How long was it in British service?

Edited May 9 by Dr PR

[SaltyScot]

7 hours ago, Dr PR said:

How long was it in British service?

 

I found this information on her here, Phil:

 

After Napoleon’s defeat and the end of Britain’s war with France, Mosquidobit was sent to Deptford, England where her lines were taken off and is thought to have served in the Mediterranean, sailing between Toulon and Marseilles. By 1820, she had been decommissioned and, on January 13, 1820, was sold to a Mr. Rundle who placed her in private service.

 

It looks like she was only in British service for 4 years then.

[Kenchington]

7 hours ago, Dr PR said:

Then did the British change out the guns on the Lynx/Musquidobit after it was captured?

I may be wrong but my understanding is that it was normal for a vessel taken into the RN to be rearmed to current Ordnance Board standards once she was passed into dockyard hands -- which Lynx must have been or her lines would not have been taken off and we would not have plans of her today. Of course, what was normal did not necessarily apply in every case.

 

Trevor

[Lieste]

While all* new guns (from the 1790s) were cast to Blomefield pattern with the breeching loop, the ordnance wharves had a mix of these new cast guns and older Armstrong Frederick Pattern natures, which had a simple cascable and button requiring a C*** splice on the breeching. (*Except for the Gover 24 pdr, the Congreve guns and such ordnance proofed guns for the HEIC, HWIC and Hudson Bay vessels as were approved - which were often contract guns, only tested for proof, marked and supplied onward).

The carriage suitable to the gun and it's intended port and the tackle suited to the gun and carriages were supplied with each gun.

**By the 1830s the new patterns of guns started to be issued, with Victorian guns including patterns over the next few decades including those from Dundas, Dickson, Millar and Monk, as well as repurposed and bored up Blomefield patterns as a rapid expedient.

Edited May 11 by Lieste

[Thukydides]

7 hours ago, Lieste said:

Armstrong Frederick Pattern natures, which had a simple cascable and button requiring a C*** splice on the breeching.

There are also many references to a “double thimble” used instead of a C**** splice to secure the breeching to the gun, but I have not been able to find any pictures or descriptions of how exactly it was used. These double thimbles seemed to have been often used and were part of the standard allocation of supplies as early as 1765, but were still in use as late as 1794 as they show up in another list of standard proportions of ordnance then.

[Lieste]

The double thimble sounds like a modification to the seized breeching at the breeching rings paased through the side. Each end of the breeching, seized to a 'thimble and hook' in the bight, can then be detached at will, rather than being reeved through the breeching loop after the seizing is unpicked. The gun and carriage can then be shifted without removing the breeching from it. (looking at the definition of a 'Gripe' and extending it to a 'double thimble', rather than dead-eye and thimble)

The earlier Contsplice could of course be pulled from the gun when needed, allowit it to be shifted, but the breeching, seized to the side would need to be shifted also, or substituted in the new place.

A slightly later modification to the breeching loop allows it to be interrupted with a shackle to close the gap to restrain the breeching.

If this is correct, then the contsplice is still needed for non-looped ordnance, with the double thimble being a convenience for looped guns which don't have a shackle opening, and more generally for ease of shifting or striking/removal of guns.

[Thukydides]

1 hour ago, Lieste said:

The double thimble sounds like a modification to the seized breeching at the breeching rings paased through the side. Each end of the breeching, seized to a 'thimble and hook' in the bight, can then be detached at will, rather than being reeved through the breeching loop after the seizing is unpicked. The gun and carriage can then be shifted without removing the breeching from it. (looking at the definition of a 'Gripe' and extending it to a 'double thimble', rather than dead-eye and thimble)

The earlier Contsplice could of course be pulled from the gun when needed, allowit it to be shifted, but the breeching, seized to the side would need to be shifted also, or substituted in the new place.

A slightly later modification to the breeching loop allows it to be interrupted with a shackle to close the gap to restrain the breeching.

If this is correct, then the contsplice is still needed for non-looped ordnance, with the double thimble being a convenience for looped guns which don't have a shackle opening, and more generally for ease of shifting or striking/removal of guns.

That is an interesting interpretation that I had never considered. The issue is (maybe I am misunderstanding you) is that many of the references refer to the double thimble as relating to the neck of the button.

 

Page 383 in Caruana's Volume II of The History of British Sea Ordnance goes into a lot of detail.    A short synopsis ---    Wrought iron double thimbles were attached to the neck of the button.  This is documented in the first edition of Falconer's Marine Dictionary (T. Cadell, London, 1769) where it is stated that the middle of the breeching is seized to the thimble of the pommillion.  The so-called Burney edition of Falconer, published by Cadell in 1815 is more specific but obviously very out of date, stating that the breeching is fixed by reeving it through a thimble strapped upon the cascabel.   Long before 1815, the ring was cast as part of the barrel.

 

Caruana also refers to these thimbles as an alternative to the c**t splice. However, to this point I have not been able to determine what these thimbles even looked like, let alone how specifically they were attached.

 

I have often wondered if they were like a figure 8 where one loop was seized to the button and the other loop allowed the breeching to just pass through (a bit like a removable one of the loops that were introduced later with the Bloomfields). My issue with this interpretation is that I question if it could withstand the forces on it as the cannon recoiled.

Edited May 12 by Thukydides

[Dr PR]

Here is a wild guess - just that, a guess.

 

1. Suppose you cut the breeching rope in the middle (at the cascabel).

 

2. Then splice a thimble in each end (double thimbles).

 

3. Run the other end (without the thimble) of one rope through the thimble on the other rope.

 

4. Repeat with the other rope (the loose end through the thimble of the opposite rope).

 

5. Now you have an "eye" between the two thimbles that can be slipped over the cascabel.

 

 

 

 

Top: two ropes with thimbles in one end.

 

Bottom: each rope passes through the thimble on the other.

 

 

 

 

 

This might be easier to rig than a cut splice, and it would be easier to attach and remove from the cannon.

 

REPEAT: wild guess!

Edited May 12 by Dr PR

[SaltyScot]

1 hour ago, Dr PR said:

This might be easier to rig than a cut splice, and it would be easier to attach and remove from the cannon.

 

This makes total sense to me, Phil.

[Thukydides]

The only issue with that interpretation is the thimble is strapped to the pommillion.

 

My guess is one of the options below (I feel the third is the most likely, but I have no evidence for this). Not obviously not to scale, just to give you the idea. Red is the thimble, green the breaching and blue the strap. I have included an alternate view of 3 below it looking straight on to clarify it.

 

1) Figure 8 shape lying flat against the breach strapped to the pomillion. The breaching is reaved through both loops.

2) Figure 8 shape with the bottom loop strapped to the pomillion and the breaching reaved through the upper loop.

3) A bent over figure 8 such that the thimbles are next to each other. A strap is run through both to strap it them to the pomillion. The breaching is reaved through them both. The reason this seems the most likely to me is that it sort of resembles the later loops that were cast on to the guns which makes that progression seem natural.

[Dr PR]

Thukydides,

 

Good point about the thimble(s) being strapped to the neck of the pommelion or cascabel.

 

Why two thimbles?

 

The thimbles or iron breeching ring would solve a problem the cut splice created - the breeching rope would be free to pass through the thimble/ring as the gun is aimed at an angle. This would allow the gun to recoil more in a straight line until the breeching rope pulled tight to stop it. The recoil force would be born equally by both ring bolts in the ship's side.

 

When a gun was fired at an angle with the cut splice the breeching rope would be pulled tighter on the side to which the gun was aimed. Therefore, in the recoil that side would pull tight first and jerk the gun around until the other side pulled tight. Most of the recoil force would fall upon one of the ring bolts. I'm sure gun crews understood that they shouldn't be standing behind one of these things when it fired. But having the gun flailing around a bit more would be "inconvenient."

 

I like your idea that the thimble(s) spliced to the neck of the cascabel would be an evolutionary step toward casting the breeching ring in the cannon itself.

[Thukydides]

The double thimble vs just a single one, is not something I have seen anyone give a plausible explanation for, maybe because they are stronger?

 

The thing is even if I think 3 is most likely, it is very plausible that the orientation could be reversed (thimble below the pomillion), or alternatively the breaching was wrapped around the pomillion and then passed through the thimbles.

 

I have done a lot of looking through the background of maritime paintings and the problem is there are very few depictions of detailed deck scenes prior to the Napoleonic era so almost all the examples I have found are of Bloomfields with the ring as part of the cannon. The only two good examples from earlier periods that I have found appear to show a c**t splice as the means of securing the gun, though they also seem to have the tackles wrapped around the pomillion too.

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-200784

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-200785

 

Edited May 13 by Thukydides

[wefalck]

May the idea of firing at an angle is a bit overrated. In order for the guns to be effective, the ships had to be so close together that it didn't really matter at what angle you fired, there would be something to hit in almost any direction. In addition, the movement of the ship made precise alignment of the gun quite futile in practice.

 

For chasing guns the situation might be different.

 

In any case, firing such guns under battle conditions was almost as dangerous for the gun-crews as for those that may have been on the other side of the gun. There wouldn't have been much space on a gun-deck to stay out of the way of a recoiling gun and any whiplashing tackle.

 

[Dr PR]

 

Here is a drawing from Ordnance Instructions for the Unites States Navy (1860). It shows the method of pointing a gun at an angle to the centerline of the ship.

 

 

For the big lumbering square rigged ships of the line what wefalck said is probably true. But there are accounts of smaller, more maneuverable vessels like schooners pulling up off the quarter and out of the firing field of larger ships and blasting away at them. In this case angling the guns toward the target would be useful. Pivot guns apparently were often used this way.

 

In any case the Navy seems to have thought it would be useful to train gun crews to point their guns at different angles.