This video was a real eye opener about gun tackles

[Ulises Victoria]

I don't remember having seeing a video more illustrative than this one. This lady is amazing. I hope you enjoy it and learn from it as much as I did.

 

 

[Gregory]

I know how I will be making most of my lashings from now on..  

 

How I used to make them is embarrassing..

[Ulises Victoria]

1 hour ago, Gregory said:

I know how I will be making most of my lashings from now on..  

 

How I used to make them is embarrassing..

Same here. Incredible how we complicate things!!!

[CDR_Ret]

I need longer fingernails...

[allanyed]

The techniques in the video of setting up the breeching rope rings and eyebolts look to be very useful.   At these small scales the loop for the cascabel is not unreasonable as making a proper cont splice is not so easy at the smaller scales.   Unfortunately the running out and training tackle is wrong as she neglected to include the hooks on the ends  that go into the eyes.  I am not so sure her methods would work if she included the missing hooks. 

 

We see Flemish coils on a lot of models modern as they are so visible, but I wonder as to the accuracy of using them. I have searched, without success so far, for contemporary evidence that Flemish coils were used in place of frapped lines.  If anyone can share any information based on contemporary sources about the use of these coils that would be great.    I have seen stacked rope coils  for other running rigging, but no Flemish coils for the 17th-19th centuries so far.  

 

Allan   

Edited August 22, 2021 by allanyed

[mtaylor]

As I understand it, and perhaps it's wrong, but the only time Flemish coils were used was during inspections or visits by an Admiral.  Not a good thing to have them lying about the ship while at sea.

[Bob Cleek]

15 hours ago, allanyed said:

...  At these small scales the loop for the cascabel is not unreasonable as making a proper cont splice is not so easy at the smaller scales. ...  

 

We see Flemish coils on a lot of models modern as they are so visible, but I wonder as to the accuracy of using them. I have searched, without success so far, for contemporary evidence that Flemish coils were used in place of frapped lines.  If anyone can share any information based on contemporary sources about the use of these coils that would be great.    I have seen stacked rope coils  for other running rigging, but no Flemish coils for the 17th-19th centuries so far.  

As for the proper name of the referenced splice, the lengths I see people go to avoid calling this splice by its proper name in written works never cease to amuse me. It's understandable, I suppose, but "talking like a sailor" goes with the territory. The etymology of the name is glaringly obvious if you think like a sailor. There's only two customary uses for this splice, one being to receive the "button" or "knob" (not the "cascable," which is the entire section of the length of the gun aft of the base ring) and to secure a lifeline made up of multiple splices around each of the outer ends of the bars of a capstan so the capstan can be manned in heavy weather. You're not a real "salt" unless you can call it by its proper name without sniggering.  

 

Yes, Flemish coils were only seen when laid down for "dress ship" inspections.  So said my retired USN master chief bosun's mate mentor long ago. Flemishing was a temporary thing. Once the ship's dress was struck, they were returned to their proper stowed coil configuration. There are a number of  good reasons for this. First, they are something to trip over and that's never a good thing on deck. Second, the line does not run free from a Flemish coil and the line tends to kink and tangle if one tries to let a line run from a Flemish coil. Laying a Flemish coil up in the traditional fashion, by laying down the first few turns and then turning the "pad" to coil the falling part around the "pad" until it ends with the bitter end, tends to kink the standing part with the resulting twists. Line left Flelmished on deck for long periods of time will cause the sunlight to weather the line on only one side, causing uneven deterioration. Lastly, in any sort of seaway, if running water is taken on deck, the Flemished line floats up and all over the deck, tangling and often ends up flushed and running out of the scuppers and freeing ports. Now, that's not "contemporary" authority, but I'm betting the reasoning was no different in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries as it was in the Twentieth.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[Gregory]

Apparently this is one of those modeling conventions that has a life of it's own..

 

To me, it's one of those things that detracts from an otherwise nice model..  It looks like someone started a basket and didn't finish it.

[glbarlow]

Much easier to do a standard seizing like this with a Quad Hands. 

[drjeckl]

On 8/22/2021 at 8:56 PM, Bob Cleek said:

Once the ship's dress was struck, they were returned to their proper stowed coil configuration.

What does this look like?  I've mostly seen the Flemish coils.

[allanyed]

John, 

 

The running lines would be frapped as in the two photos below from Caruana's History of English Sea Ordinance pages 382 and 388.  The first is a 1795 pattern carriage, redrawn from Congreve's Treatise on the Mounting of Sea Service Ordinance, and the second is redrawn from Dupin's Voyages in Great Britain (translated)   There are some good photos of this practice on the net as well. Google "hms victory cannon"  and click images and you can see some very clear photos.

Allan

 

[Mark P]

Not being afraid to call a spade a spade, I once attempted to write here about the splice around the cascabel/button/knob using the proper word for it, and the site's software would not accept it. Regrettably, it is not therefore possible to be down-to-earth in this matter. 

 

The history of the word is very interesting, and apparently until quite recent times it was much more used and acceptable than present-day sensitivities would seem to indicate.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[drjeckl]

Allan,

 

Thanks for that.  I must remember to be more specific phrasing my question.  I've seen the frapping for the side tackles.  I specifically was curious how the lines for the train tackles were stowed, since they cross a portion of the deck.  Would they be frapped in the same manner as you show above?

Thanks.

[allanyed]

Great question John!!  I have no clue but would love to see the possible answer(s)  based on a contemporary source.    From what I could find, the training tackle came into common use in the RN  in the 18th century so would be appropriate for the Lady Nelson if that is the vessel you are working on,  but for three and four pounders, I am not so sure there would be training tackle required.  From an Admiralty order of 1734 they describe when the training tackle was to be used.  In a nutshell they describe how only the leeward guns would require the training tackle when the guns were actually  in use.  

 

IMHO there was no reason to have the training tackle in place when the guns were secured.  Where and how they were stowed would be an interesting item.  Maybe they kept the rope and blocks frapped, and hung on the bulwark along with the various tools for the guns.   

 

Allan

 

 

[drjeckl]

Allan, Thanks for the update.  Yes, still working on the LN.  Maybe I'll just eliminate the training tackle.  Could be why I don't see many of the modelers here show it.  I just see those empty rings in the middle of the deck.

[Mark P]

Good Evening John;

 

To back up Allan's comment, train tackles were not normally left fitted to the guns in English ships when they were stowed. They were only brought out for exercise and action.

 

My theory, for what it is worth, is that the train tackle, which was not used at all for training the gun, ie aiming it, was originally called the 'restrain tackle', as in restraining, or holding back.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited September 7, 2021 by Mark P

[mtaylor]

As I understood it, the train tackle had hooks and were secured somewhere near the gun(s).  Some nations only had one set for every two guns, others each gun had it own.   I can't remember where, but I've seen drawings showing the the tackle hooked to eyes in the overhead beams so they were at the ready but not laying about the deck.

[Gregory]

1 hour ago, Mark P said:

My theory, for what it is worth, is that the train tackle, which was not used at all for training the gun, ie aiming it, was originally called the 'restrain tackle', as in restraining, or holding back.

 I  thought I had seen it called the " in-haul " tackle, and used to pull the gun inboard, and also restrain the gun from rolling when hauled in..

 

A true train tackle would be attached to either side of a carronade on a swivel mount.

 

The only way to train a carriage mounted gun would be to pull the rear sideways across the deck, not from a tackle to the rear of the gun.

[Mark P]

Good Evening Gregory;

 

'In-haul' would indeed describe one possible function; although when fired in action the gun's recoil acted as the inhaul force, and the train tackle was only necessary to prevent the gun rolling freely down a heeling deck; ie for restraining it. Training/aiming was indeed carried out by the gun-tackles, which in the same logic would be called 'out-haul' tackles. However, the use of these 'haul'-derived phrases is limited, and contemporary inventories of gunners' stores always refer to train tackles, and gun tackles. The description 'train-tackle' was in use long before the appearance of carronades in the late 18th century. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited September 7, 2021 by Mark P

[Gregory]

28 minutes ago, Mark P said:

although when fired in action the gun's recoil acted as the inhaul force

I seem to remember a long discussion where there was speculation that the recoil forces would not contribute that much to gun movement.

 

But I might be remembering incorrectly.  I'll have to see if I can find the topic..

Edited September 7, 2021 by Gregory
replaced ' correctly ' with ' incorrectly '

[Mark P]

Good Evening Gregory;

 

The speculation was ill-founded generally. There has been some debate around the possibility that in the Elizabethan period guns were fired from a fixed position, and not allowed to recoil; but apart from that not-widely-accepted theory, the recoil of cannon is normally taken as a fact

 

There have been at least two posts linking to a video of the Swedish Bofors company firing a replica of one of the Wasa's cannon; the recoil is substantial. This can be found on YouTube also, and is well worth a watch if you have not seen it. Especially the amount of splinters that fly when the ball pierces the replica ship's side, which it does with ease.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[drjeckl]

Thank you gents, especially Mark, for the enlightenment; very interesting.  Mastini shows two train tackles in addition to the side tackles and the breeching rope.

[allanyed]

Hi John,

Just curious as I do not have Mastini's book.   For what size ship, era and nation doeshe show a double set of training tackle?   

The number of train tackles and use of single or double blocks depends on era, nationality and the size of the gun.  Regarding the type of blocks, the same goes for the running out tackle.   Many modern models of British ships for example show a single and double block when this was not the case for guns lighter than 32 pounders.  

Allan 

[Gregory]

1 hour ago, allanyed said:

Many modern models of British ships for example show a single and double block when this was not the case for guns lighter than 32 pounders.  

This is good to know...

[allanyed]

Gregory

As with anything in this hobby of ours, not too much is 100%.   I would not be surprised if there were 24 pounders with a single and double block on each running out tackle and on the train tackle, but from looking at a lot of contemporary models, and Caruana's description in volume II of The History of British Sea Ordinance on page 386, both sets had singles in all cases except 32 pounders and larger.  I have no information on other nationalities.   For most of our models, the only guns showing are on the upper deck, fc and qd which were smaller guns so there would not be any consideration for us to use a single and double block if they are rigged.   

Allan  

 

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by allanyed

[drjeckl]

20 hours ago, allanyed said:

For what size ship, era and nation doeshe show a double set of training tackle? 

Did not specify; it was generic.  And again, Allan, thanks for the background.

[HardeeHarHar]

So, when I try to do the seizing as shown in the video, it has only worked once.  Every other time it makes a knot before the seizing has been reduced to the size needed.  I am wondering if waxing the seizing material I am using will prevent this, or if there is anyone who can tell me what I might be doing wrong!  Any help or words of advice would be MOST WELCOME and GREATLY APPRECIATED!

At least my knot tying is improving, just not where its needed =(,

Brian

[Gregory]

I had the same problem.  Maybe with practice it would work better.  I don't think waxing would help, or look good.

 

The thing about the video, you don't know how many times the person in the video didn't get it right..

Edited September 24, 2021 by Gregory

[Thukydides]

On 9/8/2021 at 8:02 PM, allanyed said:

 Many modern models of British ships for example show a single and double block when this was not the case for guns lighter than 32 pounders.  

 

Out of curiosity do you have a source for this? I was looking at the alert book by goodwin and he seems to suggest that the 6 pounders on it used the single + double block configuration. Is this because his source is just contemporary models?

[Gregory]

@ Thukydides 

In another post Allan said:

 

Quote

Caruana's description in volume II of The History of British Sea Ordinance on page 386, both sets had singles in all cases except 32 pounders and larger.  

 

Lavery in Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, 1600-1815 says:

 

" A gun tackle consisted of a rope fixed to a single block,
 passed through a double block, and through the double block again.

He also says " In 1716 tackles were of 2 1/2in rope for guns of
24lb or more and 2in for smaller guns.  The blocks were 8 or 6 1/2 in."

 

Lavery is usually considered reliable, but he may have failed to elaborate..

Edited September 24, 2021 by Gregory