Authenticity dilemma: shot garlands or ring bolts in ‘king planks’?

[Aa-schipper]

The deck of my Dutch 1780s privateer ‘Mars’ starts to look neat, with the hatches, gallows, pumps etc. But there is a dilemma: should I add shot garlands around the hatches, or should I reserve the ‘continental king planks’ (‘schaarstokken’ in Dutch, a little wider and thicker than normal deck planks) that run along the hatches for the ring bolts that must come behind each gun?
On the one hand, the Caldercraft model I am building does not include shot garlands, but such things are included in similar models, like Vanguard Models’ HMS Speedy, and they are also depicted in the Petrejus book about the (English-built) Dutch brig ‘Irene’ as normal elements on fighting ships of the time. On the other hand, those ‘king planks’ were extra sturdy precisely to give ring bolts a secure place. And I cannot have my cake and eat it too, as shot garlands take up almost 4 mm of width while those ‘king planks’ are 5 mm wide, so there is not enough place left to put en eyelet in. So if I add shot garlands, eyelets must be fastened to ‘normal’ deck planks.
I should like the result to look as authentic as I can make it. What advice would you give, dear shipwrights?

 

[allanyed]

It depends on the time period.  I cannot speak for the kit designs or Dutch ships, but, according to Peter Goodwin in The Construction and Fitting of English Ships of War, page 217, the British Admiralty ordered the abolition of the shot garlands in 1780.

 

The king plank was on the center line, if there was one, and the binding strakes ran along the hatches.  The binding strakes were the same width as the other deck planks but 1" to 1.5" thicker than the flat of the deck. but they were scored at the beams and let down so the top of the binding strakes were even with the surrounding planking. For modeling purposes, it is probably easiest to use the same thickness material for the binding strakes.

 

Allan

Edited March 2, 2023 by allanyed

[Aa-schipper]

Thanks, Allan, for your historical reference. Knowing the conservativeness of Dutch shipwrights in the 18^th century, I might assume they had not necessarily abolished shot garlands when this ship was outfitted as a privateer, in 1781. Moreover, the senior captain of the little squadron (there were two privateers, operating in tandem) was an old, very experienced man, which is another reason to expect an old-fashioned deck lay out (more like mid-century, when he was young). So I might go for shot garlands, but then placed on the bulwarks (Chris Watton suggested that to me), while keeping the binding strakes free for the rings.

Thanks, too, for teaching me the correct translation of ‘schaarstokken’ as ‘binding strakes’—neither my old school dictionary nor Google Translate had that, and even in Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey/Maturin novels I had not come across the term 😊

[allanyed]

1 hour ago, Aa-schipper said:

but then placed on the bulwarks

Sounds like a good idea for a Dutch vessel.   Just as an FYI garlands were supposed to be abolished on the bulwarks on British ships for the same reason as those around the hatches, to move the weight lower in the hull, thus affecting center of gravity and center of buoyancy.

Cheers

Allan

Edited March 2, 2023 by allanyed

[flyer]

Hi Allen

 

Interesting information. Do you know how they stored the first shots for each gun when preparing for battle after they abolished the shot garlands?

 

And by BTW, if I'm not mistaken, the centre of buoyancy should not change if you move some weight lower down - just the centre of gravity should be lower and therefore stability should increase.

 

Cheers

Peter

 

[allanyed]

I would think the shot was stored entirely in shot lockers below the platforms or orlop when not in battle.  Seems they would have some shot brought up when called to quarters and the youngsters carried additional shot as needed.

Allan

[Roger Pellett]

More or less along this same line-  Authenticity of ship fittings.

 

Nothing shouts “Novice assembled model kit” like out of place brass fittings.  Unless you are reproducing a c1900 Steamship Office Model, 99% of load bearing metal fittings aboard ship were wrought iron- anchor chains, hatch ringbolts, etc.  Bright brass is just a kit manufacturer marketing ploy to add glamor.

[Beef Wellington]

Hmm...think there are some other considerations here to consider.  Even when shot garlands were used, it doesn't seem practicable have been used as a permanent place to store cannon balls on an exposed deck due to rusting.  Even shot stored in lockers below would rust and require that to be removed before use.   There would have to be a reasonable ready storage area around all guns to allow even the shortest of engagements, whether in garlands or racks.  Considering a typical well trained RN crew could fire 2-3 times in a 5 minutes, each gun would likely require at least 9-10 readily available balls to last first 15mins of an engagement.  Its amazing to think of the logistics bringing shot up in a lengthy engagement - you don't exactly put 10 of these things in a plastic bag and carry it up a few deck levels.  That would be worthy of logistical analysis all by itself!

 

I'm skeptical that the practical driver of the change was due to weight alone.  Lets use a 32lb shot as an example, a rough back of the envelope calculation ...a single 32lb cannon weighed 56 cwt (hundered weight)....or there abouts.  This as approximately 6272 lbs (Long imperial cwt of 112lbs) so assuming a 32lb ball weighs...er 32lbs....then it each cannon would be the equivalent weight of 196 balls (!).  Considering motion of guns being run in and out, and ships motion, the weight of 10 (for example) balls at hand would be negligible (5% of the cannon weight) and would not impact to any significant degree the centre of gravity to a point that ship stability would be impacted.

[Oldsalt1950]

Powder and shot were put in boxes and moved to the ready position before engagement. Once an enemy was sighted and the crew was called to battle stations, shot and powder were transferred from the ammo locker to the guns. You have to remember it took some time to actually start an engagement once an enemy was sighted back in the age of sail. Crews often had hours before actually firing a shot after an enemy sighting. 

 

Jim

[BANYAN]

To throw a curve ball - the Contract for HMCSS Victoria (1855) called for shot garlands.  The ship was armed with a single 32pdr 56cwt pivot gun and six 32pdr 25cwt guns in broadside.  The garlands, for the broadside guns at least, appear to have been fitted as a photo (see crop below) taken between 1858 and 1865 shows the shot garlands, with shot in them, fitted to the bulwarks between the rising timbers.

 

 

cheers

 

Pat

[allanyed]

9 hours ago, BANYAN said:

To throw a curve ball - the Contract for HMCSS Victoria (1855) called for shot garlands. 

Hard to hit a well thrown curve ball Pat.  😀   

Post #2 above regarding the information from Peter Goodwin only applies to 1650 to 1850 (The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War) so your post is great information.   Thanks

Allan