Gun Carriage questions

[allanyed]

Some patterns of gun carriages show two eye bolts without rings on each cheek, others only one.  What is the purpose of the additional ring?  I cannot find any rigged guns where the second ring is used.  Note that Caruana shows some cheeks with two fixed rings on some larger 1732 patterns.  See below

Allan

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by allanyed

[bruce d]

Just thinking out loud here so don't expect much ... could the second ring be there solely to allow quick re-rigging under battle conditions? This would mean a crew could get a new line in place without the delay of removing the damaged one.

[Gregory]

For moving onto or off of the ship?

[Morgan]

Similar to Bruce’s thought, are they for a secondary or preventor breech rope?  The Sea Gunners Vade Mercum mentions them.
 

Gary

[Nipper]

Could their purpose be to help secure the gun carriage when not in use - either lashed up to the bulwark or lashed alongside?

 

Nipper

[allanyed]

8 hours ago, Nipper said:

Could their purpose be to help secure the gun carriage when not in use - either lashed up to the bulwark or lashed alongside?

Hi Nipper

I initially thought this might be the case, but now think this is not the reason for the ring based on the below from Caruana, Volume 2

Allan

[Gregory]

Allan,

That particular drawing does not even include the extra ringbolts and other details often seen on the carriages.  

It doesn't seem to be a good example.

[Gregory]

Here is a contemporary drawing from 1775.

 

 

Found here.

[Gregory]

P.S.

 

Allan, I thought you might like this picture.

 

 

A triple block on the outhaul tackle, and two double blocks on the training tackle. 😁

[BANYAN]

Hi Allan, an unlikely option, but possibly for a traverse tackle to help point the gun?  BUT the eyebolt/rings appear to be a little high for this?

 

cheers

 

pat

[bruce d]

8 hours ago, Gregory said:

Here is a contemporary drawing from 1775.

 

 

Found here.

If I am reading this drawing correctly the eyebolts are on either end of a rod that connects the two sides of the carriage.

Question: what is holding the rod in place? The eyebolts are where I would expect to see bolt heads. 

[Lieste]

There is a through bolt with external bolt heads at the height of the breeching ring ring bolts. The smaller pairs of rings and the breeching ring ring bolts are bolted in each cheek, but don't cross the interval between them.

[bruce d]

10 minutes ago, Lieste said:

There is a through bolt with external bolt heads at the height of the breeching ring ring bolts. The smaller pairs of rings and the breeching ring ring bolts are bolted in each cheek, but don't cross the interval between them.

Thanks, Lieste. However, the position of the rod in the drawing only aligns with the eyebolts.

? 

I don have an answer.

[Lieste]

In the side view, the two small circles (one in the transom, one in the clear behind the breeching ring ring bolt) are the heads of the through bolts. The two smaller rings (seen as the smaller rectangles) and the breeching ring ring bolt don't have a through rod, and are bolted from the inside of the cheek, like how the cheek pieces are held together with a bolt. The square nut is in a pocket, with the loop being screwed into it, rather than the bolt head in a pocket with the nut tightened onto the bolt in the vertical rods, but the principle is similar.

[allanyed]

12 hours ago, Gregory said:

That particular drawing does not even include the extra ringbolts and other details often seen on the carriages.  

It doesn't seem to be a good example.

Hi Gregory,

I think you are right about this.  Caruana shows single rings on older carriage cheeks and doubles on later cheeks, but that is not to say he was infallible and may have made a mistake.  In this case, he shows the cleats on the sides and front indicating a later carriage which leads me to believe there should be two rings on each side.  Still would love to know what the second one was use for.  

11 hours ago, Gregory said:

A triple block on the outhaul tackle, and two double blocks on the training tackle. 😁

Never saw this on any drawing based on contemporary sources.  I have never seen the train tackle set up like the painting shows.   Artist's license??? 😁 There are rings for this on the cheeks, but not used.  Caruana only mentions the use of a double and a single for 32 pounders and two singles for all others. He makes no mention of 42 pounders so MAYBE the triple was appropriate.   Who knows on any individual ship without a trip on the proverbial Waback machine??

Allan

[thibaultron]

12 hours ago, Gregory said:

P.S.

 

Allan, I thought you might like this picture.

 

 

A triple block on the outhaul tackle, and two double blocks on the training tackle. 😁

Why the H..L is the breaching rope being held to one side??? Not to mention the loose cannon ball on the deck.☹️

[Gregory]

I think Allan nailed it with "artistic license "..;

[Lieste]

Unsure on the double tackle rings, but a plausible use would be for the wider angles of train required from later ships to suit the change to individual close action following enveloping of the enemy rear, rather than fighting in line ahead against a more distant enemy.

The train tackle can be set to use the forward ring on the side the gun is trained to, and the rear ring on the side being drawn toward the bulwark to reduce the difference in the length of the tackle required to haul and to help control the recoil (before the residual is taken up with the breeching and preventer).

Calculations indicate that some of the smaller bore ordnance of the longer patterns could be brought to a halt by the friction of the trucks and the paying out of the tackle falls by a distance shorter than the length of the gun, while the relatively lighter large bore guns would still carry some velocity through the recoil distance before being brought up.

[Gregory]

1 hour ago, thibaultron said:

Why the H..L is the breaching rope being held to one side??? Not to mention the loose cannon ball on the deck.☹️

Did gun crews dress like that?   I'm thinking some noble/aristocrat  had himself painted as part of a gun crew..

[thibaultron]

I think the Powder Boys reaction is about right, for what is about to happen!

[Lieste]

1 hour ago, Gregory said:

Did gun crews dress like that?   I'm thinking some noble/aristocrat  had himself painted as part of a gun crew..

The uniform of the marine/soldat assisting would be similar to that of a regular artillery soldier in the land service - which could get quite 'fancy'. The remaining crew would also have a uniform similar to that shown, though the 'officer' does appear to be one of the Maitres, Lt or Ensigns supervising the division, rather than a common member of the crew.

As for the recoil - even without breeching the gun will roll back (and 'up' on the camber of the deck), and will be halted by friction of the trucks and running of the tackle falls - with light artillery this will be at or inside the limit of the breeching, but with heavier guns (as this appears to be an 18 livre canon) the recoil will be longer than the normal limit... however, this also appearing to be a French style carriage is breeched at the cheeks, rather than the bouton. It would probably have a preventer rigged to the gun, but the main breeching would be passed through the carriage cheeks.

While a heavy uniform might be hot to work in, there is considerable flash and risk of splinters from penetrations, and while nothing will help against the larger ones torn from knees and waterways, the smaller splinters torn from the thinner quick-work by the passage of high velocity shot are largely stopped by woollen uniforms. The portrayal of fighting stripped to the waist seems imprudent in the context of a naval engagement, though might be seen in embarcation actions, where there is a risk of sinking and no elevated risk of splinters once ashore.

While not in itself a 'proof' the gallery at "Artillery through the ages" of a living history group displays the types of uniform authorised for RN sailors in the gun crew.

[dafi]

Here again are Mr Rivers drawings from the Victory.

@Morgan: Did you find out the date of this drawing?

 

And fitting to this the artefacts from Thorsminde, only horns were added

 

XXXDAn

 

[Gregory]

I particularly like the way the actual carriage shows how countersunk the eyebolts are and the washers under the through-bolts.

The eyebolt for the breach rope ring also has an interesting shape, in that it is squared off to some extent and the ring fits fairly tight in the bolt.

Those are some details to consider when modeling gun carriages.

 

FWIW Your picture sparked some interest, and Googling for that image led me to: 

https://maritimearchaeologyprogramdenmark.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/guns-in-3d/

 

They have a 3D model for Rhino and Sketchup.

 

I have neither program, so I downloaded the trial for Sketchup just to look at the model and have some details for future reference.

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Gregory

[Morgan]

Hi Daniel,

 

When I went through Gunner Rivers notebooks the drawing was undated, unfortunately there is no logical order to his notes, he did not fill his pages in a sequential manner, such dated material as there was was clearly out of sequence.  My best guess is that it was between 1793 and 1806, there being a new notebook from 1806 - 1812, but there were still sporadic dates after 1806 in the earlier book.

 

What needs bearing in mind is that Victory carried a mixture of Armstrong and Blomefield pattern guns, and it seems the carriages differed.  Caruana dates the introduction of frontal horns and side cleats to 1795, these are clearly an add-on to standard carriages as he identified separate charges for them, so the breast pieces (front horns or stand-offs) were not integral to the main structure of the carriage.  He is also of the view the side cleats were particular to the carriages for Blomefield guns to prevent tackle fouling.  He reproduces the diagram from the Sea Gunners Vade Mecum as below, correcting some references, although this shows an integrated frontal horn and is contrary to his documentary evidence, although it was not originally his drawing.

 

This all ties in with the St. George artefacts, allowing frontal horns were added-on and necessarily, in my view, a sacrificial soft wood so as not to damage the sides of the ship, but which would have rotted away more quickly than the carriage bodies.

 

Given gun carriages lasted 10 years both Victory and St. George would have been issued with new carriages upon completion of refit. You don’t spend that much on a refit and then put aged gun carriages back in, even the Armstrong guns would have had new carriages, I think they could have been fitted with frontal horns, but probably not the side cleats.

 

Gary

 

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Morgan

[Michael P]

There's an interesting couple of photos of a small gun carriage from the 1781 wreck of the Betsy in an American student's master's thesis on 'The Development of the Naval Gun Carriage . . .' (https://www.proquest.com/openview/7f87aba36437eef5e758c1624ba4e006/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y ), pp. 91-2 . Though not that clear in the photo, one shows the two holes, which greatly puzzled the author of the thesis, who thought it might have been a manufacturing error, which it clearly was not. In the absence of a bibliography, I've not been able to find the original article detailing this find. 

Michael

[Lieste]

I'd also note that the plan view of the carriage in Plan X is clearly seen as being in the plane GH, which is why the bolt-head and the forward train tackle ring are superimposed. The train tackle bolt is somewhat rear-ward of the bed support through bolt when the fore and rear axle trees are fitted relative to the centre of the axles, and to the trucks when they are fitted too (As seen in the side profile with a horizontal 'floor'). In situ some of this is again taken out, as the additional height below the foot of the cheek at the fore end is at least partially to compensate for the deck camber in battery.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Lieste

[Steve20]

Below are pics of the most forward port and starboard guns on the middle deck of Victory and both have two tackle rings on each cheek. I have pics of around 20 other Victory guns, and all have one pair of tackle rings only. The gun carriages are clearly reproductions and whether these two guns are supposed to be in this location I do not know. However, their bow position could be the reason for the extra tackle rings as they would permit attachment of another pair of outhaul tackles to facilitate a better traverse in this forward position.

 

Another possible reason for extra tackle rings on the bow gun carriages is that it may enable better control of gun repositioning between the 1st and 2nd gunports (note the foremost gunports are empty). I assume this would be necessary as there’s probably not enough room to properly work both gunports simultaneously.

 

It may be, therefore, that when manoeuvring guns on a heaving deck the crew need to secure them to the new gunport location before loosening from the old. This could be by pulling the gun back on the inhaul whilst maintaining reasonable tension on the two (existing) outhaul tackles attached to tackle ring pair 1.

 

Then whilst making a necessary small traverse (with handspikes, maybe) run two more outhaul tackles from the new gunport location to tackle rings pair 2 to take up the strain. Existing outhall tackles could then be released from tackle ring pair 1 and the gun pulled into the new position by the outhaul tackles attached to tackle ring pair 2.

 

All this is supposition, of course, and I’m ready to be told I’m completely wrong.

 

Middle deck. Starboard bow gun (see curve of deck, bottom left). This has two tackle rings each side.

 

Middle deck. Port bow gun. This also has two tackle rings each side.

 

Middle deck. Starboard gun No. 3 (gunport No. 4). This has one tackle ring each side.

 

Middle deck. Port gun No. 2 (gunport No.3). This has one tackle ring each side.

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Steve20

[allanyed]

Hi Steve, thanks for posting these pictures.  There are doubts that these are faithfully reproduced.  For example, the breech rope does not pass through the loose ring as is seen in various contemporary based sources for rigging guns.   If it does not to pass through the ring, what is the ring for?  Drawing is showing 1795 carriage pattern (From Congreve)

Allan

[Morgan]

It looks to me like the breaching rope wouldn’t fit through that ring which seems small, possibly a reproduction or conversion error depending on the origins of the carriage.

Even if you got he rope through it wouldn’t run freely and would bind.

 

Gary

Edited May 15, 2023 by Morgan

[Steve20]

For sure, Allan, the breech rope should be passed through the breeching-bolt ring that you indicate. The fact that it's not done on the Victory bow gun is possibly an oversight as they have done this correctly on other guns. See the last pic that I posted above and the pic, below.

 

For whatever reason though, that still leaves two pairs of tackle rings on each Victory bow gun and I hope my proposal above might still warrant consideration.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Steve20