Gun Carriage questions

[Gregory]

Allan, the replica is clearly not rigged for action , but the question still remains about the circled eyebolt.

It is shown on contemporary drawings and is present on the artifact shown above, but we can't seem to find any reference for it's purpose.

 

 

My best guess is that it may have been used for moving off of,  and onto the ship.  The two points of connection would have provided more stability.

Of course there would be any number of ways to rig a harness for moving, but the two eyebolts would offer a quick solution using hooks.

 

Can anyone find a picture of a carriage being loaded onto a ship?  The only pictures I can find are just the barrel.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Gregory

[Steve20]

33 minutes ago, Morgan said:

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

 

You're absolutely right, Gary. The breeching-bolt ring on the bow gun is undersized. But hopefully we can put the Victory reproduction errors aside as my post was to offer a possible explanation to Allans original question of why gun carriages have two pairs of gun tackle rings.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Steve20

[Steve20]

 

Sorry for coming back again on my post, but it did strike me as possibly more than coincidence that the only two gun carriages seen with two pairs of outhall tackle rings are the bow guns.

 

Just want to throw possibilities into the ring for everyones consideration.

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Steve20

[Gregory]

4 minutes ago, Steve20 said:

...it did strike me as possibly more than coincidence that the only two gun carriages seen with two pairs of outhall tackle rings are the bow guns.

 

But, to refer back to this contemporary drawing, it seems to be a standard feature..

Since gun carriages were often damaged and/or  might be moved for one reason or another, the extra ringbolt  for a specific deployment, doesn't compute for me.

[Steve20]

That is a good point, Gregory, and I've no answer to it. 

[allanyed]

Thanks again Steve, much appreciated.👍  This last carriage shows 3 rings at the breech end of the carriage.  One would be for the train tackle.  What are the others for?   I cannot find any contemporary information showing three rings at the breech end of on any carriage, again making use of these reproductions as answers to any kind of research of questionable value.  Perhaps some member can post contemporary based information regarding the need for three breech end rings on the carriages.   

Allan

 

 

 

[Morgan]

Caruana, probably the foremost expert on sea ordnance, is silent on this matter.  No other author or contemporary publication  I have, whilst showing the second eyebolt in illustrations does not mention in the text the second eye bolt, although the proper term is apparently ‘Loop’.  It could be we are trying to ascribe a function for what is merely built-in redundancy, if one set of tackles or breaching fail on the carriage then there is a backup.

 

Interestingly Caruana seems to show the second Loop being introduced on the 1732 sea carriage, but only for carriages for guns greater than 12-Pounders, 12-Pounders and below have only the one Loop.  In my mind this would strongly suggest that it is the size of the gun is the determining factor for a second Loop per side.  It could simply be that the larger gun sizes were more prone to metalwork failure due to the forces involved, probably in pulling the Loops out, or the eye for the breaching ring being drawn as well.

 

I only have Caruana Volume II, it would be worthwhile examining what Volume I shows to see if any of this holds up for Pre 1715.

 

Gary

Edited May 15, 2023 by Morgan

[Morgan]

So one more reference I have just found, just to contradict my above post (all in the interests of providing clarity 😣).

 

JD Moody in a 1956 Mariner’s Mirror article entitled ‘Old Naval Gun-carriages says “There are two [ring bolts] on each side for the outhauls , the upper pair being used in housing or securing the gun, so as not to obstruct the fitting of a second ‘preventer breaching’.”

 

Unambiguous, but correct????

 

Gary

[Steve20]

Back again with more contemporary information and I promise it to be my last - in this topic that is. However, as it’s fairly compelling info I thought I should post it.

 

This time it’s from the USS Constitution. All her carriage guns appear to have two pairs of outhaul tackle rings and the way they are rigged supports the theory that one pair is used for outhaul and one for the traverse - see pics below.

It is possible that the outhaul tackle could be used, as Gary says, to secure the gun, but it appears that outhaul is its prime purpose. I think the traverse tackle is providing too much lateral pull to be used as an outhaul, but have a look at the pics and decides for yourselves.

 

The first pic BTW is the starboard bow gun.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Steve20

[mtaylor]

Hmm.... interesting discussion.  I always thought that  Steve's first photo in the above post (39) was how the gun 
"might" be rigged.  My thinking was an old discussion decades ago about things being "optional" which is why the tackle used hooks.  It was to allow the gun crew to make adjustments as needed that one tackle could do more efficiently or faster than the other.   I guess what was obvious to the ship designers, armorers, and gun crews just wasn't recorded because it was "obvious to every casual observer". 

[mtaylor]

I should add to my previous post.... some things seemed to "optional" depending on circumstances such as having the inhaul line in place.  With hooks on the tackle, location was probably up to the gun captain depending on his judgement an the needs of the gun.

[allanyed]

1 hour ago, mtaylor said:

such as having the inhaul line in place

While the train tackle is not shown in these photos it is Interesting that the last photos show only one ring for the train tackle while the first photos show three.  Maybe there are too many inconsistencies on all these replicas to trust them without a good bit of research into contemporary based sources.

Allan

[Dr PR]

I found two images that are posted elsewhere in the forum in discussions about gun carriages.

 

 

 

This picture shows the two rings. The forward ring is for the training tackle (9), and the aft ring is for the outhaul tackle (7). I didn't record the source, but perhaps someone  will recognize it.

 

 

 

This drawing also shows the two rings and labels them "gun tackle loops). Again, I do not have a reference.

 

Both drawings are for the "English" style carriage with the breech rope around the cascobel/button or through a ring on the rear of the cannon.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Dr PR

[Morgan]

Taking what Dr PR has identified then look at the wider context of one of Victory’s lower deck guns, as the photo below from McKay’s AOTS, you can see a training tackle eye bolt set away from the port - above the breach, behind the dockyard worker.

 

The lower gun deck in Victory is at least 1814, so this is probably of equal age if not older.

 

Gary

Edited May 16, 2023 by Morgan

[allanyed]

42 minutes ago, Morgan said:

you can see a training tackle eye bolt set away from the port -

Morgan,

Are you referring to the ring identified below with a question mark?  Looking at various drawings the training tackle(also called relieving tackle) ran from the breech end of the carriage inboard, not to the hull.   It is my understanding that training (aiming) the guns was done be elevating or depressing using the wedge and using leveraging poles and such under the carriages to shift them sideways when needed.

 

There is some question in my mind about the identification of the rings in the first drawing in post #43. The port tackle was used to raise and lower the gun port lids (line# 4)  Then it shows rings in the hull (#7) called port tackle eyebolt which make no sense, at least to me.   Lavery gives a verbal description for rigging the ports and the variations over the years on page 139 of The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War and it does not jive at all with the above drawing.   Line #4 in the above drawing should run to a block in the beam above, not down towards the deck. The drawings below are from Falconer's Universal Dictionary of the Marine, 1769 and are show on page 386 in Caruana's English Sea Ordnance. volume 2.   It seems there are different terms for the same item being used by whoever did the first drawing shown in post #43, and others such as Falconer.  I have no idea if one or the other or all of them were in common use back in the day. 

 

 Allan

 

 

 

[Morgan]

Hi Allan,

 

I do mean the eyebolts you have marked ‘??’ .  On the first photo in Post 39 you can see a secondary side tackle that leads away from the port, most likely to the eyebolt in question, and labelled as ‘9’ in post 43 at G 1/6, which I have called a training tackle, I accept terminology is variable.

 

I think that training the gun using the elevating wedge and hand spikes for small guns, such as the 12-Pounders and below is probable, however, at the larger 24 & 32-Pounders, which are in excess of 50 cwt you may get only limited lateral movement, but if you want to train the gun further round this is where a further side tackle comes in to play which is set further out to gain the purchase on the rear of the carriage.  This would tie in with Caruana showing the second eyebolts or loops on the larger guns, and not the smaller guns.

Gary

[mtaylor]

I think we're chasing our tails.   First... museum ships aren't necessarily rigged the way they were back in the day.  That goes for guns also.   The other is finding historical documentation.   Seems to be rather sparse at best.  One thing I have noticed over the years is that for the most part, English and French ships and guns seem to get mixed up mostly by kit makers which doesn't help either.

 

Will we ever get that WayBack machine?

[allanyed]

I would be surprised if basic rigging of guns varied that much in a given era.  As to going back to confirm, the George Orwell unit went forward and backward so may be a good choice as well as the Wavelength Acceleration Bidirectional Asynchronous Controller (Wabac machine.)

Allan

 

 

[BANYAN]

Hi Allan, I cannot recall where I came across the attached - note, it is annotated on the side as being an extract from an 'Ordnance Manual' (possibly USN sourced?).  While the carriage furniture arrangement is different, the number and purpose of the bolts etc appears similar.  Note that item18, while in a different location is listed as an eye for the 'training tackle'.  A separate bolt (5) is placed forward of this atop the carriage bracket for the gun tackle, item 6 for the train tackle, and item 11 for the breech rope.  Not sure if this helps to resolve the issue but does harken back to my earlier thoughts of the second eye being for a training tackle?

 

cheers

 

Pat

[allanyed]

Thanks Pat.   It SEEMS that the second eye and the furthest eye on the bulwark would be available for training the gun fore and aft in place of or in addition to the use of spikes, especially for the heavier guns as noted by Gary above.  

Allan

[NavyShooter]

In looking at the hole designated #18, there seems to be a bar slid into it - so there would be a long pole sticking out behind the carriage that would enable them to push left or right a bit to help aim the cannon?

 

[allanyed]

While a lot of the drawing is similar to older carriages I would be dubious about using this for anything before about 1860 as the barrel looks like a parrott rifle. 

Still in all, this has been a very interesting discussion and thanks to everyone for their thoughts.

Allan 

[druxey]

My understanding is that the breeching ran through the ringbolt to dampen the tendency for the gun to jump or kick upwards on recoil. The photos on Victory are not contemporary carriages and are, like many restored features, suspect. The two eyebolts may be for alternative positions to hook the outhaul tackle, depending on sea conditions and strength of charge. 

[BANYAN]

14 hours ago, druxey said:

The two eyebolts may be for alternative positions to hook the outhaul tackle, depending on sea conditions and strength of charge. 

Potentially so Druxey, ....or, perhaps both this, or to hook on a tackle as a means to assist training the heavier guns?  Sorry, just playing the 'devil's advocate'.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Morgan]

I don’t think there is a single use for the upper ring bolts, they were in my view multi-functional as described in the various posts above.  They were an alternate out-haul tackle position and back-up to the lower rings in case of eye bolt failure.  They could in other circumstances be the primary out-haul tackle points when the lower rear eyes were used for lateral training.  In other circumstances when an additional secondary or preventer breaching rope was used they elevated the outhaul tackle above the two breaching ropes to prevent them fouling one another.

 

There is probably more unwritten about what sailors in those days could achieve with a few blocks and tackle than we will ever know, they were practical men and we shouldn’t underestimate the breadth of their solution based approach to such matters just because no one wrote it down.

 

Gary

[Keith Black]

On 5/17/2023 at 10:56 AM, allanyed said:

the barrel looks like a parrott rifle. 

 

 Allen, it looks like a Dahlgren. Dahlgren cannon looked like the old round bottom soda bottles.

 

 The Parrott Rifle.

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Keith Black

[allanyed]

2 hours ago, Keith Black said:

it looks like a Dahlgren. Dahlgren cannon

Thanks Keith, I agree, just could not remember the name when looking for these after Pat's post.    In any case those came into use about 1855 and only in the US so not necessarily applicable to 18 to early 19th century European carriages.  

Allan

 

.

[Lieste]

That 1860s US naval gun is a copy of part of a figure engraved in "Ordnance instructions for the United States navy."

 

Unsure who copied the diagram by hand, or when, but that book is available online in various places including the Library of Congress.
 

[iMustBeCrazy]

3 hours ago, Lieste said:

Unsure who copied the diagram by hand

It comes from a sketchbook by David Stauffer https://www.gilderlehrman.org/news/civil-war–era-sketches-david-stauffer

 

There is a second part to the sketch:

 

[Gregory]

Well that's interesting.  It shows the inhaul\train tackle at the rear of the sides of the carriage, with no indication of the two eyebolts we have been discussing.

 

P.S.

 

I see your drawings are from the civil war era, and not a good match for the carriages we are looking at originally.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Gregory