Gun Carriage questions

[Chuck Seiler]

    I think they were placed there simply to perplex future modelers and researchers.

[Keith Black]

  I don't know so this is total spitballing..........could it that that the higher middle ring was used for the outhaul when the cannon was firing in a more or less level position. The cannon's weight would be more to the middle of the carriage. And the rear ring was used when the cannon was firing in an elevated position because the cannon's weight would be more to the rear of the carriage? As I said, spitballing. 

[allanyed]

The use of the train tackle is interesting even though the set up to the rings is not the same on the carriage itself.   The principals make sense and taught me something so it has been a good day.

Allan

[Dr PR]

One thing I have learned from studying sailing ships is that there often are several "right" ways to do things. I suspect how the cannon carriages were constructed varied from owner to owner, shipyard to shipyard and by nationality.

 

For example, so far I have found at least eight ways to rig a schooner's main gaff topsail.

 

One ship I was on in the Navy had an extra pair of bitts. None of the other 26 vessels of the class had them. If the ship's bosun decided he needed another cleat somewhere the ship fitters came up and welded another one in place. And that is in a modern navy that had "rules." In earlier times the ship's Captain could have anything changed to suit his preferences.

[allanyed]

1 hour ago, Dr PR said:

In earlier times the ship's Captain could have anything changed to suit his preferences.

Hi Philip

Regarding English naval ships of war, my understanding is that the rigging often varied from ship to ship and one reason so little contemporary information on rigging belaying points is available.    But when it comes to things such as carriages or, as you mention, anything the captain wanted to change, this is an interesting point.   There has been mention many times of variations of  the captains' personal spaces and even types of boats taken aboard.   Reading about other things such as carriages and who paid for these changes, based on contemporary sources, would be interesting so I hope some more examples are brought up from the time period between 1650 and 1825 for English, French, and Spanish warships. 

Allan 

 

[allanyed]

Reference carriage trucks for an Armstrong pattern 12 pounder of about 1730.     Basically I am looking for information that specifies the number of pieces making up each truck at full scale.   I have seen many drawings and all of those that I can recall have trucks made of a single piece.  If it changed over time it would be interesting to see what changes happened from the time of the Pitt pattern up to and including the Blomefield pattern. There are builds here at MSW that show multiple pieces including one that has 6 pieces bolted together to make up each truck.  At our smallest scales it's probably inconsequential, but at large scales this would be clearly visible and I am trying to see how it was done in actual practice back in the day. 

TIA
Allan

 

[Retired guy]

Hi Allan,

From the A.R. Bugler book, the trucks 18" dia and 16" dia were made from two pieces of 3" thk cross-grained curly English Elm, turned on a lathe then bolted together with six iron clench bolts so that the grain ran right angle to the other.

 

Regards

Richard

[allanyed]

Thanks Richard!    Do you know what years this information would be appropriate and does he give contemporary sources?   I can only find that he has written books on HMS Victory so it would not be appropriate for my 1730 project, but, this is still very interesting and useful.  Victory covered 42 years before being cut to a second rate.  Does he write that this construction applied to her Armstrong Frederick carriages in 1765 and/or the early and late style Blomefield carriages after they came into use?  

Thanks again, I really appreciate your help!
Allan 

[druxey]

Do you have access to Caruana'a books?

[allanyed]

Hi Druxey,

I have volume II but the drawings I have seen of trucks appear to all be single pieces.  The text on page 360 in Volume II only mentions that the thickness was the same as the thickness of the brackets which we know was the same dimension as the diameter of the bore.  There is no mention of twin disks.  Reading through 1795 sea service carriage on page 379, I do not see any mention of the trucks being constructed in pieces bolted together.  I just did a quick flip through again and cannot find anything in drawings or text that indicate trucks were made of twin disks or other type of multiple piece construction.   I realize very little was without variation in the ships of those days so will not be surprised if multiple piece trucks existed.

Allan

Edited August 17, 2023 by allanyed

[Gregory]

44 minutes ago, allanyed said:

I do not see any mention of the trucks being constructed in pieces bolted together. 

This is interesting in that the trucks are often depicted with bolts, which wouldn't be necessary if there was only one piece.

 

Here is a truck from Victory with two pieces bolted together.  However I have seen other carriages from Victory with the trucks being one piece and no bolts.

I realize the current Victory carriages are probably mostly modern reconstructions.

[allanyed]

7 hours ago, Gregory said:

I realize the current Victory carriages are probably mostly modern reconstructions.

Gregory -  Thanks for your post.😀 

I fully realize having Victory available to visit is a true treasure.  But, it does seem that there are a number of things in her modern version that are different than those contemporary to her years in active service.  Some examples --In the case of guns, some carriages have four steps on the brackets while others have five.  Assuming she is representing her appearance at the time of Trafalgar I believe there would have been cheeks on the brackets.  Some of the hardware appears to be missing on some of the carriages.  

 

Note that the deck planking may be different than her original construction in the photo as well.  This photo was identified as being on the upper gun deck so wouldn't the outer strakes of planking have been top and butt or anchor stock rather than straight?    

 

Allan

 

[Morgan]

Allan,

 

This is a truck from the Hazardous of 1706, the lack of concretion on the truck points to no boltwork within the truck. It also looks to be a single thickness which would be compatible with no boltwork.

 

Gary

 

 

[allanyed]

THANK YOU GARY!   I am leaning to single piece trucks even into the late 18th century barring contemporary based information to the contrary.

Of major concern is that the trucks on the cannon on modern day Victory all seem to be made of more than one piece.   Considering the research that must have gone into her various rebuilds and upkeep I can't help but think that somewhere there is information indicating such construction.  

Thanks again

Allan

[Gregory]

Allan,

Of interest also, the contemporary drawings earlier in the discussion show one piece and no bolts. 

 

[druxey]

I once believed that the trucks (wheels) were built up and bolted, but now think that this is a modern recreation and  does not reflect contemporary practice. Also, there is confusion concerning iron-rimmed trucks. These were used only on land-based carriages, never at sea.

[Morgan]

I think Druxey is correct, I have come to the same conclusion.  Early 20th century photos of Victory show made-up trucks, but the carriages on Victory at this time were not sea service carriages, none of them actually centre the guns, they were modified garrison carriages. But, as with so many things Victory is taken as the ‘benchmark’, but many details are incorrect, but these errors perpetuate.  Many of these carriages are still in Victory.

 

Not all Victory’s guns have built-up trucks, below is a recent photo I took of a 12-Pounder, with single piece trucks.

 

Also, a truck recovered from the wreck of the St. George, she went in for refit just after Victory, so a strict contemporary, is single piece (photo courtesy of Dafi).

 

Also see the attached the drawing of the Venerable from 1799, again single piece trucks.

 

I also visited the wreck of the Invincible exhibition at the NMRN Hartlepool recently and I’m certain there were single piece trucks, I need to download my camera.

 

Gary

[NavyShooter]

Something to consider is the availability of suitable wood for single piece trucks.

 

At some point, the trees used that were big enough to provide such massive single pieces of wood stopped being commonplace, and started being rare.

 

Mostly because they'd been used to make ships, and parts for ships.

 

NS
 

[Keith Black]

 My two cents worth..........earlier trucks may well indeed have been one piece but as cannon/gun weights increased it became necessary to build a more robust truck being a two piece bolted version. 

[Morgan]

37 minutes ago, Keith Black said:

 My two cents worth..........earlier trucks may well indeed have been one piece but as cannon/gun weights increased it became necessary to build a more robust truck being a two piece bolted version. 

I did wonder about that, and I also thought perhaps it relates to size of gun, but then I looked back at some photos I took in 2006 of the Upper Deck and some of the 12-Pounder garrison carriages, they also had composite trucks back then.

 

You can see how low the gun is sat!

 

I get the impression that the composite trucks are being swapped out gradually. I could do with some middle and lower deck pictures to see if this applies to the larger pieces.

 

Gary

Edited August 17, 2023 by Morgan

[Morgan]

I can answer my own question, photo below from 2017 showing 24-Pounders with single piece trucks.

 

There was only 6 Cwt. Weight difference between a 24 and a 32-Pounder, so it seems the size of ordnance isn’t the driver for composite trucks and it comes down to them being land or sea going carriages, certainly in the early 19th century.

 

Gary

[Keith Black]

 Gary, the link below is informative me thinks. By the early 19th century wouldn't land based carriages have had iron trucks?

 

  https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-6135.html

 

 And another...

 

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/source/is3/is3c2.htm

Edited August 17, 2023 by Keith Black

[Morgan]

Hi Keith,

 

I agree, these are what I’m used to seeing around historic fortifications in the UK.  It is Goodwin who terms them Garrison carriages, I’ll dig out the reference, but he basically says this was the pattern they had and copied as they didn’t have surviving examples of sea service carriages.  He doesn’t say they were reused carriages.  It could be that in using them as a pattern they knew the iron trucks were wrong and came up with their own version, or copies of a later version of composite trucks they had access to, perhaps off something like Warrior which I imagine needed a heavier truck for 68-Pounders.  What Goodwin doesn’t do in saying this is when the carriages were made, it had to be no later than Edwardian based on photographic evidence. So possibly something of a chimera.

 

You can certainly see that the carriage above from 2006 simply doesn’t fit the port, so something was wrong. Goodwin also mentions that during his tenure they were progressively retrofitting the carriages to make them more akin to sea carriages, which I can see when I look back at photos from different visits.

 

Gary

Edited August 17, 2023 by Morgan

[allanyed]

7 hours ago, Gregory said:

Of interest also, the contemporary drawings earlier in the discussion show one piece and no bolts. 

 

Totally forgot about that drawing Gregory, thanks for the reminder.  

 

Thanks to all of you for your input.  Barring any other contemporary drawings or models showing otherwise, I am comfortable with single piece trucks for the 17th century through the early 19th century.   That drawing shows some interesting differences between the carriages of 1775 for Armstrong-Fredericks and the drawing of the carriages circa 1730 for the original Armstrong pattern found in Caruana Volume II.  These are details not likely to be seen at our most common scales, but interesting none the less, especially for anyone doing a large scale gun and carriage project.

 

Allan

Edited August 17, 2023 by allanyed

[allanyed]

And now a question on carronade carriages that have slides, not trucks.  I have searched and searched and can only find side view drawings contemporary to about 1800.  I cannot find any top view or end view to show how the pivot is set up or where the metal bracket sits.  Something has to be anchored in which the pivot pin sits, but I have had no success on finding details yet.  Also, what is purpose of what looks like a shorter pin inboard of what I think is the pivot pin.  I am guessing it is a locking pin when the carronade is in a straight line and  does not swing freely when not in use.  Any help would be very much welcomed.  In the drawing below I have added red lines showing what I THINK may be a solution.

TIA
Allan

 

 

[Keith Black]

 Allan, the only reason I can think of for a second "locking" pin was for when the carriage was in the stowed position?

[allanyed]

45 minutes ago, Keith Black said:

the only reason I can think of for a second "locking" pin was for when the carriage was in the stowed position?

My thoughts exactly.  Thanks Keith

[BANYAN]

Allan, looking at that side view is it possible the bottom timber is a fighting head (I think that is the timber at the front of a carriage is called) which is locked in place with the shorter pin.  The head would be hard up against the waterway/spirketting and then becomes the timber on which the slide proper would pivot using the longer pin?  That way the whole assembly could be removed when required. In this configuration both pins could be on the same axis also?  Just a thought.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[allanyed]

I thought that might the case as well Pat, but how is the fighting head secured to the spirketting (or deck if that was the case)  I drew in a horizontal bolt as if this was how it was secured to the bulwark but that is only my best guess.  If the shorter pin penetrated down into a deck frame that would indicate to me this was how it was all secured, but it ends on top of the deck planking.   In the end, unless someone is building this at 1:24 or larger, it would be barely be noticeable.  

Allan

[Morgan]

Allan,

 

I think this fits what you are seeing.  The inner pin locks the bottom two pieces together - I imagine there is some metalwork to accomplish this represented by the broken lines, and the slide pivots on the outer pin.

 

RMG Ref: SLR2918.

 

I think the metal bracket underneath is part of the locking mechanism, if that is removed the Carronade can be swung inboard and stowed along the ships side.

 

The bottom baulk would be permanently fixed to the ships frames.

 

Gary

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Morgan