Gun Port Hatches

[acaron41120]

Question on the hatches for the gun ports on a 16th century ship. Well all ships I guess. Did the hatches that covered the gun ports fit flush inside the port opening or did they overlap the opening a bit? Couldn’t find anything specific in any material I have. Thanks in advance for our assistance.

[druxey]

Port lids (not hatches) are flush to the outside planking when closed. There is a rebate in the sides of the port for the lids to shut against. The rebate is formed by a thin lining of wood over the frames and port sills.

[acaron41120]

druxey. Thank you sir. I never even thought of a rebate in the port frames but that does make sense. I see now how that would keep the port lids from swinging into the ship during inclement weather allowing the sea into the ship.

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by acaron41120

[Dr PR]

Wolfran zu Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models" (Sterling Publishing Co. Inc, New York, 1989) shows a variety of gunport lids on page 177. He discusses the variations on lid design and hinges from the 16th century through the 19th century.

[Dziadeczek]

A while ago somebody (I don't remember his name) has posted this image of the HMS Victory (along many others)...

[allanyed]

You can see the linings very clearly on a number of contemporary models.  Note that the linings fayed to the frames rest on top the lining on the bottom sill.  There are usually no linings on the top sill.  Based on contemporary model, there are sometimes no linings in the ports which carried no lids such as those on the upper deck at the waste as in the third pic.  Pics are from Preble Hall, Annapolis.

Allan

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by allanyed

[DaveBaxt]

Some neat looking gun ports with lids and the perfect rebates. Great thread with excellent replies.

[Mark P]

Good Evening Gentlemen;

 

I am going to put a cat among the pigeons here, as I do not believe for one moment that the ports were separately lined with timber to form a rebate. For modelling purposes, this may be the easiest method to construct such a rebate, but in full-size practice this would entail a great deal of work, for no practical return. It is much easier simply to stop the outer planking short of the gunport, with the resulting exposed part of the main timbers of the hull frame, and of the inserted cills at the bottom of the port, forming the surface against which the closed port-lid would rest. 

 

(Allan, thank you for your pictures above; but they only show that a rebate was present, and do not in any way provide an illustration of how it was actually formed physically in the ship)

 

The framing plan of Vengeance, a 74 of 1774 (available on Wikimedia Commons at high resolution) shows the timbers forming the gunports quite clearly, and on the lower deck the gun-port opening between the timbers scales at 3'4"; and for the upper deck ports it is 2'10". Furthermore, in places the timbers forming the side of the port are shown actually reduced slightly in width, as compared to the width of the same timber below the port cill, in order to increase the width of the port to the desired size. It is, in my opinion, very unlikely that the timber would be trimmed back, only to be later replaced with a separate piece of plank nailed to the side of it in order to replace that which had already been taken away. Just about every contract ever written at this period specifies a minimum for how much timber is to be left to the sides of the ports when the timbers are cut back to obtain the desired width of opening; so obviously trimming back the main timbers to give a desired opening width was common practice. 

 

The 1745 establishment gives the gun deck ports of 70 & 80 gun ships a width of 3'5" & those of the upper deck either 2'9"or 2'10". At a later date, for a 74 gun ship, Steel gives a width of 3'5" and the shipbuilder's repository 3'6". For the upper deck they give widths of 2'11" & 2'10" respectively. In other words, the distance shown between the timbers on the framing plan of the Vengeance matches the given dimensions for the width of the gunports. So there is no room for any additional planking to be fitted to the side of the gunport openings.

 

The Shipbuilder's Repository also gives a dimension for the port stops of 3 1/2" for the gun deck ports of a 74. This is the distance by which the outer planking stops short of the side of the timber forming the side of the port opening. The author also gives a size for a 'lining' of 1 1/4"; this is given under the heading of 'Port Lids', NOT gunports, and refers to the thickness of the vertical planks which were fitted to the inside face of the horizontal outer planking of the gunport lids, this inner lining being sized to fit between the timbers at the sides of the ports. 

 

The cover illustration by Ross Watton, for Peter Goodwin's book, 'Sailing Man of War', which is based on a model of Bellona in frame, shows this concept very well. Below is a sketch I made some time ago to illustrate the point made above.

 

 

Gun port details001.pdf

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Mark P

[allanyed]

Very well explained Mark, thank you.  This would certainly be easier from a modeling standpoint as well as real world for POF.  
Allan

[druxey]

Mark: I stand corrected by your researched response. However, from a model making point of view, it's easier to add the stop than cut planking back neatly!

[allanyed]

7 hours ago, druxey said:

it's easier to add the stop than cut planking back neatly!

The more I think about this, you may be right Druxey.  The key word is as you wrote,  neatly.  Cutting back the planking on both sides and the bottom of many dozens of gun ports exactly 0.5mm or 0.75 depending on scale would be a real challenge.    

Allan

Edited June 22, 2023 by allanyed

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is most likely right (versus complicated ones) ... so perhaps a corollary for model builders is that the easiest method to get an outcome should be preferred (over more difficult ones).