Method for attaching breaching rope to cascable

[Thukydides]

I have been doing some looking around and I haven’t been able to find a clear answer as to how the breaching rope was attached to the cascable in cases where there was no ring to run it through. I am currently building the alert and the goodwin book depicts it as simply wrapped around with the crossing of the ropes occurring at the top.

The problem with this I it doesn’t seem to me that this would hold unless it was tied in place by some sort of seizing, but goodwin doesn’t mention anything about this. Many here on MSW have slipped the cascable into the rope by “untwisting” the rope. For example see this done by @glbarlow for his flirt build.

 

Another example I have found is this where two lines are spliced together to create the loop.

 

Basically I am wondering if anyone can point me towards what the practice actually was at the time.

 

 

 

 

[allanyed]

Way too much to copy from Caruana's History of English Sea Ordnance Volume II, pp381-3    In short, up to about the middle of the 18th century the breeching was simply taken in a round turn round the neck of the button and secured by means of a seizing.

The next solution employed wrought iron double thimbles attached to the neck of the button. 

The thimbles were eventually discontinued in favor of a spliced eye in the bight of the breeching.  This is described in Steel's Art of Rigging of 1797. 

Of course the breeching ring of the Blomefield changed everything.

Allan

 

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by allanyed

[Thukydides]

Thanks so much @allanyed for the response. Alert was launched in 1777 so I guess that would imply one of the latter two methods. However, I am not entirely sure I understand what you mean by them.

 

I am having trouble picturing what you mean by thimbles attached to the neck of the button.

 

By spliced eye are you referring to something like the example I cited from glbarlow?

Edited August 8, 2023 by Thukydides

[BenD]

The way you are doing it on your build is just fine. I will add some pictures of the ways I know. 

 

There is the "cut splice" way. which is a bit difficult to do for a model.

 

Wrap around the cascabel like The way you have done on your build log. 

The next one only works if there is a ring on the gun.

There is another way with a four-strand rope but I don't have any pictures. I've also seen some breach ropes that run through the carriage itself and not even touching the gun. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by BenD

[Bob Cleek]

From Wiki:  http://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Cunt_splice

**** splice

 

A '**** splice', often softened to 'cut splice' or 'bight splice' for publication and in genteel conversation, is formed by eye splicing two different pieces of line into each other the same distance from the bitter end of each piece, forming "a Collar or Eye...in the Bight of the Rope. It is used for Pendents, Jib-Guys, &c."^[1] Because the Eye is in the middle of the resultant rope, tension in the rope will tighten the eye around a wooden collar or fairlead. In Master and Commander, the bosun, Mr. Watt, personally works a **** splice into the breeching for the twelve-pounder bow-chaser that Aubrey mounts in HMS Sophie.^[2]

References

1. ↑ Lever, Darcy. The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor: or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging and to Practical Seamanship. (c)1998 by Dover Publications, Inc.: p.5
2. ↑ O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander. (c) 1969 by Patrick O'Brian. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and New York, First Edition: p. 63. What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced but, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel, q.v., this image of a carronade aboard HMS Victory. It is conceivable that the gun's cascabel knob would have been placed in the splice. In that case, as the gun recoiled, the increased tension in each side of the splice would have tightened it around the cascabel knob.

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

The repeated interruption of four asterisks redacting the well-recognized name of the subject splice in the article above are apparently artifacts of some sort of automated "net nanny" Bowdlerizing algorithm. The gymnastics employed by cunning linguists to avoid the use of a visually descriptive Anglo-Saxon nautical term is rather pretentious. 

 

Note at footnote 2. above that the editorial comment, "What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced, bur, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel." Is incorrect and misleading. Allanyed's explanation above of varying practices according to the period is correct. 

 

When a breaching rope was simply turned about the cascabel ball, it was commonly lashed together at the point where the rope crossed to form the loop in order to securely fasten the rope to the neck of the ball so it couldn't come adrift in use.

 

For modeling purposes, where scale renders actual splices impossible, faux splices can be created by tapering the bitter ends of the ropes by scraping the individual strands with the edge of a sharp blade or carefully trimming them at an angle with a sharp scissors. The tapered ends, rather than being tucked as in an actual splice, are then laid against the rope and secured with adhesive and a simple whipping applied over the area where the "splice" occurs. This creates the tapered appearance of a true whipped splice while avoiding an unsightly out-of-scale "lump" where the splices occur. 

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Bob Cleek

[allanyed]

11 hours ago, Thukydides said:

I am having trouble picturing what you mean by thimbles attached to the neck of the button.

Me too.  I cannot find a picture anywhere.   The only information I can find is from Caruana .History of English Sea Ordnance Volume II, page 383

It is documented in the first edition of Falconers Marine Dictionary , (T. Cadell, London, 1769) where it is stated that "the middle of the breeching is seized to the thimble of the pommillion", when the guns were cast loose prior to firing.  The so-called Burner edition of Falconer, published by Cadell in 1815 is more specific (but very out-of-date) stating that the breeching "is fixed by reeving it through a thimble, strapped upon the cascabel".   A gun fitted in this manner exists at the Rotunda Museum of Artillery   

 

Allan

Edited August 9, 2023 by allanyed

[allanyed]

Thukydides

Do you know what size and pattern cannon is in the drawing you show in the first post?   I imagine it is something like six pounders on a cutter but not sure as the rigging with the double block is more like what was normally used only for the largest calibers.

Thanks

Allan

Edited August 9, 2023 by allanyed

[Thukydides]

Yes they are six pounders. I had a post on this topic about a year ago and I think the answers were inconclusive. I was not ultimately able to determine why Goodwin shows double blocks in his AOTS Alert book. If I remember correctly from the discussion Lavery makes some mention of double blocks being used sometimes (but he doesn't elaborate, I will have to double check when I get home) and someone in the thread said Caruna mentions only the larger guns had double blocks.

 

I still havn't really decided what I am going to do to be honest. I bought the double blocks based on Goodwin before the question arose, but I may go back and get some single blocks instead. Still on the fence on this one.

[allanyed]

Do you know what pattern gun is in the drawing?  It looks a little bit like an Armstrong-Frederick pattern which would be appropriate for 1777 but the one in the drawing is a design I have never seen before for this period.  

Allan

[Thukydides]

He doesn't really say much apart from describing the characteristics of the 6 pounders which were installed in 1778 replacing the old 4 pounders.

 

[mtaylor]

23 hours ago, BenD said:

I've also seen some breach ropes that run through the carriage itself and not even touching the gun. 

The French used that method and I don't think it ever caught on with the English or other countries.

[allanyed]

13 hours ago, Thukydides said:

the characteristics of the 6 pounders which were installed in 1778 replacing the old 4 pounders.

Thank you.  I am guessing these would have been Armstrong Fredericks which came into use about 1760 and which are different than the pattern in the picture.  It appears to be missing the ring around the button and the chase astragal and fillets found on both Armstrong  and Armstrong Frederick patterns but probably not that noticeable at 1:64.    Picture below may help for a 6'-6" six pounder with lengths shown at full size and at 1:64 that may help.  Do you know what the smallest guns were that carried the cypher?  I show the George III cypher here but not sure if it is was cast on every Armstrong Frederick six pounder.  Vanguard's cannons are beautiful and have the chase astragal so I am guessing it is just missing on the drawing.

 

Allan

Edited August 10, 2023 by allanyed