HMS Sherbourne Windlass and Gun Ports

[Pitan]

My next build will be HMS Sherbourne.
For the build I have two questions (so far) arising from the plan available from the Greenwich site (https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/plan-of-the-sherborne-1763-j8467)

1) The windlass on the plan occupies the full width of the bow.  (Think it's a windlass, the roller used to raise the anchors?)
How practical was that?  If the crew wished to work forward of the windlass, either for sail handling, or to work the bow guns, they'd have to vault over the machinery.
(Thinking as I'm typing ... given the vessel never had her full complement of guns, were these the spaces left vacant?)

2) The plan shows two doors (name?) covering only the second (of five) gun port from the bow.
Is this a draughts-mans convention, leaving off the remaining four ports as unnecessary visual clutter, or would the only be one set of doors?
If only the one, why the second port?  (Could this be the unoccupied gun position?)

FWIW, I'll be building the new Vanguard kit, which does have the full width windlass.

[Pitan]

p.s. The body plan from Greenwich shows no doors over the gun ports (https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/body-plan-for-sherborne-1763-j7809?_pos=2&_sid=bedc6a7ff&_ss=r).

[allanyed]

The inboard profile plan actually showing one example of the side half door lids and the remaining four with no lids seems a little unusual when looking at other sets of profile or inboard profile plans the majority of which show no types of lids.  Maybe it is shown because it is a side half door lid rather than the more common single lid hinged at the top.  Peter Goodwin mentions that the side half door lids were sometimes used as they gave a certain extent of protection to the shrouds and deadeyes from heat and sparks discharged from the guns.  Then again, maybe all the ports had side opening lids and the example is to show that feature.   I for one am curious and hope someone has an answer based on contemporary sources.

 

For an interesting drawing see ZAZ 5578 of the bomb vessel Grampus.  It shows both three piece incendiary and escape port lids and a drop lid.

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-85369

 Allan

Edited March 19 by allanyed

[druxey]

The bow ports were not armed: no space for working a gun! The were used as bridle ports for anchor handling. The vertical half-port lids illustrated were 'for example' and not drawn for all the other ports. You could not have a conventional lid as there was nothing but the rail above the port opening. There was no place to fit a hinge to! The advantage of these lids was that in a heavy sea you would not ship as much water over the decks as would happen with open ports.

[chris watton]

Sherbourne actually only carried 6 x 3-pounders, with the last three ports per side the likely homes for these cannon. But people always think every single port opening must be populated with cannon - this was very rarely the case. (I have seen many models burdened with so many cannon where they shouldn't really be, that if the ship pitched in heavy weather, it would just keep heading down to the bottom of the sea)

 

I really wanted to give the official numbers for armament, but I know I would receive countless emails telling me I didn't add enough for all the gun ports....

Edited March 20 by chris watton

[tkay11]

@Pitan: The issue of the windlass and the ports was discussed a lot for earlier builds of the Chris' Caldercraft Sherbourne. The windlass, for example, is accurate in Chris Watton's new revised version, as per the plans from the NMM. For example, see @Gregor's and @Stockholm tar's builds for discussions of historical details and NMM plans, and the following:

Although I have not seen Chris' new version, I am pretty sure he will have made the kit as accurate as possible, although there will always be questions about 'accuracy'.

 

Tony