Breechings seized or tied to a ring bolt

[DaveBaxt]

Regards the above. I have read somewhere that the Cannon breechings are tied to a ring and an eye bolt, and I think a half hitch knots were used as are a number of models I have found..All the photos and drawings I can find are that the rope is seized to metal ring and according to Mondfields book 'Historic ship models' a throat siezing followed by two normal siezing are used. Any thoughts or clarity on thls? Perhaps One was used for a specific period and another for a different period. Laverys book 'The Arming and fitting of English ships of war ' Also states that the breeching ropes are seized to the ring bolt.At the moment I am specifically interested in the late 18th century .Was one used for certain size cannon.? As neither methods are permanent clearly the one which is tied could be altered during battle if the breeching were to be stretched in anyway . If newer ropes were used for whatever reason then perhaps the ropes would stretch further initially, rather than ropes which have been used for some time and the slack taken up either by seizing ot tieing. Perhaps ropes were even pre stretched prior to use. Just some of the issues running through my head prior to rigging the cannon on my HMDiana 1794

[allanyed]

Caruana gives the following description on page 384 of The History of English Sea Ordnance Volume 2.   

Allan

[druxey]

I believe that breeching rope was made from previously used line that had already been stretched.

[DaveBaxt]

1 hour ago, allanyed said:

Caruana gives the following description on page 384 of The History of English Sea Ordnance Volume 2.   

Allan

Thank you for that wonderful reply and so for my date of 1794 it would be a throat splice and a half hitch. Great stuff

[Bob Cleek]

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!

 

On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  

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

I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.

 

For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.

 

The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 

Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 

 

 

Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:

 

 

Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 

 

 

 

 

 

The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry. 

Edited April 9 by Bob Cleek

[allanyed]

2 hours ago, Bob Cleek said:

The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action

Lots of options including the three below.  From The History of British Sea Ordnance Volume 2, page 382.  He gives the following description of each.

 

Illustrations of breechings and gun-tackles on a 1795 pattern carriage, redrawn from Congreve's Treatise on the Mounting of sea Service Ordnance.    

Top: gun tun in.  Center: gun run out and secured.  Bottom: gun run in, secured, and housed.

Allan

 

[popeye2sea]

5 hours ago, Bob Cleek said:

 

Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 

 

 

Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:

 

 

 

 

USS Constitution 1797

 

Regards,

Henry

[Gregory]

3 hours ago, allanyed said:

Lots of options including the three below.

I don't see any detail regarding the attaching of the breech rope to the gunwale.

 

42 minutes ago, popeye2sea said:

USS Constitution 1797

 

1997, maybe?  That breech rope looks decorative rather than functional.

[allanyed]

Hi Gregory

These drawings from Caruana were meant as the rigging for stowed gun rigging options, not how the breech line was secured to the rings.  The types of securing of the breech rope were as described in post #2.  My apologies for any confusion.

Allan

[popeye2sea]

7 hours ago, Gregory said:

1997, maybe?  That breech rope looks decorative rather than functional.

I have no idea when that photo was taken, but I do know that it was not 1797.  I mention the launch date of the ship for reference to what period she depicts.

As far as looking fake goes, I can tell you that Constitution, as much as she can, adheres to historical accuracy.  That being said, there are several caveats.  The first being, accurate to what period?  She has been an active Naval vessel for 227 years. There have been many changes made over those years. She tries to adhere to her appearance during the war of 1812, but a discerning eye can spot many anachronisms.  There are also concerns about the costs of maintaining the vessel.  It is prohibitively expensive to maintain the ship using live oak, hemp rigging, and flax sails.  Modern materials are substituted.

For instance, the shrouds are composed of a manmade material that looks like hemp around a steel core. The sails are also a modern material that looks like canvas.

 

Those breeching ropes do look to be too short to be functional and the first seizing is a round seizing whereas I think it should have been a throat seizing.  But, I am no expert. Then again, those guns have never been fired and they never will.  But they do give the correct impression of what things looked like back then.

 

Sorry for the rant. I am passionate about my ship.

 

Henry

[DaveBaxt]

18 hours ago, allanyed said:

Caruana gives the following description on page 384 of The History of English Sea Ordnance Volume 2.   

Allan

I have gone over and re-read  everything which has been lay down in this thread and would like to thank everyone for their help  and paicence in this matter. So I think at the moment  I am between a rock & a hard palce if I am honest . However In this case I will try and follow the above literature and follow the above testement posted by Allan. Another question I am afraid. In reference to the part whereby the above script mentions the period by 1790 and according to a drawing in a sience museum a  thimble is formed in the eye of the of the breeching rope and a throat seizing to secure it. It then goes on to say the rope is then knotted. What kind of knot are we talking about here ( If anyone actually knows please answer) What are we talking about here Bends,  half hitches or what? As previously metioned, knots are not such a good idea due to self tightening or is the thimble taking all of the strain? Sorry as there always seems to be more questions to each answer. Thank you once again for your help and patience in this matter. Best regards Dave

[Gregory]

As if we haven't seen/heard enough options here is a drawing DrPr posted from an unnamed source, but appears to be one of the AOTS books.

 

 

The attaching of the breeching rope appears to be an eye splice with a cow hitch(?)

 

While we are at it, the mystery eyebolt we have discussed in other threads ( dotted line #10 ) says it was for training tackle., which would have been the outhaul repurposed.

An option that I  believe  was presented.

[DaveBaxt]

Thank you Gregory, for your input, it is always welcome. I have the same drawing and for most part and is probably correct, however I have seen so many different versions and thought I would try and get to the bottom of it. Easier said than done. 

[Gregory]

Apparently there was variation, so you should feel good about how you choose to go forward.

[BANYAN]

On 4/11/2024 at 9:12 PM, Gregory said:

Apparently there was variation, so you should feel good about how you choose to go forward.

Agree, the following is from Capt. Boxer's (RN) 'Diagrams of Guns' (1853) which still shows the use of bending the breeching rope to rings in the mid-19th century.

 

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

 

Edited April 13 by BANYAN

[Thukydides]

On 4/9/2024 at 10:19 AM, Bob Cleek said:

On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  

Check your local library, they may be able to bring it in for you. Also if you have a university in your area they may have it. I have a copy of Caruana on perpetual checkout from my local university library as no-one else is ever looking for it.

[Bob Cleek]

1 hour ago, Thukydides said:

Check your local library, they may be able to bring it in for you. Also if you have a university in your area they may have it. I have a copy of Caruana on perpetual checkout from my local university library as no-one else is ever looking for it.

Ah ha! I know the name of that tune.  Back in the days before the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships ("DANFS") ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_American_Naval_Fighting_Ships ) was posted, in part at least, on the internet (https://www.hazegray.org/danfs/) I had acquired for free in a "junk books pile" a set of the nine-volume "Encyclopedia Britannica" of U.S. Navy ship histories and photographs going back to "day one" of the U.S. Navy less one volume. Published by the Naval Historical Center, the large and expensive, somewhat limited edition series had been out of print since 1991 and there was little chance of my ever obtaining the missing volume. Then, one day when I had some time to kill, I was perusing the stacks of the county main library which I rarely visited and I spotted a DANFS volume! Unbelievably, it was the one volume that I didn't have! I checked the card catalog and there was no listing for any DANFS volumes in the library's collection. I took the book to the head librarian and explained my situation, the fact that it appeared this volume was an "orphan," and that there was no sign of it or the rest of the set in the card catalog. Explaining my interest in maritime history, I asked her as nicely as I could if it were possible for me to buy this rather esoteric research book from the library so they could use the money to buy another book more likely to be read by the library's patrons. She looked at the volume and noted it had a library stamp and all that in it, but nobody had ever checked it out. She looked at me and said, "I have no idea where this book came from. It should have been culled from the stacks long ago. If we kept every book that came into our possession, we'd quickly run out of shelf space. Just take it. We're glad to get rid of it and I'm happy to see it go to somebody who wants it." Thanking her profusely, I walked out with a free book which, considering its value as the "missing link" to a now complete DANFS set, I would have gladly paid a fair price for!

 

I'm not so sure whether you'd be so lucky with a set that's worth close to a thousand bucks, though! You can always try. Stranger things have happened!  

 

BTW, I just ran a search on the DANFS set and there's a complete nine volume set for sale on eBay right now for a rather excellent price of $101.19 with free shipping! I'm not sure why, but there it was:  https://www.ebay.com/itm/325989377449?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1qIDhXgXvR8eXOOj6-pkOmQ61&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-213727-13078-0&mkcid=2&itemid=325989377449&targetid=4580771614098651&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=&poi=&campaignid=603247547&mkgroupid=1234752552191001&rlsatarget=pla-4580771614098651&abcId=9316119&merchantid=51291&msclkid=4c8398c3d71f1a7cd709fedb7e6913fd 

 

Note that "complete" eight volume sets were the original set. The ninth volume was an additional supplement updating additional vessels. Prices for complete sets appear to be running closer to $200 to $300, plus shipping.

 

Anybody who's interested in U.S. Navy fighting ships really shouldn't miss this opportunity. 

 

 

Edited April 12 by Bob Cleek