Jump to content
dafi

HMS Victory by dafi - Heller - PLASTIC - To Victory and beyond ...

Recommended Posts

Interesting research and discussion.   I wish I could find the reference but supposedly, the doors were cut in for Nelson as he had a hard time climbing that ladders.  The artwork that Vossie showed in Caroline's cross-stitch log shows a door at Trafalgar.  So is this just a myth being perpetrated?  Gary's post indicates it is which raises the question of why do so many pictures show the door? Curiouser and curiouser... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gary: many thanks! 

 

When I started my Vic some 10 Years ago, everybody was of the opinion: OH NO, not another Victory, how boring. Today I know it is one of the least known ships and it is always a real treat to throw some lights into the dark corners of this ship´s history. Today I am happy to build the Vic, as it shows par excellence, how little we really do know about the ships of this time and how much research is still necessary!

 

Cheers, Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Morgan said:

and the entry for 28 April 1803 has Victory as having 30 Nr. 32 Pounders, 28 Nr. 24 Pounders, 32 Nr. Long 12 Pounders and 10 Nr. Short 12 Pounders.

In our german forum I have a accumulated list with all the data I found in chronological order. It states that the Vic undocked on the 11.04.1803 still with 2 24-pounder carronades. So it fits well into the scheme 🙂 On the 14.05. she went to sea. I added already the new data. Thank you for those informations.

 

https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t5759f198-Fakten-zur-Victory.html#msg117794

 

XXXDAn

 

 

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mtaylor said:

Interesting research and discussion.   I wish I could find the reference but supposedly, the doors were cut in for Nelson as he had a hard time climbing that ladders.  The artwork that Vossie showed in Caroline's cross-stitch log shows a door at Trafalgar.  So is this just a myth being perpetrated?  Gary's post indicates it is which raises the question of why do so many pictures show the door? Curiouser and curiouser... 

 

Mark,

 

One of the problems with perceptions of Victory’s appearance is the current configuration which came out of the 1920’s refit, at that time records were scattered and some simply unknown, in today’s connected electronic world much has been digitised enabling much better research. The 1920’s refit relied on the original drawings, there were also conflicts between time, cost and pre-conceptions centred on restoring the original beauty of her appearance, so we get a compromise. Interestingly a contemporary article in the Mariners Mirror discussing the research for the 1920’s refit shows they got very close to uncovering her real Trafalgar appearance with built-up bulwarks on the forecastle etc. but they couldn’t corroborate it so did not go down that route.

 

Another source of misconception is that many 19th Century artists show Victory at Trafalgar in her pre 1801/3 refit guise, probably using the original build models with their open galleries or by copying other artists. Nichols Pocock was a prime example, he saw and sketched Victory in life after her pre-Trafalgar refit but his paintings constantly show the old open stern galleries, simply look at his Nelson’s Flagships. In part you can understand this as the original configuration is far more aesthetically pleasing than her war austere war guise.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, dafi said:

In our german forum I have a accumulated list with all the data I found in chronological order. It states that the Vic undocked on the 11.04.1803 still with 2 24-pounder carronades. So it fits well into the scheme 🙂 On the 14.05. she went to sea. I added already the new data. Thank you for those informations.

 

https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t5759f198-Fakten-zur-Victory.html#msg117794

 

XXXDAn

 

 

Dafi,

 

The 24 Pounder carronade (single) was for the ships Launch according to the ordnance records, Peter Goodwin does say they there were 2 on the forecastle, but until I can access the gunners monthly returns I’m not sure when they were acquired.

 

I've inserted a copy of the record, note the number ‘2’ in the gun number and not the number of guns. So no number 1 carronade, these are all individual entries and not groupings.

 

Gary

 

4798D051-5159-4C1B-9A04-7027AF645961.thumb.jpeg.eb28da52ffabe911a3becea8f0486096.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If I remember well, the information about the carronade(s) either came out of "Nelsons ships" or "Ships at Trafalgar" from Goodwin. Have to double check the entries there, to see if I misunderstood or if possibly he could have misunderstood the entry you have shown.

 

Thank you for the as always well researched information!

 

And especially a big thank you for sharing it!!!

 

Cheers, DAniel

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Morgan said:

nd the entry for 28 April 1803 has Victory as having 30 Nr. 32 Pounders, 28 Nr. 24 Pounders, 32 Nr. Long 12 Pounders and 10 Nr. Short 12 Pounders. Additionally, I also looked at the log books held there, and there are several copies, Hardy, Quilliam, and one other, and they record that at the same time that Victory received her 68 Pounder carronades from the Kent on 17 August 1804 she also received 2 Nr. 24 Pounders.  

I found my reference that I relied on: Goodwin Ships of Trafalgar.

He also refers to the inspection and accounting of the ordnance on the 28.04.1803, so most possibly the same source. The numbers he states are  30 32pdrs, 28 24pdrs, 30 long 12pdrs for the upper deck, 12 short 12pdrs quarter deck, 2 medium 12pdrs and 2 24pdrs carronades on the forecastle. The 6 18pdrs carronades of the poop were said to be removed.

 

XXXDAn 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And here is part of the conundrum. We start at re-commissioning with 100 long guns, but loose 6 and gain 2 long guns on 17 August 1804, so now at 96 long guns.  So using Goodwin’s Figures as the record by Trafalgar there are 102 long guns, with 2 No. medium 12 Pounders added and 2 No. short 12 Pounders also having been added, yet no mention of the 2 No. 24 Pounders added which leaves another 2 12 Pounders to account for, never mind the 6 lost to the Kent, I assume these would have been from the quarterdeck short guns unless the upper deck was also reduced in number.

 

Goodwin’s tally of 12 Pounders looks a lot like the March 1808 tally of 12 Pounders, which could be Victory retaining most of the the upper and lower deck ordnance at that repair and only the 24’s being swapped out for 18’s.

 

However, it leaves a lot of ordnance changes between April 1803 and Trafalgar to account for, and why give up 6 No. 12 Pounders only to recover them and loose the 2 additional 24 Pounders again between August 1804 and October 1805?  That’s why I want to see the Gunners monthly returns when available to track these changes and verify what was on board by Trafalgar.

 

Then there are the carronades! Another story to uncover.

 

Gary

Edited by Morgan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But me too I messed up ...

 

Goodwin states 28.04.1803 and you the the Kent 28.04.1804 ...

 

Have to put this clear for my brain still ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does take some getting you head around, but the Kent was 17.08.1804 - Victory log books, the Ordnance returns on re-commissioning are at 28.04.1803 - so I agree with Goodwin’s date but not the detail, as you can see from the copies I sent you 👍🏻.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation, Gary. 

And another question.... Were carronades counted as "guns"?  That's one of the points of contention not just on Victory, as I understand it.  But then there were 24 and 26 gun frigates that only had carronades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mtaylor said:

Thanks for the explanation, Gary. 

And another question.... Were carronades counted as "guns"?  That's one of the points of contention not just on Victory, as I understand it.  But then there were 24 and 26 gun frigates that only had carronades.

Hi Mark,

 

No, carronades were not counted in a ships armament until after the Napoleonic wars.  So whilst a frigate may be rated as a 38 she could also carry 8/10 carronades as well, so really 46/48 guns.  So the term ‘38’ became a nominal or ‘class’ term, the boundaries became further blurred as the wars progressed and the carronade became more popular, a 38 could conceivably carry 30 cannon and and 16 carronades, but she was still a 38.

 

This led to Captains exaggerating their captures, so it was not unknown for a Captain to say his 38 (actually 46 guns overall) captured a larger opponent of say 42 guns, which was in fact a ship of lesser force say a 36 gun frigate with 6 additional carronades (or French equivalent).  This happened in British, French and US navies, the attempt was to influence the captured ships value and amount of prize money, not to mention enhancing the Captains reputation.  This led to bitter arguments over how difficult won ship actions really were, so eventually Admiralties came clean and re-classified ship ratings to reflect the actual number or overall number of guns carried.

 

Hope this is clear.

 

Gary

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you Gary and Mark.

 

As long as I still keep gathering the input for 1805, I kept working on the version of 1765 to 1788 (great repair) or 1797 (decommissioned).

 

Luckily I did 2 slices in the old and long forgotten days :-).

 

Victory-1765alt-130412_6572.jpg

 

One was fitted with deadeyes and chains, but proved to have some inaccuracies, that is why I decided to keep on working on the other one.

First came the frieze. First the base with the medium color then the shadows and the highlights.

 

Victory-1765-190528_5097.jpg

 

One can see that the chain board was removed. was atop the whales and not on them. The good thing on the painting technic that I use is, that repairs can be nicely done.
First the priming with the classical small pots from Humbrol/Revell.

The 2 shades of brown with the casein paint and blended with the mostly dry brush. As the knees will be on the same place, I took it easy on that part 😉

 

Victory-1765-190531_5142.jpg

 

Replaced the chain boards and gave it a new color suiting the 1765 model.

 

Victory-1765-190601_5143.jpg

 

As it was too easy until now, I decided to open one gun port. So back to the heavy machines do dig deep ...

 

Victory-1765-190601_5144.jpg

 

... cleared the back too ...

 

Victory-1765-190601_5145.jpg

 

... and faked the inside boards.

 

Victory-1765-190601_5146.jpg

 

Yes I mean faked 😉 ...

 

Victory-1765-190601_5147.jpg

 

Also the port with the half lids was updated.

 

Victory-1765-190601_5150.jpg

 

And then some paint and the reason for the opening. The model shows an interesting color scheme for the middle deck: White insides of the ports with a red rabbet.

 

Victory-1765-190601_5151.jpg


Cheers, Daniel

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slow progress ...

 

Next came the frieze:

 

3 colors ...

 

Victory-Fries-190607_5165.jpg

 

... first the middle one ... 

 

Victory-Fries-190607_5166.jpg

 

... then into darkness they dwell ...

 

Victory-Fries-190607_5168.jpg

 

... then come the highlights ...

 

Victory-Fries-190607_5170.jpg

 

... gonna be fine enough 🙂

 

The same way the cherub was done.

 

Victory-Fries-190607_5174.jpg

 

Then tried some shading for the bronze guns.

 

Victory-Fries-190607_5177.jpg

 

The huibrol bronze was the first test. Some brown already helps a lot 🙂

 

Victory-1765_160608_5178.jpg

 

From the museums one knows green or polished in brass-look. But how did they look in real life when in use?

 

Victory-1765_160608_5179.jpg

 

Questionmarks!!!

 

XXXDAn
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine friezework at that scale, Dafi. Well done!

 

The guns were iron, not bronze. Bronze was too expensive for the government coffers. The last ship to be fitted with bronze cannon throughout was the previous Victory, sunk in 1737. Most of her cannon are still on the sea bed in the English Channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Sirs,

 

@druxey My understanding was, that the Vic of 1765 was first fitted with brass cannons and those being replaced by iron later on? Is this not correct?

 

Have to look at my literature again.

 

Cheers and Thank you, Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some more tinkering around happened ...

 

Some 0,6 mm brass wire was bend on the template ...

Victory-1765-Channel-irons_5458.jpg

... cut open ...

Victory-1765-Channel-irons_5459.jpg

...collected ...

Victory-1765-Channel-irons_5465.jpg

... alined ...

Victory-1765-Channel-irons_5468.jpg

... and looks ok.

Victory-1765-Channel-irons_5471.jpg

Then soldered with homeopathic dosages of solder ...

 

https://www.mediaharmonists.de/bilder/Sammler31/Victory-1765-Channel-irons_4796.jpg[/img]

 

... and blackened.

Victory-1765-Channel-irons_4870.jpg

XXXDAn
 

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dafi,

 

Concerning bronze cannon Bugler at page 21 says “It is also interesting to note that by 1790 all brass ordnance had been succeeded by cast iron throughout the Navy and it is very likely that the last remaining brass ordnance in the Victory was discarded during this repair (1788)”. Not definitive but opens the possibility of brass cannon up to this point.

 

Gary

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, and I have to re-find the reference, he mentions that prior to the 1800 refit the 32 Pounders were of the old type, by which I presume he means the pattern that preceded the Blomfeld, in which case there would be a noticeable difference on your dummy barrels muzzle swell. He also thinks they may have been on at Trafalgar but we know this is not the case as we can trace them to 1803 and some remain on board.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hello druxey and Gary,

 

thank you for the input, always important to have this kind of questions and corrections.

 

I was going through a lot of my sources lately and found the same kind of statement like Bugler´s at AOTS McKay, that made me believe some years ago, that the brass cannons were used on the Vic until this date. But he is even more vague about it. Now reading it more aware-fully, he also could have expressed that in general all the brass guns were replaced by the 1790ies.

brass.png.508922134b82efacb0afaf70c873417b.png

 

On the other hand he states that it is possible that before 1782 the Vic still had brass guns, without specifying if all of the guns or only the larger calibers.

643847784_Refit1782.png.0277cb1cedf790d562146d0d5d72f5bb.png

As McKay is largely based on Bugler, I would strongly guess, that he based his opinion upon Bugler´s book.

 

I also remember a newer input after the discovery of the 1737 Victory, that this ship was the last major ship being fitted with an all brass ordnance. Did not locate the source again yet, but also do believe that this was in a video or news section, and do not know the quality of the sources that this statement was based on.

 

All my other sources so far do not give a statement upon the gun´s material prior to 1782/1788.

 

Cheers, Daniel

 

 

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very doubtful that Victory of 1765 had brass ordnance. The previous Victory of 1737 certainly did - she was fully armed with brass - but all that was lost when she went down. (Perhaps this has created the confusion, with two ships of the same name?) Very few guns have been salvaged: most are on the sea bed. The cost of brass vs iron was considerable, and the government was not about to sink large amounts into more brass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you druxey. I am with you. But I wonder about the sources of Bugler and McKay.

 

At least the Vic of 1737 was not found yet at the date of the release of their books, so less confusion then.

 

XXXDAn

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dafi,

 

If you wanted to pin it down there are The National Archives, under ADM 160 (and sub-divisions) Ordnance Office, but it would be a hell of a search through the letters sections unfortunately, there seems to be no single returns book as there was from 1803 onwards.  Chances are that most of the guns stayed with her from refit to refit as they were set aside when taken out, so the 32 Pounders are probably the same ones from 1788 onwards through to Trafalgar and beyond. They were all made by Walker & Co..

 

The reference I mentioned earlier I would look for was from ARMING THE ROYAL NAVY, 1793-1815: THE OFFICE OF ORDNANCE AND THE STATE by Gareth Cole, he states “Victory herself appears to have been armed with old pattern cannon” and then provides the reference “An Account of Iron Ordnance on Board of His Majesty's Ship Victory, Chatham. 28th April 1803', TNA ADM 160/ 154. Although, it is not known if these were replaced in the summer of 1805 while she was at Portsmouth”.  We know from the 1803 and 1807 returns (the ones I sent you) that they were the same throughout, so we know they were iron, and probably date to at least 1788.  If these were the old pattern guns, probably Armstrong, they may have stayed until the refit in the 1810’s. A comparison with Armstrong / Bloomfield pattern guns and those on the deck lower deck of the Victory would tell you which ones they actually were if you want to go that deep into it.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Once the irons being fixed one can see the difference in V1 to the actual version. As the first build just developed without further planing, it was not possible to fix all the irons properly as for the ports, so it was good to have a fall back version and to start anew 🙂

 

Victory-1765-Chains_5092.jpg

 

Victory-1765-Chains_5093.jpg

 

An after all this fiddling with the small tiny chain links it was good to fix something bigger in a decent size ...

 

Victory-1765-190728_5223.jpg

 

... the port for the main tack, the batten for the channel board being fixed, some ringbolts to straighten the shrouds and the missing port lids ...

 

Victory-1765-190728_5224.jpg

 

... splashed some paint ...

 

Victory-1765-190730_6990.jpg

 

Victory-1765-190730_6999.jpg

 

... the side half door lids with the painted frieze ...

 

Victory-1765-190730_7003.jpg

 

Victory-1765-190730_6993.jpg

 

... and the very elegant conduct of the lifting halliard of the foremost gun port lid 🙂

 

Victory-1765-190730_7000.jpg

 

Victory-1765-190730_6996.jpg

 

XXXDAn

Edited by dafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hy Daniel - the cornice on the gunport lids were painted in the Vic-1st edition? Okay for the horizontal shared door I can understand as the cornice will block the doorsides to be fully opened.  But usual gunport lid? I thought the cornide will be applied over the hinges du to keep the elegant lines alive.

 

Or am I wrong coming to this idea from with my point of view of the French baroque side of shipbuilding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Christian, 

 

I am following the contemporary model of 1765and this is how it is done there. I had a fast look onto other models, there much more often the fake frieze was even omitted, leaving a wooden square in the colored ground ...

 

XXXDAn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
×
×
  • Create New...