discussion Brian's 1/100 HMS Victory

[Tim Marlow]

Sorry Brian, you’ll hate me for this…..but after looking at it in conjunction with Pete photo, shouldn’t your restraining lines on the gun cascabels have slack in them? As modelled the crew wouldn’t be able to get the guns back inboard to reload the cannon or close the ports.

 

[Andy the Sheep]

Good grief that’s complex. I know the large cable on the Cascabel was to stop the cannon running back too far after firing. In this case the gun would skew sideways wouldn’t it? The thinner line and block was for running the gun back out after loading. Not sure about the medium gauge line and block though? I assume it was for securing the gun during rough seas? If so, would it be removed in action because it makes the gun very difficult to access for loading?

My guess is that the medium gauge line was meant to traverse the gun...

 

[Bri62]

Sorry Brian, you’ll hate me for this…..but after looking at it in conjunction with Pete photo, shouldn’t your restraining lines on the gun cascabels have slack in them? As modelled the crew wouldn’t be able to get the guns back inboard to reload the cannon or close the ports.

The rope isn't pliable enough any longer and it looks daft plus everything is so small not at all like a 4 ton cannon

 

[Waspie]

Good grief that’s complex. I know the large cable on the Cascabel was to stop the cannon running back too far after firing. In this case the gun would skew sideways wouldn’t it? The thinner line and block was for running the gun back out after loading. Not sure about the medium gauge line and block though? I assume it was for securing the gun during rough seas? If so, would it be removed in action because it makes the gun very difficult to access for loading?

My bold!! Looking at the position of the medium line, it may be for controlling the sideways yawing of the canon when fired.
In true naval tradition they certainly knew how to complicate things!! But it must have worked having evolved over centuries of dominating the seas!!

 

[wotan]

The gun shown in Pete's photo looks a little odd to me. The medium sized line I think is the line used to pull back the gun when it is initially loaded or unloaded. I suspect that it would unhook from the bulwark and then hook on to something midships to provide purchase. This may be hooked on to the bulwark during fighting since the area behind the gun is constricted by what appears to be some columns. In addition it only seems to be on one side of the carriage. If you look at the next gun down the deck it does not appear to have the same arrangement. you would not need lines to yaw the gun since it could be moved with a trail spike like on land.

This appears to be one of the heavier guns since it has two breech ropes to control the recoil.

When I have built model ships of the line I have always simplified this rigging since a) It's very tedious to do, and b) working this small with cords they rarely flex enough to look realistic.

John

 

[stillp]

Good grief that’s complex. I know the large cable on the Cascabel was to stop the cannon running back too far after firing. In this case the gun would skew sideways wouldn’t it? The thinner line and block was for running the gun back out after loading. Not sure about the medium gauge line and block though? I assume it was for securing the gun during rough seas? If so, would it be removed in action because it makes the gun very difficult to access for loading?

This is the best pic I have showing the other side of a similar gun:


Incidentally. one of the display boards around the ship states that when a long 12 pounder was fired, the force on the breeching rope and on the ship's side was about 6 tons! Victory carried 30 of them, so in a broadside these guns alone would exert a 90 ton strain. No wonder they built the ships out of oak.
Pete

 

[Tim Marlow]

Qjuite a lot on gun rigging here….
https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/rigging-of-guns-on-hms-victory.6371/
The various guns aboard are illustrated here….including recoil pressures.
http://www.houseoftheorangemonkey.co.uk/monkey/trips/trip1461615.htm

Remember that thirty guns is fifteen a side Pete It was also rare for all guns on one side to fire at once, usually fire was given as a rolling broadside, guns firing one after the other, firing as they bore on the target. After the initial broadside they’d fire as they were reloaded, obviously at different times. Still a hell of a pull though :thumb2:

Very interesting all this. Great model with great discussions.

 

[Bri62]

Loving all the discussion here

 

[stillp]

Remember that thirty guns is fifteen a side Pete .

Yes Tim, that's why I wrote 90 tons not 180! :tongue-out:

I Take your point about not all firing simultaneously, but surely most of the guns near the middle of the ship would have been on target at the same time? Also those 15 guns each side only represent one of three decks.
Pete

 

[stillp]

The various guns aboard are illustrated here….including recoil pressures.
http://www.houseoftheorangemonkey.co.uk/monkey/trips/trip1461615.htm

Interesting that they quote a recoil pressure of 10 tons for the 12 pounder, whereas my photo (which is not very clear so I didn't post it here) shows the information board stating 6 tons.
Pete

 

[Tim Marlow]

Huge forces at work there, I agree Pete. They don’t distinguish between the two types of 12 per on that read out, so perhaps yours was the medium one with the shorter barrel? I know last time I went around her (quite a few years ago now) we were told most of the gun barrels on her have been replaced with fibreglass to minimise strain on the old wooden frame…..

 

[stillp]

No, actually Tim, it was the longer barrel. Here's the photo, sorry it's not clearer.

That does show the lead apron though, which I hadn't noticed previously!
I turned off the camera flash, since I find other people's camera flashes annoying when I'm visiting somewhere like this, but that meant most of my below-deck photos are underexposed. :sad:
Pete

 

[Tim Marlow]

No, actually Tim, it was the longer barrel. Here's the photo, sorry it's not clearer.

That does show the lead apron though, which I hadn't noticed previously!
I turned off the camera flash, since I find other people's camera flashes annoying when I'm visiting somewhere like this, but that meant most of my below-deck photos are underexposed. :sad:
Pete

That board says the gun exerts a force of ten tons at recoil Pete, same as the reference I posted. It’s the last line of text…..
Does make you wonder how they lashed them down during bad storms though. If they were left with the barrel pointed at the side of the ship a bad roll would try to put the barrel through the side when the carriage moved…..
For pictures like that I’d use an exposure lock setting if you’ve got it. You could then set up the exposure away from the gun port, then take the picture. The port will always be overexposed because of the light coming in. If you don’t use that feature the camera tries to average the light between the bright gun port and the dark ship interior, overexposing one and underexposing the other….

 

[stillp]

That board says the gun exerts a force of ten tons at recoil Pete, same as the reference I posted. It’s the last line of text…..
Does make you wonder how they lashed them down during bad storms though. If they were left with the barrel pointed at the side of the ship a bad roll would try to put the barrel through the side when the carriage moved…..
For pictures like that I’d use an exposure lock setting if you’ve got it. You could then set up the exposure away from the gun port, then take the picture. The port will always be overexposed because of the light coming in. If you don’t use that feature the camera tries to average the light between the bright gun port and the dark ship interior, overexposing one and underexposing the other….

I must be going senile Tim! I'd looked at the info board photo for ages and I was convinced it read 6 tons! I should have looked more carefully.
Good point about the need to lash the carriages down in rough seas. I can't see anything like ring bolts in the deck to fasten tiedowns to. I wonder if that long hank of rope on the side of the 12 pounder is that long so it could be unhooked and hooked to the hull ringbolt on the opposite side of the ship? that would stop the cannon punching through the side of the ship but would mean the gundecks would be covered in ropes at just the right height to trip over. Perhaps that wouldn't matter so much during a storm as the crew would mostly be on deck or up in the rigging working the sails rather than serving the guns.
The camera I used is pretty good on auto exposure, so the view through the gunports is burnt out but the interior is OK, The worst photos are on the lower decks, which are pretty dark, so the aperture and ASA were cranked up to maximum.
Pete

 

[Waspie]

I must be going senile Tim! I'd looked at the info board photo for ages and I was convinced it read 6 tons! I should have looked more carefully.
Good point about the need to lash the carriages down in rough seas. I can't see anything like ring bolts in the deck to fasten tiedowns to. I wonder if that long hank of rope on the side of the 12 pounder is that long so it coule be unhooked and hooked to the hull ringbolt on the opposite side of the ship? that would stop the cannon punching through the side of the ship but would mean the gundecks would be covered in ropes at just the right height to trip over. Perhaps that wouldn't matter so much during a storm as the crew would mostly be on deck or up in the rigging working the sails rather than serving the guns.
The camera I used is pretty good on auto exposure, so the view through the gunports is burnt out but the interior is OK, The worst photos are on the lower decks, which are pretty dark, so the aperture and ASA were cranked up to maximum.
Pete

Until recently the Navy has never really given a hoot about crew comfort and transiting decks. It's propulsion and weapon systems, even in Nelsons day that were the priority. Warship are all about weapon delivery, the crew and their comfort are secondary. Sad but factual. So with seamen sleeping over the guns in hammocks I imagine negotiating gun decks would be a hazard under normal conditions. Introduce a bit of 'roughers' and I bet the ships surgeon was busy!!!!
I was wondering about ring bolts, I have no recollection of seeing any on Victory but there is a good reason for that. Other than time and a bad memory!!!

 

[stillp]

In rough weather, I'd imagine the risk of tripping over a rope crossing the gundeck is far lower than being in this situation:

See the dummy figure at about 2 o'clock. Scary!
Pete

 

[Waspie]

In rough weather, I'd imagine the risk of tripping over a rope crossing the gundeck is far lower than being in this situation:
View attachment 496549
See the dummy figure at about 2 o'clock. Scary!
Pete

Obviously not a sailor!! I joined and was sent to HMS Ganges - part of the training was to get to the first yard, 65 feet, and then over the devils elbow!! Where you go outboard on the rigging to get to the second yardarm!! Pretty scary S*** I can tell you!!
Ganges Mast

 

[Bri62]

I joined and was sent to HMS Ganges - part of the training was to get to the first yard and then over the devils elbow!!

Bloody hell Doug your showing your age now lol I was in HMS Raleigh 1980 Ganges closed in 76?

 

[Waspie]

Bloody hell Doug your showing your age now lol

Yeah I guess I am. I was 15yo then!!! 1967 so long ago yet so vividly remembered. (I still listen to the 'Doors' though!!)

 

[Bri62]

Finished needed to do rigging and the upper deck wood done, let it dry now