Question about cannon breeching lines

[Ausierob]

Hi, New to wooden ships, and currently doing the HMS Fly. Just started detailing the cannons and have a question about the breeching lines. I see photos of cannons with the breech line wrapped around the Cascable and others where the breech line goes through a loop on top of the Cascable. What would be most appropriate (accurate) for a ship of 1776, ie the Fly? Thanks for your help.

 

[Korsan]

The given information may be helpfull in the attacment shown illustrations.for the 18th century (figure c )it is shown as a loop.

 

[Korsan]

Further this looping is in my opinion an improvement (compared guiding it thru a hole on the cascable) for a quick replacement of the damaged cannon during a fight.

 

[Corsair]

Hey @Ausierob ,
For your model, according to David Antscherl in his books on the Swan class sloops (which the HMS Fly is one): "The breeching is a heavy line that limits the gun's recoil. It attaches to the ringbolts on either side of the gunport, passes through the breeching ringbolts and either divides to pass around the cascable button in a contsplice or is looped once around it. (in 1787 the patterns of the guns were changed to add a vertical cascable ring and the breeching was passed through this.) The ends of the breeching rope reeve through their ring bolts, are half-hitched and the ends seized.... "

Sorry if I made any typos.
Hope that helps.

Jeff

 

[Jimsky]

Hi, New to wooden ships, and currently doing the HMS Fly. Just started detailing the cannons and have a question about the breeching lines. I see photos of cannons with the breech line wrapped around the Cascable and others where the breech line goes through a loop on top of the Cascable. What would be most appropriate (accurate) for a ship of 1776, ie the Fly? Thanks for your help.

View attachment 451237

View attachment 451238

Hi the AusieRob

The first image (showing the HMS Victory gun) is the Blomefield pattern. Around 1783, Blomefield set his hand to designing artillery. Apparently, he was a dedicated experimenter and used his experiments to inform his designs. There are several key deviations from the Armstrong-Frederick pattern gun in the Blomefield gun. Blumfiled pattern barrel has the ring on top of the cascabel.
First, it is much more simple in design. Many of the more decorative features at the cascabel were done away with to ensure a uniform metal thickness.

Second, an attempt was made to lessen the weight of the gun by trimming the thickness of the tube while retaining a strong breech. This is a theme one sees with cast iron guns probably culminating in the Parrot guns.

Lastly, a loop was forged over the knob on the cascabel. Aboard the ship, this enabled the breeching rope to pass through the loop rather than being looped around the knob. This subtle change enabled shipboard artillery to be shifted much farther off the center line because it could be fired with the risk of snapping the breeching rope.
After 1794 the Blomefield pattern gun was the standard within the navy.

The below image represents Armstrong's pattern. John Armstrong finished his basic design for British artillery in 1725. The Armstrong was a successful and resilient design, it was still present on British warships as late as 1808.

 

[Ausierob]

Hi the AusieRob

The first image (showing the HMS Victory gun) is the Blomefield pattern. Around 1783, Blomefield set his hand to designing artillery. Apparently, he was a dedicated experimenter and used his experiments to inform his designs. There are several key deviations from the Armstrong-Frederick pattern gun in the Blomefield gun. Blumfiled pattern barrel has the ring on top of the cascabel.
First, it is much more simple in design. Many of the more decorative features at the cascabel were done away with to ensure a uniform metal thickness.

Second, an attempt was made to lessen the weight of the gun by trimming the thickness of the tube while retaining a strong breech. This is a theme one sees with cast iron guns probably culminating in the Parrot guns.

Lastly, a loop was forged over the knob on the cascabel. Aboard the ship, this enabled the breeching rope to pass through the loop rather than being looped around the knob. This subtle change enabled shipboard artillery to be shifted much farther off the center line because it could be fired with the risk of snapping the breeching rope.
After 1794 the Blomefield pattern gun was the standard within the navy.

The below image represents Armstrong's pattern. John Armstrong finished his basic design for British artillery in 1725. The Armstrong was a successful and resilient design, it was still present on British warships as late as 1808.

View attachment 451322

Hi Jim,
Many thanks the detailed reply, I do find it interesting. In fact I'm finding all the details and history around 18th century Tall ships very satisfying to my OCD ;-).
Anyway, am i right to understand that for the HMS Fly (1776) it would most likely have had the Armstong-Frederick gun, therefore Breeching line would be wrapped around the cascabel?

BTW I don't know about 18th century but being a sailor and now doing marine rescue, the old see dogs taught me "its a 'rope' on the dock and a 'line' on the boat!"

 

[Ausierob]

Hey @Ausierob ,
For your model, according to David Antscherl in his books on the Swan class sloops (which the HMS Fly is one): "The breeching is a heavy line that limits the gun's recoil. It attaches to the ringbolts on either side of the gunport, passes through the breeching ringbolts and either divides to pass around the cascable button in a contsplice or is looped once around it. (in 1787 the patterns of the guns were changed to add a vertical cascable ring and the breeching was passed through this.) The ends of the breeching rope reeve through their ring bolts, are half-hitched and the ends seized.... "

Sorry if I made any typos.
Hope that helps.

Jeff

Hi Jeff, thank you, that answers my question perfectly. In fact, I was going to question about the breeching ring bolts as I also see many photos where the line is and isn't attached to the carriage (HMS Victory, etc). Now, it made sense to my engineer brain that it would be attached (restrict the carriage from twisting and the breech line jumping off the cascabel on recoil) but that doesn't always mean it was so. Must look at getting that book, sounds like it'll answer many of my ongoing question. Cheers Rob

 

[Ausierob]

The given information may be helpfull in the attacment shown illustrations.for the 18th century (figure c )it is shown as a loop.

View attachment 451253

View attachment 451254

Thank you, need to brush up on my German. Well I did live in Switzerland (Canton Bern) for 5 years, 20 plus years ago. But speaking Swiss does nothing for understanding High German ;-)

 

[Korsan]

The photo of the cannon under section (c) should give you an idea showing 18th centuries version with loop.
You are right Schwiizerdütsch (Schweizer deutsch) is completely different.
4weeks ago i made a touristic visit to Bern.I hope the photos in the attchmnt wake up your memories.

 

[Swiftie]

Very good information thanks

 

[Bob Ellis]

Hi, New to wooden ships, and currently doing the HMS Fly. Just started detailing the cannons and have a question about the breeching lines. I see photos of cannons with the breech line wrapped around the Cascable and others where the breech line goes through a loop on top of the Cascable. What would be most appropriate (accurate) for a ship of 1776, ie the Fly? Thanks for your help.

View attachment 451237

View attachment 451238

For a few years either side of 1776 Armstrongs were being replaced for Blomefields. I doubt you'll find any records if or when Fly had any replaced. Generally kits, including Amati, are supplied with something 'like' Armstrongs, so if you use those supplied you'll have to loop or splice. You can get after market Blomefields, or brass turned generic types. Those supplied are not so good.

 

[AllanKP69]

You can have them made as 3D prints. Assuming 1776 she would have had Armstrong Frederick pattern barrels (1760-1790) when launched. These were similar to the drawing from Jim in post #5 and also had the George III cypher in the second reinforce. I have 3D drawings that you can email to any local 3D printer to get a price. If you are interested feel free to PM me with the caliber and barrel length you need and I can try to email the drawing to you.
Allan

 

[Uwek]

Maybe also this older post made by @Jimsky is helping - just remembered, that this was discussed already once

HMS Druid P.O.F. - Unicorn Models by Donnie [COMPLETED BUILD]

Hallo Donnie, how you manage it to install the muzzles when the capsquares are already fixed on the carriages?

shipsofscale.com

 

[AllanKP69]

What would be most appropriate (accurate) for a ship of 1776, ie the Fly?

Rob,
Regarding the question about breeching lines for Armstrong-Frederick pattern guns circa 1776 , maybe check out post #25 in https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/making-cannon.14545/page-2 which addresses how the breeching lines were secured to the button and the ringbolts on the bulwarks during various eras on English ships.
Allan

 

[Ausierob]

The photo of the cannon under section (c) should give you an idea showing 18th centuries version with loop.
You are right Schwiizerdütsch (Schweizer deutsch) is completely different.
4weeks ago i made a touristic visit to Bern.I hope the photos in the attchmnt wake up your memories.

View attachment 451463

View attachment 451464

Yeah, it is a pretty place. Pretty much the best of everything, living with the Swiss is another story...

 

[Ausierob]

Rob,
Regarding the question about breeching lines for Armstrong-Frederick pattern guns circa 1776 , maybe check out post #25 in https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/making-cannon.14545/page-2 which addresses how the breeching lines were secured to the button and the ringbolts on the bulwarks during various eras on English ships.
Allan

Thanks Allan, More interesting detail. Cheers Rob