I have Harold Underhill’s plan of a 32 pounder cannon, it doesn’t have a ring(or part of) moulded onto the cascabel for a breeching rope to pass through. I can’t find any info on this. I checked HMS Victory site but the cannon have this ring. How was the breeching rope attatched to cascabel? Also I have some info on types of shot, powder carriers etc:, but don’t have any plans or dimensions. I would be grateful for any help/info on this. Many thanks, John.
Hi John,
The guns with the cascabel ring are the Blomefield pattern guns introduced in the 1790s. Captain Thomas Blomefield was a Royal Artillery officer who redesigned British guns so they could use newly the improved “cylinder powder” developed by the English in the 1780’s. The new powder apparently increased chamber pressures, bursting “old pattern” guns during testing.
The new Blomefield guns had the obvious cascabel ring, thicker breeches and thinner chases (the barrel forward of the trunnion). This gave a stronger gun without an increase in weight. Decorative elements were removed from the Blomefield pattern ordnance.
The Blomefield pattern was the standard Royal Navy weapon during the French Revolutionary and Napoleanic conflicts. If you are modeling the Victory at Trafalgar, this is the correct configuration.
For the 32 pdr., a breeching rope, of 7 inch circumference (2 1/4 inch dia), was simply threaded through the cascable ring, without any seizing at the breech. 5 1/2 inch (1 3/4 dia.) rope was used for 12 and 18 pdrs.
For English ships modeled prior to ~1795, use the old spherical cascabel button.
The gun equipment would be the same as for the prior decades. The different types of powder were differentiated by lettering colors (red - cylinder powder, blue - ordinary powder, and white for recycled powder). The cylinder powder was reserved for longer range work, where combustion consistency was required for accuracy.
Just one more technological advantage over the French and Spanish.
If you are seriously interested in this period, I would recommend getting Brian Lavery’s “The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, 1600-1815”. Search on www.addall.com. (reference for the above info) Goes for $40.00 to $60.00.
If you are seriously interested in this period and have stock options maturing soon or a wealthy relative in the comfort care ward, I’d recommend Jean Boudriot’s “The 74 Gun Ship”. Goes for about 10X Lavery, but is worth it.
Good luck on your project,
Alan
But to answer your question, John, the breeching rope was looped or knotted (depending upon the diameter of the rope) around the “button” on the cascabel. A somewhat less reliable means of stopping the cannon from exiting the ship through the bulwark on the opposite side upon recoil but better than nothing. A number of contemporary illustrations of 16th and 17th century ships will show this method. I expect Mr Tilley will shed more light on this.
Best,
Ron
As Ron says, for attaching the rope to the casacabel, the breech rope was wrapped around the the button. The drawings I have seen indicate that the right lead (looking forward) was aft in the wrap. I don’t know if that was a convention or everyone is copying the same drawing. I have not yet found any seizing details… Dr. Tilley?
During the second second half of the 18th century, a practice that came into general use was to slip the cascabel button through a cut splice, made in the center of the breech rope.
Regards,
Alan
What was the bore diameter of a 32 pounder?
32 6.41
24 5.823
18 5.292
12 4.623
9 4.2
6 3.668
Actually Mr. Tilley has absolutely nothing to add. The information provided above is most interesting and, so far as I know, completely reliable. Fascinating stuff.
Thanks schoonerbumm, I was tryin to figure out the shot weight of an 8 in. Dahlgren. I am going to save everyone some grief and look it up myself. It’ll be good practice.
Thanks to all for your time and contributions. The books sound interesting. I have no relatives with a bad cough and a good bank account so I’ll have to opt for the cheaper(!) book. Thanks again, John.