Chebec cannons

Modeling Subjects Ships
1

Hey guys,

Would the cannons on the Chebec been bronze? Was this common to the period? I can’t seem to find any decent information on the topic from my books. With all the talk lately on the model, I pulled the model down and starting a little more work on it. Mostly cleaning the cannon detail up and “trying” to figure out what size blocks I need to rig the gun mounts. I’m on vacation this week and need to finish out a Titanic for a customer, so while the pieces parts dry, I get to work on the other.

Jake

2

Jake,

I’ve got the Chebec instructions as my bedtime reading right now. The instructions call for either black or bronze. From the history I’ve read, the Chebec class of ship was in use for quite some time, primarily on the Med, by the Spanish, Italians, French, and I believe even the Brits had them. So I will go out on a limb and say it depends on which Chebec you are modelling. The Chebec in the kit is modelled after the model in the French Naval museum. If you were to remain accurate to that ship, then it’s just a matter of finding out what the cannon are on that kit.

I haven’t decided what I’m going to go with yet. Bronze brings out detail, but it can be hard to get a good bronze paint to look scale (at least for me). Black may work better. If I do the latter, then I’ll use a semi-gloss or maybe even a satin black.

LOL, I had my spring break last week. That was my free time. I took the time to get quite a bit done to the Constitution… I also got a new display shelf up in my boy’s room where the La Reale now resides.

Grymm

3

It’s probably correct to have a mix of bronze and iron cannon. I have been doing some reading up on the Constitution and apparently she had bronze cannon on board in the positions near the binacles to avoid the magnetic compasses being drawn off the magnetic north alignment by iron cannon. I am certainly going to incorporate this on the build if only to avoid a long line of black only cannon. For a bronze colour try using Citadel’s “brazen brass” with “chestnut ink” and “Black ink” washes (don’t have a photo available i am afraid).

Julian

4

Interesting, I never knew that. Was this common practice on sailing warships of this era? Also interested to find that someone else has found Citadel Brazen Brass useful for bronze guns! I find it represents the coppery-bronze (rather than brassy - despite the paint’s name) colour of “gun metal” bronze very well when drybrushed with brown to tone it down a bit.

5

Citadel/Model Workshop is a greatly understimated brand of paint Imho (possibly due to price and bad storage properties). Try the washes (ink, flesh and chestnut) thinned with water and in combination with other colours.

Julian [:)]

6

Also consider the role and time frame of your Zebec. Bronze were on their way out as the material for the majority of naval ship cannons by the late 17th century. By 1720 or so only the very largest of the new naval shipboard cannons, such as the 42 or 48 pdrs, were still being made predominately of bronze. However, also keep in mind that privateers continues to use bronze cannons long after most navies started to use iron cannons.

7

Jake

What I’ve used is Model Master Metalizer Burnt Iron (buffing)Don’t stir the paint. Take a toothpick and get the metalizer out of the bottom of the bottle.Use the thinner thats at the top of the bottle to help spread the paint.After its dries buff it with a cotton swab gently.I think it gives a good effect.

Rod

8

I’m assuming that since the Chebec crossed centuries that one could find bronze, iron, or a combination of the two on board most vessels, especially at the turn of the century. So, in essence, both would be correct.

Jake, that may be what I’m going to do with my Chebec. The question I have is, if a ship captain were faced with the situation of having both iron AND bronze cannon on board, would there be a specific placement of the weapons in order to properely balance the weight? Or am I totally out of my mind? Also, I couldn’t merely just paint some of the cannon bronze and some black, could I? I’m sure bronze and iron cannons had different castings to take into account the different type of metals, right?

Grymm

9

I would guess that the casting would be much the same. The difference would be in the strength of the barrel itself. Iron being stronger would be able to take a larger charge and have a longer range. Is this a correct view or would anyone care to point us in the right direction here ?

Julian [?]

10

Okay, so it would be okay to just paint some cannon bronze and some black. What then, if it is an issue, would be the correct placement?

And the smaller (anti-personnel) cannon…those would be bronze or iron also, right?

Grymm

11

According to Manucy’s Artillery Through the Ages, cast iron was weaker than bronze, so iron pieces tended to be thicker and heavier than bronze ones of the same type and bore.

Cheers,

vonBerlichingen

12

In the 1700’s cast-iron guns became the principal artillery afloat and ashore, yet cast bronze was superior in withstanding the stresses of firing. Because of its toughness, less metal was needed in a bronze gun than in a cast-iron one, so in spite of the fact that bronze is about 20 percent heavier than iron, the bronze piece was usually the lighter of the two. For “position” guns in permanent fortifications where weight was no disadvantage, iron reigned supreme until the advent of steel guns. But non-rusting bronze was always preferable aboard ship or in seacoast forts.

Müller strongly advocated bronze for ship guns. “Notwithstanding all the precautions that can be taken to make iron guns of a sufficient strength,” he said, “yet accidents will sometimes happen, either by the mismanagement of the sailors, or by frosty weather, which renders iron very brittle.” A bronze 24-pounder cost £156, compared with £75 for the iron piece, but the initial saving was offset when the gun wore out. The iron gun was then good for nothing except scrap at a farthing per pound, while the bronze cannon could be recast “as often as you please.”

Nice pointer vonBerlichen and I would appear to be way off course. The choice for iron cannon was obviously dictated by the bean counters ! (hope I don’t get shot for copyright issues ).

Julian [:)]

13

Well, the Chebec model concerned is based on a model in the Musee de la Marine called ‘Requin,’ and this particular chebec was equipped with all bronze guns, so if you wish to model it appropriately, you will paint the cannon appropriately. However, since chebecs were used by everyone in the Med from the French and Spanish, as well as (and mostly!) by the Algerine corsairs, you put just about any mix of iron, bronze and even mixed calibers aboard and you would not be far off!

14

Actually good cast iron is materially stronger than bronze, if not quite so ductile. A well cast iron gun can withstand a greater charge than an similar bronze gun. But the general weakness of Iron guns stems from the fact that it is difficult to cast iron guns without imperfection, and the imperfections weakens the gun much below what theoretical strength cast iron is capable of. The second weakness of iron guns comes from the lack of ductility. If a bronze gun were to fail, the ducility of the metal ensures it would bulge or split rather than fragment or burst. Iron guns when failing would burst into fragment. Thus a failure of an iron gun is far more deadly to the crew than the failure of a bronze gun. It is the weariness with which iron guns are regarded that caused them to be cast with much higher safety factor than bronze guns, resulting in iron guns being heavier.

Bronze is a softer metal than cast iron and bronze guns are more easily bored to a high degree of precision. This is why bronze guns have reputation for being more accurate at long range, and thus somewhat more favored by the French, who favored long range gun fire to cripple enemy rigging. Although bronze guns generally fell out of favor for naval use during the 18th century, the French Royal Navy were intent upon restarting bronze naval gun production for their new, large 120 gunners right before the French revolution.

Iron retains its strength to a much higher temperature than bronze. Bronze guns would droop and bulge if fired rapidly for prolong periods. Iron guns can continue firing long after the barrel temperature would have stopped bronze guns. This is why iron guns were favored by the British for the melee type action they favored in late 17th century.

Incidentally, British iron guns were better than French iron guns for much of 18th century in that British iron guns, even the bigger ones like 32 pdrs, were cast in one piece. The larger French iron guns like the 36 pdr and 48 pdrs were initially cast in 3 sections and then hammered together. French iron guns are thus weaker than British iron guns, and tends to fail with much higher frequency when subjected to prolonged firing. This is another reason why the French could not hold their own in prolonged melee action. The French crew would desert their guns for the fear of the guns bursting.

15

Iron guns are also lighter than bronze guns…

16

…And bronze guns are about three or four times more expensive than iron guns…

17

IF Le Requin is the Xebec upon which Heller based their kit, then the vessel dates from mid-1751, by which date “brass” guns in the British Navy, at least, were virtually non-existent. I cannot speak for the French Navy but it seems unlikely that they were much behind us in the development of naval ordnance. The odds, I believe, are against Bronze/Brass guns. The brass guns used on models should not be taken as a guide to those which were actually carried. They looked good on a model. By 1750 the British Navy had gone over to iron guns.

A word about brass and bronze. The former is an alloy of copper (about 90%) and zinc, manganese, nickel, tin and lead, etc whilst bronze is an alloy of copper (again about 90%) and tin. If a model actually carried bronze/brass cannon DO NOT - I beg you - paint them brass. I once had the great good fortune to witness a conservator cleaning (to its ‘as new’ condition) a murtherer - a small pivot gun used to sweep the decks with shot should the ship be boarded. To my astonishment the weapon emerged looking as if it had been given a coat of cheap gold paint albeit with the very faintest tinge of pink (yes pink). Having seen and identified a bronze cannon from the Sovereign of the Seas 1637, I can vouch for its state. It was a mid- to dark brown and discoloured in some places by verdigris (green) - the salty atmosphere I suppose. The coppery colour sold as bronze by paint manufacturers, should be mixed with(possibly) earth or darker brown to bring it to the proper appearance and get rid of any metallic glint. The Requin, in all its glory, can be seen in a beautiful book called “Historic Ship Models” by Jean Boudriot (in English) and published by A.N.C.R.E. c/o Huberti Berti, 75 avenue George V, 06000, NICE, France. Try www.ancre.fr . Hope this helps. Flitch.

18

Thanks,

That does help! I’m just about ready to start the experiment on the painting I’m going to try Testors “Burnt Iron” with an additional black wash. Then maybe a dry brush of “something” tan/pink flesh color. If thats too dark I’ll use a lighter shade of the metalizer brand. But I think the “bronze” guns on the model will make more of an impression and the era of history is just too close to call. BTW I posted some new pictures of the model in the album today.

19

If anyone gets the chance, use one of Big Jake’s links to go over to his photo page and see the absolutely fantastic work he’s doing on the Heller Chebec. I can’t wait to jump into mine.

Grymm

20

I hope I didn’t mislead anyone when I wrote of a pink cast to the bronze gun after cleaning. It is essential to bear in mind that the sand blasting had rendered the finish ‘as new’ and highly polished, a condition which would not have lasted very long! I was trying to make the essential point that bronze is neither yellow like brass nor much like gold, but somewhere between the two. Today I examined a bronze woodworker’s plane: handling and use has polished it so that it is reflective, but without the red/pink tinge to it: a sort of halfway stage between new and the brownish/verdigris finish to which I referred earlier. My efforts to mix this colour failed miserably because, of course, I couldn’t achieve the shine/finish. The nearest I got was SNJ’s bronze, treated with their polishing powder, from which it is possible to gain a reflective finish. I recall reading that the product was no longer available, I believe, however, that it is still obtainable under a different label (?) The red appearance of many gold paints needs to be reduced by mixing with brass, whilst avoiding too yellow a finish, if that makes sense: it is very difficult to achieve, although for me, it is the most attractive of the three finishes. It’s the shine/reflection that’s makes it work.

According to Jean Boudriot’s “Artillerie de Mer - France 1650-1850”, the French abandoned bronze at some point during the first part of the 18th century. I dare say there was a lengthy changeover; it wouldn’t have been immediate. Given the figurehead, the general dispositon of the deck and the armament (24x8 pdrs and 32 Musketoons - light swivel guns mounted on the bulwark rail and the mizzen and poop “breasts”), Heller’s kit is almost certainly Le Requin.

Boudriot’s “Historic Ships” has 20 colour plates of the Musee model which is a great aid to painting and rigging, whilst the English text is very useful indeed. As for the guns, I suppose one could have them iron, but personally, I prefer bronze and I’m not certain anyone could fault that choice. I should add that whilst there isn’t a musketoon in sight on the Musee model, the fact that Heller suggest painting them black, implies that they may be iron. For the big guns, the second of the three finishes is to my taste, it is so hard to achieve properly, however, that it may be better to go for the dark brown/verdigris look and lose any metallic glint!

Finally, Boudriot’s “Artillerie…” contains 1/20 scale drawing of bronze cannon and according to my measurements, Heller’s cannon, at 45mm including the pommel are about 11 mm too long for 1/75! All is not lost, however, if you’re prepared to take the trouble. For starters the pommel is on a stalk - lose the stalk and re-attach the pommel; that loses 2mm. Get rid of the ridiculous bulge which is supposed to be the muzzle “swell”, up to the reinforce (the rib) - that’s 3mm more. There are three reinforces (rings) between the cannon breech and the trunnion, one on its own and a pair just behind the trunnion. Moving from the breech to the trunnion, remove the section between the first and second of these rings: the third ring, just behind the trunnion, remains. This gains a little over 5mm, which should be about right. You will, of course, have to reconstitute the muzzle swells but that shouldn’t present too much of a problem with body putty. Much “fairing in” will be necessary!

Finally, there may be one or two of yoiu out there who have doubts about the arithmetic I employed to arrive at this point. I don’t blame you, even I blinked when I saw the outcome AND checked my workings twice, but to satisfy any doubts on the subject, I give you the lengths of the drawings as they appear in Boudriot’s book (I believe we can trust his research - hope so anyway!). Remember these are to 1/20 scale and have been taken off a mss c.1689. 4 pdr. - 103mm; 6 pdr. - 119mm; 8 pdr. - 129mm; 12 pdr. - 146mm; 18 pdr. - 156mm; 24 pdr. - 165 mm. In galleys the 6 and 8 pounders were the same size, but the 33 pdr was 181+mm. For Reales the 4pdr. - 104mm; 6pdr. - 97mm (not a misprint); 8pdr. - 122mm and the 33pdr. - 165mm. I simply divided these measurements by five to get to 1/100 scale and multiplied them by 4/15ths to get 1/75 scale. Finally, if you want the evidence of your own eyes, just look at the length of the guns, compared with the size of the vessel they occupy. If I’ve dropped a clanger please tell me. If I’m right, there’s a hell of a lot of work waiting when I get to assemble mine. Good luck. Flitch