• New Horizons on Maelstrom
    Maelstrom New Horizons


    Visit our website www.piratehorizons.com to quickly find download links for the newest versions of our New Horizons mods Beyond New Horizons and Maelstrom New Horizons!

Paused Bava's HMS Southampton-32 guns, 1757

Bronze will work fine for now-certainly tend to be more ornate. Hell, having proper patterns for each gun size and carriage is quite the achievement really.
Ahh, I believe you are referring to bow chase guns? Those could certainly be longer-though there weren't always dedicated chasers. Except on the very smallest types, there were also broadside guns on the forecastle on frigates, and sometimes the foremost pair of these (in the case of Southampton there was only one pair) would be moved to the bow chase ports, and the aft most pair of quarterdeck guns moved to the stern chase ports as needed. One could also mount dedicated chasers, but whether this happened usually depended on what ordinance was available when fitting out, recoil space, the captains preference, and how much of an impact the extra weight in the ends might make on sailing qualities
 
The formulas, we worked out, allows me indeed to create every pattern between 1716 and 1726. Only the carriages height must be set in practice to deck-lid ratio. There is no documentation about. Only what was important in its design. Based on this few imortant things, the carriage can easy create to the barrel.

It was a very, very interesting way of research, reading books and talk to people with many knowledge. I like this much. The NMM, the Dutch gun expert Nico Brinck (researched the rised 24 pounder of Balchins Victory) and SeaNorris.
I have created so much patterns and overhauled the formulas, compared existing guns and its real values, to find the real practice of gun founding. Note, that cast masters hide the "secret" of gunfounding ;)

Important to know (and indeed very interesting), is the horrible gun founding practice in this time. I understand Borgards work based ever on the Rupertinoe gun. It was very back-weight-influenced but very strong. When in 1716 the board of ordnance request lighter guns, only Borgard was able (with a few changes) to calculate a successfull version with a special length. So we have had 3 points in this time:
1. The unknown gun drawers draw "something"
2. The engineers like Borgard and later Armstrong researched possible patterns
3. The cast masters, who cast what the engineers request, based on its own "secrets"

To get the real "secret", its only interesting to take a look on real guns or overhaul papers with the given weights and year of the ship on shipyard.

When you take for example Caruanas researched 24 pounder, you got on his formula a 56cwt gun. The drawing from drawing room fits this too. BUT board of Ordnance in the first Establishment of 1716, says 46cwt. AND the recovered Balchins Victory 24 pounder says 46cwt too. This is a big difference! Based on this knowledge, an very interesting way through books, NMM conversations and these with Nico Brinck, shows, that the real practice was often a bit away from Board of Ordnance tables AND based on todays way of thinking, it must be logic.
Here I researched the 1/16 gun ball tiling through the calibres and fit real life guns values into a new releationship of gun length. Todays technology is able to build the gun and calculate its weight in 3D, an option Caruana havnt had when he wrote his books. So its very clearly, that the chase rings (for example) are gun legth based and not calibre based. One of many examples.

The time span between 1716 and 1726 can now set very clearly to the Establishment and practical use of this time. The recovered Victory guns and the formulas confirms gun weights throught this time of cast.
Caruana writes, that stronger gun powder and new requests by board of ordnance, ends in a few the new Establishments. 1733, the Establishment, that never was, 1744 only on paper, with only 2 ships in overhaul but not armed (so no proof of real guns vs. Establishment), 1761 is noted as very unclear and confused by a number of myths and last but not least 1764, the first documented successfull new gun design, based on 1760 set sheets by Armstrong and Frederick. All iron!

Why I write this in your thread? The interesting thing is, thats clear, Armstrong first 4 designs was fails. Every gun bursts. But he changed throught the years the cascable pattern, this we see on Balchins Vicotry guns. First 1760 start tests with new patterns with Frederick become to be successfull. And thats still iron guns. The armament papers and these of existing guns, including Balchins Victory ones, are relatively clear, that the Borgard pattern of 1716 and the first Armstrong one (Borgard pattern with a few changes) was these, who used in service till late 1790. Here we talk only about Bronze guns!
We can easy transfer this opinion to iron guns. Here only new and stronger metall make the guns up from 1716 more usable and replaced slowly the bronze guns. Thats what I understand based on the research.

Just for interest:
Borgard gives his pattern in 1716. Armstrong, used the same and only changed the design of the cascable and bore - ball ratio. This was in 1722.
The last 100% Borgard pattern Bronze gun (only with the changed ball-bore ratio and cascable design by Armstrong) was proofable on a real gun of 1726.

For the next step of my research I wait for @Post Captain visit in NMM, to take all values of the 12 and 42 pounder, OME recovered from Balchins Victory wreck side. Then I can proof what the design formula says to the 42pdr, was cast in 1726 and the 12 pounder, cast in 1734. The pictures of the 42 pounder shows another cascable design, so its real pattern is very interested. The 12 pounder is another very important point of interest. It was cast in 1734, after the 1733 Establishment ("that bever was"). Im very interested in the values but so long i didnt have them, I cant proof its real pattern to the 1716 - 1726 dimension ratio. If I get them one day, I are able to rise the pracice of gun founding to 1734, hopefully based on the 1716 Borgard / 1722 Armstrong ratio.

So I ask with many emphasis and a big amount of my gratitude, that someone is able to do this, measure the both Balchins Victory guns in NMM. It was recovered and prapared for museum by West Dean Collage in England but unfortunately NMM and this Collage wont measure the guns and no one have the values. I make them an offer but they didnt reply to it. So we can only trust to ourself.

OK, long text, sorry but Im very enthusiastic in the Bronze gun research :D


Ill create you the 12 pounder 8ft Armstrong, with a few more simple gun handles, based on what I see of the existing Schalch guns.

When ever someone is able to send me lists or papers to real ships armament, with year, length and weight, Ill be very thankfull for it! It helps to proof and expand the use of guns in real life between 1716 and ~1796.
 
@Captain Armstrong:

Yesterday I read through some book sheets and think about an real life weight for the 8ft 12 pdr.

Based on Victorys wreck we know, that a real life 12 pounder 10ft have had a weight of 33-1-12, means 3736,00 lbs - 1694,62 Kg, 33,3571 cwt. The gun was cast in 1734.
The Establishment of 1716 give us a 12 pounder 9ft 6in as 31cwt, what is in my opinion realistic because the too short reinforce was mainly a problem above 12 pounder guns.
The Establishment of 1743 bring back 1st rates Bronze guns and lists a few in service. Unfortunately with no weight. Caruana said, that Victory and Royal Sovereign in dock fit with its gun into the Establishment regulation from 1719 till 1749. This fact confirms, that a 12 pounder 9ft6in was 31cwt.

Now we got the problem, every 6in less in gun length means ~1cwt lighter (at Bronze guns) and more and more too short reinforced. I am not sure if ever a 12 pdr 8ft gun have had then 29 cwt and if we csan call this "realistic".
To check what is realistic, I have checked the differences between iron and Bronze guns. Caruana said, that the most Establishments for old ships was migrated from 1719 till 1743 througth the Establishments, so we have this and the real Victory gun as proof for a real life gun.
We can compare the weights, please guys help me with your historical knowledge if my way of thinking is right @Armada, @SeaNorris. :

Here what Establishments and Caruana says, with fit in real life guns for comparing:

12 pounder 10ft
Bronze = 33 1/4cwt (real life gun, armament of 1737 Victory, today in a police station, because was illegal recovered from the wreck side by a Dutch company)

12 pounder 9ft6in
Bronze = 31cwt (1743)
Iron = 34,5cwt (34-2-20) real life gun, today in Ireland
Iron = 35cwt (1733)
Iron = 34cwt (1719)

12 pounder 9ft
Bronze = 29cwt (1764)
Iron = 32,5cwt (1764)
Iron = 33cwt (1761)
Iron = 32,5cwt (1743)
Bronze = 28,5cwt (28-2-19) (real life gun, cast in 1739 by Schalch - Bronze (28-2-19), carried later by Royal George of 1756, Today in Rotunda Museum
Iron = 32,5cwt (1733)
Iron = 32cwt (1719)
Iron = 31cwt partially in 1719

12 pounder 8ft 6in
Iron = 31,5cwt (1764)
Iron = 31,5cwt (1761)
Iron = 31cwt (1743)

12 pounder 7ft 6in
Iron = 29 1/4cwt (1764)
Iron = 28,5cwt (1761)

12 pounder 6ft6in
Bronze = 20cwt (1764)

12 pounder 5ft
Bronze = ~9cwt


Regulations:

The 30 gun ship Establishment of 1716 till 1726 says: (reference ships Mermaid and Dolphin)
12 pounder has to be 8ft 6in
6 pounder has to be 8ft
4 pounder has to be 7ft 6in

The 24 gun ship Establishment of 1743 says 9 pounders 7ft 6in
The 44 gun ship Establishment of 1743 says 18pdr 9ft and 9pdr 8ft and 6pdr 6ft6in -> No further Establishment for a 44 gun ship but 1719 Establishment and 1723 Regulation specify for a 40 gun ship 12 pounders to be 9ft and 6 pounders 8ft 6in

Page 120 of Caruanas 2nd book shows gun deck drawing of frigate southampton of 1757 with 26 guns. 2 guns seems to be shorter then the other 24 guns.
1761 Establishment gives for 28 gun frigate 9pdr 7ft
1763 Regulation gives for 28 gun frigate 9pdr 7ft6in


Fazit:
To the ship and the class itself it seems logic to me, that Southampton was equipped with one of these guns:
- 9pdr 7ft or 9pdr 7ft6in guns iron (fits to 28 gun frigate armament) OR
- 12 pounders 7ft or 7ft6in (fits to 1761 Establishment for 5th rates).
Specially the regulation of 7th year war gives the 28 gun frigate (mother of all frigates) exact 9 pounder with 7 or 7ft6in in length. On the contrary, the 1761 Establishment says for all 5th rates (the 28 gun frigate is) 12 pounder 7ft or 7ft6in guns. The length was chosen for the ship, Caruana said. Now we need to choice what Southampton was equipped with. An 12 pounder of 7ft / 7ft6in or 9 pounder of 7ft / 7ft6in. The iron weight is easy to find. Ill do this tomorrow.

More interesting to me:
Compared to the list of 12 pounders, its important to find out the real weight of the Bronze pattern, we want to use for now. When you take as example the 12 pounder 7ft6in as our gun, then we see a iron weight of 28,5cwt in 1761. One feet up in length (to 8ft6in) means 3cwt more in weight (31,5cwt). The design weight I can now only find in create the 3D version of the real life Bronze gun 12 pounder 9ft, 28,5cwt (28-2-19) (real life gun, cast in 1739 by Schalch - Bronze (28-2-19), carried later by Royal George of 1756, Today in Rotunda Museum and reduce then the same dimendion to the weight of the 12 pounder 6ft6in from 1764. When I got the same result, I can scale the length to 7ft6in but I guess, that typical for Bronze, we have 0,5-1cwt reduce per 6in.


Based on my complete 9 pounder Bronze proportion test, transfered to the 12 pounder gun, this means for our 12 pdr example:

10ft victory gun (1734) = 33 1/4cwt (+ 2 1/4cwt)

9ft6in = 31cwt
9ft = 28,5cwt (1739) and 29cwt in 1764 Seems to be the "same" pattern
means - 2 till 2,5cwt per 6in (I guess 2cwt compared to the 10ft Victory gun)

I guess 8ft6in: 26cwt (+2cwt)

I guess 8ft: 24cwt (+1,5cwt)

I guess 7ft 6in: 22,5cwt (+1,5cwt)

I guess 7ft: 21cwt (+1cwt)

Regulation of 1764: 6ft6in: 20cwt


So guys, what do you think about the transfer to the Bronze gun and what so you think is now the right gun for the Southampton (4 guns we can choice by Establishment (I guess 9pdr 7ft6in 22cwt (Bronze) is the right one (will replaced later by iron pendant)))?


English Wikipedia says Southampton have had 26x 2 pounders and FC and QD 6pdrs. This fits to the armament we are talking before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Southampton_(1757)
The threedecks.org information confiorms this:
http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=6788




EDIT 23. June 2015:

Ive read more and got new helpful informations:

The Establishment of 1743 (the one before 1761) says 5th rate 9pdr 8ft 26cwt iron.
Caruana said, that based on 1743, the 5th rate rules and the dock bills confirm, ships was not straight equipped with the Establishment given guns because the gun per ship rules, rules the armament but for a 44 gun ship in 1743. There was no Establishment betwen 1719 and 1761 with a ~30 gun ship rule. An the 1743 - 5th rate have had less guns. Caruana says there is logic a fallback, back till the 1723 regulation, there a 30 and a 40 gun ship was set as 5th rate.
When we transfer now this knowledge to the 32 gun ship Southampton, then we have a similar situation. No Establishment rules 32 gun ship. First the 1761 Establishment takes 32 gun ships as new 5th rates. Southampton is build in 1757, so it seems to be right when it was fit to the new 5th rate 32 gun ship regulation. There is an exact armament given (all iron guns):

gundeck: 12 pounder 7ft6in 28,5cwt
FC: 6 pounder 6ft 16,5cwt
QD: 6 pounder 6ft 16,5cwt

There was only a few exceptions. HMS Adventure for example have had 12 pounder 8ft6in equipped.

Long story short: Reading through all pages again, compare different Establishments and regulations, I think were on the best way to use the 1761 regulation for Southampton. I transfer for now the dimensions to Bronze and start sometimes in the future the 1760 Armstrong-Frederick Design in iron.

Please do not understand me wrong when I fill this thread with endless brainstorming ideas but I need your guys feedback if Im on the right way plus it ends for Southampton with the historical correct armament ;)
 
Last edited:
Holy hell that's a lot of research! :readwill prove quite useful for other types as well I'm sure. I agree completely that the 1761 standard armament should be used. I'll fill in the ship context so you are reassured that it is the correct choice. In the establishment era the armaments and dimensions of each size of warship were standardized but not the actual design, so there were lots of variances in performance etc, and conservatism in dimensions which made British ships smaller and weaker than foreign counterparts. This was shaken up by Lord Anson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Anson,_1st_Baron_Anson who established a system where there were two Surveryers of the Navy (chief shipwrights) who designed a ship for each class, with the best being perfected and made the standard. Sir Thomas Slade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Slade was one of them, and he modernized the Royal Navy, introducing 74 gun ships (he designed Bellona) true frigates (the Southampton being the first British built one armed with 12pdrs) and of course designing HMS Victory, among others. They became or evolved into the standard British designs for the rest of the 18th century, but it was quite a change from the Establishment era-an unusually fast changing period in British ship design development. Such large changes in dimensions and ship types often require new ordinance. Lighter and shorter 18pdrs were developed when the 18pdr frigate was introduced into the RN, so it seems quite likely that a new type was developed for Southampton and her sisters to fit the recoil room and balance requirements they had-which was more sensitive than for much wider and heavier ships of the line-and eventually was solidified as the 7ft 6in 12pdr shown in the 1761 regulations. :napoleon
 
Its not easy what was the truth but it makes fun to search a logic gun :)

The many sheets by Caruana and Muller treatise writes a lot of "mysterious" things and so I focus (what for example Caruana have done) to real guns and comparing of true ships of this time and the record armament.

I create the 12 pounder 7ft6in and we can close this ships research ;) :D
 
Oli,

please create the crests in the order we have spoken about. The Southampton gets first the 1723 Bronze pendant. Later down the road when I have finished all calibres with right proportions (fit to real guns of the year when cast), ill create the 1760 Iron guns (Armstrong-Frederick). This one (the later iron guns) gets the empblem you have already build for your Endeavour. So please focus the both crests of George I and II from Vic Bronze. Then the gun series in Bronze can finished per gun.

Keep up the good work guys ;)
 
Aaaand we're back from the dead!
Due to my old hard drive going bad I lost the final file, and had to start from one with only the masts and lower shrouds. Which means I'll have to do all those ratlines again. :ko
But, I've managed to get the Stingray PBR shading working in Maya, and I've redone the textures from what Armada shared from the Bellona...I can't imagine using anything else now. I also updated a few fittings on the decks, reduced the stern lantern from two to one (as that is what is shown on models of the Richmond class 32s of the same year and this painting of Southampton herself: George III in HMS Southampton reviewing the fleet off Plymouth, 18 August 1789 - National Maritime Museum) I made a change in both the size and grip of the figurehead's shield, it is now a decently accurate classical greek hoplon/aspis shield. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/32/1f/ae/...3bbb3540f65--greek-warrior-design-history.jpg covered with the crest of Southampton, I think it looks quite appropriate!

Overview shots:
Southampton-1
Southampton-2
Southampton-3
Southampton-4
Southampton-5
Southampton-6


Interior and detail shots:
Southampton-8
Southampton-9
Southampton-10
Southampton-11
Southampton-12
Southampton-13
Southampton-14

Next up is the lower ratlines and stays. I don't seem to have any of my old rope textures anymore, if anyone could point me in the direction of a good tarred one I wouldn't mind adjusting the UVs to it before I replicate more rigging. :keith
 
Looks great but you should change the UV at the bow gratings to horizontal.

Losing an HDD is very sad and the bigger the amount of datas becomes, the bigger the effort for backup and reserve backup. I store currently 2x 14TB (3x4TB plus 1x 2TB) as backup and reserve backup. Due the different PBR setups for CE and Unity and my subscription for Megascans, the need space increase very fast.

When your HDD is crashed I think the parts database still exist at PA but maybe you think about an own FTP. The most important files I store huge encrypted at my FTP too but due the released assets in the www I can access a few ones in case of emergeny from the shops.

When you need some of the textures please feel free to ask me, I already have the ones I created for the masts and lines for the assets at the parts database.

And merry Christmas!
 
Merry Christmas to you too! :xmas

The HDD loss was definitely a pain at the time, but the computer was on its last legs otherwise, and I used it as an opportunity to get a much better one! Luckily I had a double backup system of dropbox and an external hardrive for all of my ship models, I just forgot to update it with the last version of the Southampton or use it for textures. :facepalm But, the losses were limited.
By bow gratings do you mean the headrails themselves, or the gratings on top of them meant to be walked on to go to the head/access the bowsprit? And I'll PM you about more textures!
 
I absolutely love the treatment you gave the old lady, great work! That great cabin and figure head...*thumbsup*

The one thing I`d change is converting the windows of the quarter galleries to false lights, except for the upper row of the window in the middle :)
 
Glad you approve! looking at the Richmond-class model its a bit of a wash-one has all false quarter lights while the other seems to have all real ones. I might see how just the upper middle row and keeping the entire middle window real looks! :keith
 
Mister Wedori told me a modeler is looking for the old carvings from the old Sphynx model.
I would like share the old stuff.

The lady and the dolphin need some rework. My goodness a pen is here for three years unused.
 

Attachments

  • o_down.jpg
    o_down.jpg
    427.9 KB · Views: 436
  • o_top.jpg
    o_top.jpg
    430.2 KB · Views: 418
  • o_front.jpg
    o_front.jpg
    483.6 KB · Views: 403
  • o_left.jpg
    o_left.jpg
    470.9 KB · Views: 408
  • o_right.jpg
    o_right.jpg
    465.3 KB · Views: 391
  • passing_in.jpg
    passing_in.jpg
    452.8 KB · Views: 422
  • old_other_elements.jpg
    old_other_elements.jpg
    427.6 KB · Views: 512
Hey Sisko, thank you so much!! Time to come back ;)
Btw: CryEngine loves Polycount ;)
 
Hehe,
in the next steps, I'll clear / build up the underlying structure.
It looks a bit bumpy.

Will still used burned in SSO in a texture or will do this the engine?
 
I think the engine does this. I am still in a lot of work currently but not looked at this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top