The Ship Model Forum

wefalck wrote:And yes, I would rather spend 100� on a tool, than on a kit. Once the kit is built, you sank the 100�, but a tool will give you service for years

And that is, if the kit even ever gets built at all...

Now, the guns and gun ports!

If you remember, way back I scratchbuilt one of each type of gun, and had them cast in resin:






So, basically I had made myself a kit of the guns.
But now, the time had come to assemble them.
Cleaning up the carriages and drilling the barrels took some time, mainly because there are 186 of them. Luckily I had already done that in between other things.

After temporarily installing the guns in the ships with Blue Tack, I could figure out which ports I want to have open and which ones closed.
Then I added the closed ports directly to the hulls, and made a series of loose gun ports. The latter are attached with Blue Tack for the photo too.

Some ports are closed, some guns have just recoiled, or are in the process of being reloaded. Some gun ports have been (partly) blown away. I will still add battle damage to some of them.




Some guns have been hit themselves too and are dismounted:


I will still add some small details to the guns on the weather decks. And of course with their crews and equipment, it should get nicely busy.


Redoutable only has gun ports on the lower deck. On her starboard side, she is not engaged yet (that will only happen a couple of minutes later, when T�m�raire comes alongside). So, all her guns are run out and ready on that side (except one or two dismounted guns) but unmanned:




Victory on the other hand is engaged on her port side, exchanging fire with Santissima Trinidad at longer range. Hence a mix of run and run out guns, and more battle damage: (BTW, this first photo is about actual size, but the models do feel a bit bigger when seen in the flesh. All other shots are very much enlarged though)




And now, it becomes more obvious what the advantages of a 3-decker over a 2-decker were:

Keep your friend close, keep your fiends with resin casting skills closer....

Nice photographs (I don't need to mention the quality of the objects ...) - did you use image stacking to get this depth of field ?

That's a superb scene that you are creating there sir, the workmanship speaks for itself, truly wonderful and full of detail for the eye to scan.

Pete

Excellent!

Yes, good question about photos.

I believe that during combat boardings, the yards were secured with chains in addition to their ropes in case they caught fire and fell on the deck, as they were extremely flammable because of their protective coating.

Many thanks everyone!

EJFoeth wrote:Keep your friend close, keep your fiends with resin casting skills closer....

Not so easy with Covid!

wefalck wrote:Nice photographs (I don't need to mention the quality of the objects ...) - did you use image stacking to get this depth of field ?

Yes! This depth of field would otherwise be completely impossible. I used Helicon Focus, as described here by John Leyland: http://www.modelwarships.com/features/h ... /tips.html

Well worth the modest investment!

Iceman 29 wrote:I believe that during combat boardings, the yards were secured with chains in addition to their ropes in case they caught fire and fell on the deck, as they were extremely flammable because of their protective coating.

Thanks! I'm not sure they did this already in 1805 or this practice started a little later. Probably Lees will provide some info on that, so I'll certainly check! Certainly, they doubled a lot of ropes in case they would be cut by enemy fire, but this too I have to research further.

Interestingly, captain Lucas of the Redoutable wrote in his official report that he ordered the slings of the main yard cut and the yard lowered to serve as a bridge for boarding. It seems like his order could not be executed before the T�m�raire came alongside and decimated his crew, otherwise I would have included this in the diorama.

Ok, I checked the use of chains in Lees.

For the lower yards, he states: 'rope slings (in use since around 1773) were changed to chain slings during wartime'
and: 'It is likely that chain slings were used from 1793 when, by Admiralty Order, they were allowed on the crossjack.'

So chain slings it is! I like that visually too, because it provides a bit of variation amidst all the rope rigging.

But I'm not sure if chain was used as a measure against fire, as also the chain slings were attached to the yard with a rope strop. According to Lees, this was only replaced by chain strops after about 1840. Truss pendants were rope. They were only replaced by chain after 1850.
Also, all of this applies to the lower yards only. The other yards didn't have slings, and the other rigging was rope.

But maybe, chains were added to the yards specifically for battle only, just like many ropes were doubled? Does anyone have any sources for this?

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/5461-i ... rd-slings/

�.. per the book by James Lees - The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860, ISBN 0870219480, slings came into use about 1770 and were used as an addition to jeers. These rope slings were changed to chain slings during war time and eventually replaced rope slings altogether, generally from 1811 onward.

With either rope or chain slings, the jeers were slacken when the slings were rigged so the weight of the yard was borne by the slings. I think the rope sling was removed when chain slings were rigged but I have not found a specific reference. It just makes sense to have only one sling.

The chain sling were secured to the strop by a slip which looks like a clasp to a lady's necklace or wrist bangle, like the jaw of an alligator. Around the yard was a double chain strop which had two shackles thru which the slip was fastened.

It may easier to see the graphics than to describe it��

Thanks Pascal!

Yes, that's the very book I have next to me right now.

Regarding this: 'Around the yard was a double chain strop which had two shackles thru which the slip was fastened', it actually states on p 65 (word for word):

'Whether chain or rope, the sling was secured to a thimble strapped to the centre of the yard, or, after about 1840, to chain strops. The sling was secured by a lanyard in the case of rope slings, and by a slip when chain was used. This thimble was strapped in the same manner as the jeer blocks except that it was a single strap, not double. The two eyes of the strap were fastened together on the fore side of the yard by a rose lashing.'

On the same page, there is a drawing of both a double chain strop and a rope strop. The latter states 'up to about 1840'.

So, for 1805, I think I best go with a chain sling, attached to the yard with a rope strop?

Fabulous, magnificent, extraordinary. . .
As per usual !
Jean

And now, it becomes more obvious what the advantages of a 3-decker over a 2-decker were:

Hi Marijn, slowly the scene of the battle is becoming visible... with all its terror, agony, death and destruction...

Awesome!

My signature quote (below) was never so apt...

Trafalgar at 36:00 minutes , subtitle in english available ( Push subtitle, then go in parameters, automatic translation and choose English) :

Many thanks everyone!

Thanks Pascal! Very interesting to see the French take on it, and with some 3D visualisations.
Interesting how as the main conclusions is put: 'the battle didn't have much immediate consequences. Napoleon remained victorious on the continent. The premier empire would exist for another 10 years.'
Not incorrect of course, but quite different from the analysis in British publications...
Well, that's history...

In my diorama, I like to show some duality: a battle that turns out very victorious for the British, but where the French and Spanish fight very courageously too, with Redoutable's crew almost succeeding in boarding Victory.


Back to the workbench now!
The inside of the bulwarks still needed some details: shot racks, kevels and pin rails. As these can only be installed after painting and installing the decks, at first I was thinking to keep construction of those details for the future.
But now, my new toy made me feel like already doing them anyway!
I started with Victory.

Shot racks are basically narrow strips with regularly spaced half-round depressions. Difficult to do sharply by hand, but easy with a milling machine!
I started of course by drilling rows of holes to the exact same depth. I opted to also mill the sides of the strips. This way, I could make them perfectly parallel to the row of holes, and at a perfect 90� to the top surface.
Here, I am milling two grooves along the row of shallow holes, effectively creating the sides of the strips:


Of course, these grooves need to cut through the entire thickness of the plastic sheet, but I don�t want to cut into the X-Y-table. Therefore, I clamped a 2mm thick �sacrificial� piece of plastic sheet under the 0,5mm thick sheet I am making the shot racks from.

After drilling and milling, it is only a matter of cutting the narrow ends to �extract� the shot racks from the sheet. For the 64lb carronade shot racks, I glued 2 strips together. These have 0,65mm holes; while the others are 0,4mm.


The pin rails started the same way. But of course, the holes need to be drilled all the way through the plastic sheet, and they have a smaller diameter (0,2mm):


But when cutting them from the sheet, I left a �handle� on one side:


This helped a lot for holding the pieces while gluing small pieces of stretched sprue in them. I only cut and rounded the other end at the very end of the process.


The kevels and staghorns were made in the �traditional� way by hand:


And the pieces temporarily tacked in place with tiny blobs of Blu Tack:

I am mean with materials and probably would have started with strips of the required dimensions, rather than milling them out of sheet. However, your method elegantly solves the clamping problem.

As sacrificial layer, I tend to you use pieces of MDF, which I think is cheaper than styrene sheet and very flat and stiff.

Arent't you worried that the belaying-pins made from stretched sprue might break off ? Personally, I would probably use wire. I am actually contemplating for while, how to make real turned belaying-pins of about those dimensions ...

Thanks Eberhard! Good alternative ways of doing it too!

I'm not too worried about wasting material, as the quantities are pretty small when working in 1/300, so absolute expenses are pretty low in any case.
The entire piece on the milling machine in the first photo is only about 2 x 5 cm.
But in bigger scales, it may make a difference indeed.

Wire belaying pins would be much stronger indeed. I used those on the poop rails of Redoutable (0,2 mm brass wire).
But stretched sprue is of course much easier to cut and glue. And most importantly: easier to cut to the exact length after gluing. This time, I glued over-sized pins in the rails, and afterwards cut them down all together (place the rack on the side, on the edge of the cutting mat, and then use the scalpel as a guillotine on all pins together).
I'm not too worried about them breaking, as I don't intend to put any stress on them while rigging. I will follow Philip Reed's technique: make coils of thin copper wire 'rope', form them into a 'hanging' shape on a jig, and then gently hang them around the pins. I'll probably glue them with varnish. And if a pin breaks: no problem, I'll just glue it back in place!

Properly formed pins would be fantastic! I thought about it for a moment, but didn't find it worthwhile to attempt in 1/300 as the difference would be pretty invisible to the naked eye with rope coils hanging around them and everything else going on in this diorama. The pins are about 1,8 mm long, so only about 0,7 mm is protruding from the top of the 0,4 mm thick rails (the rails are 1mm wide)...
But for a little bigger scale like 1/160 and a less busy environment, I would also not mind giving that a go. Not so easy though, so I'm looking forward to see how you'll tackle that one.

As a matter of fact, a 1.8 mm long belaying-pin is quite massive even in a 1/160, it would be nearly 30 cm long in real. The one's I need for a couple of flag-lines on my current project are much smaller ... I will be probably cheating a bit - rather than turning the real shape, I would shape the handle and keep the part that is inside the rail with a diameter of the diameter of the top; only the part that sticks out underneath would be turned to the real diameter. In this way I am avoid turning too long slender turning parts and also get away with bigger holes.

wefalck wrote:As a matter of fact, a 1.8 mm long belaying-pin is quite massive even in a 1/160, it would be nearly 30 cm long in real. The one's I need for a couple of flag-lines on my current project are much smaller ...

Ah, those are a lot smaller than the pretty large pins on Victory, that have to hold ropes that control and hold the yards and sails. The rails themselves are already about 12cm thick:


Now I'm looking forward even more to see such small items in thezir actual form!

wefalck wrote:I will be probably cheating a bit - rather than turning the real shape, I would shape the handle and keep the part that is inside the rail with a diameter of the diameter of the top; only the part that sticks out underneath would be turned to the real diameter. In this way I am avoid turning too long slender turning parts and also get away with bigger holes.

That's not cheating in my book! Unless you're building an actual working tiny ship...
You could also avoid turning the long thin part by making them in 2 parts: turn only the handle, butt-glue this on top of the rail, and glue a piece of brass wire into a (narrow) hole from below? Many ways to skin a cat... ;

BTW, this is what they should look like when 'in use', and the main reason why I feel I simple pieces of stretched sprue will suffice for this project :