Lieste

Consider having a horde printed (with a resin printer - bribe a friend or use a printing on demand service if you don't have one) of the naval crew from Alf Scherer who has a set of gunners and a set of officers and crew for 1760-1820 (as well as a variety of earlier periods (rowers for dark age/ancient vessels, and 17th C gunners and crew). They are fairly simple, but I've seen worse from boxed plastic figures. https://www.myminifactory.com/users/scherera

Though both the (suspiciously small) ensign and the pennant look to be streaming the wrong way for the rest of the rig.

I don't have a good table of dimensions for the pattern, but I would expect - from the pattern of every other piece that it would be a 6" multiple for length - as 11x is more likely a read from 110 - than 10x - I'd perhaps favour 114 and 120, but ymmv, and perhaps they have an 'odd' size like the (much) later 63cwt 32pdr, which is a full 1" longer than the 'ordinary' 55.5/56cwt type. <shrug> If these are parametric and it is not too awkward to add an extra length I might suggest doing both 108 and 114 for the 'short' 24 with a note and letting the end-use select which to print. Unless there is good documentation which specifies what the design length would be (it is possible that variation from mould to mould occurs in these individually created pieces and a measured piece is an inch or two longer, or (less likely) 4" shorter than the pattern... or the dimension is taken off a handwritten list with an error in copying, or the list compiled with error). Some variation in length can be a feature and not a bug, so long as the proportions comply with the rules in 'coarseness'. Later guns are required to be more consistent than the earlier patterns. and after the mass proof failures of the 1780s/1790s the manufacturers and ordnance board was much more enthusiastic about eliminating defective ordnance before the proof firings started, as the 'heightened' testing regime for a batch with failed guns under proof in it often caused a significant fraction or all of a found day's production to be wasted. The slower burning of the older powders (even with the larger powder sizes) were a bit more forgiving of variations from the required strength and proportion.

Unsure. Vesuve class bombard/gabarre Dore and Finisterre were originally designed for 16x24 livre caronades (26 pdr english, roughly) with 18 ports, converted to 8x 24 caronades and 2x12" mortars on the centreline, midships. Were flush decked. The earlier Salamandre really pre-dates widespread iron carronades in French service. Ketches to fit the bomb(s) in the bow would make it harder to 'push' the front end around. I think I would prefer the 'broadside' ship. No firm data on that though, just an impression of the balance looking off.

Late ones got a considerable boost with 30 livre no1 or no2 guns (whether as full battery or just chase guns), 30 livre canon-obusier and carronades - later these to be planned for replacement by no3 and no4 guns. 22c obusier no2 on the larger types... while the 'older' styles were trying to be useful with 6 and 8 livre guns, or 18 livre carronades. (the very largest with 24 livre carronades in the main battery. This makes the late period small vessels almost as useful in numbers as a fewer number of larger ships with the same number of guns - because they are often largely the same types, or are very close in performance to the marginally heavier pattern. The ancien vaisseaux and batteaux were much weaker both in number and type of gun as the rating was reduced. Of course many of the new 'small sloops' were larger than the old heavy frigates... even though carrying fewer guns, but there is still a modest growth in direct firepower, and a significant improvement in the proportion which 'reaches'.

Borgard fits in between the 'per foundry' Commonwealth and 'Establishment' Armstrong patterns. They look like a cross between the two (no button astragal, a frieze and astragal on the chase).

Disregard comment above about 'neck semi-diameter' - this is the neck of the button and is a solid diameter of the calibre. The Neck of the muzzle astragal is the same thickness/diameter as the 3.4 muzzle face

Start with the line AT which is the centreline of the gun, forward of the breech ring. Extend it backwards to AX for the cascable and button. Set off a construction line half calibre above and below this line for the bore. Starting at the muzzle 'A' (bore plus thickness 3.4) the first landmark is AB - this is the muzzle moulding which includes a muzzle listel (step) an 's-curve' a second listel. I am unsure on the muzzle swell location (1.2) but for many similar designs it is at 1/2 calibre from the muzzle face. The next landmark is AD which is the breech side of the muzzle astragal at the neck (cd), the Astragal CD lies to the muzzle side of that landmark. The next landmark to set is AG - the length of the chase. where the height 'below and above' 2nd RF are to be set off as construction line. Join the thicknesses 'cd' at D and 'yz' at G for the chace construction line. On the chase there is a plain surface between G and F of the Freize width, the EF is the chace Astragal and listels (two smallish rectangular sections sandwiching the Astragal prominence (a semi-circular section ring). GN sets the position of the front edge of the first reinforce, with again, two heights before and behind the end of the reinforce. Join 'before' the first and 'behind' the second to give the surface of 2nd reinforce. RT sets the position of the end of the bore, and of the 'thickness at the vent'. Extend a line from 'behind' 1st reinforce through 'thickness at the vent' to the end of first reinforce at the position of 'T' for the surface of the 1st reinforce. The 2nd Reinforce ring (and listels) occupy about half the distance GH, and are at the 'breech-ward end' of the 'step' with a prominence above the surface of the reinforce, and the 'muzzle' side of the reinforce ring being an 'S' shaped curve from below the fore listel to the chace (unsure if the moulding has a step or a tangent transition to the chace, it doesn't specify in my notes). 1st Reinforce Ring is similar within NO, with the end of the first reinforce at N from the second reinforce to the ring and listels prominent above the surface in the half towards the breech. The base ring is between ST, again, roughly half ring and listel (At the end 'T', and half moulding falling off to the surface at S. The Frieze is ahead of S a distance of QS, with the vent astragal PQ of prominence of the Astragal and a pair of listels. Behind the base ring there is a listel or radius (diagram unlear), then two 'frying pan' shaped, curved 'cascables' which have some variety of listel or stave between each segment (diameter given - unsure if the outer or inner one) The diameter of the neck is the calibre, and button rather larger, curves are tangent to each other, and meet the neck stave (probably the same diameter as at the button). Aside from the absence of the button astragal the general arrangement is similar-ish to the 8ft (or 96") 6pdr Armstrong, but with some differences in proportion. For the muzzle swell there is a (smallish) radius for the swell set off something like... From the top of the second muzzle listel, to the 'tip of the muzzle swell' a line. At right angles from the 2nd muzzle listel to the position of the swell to fix a point 'Z'. Double the distance to 'Z' from the muzzle swell for the centre of the swell radius. An arc thrown through the neck surface at 'D' and tangent to the muzzle swell curve with a specified radius (or with a centre at the position of D but well 'outside' the gun, as we have no such radius specified here) will give a curve from the neck, continuously through the swell to the muzzle mouldings.

Okay, dug out an old spreadsheet which among other things had the data from the referenced page (note that the tabulated data doesn't always agree with the 'proportions' from calibre provided, so ... yeah. That might be a problem. Lengths: AT Nominal length 96" 25+15/16 cal 95.97" AG Fore Part 48" 12+31/32 47.98" GN Mid Part 19.2" 5+3/16 19.19" NT Hind Part 28.8" 7+25/32 28.79" AD Head with Astragal 12.75" 3+7/16 12.72" AR Bore 92.3" 24+15/16 92.27" RT Resistance 3.7" 1 3.7" TX Cascable with Button 7.4" 2 7.4" WX Neck & Button 4.81" 1+19/64 4.80" LT Rear of Trunnion to Base Ring 41.14" 11+1/8 41.16" IK Trunnion Length 3.7" 1 3.7" AX Length OA -- -- 103.37" TW Breech face -- -- 2.60" Moulding Breadth with Freize AB Muzzle 1.12" 5/16 1.16" CD EF PQ Astragals 0.75" 13/64 0.75" GH 2nd Reinforce 2.37" 41/64 2.37" NO 1st Reinforce 2.37" 41/64 2.37" ST Base Ring 2.62" 23/32 2.66" TV First Cascable and Stave 1.43" 25/64 1.45" VW Second Cascable and Stave 1" 17/64 0.98" QS Plain Freize 3.7" 1 3.7" PG Second Reinforce Plain Freize 2.77" 3/4 2.78" -- Neck Stave -- -- 0.17" (not explicitly listed in the data at all) Thickness of Metal lm Over Vent 4.62" 1+1/4 4.63" no Behind 1st RF 4.39" 1+3/16 4.39" rs Before 1st RF 3.93" 1+1/16 3.93" tv Behind 2nd RF 3.7" 1 3.7" yz Before 2nd RF 3.24" 7/8 3.24" 3.4 Muzzle 1.85" 1/2 1.85" Moulding Prominence Over Metal ik Base Ring 0.8" 7/32 0.81" pq First Reinforce 0.37" 3/32 0.35" wx Second Reinforce 0.37" 3/32 0.35" 1.2 Head 1.8" 31/64 1.79" Semi Diameter gh First Cascable Stave 4.5" 39/32 4.51" ef Second Cascable 2.65" 23/32 2.66" cd Neck 1.85" 1/2 1.85" ab Button 2.24" 39/64 2.25" LM Trunnion 1.85" 1/2 1.85" Sorry no diagram, but landmarks are consistent, and with reference to an Armstrong gun the necessary order and arrangement should be easy to find. Exact form of mouldings I don't have (I was more interested in internal ballistics, and the line of metal angles). This 8ft 6pdr might or might not be the most suitable Borgard pattern, but it is the only example I have explicit parameters for. I would use the calculated inches (and retain the 64th of an inch / closest 64th of calibre if I were to recompute) - The tangents won't 'flow' with the proper form if the truncations are inconsistent. That said, there are no *very* large differences, aside from the neglect stave of the neck. The lengths are likely improperly stated as multiples of calibre (for the most part), rather than proportions of gun length and 'a calibre' for the trunnion placement and/or 2nd reinforce. Thickness and mouldings.. Breadth of mouldings might be either proportion of calibre or of gun length (French 1786 is fixed per calibre for multiple lengths, Armstrong a fixed proportion of gun length... Moulding prominence could go either way too). Good luck with figuring out what goes where.

I didn't even notice the 18pdr request as it was before the ship identification.... yeah 6pdrs are more appropriate (which is neat as that is the Lavery data set).

Armstrong was rolled out from 1724 - Borgard patterns would have been current in 1716, and continued for a long time after, but the presence of an Armstrong set on a 'later' vessel of the class isn't impossible. There might also have been 'pre-pattern' contract guns still in service, with each built to a contract length and weight, but with the choice of form and moulding left to the individual gunsmith. There is a table of dimension and diagram on P92 of "The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, 1600-1815", from notes taken from a Library book long since returned. I have (somewhere) the table of dimensions and some brief notes on the landmarks, but I didn't have the ability to copy the diagram at the time - from memory they look superficially like an Armstrong, but a bit more noticeably fatter going from second reinforce to first towards the breech, and the button appears somewhat smaller and without the astragal of the button. From a few feet away Armstrong patterns might be indistinguishable at smaller scales, though there is a difference in the proportion of the first reinforce which would be noticeable with one of each next to each other of the same length and calibre.

That said paint was mixed by hand, so it is quite appropriate to have variation per 'piece' of work, around a common theme.

The bore is the hollow, the sond of the bore is the deepest part of that hollow (a flat covering 11/12th of the bore radius in A/AF pattern, or the middle of a shallow ellipsoid in Blomefield and later pattern guns - according to Boxer at least - Some, such as carronades would have a deeper curve - in this case a hemisphere occupying half the typical nominal chamber length, with 'zero' length behind the sond (aside from the cascabel and breech face)). Manson pattern guns are well documented - they are the French 1786 pattern naval iron guns - and while they have no direct commonality to any British pattern... however they do share a general definition of *how* the thickness at the breech, and of the wall at the sond are defined (they are equal and based on a specified proportion of the bore, which can be modified by calibre).

The thickness of the metal in the breech is taken from the sond of the bore to the rear of the breech ring (The breechface and cascable are additional). At right angles to the bore the thickness of metal is the 'breech' proportion at the position of the sond. The 'base height' of the metal at the rear of the breech ring is enlarged from this land-mark by the line of metal of the reinforce, and a shorter gun 'comes out' slightly taller. The actual surface of the metal takes an angle after allowing for the 'step' of the first reinforce, as it is the height of the 'surface' under the second reinforce moulding. I have the general principle in memory, but not the details, which I have in a spreadsheet which will generate the elevation of any arbitrary Armstrong Frederick Pattern Gun (and with a change to the ventfield the Armstrong ones (in Iron).. the rules and proportions are different for gun metal and I haven't teased the necessary adjustments to fair lines by calculation rather than construction and inspection... There are some awkward linked calculations for the A-F pattern, especially in the mouldings, the muzzle swell and the cascable and button to get clean tangent joins between the two portions, that can be found trivially within a CAD program such as FreeCAD using a sketch with constraints for each construction line and segment of the surface. This is the same definition of 'thickness at the breech' as defined in e.g the Manson pattern 1786 naval guns, though of course the details of proportion and moulding aren't generally the same.

The proportion at the sond of the bore (and to the surface at the bore end) 42 pdr 32/32 32pdr 34/32 24pdr 36/32 18pdr 38/32 12pdr 40/32 9pdr 42/32 All smaller 44/32 The reinforce is then increasing in the same pattern from 27/32 in 1/32 increments, and the 'neck' at the muzzle astragal from 18/32 in 1/32 increments. The instructions for proportions are given for a 24pdr, and you should replace the proportion of 36/32, 29/32 and 20/32 for those three landmarks with the scale suitable to the calibre.