Lieste

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.

Iron guns are not bare metal, they are painted with a paint combining carbon black and an anti-corrosion compound. They should look like oil paint, rather than 'metallic'. Same as all the other ironwork. Brass could either be painted, or would be kept 'clear' and polished. The patina of heavily oxidised copper is appropriate only for waterline and below elements (and concentrated between wind and water), or for 'long abandoned' wreck or museum pieces. While 'chips and rust' may look fancy, they go against the principles of keeping a ship's crew busy and the vessel in good condition - though Ordnance board dictated the schedule and materials for maintenance so *some*, light damages to the paint might be acceptable. Heavy wear would be made good, but the schedule of maintenance would likely keep ordnance in good condition aside from specific injury. The appearance of museum pieces (even those employed as working guns) may not be up to the standards expected of active ordnance (most I have seen have significant losses of material from rust, components missing or damaged on carriages and ordnance, and often things like elevation screws are missing even from 'prestige' ordnance like the Victory carronades.

My calculated lengths 'Nominal, In-bore, overall' for the Armstrong guns are... (inches 1dp, english) 42pdr 10ft 120, 112.5, 136 (3455mm) 42pdr 9.5ft 114, 107.4, 130 (3302mm) 32pdr 10ft 120, 113.2, 134.6 (3419mm) 32pdr 9.5ft 114, 108, 128.6 (3267mm) 24pdr 9.5ft 114, 107.4, 127.3 (3233mm) 24pdr 9ft 108, 101.4, 121.3 (3081mm) 18pdr 9ft 108, 101.7, 120 (3049mm) 18pdr 8ft 96, 89.7, 108 (2745mm) 12pdr 9ft 108, 102.2, 118.5 (3011mm) 12pdr 8.5ft 102, 96.2, 112.5 (2859mm) 12pdr 7.5ft 90, 84.2, 100.5 (2534mm) 9pdr 9ft 108, 102.5, 117.6 (2987mm) 9pdr 8.5ft 102, 96.5, 111.6 (2834mm) 9pdr 7.5ft 90, 84.5, 99.6 (2529mm) 9pdr 7ft 84, 78.5, 93.6 (2377mm) 6pdr 8.5ft 102, 97.2, 110.4 (2803mm) 6pdr 8ft 96, 91.2, 104.4 (2651mm) 6pdr 7.5ft 90, 85.2, 98.4 (2499mm) 6pdr 7ft 84, 79.2, 92.4 (2346mm) 6pdr 6.5ft 78, 73.2 86.4 (2194mm) 6pdr 6ft 72, 67.2, 80.4 (2041mm) 4pdr 6ft 72, 67.8, 79.3 (2015mm) 4pdr 5ft 60, 55.8, 67.3 (1710mm) 3pdr 6ft 72, 68.2, 78.6 (1998mm) 3pdr 4.5ft 54, 50.2, 60.6 (1540mm) Within any nominal length the smaller calibre has a combination of a shorter overall length in the difference in cascabel length, and a longer bore from a smaller bore (though the thickness of metal 'in the breech' is relatively longer (and broader) for smaller bore guns, it is only in the proportion 32/32 for 42pdr to 44/32 for 6pdr and all smaller in 2 part increments per calibre

I'm not sure about the relative length of the 9.5ft 32pdr and 24pdr for example - they should have the same length from breech ring to muzzle face, but the 32pdr should be a little longer in the cascabel.for an overall difference just under 1% but the two models appear to slice to an equal number of slices when vertical on their face.

I was thinking you might want a parts group(s) option which also allows arranging the model as 'cleared for action' as well as set up for navigation... because mostly we only see the ships closed to the weather if the are extant, or in film representations, or in physical models... because they are prettier that way (and/or are .. 'supplied that way' and are weather proof)

I think your initial phrasing was confusing. If I am understanding your intent correctly, even today the package remains undelivered... while the implication of the wording in the first post was the package had been delivered on that day...

Rigged for navigation, the partitions are all appropriate, but on clearing for action most if not all were struck down, along with removable furniture.

But most sane people specified cylinders.... the box is a choice.

Wow, those square rimbases are... a choice.

Swivels tended to see use at least as boat guns through the whole of the latter part of the age of sail, alongside the smaller carronades after their introduction, which mostly displaced small carriage guns, or amusettes on field carriages, usually with a larger ordnance in the bow, and pairs of swivels on the bulwark. Not all boats were armed, and the smallest tended only to receive swivels. When not in embarcation, the swivels were provided for the waist gangways, the poop, the marine walk and/or the fighting tops (though some captains preferred a quiet poop, and disliked firearms in the rigging because of a perceived fire risk (Nelson for both counts as an example).. Later carronades were in their turn displaced by light howitzers or obusiers on field carriage to support the landing operation from the shore, with the large but light carriage being easily manhandled or carried by a few sailors or marines once ashore.

You may indeed. I'm English, I practice understatement and equivocation more than might be ideal.

There were slings on C16th ships, making up a significant portion of the headline gun numbers - fitted to the gun wale. The new 1721 brass swivel may be the first of its exact kind, but it is far from the first swivel/antipersonnel gun - and many of the early ones would use a preloaded chamber rather than the later cartridge muzzle loaded types.

Though Victory is likely to be using many Armstrong or Armstrong Frederick pattern ordnance of the same lengths... I've not got a comprehensive list, but there were fewer new cast guns and older guns in store than the required numbers at the time of transition, and major older vessels tended to keep their gun sets through refits to a significant degree, with some exceptions and aside from changes to the establishment (e.g upgrades of 6pdrs to 12 pdrs, supplementation by carronades, variations in numbers of qtr deck guns, replacement of 12pdrs (and 9pdrs for smaller classes) qtr deck guns by 32pdr carronades on a broad scale in the very end of the Napoleonic period and into the 1820s, as well as when rating changed the 100 gun 1st rates to 2nd rates with 18pdr middle deck battery. Morgan's chapter on armament is being pushed out in a few weeks and should answer these 'general' questions with specificity to Victory in 1805.