Lieste

The 12pdr specified for Constitution in the 1790s were 6ft 8.7" (Breech ring to muzzle face, for a gross length of 18.2 calibres (common to the other patterns (including the 24pdr (8.5ft) noted for this era, except the 18pdr, which was 18.9 (8ft)). This latter is the same length as the shortest 18pdr British naval pattern, a and the 12pdr is a very little shorter than the 32pdr British (18.5 cals, 9.5ft), and not as long as the other British patterns (which in Frigate pattern smaller bore guns reach a little over 20 calibres, and much longer in the longest patterns of small guns). I'd scale from the British 32pdr to meet the length/width rather than use a 12pdr gun, unless you want to go to the trouble of looking up the US moulding pattern and drafting the right model. When scaling for overall length allow 2 calibres for the breech face and button on top of the noted length.

USF Essex was built as a 12pdr frigate - 26, rather short 12pdrs (shorter than the equivalent English pattern 'short' naval gun, and similar to the English iron field/siege gun of that calibre). Her initial galliards armament would have been ~ 6-10 6pdr guns (also rather short), but before 1800 these had been augmented and entirely replaced by 16 24pdr carronades. By the time of her Pacific cruise and subsequent capture by Phoebe and Cherub, she had been rebuilt with carronades as her primary armament - 26 ordnance on the upper deck and 20 on the spardeck, of which 40 were 32pdr carronades and 6 12 pdr were retained (2 on the upper deck and 4 on the galliards as far as I can tell). She was patched up in Chile and then sailed to England in this condition, and following refitting served out her life as an unrated 22 gun troopship (though I don't know what, if any, campaigns she served in) then prison hulk. She was established as a standard 36 gun frigate nominally, but was never armed with the 18pdr guns and 32pdr carronades (plus by then largely optional 9pdr chase guns) as she was considered rather too small and cramped to make a good frigate, especially given the subsequent explosion in size of the new 24pdr and 32pdr frigates coming on line in the wake of the 1812 war and it's lessons, and the parallel developments in France and America.

I have made no attempt to cross check or identify the parts, but my thought process if I were to do so were that his (close but unreliable) recall was "The Bismark", which suggests checking against her consort during her raiding mission Prince Eugen, or 'a German battleship' - which could include Scharnhorst/Gneisenau. Unlikely to be Tirpitz if she looks nothing like Bismark, less likely to be the Deutschland class because of the Atlantic bow.

It is not as I have been quite clear, the only such high quality contemporary source which is available, and (nearly?) every contemporary diagram and table in Boudriot is found in formats much more accessible and amenable to close examination, and with their *entire* context attached - in various dated Memoires d'Artillerie, Ordonnonces de Roi etc. I also indicated the Maritz document available as a more readable facsimile (judging solely by the pdf advertisement it is true, from ANCRE, which looks tempting... but I was disappointed by the quality of the 'best resource on Artllerie de Mer' and somewhat put off buying a copy. If you have lots of money and no strong desire to spend it on something else, then Arillerie de Mer is a good bibliography, but I would suggest looking to see if a library, museum or open-book project has digitised the tables and drawings in better quality elsewhere once you identify the material he uses. If you don't find it, no harm, no foul, but just look at the quality difference and say that there is no problem with the reproduction. I bought it for the tables, and was disappointed in the print quality for those and for the contemporary drawings. He is "showing his workings" for his summary in the front work, but I can't use it to 'follow along', as I can with the actual source documents, online. My current interest is in the ordnance itself, rather than affuts et attrailles; Armements, assortiments, accessoires et gréement des bouches à feu ... but these other items can be found in the sources available too... just not that one link. To reiterate... the print quality I got from my home printer and the free offline pdf of the 1786 dimensions was superior to that of the reproduction in the not inexpensive book... and if I am working online I can also zoom in to the original on-site pages to at least an order of magnitude better resolution and clarity where I am struggling with the print out (which has advantages of being loose leaf and flat too. .. Not just that document either but dozens on Galica and more on Googlebooks and other museum and libraries and digitisation projects for open access of library resources paid or free to access as a social resource.

No. It isn't that. I bought Boudriot Artillerie and 'The 74 Gun Ship" I found 'Artillerie" less usable than the same information available within contemporary sources (it isn't all... but I think I have 2 tables of dimensions and one pattern of gun diagrams I haven't found and extracted readable data from. My complaint is purely one of quality and usability. (And a certain wariness of 'to the lowest cost, but without prices to suit 'reference works which are unusable) Boudriot Artillerie is better than most, but don't exaggerate the utility, when you can't read the drawing dimensions at all. You *can* on the better quality "free" resource from a national library you are sp quick to dismiss as 'random.and in many other contemporary documents imaged by libraries, or available as high res scan at a cost e.g from some German libraries/museums. I'm not a native French speaker, like at all... so it is incomparably more useful to have both a clear drawing with the dimensions clearly indicated at their proper landmark (and repeated which has helped with table errors/unclear glyphs than to have a faint, barely legible drawing a bare fuzz for a dimension, and even some 'labels' unclear or unreadable..

It is a good bibliography - but as a direct resource there were few pages within the reproduced documents where the data was uniformly clear enough to read with confidence, the diagrams are far too small and soft to read the dimensions, and the tables complied from the data have clear errors in them (e.g. the calibre of the 4livre gun, is actually the diametre) The originals were engraved... the reproductions are halftone greyscale and not at high resolution.(Comparable to the results I got printing a copy of the free *low resolution* images from the Galica "Dimensions" text. The presentation of information by Galica *far* exceeds the reproduction quality of the book, and many of the contemporary works available on Google are also easier to use. I was very clear why I was critical of the book, and I don't think that a 'vast trove' is terribly useful if it is too soft to *reliably* read, when it is possible to find the same information largely for free. The bibliography may be worth the asking price, but try to use higher quality reproductions rather than the book as printed, it will be easier (also cross check data against proportions, as transposition errors crop up fairly commonly in the sources (e.g Lafay, showing 381 kg weight where an ordnance should be 831kg, as confirmed both by a 'sanity check' of the ordnance/shell ratio and the 'cost per kg' of bronze.

Well the bulk measures are correctly stated in the 1828 document, which is also interesting for the section on carronades. It is only the 'correct' quantum to be used for the mouldings that is unclear - the same as the 6livre, or the 'next' step down, given that 8 and 6livres share a common scale. for the main mouldings. For a better 'record' and resource it would be better to use the proper values, and/or note where there are estimates and/or exaggerations to aid those coming behind. IMO and YMMV.

A note on French windages of the mid-late C18th. Vent de boulet is not what it appears - it is the vent du boulet when the shot is highest at the grand lunette. Where all three diameters are listed, there is a 'petite lunette' and an intermediate 'calibre du boulet' (Or where calibre is reserved for the bore, 'diametre du boulet'). The difference between the two lunettes is set at 9pts, so the mean windage is 4.5 pts looser than that specified. This is modified in the 1820s or 30s, (unsure when exactly, when the forges are permitted only 1.2mm (just over 6pts, and the calibre du boulet is calculated for the nominal windage - the grand lunette is 0.6mm (~3pts) 'higher' than the previous value. The petite lunette used is the one for 'places' and is 1.1mm smaller than the nominal diameter and ~9pts below the high gauge) At the same times British windage was set for a standard gun at 1/21st of the bore, this being the low gauge (20/21) - with the high gauge allowing 2/3rds this windage (61/63), and the mean shot diameter 121/126. Around 1817 the British windage was 'improved' to 121/126, by the simple recording it as for the mean, rather than the lowest permitted shot, before the two gauges were changed individually over the next decades. Larger ordnance tended to retain the same, or a very similar gauge, with the low gauge and mean shot increasing with a narrower forge allowance for rejecting shot and improved intent for maintenance and replacement/rejection in the places. Smaller ordnance (which had mostly become obsolete outside of field artillery) received shot which was forged both to a tighter tolerance and to higher gauges for both high and low gauge. Quite a bit of the supposed advantage of French windage in the C18th comes from the use of the high vs low gauge to describe it, though the French windage was not directly proportional to calibre, and their larger calibres were somewhat better than British ones, and their small calibres by specification somewhat looser.

It is still lacking the 4pdr (lange et court), added to the establishment of guns in 1787, and then fairly rapidly abandoned. A table of dimensions for the 'basic' sizes can be found (along with les anciene 36/24 and les nouvelle 36/30/24/18/12 caronades) in (also from Galica - "Michel, Jules (1790-1838). Auteur du texte. Mémorial de l'artilleur marin... par Jules Michel,.... 1828". Don't have the link to hand, but the cite should have more than sufficient information to track it down). An informed estimate might be needed for the mouldings, but the 'rules' for the 1786 system Manson are applicable for the gun form.

Primary document of high quality for the main 1786 ordnance Marine: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b52508427k Fills in the gap of the OdV de 36 and Perrier de 1 Livre, as well as various other colonial ordnance types. The bronze marine guns in 24, 18 livre seem to be an earlier pattern (perhaps the Maritz guns, but are also marked as 'siege' for the drawings. The drawings are readable, but the pages are not flat and you would need to re-draw them using the supplied dimensions. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3288527

The Boudriot Artillerie book is the one I found of very limited use, with many of the tables/drawings having unreadable numerals especially in fractional terms.The scans and printing are rather soft and the size of many glyphs is too small to be resolvable. If you have excellent eyesight you might guess at a few where I could extract nothing, but many just aren't rendered parsable at all. Their Maritz text in facsimile looks to be clearer judging from their preview, and the 1786 dimensions can be found on Galica BNF, but I didn't get much usable dimensioning from the many included tables and drawings. It is an excellent coffee table book, but not much use as a resource because of the lacklustre quality.

There are published tables and drafting instructions, together with drawings for Maritz 1758 and Manson 1786 pattern ordnance. Published during the manufacture of these pieces - Maritz available in facsimile from Ancre, The 1786 ordnance on Galica BNF. There are two documents for the 1786 ordnance with some slight differences - and the addition of bronze artillery (of an older pattern in 24/18pdr), field artillery of the 1766 pattern, the obusier de vaisseau and a.1pdr perrier. Also various howitzers and mortars. (For the use of the marine and the colonies). Ancre publishes a text on the Artillerie de Marine, but the scanning/printing quality is too poor for my eyes to make much sense of any of the dimensions on the reproduced diagrams and many of the tables. The Galica files are much easier to read (at least in the online pages - the downloads suffer from lower resolution. I don't have any source for Spanish ordnance beyond "being based on the French system" with differences in thickness and mouldings during the revolutionary period.

Do you know if her lines are as reconstructed in the museum, or as more recently reconstructed by Vibeke Bischoff et al, with an adjusted stem and broadened first few thwarts... and as seen in the more recent reconstructed vessel Saga Oseberg?

The main thing is an absence of aggregate, just sands and mortar to allow the extrusion through a nozzle/pipe able to traverse a site. These have poor coherence and durability in at least current mixtures, especially together with their high surface variability (and consequently variable thickness/behaviour of a surface skim, and weatherability... treated like Cobb they might be acceptable, but then Cobb does much the same already with no need for concrete. There are advantages to mass-structures over sheetrock and frame, which I personally prefer, but not in the current 'visions' of printed homes.

I misunderstood; by your description of 1765-1778 commissioning I envisaged your building her as prepared for first commissioning but before outfitting and sailing, especially in the context of the 'on the slips' models you interspersed between your in progress shots..

I think it is a no-go for on site in-situ use. There may well be uses within the manufacture of pre-fabs constructed in clean, controlled conditions and making use of better qualities/uses of material - as noted above by making forms and casting within them, rather than additive manufacture using 'bad' concrete which must flow to be extrude-able, but then solidify to remain in situ, while still bonding adequately to layers above and below, or even to other extrusions in the same layer. I'm familiar enough with home 3d printing which has similar concerns compared to 3d casting and how often pieces delaminate or get out of position/alignment... which is an annoyance with a 10g plastic 'toy', but a serious structural/durability concern is a mass-building structure.

Rather late to the party, and I'm going to be a party pooper... but while awaiting commissioning on land/in drydock she was at light load. After commissioning she would move to fitting out where her masting, portables were loaded on board, and she would pass into deeper water further down-river or to sea before receiving (all her) ordnance from lighters from the ordnance wharf. (And she would again be offloaded to lightship condition before re-docking for her subsequent refits and rebuilds each time). The cill of the drydock is fairly shallow even at spring tides, and the draught of the larger ships was too high to get in/out in to the wharves or docks while at deep draught. Note that none of the Admiralty models are armed when depicted on the ways, and have flag staves in place of her masts and along the bulwarks in some cases.

3D printing can have its place - particularly with powdered metals, printing with a solid support matrix and sintered... allowing far more complex forms in fewer parts than machining or casting... but for building scale 'in place printing' you get poor coherence of a material which has better properties if not modified to allow extrusions. Perhaps 3d printed 'moulds' for regular cast concrete are a more sensible method for the 'organic' shapes, or just continuing with prefab elements or simple shuttering for rectangular pours make more sense. Finish and durability are poor for all of these 'amazing' projects that I've seen promoted. YMMV, and maybe there will be advantages to future methods, but I see no or few benefits of the technology demonstrated so far.

Ropes were sized by circumference - the largest standing rigging I see referenced is 19", the smallest line reference for that same 100 gunner 4", but the Bower cable is 24" in the same set of tables (David Steel, tables of dimensions of a ship of each class)

Even with caps and a solid double attaachment the overlap is roughly 11% of the lower stick. I can't reasonably imagine that lashings alone would permit any less if the upper pole is carrying canvas. - For just a flag staff then maybe you can get away with a similar proportion based on the upper load, but not a single whiff of lashing.

I made a start on the barrel and mouldings of the 1786 canon marine (Manson) ordnance, but wasn't sure how to correctly/best practice apply the rimbases and trunnions (in software, not conceptually from the pattern) so put the project on a back burner. My software is a choice of Blender (which I am not comfortable with, though seems easy to use) or FreeCAD (which is much more opaque, but for some reason I found easier to use to sketch the dimensioned drawing and produce a closed solid which behaved well in the slicer (sans rimbases and trunnion, as noted above).

Don't suppose you know the length (breech ring to muzzle crown) of the ~30cwt 18pdr examples? I wasn't able to find a stated length and am not close to the displayed pieces.

According to the 1833 'snapshot' (post #3) of the 1821 guns taken to store, the #71 and #77 gun were G III 24pdrs, and Carronade #1 and #2 were also G III English ordnance.

The specific reference I have for both late C18th French and Mid C19th English practice had the implements for weatherdeck ordnance stowed in chests under cover on the upper deck fore/aft under the castles. Along with similar provision for the boarding weapons where boarders would be mustered. For a spar deck, either a covered chest on the deck, or on the upper deck alongside a hatch would be my expectation. On beating to action the 6 'numbers' (Captain, No2, Loader, Rammer, Assistant Loader, Assistant Rammer) of the British gun crew would prepare the gun & collect the implements. The static powder boy (1 per pair) and divisional powder man (roughly 1 for each 4 pairs) would collect two cartridges in boxes each from the magazine to be hung in rear of each gun, and kept on hand for distribution, each cartridge loaded to a gun freeing up an empty box to pass down to the magazine for filling and return via the scuttles (later a powder whip). The French procedure was similar with a main crew (divided into halves if fighting both sides) and an auxiliary group for hauling and pointing which served the piece, moving between the two if fighting both sides. Both examples divide the crew to 'the gun and that adjacent' on alternating sides, rather than 'same number on both sides'. The remainder of the men from the gun crews would aid clearing for action and join with their guns once their assigned task was complete. On the covered decks, where the implements were protected from the elements the major tools were stowed on the carriage or hull side between the guns (competing for space with shot and canister and wads), but smaller pieces such as gun locks, hausses and priming tools and supplies needed to come from the gunnery stores on coming to action anyway.

The Stripe on her "upper deck" is likely what caused a confusion - as a Liner this would be her upper gun deck of 18s, as a frigate, by convention her upper/gun deck of 32s - and one of the artists not recognising the convention applied the line ship convention to a frigate - I agree with you and think the stripe should be on her 32pdr deck, rather than on her carronade bulwark.