Lieste

I'd also note that the plan view of the carriage in Plan X is clearly seen as being in the plane GH, which is why the bolt-head and the forward train tackle ring are superimposed. The train tackle bolt is somewhat rear-ward of the bed support through bolt when the fore and rear axle trees are fitted relative to the centre of the axles, and to the trucks when they are fitted too (As seen in the side profile with a horizontal 'floor'). In situ some of this is again taken out, as the additional height below the foot of the cheek at the fore end is at least partially to compensate for the deck camber in battery.

The uniform of the marine/soldat assisting would be similar to that of a regular artillery soldier in the land service - which could get quite 'fancy'. The remaining crew would also have a uniform similar to that shown, though the 'officer' does appear to be one of the Maitres, Lt or Ensigns supervising the division, rather than a common member of the crew. As for the recoil - even without breeching the gun will roll back (and 'up' on the camber of the deck), and will be halted by friction of the trucks and running of the tackle falls - with light artillery this will be at or inside the limit of the breeching, but with heavier guns (as this appears to be an 18 livre canon) the recoil will be longer than the normal limit... however, this also appearing to be a French style carriage is breeched at the cheeks, rather than the bouton. It would probably have a preventer rigged to the gun, but the main breeching would be passed through the carriage cheeks. While a heavy uniform might be hot to work in, there is considerable flash and risk of splinters from penetrations, and while nothing will help against the larger ones torn from knees and waterways, the smaller splinters torn from the thinner quick-work by the passage of high velocity shot are largely stopped by woollen uniforms. The portrayal of fighting stripped to the waist seems imprudent in the context of a naval engagement, though might be seen in embarcation actions, where there is a risk of sinking and no elevated risk of splinters once ashore. While not in itself a 'proof' the gallery at "Artillery through the ages" of a living history group displays the types of uniform authorised for RN sailors in the gun crew.

Unsure on the double tackle rings, but a plausible use would be for the wider angles of train required from later ships to suit the change to individual close action following enveloping of the enemy rear, rather than fighting in line ahead against a more distant enemy. The train tackle can be set to use the forward ring on the side the gun is trained to, and the rear ring on the side being drawn toward the bulwark to reduce the difference in the length of the tackle required to haul and to help control the recoil (before the residual is taken up with the breeching and preventer). Calculations indicate that some of the smaller bore ordnance of the longer patterns could be brought to a halt by the friction of the trucks and the paying out of the tackle falls by a distance shorter than the length of the gun, while the relatively lighter large bore guns would still carry some velocity through the recoil distance before being brought up.

In the side view, the two small circles (one in the transom, one in the clear behind the breeching ring ring bolt) are the heads of the through bolts. The two smaller rings (seen as the smaller rectangles) and the breeching ring ring bolt don't have a through rod, and are bolted from the inside of the cheek, like how the cheek pieces are held together with a bolt. The square nut is in a pocket, with the loop being screwed into it, rather than the bolt head in a pocket with the nut tightened onto the bolt in the vertical rods, but the principle is similar.

There is a through bolt with external bolt heads at the height of the breeching ring ring bolts. The smaller pairs of rings and the breeching ring ring bolts are bolted in each cheek, but don't cross the interval between them.

Those two stern chase ports (at least) should be unfilled, or use the guns from the aftmost broadside QD port. Guns would not be supplied to both in general, especially when so cramped - both couldn't recoil without contact and/or serious risk to guns crew. I also question the number of QD/FC ordnance in general - my notes indicate only 10 6pdrs as built (all on QD?), 16 24pdr carronades as refitted following her first cruise, and 20 total once refitted in 1810 with her final 32pdr carronade establishment (though 4 of them are then the 12pdr guns, with another 2 of these also on the upper deck (main battery deck))

Yes, but if you have two patterns of ordnance, both 8.5ft long - then a 24pdr will look short and squat if compared to a rather narrower and more elegant 6pdr would. The proportions of a shorter gun in each bore look more like the heavier guns than to the longest pattern of the smaller size. If you are scaling from an existing 3d model (though you indicate you may not be doing this), then scaling a heavier pattern to a smaller size might give a better result than using a too-long gun of the correct bore. The 12pdr short US pattern of the 1790s is rather closer to the proportion of a 32pdr Armstrong than a 12pdr Armstrong (iron, naval) of any pattern actually built would be, once reduced in proportion of 4.623:6.41(the bore of the 12pdr:32pdr)

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.