Lieste

Yes, that captures the character of the gun. This design is very common - the precise balance of reinforce vs chase and the number and style of the astragals and listels will vary over the period of black powder artillery, but for a very long time almost all nations produced guns that broadly have this form. I believe that this is "gun".

Is it a photographic artefact or does she look a little warped in that last image?

It does still look a bit too steep. The brackets are closer at the transom and wider at the sole than the red line for the taper. Check against the tables of dimension but I'd narrow the rear and slightly widen the transom going purely by eye...

Not especially convinced by the shape of the tulip, swell of the muzzle, or the muzzle rings and astragals. As a *rough* approximation the swell should be half a calibre from the muzzle and occupy half the length from muzzle face to the greatest diameter, continuing into the tulip the arc of the swell and tulip should be tangent at their meeting. The Tulip form should be a larger radius curve smoothly transitioning from the middle of the neck of the chase (where the astragal is) to be tangent to the swell. Details about the number and shape of mouldings between the muzzle face and swell vary according to the pattern, but the smooth flow of curves seems pretty universal, even as their proportions change.

Carpenter's walk. Giving 'human reach' access to the hull so that caulking, plugging or other forms of emergency repair can be done while under way from the interior. Slowing the intake of water reduces the pumping burden, and identifying rot or other problems with durability before collapse reduces the risk of sudden foundering so more or less frequent access for examination was necessary.

That is the hold, rather than the Orlop - the deck situated just below the waterline, below the lower gun deck, but clear of the hold.

I think he means the astragal of the button, not a breeching ring, which is what I take from your comment. The A-F gun has a ring around the 'equator' of the button - an astragal with no listel, but otherwise similar to the astragals of the vent and chase.

72 OA doesn't sound right. Gun lengths tended to be in 6" lengths, from breech ring to muzzle face, and the cascabel and breech 2 calibres or a little over 7.3" - (roughly) 71.3" is a possible overall length from a 66" gun, but 72 doesn't fit the scheme. ... but the standard naval patterns for 6pdr only start from 6ft (72") and run up to 8.5ft (earlier to even longer guns including at least the 9ft pattern). I doubt that the ordnance was any shorter than 72" from breechring to muzzle face, or was improperly referred to by the other measure using an incorrect value.

For 3d printing at a not too large size (and with some ability to scale to suit) you could look at the sailor/gunner/rower crew sets by Alf Scherer might be useful. His stuff can be found over at MyMiniFactory - and while I haven't used any of his figures myself (FDM printer and smallish figures are not a fantastic match - Resin printers should do much better though). I have printed a number of his other models. Detail seems to be at around the level of older 1/72 scale plastic figures, but you can print/have printed as many as you need. Rowers/crew for a bireme and viking ships as well as C17th and C18th/19th age of sail peeps should give a fair bit of utility if they are suitable and the sets are inexpensive for a 'suck it and see' if you have a suitable printer (or a friend with one and the willingness to indulge).

That was a caronade rigged on the non-recoiling principle - the breeching absorbed the recoil energy 'in place' with only 'slack' in the carriage assisting. The first arrangement of their obusiers and very early caronades were mounted similarly to British Carronades with a long slide and a breeching that brought up the upper slide in the recoiled position. I think the date of conversion to non-recoil was a little later than 1805 - Martin (1828) says copying British practice starting in 1806, with the definitive order for the arrangement in 1811.

What is quite frustrating is that most of the ships at Trafalgar are given the 'raw' 1770s establishment of guns in most books about the battle, despite a 1794 general issue of carronades as supernumerary weapons, and a few examples being quoted of the replacement of establishment guns by additional carronades on the QD and/or FC, the formula 'QD and FC armament variously augmented or replaced by carronades in service' being particularly unhelpful. We know this was done on a per ship basis, and to a degree at the discretion of the captain (especially as it relates to roundhouse carronades before the (near) complete replacement of QD guns by carronades and the deletion of roundhouse armament from the establishments, but there has to be better and more data than the obsolete establishment of guns from before the advent of carronades, and a notation that carronades were sometimes added in various numbers and sizes...) Of course an AO authorising Carronades doesn't actually cast the numbers required... so there is going to be a delay between the new orders and the fitting of the last vessel to that standard, but it would be nice to have a better representation of the progression of changes and the actual and/or likely armament at the major actions, rather than a known 'probably not' fit of guns only.

That 1860s US naval gun is a copy of part of a figure engraved in "Ordnance instructions for the United States navy." Unsure who copied the diagram by hand, or when, but that book is available online in various places including the Library of Congress.

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.