Lieste

The 30pdr is a rifle, firing ogive shot and shell, not round shot. Without looking up the specifics, I'd estimate it at having a bore diameter somewhere close to 12pdr/18pdr round shot (based on the 64pdr rifle having a 32pdr bore equivalent), so 4.5-5". I know that the correct diameter is listed in period articles, but don't have the US civil war data copied out into my own library of data. Quick checking: I underestimated the shell length - actually a 4.2" (9pdr bore equivalent) with a 29pdr ogive shell. The '42's are actually 84pdr "James Rifles" converted from Ml1841 42pdr smoothbores by cutting a set of shallow spiral grooves. You show the shot with the 'frame' around the rear portion, which would have had a lead sheet covering it, to be expanded into the rifling. This retains the ~7" bore of the 42pdr it was converted from. The shot was almost double the weight of the original round shot from the 42pdr at 81lbs, while the shell was ~64lbs. The 8" guns were smoothbore, and the examples you show seem to be mostly if not all shell - the fuse hole (and in a few cases a fuse body) can be seen between the two 'divots' used to handle the shell using a lifting tong. The shell is likely to be around 50-51lbs. The 32pdr is an intermediate weight light ordnance of relatively weak performance used to fill out the open port and to share out the more effective ordnance around the flotilla.

Making a breach in a masonry wall, especially one covered by a glacis/ravelins etc is distinct from hulling a ship - one requires concentrated fire, ideally 'stitched' in horizontal and vertical bands to 'cut out' sections of masonry - the earlier technique hadn't yet developed the reduction of the wall 'intact' and instead pulverised much of the surface. Hulling a vessel merely requires a single hit with sufficient velocity to pass 3/4 of the way through the side (with the shock blowing out the rear face and relieving the resistance ahead of the shot (comparison of the shot passing through a thinner side compared to into a semi-infinite bulk of well assembled timbers - as discussed by Lafay/Helie, and further expanded on with the testing from Hocker et al of the Vasa light 24pdr ordnance and a section of Vasa's structure). Any single hit could potentially obtain the full effect of a hit - if it hits a large framing timber with sufficient force to break it it will throw large splinters - if it passes a thinner part of the side and into a carriage it can disable a gun. Hits between wind and water (common for fire in ricochet) is likely to lead to leaks and flooding (either continually, or periodically as the shot hole is immersed by wave action and motion in pitch and roll). While both a ship and a wall may be able to tolerate hundreds of hits, the difference in how they tolerate them is important - the wall is not reduced at all without considerable cumulative damage within a small section, and needs exponentially more ammunition to create a larger breach from a longer distance, especially if rubble collapses in front of the un-breached wall masking the footing from further fire. The presence of engineering works may require the advance of guns to the crest of the glacis in order to *see* the wall footing to engage it... and this is likely be the original cause of the close advance of the battery of breach, and the presence of said engineering works. Any single hit of the naval gun can cause a critical injury to a structural element, a piece of ordnance, a component of the rigging... the ship is a large structure with much redundancy in armament, structural elements and rigging stability and performance - so the small individual injuries to it while each 'significant' may need to be added to other individual 'significant' injury to cause a vessel to become crippled, to strike, burn or sink.

I'd note that 'even the shortest range fire' may be incorrect. Especially since some effort to mark a line of pointing is evident. The importance of fire in ricochet was seen in the capability for a shot to carry below the height of the battery to several thousand yards in the siting of coastal batteries close to the water (but above the height of the naval guns they would fight), and the firing with little to no elevation would produce ricochet under suitable conditions to extended ranges beyond the random range of artillery with only errors in direction being significant. Fire in ricochet is more important for larger shot, as some portion of the retained velocity with range will be lost on each rebound, and the amount lost increases with the steepness of the angle of fall (increased range to first graze, reducing size of the shot).

I suspect the 24pdr "Columbiad" are captured 33cwt Govers, such as those used on shifting carriages in place of the forward and aftmost carronades on Constitution. Or anachronistic miss-attribution of carronades by later authors (e.g. the 32pdr 'Columbiads' sometimes attributed to USF Essex when she was captured).

The gun carriages look "quite odd". The original design would have been fairly tight to the barrel width between the inside of the cheeks - slightly wider at the breech ring than at the rimbases only... in proportion to the guns. The kit supplied parts are *much* too large for the supplied barrels, and are too wide at the rear in proportion to the front in addition to the generally too wide proportion. I'd suggest looking at whether the guns are an appropriate size and proportion and either scratch building a more proportionate carriage for these if they are suitable, or obtaining a more accurate gun and making carriages to suit them if they are also too small for the prototype.

Yes, the early low temperature iron furnaces produced relatively slaggy iron, and casting over a core produced a porous bore surface, which could lead to fatal flaws in the metal, and a high rate of failures - not that gunmetal guns didn't wear and split as well, but the gunmetal tended to erode and then rupture, while iron shattered. Later improvements such as solid casting and horizontal boring of the gun against a stationary bit improved the quality of the iron casting, as did improved metallurgy and control over the inclusions, contaminants and temperature of the cast iron - the solid core, drilled out gave a straighter, more consistent and less porous surface of a higher density and resilience, and the better understanding of gas pressure and strain led to improved arrangement of reinforcement length, thickness of metal and quantity of powder charge to keep the shot start position within the reinforced portion of the gun. Some trial and error in that respect had led to failures of some patterns of guns which were cast shorter than their normal pattern but which still used full charges. Most of these improvements happened in the early part of the C18th, continuing into the C19th, which includes the regulation of fire - with pre measured powder charges and recommendations for the use of lower powder charges for double shot... still some 'enthusiasms' occur such as using triple or more shotting - which does nothing to enhance gun effectiveness and only increases internal pressures and recoil while reducing accuracy and energy of the shot.

6ft is around the same length as most field guns. The short length is a problem on board only with there being more an issue of higher recoils and with keeping the muzzle outside the port during oblique fires than a meaningful loss of range and effective penetration distance. RN frigate artillery tended to be the shortest pattern of Blomefield naval artillery in each calibre (though his naval guns were longer than his mobile field/siege artillery in iron in most cases - he did also have a 6ft iron 12pdr at 21cwt in his land pattern guns). The shorter length will make some difference - around 5% decrease in range at 5 degrees, 4.5% decrease in range for in the penetration through a 21" framing model and around 7.5% decrease in the range at which 21" of timber can be penetrated into a semi-infinite timber bulk. ( a shorter distance than perforation of a 'finite' frame and plank target), but this is dwarfed by the difference in performance to the heavier artillery present - both the 18pdr guns (though not the weaker 18pdr carronade), and the 32pdr carronades used on all three vessels - these latter are so much more powerful that their net 'value' in delivered energy is superior to a 12pdr gun at all distances over 400yds, despite an up to 10:6 advantage in their hitting space over the carronade at 400yds.

I'm not 100% sure I followed it correctly but: 9pdrs, 1 iron, 1 bronze (breech loaded?) 6pdrs, 11 iron 3 pdrs, 10 bronze 1pdr (Falconet), 2 bronze Unsure what the 'bronze' "schrot Stuck" are, or what is meant by an iron shot piece ? Some sort of boarding/boat guns/swivels?

What artillery was she authorised for, and what did she actually carry?

Her 1814 fit is reported as being 6 12pdr guns, plus 40 32pdr carronades - for a total of 46 ordnance. Not her nominal 32 guns, or her previous armament of 26 12 pdr guns and 16 24pdr carronades. I have no idea where the (movable) guns on their truck carriages were mounted, only that 3 were pointed out of the stern quarter and saw heavy action while fighting the Phoebe, when no guns from the broadside could be brought to bear - the carronade slides being fixed to their fighting bolts they are unsuited to shifting, unless they have specific modifications to their carriages to ease shifting to the chase port - and cannot be trivially set to fire from an improvised port, as they *need* the fighting bolt to restrain their very harsh recoil - being roughly equal to a full gun of 24pdr, rather than the much lighter recoil of a gun of a smaller calibre (such as the similarly powerful 12pdr gun with very similar muzzle energy for a 7.5ft 12pdr gun and 32pdr carronade), but a recoil energy which is ~3.7ft tons for the carronade, compared to ~1.33ft tons for the gun.

Having re-looked at the table of dimension and the diagrams it appears the US may have defined their dimensions differently from the English practice, with the 1812/1816/1820/1833 guns being nearly uniformly 9ft - if you count from the breech ring to the muzzle - the 9ft 8 to 9ft 9 length quoted seems to include the breech moulding and cascable. If this is also the case for the original 1797 pattern guns then their quoted 8ft 6 (the supply from the Hope Ironworks) is likely to be closer to a 7ft 9 to 7ft 10 British pattern/definition... which is very short for a ship built very like a ship of the line (port sills similar to the common 74), and makes sense of the complaint that oblique fire damaged the ports and concussed the crew. This length of gun is slightly shorter than the frigate pattern of British 18pdr gun (8ft breech ring to muzzle), which are matched to a significantly lighter hull.

An 1833 'snapshot' of her armament (covering the armament as of 1821 for her Mediterranean service) https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2015/11/12/constitutions-guns-a-snapshot/ Her original (1797) guns were an 8ft or 8ft 6" type**, unsuited to her heavier than normal scantlings, and were replaced after the Barbary war, with guns of 9ft 6", which were kinder to the crews and the port cills. **I have this recorded somewhere, but can only recall the general issue off the top of my head, if it is important I can re-check for this figure, if it isn't supplied by someone who has the research more readily to hand. Her original spardeck guns were 18pdr and 12 pdr guns, in a mixed 'castles and waist' fit, though I have no information about length or weight. Later these were swapped for 32pdr carronades, originally a complete battery, later reduced to clear working space around the boats in the waist, and during the war of 1812 supplemented by a captured pair of 24pdr Gover pattern guns to replace a pair fore and aft of the 32pdr carronades on a shifting arrangement for her chase guns.

If I have a model loaded into my slicer it comes in at native size @100% (e.g. 1/600) - to reproduce it at 1/300 I would rescale to 200% and then print - to reproduce in 1/1200 I would make a scratch calculation to retain full thickness of an extrusion/pixel at the printer resolution 'expand' horizontally the model elements (making everything a bit 'chunkier' to preserve finer details in 'some' form) and then reduce the 50% scaling by whatever proportion gives the proper width and length compensating for the expansion (*this will break most of the interfaces between parts which are supposed to fit together - some fettling will be needed, unless you "assemble" all the parts into a single solid. This latter task isn't needed with resin printers or SLA types, which you would probably be specifying - but I have an FDM printer with an "0.4mm" nozzle and similar minimum line thickness for consistent printing, so when substantially reducing model scale (e.g. from 1/72 to 1/350) some compensation to preserve detail and/or structural elements is needed. I've not used a bureau, but I would start with this definition, belt-and bracing with a 'dimension' for overall length or length between two landmarks and a suitable diagram to indicate where these should be.(e.g. if you note the length between breech ring and muzzle moulding, where the breech ring is, and where on the muzzle the moulding is measured (carronades can have multiple sets of mouldings ahead of and behind the sight, and a flash tube extending forward... overall dimension is more reliable, as it is less ambiguous. You can download and 'play' with the stl in a free slicer (such as Chitubox) to get an idea of the required scaling amounts and overall dimension to specify.

Hollow shot and shell for carronades on RN vessels seems to be an 1830s issue item - except for shell for bomb vessel's 68pdr carronades. (and by special application, as at Copenhagen 1801, where bomb were provided for the 68pdrs of the carronade armed ships of the line). The hollow shot of the later period was 56lbs for the 8" guns, with the shell being 48.25lbs - increased to 50.5lbs for better accuracy and velocity retention). The shot were otherwise full weight for the RN service ball as far as anything I have seen for 1780-1815. Private supply of carronades came with a small 'package' (20-25 rounds) of ammunition from the Carron factory, which might have included hollowed shot, but there is no distinction made between 32pdr shot for guns or carronades in 'proportions of shot' listed for ships in the RN for either channel or foreign service (the case and grape are broken out as distinct types). The reduction in shot weight from a hollow shot/shell causes an increase in velocity, and thus reduces the 'assistance' with recoil reduction significantly... and reduces penetration capability and carrying to range. The 8" shell being effectively reduced to equivalent to a 24pdr carronade for range and velocity retention, and penetration... though making holes like a 68pdr shot, and if filled and fusing correctly (a problem also not really solved well until the 1830s, preventing the use of grazing fire) having a significant damaging effect from fire and blast. (Note that before hollowed shot was provided, some shell was used unfilled as a battering round, though it would have been less effective than the shot in that use).

A comment on weight and strain on the structure - the carronade itself is around 60-75% of the weight of a gun of the calibres they were typically mounted with (e.g. the 42pdr carronades mixed in with 12pdr, 32pdr carronade mixed in with 9pdr guns, 24pdr guns mixed with 6pdr guns, 18pdr with 4pdr guns etc)... the slide is relatively heavier than a truck carriage although the absolute weight might be lower, or similar. Ammunition is typically much heavier, but mostly stored in the magazine). The overall impact of a direct switch is a reduction of crew requirement, reduction on on-deck weight, but an increase in total stowed weight. When fired, the carronades, being much ligher recoil faster and with more energy than the higher velocity light guns they are mixed with. In calculation this seems to be approximately the recoil energy of the full-gun of the carronade calibre... a much 'bigger' stress than the recoil of the heavier and higher velocity/lower shot mass light guns they are added to or substituted for. A 32pdr carronade has a performance broadly similar to a 12pdr gun, is mounted in place of a 9pdr gun, and recoils like a 32pdr gun....no wonder they got a reputation for being unsteady, 'violent in recoil' and prone to break breechings and ironwork.

The button on that gun looks huge. It is usually only roughly comparable to the bore, maybe bore plus 10-15% - which is closely comparable to half the diameter of the chase at the muzzle astragal.

A wrinkle.. for the intended date of 1786 - well several of them... Bellerophon wasn't commissioned and fitted out until late summer 1790, seeing service for around one year before being paid off ("for the Spanish armament and Russian Armament"). Recommissioned in 1793-04 shortly after the declaration of war. In 1783-03 the ships previously fitted with carronades on the f'csle and quarter deck had had them removed to ease the strain on their upper works - and it wasn't until the re-armament for war that the carronades were re-fitted. So a build date of 1790-1791 would be armed, but only with carriage guns (possibly the 6 quarterdeck carronades?) (and possibly not fitted 'for' the f'csle carronade, though a space planned for the fitting, no 'port' is visible for the third ordnance on the 'as completed' drawing). Between 1791-1793 she was out of commission and likely unarmed. And from 1793, would (possibly) have the 'augmented' armament you indicate in your letter, and in accordance with the prior orders and the new AO of 1794 which confirmed those arrangements generally.. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uabcAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA71&dq=22+july+1782+carronades&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjroI3ZhbD4AhVOUMAKHaQ0AIkQ6AF6BAgLEAI#v=onepage&q=22 july 1782 carronades&f=false I'm unsure how rigid this was... but it should be taken as the general order from which other variations flow from what I can see... when the carronades were re-issued (during the fitting of early 1793, or after the AO of 1794 is not clear, so for the most 'clear' picture I'd choose the date specified in your document, and build for that date or build her 'by establishment' with ports 'for' but not 'with' carronades on her roundhouse.

You might also look for the arrangement for Goliath 1806.12.29, when she was restablished with Govers - as she is listed with 2 guns and 4 carronades on her f'clse - the opposite arrangement, but the same number of ordnance as the 'supplemented' 1782/1794 fitting (she still only carries 74, as the quarterdeck is reduced from 14 guns to 2 guns and 10 carronades, but the open question is how the smaller f'csle of the Edgar/Arrogant was adapted to 6 ordnance.

Not the same type of ship, but there is a diagram for the 80 gunners in Winfield, which shows the two long guns in the forward port and first shroud gap, with a carronade in the second shroud gap. It is possible that that was the arrangement... however the current setup for the Victory has the Carronade in the forward/chase position, where it is clear of the shrouds. It should also be noted that the (much) later arrangement for 74s was to replace all but a pair of guns on each of f'csle and qtr deck with a 'standard' number of carronades, and none on the roundhouse... giving the later arrangement as 74 ordnance again - and it is this interim period with the 'additional carronades as they fit' with the uncertainty in practice - though only a single pair on the f'csle needs to be considered here, as the roundhouse carronades (if fitted) were always supernumerary. Nothing particular to your vessel or this particular time, but two options to consider alongside whatever records you can uncover - although the wording of the AO does specify these as additional carronades to the established armament, rather than explicitly stating them to replace a pair of guns, that is also a possible reading of the actual installation in practice, though it goes against your manuscript indicating a total of 82 ordnance.

Note that the four set stunsails are only set on the larboard side, with the starboard ones masked they are not employed, on this tack on a broad reach. In a following wind the use might alternate larboard and starboard sides (probably leeward on the main, and windward on the fore if there is a slight angle on the vessel, to maximise the exposed sail area, though there might also be trim implications which might favour a particular usage, to avoid the drag from excessive helm.

Majestic, Saturn, Goliath (and more post-war razees) were old common 74s - ships of the third rate, reduced to a 4th rate frigate. Indefatigable, Anson and Magnamine were from the Ardent and Intrepid classes - razee 64s, or the smallest of the third rate, reduced to a 4th rate frigate. Also in the third rate were the middling and large 74s, and the 80 gun ships. Second rates were the 90 and 98 gun ships (and from time to time, the rearmed 100 gunners, including Victory) First rates were only those ships of 100 guns or over (in the period in which these ships were active) - Victory is not *quite* the smallest of these, but is fairly close to the smaller end, and is smaller than some of the third rate ships (similar to the French ships of the second rank) by tons and tonnage. Britannia is a bit smaller, and there are many later classes and captures - especially those of 120 guns which are considerably larger (as were the French and Spanish vessels of the first rank).

When I order a Basket hilted backsword* I am totally going to have the blade engraved "Front Toward Enemy". For Scottish sword and targe. For reasons. (old joke, but one I want to participate in).

Not sure about the sight. Boxer (while considerably later) has the dispart sight on the reinforce just ahead of the joint block, with a sight patch for long range fire on the flat just ahead (and part of) the original pattern length mouldings. The blast-tube and loading cap is unadorned. These are designed to project into the port (or through it when fitted on an outboard fighting bolt), and recoil with a velocity at least 3 times as fast as the guns they substitute for. Projections at the muzzle would routinely wood the port and be damaged and cause damage. Placing the sight projection on the reinforce protects the sight and the port from unnecessary damage. It is possible that some sights were tried on the same principle of land ordnance howitzers (which use a full dispart wedge on the tulip) and tangent sights for all ranges, but this doesn't seem to have been a common practice for naval ordnance fired through ports (or for coastal or fortress ordnance fired through casements), where making a smaller port and protecting the port and sight was more important than a very long sight radius. (Precision from an unsteady platform isn't terribly useful in any case). (The BSBML McConnell document shows an earlier example of carronade sights from c1825 on p107, which are identical to those of Boxer - this is obviously later than 1786, but the sights had been introduced in ~1780 and refined along with tube length and the loading cup by the mid 1780s and then much seemed to remain the same until the last carronades were retired in favour of light guns in large bore (e.g. the 18pdr+ rebored (medium) guns to 32pdr, and 9 and 12pdr rebored (medium) guns to 18pdr)).

The calibre for an 18pdr in 1805 is apparently wrong - that is for pre-1780(ish) carronades only (the length is for a longer, later example, after the increase in bore). I have Boxer, Douglas, downloads of various googlebooks documents (including the Gunner's Vade Mecum, Adye's Pocket Bombardier (among many others), and the useful summary document https://www.silverhawkauthor.com/post/artillery-in-canadian-service-british-smoothbore-muzzleloading-sbml-cannon-in-canada-david-mcconnell Appendix N and page 109.

My notes show the 18pdr is 5.16" (rather than the 5.292" of the gun (and 5.17" of the later mid C19th re-bored 9/12pdrs)).