Lieste

Early Carronades are a shorter pattern than later ones. While the 32pdr is available in 40 and 48" (with the extended blast tube/loading cup), the 18pdr may still only be using the 30" short pattern type in the early/mid 1780s - by 1793 a 40" length is noted for this smaller piece, but the date where the length increased isn't totally clear. The link includes a table of recorded lengths by date of introduction/production (which is incomplete, but might be useful). Early carronades are very short, and have a single 'muzzle' finish. The later ones have a muzzle ring, then an extension of the tube and a second muzzle ring over the muzzle cup, and are around 2 calibres longer overall. https://falkirklocalhistorysociety.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/object-9-carronade.pdf

Combining 1779 and 1781 AO, the 1794 fit is met, with the 6 18pdr from the 1779 order, and the 2 32pdr from 1781 - The 1794 order increases the calibre of carronades for frigates and other rated vessels, and the size of the roundhouse carronades for the 2nd and first rate, but is otherwise mostly a repeat of the prior order.

There was an AO 1779-07-16 establishing carronades of 18 and 12pdr for all classes of ships, relaxed by the end of 1779 and by 1780, the actual fitting of authorised carronades was left to the discretion of the captain, to avoid unwanted disrupti0n on the command deck, or interference with the rigging. By 1780-03-09 carronades fitted by application of the captain. Politics caused the ordnance board to recommend against carronades, the Admiralty dragging it's heels over forwarding this "finding" to the Navy board until several months after the report date (1780-10-21, forwarded 1780-12-15) Early evidence of the utility of the carronade in close action suggested that there was a use for them, and more experimentation was authorised as well as the optional use of carronades at the captain's request (including some fully carronade armed ships)... 1781-12-28, the Navy board recommended two 68pdr carronades for those capable of supporting them, and 42 or 32pdr carronades be allowed for smaller rates at the request of their captains. From 1794-11-24, a new carronade establishment replaced the earlier 1779 one, with a 74 being authorised 2 32pdr and 6 18pdr in this establishment. From 1798-03 every line of battle ship was fitted to receive carronades on the fc/qtr deck. Nelson carried his pair of 68 pdr carronades authorised by the 1781 AO on all of his commands from 1793 on. There is a pattern of intent, and a demonstrated flexibility in how carronades were first authorised and subsequently expanded in use. Individual details are patchy at best.

The AO of 1794 establishes a set of carronades for every ship - the roll-out might have been delayed by the sheer size of the requirement for some ships (and indeed a few might have retired from active commission without ever being so armed, but the "norm" was for the carronades to be fitted for, and usually with). Some captains didn't like the roundhouse carronades and would request their removal, but the fo'c'sle and qtr deck carronades were generally liked - having a better long range penetration and larger shot holes against close range targets than the light guns which had formerly been fitted to the superstructure. It is a patchy data-set of which ships were rearmed and how, but the presence of some (or all) carronades in place of the light ordnance on the fo'c'sle and qtr deck is seen on some reported re-armaments during the period of service of the ships of the RN during the revolutionary and napoleonic wars (as well as a trend toward larger bore and lighter styles of guns (short 12pdr replacing 6pdr and 9pdr guns, short 18pdrs, and the new 24pdr Gover (33cwt) being seen on the upperworks (and for a few replacing nearly all guns) on ships of the line (two of these finding their way onto Constitution as her chase guns, replacing 4 carronades). Often the reported armament of a vessel is only her "as designed" gun establishment, even when she was built after 1794 - which looks to be a nominal only armament - rather than an actual 'as fitted' one - comparison with other vessels of the same 'establishment of guns' can sometimes give a snapshot of possible alternative armament options at specific dates... and the growth of carronades in place of light guns is clearly seen, which leaves me unconvinced by the 'wrote lists' of design armament of the standard designs of ships with their nominal gun armament only for many of the ships at major actions. Not helped by 'useful' descriptions such as "augmented or replaced by various carronades during her service".

Carronades are 'heavy' guns for direct battering fire, albeit at somewhat lower powder charges and velocity to long guns of the full weight. (There are also various lightened/shorter guns which fire intermediate charges). They are not 'Howitzers' designed for even smaller powder charges and hollow shell and case alone. The long range penetration of shot depends nearly solely on the size and weight of the shot. 48pdr shot can (by Helie) penetrate more than 2ft of timber at more than 1400yds from a nominal carronade, which would exceed the capability of a full gun of 24pdr size to match (only 32pdr guns of above 'medium' weight and length (probably a cut off of around 7.5ft and 6-8lb charges)). The 12pdr guns of the rest of the battery quoted for this vessel, likely being of a short pattern (7.5ft at most) would be limited to less than 750yds to deal with this same target, despite their higher muzzle velocity. While the relatively low velocity would require a higher trajectory for hits on first graze at long ranges, you have provided statements that fire in ricochet was used for long range fire, and again, the heavy shot would be superior for this use. While Spanish Naval Obusiers do exist, they are similar to and patterned after the Carron company carronade weapons and might even be derived from samples commercially provided by Carron company, who not only manufactured Carronades for many national and merchant uses (both at home and exported throughout Europe and beyond), but also built and ran ordnance factories for the Russian State (who also manufactured a 48pdr carronade at some point in the early C19th). I suspect that as many of the notable vessels were built and supplied from England, that the 'oddity' weapons fitted are likely to be commercial supply direct by Carron co - either 'guns of the new construction' or Carronades (jointed or trunnioned). It doesn't really matter too much, the carronades of 'cannot have been more than 28cwt' are going to be of a 'typical' pattern of carronade or gunnade of the same basic form.

You text indicates a carronade - so with suitable adjustments to the style of the ordnance, and the brackets/joint (or alternatively going with a high bracket and trunnioned carronade - there is literally no information on the "style" of lightweight gun fitted here, beyond that it is *entirely* consistent in estimated weight with an ordnance of the scale and proportions of a typical carronade in a mercantile or foreign calibre), you could do far worse than examine and interpret from the pivot guns shown in these cutters: The earlier statements indicated a pivot gun in the bow, with 12pdr (light) guns in the broadside positions, rather than dead midships, which is entirely feasible with a single 48pdr centreline carronade. An alternative arrangement could be a broad semi-circular track just inside the bulwark with the rear of the rail the location of the pivot. The general arrangement otherwise similar.

He was in one of Byron's Phillhellenes. The text of the document refers to the gun set on the two gunboats (previously a long 32pdr) to be caused to be replaced by "a short long 68" - This is not a carronade, but from the date and the context (and the peculiar wording) is likely the Millar's 50cwt gun. The replacing of a ~48/50 or 56cwt 32pdr gun by a 50cwt 8" shell gun using mostly 48lb hollow shell gives a similar performance and similar weight on board. As to the a 48pdr of 28cwt noted as being a carronade - this seems to be a mercantile or export Carronade (as frequently supplied by Carron Co), but has no match within the noted RN ordnance for which a pattern, diagram or data survives that I have ever come upon. A '42 pdr carronade' increased in size by 4.5% would do in the absence of any better information IMO.

The image/caption will be swapped between that one (obviously a naval pattern gun (can't reliably estimate scale for identification, but it could be a 6pdr or 4pdr by indications from the grain of the timber in the carriage)) and another on the same spread which will be a carronade, labelled as this gun or a third affected caption. TQM from Osprey.

Carronade usually refers to 5-8 calibre bores, with the breech end chambered and the muzzle (in later pieces) extended by a loading cup/flash-hider. True carronades are jointed, but a few trunnioned gunnades were made - and the free standing carriages were more flexible in use than the fixed slides/fighting bolts. That said, the use of the term carronade is often extended to both Howitzers and the early Shell Guns, such as the 'Millars' 68pdr of 50cwt - and this had a proportion shorter or similar to that of a field gun (noticeably shorter than large naval guns typically are: (6ft 8.5", bore the full nominal length to the breech ring, gomer chambered on an 8.05" bore (62.7 Litres capacity) - this compares to the carronade (36cwt 5ft 2", including the muzzle cup and flash-hider with the chamber being cylindrical and also extending to the breech ring 46.1Litres capacity), and to the later "Full gun" of 95cwt 8.12" bore and a capacity of 96.6Litres. While the shell gun was intended to fire hollow shot (unfilled shell) and shell, it did so with an 8lb powder charge, compared to the 5.6lb charge for the carronade (firing solid shot), and the 16lb powder charge of 68pdr gun. A 42pdr carronade is usually assigned a weight of 22.5cwt, so this is approximately the proportion of this otherwise not recorded "48 pdr" - it should be charged with "around" 4lbs of powder (42pdr uses 3.5lbs). With the claimed overcharging there is no purpose... the increase in velocity predicted by Helie (1865/1884) is not for firing conditions within the 'scope' of the ordnance used to derive their prediction/model (and is likely overestimating velocity) but only shows a ~4% increase in velocity and a ~25-27% increase in recoil from a wastage of 73% of the powder used, plus a lot more risk from fire from unburnt or partially burnt power, and the charge extending well outside the chamber into the more lightly constructed bore is ... well ... not at all safe.

Carronades will happily throw shot beyond that which is considered useful for guns. (This requires more elevation than guns, but this also helps partially limit the problem for carronades from the dispersion increase given by firing from an unsteady platform - the roll taken as being the same, the effect on range of random fire for the gun is greater in direct proportion to the help given by flatter fire in the increase of the danger space - making the defect arguable at best... with ricochet fire the short hitting space of lower velocity guns is less important too - with shot weight giving a longer working distance in ricochet). Penetration/shot effect at range strongly favours high calibre/weight over high velocity - with a 42pdr carronade shot penetrating 21" sides at ~ 1700yds, while a 12pdr gun shot with distant charge maybe reaching only ~ 900yds, albeit at a higher velocity and a flatter angle of fire. This also serves to make ricochet fires more attractive to extend useful range for heavy shot (despite the additional loss on each rebound). The "problem" for carronades on the lakes was the meeting of 24pdr carronade broadsides (or hodgepodge armaments with many 6, 9 and 12pdr guns) - with 24pdr and 32pdr long guns on pivots, and 32pdr carronades, where there is no compensating benefit from shot weight, and an absolute penalty is all aspects of long range fire. (Also oft quoted examples have the problem being well within carronade range but anchored and unable to retain springs - so taken apart from the quarter "where not a single carronade could be brought to bear" (alternative rendered as 'no carronade could reach' - both of which are also incorrect/incomplete given the actual report of damage needing repair given by the carpenter's report describing both RN vessels, and the USN prize (and the armaments of the Cherub being 32pdr and 18pdr carronades, against the 32pdr carronades of the Essex (with no indication that this was only a single ship action as Cherub could not fire)).

I would hinge it at the bottom on an outward sloping counter. It is much easier to hold the port closed, and allow it to be open from the same line in this arrangement, with just a simple cleat. Top or side hinges (or a split port with a hinged upper and lower or left and right, or a removable shutter are other arrangements seen on the vertical on inward canted sides.

The standard stowage for RN ships on foreign service was 6 months, and that only reduced for the smallest classes which couldn't store sufficient stores and unmodified French captures which had different hold and Orlop arrangements which didn't conform to British practice. On home station the stowage was reduced to 4 months. It was normal during a moderate or large repair to rebuild a French capture to meet British standards, though many were too badly damaged through battle or rot that they were reserved for harbour duties (freeing a serviceable British hull) or broken up. Victualers, and local resupply from naval stores or local purchases by the ship's purser could extend a ship's service on foreign patrol to 'years'.

The Vasamuseet did an excellent testing of both the "structure under fire" and the "bronze ordnance" when they combined a structural test piece and a new cast 'light 24pdr' in testing at the Bofors instrumented range. The full suite of publications haven't been published yet, but there are some videos of some of the 50+ shot sequence and some commentary and a single presentation that are available on line. Sadly the museum blog on the topic (both of the construction of the 'mechanical test piece' for the hull (which then also served as the gunnery target) and the gun and equipment) got filleted some time ago, so the currently available information is thinner than it was.

Naval ordnance tends to have modest recoil, by design - with the exception of carronades, where projectile velocity is sacrificed for low deployed mass, and heavier than 'battery' shot. A field gun in 12pdr size is below 21cwt, while the upper deck battery of a ship of the line used much heavier guns of 34cwt with the same charges. Getting slightly more velocity (but not that much) and significantly lower recoil velocity and energy. Larger guns tend to a slightly lighter weight of metal per pound of shot, smaller calibre guns to be rather heavier. A 32pdr carronade, by comparison, gets more than 2.5 times the recoil energy - while penetrating only about 80% as well at the near muzzle range (and somewhat better at random fire ranges). (Recoil energy of the carronade is nearly exactly that of the middle charge of the 32pdr gun of 56cwt, though it provides less than 1/2 the shot energy and ~2/3 the penetration at the muzzle and range at 5 degrees) The 'excessive' weight of naval guns was often criticised, but the extra mass was seldom a significant proportion of the entire installed weight of shot, powder, stores, ordnance, crew and carriages, and the benefits of a 'ponderous' recoil were clear to most who actually designed and used the guns. The use of larger shot for better penetration with extended ranges even with lower muzzle velocity were seen in the C19th, with the use of all 24pdr batteries first employed by the RN, with 'all 32pdr' and 'all 30 livre' armaments having a brief period before being supplemented by larger shell guns in small numbers. These sacrificed some controllability for common ammunition supply, greater long range effectiveness and (in theory) simplification of the supply of ordnance - though the RN ended up with 15 different '32 pdrs' (albeit that most were only one of 4 types).

The hollow shot for 68pdr are unfilled shell, at this time, later also specific naval hollow shot, of 56lbs. Manufactured as any other hollow shell. As noted the in the document the Navy - the major consumer of ammunition for ordnance, preferred to use solid shot... at least until the advent of reliable percussion fuses making naval shell a generally acceptable proposition. Bomb vessels relied on a tender to fill and prepare most of the shell used in bombardment, with only a handful of loaded shell being their standard load. Hollow shot, while carrying further (over flat angles of fire), didn't penetrate at long range as well as solid shot from the same gun, and often was relatively weak even at close ranges. (Very large ordnance, such as the shell gun and 68pdr carronade, could use the 'heavy' hollow shot to obtain penetration roughly equivalent to a 32pdr. Caruna is a modern author, the bibliography lists the book referred to.

Pre-1780-82 (ish) carronades are shorter, lacking the extension cup forward of the muzzle rings, as well as having a shorter true bore to those rings. The longer bore and the loading cup/flash hider improved ballistic performance and made firing carronades in the way of rigging less harmful to the ship. This is incomplete, as records were largely destroyed when the Carron pattern room was cleared and the obsolete patterns destroyed, but has a reasonable coverage from what does remain. https://falkirklocalhistorysociety.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/object-9-carronade.pdf

That may include breeching supplied for a 42pdr deck. (which with 7" bore would also be consistent with French practice.) The English tended to reduce guns when not "at war", swapping the heavy 42pdr out for 32pdr with lower manning requirements, the substitution might well be best suited to ironwork on the GD sized for the heavier gun, along with tackles and breechings suited to the heavier. 6" is 1.9"dia 7" is 2.2" 7.5" is 2.4" dia All are still "well below" 3-4" diameter, which prompted the first response.

Are we thinking that gun power had reduced or guns got lighter (thus increasing recoil energy from higher recoil velocity)? Cross checking with the French practice of the 1770s, from the "74 gun ship", has a breeching (strictly a carriage rope), which is a ~7.5" circumference rope, with a ~7" diameter bore. The sizes are likely to be the closest standard circumference of ropes used in the rigging of ships to the bore diameter. A book compiled and published in 1812 is likely reporting information largely gathered by notes over the past decades of practice - well before the major actions of the late war, but I also see little reason to assume thicker breechings for earlier, heavy, less powerful powder/ordnance in a long period of reasonably stable technology. Cross checking some other sources shows a heavier breeching on carronades, but one unlikely to be visually distinct.

By The Vade Mecum table, the circ of the Breeching is 6", 5" or 4" according to the nature of the piece. This is below 2" diameter for all natures. (1.9" for 24/32pdr, 1.7" for 18/12pdr, 1.3" for 9/6/4pdr - carronades explicitly not stated, but recoil energy of a carronade exceeds that of the gun firing in single shot with distance charge, so they should probably be at least the same, and these are existing ropes for breeching, so using the same is not unreasonable. 68pdr might need a slightly higher breeching).

Rope sizes are circumference, masts are diameters. A 19" spar is 3 times the diameter of a 20" cable.

It can be higher than that. The aero forces are the vector sum of lifting and drag forces. Depending on the form, lift can significantly exceed a Cl of 1.0, and drag, - form, skin and vortex can be a significant fraction of lift for the relatively low aspect ratio of a square rig. When stalled and either not lifting well, or acting as a parachute drag becomes the dominant factor, with relatively low lift forces. A backed sail is constrained against the mast, so will not fill to the same form, but otherwise behaves similarly to a filling sail. The overall effect is complex, with the lift from one mast altering the flow over those both up and downstream from it, as well as reducing wake energy for following masts.

Sailing on the wind, and on a reach is done with the sails lifting, even on square rig. It is *only* when going downwind that sails can only be employed in a stalled drag mode, and sailing speed suffers from the combination of running with the wind, and the lower sail efficiency in this mode. Upwind sailing performance is limited by the bracing angle of the sails, rather than a failure of the sails to lift when the angle of attack is appropriate.

I routinely print models 'offscale' For minor tweaks in scale, the printability isn't significantly affected, and can just be tweaked to give the appropriate dimension. When upscaling, the detail becomes rather 'soft' and can look oversized if taken too far, but generally there is no limit to the amount of upscaling you can perform if the degree of softness is acceptable. When downscaling fine details can become unprintable 'as is', however if dimensions are mutable, the slicer can add a 'hair' of horizontal expansion to retain printable minor walls, and I routinely print models with an intended scale of 1:72 or 1:100 down to 1:330 with few problems, as well as 1:700 to 1:1000 and 1:2973. It is likely that a model generated explicitly for the target scale might print with a better result - but there is a broad range of printable scales for any single model where it will print, with broadly acceptable results.

There have been a number of simulations attempted along those lines - Among these are the old "HMS Surprise" applet, a set of notes, plans and a spreadsheet on HMS Southampton (1757), from iirc Richard Braithwaite, and an 'admittedly hacked together' simulation of a 5th rate 'Lively' ish ship in "Painted Ocean", which is still available to download and play with on Twitch.io (the others seem to have fallen by the wayside along the way). There are also some papers which cover approaches to the problem and some of these might ease 're-inventing the wheel' - for example a paper entitled "Application of simulation technology to the performance evaluation of HMS Victory as an exemplar of the ships at the battle of Trafalagar", from the University of Southampton (Jan 2006) is downloadable online, and at a first glance might serve as a point of entry at least. (Though I haven't been able to look over it and crunch numbers/play with dynamic behaviour to see if the model holds water).

Resin cures in light, so I'd keep it in the bottle when not actually printing. You don't want to find cured resin all over your vat and screen. I'm only using an FDM printer right now, so I don't have experience for how quickly you can create problems for yourself, but I have run a film camera and darkroom and know that light sensitive materials can be ruined by careless handling ~ and here you have expensive and delicate components in close proximity to the resin... plus fumes from the resin are not good to have just lying about without ventilation... put it in the bottle, and save the potential trouble.