Lieste

The station bill given in "installation des vaisseau" has fewer than 293 men even for the 'tacking under plain sail'. From a watch of 299, when in two watches, and below 201 men from 202 men when in three watches (with no idlers). All hands piped to stations would be required for sails and pumping, sails and anchor, or for action (when manoeuvring was 94 when fighting one board or 60 on both boards (with musketry reduced only to those on the tops)). The 'ordinary' watch system was two watches with idlers, but the use of a three watch system (which with more down time between watches, and smaller watch sizes had no idlers on the books - all 'seamen' and soldiers were assigned roles ~ though some of the simpler operations still didn't require all numbers to be active for that evolution. (Also the watches were Larboard and Starboard, (or Babord and Tribord for the French) - Port is a later modification of terms. "All hands" for routine sail evolutions is a nearly purely merchant navy procedure (plus to a lesser degree troop transport warships armed en-flute), where there were by Transport board requirements minimums for "hired vessels" of 6 men per 100 tuns (earlier 7 men per 100 tuns), giving crews around a third to a quarter of those of a warship of similar size - in order to provide the space needed for troops or cargo, and to reduce costs and cargo space used up by crew provisions.

The tripping line is to trip the anchor, not the seaman. With the fluke biting in the bottom, and the cable running along the bottom, the initial pull of the cable when weighing anchor will tend to dig the flukes deeper, and if the bottom is shallow there may not be enough angle put on the hank to pull the flukes clear over a wide enough 'spread' to be able to hold that station. If instead of trying to solely pull the anchor from the hank, you trip the crown, the flukes come clear of the bottom, when intended and the anchor can be weighed more easily.

Also long term endurance at the lower speed as the rowing can be shared out over time at a higher effort per group over a short time, followed by rest. This could be done by bank, by division or by files in an interleaved watch system. Those doing experimental archaeology with Danish/Norse warships have used various forms of watch system to provide long term rowing capability as well.

The halyard is only bringing the yard down to the reefed height of the sail/in proximity to the tops/crosstrees, not all the way to the deck in the document referred to above, and this is the condition shown in various paintings and with the Constitution or modern Hermione's topgallants over set topsails in hundreds of videos and photographs, as well as a number of the early photographs of active ships. While the yard could be struck down, along with topmasts and royals (and this was sometimes done to secure the vessel before a storm), the procedure for reefing and making or taking in sail given in the manual doesn't describe unbending the sling, only lowering the yard on it's spar. The top is where the sheets and clews are handled when the sail is reefed, to neaten the canvas and to fold it into it's condition for reefing or furling. Lowering the yard also reduces the motion of the yard in a sea even if the vessel continues to pitch and roll at an undiminished amplitude - just a shorter arm for the motion. Keeping the furled sail at the tops/crosstrees, rather than hauled up makes getting men onto the yard from the top an easier and faster task, so the gaskets can be loosened more rapidly and the sail set and hauled more rapidly than if it were hauled to just below the cross trees above. Striking down the spars and yards is quite obviously a slower task again, with far more adjustment to the rig to get the relevant sail re-bent.

Relevant section on reefing from the online textbook of seamanship: https://www.hnsa.org/manuals-documents/age-of-sail/textbook-of-seamanship/reefing/ also: https://www.hnsa.org/manuals-documents/age-of-sail/textbook-of-seamanship/making-and-taking-in-sail/

One detail that seems is often not correctly implemented is the yards position for topsail and topgallants, if the sails are furled or removed. These would usually be lowered when the sails are not set, and hoisted as the sails are set. To my eye, the rig looks wrong if the yards are hoisted yet bare.

The driver is rarely set, and tends to be most useful in wearing or tacking, where it can outhaul to push the tail end around. From what I have gathered, the foresails and mainsail would more or less balance the rig on most broad reach and beam seas, the mizzen topsail and topgallant might only be reefed, or left unset to give a fairly neutral helm. On other points of sail (or in different conditions of trim) more of the mizzen stack might be needed to have a neutral or slight tendency to fall off the wind. To bring the head smartly around setting more of the mizzen sails, and hauling the driver to windward will help the rudder drive the stern to the leeward and the head into the wind, with the pivot in forward motion being something like the 1/3rd of the WL length from the head - if the ship loses head-way during the tack, the helm is sent over, and the pivot shifts to closer to 1/3rd the way from the stern, which slightly reduces the effort the rear sails can impart to aid turning - if not already set the driver will be needed now if the vessel is not to miss stays. For maximum lift the sail should take an angle of attack of 'around' 20 degrees, if you can set it to closer to 90 degrees it will provide a greater force, but as a 'drag' force (which is strictly limited to zero when running at the wind speed) - the driver can be used in either mode to push or pull the stern as needed and as the angles of the wind and hull allow. I would start seeing how the sailing performance is without it, and the ability to hold a course with trimming the other yards, and reefing/clewing the other sails. Then try various strategies to drive the stern or pull the stern the way it needs to go for each planned point of sail it struggles to hold or attain. You also need to consider the sheeting strategy for the headsails to ease tacking and wearing, especially with lower speeds and lighter airs.

For double banked barges and pinnaces the instructions for embarkation given in "Aide Memoire to the Military Sciences" are:

The Saga Obesberg is a far better sailor than the built 'as displayed' Dronningen which drove under when tested under sail because of her 'too flat' keel sheer and the 'too narrow' thwarts in the damaged bow area of the museum article. With the original form approximated as closely as is possible using rigorous archaeology and practical model and modern and 'model' 3d reconstructions and simulation the Saga Oseberg is a much more successful sailer, capable of tacking with apparent ease, as well as riding on her own bow wave and semi-planing under sail at speed.

A mm is an inch in scale... I would note that there is a considerable asymmetry in her lines, in excess of several inches for knees, and having a visibly different line for the wales port and starboard, as well as for the location of the knees relative to station lines. Get it fair and 'close' trying to be 'perfect' is unlikely to be 'more authentic' to the original building practice.

Red Ochre for the lower deck spirketing and quickwork? I'd understood 'tweendecks as being whitewashed to enhance the light reflected from ports or the fighting lanterns, to make operating under conditions of smoke and minimal direct sunlight as easy as possible. Reds and Greens, or Yellow Ochre on the weatherdeck bulwarks seem to be common however. Is there a source for the red lower deck spirketing and quickwork?

A document which includes a description of a British engineer proposal for baise stripes suspended from iron rods to conceal the embrasures, and a Russian use of rope in the same way (along with a mantlet of rope wound around the barrel (as a disk, tightly constructed) to prevent the heavy losses from canister and musketry. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KDZWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=rope+screen+embrasure&source=bl&ots=f6wpJySIsu&sig=ACfU3U3aYOyBuV2ZHjg3Fq6C5YDE-Lv_tg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwieWC34P6AhWDg1wKHaIyAsgQ6AF6BAgWEAM#v=onepage&q=rope screen embrasure&f=false So the screen is as above suggested most probably for concealment, but a mantlet is also likely on the gun itself to give protection to the gunners.

Maybe a counter to splinters of rock on near misses coming through the embrasure? Small, light rock shards are much heavier and sharper when shattered from a rock face than equally small splinters of wood - plenty to cause injury to crews - interfering with them with a screen of lines might significantly reduce the number and severity of injuries to a noticeable degree?

The chandler is fixed into the top of the mounting timber - while it isn't proud 18" - it has some height of it's own.

There are some gaillard perrier mounted on the Hermione Fregate de 12. I'm sure there are photographs somewhere in the huge number taken that include a crew member near one of these pieces.

My mistake, it was the stern casemate ports for another 32pdr and the 30pdr parrot rifle.

A bit larger than Peaquod (~330 tuns, vs 240 tuns), the Charles W Morgan has a 1/110 scale Revell plastic kit? Any use? There are also some other wooden kits of the CWM if you need a wooden kit to cut your teeth on. There are a few vintage solid hull models, as well as a more recent (and larger) plank on bulkhead offerings. Worth looking at ebay listings for a 'Scientific' model to see if it is what you are after IMO. (Not my listing, just poking around for what whaleship kits are available (relatively few, surprisingly).

The 81lb ogive shot for the 42pdr rifles (84pdr James Rifle) were also shown in that same post of yours, with the cage around the base of the shot (originally covered by the lead skirt in an embiggened version of a minie ball.

The museum model also has the front casement guns with the lower port pierced, rather than half and half (from your images). Edit: (I mistook the stern for the bow, the pierced lower ports are in fact the stern ports)

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.