Lieste

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.

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)).

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.