Lieste

Further to the 18pdr... a hypothesis that a handwriting or confusing print font/poor quality reproduction led someone to misreport the 18 as a 48 - which combined with a sub-50 cwt ordnance weight led to a conclusion of a carronade, while the actual pivot gun was nothing more exotic than a Blomefeld 18pdr in 43cwt. Discuss.

The diagram doesn't match the ordnance displayed, which is clearly an 1823 18pdr of the British pattern. Length is unclear and the close ups don't include the weight markings to allow inference as to the intended weight and length, but 8ft or 9ft are the common types, at ~38 or 43 cwt.

A Gun or carronade of 36 livre would fire a boulet plein of around 18.28kg (gauges appear to average high). (As well as other ammunition; canister, bombe, boulet croix etc) An canon-obusier or obusier of the calibre of 36 livre would share gauges with the gun or carronade, but would fire only canister, bombe or a boulet croix, with a weight of 11.71kg. The distinction 'of the size of' implies a common size, but distinct character. IMO. (The same would apply to the 48livre calibre - but I don't have values for a 48 livre piece - or indeed English calibres (e.g. the 24pdr iron howitzer fires shell and shrapnel and case in the calibre of the 24pdr shot, but does not fire the plain roundshot... while the calibre distinction is more clearly seen with the 5.5" brass howitzers which were in use at it's introduction - common calibre, but not firing the same ammunition). Other nations refer to their Howitzers by the mass of a solid stone projectile assumed for the weapon, though only hollow shot and shell, carcass and canister are supplied. (e.g. the 'roughly 24pdr equivalent' "7 pd Howitzer"), or use an unusual measurement standard to distinguish the lighter ordnance (e.g. poods, vs artillery pounds in Russian service for their unicorns - the pood being raised on the smaller merchantile trade pound).

A 24pdr of 48cwt might be an answer to the question, that would be suitable for a smallish schooner, and confusable with larger ordnance. This would also match the image of the 'style of gun' presumed to be associated with your schooner, which was a Blomefeld ordnance of a gun pattern (48cwt is the 9ft pattern) - not the shorter, broader style of a shell gun.

Within the same period (and even before) the Carron Company had been supplying 'guns of the new construction' and chambered carronades, with a supply of ammunition which included hollow shot, shell and roundshot. (Boulet croix, bombe, boulet plein in equivalent French nomenclature). These were both supplied by contract to the Ordnance, and made commercially available for export. Carron's ordnance was developed following observation of Howitzers in Ireland during the 1750s. There is no technical limitation precluding an early use of boulets croix, and indeed, the use of this type of ammunition for the obsolescent 36 livre obusier de vaisseau (after filled shell was deemed unsafe for shipboard use after a number of accidents and fires) appears to have been practised.

Whiles boulets plein, as you indicate were not made larger than the 50 livre gun (19.4cm bore), and the 36 livre/17cm size was the largest in common use, the boulets croix were available in 27c and 22c sizes, as well as in the gun sizes of 19c, 17c, 16c and 15c. The 27c boulet croix had a mass of 48.3kg, and the 22c boulet croix a mass of 25.79kg. (See Lafay pp67-68)

Boulet Croix are not the same as Bombe, and canon-obusier could fire both.

A source of STLs for 3d printing which might be of use are here: https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-print-cannon-crew-for-model-ships-1750-1820-165771 plus some other items he has for medieval and Anglo Dutch period sailors, and some ordnance items. Not sure what his future plans are, but he is quite responsive to reasonable requests if they make sense and fit in with his interests

According to Boudriot, the spars and yards for the 74 were loaded 'unfinished', just the main (built-up) stick, but not finished with head, gammoning, foot etc that make the finished spar. The fitting of blocks etc is an additional step beyond that.

So... the barrels raised on the Wine gallon, and those raised on the Imperial Gallon are very close to each other in size (though not rated capacity) - with less tha 0.1% variation in nominal volume. 252 Wine gallons* or 210 Imperial Gallons make the Tun. (An earlier standard was for 256, but 252 is divisible by 7, so it was defined as 252 during the late medieval period) The equivalent for Ale gallons (1803) is around 4.5% larger in volume, and the Tun would be raised to 216 Ale Gallons if that was a cask size to be used. (Hogshead seems to be the largest brewers cask in common use though). The Winchester gallon is intermediate and occupies a space between that of the Wine and Ale Gallon (231, 268, 282 cu inches (Imperial 277.2749)). Not sure whether the casks were sized to their nominal cask size (e.g. smaller barrels for wine, middling for dry goods and large for beer ration), or if they were standardised to a greater extent (at least for naval provisioning), but the number of gallons contained were shifted (as was done in 1826 when the new gallon was implemented). I suspect there was a mix of policy and

Use with care - this is after the retirement of the Winchester Bushel, the Wine Gallon and Ale and Beer Gallons... All measure in imperial pints/gallons or pounds. Naval Architect's and Shipbuilder's Pocketbook. Has overall length, bung/bilge diameter and net and tare weights. Probably not exclusive, and there would have been two different ladings of fluids according to whether they were weighed by the wine or ale gallon (maybe different cask, maybe different gallons per cask, according to usage... comprehensive scales for earlier periods are not well presented, compared to Victorian documentation). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ozYDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA500&dq=royal+navy+stores+net+cask+weight&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiv_4zg9LPyAhUhmVwKHXjxBJgQ6AEwBHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=royal navy stores net cask weight&f=true

One option for transporting dead home for internment was to boil the bones and carry those home - done to the dead nobles after Agincourt for example. It would be harder to carry home a complete corpse, and burial at sea was more common than transport for other ranks.

Recalling the sales proposals for Carron company 'guns of the new construction' and of carronades for arming the 'coastal villages and towns' with weapons in the 3, 4, 6 or 9lb size range, mounted on a small cart, and supplied with a dozen rounds - I wonder if this might be a local home-defence/militia proposal in similar vein. It would be functional for moving a small weapon on the made streets, messuages and back lanes, without the difficulty of working with horses or oxen in confined spaces and under fire they were unaccustomed to. Absolutely no proof that this is a thing for the Netherlands, but there was a proposal to do so for English coastal towns, and I don't see any reason to assume that there was no pressure/opportunity seen to sell ordnance to manors and parish councils where profit could be taken (sorry)... where the well regulated militia could be established to defend and secure the region against invasion.

The quoin is wedge shaped. When pushed to the front of the the carriage it is taller under the breech ring, than when drawn to the rear of the carriage. When removed the breech ring would sit on the carriage bed, and (at least for lower deck ports with portcovers) the muzzle should then rest on the upper portsill so that the gun can be securely lashed in place with the port closed. When levelled the gun should be slightly below the mid point of the port (such that the available elevation is around 2x above as below (at least for late C18th and C19th ships (the ports were often sized smaller when carriage elevation was smaller in significantly earlier ships). (E.g. Vasa's light 24s had a maximum elevation from the carriage of around 3.5 degrees, compared to the 'up to ~10' of early C19th ships. The level bore-line should be at the same height as the top of the capsquares - when the gun is quarter hung (at the top of the cheeks when centre hung). The trunnion may be oversized, or the carriage may have too small (or a malformed) cutout for the 'half trunnion' The trucks may be overlarge (though those look at first glance to be okay), or mounted on axles not properly set into the lower edge of the cheeks. The cheeks might be too tall (or the deck too thick above the framing. The Ports may have been cut too low. Some or all of these (or indeed nothing other than elevation set too high). For appearance I would first check that the trunnion is really half-seated in the top of the cheeks. I would then look at taking any excess height from: Shaving just a sliver from the bottom of the truck (also increases the gluing area from a perfect cylinder). Check the axletrees are firmly seated high enough relative to the cheeks (can be harder to fix if they need significant raising). Consider reducing the height of the cheeks (and re cutting the trunnion seat). Look at whether the portsills are suitably arranged, fix if possible, otherwise compensate. Consider sanding any 'highspots' of the deck if it is the 'at fault' component, but this might be difficult to do well. For a levelled gun, you can either use a 'zero quadrant' where the boreline is not elevated, or the Line of Metal, so that the quoin is slightly more withdrawn and the top of muzzle swell and breech ring have the same level.

Cyphered planks is something I know only from a phrase 'flush beaded or cyphered planks' for the normal 'ceiled' walls of a Parish church vestry - the wooden cladding of a plastered stone wall, to around waist level. It is distinct from an alternative finish for the same 'beaded planks' - which I presume to have a prominent 'beading' rather than a flush treatment. More specific details I don't know. Harris cut is a style of glass engraving (characterised by curved lines meeting as a pointed arch, and crossing adjacent pairs) - often seen in drinking glasses. Look up examples and consider whether it might be relevant to the item described. I am assuming from the combination, that you are looking at decor of the cabins. It could refer also to decorative carving on wooden panelling.

Yes, that looks about a proper proportion, with the 16 gundeck beams looking to be a significantly heavier scantling, and the 18 upper deck beams being lighter.

IMO you have an (unarmed, enclosed) Gundeck, and an (armed, exposed) upper deck. As this is a Britsh HMAV. I am surprised that there are only 2/3 beams for these full length decks, and that sounds wrong. (Though as there may be a platform listed for the area of cabins (adding a few extra inches of cabin height by 'stealing' from the gun room below at the aft end of the Gundeck, or perhaps forward where the deck is rounded down to allow the cable to run fair from the Hawse Holes). The 14 might also be reasonable for the QD/Fo'csle, or where there are alternative treatments around openings if this is indeed correct for the Upper deck. By examining the (lowish res) drawing attached it looks as if the number of 'solid black' beam ends is similar if not identical for the two complete decks.

I would expect (but practice can vary) that the marked items are an Orlop Platform, The Gundeck and the Upper Deck/Weatherdeck. British ships with a full deck at or above the waterline tend to have this deck named Gundeck - this can be armed (as with ships of the line), when the lower gundeck portsills are quite close to the water, or unarmed, with the guns carried on the deck above *usually a weather deck* - as with Frigates and Ship sloops. Purchased ships might differ from purpose built HMAV, but I would look them up following this scheme at first, only changing to another schema if the table of scantlings couldn't be reconciled to it.

I don't have to hand the scaling for His Majesty's Armed Vessel Bounty, but the equivalent for French service has the Ensign at Beam by 2/3 Beam. This should scale to around 123mm by 82mm (Not saying this is *the* correct size for a vessel in the service of His Brittanic Majesty, but your issued ensign is not larger than the Ensigns flown at the stern of foreign vessels and looks to be not unreasonable). The smaller Ensigns are also carried and can be flown instead if the wind conditions indicate reduced canvas is appropriate (or if the ensign is lost to storm or battle damage, to replace the lost flag).

Most of them appear to be two part side opening or two part lower hinged, upper removable portlids - at least for the ones where it is identifiable what is going on. See for example the ports under the fo'clse on the above model (side hinges).

Essex, at 87ft long carried at least 5 boats - she had three in the water (having lost 2 when knocked down by the squall, soon after setting off). One of the remaining 3 had been damaged while hunting, and was on deck when the Essex was damaged, with the other two in the water, returning to find Essex in a sinking condition (she remains afloat for at least 2 days, but swamped and on her side). While she is a whaler, rather than an exploration/survey vessel, the use of a small ship or brig to safely deliver boats for the proper business to be done, is similar in principle.

According to Steel, British masting was based on "half the lower deck plus beam" at least in the period close to his writing... rather than on the keel.

It would be rope *circumference* as a proportion of mast or spar maximum diameter it is referred from.

Boudriot clearly indicates a 'round' taper for the French practice in the 74 Gun Ship. I see no reason to use a linear taper for the reasons given above.

The gun *starts* immediately, increasing it's velocity as the ball is driven along the bore... the maximum doesn't develop until some time after the muzzle exit because of the influence of the powder solids and gasses ejected with the shot and for some time after, but recoil is on the order of an inch during the travel for a 32lb gun of 9.5ft For almost all purposes this can be neglected - but it is incorrect to apply the recoil as an impulse applied all at once after the shot is expelled - the acceleration is high - around 32g average during the shot travel, but this is not of a high duration, and the 12fps recoil speed is reduced to ~10 fps when 'pulling the carriage' already by conservation of momentum, and the rope would only need to run at ~20fps, even if tightly drawn, after the first inch, part of which would be taking up tolerances in the carriage. and setting the trunnions against their socket in the cheeks and the caps.