Lieste

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.

While making no comment on gunnery practice, I note only that the recoil velocity of a gun firing single shot with maximum charge is *initially* less than 14ft per second (42lb gun of 65cwt, at 1463 fps, with a recoil augmented by windage losses and powder by around 40% - calculations according to the French "Aide Memoire d'Artillerie Navale"). This is immediately moderated by 'picking up' the carriage by a few ft/s (a reason that light carriages and heavy guns were preferred for naval use - the same momentum causes lower gun motion, and less stress on the carriage). Smaller bore guns are more heavily built, sometimes considerably so (6lb 8.5ft recoils at around 6 ft/s under the same loading condition). Friction, both of the trucks and of the tackle running out can stop a heavily built light gun before it is fully brought inboard, and takes out some of the 'oomph' from even the lighter built large calibre guns. The breeching is more to assist with the final limitation of recoil length, and to aid firing to windward (when the deck is 'downhill') than a 'first recourse' for recoil moderation... (0.1 is a quoted value for friction forces for 'outhauling' and is likely to be slightly higher when running tackle. With the exception of carronades, which are a little 'fiercer' and have a short recoil length on their slides. With the later pattern carronades of longer bore (7.5 cal) type, the recoil is likely to initially be 20fps. with a heavier carriage (but only a small part of that acting in recoil), and a shorter travel, albeit with a sliding rather than rolling friction. The length of recoil is limited, and is less than that needed for almost all carriage guns. Double breeching was called for in gunnery manuals, for carronades (the breeching and a preventer), and carronades were still noted as disabling themselves by breaking carriages or breechings rather more often than guns. Reduced charges for medium guns were more about keeping recoils 'acceptable' than the strength of the gun metal, as were prohibitions or restrictions on using double shot.

More, the English 8" carronades (not shell guns) fired a 7.92/7.925" shot of 68lb nominal weight, or a 56 lb hollow shot (boulet creux in the French style). (A 56lb shot could be referred, but I don't know how common this lighter shot was this early, it taking considerably more processes to accurately form a hollow shot). The (later) shell guns fired only the hollow shot or one of several designs of shell/bombe/shrapnel, while the coastal guns fired both hollow and solid shot, but ranged further with the heavier ball. The 64lb gun was a RML rather than a smoothbore either as a new construction or a conversion of an 8" shell gun, by reaming out and fitting a steel liner of 6.25" internal diameter into which the rifling was engraved. This bore is the same as the 32lb carronade, for a significantly higher sectional density.

There are two ways a mast is adjusted, position and rake. A 4" position shift may have limited impact on the trim of the vessel, but it could make the difference between griping or of missing stays or tacking well if right on the margins of 'good' balance. If you move more than 1 mast by these small amounts, then the effect of couple and moment can be enhanced between the masts, and between the masts and the hull. A 4" change in the rake of the mast between keelson and partners (over say 24') could result in a change in the position of the truck of the mast by nearly 30" in middling ships. (A steeper rake, but less movement per degree of rake for smaller vessels). Raking the foremast forward increases it's lever, as does raking the mizzen aft. IMO a rake has a greater impact than a shift, but the resulting moment changes more with sail pattern than with less raked, but shifted masting. Shifts at the partners are also seen, both as shifts of the mast and the rake of the rig.

Don't forget the widespread use of false flags (e.g French/Dutch used as a means of delaying, confusing or avoiding interception and attack. or to bypass blockades of ports etc). This was a near universal done sparingly both by warships trying to close on an easy sailing 'prey' and by a slower, weaker merchant trying to avoid trouble. Though not performed at *every* meeting on the seas, and it had some limited utility as vessels had distinctive hull form and rigging details which would betray their true origin (though not *necessarily* current use), when closely observed by a knowledgable officer or crew, but the benefit of starting a pursuit at gun shot, rather than from 4 miles or more is obvious, as is the possibility to slip through a blockade on papers and a flag of convenience .