Lieste

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 .

Looking again at the discussion of the elevation screw, I think too attention is being placed on the screw itself, which is a strong forged piece. The original fitting was into a screw thread cut into the cast iron of the gun/carronade. This relatively soft/brittle material would degrade and/or fail particularly if the gun was abused (double charges, from loading mishap, or double shot, even with the appropriate reduced charges), the use of a quoin could either delay this failure (IMO less likely, as the space is cramped), or keep the gun in action after the thread stripped/casting broke away (IMO more likely as the elevation screw would be missing post failure, freeing up space for the quoin to adjust for elevation by being inserted/withdrawn). A later change was a larger casting, drilled and a brass fitting inserted to take the 'female' screw thread. The 'Quoin patch' was seen on many intermediate date jointed carronades, but not all of the earliest ones, nor all of the latest ones, and was the location for the foundry data for carronades so fitted.

When not set, the upper (topsail and t'gallant) yards are lowered to just above the head of the mast cap of the section below. This relatively frequent movement is aided by the 'fancy rollers'. The lower yards are kept clear of the working deck with the courses merely clewed up or furled when not set. If you are not lowering them frequently, then simple rope loops are simpler, cheaper, lighter and sufficient to 'back-up' the other elements of rigging (the rigging could be adjusted to allow a damaged yard to be exchanged or repaired on deck, and then swayed back up if needed, but normal operation didn't adjust the height of these particular parts of the sparring).

Taking one measurement off Boudriot 74 Gun. Fore yard & Lower Studding boom half width: 1:72 95.5mm OA, 36mm Extension of Studding Boom beyond yard end , 59mm Length of Studding boom. So the boom is roughly the same as the yard's semi-length, and when fitted but stowed, the butt end is seen 'at' the sling for the yard. (Note both the Yard Arm and the Arm of the Studding boom are extended beyond where the canvas is flown, and the Studding sail is carried in all the way to the edge of the course, but falls short by a similar amount from it's own boom end).

According to Boudriot among others, the French carriage was breeched through the cheeks about midway back, the gun was only secured by a preventer. The British used a Breeching afixed to the Cascable, using either a spliced loop, or a thimble above the neck. According to your source the early thimble was a separate part resting on the top of the neck, and the later thimble was cast into the gun (or indeed carronade). This cast thimble was easier to use with a wide traverse angle without placing undue imbalanced stress on the breeching, especially compared to the c#nt splice.

For working pumps in action. IMO Working pumps on exposed weather decks is very probably costly when enemies have a definite preference for musquetry and grenades, and grape or case firing espignoles, perriers and obusiers/carronades. Taking men from the gun crew according to their station bill for 'pumping and fire fighting' is normal, with upper deck likely to be called on for fire-fighting most often, using pressurised hoses, while those on lower and middle deck (where present) are more likely to be called on to reduce or control flooding - with water rising in the well by six feet or more despite pumping in some cases recorded. As the 'fighting' crews are assigned to and stationed on their respective decks, it makes sense to work middle and lower deck bilge pumps using crews on their 'proper' places, rather than permitting crew to leave their assigned deck under fire (too much risk that they will abandon the guns and lose the ship if the companionways are not well guarded). When operating out of action, the same assignment to stations on the two decks allows more men to be assigned from a wider section of men 'in their proper stations' again. If you *only* worked lower deck pumps, you would lose *all* of your most powerful guns (as the work crews from this need would exhaust the single deck), while retaining full effect of a middling sort of gun... but with a split set of pumps you can continue to fight both decks with near full effectiveness (if fighting to one side only).

As with most other contexts of firing practice I believe that the standard is 3 shots *in* five minutes, from loaded and pointed to an unloaded state. (i.e. discharge to discharge) That is a rate of fire sustained of around 2.5 minutes between rounds, which gives the number of shots alluded to in the Vade Mecum for the first 20-25 minutes, before heating forces the rate of fire to drop to one in 5 minutes for the next hour. (roughly - 10 rounds in the first period, 20 rounds in the first 90 minutes). Musketry also starts the infantry platoon exercises with a loaded musket, and standards require 3 shots in the minute, rather than a rate of fire of 3 rounds per minute sustained or from an empty gun. Pistol shot, according to the footnote by Admiral Lord Rodney in "Essay on Naval Tactics" by John Clerk is 400yds, so 'half pistol shot' is 200 yds - though falling on board indicates that manoeuvring took out that range from time to time. Different conditions of the gun will result in different point blank (levelled) ranges - barely sufficient to reach to 200yds with carronades or double shot from guns, but ample to range past that with single shot and standard or distance charges. The line of metal range (1 degree elevation for guns, 3 degrees for carronades) is going to be throwing shot rather high this close, suited to firing single shot to 600-700 yds. Working between these ranges is awkward for pointing consistently, especially if ranges are changing rapidly during a manoeuvring battle. Carronades pointed by their metal have a tendency to range high/long rather than falling short for most close engagement, with much of their firing taking place in rigging unless aimed very low on the target hull, below the water. Dispart sights had been added to carronades in RN use from 1780, but their use and practice seems to not always have been actively trained by the paucity of information on carronade sights in action before Broke and others popularised gunlocks and dispart sights on their long guns as well.

For the inhaul tackle, for bringing a gun inboard without firing (either because it is unloaded, or because it has suffered a misfired/been doused).

With the much higher recoil energy of a 32lb gun, I seriously doubt the correctness of a mocked up carriage and gun with '24 lb' trunnions and carriage to be representative of her wartime fit. Also the proportion of the carriage look wrong, the fore axeltree is too narrow - contemporary diagrams of carriages show a different config for fore and hind axletrees, with the cutout for the cheeks in the fore-tree being closer together, but the width overall is extremely close if not identical and there is a noticeably wide "set" of the trucks 'out' from the cheeks. If nothing else, they shouldn't be the same carriage to allow for the additional breadth of the breechring and to allow normal room for working of the handspikes to deal with the higher weight on the quoin from the same 1/20th preponderance of a heavier gun. You can 'stick' a gun, real or reproduction onto a mocked up carriage, but that doesn't make it a properly sized mock up or a safe and usable combination. "very few of Victory's original guns remain, most being 'reproductions' of wood and fibreglass".

According to "Aide Memoire d'Artillerie Navale", the momentum of recoil is somewhat higher than the momentum of the shot. I'm (in the current version of the calculation - subject to error correction if I find that I have implemented the windage correction improperly) seeing a velocity for the C18th/C19th 32lb gun of 87% of the 'zero windage' case for half way between high and low guage, with recoil at zero windage 37% higher than the momentum of shot and wad. With the windage present, the total recoil is lower, but is 47% higher than the momentum of shot and wad. That said, with gun weights for the later era's naval artillery from 170 (32lb) to 380 (longest 6lb) per lb of shot&wad - plus a carriage which is *at least* 25% of the gun's weight, there isn't going to be a lot of rapid movement of any gun - with some of the heaviest ones nearly brought to a standstill by an 0.1 coefficient of friction at the point the muzzle reaches the pre-firing trunnion position. Particularly with lee-side guns, and more modest velocity and higher windages the use of breechings to *limit* recoil may be entirely optional with the longer, more heavily built pieces firing relatively light shot. On the windward, with relatively shorter guns firing heavier shot, with double shot etc (the 32lb 9.5ft gun is 'shorter' than a 6lb 8.5ft gun by nearly 10 calibres, and the metal is thicker in proportion 44/32 to 34/32 for the 6lb too), the use of breechings may be mandatory... This isn't a one size fits all proposition IMO.

The area of the hold immediately inboard of the inner planking near the waterline was provided with a 'carpenter's walk' to give access to the carpenter and his assistants to stop up shot holes. Not sure whether the Victory's hold is low enough that access on the Orlop alone is needed, but the presence of a carpenter's walk on Frigates is definitely confirmed... and it appears from context and image that this is a carpenter's walk in Victory's hold today, though it may be a later modification: https://andyandjudi.com/2017/07/10/hms-victory-portsmouth-historic-naval-dockyard/37portsmouth-hms-victory-lower-hold-keel-ballast-and-stores/

Is that for 24lb? To fit around the 5.82" trunnion (assumed same as bore, as this is normally what is quoted). The 32lb should thus be suited to house a 6.41" trunnion. (12lb 4.62") The thickness of cheeks is also described as one bore.

The 24lb Vasa cannon (a light piece, half the weight of the gun of the period, or of Napoleonic era pieces) was tested at 360m/s using powder 'suitable in quantity and quality' for artillery of the early C17th) For late age of sail period gunnery and the 32lb gun of 55cwt: Distant charge gives approximately 1489 fps or 454m/s (according to available numbers for dimensions, plus the estimated internal ballistics from "Aide Memoire d'Artillerie Navale"), this is sufficient to drive the ordnance alone backwards at 3.83m/s (using the augmented recoil according to AMAN), which is immediately moderated by an impulsive transfer to the carriage to 3m/s, with 4.46kJ absorbed from the original 20.68 kJ, leaving 16.22 kJ to be absorbed by friction and breeching. I neglected side tackle, but can consider what they might provide in a follow up calculation, but did allow for the 0.1 mu at the trucks, which might already factor in some part of that requirement - and assumed that the muzzle after recoil would be brought to the position of the trunnion when run out. With the friction alone recoil at the 'stop' still had 5kJ to absorb into the breeching, with a 'free recoil' length of 15.7 ft if not restrained. (or 3.5 times the recoil distance selected). Reduced charges give lower recoil with single shots, but double shot with the middling charge is significantly sharper. ~1000 fps for top shot, and ~800 for the second (though admittedly this should be considered a much more tentative estimate) with this giving a 4.43 m/s initial recoil of the bare gun, 3.47m/s after taking up the carriage - with 6kJ nearly being lost from an initial 27.66kJ - recoil energy remaining at the selected recoil distance increases to 6.68kJ and free recoil to 20ft. Smaller bore guns are much heavier, for their shot and the longer, heavier small bore guns (e.g. the 8.5ft 6lb will only free recoil around 3 ft with the same assumptions, compared to 4.3ft for the lighter, shorter 6ft gun). Carronades are significantly sharper than guns in recoil, despite their lower performance.