A. Roads: Question about British block trail carriage

[Cannoneer]

   Adrian, I had posted these two pics of the Armstrong RBL 12 pounder on a different thread and ever since I've been wondering how long this classic English field carriage (by the way, one of my favorites) was kept on the active duty roster by the British government? I attempted a little research on the net but didn't have much success, I found one of those series books "Napoleonic Wars: British Artillery" etc. and it contained a Royal Carriage Department drawing of this field carriage with a caption underneath that read; "In 1864 comparisons of this drawing with those of the 1820's show virtually no changes in design over 45 years of use." Only some pages of this book were reviewed so all I could find in the text was that William Congreve was given credit for designing this carriage when others may have had a greater hand in its actual conception but no date was given of this carriage's first appearance. For all I know this carriage design may hold the world record for its number of years in continuous military use. It is in my view already quite an achievment that these cannon mounts were in use through part of the Regency and almost all of the Victorian eras. Is the previously mentioned 45 year time span valid or did this model field carriage really have a longer service history? You should recognize the other photos, they're the ones you kindly posted at my request a couple of years ago, of the bronze 6 pounder with carriage and limber from the artillery museum you were involved with.

[A.Roads]

Hi Boom J,  that carriage type is high upon my list of favourites as well. They were introduced into the Royal Artillery in about 1792 by Congreve, as you suggest, it would be fairer to say that he improved the design rather than invented the principle. I believe that the single trail carriages had been in use at various times by various countries much earlier & I have read of their (limited) use in India well before they were adopted by the British Govt.

By the early 1800s they were well established with the Royal Artillery for field service, however it is more difficult to pick an end date. Strictly speaking the block trail carriage survived into modern times, depending upon ones exact interpretation of the design principle, though if we adhere to the wooden carriage then it is clearer. Soon after the mid 1860s it was intended to introduce wrought iron carriages for field & siege artillery and approximately one decade later this had largely taken place - this was reasonably coincidental with the supercession of Armstrongs rifled breech loading guns by rifled muzzle loading guns. However the introduction of a new carriage obviously did not mean the total & immediate recall of existing wooden carriages and there was the usual overlap, depending on unit, location, purpose and use etc. For example the actual RBL 12 pr in your two images saw service with a colonial horse artillery unit of Victoria (Australia) until 1897, though this was perhaps an extreme case as these guns were utterly obsolete by then. All in all it would be fair to say that the wooden single trail carriage design saw service for three quarters of a century. For interest the gun in your images ended up on a dairy farm, the carriage rotted away but the metal work usuable - it was immaculately researched & restored over a 5 year period by a very skilled enthusiast in Victoria.     

The record for longest use of carriage design, in British service at least, would have to go to the twin trail design, it was the mainstay carriage type well before the single trail & remained in use with surprisingly little change - for siege guns - until superceded by wrought iron carriages, late 1860s - early 1870s. I have even seen a circa 1880 photo of three siege guns on wooden twin bracket carriages being towed by a steam tractor at a British artillery depot (probably Woolwich). So this design, relatively unchanged, saw approximately 150 years service and there would also be a good case to attribute a much longer period of use.  Adrian

[gary michie]

Hi:
Would this be the same carriage that was used with the 12 lb. whitworth. I'm looking for the drawings for that carriage bought a set from antique ordinance pub. found very little help there . Do you know of any?
gary

[Cannoneer]

Hi:
Would this be the same carriage that was used with the 12 lb. whitworth. I'm looking for the drawings for that carriage bought a set from antique ordinance pub. found very little help there . Do you know of any?
gary

   Hey Gary, no it's not this British carriage, if I'm not mistaken the Whitworth carriage was American made. I have this description of the carriage but I don't remember where I copied it from: The carriage is like a cross between a #2 field and a Wiard carriage. The front of the trail is wider and the rear of the trail is narrower than a #2 field. There are no visible roundels between the cheeks and the trail. The oak axle cover is located flush with the top of the trail instead of underneath. Overall the Whitworth is heavier than a #2 field carriage.

The Paulson Bros. have a video on YouTube of their Whitworth being fired, they'd probably be able to help you with plans.

[thelionspaw]

Gentlemen:
Would you consider these cannons as having a block trail carriage, eventhough the trail splits for aiming?

They date to the mid-15th c.. Mine was copied from a painting ca. 1470, so it should date earlier than that date. From what I have read, it was the transition period. The original, as does mine, has the fairly same configuration with breast chains that are similar to your magnificent examples along with other iron appointments.  

If so, then the wooden block trail carriage has had a (conservatively speaking) life of 450 years with little improvement, until iron.  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Richard

[gary michie]

You are right that pic. is of the whitworth captured at Richmond I believe and I think the carriage must have been replaced a couple of times do to use. The     APO prints show this carriage and the British one. One even has a azimuth adjustment for it but the print has no  scale. So I'm back to asking does any one have prints on this British carriage its the one I want I think
[/quote]

   Hey Gary, no it's not this British carriage, if I'm not mistaken the Whitworth carriage was American made. I have this description of the carriage but I don't remember where I copied it from: The carriage is like a cross between a #2 field and a Wiard carriage. The front of the trail is wider and the rear of the trail is narrower than a #2 field. There are no visible roundels between the cheeks and the trail. The oak axle cover is located flush with the top of the trail instead of underneath. Overall the Whitworth is heavier than a #2 field carriage.

The Paulson Bros. have a video on YouTube of their Whitworth being fired, they'd probably be able to help you with plans.




[/quote]

[A.Roads]

Early barrels were literally set into a dressed log, and, not having trunnions, the entire "log" had to be elevated, such basic carriages could be found on board ships, such as the "Mary Rose" for example, and can be found depicted in diagrams of very early siege artillery. The two 15th century carriages depicted in the thread above really fall into this category, virtually being such a one piece "log" - but with large wheels added for mobility for field use and with a further refinement, a horizontally split trail, to enable elevation.

The addition of trunnions, providing a pivot point for elevation, and therefore requiring side brackets on the carriage, is, in my humble opinion, a significant enough improvement & design change to separate these very early field use carriages from those built on the same principle of Congreves design, such as are depicted in the images at the beginning of this thread. Therefore, while it can certainly be said that single trail carriages date back to the earliest artillery use, there was this significant improvement in both barrel & carriage design, and barrels with trunnions were from that point almost universally mounted on carriages of twin trail design. But of course there can be no hard & fast theory to state that basic single trail carriages ceased usage at this point, as obscure examples will have continued to be made somewhere.     

Adrian

[thelionspaw]

I just googled "blocked trail carriage" and found : Military Dictionary; George Elliot Voyle & G. de Saint-Clair-Stevenson; 1876.

The entry has:  "Blocked trail carriage. The beam of the O.P. gun carriage is made of one block, or of two pieces of timber tabled together. Under either circumstance it is termed a block trail carriage".

No mention of trunnions being necessary for the appellation.

Reads like exactly what I have.  Interesting that it specifically mentions, "or of two pieces of timber tabled together".  What purpose would tabled timbers have, except to hinge and function on a quadrant for elevation?  Mind you, it does not say, split timbers as in port and starboard but "tabled, as in layered.

What is, "O.P."?  Could that change everything as I comprehend it?

I appreciate your detailed response.

Richard

[cannonmn]

Hello, please forgive me for hijacking the thread, aka crashing the party, but this subject is the correct place for me to ask this question.  I have a working model of an Armstrong breechloading field gun which has a gravity-return recoil system.  I've never seen a photo nor drawing of anything like it, as far as the carriage.  The top carriage has to slide up an incline on recoil, then slides down on counterrecoil.  I'd like to know if this gun was ever manufactured in full scale, or if it was just another concept someone had.  I don't have a photo of it at the moment and the model is in an inconvenient location or I'd post a photo now.

[seacoastartillery]

The entry has:  "Blocked trail carriage. The beam of the O.P. gun carriage is made of one block, or of two pieces of timber tabled together. Under either circumstance it is termed a block trail carriage".

Reads like exactly what I have.  Interesting that it specifically mentions, "or of two pieces of timber tabled together".  What purpose would tabled timbers have, except to hinge and function on a quadrant for elevation?  Mind you, it does not say, split timbers as in port and starboard but "tabled", as in layered.

     Richard the Inquisitive,   Mike and I have researched the azimuth adjustable, blocked trail carriage of the Whitworth 12 pdr. Rifle we will make about 5 years from now. We are quite sure that the "tabled timbers" is simply a reference to a standard optional construction technique that we all know as lamination.  The wood was layered in two or more layers and glued and bolted together just the way lots of replica wooden cannon carriages are made today and were in the 1860s.  A loosely fitted, "tabled timber" carriage is fairly rare today and the only representative type we are aware of is the "Azimuth Adjustable Carriage", a Whitworth creation which allowed the upper structure of the gun,(the elevation screw, cheeks and the tube) of the 6 and 12 pdr. rifles to be aimed left and right, or traversed, a total of 1.5", independent of the trail's lower section.  Two sheets in the A.O.P. drawings clearly shows this. 

The  APO prints show this carriage and the British one. One even has a azimuth adjustment for it but the print has no  scale.

   Hey Gary, no it's not this British carriage, if I'm not mistaken the Whitworth carriage was American made. I have this description of the carriage but I don't remember where I copied it from: The carriage is like a cross between a #2 field and a Wiard carriage. The front of the trail is wider and the rear of the trail is narrower than a #2 field. There are no visible roundels between the cheeks and the trail. The oak axle cover is located flush with the top of the trail instead of underneath. Overall the Whitworth is heavier than a #2 field carriage.
[/quote] Boom J

     Garry,   Look on the second page of the series of A.O.P. 12 pdr. Whitworth drawings showing the British made, Adjustable Azimuth Field Carriage, which is labeled, "Ordinance Office - Augusta, Jan. 23d. 1863".  You will find the scale you seek on the left page, just beneath the main title.  This also pretty much proves that the British ordnance makers sent both tubes AND carriages to the Confederacy when they were ordered.  Stories abound, however, that the Confederate artillerymen were not very fond of the British carriage and they redesigned it to be more rugged, balanced and suitable to the "flying battery" movements used by both North and South.  This was particularly true of the Fort Fisher Flying Battery of Lamb's artillery, which charged up and down the seacoast face of this largest of all sand fortifications called the "Gibralter of the South".  They were truly the bane of the Federal Navy.

Regards,

Mike and Tracy

[A.Roads]

"Reads like exactly what I have.  Interesting that it specifically mentions, "or of two pieces of timber tabled together".  What purpose would tabled timbers have, except to hinge and function on a quadrant for elevation?  Mind you, it does not say, split timbers as in port and starboard but "tabled, as in layered."

British block trail carriages often had two pieces laminated together to form the trail, by being bolted and/or rivetted.  Arguably a two piece block trail has an advantage over one constructed of a single piece, in that, by being laminated in this manner, there is less chance of the wood twisting or warping and the strength is greater as two pieces can stand more pressure than a single piece of the same section. The only disadvantage is if the laminated joint separates. Then there is a loss of strength and moisture is able to penetrate deep into the joint. However, the use of bolts largely overcame this risk.

"What is, "O.P."?  Could that change everything as I comprehend it?"

O.P. is a contemporary term meaning simply "Old Pattern" and was used to refer to the preceding pattern.


"Hello, please forgive me for hijacking the thread, aka crashing the party, but this subject is the correct place for me to ask this question.  I have a working model of an Armstrong breechloading field gun which has a gravity-return recoil system.  I've never seen a photo nor drawing of anything like it, as far as the carriage.  The top carriage has to slide up an incline on recoil, then slides down on counterrecoil.  I'd like to know if this gun was ever manufactured in full scale, or if it was just another concept someone had.  I don't have a photo of it at the moment and the model is in an inconvenient location or I'd post a photo now."

Armstrong’s prototype carriage for the RBL 12 pr was fitted with traversing gear & it was also equipped with a non-recoil system. This comprised a top and undercarriage, the sides of the undercarriage formed an inclined plane up which the top carriage recoiled and then ran out gravity assisted. However this carriage was rejected as being too expensive. Armstrong’s non-recoil system, though not adopted for the RBL 12 pr, was however produced for the Armstrong RBL 40 pr. These carriages, which were unusually heavy at 23 cwt and 1 qtr, were for naval service. 140 of these carriages were eventually converted for garrison service: the conversion comprised mainly of the top carriage being fixed into position, to prevent it from sliding, and the lower carriage fitted with wooden axletrees and garrison trucks. I have seen a diagram of the carriage converted for garrison service but not an unconverted carriage. If you can get an image of your model up I would be interested to see it.

Adrian

[cannonmn]

Adrian, thanks a million, great info.!  I will retrieve that item soon a and post a pic!

While you are around, I've been trying for years to find out why a British bronze regulation 3-pounder gun made by Kinman in 1796, gun number 26, now has 3.1 inch bore, was rifled with 8 grooves.  Must have been for experiment.  Anway we've been shooting it and I made a video (it is on you-tube) which shows the gun and rifling. 

Here's you-tube video, and if you just want to see close-ups of the tube, go to about 3 minutes 30 sec. into the video for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhER53Mb_T4

Any ideas?

Again, my apologies for hijacking, I'm a baaaaaad boy today.

[Cannoneer]

Re: Reply #2, #3, #5 and #9

   I'd like to clarify the evident misunderstanding of reply #3, i.e., that I was declaring in my response to Gary that I think that Whitworth RBL 12 PDR's were shipped to America sans carriages; this was never meant to be my intended implication. A few of these rifles were also purchased by the Union (none of these Northern cannons were ever used in battle) and I think that the first order of bussiness concerning these guns was the replacement of the Whitworth Co. carriage with a U.S. Army carriage that was designed and built for it at one of the "arsenals of construction" that manufactured carriages, which were Watervliet, Washington and the Alleghenny Arsenal. As far as I know the C.S.A. arsenals when it was advantageous for them, would do the exact same thing and (as was usually the case) with the same plans the north used. Civil War Weapons & Equipment, Russ A. Pritchard Jr., p., 83: Concerning the RBL 12 PDR Whitworth, "The English carriage was very heavy and usually was replaced by a more standard field carriage."

The first pic posted below is not a polaroid, it's a period photograph of a captured C.S.A. Whitworth and the carriage is the same configuration as the repro carriage that was shown in reply #3's photogragh.

Mike & Tracy, I dont have the A.O.P. drawings but I don't think the British carriage that was the original topic and is shown in the opening post, ever had any historical liaison with a Whitworth 12 PDR barrel. Do your drawings show any resemblance to the photos posted below of an original Whitworth Company Limited carriage that has an odd "split trail" design and was supposedly used to mount a muzzle loading 6 PDR Whitworth barrel that the South used during the Civil War? Unless my memory is playing tricks with me, I've seen pictures of a similar carriage that was mounted by a W. 12 PDR RBL but I've searched and can't find it again.

[seacoastartillery]

Mike & Tracy, I dont have the A.O.P. drawings but I don't think the British carriage that was the original topic and is shown in the opening post, ever had any historical liaison with a Whitworth 12 PDR barrel. Do your drawings show any resemblance to the photos posted below of an original Whitworth Company Limited carriage that has an odd "split trail" design and was supposedly used to mount a muzzle loading 6 PDR Whitworth barrel that the South used during the Civil War? Unless my memory is playing tricks with me, I've seen pictures of a similar carriage that was mounted by a W. 12 PDR RBL but I've searched and can't find it again.  [Quote/]


     Boom J,   Except for the "traversing gear" present for effecting azimuth adjustments and the necessary, two piece, construction, the carriage in the A.O.P. drawings is definitely a single trail, British made, carriage.  It also shows the distinctive ammunition boxes, riding upon the axletree left and right of the cheeks as in the Armstrong gun photos.  Thanks for posting the unusual "split trail" of sorts, carriage photos which are most interesting and reminded us a lot of the riveted iron carriage, Model 1899, W. C. Armstrong Whitworth Co., 12 pdr. Quick Firing Rifled Field Gun we saw at Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont last summer.  The trail on that rifle was very, very similar to the dismounted one you show in your recent pictures.

Regards,

Tracy and Mike

[Double D]

Wasn't the Whitworth Used at Gettysburg?  Who used it?

[Cannoneer]

Wasn't the Whitworth Used at Gettysburg?  Who used it?

   The Confederate Army fielded two 2.75'' Whitworths in the battle, there's a story that these two rifles were gifted to the CSA by an Englishman who was sympathetic to the Southern cause.

[cannonmn]

Civil War Weapons & Equipment, Russ A. Pritchard Jr., p., 83: Concerning the RBL 12 PDR Whitworth, "The English carriage was very heavy and usually was replaced by a more standard field carriage."

Did the author cite his source for this information?  I don't have that book to check.  I dont want to imply the author would just make up a statement like that, but I'm wondering if the author can be trusted.  I think he's serving a second term in jail at this moment for some less-than-honest activities, that's why I'm skeptical.  Of course I could have father and son confused, father got off with probation as I recall and son is the one doing time.

[A.Roads]

"While you are around, I've been trying for years to find out why a British bronze regulation 3-pounder gun made by Kinman in 1796, gun number 26, now has 3.1 inch bore, was rifled with 8 grooves.  Must have been for experiment.  Anway we've been shooting it and I made a video (it is on you-tube) which shows the gun and rifling."

It must have been fun firing that beautiful barrel.  It certainly is an interesting piece & unfortunately I think the answer to its exact provenance is buried in some tome somewhere. All we can do therefore is speculate:

It is bronze & it is a British marked regulation piece, altered with rifling. But who rifled it? 
It is unlikely that a bronze gun captured from the British would be used by its captors for such experimentation - a valuable trophy gun.
However - here it would be nice to know what is already known about it - when was it acquired by the current owner etc?

In Britain, until at least the beginning of the 18th century, bronze was so valuable that, like silver & gold, it was part of the Royal Treasury. Due to their metal value bronze guns were not sold out of service, they were kept or melted down. Therefore it is most likely that the British Govt rifled it.

Why & when did the British rifle the barrel?
We know that there was no regular rifled bronze gun of this pattern, no record exists of such.
It is unlikely that it was a rare regulation pattern rifled gun, rifling guns was a huge subject in the mid 19th century, I know of no documents which refer to any previously rifled regulation gun issued to the services.

This leaves us with it being rifled by the British for trials & experimental purposes & I believe this is the case with this particular gun.
From 1615 to 1858 there were hundreds of home & foreign inventors with ideas related to spinning the projectile. English “inventors” alone amounted to approximately 200. These are recorded as having been considered from time to time by the Select Committee in that period. This resulted in an assortment of rifled pieces, both ML & BL. Unfortunately I have no information, other than a few bare glimpses, of these submissions.

On the practical side:
Boring up & rifling a 3 pr barrel meant that it was then inadvisable to recreate the same chamber pressures for which it was originally designed. Therefore it had to fire a hollow & lighter projectile than its original 3 pr shot. This shell, be it conical (as was most likely), or even spherical, could have been used with or without a bursting charge, as per later MLR’s.

A tantalizing example of one of the Select Committees submissions to consider was that of Lieutenant Norton, who in 1823 – 32, experimented with explosive shells in rifled guns. Such a gun as this would have been an ideal candidate, old but not utterly obsolete, soft metal for rifling.
Adrian

[cannonmn]

Thanks Adrian.  You asked where I got it.  It was in the vault of a bank in Bridgewater, NJ, and was sold to me by the owner, a local history buff and collector, who was accompanied by the bank president at the time.  That town has a large Italian-American population now, which has nothing to do with anything really, except that the cannon's owner mentioned "this town is run by the Mafia, and there is no crime here at all."  I have no idea whether it had been used as loan collateral, or what.  The owner told me it had been in a very rural, somewhat primitive area of New Jersey since anyone could recall.  It came mounted on what appears to be an original ship's carriage that had long ago either been built for this gun or adapted for it.  So I suspect it arrived in the US aboard a ship, probably during the 19th C, but I have no way of knowing for sure.

[Cannoneer]

Civil War Weapons & Equipment, Russ A. Pritchard Jr., p., 83: Concerning the RBL 12 PDR Whitworth, "The English carriage was very heavy and usually was replaced by a more standard field carriage."

Did the author cite his source for this information?  I don't have that book to check.  I dont want to imply the author would just make up a statement like that, but I'm wondering if the author can be trusted.  I think he's serving a second term in jail at this moment for some less-than-honest activities, that's why I'm skeptical.  Of course I could have father and son confused, father got off with probation as I recall and son is the one doing time.

   Well, shiver my timbers, I certainly didn’t know about this author, nor his other family member’s purported criminal activities and ensuing legal trials and tribulations but now that I have been informed I don’t mind saying that I could be knocked over with a feather. You know, now that I think of it, there were no footnotes; like a character of his ilk would ever deign to use footnotes. I’ll be honest and state that I just don’t know if we should believe this author’s published pronouncements. Are there any hard and fast rules that an amateur historian would automatically apply in this situation? I’d hate to be unfair and not having great experience in this arena I think I’ll just defer to your better judgment, especially considering the possibility that any rash action on my part might be misconstrued as being counterproductive.

It is evident that you have the time and the curiosity to pursue these lines of inquiry (now, mind you, these are only suggestions) so I’d first take into consideration the fact that the (both Union and Confederate) American made carriages did exist, this fact is proven by both photographic and written descriptions; might it not then therefore follow a reasonable train of thought to infer that both sides felt some strong urge to replace the original British carriages? At least this appears to be a logical conclusion to reach as far as I’m concerned, because it just doesn’t seem rational to speculate that these British made carriages deteriorated to such an extent and in so short a time span as to warrant their replacement with a different American design (although there’s always the possibility of spontaneous combustion to be taken into consideration). Then, of course there’s Mike and Tracy’s descriptive statement: “Stories abound, however, that the Confederate artillerymen were not very fond of the British carriage and they redesigned it to be more rugged, balanced and suitable to the “flying battery” movements used by both the North and South.”, which seems to me to originate from a source. In any event I have an almost complete faith in your obtrusive tenacity to totally ignore any impinging facts and bore right to the heart of the matter which in this case is finding a valid source that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that these guys just didn’t care for these British carriages.

Thanks for cluing me in about this nasty author and his equally distasteful daddy, your a bud.           

[cannonmn]

Since several of us are interested in exactly WHAT carriages were employed to field the Whitworth 2.75 in. breechloading rifles, I recall back when I worked in naval gunnery in Washington a co-worker gave me a copy of a drawing made at the Washiington Navy Yard ca. 1862 (going from memory here.)  It showed what was obviously a 2.75 in. Whitworth on a carriage, not sure what kind but don't think it was just like any pictured so far, maybe more like a standard US field carriage.  If anyone is intested I will look for it, have not seen it in a few years but it should be around here.  It is entitled "Camera Lucida view" which means a sunlight-powered projector was used, and a draughtsman traced the projected lines inside a darkened tent.  Somewhere I have a camera lucida in a nice little instrument case it came in, not larger than a drafting set and similar construction, but it had a prism on it to project reflected light.

[Cannoneer]

 

It showed what was obviously a 2.75 in. Whitworth on a carriage, not sure what kind but don't think it was just like any pictured so far, maybe more like a standard US field carriage.  If anyone is intested I will look for it, have not seen it in a few years but it should be around here.

   I'm definitely interested in seeing what kind of carriage this drawing represents.

[cannonmn]

and here's the url so you can get a larger image without the reduction that occurs when posting on the board here:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums18/WhitworthinWNY002.jpg

I put my company logo on it so its origin will be "traceable."  As I recall, I got a couple of copies like 25 years ago, one was this one and the other one had a US Navy drawing number on it.  If that's true, one day I'll find that copy.  Anyway, I think this is still an official US Navy Bureau of Ordnance drawing with a control number and all, I just seem to have misplaced that info.

The small print on lower right corner reads:  "Camera Lucida View.  Ordn. Off., NY Wash., Nov 15, 1864"

I could be mistaken but I don't think this particular image has ever been published before now.

The date makes it fairly certain this was a captured Confederate piece instead of one of the guns of the battery presented to the Union by the Citizen's Committee of New York in 1861.  I'd guess the Whitworth b/l guns bought by the New York committee would have arrived in the US mounted on English-built carriages.

The US navy still owns two 2.75 in. Whitworth breechloadiing field guns (tube and breech, no carriages.)   One I saw has a lot of deep engraving on the breech regarding its capture in North Carolina (?) aboard a grounded blockade runner. 

[gary michie]

Tracy:
I do not have pic.showing capabilities right now.Could you show every one the pics of the British carriage and the drawing of the carriage with the azimuth adjustment?
gary

[seacoastartillery]

     Sorry Gary; these drawings are currently under a U.S. Copywrite dtd. 1999.  These drawings are in a folio currently offered for sale by Don Lutz through his company, Antique Ordnance Publishers.  If anyone is really interested, they can order a folio on this subject for 10 to 15 dollars, pretty darn cheap for all the research they put into this product.

Regards,

Tracy

[GGaskill]

See this web page for the current AOP Catalog sheet.

[gary michie]

Well:
I was pretty disappointed with #23  after buying #12 with all the well dim.prints. A few hand drawings and some pics. for $16 ? no bolt size,or placement, any indication of configuration. just some guys scrawl and some pics.that are too dark to pick out any detail . A little bit of photo shop to lighten up the pic. might help but with no way of scanning it no help there ,passing the pics. around to other people that know what they are looking at would work if you put this mess on this forum, but no, copyright.
gary

[cannonmn]

I was pretty disappointed with #23  after buying #12 with all the well dim.prints. A few hand drawings and some pics. for $16 ? no bolt size,or placement, any indication of configuration. just some guys scrawl and some pics.that are too dark to pick out any detail .

Here's what he's referring to, from AOP catalog linked above:

No. 23 CSA 12 Pdr Breech Loading WHITWORTH Rifled Cannon

I have to comment since I have that publication in front of me.  It is one of the few AOP pubs. I have because I realized that's the only source of good Whitworth dimensions there is, period.  The comments quoted above would lead some to think the AOP pub. no. 23 wasn't worth the price and while that's always going to be a matter of personal judgment I was extremely pleased when I bought that item. 

Since the same barrel and breech assembly was used on any of the carriages, AND since AOP physically measured the barrel and breech at Petersburg, then drew it up and put all the dimensions, even including the curves of the breech housing and radii of other curved surfaces in their book, you could not only reconstruct the barrel and breech, but the carriages which have scaled drawings in the book.  All you need to do is use the dimensions from the detailed barrel drawing and transfer them to the barrel on the carriage drawings, then use any of those measurements as a scale for the carriage. 

The book has about everything you'd ever need, you just have to think about it a little and transfer a few measurements.

Keep in mind what AOP says right at the front of the book: 

In some cases period information has not been found and drawings must be drawn from extant specimens.  This is considered to be a practical compromise until the period information is discovered.  As with any product, cost is an important consideration.  These publications are prepared using techniques that balance cost, demand, and attractiveness.  Comments and suggestions are always welcome.

I think I got a LOT for my money when I bought that particular publication.  It has nearly every original Whitworth 2.75 in. b/l gun photograph that is known, reproduced in very large format, a good copy of the original drawing from the CSA Augusta Arsenal ordnance office, 4 sheets (how many people have ever seen that?), the highly-detailed, fully-dimensioned drawing AOP made on site at Petersburg (3 sheets), some explanatory text, original drawings of the projectiles, a notes section, etc.

I'd like to state here publicly that I feel AOP pub. no. 23 is one of the best "values" I've found in any of the countless ordnance books I've bought.

[Cannoneer]

Sorry Gary; these drawings are currently under a U.S. Copywrite dtd. 1999.

   Tracy, that's why I didn't ask you to scan the drawing of the British carriage even though I'd surely love to see it. The thing that has me a little confused is the fact that no one has yet to make the simple declarative statement that the first photos in the opening thread of the Congreve designed British carriage are not the same as the British carriage (or that they are the same) that's depicted on the AOP drawings. Even if only taking into cosideration your earlier sentence, these changes alone would literaly make this a different type of carriage.                                                                                                     

Except for the "traversing gear" present for effecting azimuth adjustments and the necessary, two piece, construction, the carriage in the A.O.P. drawings is definitely a single trail, British made, carriage.

 
Does the carriage in the AOP drawings have the same low cheeks with the concavity at the rear where ithey join the trail? Is the rise cut into the top of the trail that the elevating screw plate sits on? Is there a chamfer cut on the top edge of the trail going all down the side towards the Lunette? Does the ironwork of the carriage match the other carriage, especially the cheek straps and cap-squares and "heavy lunette" as I've seen it described, along with the front straps that secure the ammo chests to the axle bed? Does the axle bed and carriage attachment appear to be exactly alike? The fact that the Whitworth barrel seems longer would seem to suggest that the elevating screw would have to be moved.

[cannonmn]

post removed by author, contained inaccurate info, sorry