Lieste

The double thimble sounds like a modification to the seized breeching at the breeching rings paased through the side. Each end of the breeching, seized to a 'thimble and hook' in the bight, can then be detached at will, rather than being reeved through the breeching loop after the seizing is unpicked. The gun and carriage can then be shifted without removing the breeching from it. (looking at the definition of a 'Gripe' and extending it to a 'double thimble', rather than dead-eye and thimble) The earlier Contsplice could of course be pulled from the gun when needed, allowit it to be shifted, but the breeching, seized to the side would need to be shifted also, or substituted in the new place. A slightly later modification to the breeching loop allows it to be interrupted with a shackle to close the gap to restrain the breeching. If this is correct, then the contsplice is still needed for non-looped ordnance, with the double thimble being a convenience for looped guns which don't have a shackle opening, and more generally for ease of shifting or striking/removal of guns.

While all* new guns (from the 1790s) were cast to Blomefield pattern with the breeching loop, the ordnance wharves had a mix of these new cast guns and older Armstrong Frederick Pattern natures, which had a simple cascable and button requiring a C*** splice on the breeching. (*Except for the Gover 24 pdr, the Congreve guns and such ordnance proofed guns for the HEIC, HWIC and Hudson Bay vessels as were approved - which were often contract guns, only tested for proof, marked and supplied onward). The carriage suitable to the gun and it's intended port and the tackle suited to the gun and carriages were supplied with each gun. **By the 1830s the new patterns of guns started to be issued, with Victorian guns including patterns over the next few decades including those from Dundas, Dickson, Millar and Monk, as well as repurposed and bored up Blomefield patterns as a rapid expedient.

Recall that the wale is thickstuff, and as such increases the maximum beam. Even if the wale is very slightly above the widest part of the frame. It is also possible the frame has the balance slightly off.

As with the Boynes and the Oceans there can be several distinct classes separated by a decade or two. The Edgar is ordered to a modified Arrogant design after the older 64 Edgar was scuttled - elsewhere there are examples of ships merely being renamed to free up the name for a new vessel. As the Edgar group of the modified Arrogant class has revised lines and is temporarily distinct from the two 7YW Arrogant ships it is not unreasonable to refer to it as either an Edgar class, the Edgar group or follow ons in the modified Arrogant class... I see no issue with the use of Group or Class for the Edgar and her sisters as they are established differently to the first pair.

It is how Rif Winfield lists the classes... BELLONA Class. Thomas Slade design approved 31.1.1758. Five ships were built to this draught. ARROGANT (or Modified BELLONA) Class. Thomas Slade design approved 26.1.1759. Two ships were built to this draught during the Seven Years War, but Cornwall was scuttled in 1780. A further ten ships were built from 1773 onwards. EDGAR (or Modified ARROGANT) Class. Revived design of 1774, slightly modified from Slade’s (Seven Years War) original Arrogant design and approved 25.8.1774 It is not a direct follow-on, but modifies the lines. This is commonly enough to generate a new class - as with the Boyne class of 1801, which would otherwise rate alongside Victory in 1807 as 98 gun ships of the second rate. (Originally started as 100 gun first rates, again, alongside Victory at that earlier date/rate). There is a degree of arbitrariness in the naming of classes - as with the Armada class (or forty thieves), while the lead ship 'Vindictive' had been on order for almost 9 months when the design was approved, and Armada was only in the third group of orders.

Some of the large ex-French 74s get more - the highest I know of is Spartiate with 24 Ordnance mounted to FC and QtrD. This was a moderately large (1949 tun) vessel, much larger than a common 74 such as Vanguard (1609 tuns) While there was a period in which supernumerary guns were common, these become less common after the rearmament of 1798, with the exchange of small guns for larger carronades and chase and retreat guns. RH carronades seem to be allowed, but not all designers or captains like them, so 'fitted for, but not with' is quite common. If fully armed a spar deck should be capable of fielding 30-32 ordnance, but this would strongly impair the functioning of the rigging and increase loaded weight if they are of a size to be useful. 32 pdr carronades are a roughly 1:1 exchange for 18 pdr guns for firepower and 12 pdr for total installed weight, so there is a weight penalty moving from 9 pdr to 32pdr carronades* ~ which should drive a moderation in the ordnance numbers. *The 32 pdr Carronade and slide are lighter than a 6 pdr gun and carriage, but 32 pdr ammunition is much heavier - the lower on-deck weight is useful for stability, but ultimately the whole installed weight eats into capacity. Crew requirements are reduced for the Carronade compared to a gun of equivalent tonnage - which can be used for more resilience to manoeuvre and musketry while at quarters, or to reduce the manning requirements of the fleet, and without any loss in longer range potential - 9 pdr and 12pdr guns lack penetration and meaningful advantages in accuracy compared to the heavier carronades.

It is a rule of thumb given on the 1794/1795 abstract and its notes - as such it is not 'official' nor specific to the ordering. The carronade is *usually* on a slide fixed to a fighting bolt, and as such it is best fitted to the second place on the forecastle - the gun on a truck carriage is much more easily shifted to a new position... However, the carronade is generally a lighter ordnance which could relieve strain on the hull... and it is possible to supply a truck carriage with a joint rather than trunnion brackets which can be shifted as a variant carriage, which would allow a carronade to be shifted easily, and there are options to unship a fighting bolt from a slide, and to move the slide carriage to a different fighting bolt. Forward there is less interference between arcs, the carronade muzzle and shrouds/lines, bur once the carronade had been lengthened and the 'outboard' fighting bolt was adopted for most carronades (which should align with the 1798 'general order for quarterdeck carronades'), then the difficulties this caused would be reduced. The French even preferred to use non recoiling slides (short breechings) soon after the adoption of caronades generally, and the British used both, but I have nothing on which ships or dates that should apply. Victory, as at Trafalgar had struck or exchanged down it's forecastle 12pdrs and used only the pair of 68s as chase ordnance. These were also the only exposed ordnance on the weather decks, all 8 of the QD decks were under the stairs or the roundhouse deck, and the waist was mostly closed. This is of course a later armament (and not her official one), but there is scope for vessels to both have unique authorised establishments on application and for changes to be made with forgiveness to be asked, rather than permission sought. A 'typical' 74 is much less well recorded - most continually repeat the 1794 establishment of guns, without adding/substituting the carronades allowed. Almost all fleet lists in common distribution just repeat the 'plain' armament for most ships, even after carronades become common, then widespread for castles armament. Same with frigates which often repeat the 1794 'carronade added' formula, although later fitting also substitute all or almost all spar deck guns by the early C19th.

Nelson didn't like carronades on the Roundhouse.

I find the described armament to be inconsistent with other later 74s. Those approved at 'around 1800'. 28 32pdr, 28 18pdr, 2+2 18pdr, 12+2 32pdr carronades (optional 6 RH 18pdr carronades) or 28 32pdr, 28 18pdr, 4+2 12pdr or 9pdr, 10+2 32pdr carronades. There are a few with 'short' 24s floating about, but this formula seems to almost exclusively apply to the species of 'all 24' uniform armament, where the 32s are replaced by 24 pdr long guns, with the 18pdr and 'a few' of the 9 pdr are replaced by 24 pdr short, with the remainder 24 pdr carronades. Given a stated 84 guns it seems that the armament should be like the first, with 18pdr guns, 24 or 32 pdr carronades none on the RH. (24 pdr carronades are used on vessels too weak to support the 32 pdr carronade... while a 24pdr gun would be worse for weak vessels than an 18pdr (even the light pattern recoils more than the smaller guns). This is inconsistent...) The '84' vs the resulting 74 may be a mental fumble of adding 2+2+28+28 and 12+2... much as the addition of 28+28+2+2 to reach 62 in the request for help. It happens - easy to mix carronade and gun nos, easy to carry the ten improperly... The 1794 armament std was for 28+28+14+2 (32 pdr, 18 pdr, 9pdr guns) with 2 32pdr carronade on the fc (replacing the second pair of guns there) and 6 on the RH (18pdr). The continuing rehashing of the 'original' establishment of guns through these later classes and the evolution of ordnance on repaired/re-commissioned elderly vessels is not representing their actual armament, merely their 'rate' which describes their proper selection of the prevailing 'real' establishment of guns according to the relevant AO, the supply of stores and allocation of crew. YMMV, and the as written 'establishment of guns' 1794 without carronades is definitely not the usual armament fitted to any cruiser in time of war by late 1798. Most should be fitted for at least the 1794 carronades (pair on FC 6 on RH (optional), with the upgrading of the weak QD/FC guns to fewer, but stronger (9 >12/18pdr for the 74s) and the remainder 32pdr carronades ordered and under way. With the heavier carronades on the QD, carrying the supernumerary carronades on the RH was less frequently taken up. From an expectation of firepower, a 32pdr carronade is about as effective as an 18pdr at longer ranges, between the LOM range for guns with distant charge and the slightly longer LOM range of the carronade - the notched dispart allowing the carronade to also be pointed at shorter ranges with some consistency by gun captains familiar with its trajectory and pointing requirements, with 12pdr short and 9pdr QD guns being slightly more accurate, but firing a smaller shot, with less penetration. At very close ranges the 12pdr with double shot should slightly outperform the carronade, but a 9pdr is just... less gun.

The main difference between the Armstrong and Armstrong Frederick is the addition of the raised vent field (suitable for the use of a gun lock), rather than a shallow vent pan on the surface of the reinforce. It is a cuboid of narrow width extending the height of the forward edge of the breech ring parallel to the reinforce and ending in a small radius bullnose meeting the centre of the vent astragal. If there are other drafting changes they are minor enough to not be visually evident.

The gundeck 'heavy smoothbore' on the truck carriage with breeching loop should be 68 pdr 95cwt guns, rather than the 8" shell guns which are of a much lighter construction. The earlier 'all 32pdr' gun wooden ships in service from ~1830-1855 ish use a variety of weights of 32pdr gun, plus the 65cwt 9' 8" shell gun (which later form the basis for the 64pdr RML rebores, after relining with a 6.25" steel tube, swaged with a few discharges and then engraved with the rifling grooves).

Did we ever get an answer to the question about which plans were used to design this kit? The 'as displayed' Oseberg ship, (reconstructed as Dronningen) or the 'in cooperation with Roskilde' reconstruction (reconstructed as Saga Oseberg), which corrects damage and lost width and stem angle from the fore-hull.

French "installation de vaisseaux" for the 74s has a linear shot garland on the side between ports (10 each side), with arrangement for double headed shot, grape and the valets suspended below. To support the immediate fight there are also two shot parks per deck between hatches on the centre-line for a few hundred shot each. This would apply to the upper deck of the Frigate as well, but I don't recall shot-parks for the gaillards, only the garlands and stowage for special shot and valets.

Most ship guns, especially later are cast iron (much cheaper) painted with a dark anti-corrosion. Often made with lamp-black, but dark browns are used by some navies. Copper based guns are seen for the signal/short practice/boat gun, but otherwise they are rarer than iron ordnance in the C18th and C19th.(Also field guns and howitzers for land service are usually copper-alloy gunmetal.)

For a 'Common 74' of His Britannic Majesty's Navy - pre 1817 32pdr shot (LD guns, FC (later also QD) carronades) average 6.156", with low and high gauges at 6.105" and 6.207" 18pdr shot (UD guns, RH carronades) average 5.082", with low and high gauges at 5.04" and 5.124" 9pdr shot average 4.0333", low and high gauges, 4" and 4.0667" Very late 74s get 12pdr guns in small proportion alongside a majority 32pdr carronade castles loadout, but an Early example like Bellona would only have the establishments of 1778 or 1794 or a variation by order on these. A very small number were armed experimentally with a 'uniform' 24 pdr gun, 24pdr 'Gover' medium gun and 24 pdr carronades - but Bellona isn't in this group, nor the other alternative 'carronades' group which existed as experiments in the early 1780s. The very large 'French' 74s get quite variable armaments, some including 24pdr on the UD - but again, Bellona is a common or 'small' 74 of British construction. At 1:100 these are 1.56mm, 1.29mm, 1.02mm rounded to nearest 0.1mm - 1.6mm/1.3mm/1mm unsure what sizes are trivially available.