location of carronades on a RN 74 gun ship

[AON]

The book From Powder Monkey to Governor (c. 1800) states "I don't know why they called them 74's when they had 82 guns.

 

The 74 guns are:

28 x 32 Pdr guns on the lower deck

28 x 18 Pdr guns on the upper deck

14 9 Pdr (short) guns on the quarterdeck

4 x 9 Pdr (long) guns on the forecastle

 

In addition they had the following 8 guns to bring the number up to 82:

6 x 18 Pdr carronades on the poop (roundhouse)

2 x 32 Pdr carronades on the forecastle

 

So the carronades did not replace any of the cannons.

I can see where the 4 long 9 Pdrs were located on the roundhouse (poop).

 

My question is: where were the 2 x 32 Pdr carronades located on the forecastle?

Edited June 11, 2022 by AON

[allanyed]

Hi Alan,

The short answer is that carronades did not always count for some time period.  There were variations on the 74's from their inception to the American war, and again from the American war to the Napoleonic war so to be more specific, the date in which you are interested needs to be a bit more specific.   Caruana goes into a lot detail across 7 or 8 pages as to numbers of each size gun and location for each time period, including the introduction of the Gover guns in volume 2 of The History of English Sea Ordnance.  There are a lot of photos of contemporary models of 74s on the RMG site that might help. 

Allan

 

Edited June 11, 2022 by allanyed

[AON]

Thank you Allan.

 

I have been looking at RMG/NMM images and models.

If they show anything the carronade is replacing the cannon not used in conjunction with it.

The exact time period would be 1786-1790 but anything showing the location of carronades on the forecastle in conjunction with the 4 x 9 Pdrs c.1800 would be useful.

[Morgan]

Where Carronades were positioned would depend on the time period you are considering.  Between 1801 and 1803 the Admiralty issued instructions that Carronades were not to be deployed in the wake of the rigging.  This was due to fire risks when the Carronades were fired, so they were not deployed between the shrouds.  From this it is reasonable to assume that prior to c.1800  Carronades had been fitted between the shrouds, with some adverse consequences.

 

Later on, nearer the War of 1812, the Carronade was cast with a longer muzzle cup which helped project beyond the shrouds and avoided this problem.

 

On the forecastle, if fitted with long guns, such as 9-Pounders, these would act as chase guns so would occupy the ports right forward.  Carronades could not act as chase guns, but could be fitted right forward if no long guns were fitted.

 

The above are general principles which should help narrow the possible locations by a process of elimination.  For definitive gun-type locations for a given ship you would need either the official Ordnance Records (The National Archives at Kew hold these but they are not digitised) or the Gunners records, these would allocate each gun / carronade to a specific port, each gun and carriage being given a unique number.  When decommissioned / recommissioned the individual guns were returned to the same location (particularly where fitted to gunports as opposed to open rails), primarily as each gun carriage was tailored to each port in order to centre it to the port when trained at the horizontal.

 

EDIT - our posts crossed but hopefully this still helps.

 

Gary

Edited June 11, 2022 by Morgan

[AON]

Below is an image of the Goliath forecastle.

The blue arrows are the locations of the 9 Pdrs even though the aft gun location has a rail drawn through it.

The blue arrow might be the location for the carronade.

There is one other possible location further aft where you see a similar gap between deadeyes which offers more room between guns than that of the blue arrow between the red arrows.

These two possibilities are speculation on my point.

[AON]

The other option which seems obvious except for one thing is found on the forecastle deck plan

The 9 Pdr cannon locations are in red.

I see two cutouts at the head... indicated in blue.

The only problem being that if this is the location it is over top of the cathead/tail beam.

 

[AON]

Morgan,

I`ve contacted The National Archives (Kews) to attempt to get the records by John Hindmarsh Sr. , the first gunner assigned to Bellerophon.  He was with her for about 10 years.

Their web page states a 10 day wait for a response is typical.  This I do not mind as I am quite some way from installing any guns.

I hope they have something.  If not I`ll ask about the sister ships in the same time period.

Thank you.

[mtaylor]

If all else fails, Alan, remember "Captain's Discretion".  

[druxey]

I agree with Mark. Some captains requested carronades, so individual ships' armament would have varied.

[Mark P]

Good Evening Allan;

 

When carronades were first introduced, they were (if I recall correctly; might be wrong!) only issued to a ship at the captain's request. It was also his decision (and presumably the gunner's) as to where they were to be sited. 

 

See below pictures of contemporary letters on the subject, from 1779 & 1788

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

[AON]

Yes Mark (and Druxey) I've read that also.

 

I've also read a listing of ships that had carronades... and the Bellerophon was not on the list... but then how was it they got tossed if they weren't there and why would the "youngster" , the gunner's son, say 74's had 82 guns when he was on the Bellerophon with his father?

 

I'll read your images when I get inside and on my computer... on my phone at the moment.

[AON]

I copied out the documents in an attempt to zoom in to read but that made them a little fussy.

As best I can tell it reads that the 74`s had 12 Pdr carronades fore and aft in 1779.

I have a statement from the boy that the 74 I`m interested in had 18 Pdr aft and 32 Pdr forward.

If I can get this as a document from the gunner (his father) and it gives the location other than ``forecastle`` I`m golden.

[Mark P]

Good Afternoon Allan;

 

The 1788 document gives the dockyards discretion to issue carronades as best suits the ship's qualities. So after this date (and presumably sometimes before) the arrangement could have been non-standard, as your sources indicate.

 

I have a further letter on the matter, dated 1782, which instructs the Navy Board to see that ships capable of bearing the weight of them are to have 68 pdr carronades on the forecastle, with lesser vessels having either 42 or 32 pdrs on the forecastle. The same letter states that the intention is for these to annoy the enemies' rigging, so they would probably be mounted in a position to bear more on the broadside than as a bow-chaser, where the longer barrelled cannon were used. 

 

If you would like the pages as images you can see better let me know, and I'll send them over.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[AON]

Yes please.

[Lieste]

A comment on weight and strain on the structure - the carronade itself is around 60-75% of the weight of a gun of the calibres they were typically mounted with (e.g. the 42pdr carronades mixed in with 12pdr, 32pdr carronade mixed in with 9pdr guns, 24pdr guns mixed with 6pdr guns, 18pdr with 4pdr guns etc)... the slide is relatively heavier than a truck carriage although the absolute weight might be lower, or similar. Ammunition is typically much heavier, but mostly stored in the magazine). The overall impact of a direct switch is a reduction of crew requirement, reduction on on-deck weight, but an increase in total stowed weight.

When fired, the carronades, being much ligher recoil faster and with more energy than the higher velocity light guns they are mixed with. In calculation this seems to be approximately the recoil energy of the full-gun of the carronade calibre... a much 'bigger' stress than the recoil of the heavier and higher velocity/lower shot mass light guns they are added to or substituted for.

A 32pdr carronade has a performance broadly similar to a 12pdr gun, is mounted in place of a 9pdr gun, and recoils like a 32pdr gun....no wonder they got a reputation for being unsteady, 'violent in recoil' and prone to break breechings and ironwork.

[AON]

I seem to recall reading that the larger carronade balls were hollow to make them lighter to handle but the weight label stayed as was referencing the diameter of the ball.

[bruce d]

That's a new one to me. I can see it being of use in armed boats, would be interested if you have more. It would have required a different process for making the hollow ball so there should be a paper trail.

👍

 

[mtaylor]

  On 6/19/2022 at 12:55 AM, bruce d said:

That's a new one to me. I can see it being of use in armed boats, would be interested if you have more. It would have required a different process for making the hollow ball so there should be a paper trail.

👍

 

Expand  

At some point they had a way to do it as eventually as they filled balls with powder and short fuse.  

[Lieste]

Hollow shot and shell for carronades on RN vessels seems to be an 1830s issue item - except for shell for bomb vessel's 68pdr carronades. (and by special application, as at Copenhagen 1801, where bomb were provided for the 68pdrs of the carronade armed ships of the line).

The hollow shot of the later period was 56lbs for the 8" guns, with the shell being 48.25lbs - increased to 50.5lbs for better accuracy and velocity retention).

The shot were otherwise full weight for the RN service ball as far as anything I have seen for 1780-1815.

Private supply of carronades came with a small 'package' (20-25 rounds) of ammunition from the Carron factory, which might have included hollowed shot, but there is no distinction made between 32pdr shot for guns or carronades in 'proportions of shot' listed for ships in the RN for either channel or foreign service (the case and grape are broken out as distinct types).

The reduction in shot weight from a hollow shot/shell causes an increase in velocity, and thus reduces the 'assistance' with recoil reduction significantly... and reduces penetration capability and carrying to range. The 8" shell being effectively reduced to equivalent to a 24pdr carronade for range and velocity retention, and penetration... though making holes like a 68pdr shot, and if filled and fusing correctly (a problem also not really solved well until the 1830s, preventing the use of grazing fire) having a significant damaging effect from fire and blast. (Note that before hollowed shot was provided, some shell was used unfilled as a battering round, though it would have been less effective than the shot in that use).

Edited June 19, 2022 by Lieste

[PqLear]

TL;DR: what armament would Vanguard have carried into battle at Aboukir Bay?

 

Reopening this thread, hoping someone can help out... I'm working on a Vanguard conversion -- it's a bit of a beginner's project and nowhere near as historically accurate or well researched as most of the builds here, but I was hoping to get some of the basics right anyway, e.g. the number and placement of guns  Whilst doing some research, I came across this passage in Brian Lavery's Nelson and the Nile [p.59]:

 

By 4 March [1798] the ship [Vanguard] was fitted with her full complement of twenty-eight 32-pounders on the lower deck and the same number of 18-pounders on the upper deck.  On her quarterdeck she had two conventional 24-pounder guns, with ten lighter, short range 24-pounder carronades.  She had four 24-pounder carronades on her forecastle and two long guns, giving her a total armament of eighty-four guns, though she was still rated as a 74.
 

I'm confused.  This statement adds up to 62 guns and 12 carronades = 74 total -- so it appears there's something missing, would love some help clearing this up?

 

@RMC's build shows 28 guns on the gun deck + 28 on the upper deck + 14 on the quarter deck + 4 on the forecastle + 6 carronades on the poop = total of 74 guns and 6 carronades.  This seems consistent with the standard way of counting, the OP confirms this and also mentions two additional carronades on the forecastle, but I can't for the life of me reconcile any of this with the statement in Nelson and the Nile... help?

 

[AON]

From my research/understanding for my build (HMS Bellerophon), they normally did not count carronades as "guns"... they were "extra" unless maybe they replaced the normal compliment of guns (?) which were said to be 28 each x 32 pdrs on the gundeck, 28 each x 18 Pdrs on the upper deck, 14 each x short 9 pdrs on the quarter deck and 4 each x long 9 Pdrs on the forecastle.

 

Bellerophon was said to have had 2 each x 32 pdr carronades on the forecastle and 6 each x 18 pdr carronades on the Roundhouse (poopdeck).

 

There was an AO 1779-07-16 establishing carronades of 18 and 12 pdr for all classes of ships, relaxed by the end of 1779 and by 1780, the actual fitting of authorised carronades was left to the discretion of the captain, to avoid unwanted disruption on the command deck, or interference with the rigging. By 1780-03-09 carronades fitted by application of the captain.

Politics caused the ordnance board to recommend against carronades, the Admiralty dragging it's heels over forwarding this "finding" to the Navy board until several months after the report date (1780-10-21, forwarded 1780-12-15)

 

Early evidence of the utility of the carronade in close action suggested that there was a use for them, and more experimentation was authorised as well as the optional use of carronades at the captain's request (including some fully carronade armed ships)...

 

1781-12-28, the Navy board recommended two 68 pdr carronades for those capable of supporting them, and 42 or 32 pdr carronades be allowed for smaller rates at the request of their captains.

 

From 1794-11-24, a new carronade establishment replaced the earlier 1779 one, with a 74 being authorised 2 x 32 pdr and 6 x 18 pdr in this establishment.

From 1798-03 (March) every line of battle ship was fitted to receive carronades on the fc/qtr deck.

 

The Battle of the Nile was 1-3 August 1798.

Edited 23 hours ago by AON

[vossiewulf]

The variance in number of guns is always with respect to the armament on the forecastle/quarterdeck/poop, obviously the number of gunports on the two gundecks is fixed at the time of building. And it seems in this case that the author of Nelson and the Nile forgot to list 10 carronades on the poop deck, resulting in him being 10 short when you do the math.

[Thukydides]

  On 3/18/2025 at 5:51 PM, vossiewulf said:

The variance in number of guns is always with respect to the armament on the forecastle/quarterdeck/poop, obviously the number of gunports on the two gundecks is fixed at the time of building. And it seems in this case that the author of Nelson and the Nile forgot to list 10 carronades on the poop deck, resulting in him being 10 short when you do the math.

Expand  

It is more as @AON said that carronades were not considered guns. I ship had a rating corresponding to the number of long guns it was armed with, there are examples of ships being given extra long guns on the quarterdeck and then being rerated from a 20 gun ship to a 24 gun ship. Carronades were not included in this number except in a few unique cases (such as the Rainbow) where the carronades replaced the entire armament.

 

@AON covered the history very well. The only thing I would add is that there are 1782 and 1793 lists that respectively list the actual carronade armament of ships in the RN at the time. However that is well before the time period of the battle of the Nile.

 

I do have a list from 1802 which suggests the official armament for 74s was 2 32 pdr caronades and 6 18 pdr ones, but it doesn't indicate where on the ship they were.

Proportion of Carronade Stores Selected Entries

Source: TNA ADM 160/150

Date: Circa 1802

 

A proportion of carronades and stores for a ship of each class in the Royal Navy

		100	90	80	74	64	50	44	38	36	32	28	24	20	Sloops	Brigs	Cutters
Carronades	68pdr
	42
	32	2	2	2	2				8	8
	24	6				2	6				6	6
	18		6	6	6	6		8					8
	12						6							8	8	6	4
Elevation Screws	32pdr	2	2	2	2				8	8
	24	6	6	6	6	2	6				6	6
	18		6	6	6	6		8					8
	12						6							8	8	6	4
Traversing Bars		8	8	8	8	8	12	8	8	8	6	6	8	8	8	6	4
Breechings	7in	4	4
	6½	12
	5½		12
Tackles Complete	2½in	6	6
	2	18
	1½		18

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Thukydides

[Lieste]

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.

[AON]

  23 hours ago, Lieste said:

with 2 32pdr carronade on the fc (replacing the second pair of guns there)

Expand  

 Were the the two forward or the two aft on the forecastle replaced?

[PqLear]

  23 hours ago, Lieste said:

the addition of 28+28+2+2 to reach 62 in the request for help. It happens - 

Expand  

Oops!  Yes indeed, can happen to the best of us lol...   

 

If the math error / ten extra guns is the only mistake -- or if as vossiewulf suggests, the ten missing carronades were on the poop deck -- I think this makes sense.  There appears to be three other exceptions:

• Two guns were moved from the quarter deck to the forecastle
• Ten quarter deck guns were substituted for carronades
• They used a version of the "all 24" scheme Lieste references

I'd speculate the first two, possibly all three, could have been to create extra living space, as she was specifically fitted as Nelson's flagship [in the winter of 1797-1798]?

 

[Lieste]

Nelson didn't like carronades on the Roundhouse.

[AON]

Lieste,

I asked my question earlier and have copied below for two reasons:

1) there seems no place to add two carronades or "smashers" on the forecastle unless modifications are made, and

2) Rear Admiral Sir John Hindmarsh, Kt., R.N. who served on the Bellerophon as a "boy" and then midshipman while his father was the gunner (warrant officer), said the carronades were extra to the 74 guns and these extra carronades included six on the roundhouse and two on the forecastle.

Source: Page 13 of From Powder Monkey to Governor by F. Stewart Hindmarsh, Access Press, 1995. ISBN 0 949795 88 7

 

So I ask again, which two guns on the forecastle were removed to be replaced with carronades and could you please quote the source, as I would like to add this information to my research.

Thank you.

Alan

 

  23 hours ago, AON said:

  23 hours ago, Lieste said:

with 2 32pdr carronade on the fc (replacing the second pair of guns there)

Expand  

 Were the the two forward or the two aft on the forecastle replaced?

Expand  

 

Edited 7 hours ago by AON

[wvdhee]

I'd say aft. I have read somewhere (I know that doesn't help you) that the heavier the shot, the more to the center the gun is placed. (not so much for stability but the distance the shots need to be carried if I recall correctly)

[Chapman]

A lot of interesting information about the ship can be found in the fabulous book about HMS Bellerophon.
David Cordingly: Billy Ruffian from 2004.
It's been about 20 years since I read the book, so I can't say for sure whether the armament was covered in more detail, but the book was definitely worth reading.