location of carronades on a RN 74 gun ship

[AON]

Chapman: Yes, I have that book also, but it doesn't have any detailed info on guns whereas the other does.

 

Walter: Interesting. The forward position has less clearance aft of the gun, so I thought if it did replace a gun it might have gone there. Unfortunately the boy (then man) who was there at the time said all carronades were extra to the full 74 guns.

 

I continue to try to find an image (painting or sketch) that might provide a clue, or better yet, written description to remove all doubt.

 

[Lieste]

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.

[uss frolick]

With eighteen long-guns already on the crowded quarterdeck and forecastle, there was no extra room for adding carronades, except maybe on the poop. They sometimes replaced long guns in positions furthest from the chains, so their great flash wouldn't ignite the tar covered shrouds. Where and how many carronades varied greatly from ship to ship, and they increased in number over time. Study the six volumes of William James's "The Naval History of Great Britain" and you'll see what I mean. Their presence was a function of availability and the captain's preference.

[Lieste]

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.

[dafi]

On 6/11/2022 at 2:04 PM, AON said:

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.

Coming back to an older entry in this thread: @AON

First line possibly means red arrows 🙂

 

Blue arrows most possibly is the gap for the anchor davit, as the upmost rail passes through and the bolster underneath is visible.

 

XXXDAn

[AON]

Yes. I corrected it just now.

 

[druxey]

The blue arrowed location was for the fish davit, I think.

[AON]

Just attended a Zoom meeting with the Society of Model Shipwrights (UK) this afternoon and an image of the forcastle of HMS Indefatigable filled my screen showing six guns.

 

The two forward most were cannons and the four aft were carronades. What was of most interest was that the four forward were where guns should have been (red arrows) and the aft most gun was located one step aft from my green arrow in the image below.

If a carronade were put on a 74 gun ship in that location it would blow out the rigging... the green arrow location misses the rigging but the rail needs to be cut out similar to the other locations.  Problem solved!

Edited Sunday at 10:02 PM by AON

[PqLear]

3 hours ago, AON said:

The two forward most were cannons and the four aft were carronades. What was of most interest was that the four forward were where guns should have been (red arrows) and the aft most gun was located one step aft from my green arrow in the image below.

 

Nice, so… cannon in the fore red arrow, nothing at the blue arrow, and carronades at the rear red arrow and at the blue arrow? 

[AON]

Carronades on the rear red and green for the Vanguard. 

 

The Bellerophon was arranged differently with only two carronades on the forecastle.

 

[uss frolick]

The problem is that most of the builders' plans were drawn up before 1800, at a time when carronades were not overly-common on ships of the line. After that date, bulwarks became planked over, and it was easy to determine where the Carronades went, as their bulwark openings were larger than the nine-pounders. Check later, post-1800 drafts to see where the carronades actually went. After Trafalgar, it was about an even split between the two, and the long guns jumped a caliber to 12-pounders.  Harold Underhill's commercial (3/16" scale) plans of the Armada-Class 74's, circa 1806, show where the carronades usually went.

[PqLear]

There’s a discussion in another thread also but cross-posting for convenience:

 

As Brian Lavery describes it in Nelson and the Nile (p.173):

 

”The situation was slightly complicated by the presence of carronades on some of the British ships. These were lighter and shorter than ordinary guns and fired an extraordinarily great weight of shot for the size of the gun.  At this stage they were only issued at the request of individual captains and it is not clear how many were used at the Nile.  Certainly the Goliath had carried two 12-pounder carronades on her forecastle in 1782 plus six 18-pounders on the poop, while the Leander had been equipped with two 24-pounders and six 18-pounders in 1793, bringing her total armament up to 58 guns; Bellerophon had at least two carronades on her poop, one of which was ‘broke to pieces’ in the battle and the Vanguard had ten 24-pounders on her quarterdeck and four on her forecastle.”

 

So just like paint schemes, it appears the use of carronades was quite individual, not well documented, and subject to change with each fitting?

[AON]

Check RMG for armada class 74's and 9 drawings popped up with only 3 having images and these showed forcastle gun ports far forward.

Checked Harold Underhill's drawings of a 74 dated 1813 and the gunports from sheet to sheet do not seem to agree or relate to each other but the one deck plan does seem to agree with my arrows above.

[Chapman]

HMS Vanguard, as one of the Edgar class ships, is certainly well represented in its initial state of construction by the plans of her class mate  Elephant 1786. The forecastle would certainly have looked the same in 1798. The time when the forecastle of ships of the line was equipped with a bulwark came only a few years later.

Edited 11 hours ago by Chapman

[druxey]

Just carronades at the red arrows only. It could be only a single carronade with two possible positions for it!

[AON]

Chapman: I thought both Vanguard and Edgar were Arrogant class ships.

 

Druxey: You've also confused me. Are you addressing PQLear who reopened this thread with a question about Vanguard at the Battle of the Nile where Brian Lavery wrote she had 4 carronades and 2 long guns on the forecastle, or are you addressing me and my Bellerophon where an eyewitness, the son of the ship's gunner who both signed on with the first crew claimed she had 2 carronades and 4 x 9 pdrs on the forecastle?

[druxey]

Well, now I'm also confused! I was only referring to the color arrowed plan (post #38), with two wider spaces between timberheads and gaps in the rail. I think we can safely assume a drafting error with the single line through this gap on the aft space.

[AON]

So then, my Bellerophon. Yes, the two red arrows are the 9 pdrs. Where was the carronade installed that the Admiral said was also there? I say at the green arrow. Would you agree it is the only logical location?

[Chapman]

2 hours ago, AON said:

Chapman: I thought both Vanguard and Edgar were Arrogant class ships.

The Arrogant class is correct according to the anatomy book on HMS Bellona that I have in front of me right now. I got the classification for the Edgar class from Threedecks.org. Why they created a new subclass, I don't know at the moment.
 

[druxey]

No, I don't think so, Allan. It would blow the timberheads apart there. The carronade must have replaced a 9-pounder at one of the red locations, or mods. made to the forecastle to accommodate it.

[Lieste]

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.

[AON]

This is what I understand the classes to be and include

 

Third rates of 74 guns (two-deckers)

• Bellona class (Slade)

Bellona 74 (1760) – broken up 1814

Dragon 74 (1760) – sold 1784

Superb 74 (1760) – wrecked 1783

Kent 74 (1762) – sold 1784

Defence 74 (1763) – wrecked 1811

 

Third rates of 74 guns (two-deckers)

• Arrogant class (Slade) – modified Bellona class

Arrogant 74 (1761) – broken up 1810

Cornwall 74 (1761) – scuttled/burnt 1780

Edgar 74 (1779) – broken up 1835

Goliath 74 (1781) – razéed to 58 guns 1813, broken up 1815

Zealous 74 (1785) – broken up 1816

Audacious 74 (1785) – broken up 1815

Elephant 74 (1786) – razéed to 58 guns 1818, broken up 1830

Bellerophon 74 (1786) – sold 1836

Saturn 74 (1786) – razéed to 58 guns 1813, broken up 1868

Vanguard 74 (1787) – broken up 1821

Excellent 74 (1787) – razéed to 58 guns 1820, broken up 1835

Illustrious 74 (1789) – wrecked 1795

 

Fourth rates of 60 guns (two-deckers)

• Edgar class (Slade)

Edgar 60/64 (1758) – scuttled 1774

Panther 60 (1758) – broken up 1813

Firm 60 (1759) – sold 1791

Edited 5 hours ago by AON

[AON]

Druxey

Then modifications must have had been made to accommodate the extra two carronades on the forecastle.

I presume this means cutting out a timberhead?

I would hazard a guess - the one forward of the green arrow.

Edited 5 hours ago by AON

[Lieste]

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.