US 74 gun Ships of the Line

For those interested in US 74-gun ships of the line, please join: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usshipsoftheline/?yguid=76355191

It does not cost a thing to join. We have compiled a large data base of links and files on these little known US Navy warships including hundreds of period paintings, drawings, plans, and photos of models of these interesting ships. It is a big change from the endless repeat of pictures and information on HMS Victory and other similar European warships. These American warships may be little known and did nothing of particular fame but like the Polaris FBM submarines they were a successful deterrent.

Regarding the sad story of the Constitution and her Andrew Jackson figureheads - the most thorough account of the incident I've encountered is in one of the books I assign in my freshman-level U.S. history survey course:  Andrew Jackson:  Symbol for an Age, by John William Ward.  He analyzes the "Jackson image" and where it fit into the typical American's perception of what his country was about.

The Constitution went into the Boston Navy Yard for an overhaul in 1833.  The commandant of the yard was Captain Jesse Elliot, one of the Navy's more controversial characters.  (He was, among other things, the officer who, in command of the Niagara, had so irritated Oliver Hazard Perry during the Battle of Lake Erie that Perry had transferred his flag to her in order to bring her into the fight.  That, at least, is how Elliot's numerous critics told the story.)  Her figurehead was in bad shape, and Elliot, a Jacksonian Democrat, thought it would be appropriate to install a portrait of Jackson as a replacement.

While the figurehead was being carved, Jackson pulled one of his more memorable and controversial stunts:  he got into a titanic war with the Bank of the United States and pulled the federal government's funds out of it, thereby precipitating a national financial panic.  At that point, as Professor Ward puts it, "even those who had been able to find kind words for the President because of his Nullification Proclamation [against John C. Calhoun and the South Carolina Legislature] relapsed into the customary New England habit of vituperating the tyrant in the White House."  Boston newspapers launched attacks on the idea of putting Jackson on the bow of the city's favorite frigate, and Elliot was threatened with tar and feathers. 

The figurehead was completed and installed.  Then, on the night of July 2, 1834, somebody, in the middle of a noisy rainstorm, sawed the head off it.  The culprit was never caught; the Constitution sailed for New York, where she was fitted with a new figure of Jackson.  (Until the new one was ready, Elliot had a flag with five stripes on it draped over the mutilated one - symbolizing the five New England states that had threatened to secede from the Union during the War of 1812.)

The story of what happened afterward gets pretty amusing - and, as Ward puts it, the severed head gets "ubiquitous."  Several accounts of dubious reliability identify the perpetrator as a Cape Cod sea captain named Dewey.  One source says he walked into the White House and presented the head to Jackson, who glared at him for a minute and then said, "close the door, Captain Dewey, and then sit down and tell me how you did it."  Another says Dewey gave the head to the Secretary of the Navy, who passed it on to Jackson, who reacted by saying:  "Make that man a postmaster."  Yet another says that somebody or other arrested Captain Dewey and locked him in a local insane asylum for two and a half months.  Dewey supposedly had somebody make him a box of business cards, each bearing a picture of a saw and the words "I came, I saw, I conquered."  Unfortunately the existence of Captain Dewey isn't confirmed by any reliable contemporary source. 

My favorite version of the aftermath comes from the pen of somebody named Russell Jarvis, who published a short biography of Captain Elliot.  Jarvis (quoted by Professor Ward) says that Nicholas Biddle, the president of the Bank of the United States, paid a visit to Boston shortly after the beheading.  "While he [Biddle] was there...some of the most leading, the most active 'Whig' [i.e., anti-Jackson] politicians, particularly those connected with the monied institution, to the number of forty-four, invited him to an evening entertainment at one of the Boston coffee-houses.  After the cloth was removed [i.e., after dinner, when it was time for the serious drinking to start], the servants were sent from the room, the doors locked, and, -- Bostonians! blush while the revolting story is told! THE HEAD OF THE IMAGE WAS BROUGHT IN, LAID UPON THE TABLE AND BACCHANALIAN ORGIES WERE HELD OVER IT!!!"  

It sticks in my head that one of the two Jackson figureheads is (or used to be ) in the Naval Academy Museum and the other in the Museum of the City of New York.  That's my notoriously unreliable memory talking, though.  I couldn't find any mention of them on either museum's website.

Imagine my joy when I checked in at the NROTC Unit and found out that I had my dream job of teaching "The History of Sea Power" to the sophomore midshipmen, and then the plunging realization when they told me that the class material started in 1775 (or so). 

Turned out that was the NROTC name for the course; the school name for the course was "Sea Power Practicum", and therefore the tunnel vision was (fairly) reasonable.

Aside from that, though, I'm not all that wild about your math, Prof.  I think I'll go listen to 40 year old music and build a model.

Rick

Slightly (but only slightly) more seriously - I find some arithmetic about American history sobering.  If we date the beginning of "modern" U.S. history to 1788 (the ratification of the Constitution and the holding of the first federal elections), the country is now 220 years old.  I'm 57 (almost 58) - a figure that, by most people's definition, puts me slightly on one side or the other of the line between "middle age" and "old age."  By the aforementioned definition, I've been around for more than 25 percent of the country's history.  And almost half of it has taken place since my father was born in 1912.

Also sobering - freshman-level college survey courses in U.S. history are generally divided into two semesters (or quarters), with the break at 1877.  The first time I taught the second half of that sequence was in 1975, so the course had to cover 98 years.  Now it has to cover 121.  So the material supposedly covered by that course has increased by almost a quarter just in the time I've been teaching it.  (Conclusion:  they really ought to give us three semesters to cover the whole span of American history.  But when I suggest such a thing the people teaching world history - with two semesters to cover everything, everywhere from prehistory to the present - fall down laughing.) 

Most sobering of all:  the freshman class that just started at the joint where I work includes some people who were born during Operation Desert Storm. 

The U.S. really is a young country.  And I feel old.  Think I'll go to bed. 

Rick Martin wrote:

For Russ39---AHaa, I thought it was something like that but as old age creeps up on me I sometimes forget the important details. I was pretty sure it was a true event but couldn't remember the name of the person in question. I recall first reading about this incident while still in high school about 350 years ago. Won't say I'm old but my first text books in HS were done on stone tablets. Thanks for the info. Rick Martin

Maybe they were on stone tablets, but there were only two or three historical events to learn back then, lucky for us!

For Russ39---AHaa, I thought it was something like that but as old age creeps up on me I sometimes forget the important details. I was pretty sure it was a true event but couldn't remember the name of the person in question. I recall first reading about this incident while still in high school about 350 years ago. Won't say I'm old but my first text books in HS were done on stone tablets. Thanks for the info. Rick Martin

Rick:

The ship in question was the Constitution and the figurehead in question was of Andrew Jackson. This was in the 1830s and the Constitution's captain at that time had the figurehead made and mounted as a tribute to President Jackson. However, many folks did not like Jackson and on a dark rainy night the figurehead was decapitated. The Constitution was moored between two ships. This is a true story and I believe at least a portion, if not the entire Jackson figurehead survives to this day. I am not sure what museum holds it though.

The story is told in Tyrone Martin's A Most Fortunate Ship should anyone wish to look it up and flesh out the details.  

Russ

Been reading the comments here about US 74 gun ships and while this is not really a modeling or painting comment it seems I remember a "sea story" that I read many years ago which involved some early post revolutionary war politics, hot tempers, and intrigue in which at least 2 74's may have been involved. What I remember is a US warship which was fitted with a figurehead featuring perhaps someone like Alexander Hamilton (not sure at all) or someone like him. Whoever it was seemed to be very popular with many and absolutely loathed by many others. There were threats agains the warship in question and it was rumored that a reward was being offered for the head of the figurehead. According to the story I read years ago the ship in question was moored, possibly in Philadelphia or Norfolk between two 74's to protect it. During a particularly dark and rainy night someone took up the challenge, boarded the ship at the bows and equipped with a saw managed to remove the head. Apparently the reward was duly paid and the miscreant (big word for a modeler like me) escaped with his reward. If anyone has ever heard of this story it would be interesting to know which ship, which historical figure, and who did the decapitation. If there's any truth to this old story it may be the only "action" that any US 74 gun ships may have seen.    Rick Martin

Sorry to be a little late with this, but I came accross this print depicting the 74 gun ship America, and it has remained one of my favorite ship images..

 

 

 Found at:

The Scrimshaw Gallery

I don't see anything about the research behind the painting, or if it is just the Artist's

interpretation ..  The Artist's bio is quite respectable.. 

Thanks to all who've contributed......

jpk,

There is a full-page painting of the North Carolina in the book I referenced at the beginning of this thread. It shows her healing to starboard from the aft port quarter, giving good detail of her stern.  The citation says "By courtesy of the Office of Naval Records and Library".  You should be able to find it easily enough.  There is also a full-page starboard side painting of the Ohio with the same citation.  There are depictions of many of the other 74 and 80 gun ships but they are very small and show very little detail.  I hope that it helps!

Bill Morrison

John,

I just got back from vacation and saw your comment regarding my building of the Aeropiccola HMS VICTORY.  Please don't worry; although I am travelling the HECEPOB dark side, I won't be seduced by it.  This kit is probably the most crudely manufactured kit I have ever had the displeasure to build!  Roughly 1/180 scale, I have had to use parts from the Airfix VICTORY to enhance the Aeropiccola kit, particularly the gunport lids, the dummy barrels, the fife rails, the gratings, and the boats.  Although I believe that there are many fine HECEPOB kits, notably the more expensive ships-of-the-line, they are far, far, far too expensive (especially given the state of the economy and fuel prices!).  Anyway, I digress . . .

Bill Morrison

Wow, that's a lot of questions without easy answers! 

So far as I know, the best discussion of the old designers is in Chapelle's History of the American Sailing Navy, my copy of which is at the office and not within reach.  There are brief sketches of a couple of them on Wikipedia.

At any given moment one individual held the title Chief Naval Constructor, who, with his drafting table, was crammed into the attic of the original Navy Department building.  I'd have to get the Chapelle book out to put together the list, but I know Samuel Humphries and Doughty both occupied the position.  (I don't think Joshua Humphries ever did.  The Department of the Navy was created in 1798, after he'd completed his designs for the first frigates.  I don't think he designed any warships for the Navy after that.)

A book about the history of the office of Chief Naval Constructor during the sailing ship era might be worth writing.  My impression is, though, that the documentation about the subject  is pretty sketchy.  Just who exerted how much influence on what ship is probably beyond figuring out.  

How much of an influence did Joshua Humphries knowlege and experience have on the design of later ships, both frigates and larger by other designers? I see his son was involved on Pennsylvania. Also what happened with William Doughty, he and Joshua worked closely on the 44 gun frigates. Did Joshua's son later work with Doughty? 

jtilley wrote:

According to Mr. Silverstone's book, the only ships of the line designed by Joshua Humpries were the original Columbus and Franklin (the ones authorized in 1799), which were never completed.  Of the ones that did see service, the Independence and Washington were designed by Edmund Hart, the Franklin (of 1815) and Pennsylvania by Samuel Humphries (the son of Joshua Humphries), the Columbus (of 1819) and the Delaware class by William Doughty, and the Ohio by Henry Eckford.

Ah, that was my confusion. Thanks!

jtilley wrote:

As I also mentioned earlier, sloops of war, brigs, and other smaller British warships often had main armaments consisting of carronades.  Whether those weapons could be said to have been carried "below decks" is, I guess, a matter of definition.  A sloop of war, brig, or smaller vessel didn't have a full-length, covered gundeck - though I guess if one looked hard enough one might find a few that had carronades under their quarterdecks or forecastles.

Sorry, I did not see your earlier post.

Actually, some would seem to have had a full length, covered gun deck.   There were several instances where captured small frigates as well as surviving older 6th rates being re-rated as sloops at various stages of the Napoleonic war.  Unless significantly modified these would have had something like a covered gun deck. 

You are right, Essex was rated a 32.

 

 

  

According to Mr. Silverstone's book, the only ships of the line designed by Joshua Humpries were the original Columbus and Franklin (the ones authorized in 1799), which were never completed.  Of the ones that did see service, the Independence and Washington were designed by Edmund Hart, the Franklin (of 1815) and Pennsylvania by Samuel Humphries (the son of Joshua Humphries), the Columbus (of 1819) and the Delaware class by William Doughty, and the Ohio by Henry Eckford. 

The photos in Mr. Silverstone's book are pretty small (about 3 1/2" square), so there's a limit to how much detail can be seen in them.  I imagine lots more is visible in the original glass plate negatives - if those have survived.  Only one shot, that of the Vermont, was taken from astern.  The transom is only faintly visible; there appears to be some sort of simple stern gallery projecting from the upper deck level.  None of the three appears to have her spar deck "decked over."  Putting two and two together, I imagine the gundecks provided ample living space for the sailors being "received."  The Ohio looks like she's been fitted with masts and yards (lower yards and topsail yards only) designed for a smaller ship, but the other two look quite seaworthy at first glance.

I haven't tried to find these photos on line.  The Naval Historical Center does offer a photo service, but my home computer has trouble fighting its way through it.  I'll try to remember to make another attempt on the office computer, which seems to have a good bit more muscle for wrestling with such things.

Thanks to all for a fantastic and very interesting discussion.

Here's a quick question: wasn't Joshua Humphreys the fellow responsible for the Constitution? That ship has a fine reputation for sailing, but if I read the comments above correctly, Humphreys's 74-gun designs didn't sail as well.

Has anybody analyzed how his 74-guns designs failed compared to how well his 44-gun designs succeeded?

Regards,

Are the photos clear enough to see stern gallery decorations? I'm sure as receiving ships they have the spar deck enclosed as so many did. Is there not any online sites that may have photos of these ships? I'll try a google search and see what comes up but I have a feeling not much if anything will be found other than brief text histories.

Interesting question.  Mr. Silverstone's The Sailing Navy, 1775-1854 contains (pp. 25-26) photos of three of them:  the North Carolina, Vermont, and Ohio.  The North Carolina, according to the picture caption, is shown "as receiving ship in New York in the 1860s," the Vermont "as receiving ship at Brooklyn Navy Yard after the Civil War," and the Ohio "as receiving ship at Boston during the 1870s."  They're all quite interesting shots.  All three ships still have more-or-less full rigs, though the Ohio's spars seem to have been cut down considerably and all three have their topgallant yards sent down - and there appear to be no sails on the yards.  (I gather the masts and yards were left in place to provide some rudimentary training for the new recruits.)  The shot of the Vermont has a Civil War-vintage field gun on the pier in the foreground, and the Ohio's rigging is festooned with drying laundry.  All three seem to be painted in the remarkably unattractive scheme that was in vogue at the time:  black hull with white stripes through the gunports, the stripes being continued over all the bow ornamentation - including the figurehead.

I've never had occasion to do any research about these ships.  Two of those three photos are credited to the Naval Historical Center (the other one doesn't have a credit line for some reason).  The NHC may well have some more shots of them.  It also would be worth checking Donald Canney's book; I really need to get a copy of that one. 

jtilley, etal; An interesting thread which has grown much larger than I had anticipated. It did wander off the original subject of US Navy 74's but it is an interesting tangent none the less. I have toyed with the thought of aquiring the Heller/Airfix 1/100 Victory at times so the redirection of the discussion towards the Victory has been an interesting one. To briefly redirect the conversation back to the american ships......since they existed into the era when photography was just beginning and some of them existed into the very early 20th century, are there any photographic records that may exist showing these ships? I know they may not show them as they appeared when fitted for sea duty but anything would be helpful to get an idea as to their construction.   

The Essex - as I mentioned earlier in this thread - was rated at 32 guns and, at the time of her action with H.M.S. Phoebe and H.M.S. Cherub, was armed with six 12-pounder long guns and forty 32-pounder carronades.  (The figures are from Mr. Silverstone's book, which I think is pretty reliable in such matters.) 

As I also mentioned earlier, sloops of war, brigs, and other smaller British warships often had main armaments consisting of carronades.  Whether those weapons could be said to have been carried "below decks" is, I guess, a matter of definition.  A sloop of war, brig, or smaller vessel didn't have a full-length, covered gundeck - though I guess if one looked hard enough one might find a few that had carronades under their quarterdecks or forecastles.

Warshipguy - in tackling that Aeropiccola kit you have my most profound sympathy.  You are venturing into the dark, mysterious world of the HECEPOBs, from which many an enthusiastic modeler has never returned. 

Come to think of it, I can't recall having bumped into the Aeropiccola name in recent years - though it used to be fairly common.  Model Expo, which I tend, rightly or wrongly, to regard as the definitive American guide to the world of the HECEPOBs, apparently doesn't carry Aeropiccola kits any more.  I wonder if the company has gone out of business.  If so - good riddance.

Thanks for the information regarding HMS VICTORY!  I am working on a dreadful kit of her by Aeropiccola (their small "SUPERMEC" series) that my father gave to me to build for him.  The manufacturer does not include any directions for cutting gunports, simply directing the builder to draw them on with a pencil.  I think that I would have been better off building the same-scale Airfix kit, using the cloth sails, flags, and wooden blocks from the Aeropiccola kit. The information that you all provided have been of immense help to me!  I appreciate it.  Thanks again!

Bill Morrison

GeorgeW wrote:

I  have not come across any references to carronades below decks on any British ships of the era in question, particularly Victory.

 

USS Essex, a nominal 36 gun frigage which HMS Phoebe defeated in Valparaiso, had mostly 40pdr carronades below decks. In the RN, some sloops were also equiped with 24 or 32 pdr carronades below decks.

 

Come to think of it, I have never seen any reference to any ship carrying 68 Lbs carronades on the fo'c'sle, or anywhere else but HMS Victory, and only for a few years (along with a couple 12 Lbs cannons, they were in fact mounted on the fo'c'sle for Trafalgar, but thereafter removed).  Actually, there is ONE other ship that used these, the 50 gun HMS Glatton, which for a time was armed with 28 x 68 lbs carronades, 28 x 42 lbs carronades (she was later e-armed with 18's long guns on the lower deck and 32 lbs carronades o the upper deck).   32 Lbs carronades were often employed on the fo'c'sles of first and second rate ships of the line, and often on the quarter decks as well (the 74-gun HMS Ajax carried 8 x 32 lbs carronades on the quarter deck, and 4 x 9 pound long guns on the fo'c'sle at Trafalgar).  HMS Victory had 32 Lbs carronades on her quarter deck (eight of them) after 1806, with just two 32 pounders on the fo'c'sle, but the 68 pounders had been removed by this time. A 68 Lbs carronade, despite being much lighter than a long gun of similar bore, still weighs almost as much as a 24 Lbs cannon, and thus is really unsuitable for the upper decks of ships of the line for reasons of stability and structural integrity (especially an old ship, and were not seen on any other ships to my knowledge).  Reference 'The Ships of Trafalgar' by Peter Goodwin......

It's a good thing to remember that artillery fitouts for warships of this time depended largely on the personal thoughts of the captain and what was available at the time a ship was taken 'out of ordinary,' and this changed repeatedly throughout their careers (some ships even carried additional cannon and carronades as ballast, and could thus alter their armament accordingly even during a single commission!).  Carronades were not really considered 'standard' guns (at least not officially) until after 1800, although they were certainly used extensively before and after that time.  If you look at the original specifications of British ships built before 1800, you will not see carronades mentioned, although it is quite certain many of them spent most of their career equipped with at least some (sometimes placed on the poop, if not the quarter deck)

Well, we've wandered a long way from American 74s.  But this is interesting stuff.

Just how the Victory's forecastle was configured in 1805 seems to be a matter of some debate.  I think there's fairly general (if not universal) agreement now that the forecastle bulwarks were shoulder-high at that time, and had been so at least since her refit of 1800-1803 (or was it 1804?).  She underwent a major reconstruction in the 1920s; I think that was when the forecastle bulwarks were lowered.  There are far better sources than my memory on this point, but I do recall pretty distinctly an article that Dr. R.C. Anderson, who was in charge of the project in the '20s, wrote for The Mariner's Mirror in which he acknowledged that the lowering of the bulwarks was "a mistake for which I must take my share of the blame."  The researchers had reached their conclusion about the shoulder-high bulwarks when the carpenters had just finished work on the lowered versions, and Anderson, quite understandably, didn't have the heart (or funding) to order the destruction of newly-completed work.

I think the installation of the two long guns on the forecastle deck is a relatively recent change.  I'm at least 90% sure they weren't there the last time I was on board the ship (that was in 1991; beware my notorious memory), and they aren't shown on several famous and influential plans and models (e.g., Longridge's).  I have no trouble believing they were actually there in 1805 if Mr. Goodwin and his crew say so.  My guess, though, is that those "cutouts" in the beakhead bulkhead date from the 1920s, when the bulwarks were lowered - and the people in charge at that point apparently thought the carronades were the only guns on the forecastle. 

The complexities of all this can give one a headache.  The bottom line is that nothing about the current configuration of the forecastle bulwarks can be trusted as being accurate for the ship's 1805 configuration.  I'm inclined to agree with George:  if any guns were actually set up to point forward on the forecastle, it was most likely the long guns rather than the carronades.

I believe the initial release of the Calder/Jotika kit had forecastle bulwarks like the real ship does now.  The company is noted for its commendable emphasis on accuracy.  As I recall, when the kit was originally released, sometime prior to 2005 (the anniversary of the battle), purchasers were invited to sign up for "updates" based on Mr. Goodwin's research project, which was still very much under weigh at that time.  (The in-progress photos on the Jotika website certainly give the impression that the raised forecastle bulwarks were added after the prototype model was started:    http://www.jotika-ltd.com/Pages/1024768/Victory_16.htm .)  Now that's what I call an honest-to-goodness scale ship model kit manufacturer.  I only wish I could afford their products.

One interesting source of information about the Victory's armament that doesn't seem to get consulted often is the series of sketches J.M.W. Turner drew on board her, supposedly shortly after the battle.  (He'd been commissioned to do the enormous painting of her that's now in the National Maritime Museum.)  I don't know where the original sketches are, but at least one of them is reproduced in the book H.M.S. Victory:  Construction, Career and Restoration, by Alan McGowen and John McKay.  The picture is a view of the quarterdeck and poop, from a viewpoint somewhat aft of the mainmast.  It clearly shows a good-sized swivel gun mounted on a hefty railing at the break of the poop. 

The completed Turner painting (http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/nelson/viewObject.cfm?ID=BHC0565 ) is interesting on several fronts.  Note that the NMM description confirms that, though the painting wasn't finished till 1822, Turner made sketches on board the ship "on her return from Trafalgar."  Note also that the ornate entry port on the middle gundeck is absent.  (Turner is no help regarding the forecastle bulwarks; he inconsiderately draped a downed sail over that part of the ship.)  The McGowan/McKay book contains reproductions of quite a few paintings of the ship made before and after Trafalgar.  Not one of them shows those entry ports.  Neither does this model from the NMM's collection:(http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/nelson/viewObject.cfm?ID=SLR0513 ).  This extremely interesting model is said to date from sometime shortly after the "great rebuild" that was finished in 1803.  (The NMM description hems and haws a bit about the bulwarks - but nobody seems to comment on the absence of the entry ports.  By the way - three cheers for the recent changes to the NMM website, which now makes many of the paintings and models in its great collection available for individual study online.)

There is, to say the least, substantial reason to think that Heller was right in leaving the entry ports off its 1/100-scale plastic kit.  I find it a little surprising that the Jotika kit has them.  There may be some more evidence out there, but I haven't seen it.

In the grand scheme of things none of this makes much difference, but I admit I find it fascinating - as the typically insufferable length of this post indicates.

I  have not come across any references to carronades below decks on any British ships of the era in question, particularly Victory.

The thought occurs to me that carronades stand higher than carriage guns and there may be issues with clearance thro' the lower deck gunports.

The 68 pound carronades on Victorys' fo'csle were a late replacement for two 24 pound carronades, a fortuitous substitution given the havoc caused to Bucentaure with the initial firing of the Port carronade thro' her stern.

According to Peter Goodwin (the present curator) Victory did carry six 18 pound carronades on her Poop prior to the 1803/04 refit.

I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that one of the higher rated Trafalgar vessels did carry some carronades on her quarterdeck, but for the life of me I can't recall where.

This shot more clearly shows the cutout on the beakhead rail mentioned by John, but there is no prepared pad on which to fit the swivel bed . This is not to say that there wasn't one at some time, but it seems more logical that the position was used for carriage mounted long guns.

 The jotika kit of Victory which has the built up bulwarks on the Fo'cstle shows the carronades facing forward thro; the beakhead rail, but this seems to present an awkward set up to achieve the raking shot thro' the Bucentaure stern as Victory cut the line.

If you look at the photos of the Jotika kit on their site the built up bulwarks severely restrict  the traversing range of the carronades which effectively can only point forwards.

 

The Victory's carronades are mounted on swivel carriages on the forward corners of her forecastle deck, in such a way that they can be swung around to fire through curved cutouts in either the top of the beakhead bulkhead or the knee-high bulwarks of the sides.  There's a good photo on this page from the ship's website:  http://www.hms-victory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=62 . 

The picture shows the starboard carronade swiveled around to fire to starboard; the cutout in the beakhead bulkhead is just out of the picture to the left.  The carriage pivots on a pin mounted just inboard of the bulwark.  Swinging the mount around to fire over the beakhead bulkhead would have entailed removing the pin, bodily heaving the front end of the carriage around, and securing the pin in a corresponding socket next to the beakhead bulkhead - a big, clumsy job that would have been extremely dangerous with any kind of sea running.  And if the carronades were fired over the beakhead bulkhead, the first casualty would be some of the elaborate rigging associated with the bowsprit and spritsail yards.  I suspect the carronades were rarely, if ever, used that way.  Come to think of it, I'm not sure there even is a socket for the pin next to the beakhead bulkhead "cutout."  You can barely make out the cutout itself in the photo showing the galley stove flue, but no fitting for the carronade seems to be visible there.

Some researchers contend that in 1805 the Victory's forecastle bulwarks were shoulder high, with genuine gunports in them for that purpose; that's how they're shown in the contemporary model at the National Maritime Museum.  In any case, every set of plans and every model of the Victory (in her post-1802 configuration) that I've ever seen shows the carronades on the forecastle deck.  That was a typical arrangement at the time; she was perhaps a little unusual in that she didn't have any carronades on her quarterdeck.  (I'd have to look up how many British ships of the line did have quarterdeck carronades in 1805. Plenty of frigates certainly did.)

One of the reasons for the popularity of the carronade was that, because it was so short, it could fire a heavier shot than could a long gun of equal weight.  (A 68-pounder long gun would have been an impractical weapon for the broadside armament of an eighteenth-century ship.)  That fact enabled a heavier gun to be carried higher up in the ship without raising the center of gravity.  (As the text on that web page puts it, "Because [carronades] were lighter than standard long guns they could be mounted on the top deck."  Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century naval architects assumed that lowering the center of gravity automatically made the ship more stable.  The question of stability isn't quite that simple in reality, but the concept was the basis of many decisions in warship design.)  The carronade made its initial appearance on the quarterdecks and forecastles of ships of various rates (the Constitution being a prominent example). 

I'm never comfortable with word like "never" and "always" in this context, but I know of no instances of carronades being mounted on the lower deck of a ship of the line.  (For that matter, I know of no British or American frigate, other than the Essex, that carried carronades anywhere other than on her quarterdeck and/or forecastle.  There may well have been others, but I can't recall any of them - though sloops, brigs, and other smaller warships with maindeck carronade batteries were relatively common.)  And there's no doubt whatever that the first gun fired on board the Victory at Trafalgar was the carronade on the starboard side of her forecastle deck.

I believe in the case of HMS Victory (and other first rates of the time), you will find the 68 Lbs carronades will be located in the first set of gunports in the lower gundeck............ The real 'smasher!'