Talk:HMS St Lawrence (1814)

How many guns?
Most online sources say that the St. Lawrence had 112 guns (one said 120), but the list of guns in the article adds up to only 104. In The Command of the Ocean, N.A.M. Roger mentions the St. Lawrence without naming it, writing that "At the end of the war Commodore Sir James Yeo had a three-decker, 102-gun flagship" (p.569). I wonder if it's a difference between how many guns the St. Lawrence was designed to hold, and how many she was actually equipped with. Does anyone have any sources that can clear this up? David 00:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)]]


 * I'd like to add my own query to this. (I have tagged the relevant line of the article.) "In way of armaments she carried thirty-two 32pdr long guns and two 68pdr carronades on the upper deck..."'. Surely, this should be thirty-two 32-pounder carronades ? Firstly, no sane designer would put 32-pounder long guns on the upper deck; this enormous topweight would make even something the size of St. Lawrence dangerously top-heavy. (And in any case, only 24-pounder long guns were mounted on the middle deck.) A picture of a model of the ship appears, though not very clearly, to show short-barrelled carronades on slides on the upper deck rather than long-barrelled long guns on carriages. Unless anyone has serious objections, I will change the article in the next few days. HLGallon (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * According to 'The Sail and Steam Navy List, All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815-1889' by Lyon and Winfield, they were 32-pounder carronades, not long guns. I'll correct this in the article. As to how many guns in total, both Colledge and Lyon/Winfield quote 112.  But it was not uncommon for ships to be redesigned, and minor changes made to the amount and type of guns carried. Benea (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Only freshwater ship of the line (?)
So far, no one has found another Royal Navy ship of the line that was landlocked in fresh water for its whole career. One person mentioned HMS Mimi and HMS Toutou, but these were small 20th-century motor launches, not ships of the line (or even the 20th-century equivalent, battleships). David (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I had misread it the first time, I thought it had said warships, which was wrong, ship of the line may not be. But it's still speculation, no matter how likely it seems to be and needs a cite.  I've tagged it and I'll take it out later if no one provides one.  A number of ships of the line were launched and immediately laid up, only being activated and sent to sea when necessary.  All it needs is one to have been burnt or sunk, or to have been declared obsolete, or unfit for service and broken up before being sent to sea and the St Lawrence's claim is gone.  And please don't do whole scale reversions like that, you reverted a lot of other changes in doing so. Benea (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Only ship of the line designed for freshwater service would be hitting the mark. As you rightly say, some may well have lived out their entire existence in fresh water by virtue of the fact that they were launched into a river, immediately laid up and never put into active service. Martocticvs (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How many gun decks?
The painting purports to be of St Lawrence but the ship pictured only appears to have two gun decks. Is it me or is something wrong here? Bagunceiro (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * St Lawrence was a very atypical first rate, being designed for service on a lake rather than at sea. She had 3 gundecks still, but there was no quarterdeck, forecastle or poop. From astern I believe she would have had the appearance of a 2 decker. See this model. Martocticvs (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent photograph, by the way. From Malcolmson's Lords of the Lake, which discusses the ship's construction and design only in broad details, most of the differences from an ocean-going first rate were to reduce draught. With sources of replenishment only a few days away, there would be no need to carry large quantities of provisions, nor fresh water (which could be obtained by throwing a bucket over the side). HLGallon (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is am image here that claims to be of the St Lawrence, and more closely matches its description: http://www.skipjackmarinegallery.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SNWMG&Product_Code=PR003&Category_Code= Ewillner (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS St Lawrence (1814). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713194417/http://www.rmcclub.ca/everitaswp/?p=1210 to http://www.rmcclub.ca/everitaswp/?p=1210

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * HMS St Lawrence 001.jpg