Matle

Not sure if I can find something matching the Royal George in terms of artisanship, but the late 18th century Swedish navy is well represented by contemporary models, including a series of rather impressive 1/16 models - for these your macro lenses are probably overkill. 😃 Most of it is digitalized, see e.g. here (at the bottom of the page there are links to other sets of models): Ships: https://digitaltmuseum.se/021189676586/af-chapmans-linjeskepp Frigates: https://digitaltmuseum.se/021188835186/af-chapmans-fregatter Archipelago frigates: https://digitaltmuseum.se/021188555115/af-chapmans-skargardsfregatter Galleys: https://digitaltmuseum.se/021189712019/galarer

Thank you Bruce, it goes to my library.

Although it was indeed not common due to less things eating the hulls, it did occur. Mostly though, wooden sheathing was employed, essentially an underwater sacrifical layer of thin planking. Even Swedish East Indiamen were sheathed in that manner. However, the major units of the Swedish navy were copper sheathed in the major overhaul around 1790, but none of those sank outside Riga as far as I know even though they did patrol the Baltic together with the British in 1809. If it’s indeed a large ship and indeed 200 years old (how did they conclude that, I saw no dendro?) the answer should be available in the archives. Probably in the Russian - they built their larger vessels with oak and copper sheathing too, at least a bit further into the 19th century. Wonder why they disregarded the most obvious answer? Otherwise, if ”oak” and ”copper” is all they’ve got, I can mention that plenty of later and lesser vessels were built of oak with copper sheathing - here’s one example: https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tre_Kronor_af_Stockholm edit: looking at the pictures with people in it, the size if the hull and planking makes me think this is a smaller vessel.

I think we had a thread on this, but can’t find it now. Anyway, the archaeological reports are publically available. Here’s the latest: http://sh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1519329/FULLTEXT02.pdf In Swedish, but with lots of pictures and an English summary at the end.

Apologies if posted already - I do not visit often. Technology is taking leaps currently, and scanning and modelling (the computer kind) now enable the existance of armchair wreck divers. The Swedish digital wreck museum has uploaded a couple a while ago. I had somehow missed them and thought I’d share. The Anna Maria, a fluyt from the first decade of the 18th century: https://www.vrakmuseum.se/en/wrecks-and-remains/shipwrecks/anna-maria An unidentified wreck, probably another fluyt from the same time: https://www.vrakmuseum.se/en/wrecks-and-remains/shipwrecks/jutholmsvraket The 3D models are towards the bottom of the pages, and you can freely move around in them. The colouring and lighting appear to be designed to give the feeling of actually diving. Has anyone has seen any more?

Thanks Dafi, those are quite convincing images I have to admit. Maybe the forces involved were not that great to threaten the integrity of the brackets/connections, and the inertia of the largest guns would perhaps take most/some of the forces. The rate of fire was as said not great. Even in the battles of the Northern 7-years war which were artillery duels, the ammunition consumption were surprisingly low. It’s still a silly thing to do, to balance outside the hull like that.

Aye; it was applied in post #15

You are, of course, correct. When I said it wouldn’t move, I meant that any sideways movement would be insignificant, negligible - not that it would be absolutely 0.

Mark, I feel we might be talking past each other. The 16th century was a long period, full of experimentation and technological and tactical development. Even at the same time and place, different types of vessels were used with very different purpose and armament. For example, I focused my post on the pure-bred warship of the latter half of the 16th century in the Baltic - these were largely artillery ships. For the earlier type of breech-loaded heavy iron guns common during the end of the 15th and first half of the 16th centuries, having little recoil makes more sense.

Thanks - it’s a keeper. I particularly like the essay about launching, by Barker.

I should really like to read it. Which time and space is he then refering to? None of the accounts of late 16th and early 17th century warfare indicates that the ships tried to disengage to load guns, rather the contrary. When Mary Rose sank, her newer guns had 4 wheel carriers while the older had only 2. Although this can be related to weight rather than age, adding wheels seems consistent with letting the gun recoil. One could argue that these were muzzle-loaded and wheels make hauling them back and forth easier, but it seems to me that someone would quickly realise that letting the guns do that job themselves seems like a rather tempting idea. And again, pinning the large guns would quickly damage them.

As you said, I can not address the article as I have no access, only the short points you posted. Since you did not address my main points, I feel you took the choice of word ”silly” a bit harsher than I intended: I did not mean to say that the author was silly to propose it, I merely meant that the idea of leaning out and trying to flip a 10-20 kg iron ball into a small hole, and powder too, seemed to me a rather impractical procedure to do, especially while simultaneously being shot at. I did not mean it in demeaning sort of way.

I doubt these conclusions, except the one about bowed guns and chasers. How would you arrange the gun to not let it recoil? Using tight breech ropes? The brackets holding them to the hull wouldn’t last long I suspect. Likewise bolting the carriage to the deck would be rather unhealthy to the gun and carriage. The force won’t be magically transferred to the ship: it would first cause immense strain on the barrel, connections and carriage. It could work for the smallest caliber guns, though. Also, the forward motion of the cannonball wouldn’t change in any significant way. There is no advantage other than not having to haul a breech-loaded gun out and in case of muzzle-loaders you’d have double work. Loading outboard sounds like a silly thing to do when actions were close-fought and the other fellows armed with muskets and bows would be using you for target practice. edit: To clarify for heavy breechloaded guns this make sense, but not muzzle-loaded. Anyhow, researchers have recently been studying guns and their carriages from the Mars (1563, discovered some years ago): these had wheels and brackets for breeching lines. There was no doubt that broadside firing was the chosen tactic there, based on written sources and ship design. In the beginning of Nordic 7-years war the allied Danes and Germans still employed boarding tactics, while the Swedes had started using artillery-only and designed their new ships for gunnery duels. Their tactic relied on trying to keep a distance and pounding the opposition with superior artillery. The broadside of Mars actually sank a Hanseatic (or Danish) ship in one of it’s first engagements. Even though the Mars was ironically lost during a boarding action, the Danes and Germans quickly adapted and started building artillery ships rather than boarders (getting rid of the high sterncastles for example). The Mars did seem to have had stern-chasers of grand proportions (5 m long 48-pounders), but they would not have wasted so much weight on broadside artillery as they did if it wasn’t meant to be used. Now, I guess the author focussed on English practice but I doubt the English were late to follow these developments. — As for the hypothetical case of fixed guns moving the ship sideways: no, it wouldn’t. Here’s a visual example. A few years ago a copy of a Vasa 24-pounder was casted and tested. They performed some 50 test shots, measuring a muzzle velocity of 350 m/s. The recoil is a balance of momentum: the ball’s forward momentum should equal the backward momentum of the gun. Ball momentum: 11 kg * 350 m/s = 3850 kgm/s The gun weights about 1400 kg, solving for the gun recoil velocity v = 3850/1400 = 2.75 m/s Check out this video and estimate the actual gun velocity (it is 2-3 m long): Now imagine that the gun is instead a ship weighing a 1000 tons instead of a 1000 kilos: its velocity would be 1/1000 of that of the gun - and that only it were placed on wheels and free to roll, rather than having water and wind pushing back. Incidently, in the end of the 18th century Chapman designed and built ”gun yawls”, which essentially were small floating gun carriages with a single fixed 20-something-pounder. Plenty of sources exists from this time so if there was some significant recoil moving the boat someone should have written it down - I’ll have a look if someone has bothered telling that story. That’s something entirely different of course.

That’s a Contarini galley (the blue and yellow is indeed their arms) - Contarini was based in Venice and ran charter tours to Jerusalem for pilgrims. I believe he had a more or less a monopoly when Konrad went, so I guess Konrad travelled with him. The town on the last image is Ragusa (Dubrovnik) by the way.

The illustration doesn’t necessarily have to be based on the Turkish ship they met. I’d wager we are looking at a Hanseatic ship with Turkish flags. Even the figurehead (I doubt 15th century Turks would put a dog sculpture on their ship by the way - though as mentioned they did charter ships from Christian subjects) looks like the one recently picked up from the bottom of the Baltic: https://www.vrakmuseum.se/en/wrecks-and-remains/shipwrecks/gribshunden