Jump to content

Mark P

Members
  • Content Count

    1,400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mark P

  • Birthday 09/08/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rutland, England
  • Interests
    Sailing ship models, scratch built. History, art, architecture, cultural.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,992 profile views
  1. Good Morning Louie; Thank you for pointing that out. I do believe that you are correct, and the author is referring to James I of Scotland, whereas I am indeed thinking of a different James; the first of England. Ooops! All the best, Mark P
  2. Congratulations on completing her, Vladimir; A very lovely model, and built with remarkable speed. There is a lot of good detailing on her, and I agree with the others above: it has been a pleasure to watch her taking shape under your hands. I hope that whatever well-earned rest you take now will not last too long, and you will be back in the workshop on your next project; which I look forward very much to following. All the best, Mark P
  3. Good Morning Louie; Thanks for posting this. The extract from Matthew Paris is especially interesting, as you say, giving reasons to obtain the weather gage long before gunpowder had any part in it. I also rather like the description of James I & VI as 'able and spirited': not something with which most historians or contemporaries would agree, I suspect. Although he could exhibit examples of intelligent reasoning, and he did somewhat to encourage maritime exploration, his indulgence of flawed favourites, and his willingness to allow demonstrably corrupt and venal men to continu
  4. Good Evening Syrgem; I can certainly confirm that Jonas Shish, Master Shipwright at Deptford during at least part of the Protectorate period, and the reign of King Charles, was familiar with the use of cast lead as ballast. However, the only use he refers to, and which I know continued into later periods, is in Royal yachts; which did not exist in England prior to the Restoration in 1660. So you are probably already aware of this. I have seen no earlier reference to this practice. It is possible that this began with the Dutch presentation of a yacht to Charles on his R
  5. Good Evening Mark; I have seen contracts which stipulate that a thicker deck plank is to be used below the columns. This could refer to the binding strakes which run parallel to the centre line. I don't remember exactly which ships and periods this occurred in. Druxey's suggestion of carlings being used seems reasonable also, although a 4" deck plank supported by the ledges would also take a fair amount of weight. In the 17th century long carlings were used to form a raised line each side of the centreline, making the outer edge of all the hatchways, but again, I cannot remember if
  6. Good Evening Mark; I have done a bit of looking through the draughts on Wikimedia, and besides the Dorsetshire, there are plans of the Hampton Court and Weymouth? with similarly detailed deck plans. All of them show the knees abutting the carlings with rounded ends, not cut off square. See below a plan from Inflexible, which, although it is dated 1790, when she was converted to a store-ship, shows the deck beams from an earlier period. Doesn't show any knees, unfortunately; but the carlings are far enough from the side for the knees not to need shortening in any way.
  7. Good Evening Siggi; I hope that Mark won't mind me answering for him, but if you are asking about what I think you are, this is a deck beam structure using half-beams; which is a fairly common method of fitting the deck beams in the after end of the deck. It allows for shorter beams to be used than are otherwise required. All the best, Mark P
  8. Good Evening Matle; It is well worth reading; as it is subject to copyright, I cannot post it or a link here. I can say that there are many accounts in the literature of the 16th-early 17th centuries which describe sea fights, all in the context of firing the bow guns, then the broadside guns, then the stern-chasers, then perhaps the other broadside also, and then moving away to reload. This was a common tactic for all nations, commencing with a 'charge' towards the enemy, before firing the bow guns. There are multiple references to this kind of tactic by many contemporaries. The u
  9. Thanks for your reply Matle; I do agree with you that it seems to be a rather daft idea to load outboard (in the Van de Velde sketch mentioned, a member of the gun's crew is sitting on the barrel outside the port) but according to the tactics of the period, the reloading was carried out away from the enemy, so while not being shot at. Nonetheless, it does seem rather inconceivable. Your mathematical workings are a welcome addition, and you are correct in that I did indeed ignore that, responding instead to the seeming intent of 'silly'. I will try to avoid such limited
  10. Good Evening Matle; Thank you for your thoughts. I cannot help but feel that to some extent you are indulging in hindsight: you know what came later, and are inclined to dismiss other practices as unlikely or 'a silly idea'. Outboard loading of cannon is mentioned often in the sources, and is actually shown in a sketch by one of the Van de Veldes (elder or younger, don't remember which) who are widely regarded as the greatest marine artists of the 17th century, and very good authorities. I suggest that if possible you read the article I mentioned at the beginning of th
  11. Thank you for the further clarification, Dan; In other words, the difference in projectile velocity is unlikely to have been noticeable, and cannot have been a factor in whether or not cannons were allowed/encouraged to recoil when fired. This will help when considering the process behind the changes outlined at the beginning of this thread. All the best, Mark P
  12. Good Evening Dan; Thank you for the explanations above, which all seem well grounded. You have summarised matters more clearly in technical terms than I could have done, which certainly helps. All the best, Mark P
  13. Good Evening Jaager; Thank you again for your further thoughts, which are very welcome, as they encourage further consideration. The comment re the nose gun is interesting, and may well be true, although it is perhaps (and I only say perhaps, not knowing any facts) subjective more than it is the result of careful analysis. I remember hearing a similar comment about the A10 Warthog, the tank-busting 'Flying Cross'. Remarkable machines, they were, and presumably the F86 was similar: an airborne Gatling gun with a high rate of fire and lethal projectiles. However, a ship's
  14. Good Evening Jaager; Thank you for your thoughts. Although my study of physics was somewhat less thorough, and I remember very little of lines of force, I suspect that you are probably incorrect here, but certainly correct that some of the energy would be turned into heat, and therefore light also; but that would be a constant with or without recoil. My reasoning re the force would be that as the cannon is immovable, no energy can be used in moving it, although a much lesser amount may be used in attempting to move it. If the cannon cannot move backwards at the same time that the b
  15. I have just finished reading a very interesting article in Mariner's Mirror, volume 82 (1996) no.3 p301-324. This was written by NAM Rodger, and is titled 'The Development of Broadside Gunnery'. This discusses, amongst other points, the evidence for the development of broadside gunnery as opposed to the use of bow & stern chasers, which latter seemingly continued much longer than most of us might suppose. Several points arise which I will try to summarise here, as they will be of interest to fellow modellers: Firstly, in 16th & early 17th century ships, the he
×
×
  • Create New...