Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

897 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Thanks - it’s a keeper. I particularly like the essay about launching, by Barker.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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 n
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. Is there no way to divert traffic, or is it too narrow? In related news, one of the newly discovered wrecks in the Baltic was recently plundered by vandals. New technology discovers wrecks quicker than the authorities can protect them - but since there is no money to guard them that might not matter anyway. Part of me hope that we won’t discover any more wrecks in easily accessible waters...
  11. Wonderful work, thank you for sharing. I’ve been thinking to attempt a miniature myself, so I’m happy to see this log. May I ask, what is the purpose of filling with resin? For strength?
  12. They have made some smaller incursions earlier, the main finds being the following: - Believed to be a burial, but likely the ship was previously used and was not just a burial vessel - Due to lowered water table large parts of the ship have been damaged or destroyed by rot, but the keel appears intact. The quick decision and accelerated startup of excavation was made to precent the decomposing from causing further damage - The wood has been dated to around the year 733 - The size is comparable to the Gokstad and Oseberg ships, but on this ship the keel is quite different,
  13. Hi Bruce, I didn’t mean the Mousa, I meant the one on the Italian drawing. That’s a much larger vessel
  14. Looks like a medium-sized freighter of 1930s design, maybe around 2500T? Due to Genoa, maybe worth checking ships built by Ansaldo as a start. As why he had the drawing, better ask someone who knew him. I like drawings myself, I could have kept it as a keepsake, or to make a model, or - had I been an electrical engineer/electrician - for reference.
  • Create New...