Waldemar

One more...

Many thanks Peter for your kind words. I took a break from drawing for a while. So no new elements, just playing with the Navy Board style for this model. Perhaps you will like it too. On the 3D model everything is tidy, but in reality the look of the framing would be closer to a mess. Note the removable part of the waistcloth frame close to the main hatch in the waist, making it easier to board the vessel.

So the matter is finally solved, and even in the double way: archaeological and practical...

These two ships you mention are from two different worlds. Again, simplifying somewhat, but to start somewhere: almost exactly in the middle of the 17th century there was a radical change in tactical doctrine, with shifting from boarding and small arms distance fight to gunnery duels (the First Anglo-Dutch War), and this affected not only the ships' design, but also the crew proportions, with sailors and gunners gradually taking over the infantry numbers on board. While building „Papegojan” of 1627 make sure there is enough room on board to live and fight for a squad of 60 infantrymen, besides 48 sailors. And this is a very small ship of only about 270 tons and the length of 86 feet. In my reconstruction she would have overloop (principal deck) serving both as a platform for the main battery and living quarters for the crew, and unbroken upper/weather deck for handling the ship and fighting infantry (very light, mostly gratings; it is called bovenet in the ship's inventory). In other words, the large body of infantry must have a place to fight, otherwise it would be useless. And no forecastle, to not make the ship unnecessarily top-heavy and leewardly. In the 1627 campaign the "Papegojan" served as supply ship and according to the ordnance inventory carried only four light guns (bronze 3-pdrs) instead of the usual a dozen or so. The frigates of the second half of the century are somewhat different proposition, but I do not know the frigate "Berlin" to make any reasonable comments.

Simplifying somewhat, the forecastle was an asset on merchant ships, but could be a nuisance on men-of-war in wartime, especially during battle. Its bulkhead took up available space (for artillery) and blocked the free movement of the crew. Due to the heavy loads (guns) above the waterline, as opposed to the merchant cargo held below in the hold, it was also desired to lower the gravity centre of of the whole as much as possible by removing it, if a merchant ship was pressed into the naval service. It had some advantages though. It made the ship drier in rough seas and was useful while defending the ship against entering party.

We'll find out in the next photos of building this model 🙂

Sure there already are rich archives of ships' draughts of very good quality put on-line. Let's try: Dutch: https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/en/research/archive/4.MST Danish: https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/en/billedviser?epid=17149179#207924,39521405

Many thanks Petr for the compliments and your very rational question as well. While it is true that many, or even most ships of the time are depicted as having a fore deck, there are still many examples of warships without one. I have selected for you a number of samples: – contracts for the building (1613) and rebuilding (1630) of the Danish warship 'Fides' (builder: Dutchman Peter Michelsen), in which all decks are listed, but the fore deck is not mentioned; – contract and draught of the Danish warship „Hummeren” (designer and builder: Scotsman David Balfour), built 1623–1625 (the run of the decks highlighted with red lines by me); Hummeren 1625 – portrait of a Dutch ship of about 1620 by Cornelis Verbeeck, which may be interpreted as having no forecastle; Dutch ship of about 1620 – case of the Dutch-built VOC ship „Prins Willem” built 1649–1650, with her fore deck removed upon pressing for naval service (it seems quite typical procedure in such circumstances); – depiction of a Dutch warship by Experiens Sillemans (1611–1653); Dutch warship of about the middle of the 17th cent. – 17th cent. model of the Swedish warship „Amarant” built 1653; Amarant 1653 – a number of van de Velde drawings of Dutch frigates of about the middle of the 17th cent. Wulpenburg 1659 Harderwijk 1659 unidentified frigate of the Amsterdam Admiralty 1665 So, given a choice - with or without a fore deck, first of all I had taken into account the extremely narrow hull of the reconstructed ship.

Woodrat's suggestion about paddling instead of rowing is quite clever, but you would then lose attractive outriggers. Difficult choice...

Thanks a lot. These are my hopes too. The hopes are also for a structural model, say, close to the Navy Board style. That's why I make sure that the layout of the internal parts, their shapes and scantlings are as historically correct as possible.

Thank you Scrubby. Yes, once the formalities are settled, which should be soon, the first model will be built in wood. But first the general concept of the ship's reconstruction, so different in some important aspects from the existing ones, has to be accepted by the investor (museum). In any case, I will try to show further progress as far as possible, be it a 3D or a wooden model.

Finished, hopefully, external details of the hull not related to rigging: scuppers and less important but conspicuous details – gun port wreaths, balcony ribs, etc. More and more I think of it as a ship of a new just emerging class – the frigate.

A neat, tidy job. At least in the pictures... 🙂

It's not over yet, is it? And where are the oars, rudder, outriggers, platforms and ornaments, maybe even the crew like in ancient Egyptian tomb boats?

... forgot to mention both realistic and attractive shapes.

A lovely finish, natural, 'everlasting' materials (if properly cared for) and a visible structure. This is my favourite way 🙂.

Many thanks guys for the likes and comments... In the quest for speed and weatherliness, the ship was designed with extremely narrow proportions for a warship. The length-to-width ratio is as high as 4,62:1. If highly built with extensive upperworks or multiple decks, she could have capsized, as happened to the 'Vasa' for precisely this reason. Fortunately, the king did not interfere with the ship's design in this case.

More details have been added: catheads with its supports, gun port lids, chesstree, window and cargo port aft, channels. First-person view of roughly maximum effective range of artillery fire:

Wonderful to see a vessel from my favourite period. Thanks.

With the exception of the lion and perhaps a few other fellows, the beakhead can be considered finished.

Almost done.

In those days, only a few ships could match the 'Vasa' in terms of the number of carvings, such as the Danish 'Tre Kroner', the English 'Prince' and 'Sovereign of the Seas' or the French 'La Couronne'. These were all exceptional ships built for show. All the rest, the workhorses of the fleet, were much more modest in this respect. And this ship is such a workhorse for day-to-day duties. There are quite a few shipwrecks relevant to this project. Many of them are well known, except perhaps the Swedish 'Solen', a ship that was sunk in the same battle in which the 'Saint George' participated. Lots of extremely useful material from this site. We still hope to find the remains of the "Saint George" in the river.

Thank you very much Scrubby. Well, yes and no. Only scanty data on the actual ship survives (but happily more on other ships of the fleet). There is, however, abundant material when it comes to background information. Archaeological, iconographic and written sources were used for this reconstruction: Venetian, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, English, Danish and Swedish. All of these proved useful. As a result, the ship can be considered a more or less typical man-of-war of the Baltic area.

Basic structure of the beakhead.

Ye dredded reer ormanents stryke yette agayn (making forum server down for two days). In the meantime... ... the final lines of the stern taking shape. I have modified the internal structure slightly (not shown here) in order to lay a row of planks under balcony lengthwise rather than across as was originally intended.