Waldemar

🙂

Good choice, but still a hard one in one aspect... 🙂 Royal Three Crowns or the Yellow Cross? Or maybe both?

Could not resist placing some infantrymen in the ship's waist. Out of the company totalling 100 men, borrowed from the army for this ship just before the imminent battle, only 27 musketeers are shown here. Some of them, able to throw grenades, were sent to the fighting tops. The sailing part of the crew consisted of additional 50 men. It is difficult to imagine the crowding on board during the battle... Figurines by Captain_Ahab_62 (Thingiverse)

Both lovely and funny project. 🙂 May I ask what flags do you intend to hoist on your model?

Many thanks for the likes, stimulating... General construction of the jeer capstan completed – spindle lowered by an inch or two and made to the gun deck (not shown here), pawls added, bars reversed, chamfering of the coamings redone. Below a picture of the real thing for comparison (by H. Sasso).

Working on capstan...

Beauty! And even more so as the structural parts are visible.... I love it. As I recall, this boat was given to Tsar Peter by the Dutch authorities, so I imagine it could rightly be considered a fairly typical large Dutch-style boat.

Perfect job – extraordinary sense of shapes and proportions of humans and beasts.

Ship models featuring visible structural elements have always been my favourites. A pleasure to see yours.

... even more gratings, with one of the hatch covers upside down. Perhaps this appearance of the deck, featuring some of the hatch covers in place and some not, is somehow related to the etymology of the name of this deck, namely 'koebrug' (a Dutch term, in English 'cow-bridge'), where the hatch covers visually act as 'bridges'.

Thank you very much for your comment Mark. I completely agree with you that such coamings could be a serious trip hazard. They are modelled exactly on the "Vasa" coamings, just as many other parts in this reconstruction. Still, this very issue you have raised made me think of the necessity of chamfering their edges (see the updated image below). To be honest, I was more expecting a comment on cannons so close to the rather high coamings, and my explanation would be that these were then the last days of firing on the non-recoil principle and the outboard loading, both closely related to the doctrine and practice of the boarding tactics (as opposed to soon to be widely adopted artillery tactics). Section of the „Vasa” coamings: Updated coamings (much better, thanks again Mark):

more gratings...

That's right. There are several Display Modes in Rhino to choose from, some more suited for modelling work, and other helpful for presentation purposes (sorry for the banality). Below I have included a few samples I use most often. Trying not to use external plug-ins to the Rhino, and fortunately the number and look of Display Modes available already in Rhino is more than enough for my needs. Wireframe: Shaded: Rendered: Artistic: Pen:

... just started the upper deck. It is called "koebrug" in the fleet inventory, so I have designed this deck as heavier than "bovenet" (very light deck), and – at the same time – lighter than a regular deck. In practice: a lot of gratings, but still able to carry a few small-calibre artillery pieces.

Many thanks for your comment. Building the wooden model by two professional modellers (for the museum exposition) should start within weeks, even without waiting for the completion of the ship’s documentation. Also, in order to speed up the work, the plank-on-bulkhead construction is planned for this very first model. Perhaps I would be allowed to attach some photos of this work-in-progress too. Just now I am preparing section lines of the hull for them.

Sills for rectangular gun ports and chocks around circular openings fitted, some filling pieces were also needed.

The angles involved in the bow area are also the reason why long-barreled artillery pieces were preferably chosen as the chase guns. Not quite for its assumed accuracy or range (both not really necessary in a boarding sea fight), but simply to place the gun’s muzzles outside the ship.

Right, in general, you are correct – the guns were mounted more or less perpendicular to the ports. The exception, however, was the chase ports, which were even made a little wider than the rest, so that the heaviest and tactically most important guns could be directed right forward. This is explicitly recommended (as I recall) in one of the English 17th century shipbuilding treatises. My explanation for this is that it would be impossible to yaw both ways when sailing closed-hauled against the target about to be boarded. It would be perhaps no time for such manoeuvres too, as the artillery fire was opened at the last moment (usually at the musket range, ie. 75–150 m) in order to reduce the risk of missing the target. And we are still at the period of boarding tactics – typically just one artillery salvo and then immediate grappling, at least by determined combatants (Armada campaign with windward English vessels refusing to board opponent ships is not quite typical for this era).

A little progress. Have just 'cleaned up' the ship's bow and cut out the gun ports (sills not yet fitted). Note the downward sloping of the small beakhead deck (for obvious reasons). The area around the bowsprit opening inspired by solutions as found on "Vasa".

Many thanks. Follow-up should be soon.

Philemon, There is really not much risk of being battered by stating that many or even most methods of building ships in the early modern era had more or less common features, as this is already a long, firmly established view among notable experts. I heartily agree with this conclusion and have never said that all "these methods are very different from each other". I am very sorry my words were over-interpreted. On the contrary – reading more and more on various shipbuilding methods it becomes quite clear that beside any differences, they share many similarities, (be it features, approaches, procedures or structural details), and in many ways. This is why it is always beneficial to see any particular case in a wider context, not just through the content of any one book, however comprehensive. The frame-led method as described by van Yk (also called "elementary method" by Jean Boudriot) is a perfect case in point. Personally, I regard this method as an elaboration of the "pure" shell method and, at the same time, an important step in developing more advanced, already graphical methods of designing ship's hulls. For a number of reasons I have elected not to explain the very basic terms like "bottom-first" or "frame-first", nor to enter the construction/building details, as these are already quite competently explained in existing works. You, and perhaps other readers, may be interested in consulting works such as (and this is only a small selection): – A. Hoving, A. Lemmers, In tekening gebracht. De achttiende-eeuwse scheepsbouwers en hun ontwerpmetoden, 2001, – B. Ollivier, D. Roberts (ed. and trans.), 18th Century Shipbuilding. Remarks on the Navies of the English & the Dutch from Observations made at their Dockyards in 1737, 1992, – A. Hoving, Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age, 2012. From the conceptual point of view, the most enlightening works, devoted to the frame-led method (in effect, the same or very similar to that described by van Yk), are two papers by the top authority on the subject: – E. Rieth, Une autre méthode de conception des «anciens constructeurs», celle du maître-gabarit, du couple des estains et des lisses, Neptunia 298, and – E. Rieth, Une autre méthode de conception des «anciens constructeurs», à l'aide d'un maître-gabarit, de gabarits des couples de balancement et des lisses de construction, Neptunia 299. Here only the translation of two short fragments taken form these papers: „[Besides,] two other methods not based on the use of plans are mentioned by two authors representative of the 18th century scientific thinking on nautical matters: Spanish Jorge Juan and Frenchman Pierre Bouguer [...]", and "In effect, that was in the shipyard, during actual construction, that the geometry of the [hull] shape was defined". Nevertheless, if you prefer to consult the original sources, here their titles: – G. Juan, Examen maritime théoretique et practique, ou traité de mécanique appliqué à la construction et à la manoeuvre des vaisseaux et autres bâtiments, 1783 (French translation), – P. Bouguer, Traité du navire, de sa construction et de ses mouvements, 1746. Below is an illustration taken from the work by Pierre Bouguer, depicting the principal elements of the frame-led ("elementary") method, employed also by van Yk. Waldemar

Well, maybe... So waiting for convincing evidence rather than attempts at philosophy. While exciting in itself, this way it cannot be proved either that, say, ancient Egyptians never used mobile phones or diesel engines, right?

Well, I think such a steadfast attitude of Ab Hoving is quite justified provided it concerns conceptual aspects of ship design (hull shape). Let me remind that Ab's main focus is on the shell (bottom-first) method described in Witsen's work, often referred to as the Dutch method (an obvious mental abbreviation, as different techniques were used in the south of the Netherlands - i.e. quasi skeleton methods; furthermore, shell methods could be also developed and used in other parts of the continent, notably in northern Germany – see, for example, cog's construction). But back to the point. The very nature of the shell method actually precludes the use of theoretical line plans. I would propose an experiment here (and experiments are inherent part of science) – an attempt to build a ship (or a model of a ship) using the shell method, conforming to the theoretical hull lines made beforehand and within acceptable accuracy. I would not believe it is possible until I see the opposite. Still in the second half of the 17th century, there was much consternation among shipwrights in the French service, including those of Dutch origin, when asked by the authorities the first time for design draughts. This is an example of what was then produced: Firstly, it may be connected with the frame-led method as described by van Yk, rather than with the shell method. Secondly, is this drawing strictly defining the whole hull shape? The answer is no, especially if considering that location of both tail frames could be adjusted along the keel during actual building. Thirdly, were such rudimentary sketches really necessary for experienced shipwrights? Don't think so. Waldemar

Philemon, Published works in the most major European languages on designing (or shaping) the hull bodies in the early modern era, be it graphical or non-graphical, are already abundant, and it is simply not possible to repeat their content here. It is neither practical to list all or even most of them. However, one of the best quite detailed modern summaries on this theme, which you may try, are provided by Jean Boudriot in the chapter “Méthodes de conception” in his book “Les vaisseaux de 50 et 64 canons” and in the paper “La conception des vaisseaux royaux sous l’Ancien Régime” (Neptunia 169, 1988). There are many, many other available sources, works and evidence, and there is no doubt that ships of all sizes, built to the skeleton method principle, could be created using non-graphical methods, i.e. without scale line plans made before the actual construction. And in the shell method of construction, as described by Witsen, even trying to work to any such prepared line plans would be no-go. In other words, shell method of construction and scale line plans are simply not compatible. Hence the importance of the shape of the rabbet, which governed the run of the planks. To some extent the shape of the rabbet was also important in the frame-led method described by van Yk, as there were too few pre-erected frames to govern the run of the garboard strakes properly. The most enlightening work on the actual building practices in the early modern era is perhaps the manual by Edmund Bushnell, “The Compleat Ship-Wright”, published in 1664. While partly graphical method for defining the hull body is presented in this manual (meaning the author applies only some elements of scale line plans), with some ingenuity and known at the time transformation tools/procedures, the described method of shaping the actual wooden moulds and frame parts can be also implemented to the non-graphical methods, directly on the shipyard ground. Best, Waldemar

Hello Philemon, Very interesting topic. Let me add to your remarks my three cents. By the time the Swedish subject Ake Rålamb wrote his illustrated booklet in 1691, various shipbuilding methods were used or known in Sweden, i.e. skeleton methods (frame-first and frame-led) and shell method (or perhaps more precisely: bottom-first). From about the middle of the 17th century, the Swedish king’s ships (men-of-war) were being increasingly designed and built using skeleton methods by English “imported” shipwrights (mainly Sheldon family). These English shipwrights certainly used scale-drawings in the construction process. Most importantly, such drawings strictly defined the body shape of the ship’s hull. My current understanding is that scale diagrams or sketches made with the only intention of just defining the layout of internal devices or structures could be made in all these methods, but such diagrams are of secondary importance, as they do not define the most important conceptual features of the ship (i.e. hull shape). In fact, it is hard to imagine the marriage of scale design/conceptual drawings with the bottom-first method as described by Witsen. Such drawings would be neither of much use in the frame-led method as described by van Yk. They could be even dispensed with in many of the known frame-first methods, as described in the Mediterranean or Atlantic sources, just full-scale tracing on the shipyard floor was clearly considered enough. Waldemar