Waldemar

And then there is Björn Landström's interpretation from his somewhat outdated but still excellent book The Royal Warship Vasa. The rudder preventer ropes go to the tiller hole. This interpretation may actually be correct, as dedicated apertures for this purpose were not found in the stern of the ship (or they were not yet done before the catastrophe?). And there are other valuable books on the Vasa that I forgot to photograph the first time around.

@scrubbyj427 Take a look at the page 281. @72Nova Michael, it is now immediately apparent that the prototype of your model was made using the shell method (à la hollandaise) rather than the skeleton method. Thanks. The other insignificant anachronisms found in probably every reconstruction pale in comparison to this important "detail". And nice, convincing execution. 🙂 And Kirill is also vigilant – about rigging. Most practical, of course, are the graphics. Below are a few. Of note are the fixing, or rather entering points of the rudder preventer ropes – close to the tiller holes. And those two small outer circular apertures are sometimes used for boats towing, and sometimes for mooring ropes (on other ships' portraits). All drawings by van de Velde.

@scrubbyj427 This is the hefty book shown by Peter in his post #50, now only available as second-hand I think. It is extremely archaeological. Apart from that, there are a great many other works on Vasa of varying value; I show some of them in the photo below. What is missing here are some small, subject-specific monographs produced by the museum. @Hubac's Historian Marc, it would probably be more convincing if it weren't for the fact that you've been building your model for many years now caring about the smallest metaphorical nail in the process 🙂. But my apologies for not noticing this earlier 🙂.

@72Nova Michael. You will probably hate me, as I have some potentially almost apocalyptic news for you. I can see that you want the model to be as realistic as possible, so the lowest three planks must go all the way to the sternpost end, as in the diagram below (taken from the Vasa monograph). This can be considered a must for a ship built using the shell method. Sorry. @kirill4 Kiryl, for you I have the task of solving the puzzle of the coils you show in post #159. If you don't solve it within a few days, I will have to use the classic mouse-on-stay solution in my reconstruction of the ship contemporary to Vasa 🙂. Besides many paintings, these coils were simulated in the so-called Peller-model 1603 as in the diagram below, but after all, a rope several centimetres thick cannot be tied in such a tight way as in this diagram...

A complete anchor set for the ship. According to the 1629 inventory, there should be „four heavy anchors” (vier schwere Ancker) and „one kedge anchor” (ein Wurff Ancker). For some ships, grapnels (Draggen) are also listed as boat equipment. These were also useful in boarding fight. All six anchors are of different sizes.

For even greater clarity, it should probably be made very clear that these are examples from a later period of artillery development and refer to converting smoothbore heavy guns into rifled cannons, as there is some risk that those less versed in the subject will start to get even more confused and, as a result, may be more easily fooled by some sellers' tales along the lines of 'an authentic (albeit both smoothbore and steel-sleeved) cannon from a shipwreck ca. 1780'. Let's hope not... Also, for the convenience of readers: SBML - smoothbore muzzle loader RML - rifled muzzle loader RBL - rifled breech loader And below, as a curiosity for those interested, a visual sample of one of the first 'modern' rifled cannons, which I have found in Lübeck (Germany). Although accurate measurements were immediately taken, they are still awaiting detailed drawing documentation. For the time being, I consider them converted French smoothbore muzzle-loading 18-pdr guns captured in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. Overall view (note in particular reinforcing outer sleeve applied to the rear of the barrel and bushings applied to the trunnions): 3-grooved rifling (marked on the muzzle face with numbers '1', '2' and '3'):

True, the markings were normally placed on top of the barrel or on the trunnions' ends. Apart from all these doubts (lack of markings, steel sleeve inside the cast-iron barrel, too good overall condition), the calibre of this rather reenactment gun seems too large and should also be measured/verified. Below a handful of authentic samples for comparison. Somewhat ironically, some of them also sports the above anomalies, but only individually, and not all at once. And never steel sleeve inside as in modern reenactment shooting replicas. No markings found on the below 6-pdr guns, but these can be hidden under many layers of thick paint (carriages are modern reproductions): Two British swivel guns intended for the civilian market. One of them has been originally up-bored from 1/2 lb calibre to 1 lb calibre (to serve possibly as a signal gun without shot?). Both with a letter „P” cut on the first reinforce beside weight markings:

Steel sleeves inside the barrel are standard, and even mandatory, on today's replicas designed for shooting. There should also be some markings on authentic guns produced even by private companies for the civilian market, as on this gunnade below, found in one of the museums. Overall view: Weight markings on top of the first reinforce: Manufacturer's and poundage markings underneath the breech: My exhibition board made for the owner of this cannon:

Hi Christopher, Although I already have a general vision of the decoration, I have left its detailed design for the end, according to the order requested by modellers already making a wooden model of the ship. But maybe this order will still change. Anyway, I will show it as soon as there is something to show. 🙂

Well, perhaps no good news here, as I guess you may simply waste your time with this apparent shortcut. Most probably it just won't work as you would wish with that shape. Rather, consider using the blueprints of the frames and your ingenuity to get the right form by „manual” means. Initially, it may seem more labour-intensive approach, yet, in the end, you may save a lot of time by avoiding later corrections, re-doings and even starting the whole again from scratch.

Yet another variant, if your model would be large, or you seek for still more realism or just prefer to have shallower rabbet. Loft the cutting surface using the upper rabbet line (red line) and the second line, placed about midway of the garboard strake thickness (another red line). This is all shown below.

The original intention was to show the entire process and in different variations, but there would have to be a manual longer than this thread and it would take much more time than I can devote to it. So the idea itself: 1-2. create the keel-stempost assembly as one entity, define the master surface inside the planking; 3. divide the master surface into separate strakes, offset them as solids to the plank thickness, find the intersection of the outer surface with the keel (red line); 4. explode the garboard strake and delete all resulting surfaces except upper and outer; 5. loft lacking surfaces using existing edges and the red line, combine them into the closed polysurface; 6. this is another possible variant featuring trapezoidal garboard strake and rectangular regular strakes (in contrast to bow like) in cross-section. For this, lower the red line, explode all strakes, delete their non-touching surfaces, loft new surfaces using existing edges, then combine them into separate strakes. This variant, while more realistic, may be also a blessing if you intend to unroll the strakes into the flat surface for later CNC machining, 7. Boolean cut the keel assembly. And good luck! Edit: in step 3-4 you can still simplify the task by lofting the surface using both rabbet lines, inner and lower (red line). Then just use this surface to Boolean cut off the garboard strake to its final shape.

Rabbet area is somewhat tricky to make indeed and should be well thought out to make it perfect. Just to repeat: there are normally three lines of the rabbet: two on the outside of the keel (lower and upper) and one inside. All roughly parallel to each other. And the garboard strake may be trapezoidal or rectangular in cross section, or both along its length. Now, sorry, no shortcuts here, so you must separately define one lower and one inner before lofting the side master surface. The inner line must coincide with the frame contours. Then you may follow this sequence: 1. build the keel-stem post assembly as one 3-D entity (you can Boolean cut it later into several proper parts), 2. loft your side master surface to the inner line of the rabbet, 3. cut the inner surface of your garboard strake from the (copy of) master surface, 4. offset (solid) your garboard strake to the plank thickness, then explode the resulting shape and delete two of its four lengthwise surfaces – lower and inner, 5. loft these two lacking surfaces using both defined rabbet lines, 6. combine all resulting surfaces into one closed garboard strake. If the above description is not clear, I will make an explanatory diagram, pls let me know. 🙂

The royal artillery, as opposed to the municipal and private ordnance, was modelled at the time on the Imperial artillery considered to be the best in Europe. This also applies to the colours of the pieces.

Artillery proved to be more time-consuming than anticipated. There are eight different types of gun barrels in total, and each mounted on its own individual carriage. The specific type of carriage was chosen to suit the nature of the gun, its function, the place of the particular piece in the ship, and the height of the gun port above the deck. Now, converting the 3-D models into the usable for modellers two-dimensional documentation.

Nicolas, In fact, your questions are of a first-rate nature, as they concern the very philosophy (method) of the work. And all these questions are closely related to each other. I will suggest a method that I use myself, which allows to obtain a precision at the level of the general tolerance set for the whole document (in my case 0.001 of the basic unit, that is one foot). And that for all elements, including the finest or most geometrically complex ones. To be honest, I can't even imagine another method as effective. First you need to define your master surfaces as in the graphic below. Except in special cases, every element of the hull, even the finest, is obtained by controlled transformations of these master surfaces. Note that there are two master surfaces for frames: the inner and the outer. They are not parallel to each other and must be separately defined. Your master surfaces must be perfect. Both in shape and construction, i.e. defined by as few control points as possible. The quality of all the hull components as well as the overall trouble-free operation depends on this. Make these master surfaces a little wider/longer than actually needed. It is best to choose the basic length unit as in the original, i.e. for our ships the feet. If, in doing so, you also choose the decimal system, values in inches can be entered as simple fractions, i.e. as, for example, 3.5/12, 5/12, 10/12 and so on. While creating the new elements, usually by transforming an existing surface, never work by eye, always enter data numerically from the keyboard. For this, read first the specific values in the text of the monograph or measure them on blueprints and preferably round them up to a whole inch, half inch or, as a last resort, a quarter of an inch. Otherwise you will end up with non-fitting elements and generally with an unmanageable mess, impossible to modify in a controlled way. Try to build elements such as frames and deck beams without any notches first. Cut off these notches later with other, intersecting parts such as the keel, using Boolean operations. And vice versa, say, the notches in the keelson may be cut using the floors. Some intersecting part are both half-notched. This is a little more complicated, yet perfectly possible by a series of Boolean operations. Make all surfaces and curves always tangent, unless you deliberately want them to have sharp edges. And make sure your polysurfaces are always closed, otherwise you will not be able to use the indispensable Boolean operations. Review the program's built-in help for each command. It's great – compact, easy to understand and even has overview animations. Examples (somewhat simplified): To make the floors, make transverse to the hull rectangular boxes (as closed polysurfaces) of the sided thickness of the floors, then Boolean cut them using both master faces, inner and outer. Then Boolean cut the notch for the keel, using the keel itself as a cutting medium. And the upper edges by a line/surface taken from the blueprints. To make the deck (or side) planking, cut a copy of the deck master surface lengthwise along the planking lines, according to the blueprints. Then use the 'offset (solid)' command to get three-dimensional planking. As a result, in cross-section the lines of the plank joints will spread radially, as they should. That's all for this time, but feel free to ask further questions. The best, Waldemar

While working on carriages, I have still opened another gun port. For the large assault gun on the quarterdeck. The gun barrel itself is seated on a two-wheeled carriage proper for large-calibre lightweight guns.

Hi Nicolas, Thank you very much. Like a typical guy I too like compliments 🙂 Well, to tell you the truth, I don't quite consider myself an expert on Rhino and 3D modelling, and I don't even use most of the functions of this program, rather only those specific to this particular project. But if I can, I will try my best to answer your questions. By the way, I think you have made the right choice of subject, as you already have the excellent, very detailed Boudriot monograph at your disposal. There will be no very tedious and uncertain historical research here, to which I had to devote the vast majority of the time devoted to this very project. All that remains is just the drawing. In a way, I envy you this. 🙂 Waldemar

Hopefully final selected set of guns for the reconstructed ship. Bronze pieces can be recognised by the handles (dolphins), which iron guns do not have. There will be a total of 36 pieces, according to the planned armament.

Almost all the guns intended for the model will be rather sparingly decorated, but the two falconets may be exceptional in this respect. If there are problems with making them to scale, I will prepare an alternative, simpler variant, also based on surviving period pieces. The Royal Artillery had guns of the finest quality, and orders were placed with the best craftsmen usually of German origin.

With the masts, the 3D model is finally starting to look like a sailing ship. The 2-2-3-1 sail configuration was taken from the fleet inventory and the spar proportions, with only minor modifications, from a Dutch manuscript from around the mid-17th century – Evenredige Toerusting van Schepen Ten Oorlog Bijder See. Danzig's various ties with the Netherlands were so strong (especially commercial and cultural) that the city could even be called Little Holland at the time.

Interpretation of Baker's universal ship drawing would perhaps not be entirely complete without at least attempting to establish another issue of conceptually capital importance, namely the position of the two quarter frames. If the fore quarter frame is clearly located at the keel and stempost junction, how did Baker determine the position of the aft quarter frame? Early Mediterranean shipbuilding texts use the term 'ferir' or 'fiero' to denote the distance of the two quarter frames from their respective posts. However, none of these texts specify this in sufficient detail and, in particular, which points on the posts were taken into account. The following interpretation explains how Baker might have done this and, within drawing tolerances, fits very well with the lines drawn by Baker's own hand. First, the master frame was placed at 1/3 of the keel length. Then the horizontal distance between the master frame and the height of tuck was divided into five parts. At 2/5 from the sternpost, Baker placed the aft quarter frame. As it happens, the value of the 'ferir' thus defined is the same for bow and stern.

A similar, although much shorter scale can also be found in the shipbuilding manual written about 1600 by the Chief Engineer of the kingdom of Portugal João Baptista Lavanha. It is clear from the text description that the effect of using this scale was not to remove some kink, but to change the geometry of the frames by sliding the shown here futtock template along the bilge arc in a controlled way. Waldemar Gurgul

Nolens volens, one more item of the utmost conceptual significance has yet to be clarified. In passing, as it were, the question of the apparent lack of deadrise is also clarified, as well as Baker's working methods themselves revealed. Specifically, it concerns the manner in which the run of the rising line of the floor has been determined (green arc on the graphics below). Most probably, in the first instance, the height of this line aft was set at about half the height of the sternpost, which is a fairly typical value for the era (see the sketch below for more details). Next, the height of this line at the bow was determined by taking a multiplier again close to half (specifically 5/9), which also appears to be quite standard for the period, judging from early manuals and contracts. Baker then mathematically calculated the radius of this arc in a fairly precise manner, with the height of the deadrise (4") evidently taken into account. However, for some reason he actually drew this line in an inaccurate and also misleading way, i.e. as if he had forgotten about deadrise. Or perhaps he simply did not want to waste time setting up the adjustable curve-drawing device accurately, being content to record the accurate value of 117 feet on the drawing. The rising line of the floor being the same radius both for the aft and fore part of the ship, it is also quite possible that it was only then that the stempost was drawn, and in such a way as to intersect the point marking the height of the rising line of the floor at the bow (see figure below). Which would at last explain quite neatly the rather complicated geometrical situation in this part of the plan.

Jules? Hello. 🙂 You never give up? 🙂 Okay, let's give it a try. I have already answered partly this question in my post #1. But more specifically, I believe that ship was designed by an unknown today master shipwright from Gdansk/Danzig. There are some historical indications that a frame-first method was most likely used: an incident with the repair of a carvel planked giant carrack already in the 15th century, the building of ships in nearby Elblag/Elbing by Venetian shipwrights around 1570, the creation of the fleet practically from scratch in the 1620s by the Scotsman James Murray, and finally a law passed in Danzig 1667 which invited foreign shipbuilders, particularly Dutch ones, to implement their methods. Beside these, perhaps no other clues as to the particular shipbuilding method then in use locally. In the end, I have decided to use the English hauling down/pulling up futtock method, but I selected the proportions and shapes in such a way that the resulting shape could also be achieved by the Mediterranean method, at least for the midship area. I have also ensured that the hull shape can even be obtained (more or less) by the shell method. The general shape of the main frame is quite standard for warships, at least as given in the text by Oliveira or Fournier, for example. As you can see, it is an attempt at synthesis that does not exclude any of the known methods. The verification of the hydrostatic properties was overwhelmingly positive. The ship's displacement is in the right proportion to the carrying capacity and the metacentric height leaves nothing to be desired. Here you have some analogies that you can also apply to your inquiry: is a Wallon or a Flamand in Belgium rather French or Dutch? Or is a Swiss rather German, French or Italian? Are they foreigners in their respective countries? Or to what extent is a ship built in Finland by Finns and even manned by a Finnish crew in the Swedish fleet in the 17th century a Finnish ship? Under which flag did it serve and whose will did it execute? And so on. There is no point in pursuing this thread in an ethnic or linguistic context, and especially for the early modern period, when national borders quite rarely coincided with ethnic areas. Quite the same for the ethnic or linguistic composition of most of the European armies and navies. In the context of shipbuilding history, historians use geographical rather than state concepts. That is, they define Mediterranean, Iberian, Ibero-Atlantic, Nordic, etc. methods. Indeed, the division by the individual states is to a large extent meaningless. The best, Waldemar