„Święty Jerzy” („Sankt Georg”) 1627 – reconstructing an opponent of „Vasa”

[druxey]

Just catching up with your work. Superb rendering!

[Waldemar]

 

🙂

 

[Waldemar]

 

... bits, knights, more hatches, ledges, etc. No carlings on the weather deck (intentional), or perhaps two long equivalent 'carlings' along the length of the whole deck.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

The upper sills were originally upside down and this is already corrected as can be seen below. The ability to make such corrections in a relatively easy way is perhaps one of the major strengths of computer-aided designing, provided the actual 3D model is properly designed.

 

 

 

The lack of space in the bow part of the ship is evident in this view:

 

 

[Ab Hoving]

Wonderful!

No carlings underneath the ledges of the lower decks?

Ab

[Waldemar]

 

Many thanks, Ab!    Your word and opinion counts double.

 

You must have already noticed, that the ship's structure quite closely follows Dutch practices, which I assume also apply to the northern part of the continent. Even the shape of the bow, which I have made very full for a number of reasons, could be easily formed using the shell (bottom-first) method, although geometry of the whole underwater body is a synthesis of the known pre-designed frames procedures.

 

For now I have to give priority to the external, visible parts of the ship (deadline!), because the first model is to be made by plank-on-bulkhead method. I intend to deal with carlings/ledges for other decks later.

 

And, while you are here – do you know why anchors are red in so many contemporary paintings? Were they painted? Or simply corroded?

 

[Ab Hoving]

Yes, the ship remembers in many ways the Vasa, but also has characteristics of its own. I understand your priorities very well, I was surprised to see the progress you made in a relatively short time. It took Rene Hendrickx and me almost four years to work out every part of Witsen's pinas, so you are very fast indeed. Your bow shape is not very blunt, compared to the fluits I've seen. Looks good for a man-of-war.

Your question about anchors is a tough one. I never read anything about painting anchors, but I would not be surprised if they were tarred. And of course (as wood tar is not completely waterproof) rust grabs its chance. For all safety I usually make my anchors black (or actually very dark brown- Van Dijk's Brown) and clutter them with red to mark unprotected rusty spots. But nothing is really sure. Are you certain about this observation that they were red on paintings? If they were, they certainly were not painted that way, we should have found amounts of red paints in inventory lists.

Good luck with this Beautiful project.

 

[Waldemar]

 

Thanks a lot. Your fine 3D pinas was also an inspiration for this project 🙂.

 

The ship's bow looks somewhat sharper indeed, because nearly maximum stempost rake was chosen, within limits allowed by contemporary works on shipbuilding, and in fact considered at the time proper for purpose-built warships.

 

Ab, please take a look at the selection of paintings below. All of them show more or less red coloured anchors. The issue is maybe not the most important indeed, I was just curious, and I have not found any explanation on this phenomenon heretofore.

 

Cornelis Verbeeck, A Naval Encounter between Dutch and Spanish Warships, 1618-1620

 

Adam Willaerts, Gibraltar 1607, 1639

 

Cornelis Wieringen, Gibraltar 1607, ca. 1621

 

Hendrik Vroom, The Arrival of Elector Frederick V of the Palatinate and Elizabeth Stuart, 1623

[Ab Hoving]

You are right, they look red. My guess would be rust, but who am I?

[Waldemar]

 

Still, I much prefer your guesses to someone else's firm opinions. Thanks, Ab.

 

[Ab Hoving]

😉

[Waldemar]

 

... working on bulkheads.

 

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

... done, at least the prototype version.

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

Almost forgot ... beakhead bulkhead.

 

Not all gun ports were used at one time and the guns were moved from port to port and from side to side. The ship was never fully armed during her service anyway – seven pieces were missing out of the maximum possible number of 36 cannons.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Waldemar

[mtaylor]

41 minutes ago, Waldemar said:

 

Almost forgot ... beakhead bulkhead.

 

Not all gun ports were used at one time and the guns were moved from port to port and from side to side. The ship was never fully armed during her service anyway – seven pieces were missing out of the maximum possible number of 36 cannons.

Was it a weight issue much like what caused the Vasa to capsize?

[Lieste]

What artillery was she authorised for, and what did she actually carry?

 

[Waldemar]

 

Mark:
Even worse – war logistics. There were simply not enough guns at hand to fully supply the fleet. The ships themselves, modest in size, were good sailors indeed. In contrast to the "Vasa", which in fact was an experiment, both over-heavily built and ill proportioned for its two-deck layout (too narrow).

 

Lieste:
Below is an abstract from the fleet inventory for this ship (in German, but I suppose easy to apprehend):

 

Daß Schüff Sanct Gérgen
  1    Metallen quader Stück schüst Kügl von        9 tb eißen
10    Metallen Stück schüsen Kügel zue                3 tb
  2    Metallen schrot Stück
  2    Metallen Falkonetel
  1    Eiseren Stück schüst Kügel von                     9 tb
11    Eiserne Stuck schüst Jedtlihes Kügl von        6 tb
  2    Eiserne schrot Stück
Suma der Metallen undt eiseren Stück                29
Mangelen nah Stück                                            7

 

 

To put it simply – main battery of 6-pdrs, two heavier 9-pdrs as bow guns, and all the rest on the weather deck and on the accompanying boat.

 

[mtaylor]

Ah... logistics.  Got it.  Seems it was common practice in some places that when the ship came in for maintenance, they pulled the guns and put them on a ship ready to leave.  As such, the numbers, sizes of guns seldom matched the design.

[Waldemar]

 

Right. It is hard to say at all of a specific gun establishment for the fleet. Myriad of types and calibres actually carried on ships proves that anything available was taken  on board. From another,  slightly later fleet inventory it is clear that most of the bronze guns delivered to the fleet were Swedish trophies, and – conversely – iron guns could not be delivered in sufficient numbers as the supply routes from the country interior were blockaded by the Swedish forces.

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Waldemar

[Lieste]

I'm not 100% sure I followed it correctly but:
9pdrs, 1 iron, 1 bronze (breech loaded?)
6pdrs, 11 iron
3 pdrs, 10 bronze
1pdr (Falconet), 2 bronze

Unsure what the 'bronze' "schrot Stuck" are, or what is meant by an iron shot piece ? Some sort of boarding/boat guns/swivels?

 

[Waldemar]

 

Sorry. Below the English translation:

 

 

The ship "Saint George"
1 bronze quarter-piece shooting iron ball of 9 pounds
10 bronze pieces  shooting ball of 3 pounds
2 bronze hail-shot guns (for langridge type ammunition, most probably with conical bores)
2 bronze falconets (they were usually put in the ship's boats)
1 iron piece shooting ball of 9 pounds
11 iron pieces each shooting ball of 6 pounds
2 iron hail-shot guns
Total of the bronze and iron guns – 29
Missing – 7 guns

 

 

Where the calibre is given, it refers to long-guns (all muzzle-loaders). Hail-shot guns had probably conical bores and could be both muzzle- and breech-loaders.

 

[Waldemar]

 

To further complicate the supply issue, iron guns burst in action at a rather surprising rate. In two encounters five iron guns were irretrievably lost in this way.

 

[Lieste]

5 hours ago, Waldemar said:

 

To further complicate the supply issue, iron guns burst in action at a rather surprising rate. In two encounters five iron guns were irretrievably lost in this way.

 

Yes, the early low temperature iron furnaces produced relatively slaggy iron, and casting over a core produced a porous bore surface, which could lead to fatal flaws in the metal, and a high rate of failures - not that gunmetal guns didn't wear and split as well, but the gunmetal tended to erode and then rupture, while iron shattered.

Later improvements such as solid casting and horizontal boring of the gun against a stationary bit improved the quality of the iron casting, as did improved metallurgy and control over the inclusions, contaminants and temperature of the cast iron - the solid core, drilled out gave a straighter, more consistent and less porous surface of a higher density and resilience, and the better understanding of gas pressure and strain led to improved arrangement of reinforcement length, thickness of metal and quantity of powder charge to keep the shot start position within the reinforced portion of the gun. Some trial and error in that respect had led to failures of some patterns of guns which were cast shorter than their normal pattern but which still used full charges. Most of these improvements happened in the early part of the C18th, continuing into the C19th, which includes the regulation of fire - with pre measured powder charges and recommendations for the use of lower powder charges for double shot... still some 'enthusiasms' occur such as using triple or more shotting - which does nothing to enhance gun effectiveness and only increases internal pressures and recoil while reducing accuracy and energy of the shot.

[Waldemar]

 

Thank you for this comment Lieste. To make the matter hopefully simpler, I have already prepared a graphic for my soon-to-be-published paper on the fleet's artillery. Shown here are the most typical samples mentioned in both extant inventories. In black are cast- and wrought-iron guns, and in bronze are, of course, bronze guns 🙂. All drawings are based on real surviving artillery pieces.

 

Most interesting are surely assault/hail-shot type guns. They could be large or small, carriage or swivel, bronze or iron (be it cast- or wrought-iron), chambered or not, muzzle- or breech-loaded, conical or cylindrical bored. Larger specimens would be referred to in English as cannon-perriers.

 

As an aside, four large (meaning carriage) Polish bronze assault/hail-shot guns such as depicted below, called at the time „stone guns”, because they used before to shoot stone missiles, were issued to the 'Vasa' in 1628.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

Time for the stern gallery. In progress. The iconography suggests that only the two largest ships had balconies and other vessels had none.

 

 

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

 

Modellers won't be happy. Each bracket has a different curvature, as - in fact - all parts of the balcony do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Waldemar

[druxey]

Beautifully rendered, as usual! My reaction to the red anchors was the same as Ab's - even before reading his response. Surface rust.

[Waldemar]

 

 

Thank you, Druxey. So the matter is finally settled by the two top experts showing up in this log. A word of appreciation is also due to the artists of the day for their realism.

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Waldemar