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

[druxey]

The asymmetry of bore is quite remarkable!

[Waldemar]

Lieste, all that you have written is very good, but for an era of artillery tactics with an already advanced firing techniques and much better quality guns. But even in the Vauban era and later, on stable ground in siege work by scientist gunners, do you know how close the heavy siege guns had to be positioned to the walls in order to gain accuracy needed to effectively make the breach? Not more than a few tens of meters. Another example from the period close to this project: after several days of bombarding the Invincible Armada from hundreds of guns and expending all available ammunition, the English fleet accomplished almost nothing in terms of the Spanish ships destruction. Ricochet fire, if used intentionally then at all by English gunners, must have been to no avail as well. So, for the needs of this very project, I would prefer to think in terms of the early 17th century practice/reality than 18th century theory.

 

Druxey: I should have added that some primitive form of elevating/depressing is possible by shifting barrel rests to different positions. This would be required to fulfil the standing order from the so-called Fleming Instruction of 1628 (Swedish admiral). From memory: "if boarding is not possible, the ships should stay close to the enemy ships and aim at their waterline". No ricochet fire is mentioned in this Instruction.

 

One could also imagine additional wedges between the barrel rests and the gun tubes themselves, but their usefulness would be rather poor due to the rocking of the ship.

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by Waldemar

[Lieste]

Making a breach in a masonry wall, especially one covered by a glacis/ravelins etc is distinct from hulling a ship - one requires concentrated fire, ideally 'stitched' in horizontal and vertical bands to 'cut out' sections of masonry - the earlier technique hadn't yet developed the reduction of the wall 'intact' and instead pulverised much of the surface.

Hulling a vessel merely requires a single hit with sufficient velocity to pass 3/4 of the way through the side (with the shock blowing out the rear face and relieving the resistance ahead of the shot (comparison of the shot passing through a thinner side compared to into a semi-infinite bulk of well assembled timbers - as discussed by Lafay/Helie, and further expanded on with the testing from Hocker et al of the Vasa light 24pdr ordnance and a section of Vasa's structure).

Any single hit could potentially obtain the full effect of a hit - if it hits a large framing timber with sufficient force to break it it will throw large splinters - if it passes a thinner part of the side and into a carriage it can disable a gun. Hits between wind and water (common for fire in ricochet) is likely to lead to leaks and flooding (either continually, or periodically as the shot hole is immersed by wave action and motion in pitch and roll).

While both a ship and a wall may be able to tolerate hundreds of hits, the difference in how they tolerate them is important - the wall is not reduced at all without considerable cumulative damage within a small section, and needs exponentially more ammunition to create a larger breach from a longer distance, especially if rubble collapses in front of the un-breached wall masking the footing from further fire. The presence of engineering works may require the advance of guns to the crest of the glacis in order to *see* the wall footing to engage it... and this is likely be the original cause of the close advance of the battery of breach, and the presence of said engineering works. Any single hit of the naval gun can cause a critical injury to a structural element, a piece of ordnance, a component of the rigging... the ship is a large structure with much redundancy in armament, structural elements and rigging stability and performance - so the small individual injuries to it while each 'significant' may need to be added to other individual 'significant' injury to cause a vessel to become crippled, to strike, burn or sink.

[Waldemar]

 

Lieste, all that is fine, but what do you exactly suggest in terms of specific solutions for this project?

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

Concluding on the issue of defective, irregularly cast cannons and their (in)accuracy: in some artillery manuals of the 16/17th centuries one can find corrective methods (by mathematical means) of aiming such cannons. These, however, are of doubtful practical value even in static warfare on stable land. And their use in dynamic naval fight was completely out of the question due to the constantly changing range, and the inevitable fact of firing from a moving, unleveled and swaying platform at an equally moving target in an unpredictable location/direction. Finally, due to the sheer illiteracy of most or many early modern period gunners. Experience (if any) and luck may have helped, but only to a certain extent.

 

These are my assumptions for this project and this very period in general, regardless of what more or less scholarly 18/19/20th century works on artillery say. I will also prefer to keep in mind contemporary (meaning 16/17th century) tactical instructions and descriptions of actual encounters.

 

Now preparing mentally to return to drawing work....

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

... To begin with, two assault guns (referred to in English as "cannon-periers," in Swedish as "stormstycken," and in German as "Feuerkatzen" – "fire cats" or simply as "Schrotstücke" – "hail-shot pieces"). They were most likely placed behind the mainmast, as on the "Solen". According to the 1565 inventory of one of the royal arsenals, six of these "small stone guns" in the weight range of 8.5–9.25 centners, belonged organizationally to the field army.

 

They may also be of interest to the "Vasa" modellers, as three such trophy guns were issued to this Swedish ship in 1628.

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

As an alternative to the above Polish gun barrels, captured Swedish 48-pdr assault guns can be substituted. 15, 6 and 6 pieces were cast in 1621, 1622 and 1624, respectively, at the Stockholm foundry. They were used both by the land forces and the navy. Note its slightly conical bore.

 

 

... and the real thing from the „Solen”:

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by Waldemar

[druxey]

Those 48 pounders are shock and awe pieces!

[Waldemar]

 

Indeed, and they did their job! For good or for bad, depending on the side 🙂.

 

 

[mtaylor]

The little "arrow" on the forward part of the barrel.  Is that an identification stamp or a reminder of which way to point the gun?

[druxey]

Is that not 'T V'?

[Waldemar]

7 hours ago, mtaylor said:

a reminder of which way to point the gun?

 

This is the only unrecognized stamp found on the recovered gun tubes of the Swedish origin and in desperation I even imagined the same 🙂.

 

Perhaps someone reading this log has an idea? It is not the equivalent of the English "Broad Arrow" identifying royal property, as a similar mark was found on only one of the other gun barrels from the "Solen" (on a captured bronze Polish 3-pdr, and this stamp was almost certainly made by its Swedish users too; see the image below, side view).

 

Anything can be envisaged, say – an anchor marking a gun intended for the navy use? Runic lettering? Or something of a more personal/individual character?

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

On 9/1/2022 at 4:03 AM, druxey said:

Is that not 'T V'?

 

If taken as "T V", what would it mean, except of course such obvious meanings as "Tele Vision" or "Terrible Voider"? More seriously – unfortunately, there's probably no chance of backing up this suggestion with sources anyway (in terms of specific names, functions, ranks, etc.).

 

 

[druxey]

Terrifying Velocity, perhaps. Perhaps not, Waldemar....

[Waldemar]

 

Yep, for now I assume it is destined to be a a small mystery for a long time or even forever...

 

 

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Waldemar,

 

Now that all your explanations of ship design methods in other threads seem to have ended, I am left with a couple of questions concerning your reconstruction of Sankt Georg.

Who do you think made the design of Sankt Georg and what ship design method do you think that designer used?

 

In your post number 97 of August 8 you say that:

"Most probably the ship was built by shipwrights from Gdansk (Dantzig) and Kolobrzeg (Kolberg) and entered service in 1627. Shipwrights from Gdansk were German speaking Polish citizens ..."

 

Does this mean the designer of Sankt Georg was Polish? Or do you think he was a foreigner? Was the ship design method he used Polish or foreign? And if he used a foreign method, how did he acquire knowledge of this method?

 

To me these are all very interesting questions and an answer would be much appreciated.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jules

[Waldemar]

 

Jules? Hello. 🙂 You never give up? 🙂

 

Okay, let's give it a try. 

 

 

11 hours ago, Jules van Beek said:

Who do you think made the design of Sankt Georg and what ship design method do you think that designer used?

 

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.

 

 

11 hours ago, Jules van Beek said:

Does this mean the designer of Sankt Georg was Polish? Or do you think he was a foreigner? Was the ship design method he used Polish or foreign? And if he used a foreign method, how did he acquire knowledge of this method?

 

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

 

 

[Chuck]

Lovely work so far....Now back to the project 

[Waldemar]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[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.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kranck]

Hi,
This is some great work. 
I think I'm gonna try and do similar with La Belle. Well, with a much more limited experience and skill...

I'd like to 3D design the parts and laser cut and 3D CNC as many parts as I can. 

Do you mind if I ask you a few general questions about the way you deal with things with Rhino?

 

Best regards,
Nicolas 

[Waldemar]

 

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

 

 

[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.

 

 

 

[Kranck]

On 12/14/2022 at 9:11 PM, Waldemar said:

 

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

 

 

Well thank you very much for your kindness. I m pretty much a beginner for non parametric software. So my questions will be rather dumb !

1. I am using the 2d blueprints of boudriot to loft the surface of the hull.  But i  will draw and design each frame. Do you have a general opinion about this process ? Is the lifting useful or do you just design the frames without fairing ?

 

2. How do you position each part in the ship ? Say, i want to set one frame on the keel. Both are intersecting 3d parts. Do you use some kind of constraint or do you just set it as precisely as you can ? Or maybe can you cut the frame using the queel ? 

What about the planking ? 

 

Good lord, these questions are so vague it shows my current utter lack of skill in the field!

 

Best regards 

 

Nicolas 

[Waldemar]

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

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.

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Waldemar

[Kranck]

On 12/16/2022 at 8:47 PM, Waldemar said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is some REALLY great advice about many basic aspects of the task. I had not given thought about a bunch of them. 

Thank you; I will start lofting the hull.

 

Hesitating about ending the surface with the rabbet in the queel. But  several ideas come to mind:

- Drawing the rabbet by hand according to the blueprint and ending the surface with this line.

- Giving some thickness to the hull surface after lofting it until 'inside of' the keel, then use a boolean operation to engrave the precise shape of the rabbet in the keel. 

 

Considering what you just wrote, the second option seems to be much wiser. 

What do you think?

 

I will update some rhino screenshots on my log after pondering the options. 

 

The ultimate objective would be to develop the 3D surface of each plank of the hull, then project on a 2D sheet of wood and use my CNC machine (3D but quite a large one) to get machined planks already tapered and skewed along one of the axis. 

 

Should be fun. I lack time though !

[Waldemar]

 

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.

 

🙂