Ships of the late 16th century?

[Tallshiptragic]

Looks great. Though that lower port aft, would it not be too low for where the tiller flat would be?

[NAZGÛL]

Oh yeah, you are right! That's totally off. I need to decide on the gunports size also.

Thanks for the feedback!


/Matti

 

Edit: Here's a quickfix on the poorly placed port:

 

 

Working on the next sketch now.

Edited March 24, 2015 by NAZGÛL

[Matle]

Nice drawing

The one thing that strikes me is that the heavy guns of a warship would be located a bit lower, and the channels should probably be above the ports. I think it helps to consider the internal deck placement when deciding the exact position of the guns. I agree that about 7 guns per side on the main battery deck seems reasonable for the size of Gripen.

[jbshan]

In re tonnage:

Before the middle of the 1800s a ship's tonnage was either a calculated amount or an actual measurement.  In both cases it was a measurement or approximation of the cargo a hull could carry, it was not displacement.  The number of 'tuns' of wine a ship could carry, with a new ship perhaps actual stowing of barrels, would determine her tax liability, and the size of a warship followed the same principles.  The calculations for British ships resulted in a number ending in /94 of a tun, i.e. 397 52/94 tuns.  American usage resulted in /95 of a tun.  Since the 'tonnage' was based on breadth, length of assorted parts, etc., two ships could have identical tonnages and be quite different if they had merely the same breadth and length.  No accommodation was made for the fullness or sharpness of the hull.

Don't be too quick to eliminate that lower aft port.  It might be a ballast port; the lower deck or platform would be near there, it is near the waterline for shoveling ballast out of a boat and it can be caulked and nailed shut for the voyage.

[NAZGÛL]

Thanks you very much for the comments and ideas!

 

About the lower gun ports, I raised them from the first version as they to me seemed to sit dangerously low for a ship the size. I will consider reworking them again.

 

The small low port on Vasa is described by Fred Hocker as a message port. It was used for going in and out and when delivering things to the ship (I suppose that could have been ballast as well). If I remember correctly he said they had no cannons in them. I don't know if that was something used on the bigger ships because on some old drawings of smallar sized ships I've seen there was a cannon in the port positioned at the same place. 

 

 

Here is the latest sketch. I moved the "message port" higher. The lines are really close to version II, but I reworked the stern. I wanted the balcony/gallery to be more integrated in the ship lines, the last ones where inspired by the Kalmare Nyckel replica, and when looking at it I decided I didn't like how it goes outside the ships lines.

 

 

Looking at it now I feel the curve going above the balcony is perhaps to big. But making the curve smaller would leave little room for a person standing on the balcony. This is what I get for trying to scale down a big ship design to a smaller vessel... Thinking about it  I'm not even sure a more simple ship of this size would have galleries at all, but I really like the personality they give the ship.

 

 

/Matti

 

 

[trippwj]

I like the looks of that, Matti.

 

Here is something to mull over when looking at tonnage figures from modern writers.

 

The size of the Hanseatic and Dutch ships which plied the Baltic was also for a long time expressed by estimates of how much grain they could carry. The Hanseatic grain measure, the last, was a volumetric unit which had an equivalent in pounds, like the early English ton. Last meant at first the load of a four-wheeled wagon. When it was somewhat more precisely defined, the standards set varied from port to port and within the same port for different commodities. In Danzig, for example, 3 lasts of herring equaled 4 lasts of rye, and the last of rye, equal to 3.105 cu. m. or 2,257 kg. (4,975 lbs.), was used to rate ships. At Hamburg in the seventeenth century the grain last was 3.159 cu. m. (111.5 cu. ft.), but for rating ships there was a special Schiffslast equal to 2,000 Hamburg pounds (1,935 kg. 4,266.9 lbs. Eng.). At Amsterdam, grain was measured using the Kornlast of Danzig of 3.105 cu. m. or 109.6 cu. ft. but ships were rated according to the weight they could carry in a Schiffslasten of 2,000 Amsterdam pounds (1,976kg. or 4,356.3 lbs.). This situation seems to be the result of a shift away from an ambivalent measure, which expressed a rough equivalence of volume with weight, towards two distinct measures: the Kornlast which measured volume and the Schiffslast which told how much a vessel could carry without submerging its loadline excessively.

 

Generalizing roughly, we can say that the Hanseatic and Dutch Schififslast equalled about 4,480 lbs. (2,032 kg.) and that the Kornlast became by the seventeenth century a measure of volume equal to about 112 cu.. ft. (3.2 cu.. M.). A ship's capacity in the two lasts was the same when the specific gravity of the cargo was roughly .63.

 

SOURCE:

Lane, F. C., 1964: Tonnages, Medieval and Modern. The Economic History Review, 17, 213–233, doi:10.2307/2593003. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2593003(Accessed January 25, 2015).

 

 

[jbshan]

We have not considered Portugese, Spanish, any of several Italian cities, etc., etc. for their tonnage ratings.  They probably are all different and all relate to cargo not displacement of water.

[NAZGÛL]

Thanks for the information guys!

 

About the height of the gunports on my sketches: Does anyone else have thoughts about them?

 

Do you think the gunport location on A or B is more plausable for a ship this size?

 

A

 

B

 

 

Looking at videos and images of Duyfken sailing, it´s obvious how high up the water goes.

 

 

 

 

/Matti

Edited March 27, 2015 by NAZGÛL

[jbshan]

I think picture 'A' is probably more likely.  Check out port locations on Mayflower II.  The guns are not on the open weather deck.

The decks would probably not be continuous at this time.  There might well be a step down aft, especially into any cabin area, and there might be a leveling off aft on a gun-bearing deck so any guns could be more easily moved into aft ports.

[Tallshiptragic]

Duyfken's guns are on the open main deck as below is only a hold. There aren't anymore decks below, apart from a step down to the tiller flat which then opens up to the hold itself. Though if you're building a ship of larger tonnage there would possibly be gun's on a lower deck. Though remember for a Dutch ship - if it was for trade the guns were on the weather deck as all possible space was kept for cargo. Only when you get to the larger pinnaces and larger like Batavia, are there dedicated gun decks. Try not to compare with English ships as Dutch ships were very different. The main decks would actually run straight through again to keep as much space possible for cargo. The Dutch ships were also much more shallow draft than English ships, so having an extra deck for guns below wouldn't of been an advantage to their design.

 

Below a sketch of a pinnace similar to your design the guns are high up and on the weather deck. So I like your 'a' sketch but without that deck covered - need to see a scale reference as just a profile can be misleading as to what you're intending

Edited March 27, 2015 by Tallshiptragic

[Tallshiptragic]

First two images are warships - a little later than your period yes but shows lower ports and different design to the earlier pinnace (last photo) showing higher ports and more hold space so possibly a multi role vessel rather than a warship as such.

[Tallshiptragic]

How about, the 'B' lines with the ports as 'A'

[jbshan]

The lower wale would be at about the level of the lower deck inside as it and the deck clamp would be fastened through each other.  All four of the latest pics have a row of guns in the section just above the lower wale's upper rail.

The lower wale is also at about water level.

[NAZGÛL]

Thanks for the food for thought gents!

 

I hope I haven't missunderstand what you mean, if so please tell me.

 

jbshan, the lower wale o the small pinass is not at the waterline, or did you mean any other pics?

 

Anton, you raised a question about the allround or warship type of ship. In my imagination I think Duke Karl (later Karl IX) would have much use for allround ships in his fleet as he used them for transport of goods to and from his duchy. If this is true or if Gripen was a more strict warship, I can't know. But I like that logic and plan to do her like that. I planned to give my model a deck setup like Kalmare nyckel or the pinass above. I haven't thought throuh how all the decklines would run.

 

 

I think the old pinass sketch is fairly close to mine when it comes to the gunports. I didnt do any railing above them like that has, but if you remove her railing its pretty close. I think the gun ports height needs to sit higher up on a smaller vessel, or she would need to have a bigger belly, bringing the water line up. I actually think it would be dangerous to put the gun ports one step lower on the Kalmar Nyckel replica, wich is pretty close in proportions.

 

 

I will look for more pictures of smaller dutch ships to see the placements of their gunports.

 

 

Thanks again for telling your thoughts, it's really helpfull!

 

 

/Matti

[amateur]

Mind, the pics of Dutchships shown are all from the post-Wasa period.

It's  not at allo clear whehter or not they provide you with info on how a pre-1600 ship would have looked like.

 

Jan

[NAZGÛL]

I agree, there will be some guessing on my behalf when deciding on the look. I'm no Vroom expert, but to my eyes the ships look pre Vasa on Antons last pic.

 

/Matti

[trippwj]

Matti -

 

Have you looked at 17th Century Dutch Merchant Ships: Text, Photos and Plans for the Ship Modeler by Ab Hoving (2014). SeaWatch Books, Florence, OR, 152 pp. http://www.seawatchbooks.com/114003?

 

It is reviewed here (with pictures): http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/8853-17th-century-dutch-merchant-ships/?p=262024

 

It is a wonderful reference, primarily 17th century, but may provide you with some backwards looking ideas.  The plans include the following:

 

Seagoing Vessels:
Pinas Witsen – scale 1-96 – 4 sheets of plans.
Fluit “Langewijk” – scale 1-96 – 3 sheets of plans.
Fluit “Zeehaen” (Able Tasman) – scale 1-96 – 3 sheets of plans.
Fluit “Roode Leeuw” – scale 1-96 – 2 sheets of plans.
Cat “Peacock” – scale 1-96 – 1 sheet of plans.

Coastal Trade:
Boyer 86ft – scale 1-48 – 3 sheets of plans.
Galliot – scale 1-48 – 2 sheets of plans.

Inshore:
The Narrow- & Wide-ship – scale 1-48 – 2 sheets of plans.
Kaag – scale- 1-48 – 1 sheet of plans.

Fishermen as Traders:
Buss 1598 – scale 1-96 – 1 sheets of plans.
Hooker – scale 1-96 – 1 sheets of plans.
Pink – scale 1-48 – 1 sheet of plans.

[jbshan]

Even the pinnace, Matti, as, if you look particularly at the van de Veld sketch in tallship's posting, the water comes quite farther up than the line or division drawn on the pinnace.  The water comes about to the lower rail of the lower wale on all the other pictures.  If the deck is also about there, the guns work out about right with regard to headroom and clearance for the barrels of the guns.  Except for Kalmar Nyckel, for which I do not know the sources they used.  Perhaps smaller or earlier ships were set up differently.

Have you looked at pictures of the Spanish Armada and the English 'race-built' galleons?  These English ships I think might be the forerunners of the type of vessel you're looking for, similar in look to the votive model somebody put up earlier.

[NAZGÛL]

Thanks for the suggestions guys! Wayne, that book seems really great!

 

 

jbshan, I imagined the bottom wale at the pinass would look kind of like how the Batavia replica looks:

 

 

I went on and made some changes to the last sketch. I took the gunports down slightly and cleaned up the lines a little.

 

 

 

/Matti

[NAZGÛL]

I started to look at paintings by Vroom, De Veldes and Willaerts to see how they portrait  the ships. And I found none (!) with the gun ports like the way I based my sketches on. They all have them on a lower deck (at least from how I can interpret them).  That together with your advices earlier made me decide to get back to make a new drawing with guns on a lower deck.

 

Still the above pinass drawing above has that high up cannons setup, and I think the Berlin and Papegojan models share that design, and the Kalmar Nyckel replica. Am I missing something here? 

 

/Matti

[jbshan]

Jan wrote:

"Mind, the pics of Dutchships shown are all from the post-Wasa period.

It's  not at allo clear whehter or not they provide you with info on how a pre-1600 ship would have looked like."

 

I've been looking around and I think Jan is getting close.

I'm still going for option 'A', but I like the stern gallery as in 'B'.

Earlier, and you're going for more than 50 years before the van de Velds, and in smaller vessels, I'm seeing gun ports higher up, into the 2nd or chain wale.  This puts the guns, because of the size of the ship, onto the weather deck.

Do please work out where your decks/platforms will be located because deciding the combination of deck and port location will probably help work out the rest.  I don't think only one deck exposed to the weather is correct.  Everything has to go down a hatch anyway, and it wouldn't hurt if the cargo had someplace besides on top of the ballast to sit.  I think there would be a platform or two at least.

[NMBROOK]

This is interesting stuff mate.Whilst my area of knowledge is a little later and mainly confined to English ships,there are some almost general rules to follow for the 16/17th century.The lower main wale will almost certainly dip into the water as you have it.The biggest difference is that the ports will not follow the curvature of the wales.Alot of period artwork exaggerates the sheer of the vessel and quite often the ports follow this.This is purely artistic license and would not follow reality.Whilst the decks will have some sheer,it would not be anywhere close to that of the wales.Some part of the wales,whether it be the mainwale,in part,or the chainwale would be cut into by the ports.

One other consideration is that there are no guarantees there would be a clear deck run fore and aft.It was quite common in this period to have a stepped deck,rather than a single one that ran the full length.This 'step' would more often than not be in the aft/stern area.

 

Kind Regards

 

Nigel

Edited March 29, 2015 by NMBROOK

[amateur]

The scientists contradict that: only after 1650 the wales were cut through.

In Dutch shipbuilding, the wales were an important part of the structure: the part of the frames were not connected to each other, it was the wales (and some thickstuff in the hull) was holding the whole structure together. It took dutch shipwrights some time before they dared to cut through the wales.

It is assumed that in the late 1500 the decks did follow the wales for most of the ships lenght.

 

Jan

[rybakov]

A bit more to the South but this site of Texas A&M University might be worth a look.

They have a good section on naval archeology.

 

http://nautarch.tamu.edu/shiplab/01George/Fernandez.htm

 

All the best

 

Zeh

[NAZGÛL]

Thanks for the comments! jbshan, I'd prefer to get a look that feels right then think out the decks from that result. I plan to have the weatherdeck in different heigths, the middle part lower. Here is a crude line up, nothing detailed or final.

 

 

Nigel and Jan, I also heard that the ships decks would follow the wales curvature at this time, like Vasa has. Stronger hull, but horrible for the boatsmen handling havy cannons... Glad for your tips though!

 

Cheers Zeh, I'll check that out!

 

Here is my try to combine the gunports from A to the proportions of B. Aren't the gunports rather close to the water?

 

 

 

 

/Matti

[jbshan]

Matti.

Think about making the spacing between the two lower wales wider.  That will let you raise your ports a little.

I like the new look.

[amateur]

No this distance is about right: between the wales is about 1-2 times the width of the wale. Your current drawing looks about right to me. (but I'm not an expert ....)

 

It would be worth asking for the scale, and the dimensions of the ship: that would make it easier tot determinie wehther or not the gunports are close to the water or not.

 

Jan

Edited March 30, 2015 by amateur

[Cathead]

I recently returned from a trip to the US East Coast, which included a visit to the Elizabeth II, a working replica ship of the late 16th century, of the kind that would have carried the failed Roanoke colonists from England. Here she is, from the official site:

 

 

 

There are many photos available online if you search the name, and if you are at all capable of visiting, it is a fantastic experience. They have trained re-enactors on board who compromise the actual sailing crew when they take her out of port, and I had a delightful time poking around every nook and cranny of the ship. Also took a number of photos myself, which could be shared if you're looking for a specific detail (and I got it in the camera). She is berthed in Manteo, NC.

[Cristiano]

Hello Nazgul!

interesting your research!

maybe can be of help the following image:

represent the side view of a Venetian Galleon of mid XVI century.

As you can see, it matches a lot your Gripen.

this ship was a contemporary ex-voto model, which was studied and drawn by the Admiral Paris in 1884.

the drawings made by Paris were used by Corel for making its own "Galeone Veneto" kit.

I bought in the past the Paris drawings from the Venice Naval Museum, but now are available in many online shops, and are very complete (from my point of view).

 

[NAZGÛL]

Very nice indeed, thanks for the help Cathead and Christiano. I will definately look them up!

 

Thanks jbshan, I will try that later and see how it looks.

 

Jan, I don't have a lot of info so I will have to guess her actual size. I imagine her numbers that aren't listed:

 

Displacement: 400 ton (listed).

Lenght: 32 meters (my guess)

Crew: 30 sailors (no soldier number listed)

Armament: 16 guns (my guess)

 

 

/Matti

Edited March 30, 2015 by NAZGÛL