|
Post by fredhocker on Feb 4, 2014 8:02:44 GMT
The naval muzzle/army muzzle argument is a little overworked in many cases, I think. The Swedish navy distinguished between the two later in the century, when naval guns were supposed to have a smoothly tapering flare that would not catch on the port edge. I have not seen this type of muzzle on many guns of this period, and it may be a later practice.
The old long 24s weighed up to 2.5 tonnes, about twice what the new pattern guns weighed, but were still extracted from the lower gundeck by pulling them out through the ports. What I find impressive is that they did so little damage to the edges of the ports in the process!
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Feb 3, 2014 11:52:42 GMT
Matti, Here are some answers:
1. No idea how the one-pounder was secured, the sources only say that it lacked a carriage and was stowed on deck, meaning it was not in use. 2. All of the original carriages for the orlop and gundecks were found, plus a few from the upper deck. The salvage records from the 1660s indicate that they lifted most of the upper deck light guns with their carriages. We have a total of 62 carriages plus one extra cheek. Among these are one three-pounder and I believe three or four for the stormstycken on the upper deck. We do not have the one-pounder carriage. 3. I have no idea why BB shows this gun with a two-wheeled land carriage with trail, this would be impractical on the quarterdeck. Although we have no diret evidence, the indirect evidence (height and size of the gunport, fastenings for breeching and tackles) suggests a conventional naval carriage for the one-pounder. 4. The account book entries say the black paint (which is lampblack) is specifically for gun carriages. 5. The guns in Claytons picture are, top to bottom: one pounder, three pounder, three sizes of stormstycken (20,42 and 82 nominal pounds), the new pattern light 24 pounder (principal armament) and the old pattern long 24 pounder.
To add to this, the following is a summary of armament I posted on the previous forum site:
The inventory taken just before the ship sank showed that the following guns were on board:
46 light 24 pdrs 2 heavy 24 pdrs 8 3 pdrs 6 howitzers of different sizes 2 1 pdr falconets
The light 24s were guns 2.9 meters long and about 40 cm in diameter at the breech, with a bore of 146 mm and caliber 17. The heavy 24s were much larger, probably about 3.5-4 meters long and over 45 cm in diameter at the breech. From the documents associated with the salvage of the guns, we know quite a bit about the lighter guns. The 3 pdrs were long and skinny, with calibres of 33-34.5 (about 2.6 m long to the breech ring), a breech diameter of about 15 cm and a bore of 74 mm. The howitzers were a mixed bag, with one 20 pdr of calibre 14 (looted from the castle of Prince Radziwill in Poland, and decorated with a dragon), three 42 pdrs of calibre 10.5 (cast in Poland in the 1560s) and two 82 pdrs of only 6.76 caliber.
The 24 pdrs were all placed at broadside ports on the upper and lower gundecks, leaving four of the 52 ports empty. The four stern chaser ports (two on the lower gundeck and two on the orlop) were also empty. All of the empty ports had carriages at them when the ship was found, and the latest armament plan (from May 1628) shows an expected armament of 56 heavy guns, so they were probably still waiting for the last eight 24 pdrs. We think that the four empty broadside ports were on the lower gundeck, but are not sure which ones and at this point it will be difficult to determine. The two heavy 24s seem to have been on the lower gundeck in the two forwardmost ports.
The light guns (3 pdrs and howitzers) were all on the upper deck, where there were 14 ports. There were also two ports on the quarterdeck, probably for the 1-pounders, although only one of these was mounted when the ship sank – the other lacked a carriage and was stowed on deck. There are mounts in the stern gallery of the great cabin for four swivels, to fire through round ports just below the large windows, but there is no evidence that these were ever delivered or mounted.
We have finished a detailed cataloguing of all of the surviving gun carriages (62 carriages). These are mostly for the light and heavy 24 pdrs. A light 24 carriage is about 160 cm long, 68 cm wide at the back end, and 60 cm high (not counting trucks). On typical trucks 45-50 cm in diameter, the trunnion centers are about 85 cm off the deck. The heavy 24 pdr carriages are similar, but almost 2 m long and about 75 cm wide.
We have one complete 3 pdr carriage. It is 120 cm long, 47 cm wide, and 55 cm high (without trucks). On 50-cm trucks, the trunnion centers are about 84 cm above the deck.
We have a couple of howitzer carriages, which are between the 24 pdr and 3 pdr carriages in size. All of the carriages are of the same basic construction and style.
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Feb 3, 2014 10:52:34 GMT
Alexander, Ha! This proved to be a puzzler, since no one seems to have recorded this dimension in our find records, and Hans Soop does not publish any thicknesses in his study of the sculptures. I cannot get to that part of the transom to measure at the moment, but can estimate that the maximum haeght above the background is at the shoulders and hips of the two supporting lions, which are about 250 mm high. The curtains and shield are less, around 120-200 mm. I will try to get a more definitive measurement with the total station once it comes back from its annual service.
We do not have a total weight, since it is not easy to decide what to include. The massive corner posts of the transom are sculpted but they are also essential structural timbers. In any case, the total weight of sculptures is probably not a significant contributor to instability, but it is something we could test.
We do not yet have an accurate stability model of the ship, since the key component, the location of the centre of gravity of the hull structure, has never been calculated. We have completed the documentation necessary to do this, but it would take some time to enter the data into the appropriate software. We have identified the following factors affecting stability:
1. Location of centre of gravity of empty hull, which we expect is far too high and the main culprit in the lack of stability - the upper works are simply too heavily built for the total displacement. 2. Location of centre of buoyancy in the loaded hull and its behaviour under heeling, which we can calculate easily, since it depends solely on the shape of the submerged volume of the hull. Analysis of this shows a behaviour typical of ships of this period, in that there is not very much lateral movement of the CB during heeling, and thus hulls of this type have very little form stability. 3. Amount and location of ballast (known). 4. Amount and location of other weights, the largest of which are the ship's guns, which represent about 5% of total displacement. This is on the low side for a sailing warship with broadside guns and thus not a fundamental problem for stability, but the headroom in the decks means that the upper gundeck and upper deck guns are higher above the water than they need to be, and thus contribute something to the high overall centre of gravity. 5. Location of the load waterline, which is known from testimony at the inquest in September 1628. Lieutenant Petter Gierdsson testified that the ship drew 14 feet forward and 16 feet aft, which we can plot easily, since the carved draft marks are still readily visible at both ends. This draft gives a total displacement of just over 1200 tonnes. At this draft, the maximum breadth is at the waterline, which is the maximum practical draft for ships with tumblehome. Ballasting the ship more can decrease stability, since the immersed and emersed wedges of water at heel are small, and thus the CB moves very little. 6. Lateral forces acting on the hull, in this case wind in the sails. We know which four sails were in use, both from Gierdsson's testimony and which four are missing from the sailroom (fore course and topsail, main topsail, mizzen), and we can estimate their sizes with reasonable confidence. Wind speed is unknown, as is the efficiency of the sails based on weave, cut and trim, so we can only estimate the heeling force, but testimony at the inquest was that there was almost no wind when the ship set off, not enough to pull the course sheets through the blocks. The local geography funnels the wind from the heights on the south side of the harbour down onto the water at a single point, which is where Vasa sank. Wind speed here can be several times what is experienced at the town centre, as modern sailors can attest. 7. Free moving weights. Admiral Erik Jönsson ran below to make sure that the guns were secured when the ship started to heel, and testified that none were loose. In 1961, when the ship was raised, the carriages still stood at their ports, so loose guns were not a problem. Loose water coming in through the lower gunports was, as it piled up on the port side of the lower gundeck with no way to escape, thus pressing the side farther down and destroying what little initial stability/righting moment the ship had. At some point (we do know when) the ballast shifted, almost all of it into the port bilge, which created a condition in which the ship was much more stable, but at a list of over 20 degrees!
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 29, 2014 9:25:06 GMT
The gunport lids are mounted on simple hinges above the ports, with a line from a ringbolt near the bottom edge running through a hole in the hull above the hinges. There is a cleat mounted on the ceiling above the after corner of the gunport for belaying the lid line. With this arrangement, the port can be fixed in any position from closed to fully open. The strain on the line and cleat is greatest when the portlid is horizontal, halfway open, but the gear is heavy enough to take it.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 28, 2014 8:21:00 GMT
One of the changes made after the 1970s was in the upper deck. The planks initially used there were a working surface, to deal with the constant traffic during conservation and restoration. Once this process was complete, it was possible to lay down the current deck and fit it nicely.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 28, 2014 8:18:24 GMT
Excellent question, Matti! Here is the evidence we have: 1. The attachment points for the ends of both the upper and lower railings survive, which provide the location and cross section of the railings, as well as the joinery. This shows, for example, that there is a horizontal knee between the after face of the upper railing and the fiferail. 2. The large horizontal knee abaft the lower railing survives on the starboard side, which indicates the angle at which the end of the lower railing meets the side. 3. One of the balusters survives, which shows how the balusters join the railings and provides the distance between the upper and lower railings at some point. The angles at the ends of the baluster show that it was not located at the centre but towards one side or the other. 4. The lead of the mainstay collar has to run over the lower railing, since there is no other place to attach it than the bowsprit (this is another long logic train we can discuss elsewhere - for now just accept that this is so). This means that there cannot be a centre baluster or shield/sculpture. 5. Related to the above, the baby head sculpture which Landström reconstructed as part of a large frieze on the face of the balustrade actually comes from the beakhead end (I can provide details for those who are interested). 6. Stairs on the face of the beakhead bulkhead. 7. The surviving starboard cathead has a mortise and bolts for the attachment of the lower railing, thus showing the height of the railing above the deck at this point.
So, from all of this we can determine directly: 1. The dimensions and joinery of the railings. 2. The angle at which the lower railing meets the side. 3. The space between the railings and the height of the lower railing above the deck at the catheads. 4. There must be an even number of balusters. 5. The space between the balusters must be large enough for a man to pass through relatively easily (or it would not be possible to use the stairs on the face of the beakhead bulkhead).
This leaves a few things to determine: 1. What is the curvature of the upper and lower railings? 2. How many balusters? 3. What decorative details and other fittings might have been attached to the balustrade?
The asnwers we can provide are: 1. The angles at the ends of the lower railing leave very little scope for the arc of the railing, so connecting the ends with a fair arc is relatively simple. The height of the arc in the middle might vary, but only within a range of about 50 mm. This is how the arc on the reconstructed railing on the ship was determined. Knowing the spacing between railings and the location of the attachment points at the ends shows that the upper railing is approximately parallel to the lower. 2. We cannot be sure of exactly how many balusters, but it cannot be more than eight and still leave room to pass between them. Six balusters, as are reconstructed on the ship, give plenty of room. The spacing also has to leave the area directly over the cathead clear, since we believe there is a large cleat here for the cattackle fall and cat stopper (these lines cannot go anytwhere else, and there are a pair of bolts at the right angle for a cleat). This space is clear with six evenly spaced balusters, but it is also possible to have more balusters and leave extra space between one pair where access is wanted. 3. There is almost certainly a large cleat on top of the lower railing where it crosses the cathead each side (see above). There may have been a bolster on the lower railing where the mainstay collar crossed it. The lower railing is also the best place to belay the fore tacks. The size of the lodging knees at the ends of the lower railing suggest that the railing, which is more of a beam, was subjected to some stress against which it had to be reinforced, and the cat tackles and tacks would be a good explanation. As for decorative mouldings, there is no direct evidence but the connection of the upper railing with the fiferail suggests that it might have carried a similar profile to the fiferail.
I hope this answers your question, and shows how we work through the process of reconstruction. The reconstructed balustrade on the ship is based on similar reasoning, and so it the best approximation we can come up with. The 1:10 model was built in the 1980s, based on an earlier reconstruction, as are the 1980 plans and Landström. As with everything else about the ship, our ideas are constantly in the process of refinement as we do a better job of recording or locate more information. This is why we decided in 2007 to start over from scratch and record the whole ship in one go, at a consistent level of detail.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 27, 2014 8:11:31 GMT
Great to see these pictures from the Wasavarvet, especially the ones of the transom and great cabin reassemblies!
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 24, 2014 12:39:31 GMT
Hej Duff,
We are planning on a slipcase for Vasa II which will match Vasa I, rather than the other way round. A lot of comments we have received from readers indicated that Vasa I was too big and bulky to use comfortably, and the binding really could not handle the stress, so Vasa II will be in two volumes, same height as Vasa I but slightly narrower (about A4 size), with a pocket for the drawings, which we hope to publish at 1:50.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 21, 2014 9:21:11 GMT
Ah, I see. The bolt pattern is not very regular there, since the bolts are mostly used to fasten the riders and the riders do not go so far aft. There are two lines of horizontal bolts for quarter knees in this area, as well as a few others. The drawing below shows the starboard side in this area with the bolts shown as red circles - aren't you glad we spent a month measuring in both ends of about 5,500 bolts! Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 20, 2014 9:00:32 GMT
Hi Shel,
Do you mean are there bolts visible on the sides of the keel? If so, the answer is no. There was a fish plate of iron, which wrapped around the bottom of the keel and up onto the first strake near the after end of the keel, but that is the only real feature in the area.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 16, 2014 14:13:21 GMT
Hi Shel,
We assume that the fore and main courses were rigged in the same way, but only have the main course to examine. It has three cringles on each leech for bowlines and five cringles on the foot for buntlines. It was found with four six-hole euphroes for its martnets, which were used on the courses instead of leechlines. Martnets were not used on mizzen sails, but brails were. We are not sure how many, because the mizzen does not survive. All of the square sails except the two on the bowsprit have cringles for bowlines, three on each leech in every case, and we have a number of dead blocks which we believe were used in the bowline bridles.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 14, 2014 11:45:28 GMT
Hi Shel,
We do not know how wide the cloths on the fours sails set were, since they did not survive. On the remaining sails, all of the sails made from heavier cloth (main course, mizzen bonnet, spritsail) had cloths about 65 cm wide from seam to seam, so one might expect the fore course and and mizzen, and probably the topsails to be the same. The light sail cloth, used on the topgallantsails, spritsail topsail and mizzen topsail, came in two widths, either 65 cm between seams or about 85 cm between seams. The fore topgallantsail and mizzen topsail used the wider cloth. The original cloth was of course somewhat wider, but folded over at the seams and tablings.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 7, 2014 9:12:52 GMT
Since everyone wants to know, I thought I would start a thread here for status updates on the Vasa rigging volume (Vasa II).
We are currently in negotiations with a publisher, and these are progressing pretty well. The format of this volume will not follow Vasa I exactly, as that proved to be cumbersome. Instead, it will probably be two books in a slipcase, along with separate large-format plans. This should make it much easier to use.
As it now stands, the chapter outline is as follows (chapter titles are descriptive working titles rather than final):
Editor: Fred Hocker Lead authors: Olof Pipping, Fred Hocker Lead illustrator: Lennarth Petersson Contributing authors: Ole Magnus and Annette Seeberg, Paul Donohue, Louie Bartoš, Nathaniel Howe, Irene Lindblom, Eva Marie Stolt, Sven Bengtsson, Thomas Nilsson, Sharon Litcofsky, Lauren Morgens, Thomas Ward Contributing illustrators: Susana Vallejos, Fred Hocker, Eva Marie Stolt, Jörgen Wallin, Jacob Jacobson Photographs: Anneli Karlsson, Andrew Hanna, Dan Briggs Translators: Angus Richardson, Fred Hocker
Publication outline
Dedication – to the memories of Sam Svensson (conservator at Statens Sjöhistoriska Museum in the 1950s and 1960s who initiated the detailed study of the rigging remains) and Ole Magnus (ropemaker who completed the study of the rope remains for this volume shortly before his death)
Contents
List of Illustrations and Illustration credits
List of Abbreviations
Foreword (Marika Hedin)
Acknowledgements
Preface – (Hocker, Peter Baeling, Seeberg/Pipping) The preface provides an introduction to the Förstå Vasa publication program and this volume’s place in it, as well as capsule biographies of the contributors and the two people to whom the book is dedicated.
Explanations (Hocker) Provides key administrative and background information to the conventions adopted in this series for ship names, spelling, dates, measurements, money and terminology. Many of these are specific to Sweden in the 1620s and thus not readily familiar to an international audience.
Chapter 1: Introduction – Seamanship and Vasa (Pipping, Hocker) The introduction establishes how the rigging of ships developed in Europe up to the 17th century, what makes the Vasa collection unique and valuable, why this material should be studied in such detail and what the principle research questions to be answered are.
Part 1 – The archaeological evidence (Hocker) The first part of the book presents and analyzes the find material from Vasa which is relevant to the understanding of how the ship was rigged and sailed. Chapters are organized by functional groups and vary in length, depending on the amount of find material. In each chapter, the relevant finds are described and illustrated in sufficient detail to allow useful conclusions to be drawn. Due to the number of finds and the fact that many of them were made on a production basis in specialized workshops, it is not necessary to present every object individually – readers are referred to the Vasa Museum’s online finds database for such information. Chapter 2: Hull, including construction (Hocker) This covers the fixed part of the rigging material which was part of the ship’s structure or fastened permanently to it: 1. Mast steps and partners 2. Chainwales 3. Bitts 4. Catheads and fish davit 5. Fixed sheaves in bulwarks, chesstree, etc. 6. Belaying devices (kevels, pinrails, etc.) 7. Ironwork Chapter 3: Spars (Hocker, Nilsson) Spars are the masts and yards, the wooden poles which carry the sails and allow them to be adjusted to meet the wind at an optimum angle and transfer the wind’s energy to the ship. Chapter 4: Tops (Hocker) Tops are the round platforms at the heads of the masts which provide working space for handling the rigging as well as sharpshooter positions in battle. Chapter 5: Tackle (Howe, Lindblom, Hocker) Tackle is all of the movable wooden and metal parts of the rigging which connect the sails to the spars and the hull and allow them to be raised, lowered and controlled 1. Deadeyes (Lindblom) 2. Blocks (Howe) 3. Parrels (Hocker) 4. Euphroes (Hocker) 5. Fairleads (Hocker) 6. Other (Hocker) Chapter 6: Rope (Magnus, Seeberg, Hocker) The rope represents one of the groundbreaking studies in this volume. It is a common find on archaeological sites but rarely presented or studied in detail, so this chapter receives special emphasis and extra material on the materials and manufacturing processes. Chapter 7: Sails (Bartoš, Bengtsson) The sails are the most unusual find among all of the artefacts found with Vasa, and so this chapter is also given extra weight. Chapter 8: Capstans and windlass (Donohue) Capstans are the human-powered machines mounted on the deck, which make it possible to lift the heavy weights of the anchors and sails. Chapter 9: Steering (Hocker) Vasa preserves the only known complete example of the whipstaff steering system, the most common form of steering gear on large ships from the late Middle Ages until about 1700. Chapter 10: Anchors (Hocker, Ward) Anchors are essential for operation of the ship, and all parts of the anchoring system survive, including anchors, stocks, buoys and cables. Chapter 11: Navigation equipment (Hocker, Pipping) The navigation equipment (compasses,timekeeping devices, sounding leads, etc.) is included in this volume as it is essential to sailing the ship. Chapter 12: Reconstructing Vasa’s rig (Hocker, Pipping, Stolt) This chapter synthesizes all of the archaeological evidence and comparative material in a reconstruction of the rigging of Vasa.
Part 2 – Rigging and Sailing Vasa (Pipping) The second part takes the archaeological data as the departure point for a more wide-ranging contextual examination of the rigging and sailing of a large ship such as Vasa. Where the first part focused more on objects, this part focuses on process and meaning to explore the relevance of this find to larger questions of ergonomics and organisation, resource utilization, and operational implications. Chapter 13: Ship performance and the sailing environment of the Baltic Sea The geographic and climatological context is examined, as are the operational environment and the strategic limits within which the ship functioned. The essential parameters of the ship’s performance, such as speed, stability and weatherliness, are discussed in order to establish how well the ship was suited to its likely sailing routes and conditions. Chapter 14: Money, materials and men (Hocker) This chapter concentrates on the administrative framework for outfitting Swedish naval vessels and the resource base from which the raw material were drawn, as well as the organization of the processes of producing rigging and assembling it into a functioning rig. It addresses the economic, environmental and social factors influencing the production of sails, rope and tackle. It makes use of the historical documents relating to the operation of the Stockholm navy yard, where the ship was rigged and fitted out, as well as the remains of the ship itself. Chapter 15: Rigging the ship The process of rigging, starting with a bare hull and progressing to a fully outfitted ship ready to sail, is followed in detail, with attention on the manpower requirements, the organizational challenges, and the technical limitations imposed by the particular materials and methods used. Chapter 16: Sailing the ship The chapter opens with an analysis of crew organization and Vasa’s one, brief sailing passage for what they say about the ship’s performance and the level of competence of the crew. The rest of the chapter follows a typical passage across the Baltic, based on the sequence of sailing orders recorded for the Swedish navy in the 17th century. It presents the different maneuvers which the ship was expected to perform and how they should have been carried out. The ergonomic requirements are analyzed, and the ship is placed in the context of what is known about Baltic sailing in the 17th century. Chapter 17: Sailing a modern reconstruction (Morgens and Litcofsky) Trials made using the modern reconstruction Kalmar Nyckel both confirmed certain hypotheses about the how this rig functioned and raised new questions about the nature of the evidence used to study 17th-century seamanship. The relevance of Kalmar Nyckel for the study of how Vasa sailed is studied, as are the basic limitations of experimental archaeology.
Chapter 18: Conclusions (Pipping and Hocker)
Glossary (Hocker)
References
Index
Appendices: 1. Original documents relating to rigging (Hocker) 2. List of paintings used as references (Pipping) 3. Tables of proportions and dimensions (Pipping) 4. Index to Volume I
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 7, 2014 8:55:53 GMT
These are not our plans, but a set drawn by others some years ago. They are not especially accurate or up to date.
Unfortunately, we are currently sold out of the 1980 plan set that we have sold for years, and the shop has not decided if they will order another run or not. We are discussing if we will make these available as PDFs and save the printing costs, but a decision has not been made. I will let the group know once my masters decide what they want to do. A new, fully revised set of plans is a few years away, althought the new rigging plans will be released with Vasa II later this year.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jan 7, 2014 8:50:21 GMT
There have been a number of rigging questions recently that relate to the belaying of lines at the sides of the ship and the presence of a pinrail abaft the mainmast. When the rig of Vasa was restored in the 1990s, pinrails were mounted against the top timbers in this location for belaying the main sheet and other lines. We now believe this to be incorrect. In 2006, we removed the starboard reconstruction (which involved dismantling some of the bulwark planking) to see what evidence there was. A longitudinal timber had indeed been mounted in this location, in shallow notches across a number of top timbers. It had been fastened in place with two bolts and a number of nails. After looking at all of the evidence, we believe that the fitting in this location is a large horizontal cleat or possibly a kevel for the main sheet. A pinrail does not work here, as it would be in the way of serving two of the guns and there are not that many lines that need to be belayed here. So ignore what is shown on the plans we sell and what you see from the visitor's gallery! There may be another kevel or timberhead mounted farther forward, at the break in the railing at the after end of the waist, but we are not sure of its form.
The revised reconstruction will be described in more detail in Vasa II.
Fred Hocker
|
|