Каракки

[Kogan]

Владислав Витальевич, так ведь и на хулке именно такие же легкие досчатые площадочки как и на когге... Ringaren собственно конструктивно почти такой же когг. Попытка совместить традиции балтийского кораблестроения с современными веяниями, как н.п. более развитое парусное вооружение - добавили две маленькие мачты с маленькими парусами. Ну и очевидно подобная архитектура - "тупиковая ветвь эволюции", дальнейшего развития не получает.

[Kogan]

Еще раз хочу обратить внимание - "тяжелые, капитальные надстройки" кораблей 15-16 века это миф.

ведь изначально надстройки действительно "надстраивались" на готовый корпус, как правило, уже на воде, путём наращивания шпангоутов дополнительными тимберсами, и лишь позже настройки по отношению к корпусу стали монолитом, но название своё сохранили.

Игорь именно так! Причем во времена каракк надстройки (они же кастли) были легкими! Посмотрите на конструкцию ахтеркастля Мэри Роуз - обшивка из тонких досок (!) в один слой на тимберсах расположенных на расстоянии метра (!) друг от друга. Форкастль наверняка был такой же хлипкий... Грубо говоря корабль, как и во времена нэфов, представлял из себя поплавок с двумя башнями. И не мудрено! Основное предназначение кастлей - быть кастлем (башней)! Т.е. быть возвышением для стрелков, платформой для размещения небольшого количества не самых тяжелых орудий. И собственно говоря ВСЁ! Тут особая прочность и не нужна...
Однако многие почему-то упорно считают, что надстройки средневекового судна имели такую же мощную конструкцию как и сам корпус, как будто у корабля времен наполеоновских войн. "Ах какие высокие, тяжелые надстройки!".

На примере самого сохранившегося корабля середины 16 века отлично видно разницу в мощности и капитальности конструкции основного корпуса (поплавка) - А и кастлей - Б (на примере ахтеркастля). Фальшборт опердека (Б маленькая) тоже состоит из тонких досок в один слой в нижней части и деревянных щитов сверху. Разница с 15 веком состоит лишь в том, что надстройки более гармонично вписаны в корпус судна, конструктивно же они представляют практически такую же легкую структуру как и во времена нефов и коггов....

[Бирюков Славик]

Еще раз хочу обратить внимание - "тяжелые, капитальные надстройки" кораблей 15-16 века это миф.

Да.
Но если задуматься, то кастли имели фендерсы, руслени, бархоуты снизу и планширь сверху, и топтимберсы и ганвельсы внутри. А сама обшивка были внакрой. Т.е. не такая уж их липкая надстройка.
Комплексный подход к исполнению кастлей налицо.

[Kogan]

Я отнюдь не имел ввиду, что у надстроек совсем уж "никакая" конструкция. Как раз наоборот, согласен, все сделано очень разумно - и при относительно небольшом весе, обеспечивается необходимая прочность. Потому и клинкер, и фендерсы, и амбразуры для басов устроены особым образом, чтобы этот клинкер не ослаблять вырубкой отверстий...
Но тем не менее, по сравнению с основным корпусом, кастли имеют гораздо менее прочную и массивную конструкцию.

[Kogan]

Не помню был ли большой...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... avelle.jpg

[Игорь Тараканов]

... что мне нравится во всех этих "поздних" изображениях каракк - откровенно большая толщина мачт, аж в два-три окна на передней переборке квартердека (или гальф-вер-дека). Авторы картин, словно сговорившись, из разных стран и в разное время, единодушно рисовали одинаково толстые мачты с некими общими элементами.

Я ни к чему не призываю, но моделистов, желающих собрать копию каракки, я просил бы приглядеться к этому практически неосвещённому в литературе моменту.

[Kogan]

Очевидно некие каноны живописи... Но, уверен, и мачта не была сильно тоненькой!

[Игорь Тараканов]

... да что-то уж слишком часто эти "каноны" встречаются... опять же, любым канонам есть объяснение.

[Kogan]

Каракки с карты Венеции Jacopo de’ Barbari 1500 года:
https://library.bc.edu/venetianart/file ... 96c0af.jpg

[Kogan]

Сделал такой вот коллаж:

Дополнил...

[Kogan]

Никогда не встречал такой обшивки

Вот и я говорю, чувак чертил с бодуна. С киля начинают набирать.

Я не напрасно источник указал. Залезьте и посмотрите способы постройки судов с обшивкой клинкером.
Поверьте их НЕСКОЛЬКО

Эту книгу я читал.
Автор приводит этот метод обшивки клинкером как возможный. И пытается реконструировать его для себя. Но доказательств тому нет. Зиммерман тоже не нашел.
Археологические находки такого рода обшивки клинкером тоже не попадались.
Если уважаемый Kogan имеет такого рода доказательства, пусть представит. (Зиммерман не в счет).

Возвращаясь к напечатанному.
Не верящим в реальность обратного клинкера:
1-2. Печать адмиралтейского суда города Бристоля.
3. Остатки судна 16 века, обнаруженные в районе акватории лондонского порта (P.Marsden, "Ship of the Port of London 12th to 17th Centuries", 1994).

[Kogan]

http://www.marinehist.dk/MHT/1990-2-MHT.pdf

[Kogan]

https://depot.ceon.pl/bitstream/handle/ ... sAllowed=y
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/view ... =nebanthro

[Kogan]

Вулвичский корабль. Обломки идентифицированы как знаменитый Соверин, построенный при Генрихе VII в паре с Регентом (https://ianfrielhistorian.files.wordpre ... sion-2.jpg) в 1488 году и прошедший капитальный ремонт и модернизацию в 1509 году. Несмотря на то, что он известен гораздо меньше чем Мэри Роуз или, допустим, Ньюпортский корабль, представляет собой еще один прекрасный пример английского кораблестроения эпохи ранних Тюдоров.

The Woolwich Ship: History of the Site
In November 1912, in the port town of Woolwich, during expansion of the Borough Electricity Works at Roff’s Wharf, a large ship was found while excavation for the facility was under way (figure 5). Because the discovery came shortly after the County Hall Roman-era vessel was found, Sir William White, Director of Naval Construction, was sent to evaluate the remains. Sir William took a series of photographs and certain measurements in the course of his examination. Upon completion of his analysis, Sir William proclaimed that the vessel belonged to the middle of the eighteenth century. This date he pronounced effectively halted further archaeological investigation. About a year later, after the death of White, the matter of the vessel’s age was taken up in the English press. Mr. Seymour Lucas claimed the ship was about 200 years older than White had believed. Lucas postulated that the remains were those of Henry Grace à Dieu, the largest
vessel and flagship of Henry VIII’s navy. Lucas’s claims were based upon documentary sources that stated Henry Grace à Dieu had been destroyed by fire at Woolwich in 1553. Lucas’s claims precipitated considerable discussion in the English press. The outcome of the dialogue was a decision to conduct further investigation of the site. In March 1914, investigation was scheduled for the fall of that year. The plans were scuttled, however, by the outbreak of World
War I in August 1914. By the time the war ended, little remained of the excavated material. Left laying on the dock at Woolwich was some stone shot and a few scraps of dried timber. The rest of the remains had long since been cut up and hauled away, used as firewood during the difficult years of the war.
In May 1959, R. C. Anderson, one of the most knowledgeable naval historians in England at the time, published an article in Mariner’s Mirror relating the war of words that followed the discovery of the Woolwich ship. Anderson’s article prompted W. Salisbury to thoroughly re-examine the scanty records and photographs of the excavation. From the limited resources available to him, Salisbury was able to glean and extraordinary amount of information on the specifics of the ship. His article, published in Mariner’s Mirror in 1961, remains the most extensive record of the vessel’s construction. Salisbury’s report gives us the best descriptions of the ship’s remains.

Construction of the Woolwich Ship
The ship was discovered lying bow towards shore. From plans and sketches made in 1914, the vessel appeared to be exposed to a length of about 27.4 m. along her keel and to a width of about 12 m. Particularly evident in the drawings is the vessel’s composite mast “consisting of a spindle of pine surrounded by baulks of oak and bound together with iron bands. The mast had a diameter of 1.41 m. at its heel and sat in a maststep composed of a number of timbers surrounding an expanded section of the keelson. Along most of its length, the keelson measured 23 cm. sided by 35 cm. molded. At the maststep, however, it expanded to 32.5 cm. sided by 70 cm. molded. The step was widened further with two large timbers on either side of the step. The plans give no indication whether the keel and keelson were attached in any way. Sections of the hull, prepared at the time the ship was excavated, suggest the keel tapered towards either end. Also, the underside of the keel, in most sections, appears to have been quite worn (figure 6). Salisbury notes, however, that in the only photograph in which the keel is shown in cross-section, it is well preserved below the garboards. Because of the photograph, a measurement of 60 cm. molded by 48 cm. sided for the keel immediately beneath the mast (determined by measuring from the section), must be viewed with some caution. Garboard strakes were rabbeted to the keel. Whether they were fastened with treenails or iron fasteners is unclear. The planking of the sides of the ship was flush laid. Strakes were not fastened to each other, as in clinker shipbuilding. Rather, they were only fastened to the frames using treenails. To keep the seams between strakes tight, they were caulked with pitch and
oakum. They were then secured with a batten fastened over the seam on the outside of the hull. The frames give the clearest indication that at some point in its life, the ship had been rebuilt. These timbers measure 35.9 cm. sided, 20.4 cm. molded and have a room between frames of 12.3 cm. Evidence that the ship was rebuilt shows on the outboard face of one frame in one photograph. In the photograph, one can see that the timber had joggles that had been dubbed
smooth prior to having been planked. This evidence suggests the frame had been used originally in a ship constructed using lapstrake methods. Although it is difficult to make generalizations regarding all frames based upon a single frame in a single photograph, Salisbury made an important observation, “It certainly appears from the photographs of the wreck that the riders, inner and outer planking and keel were in far better condition than the frame or floor timbers.
It is quite possible therefore, that many of the frames had been reused from an earlier ship. From the sections it can be deduced that frames were scarfed to futtocks with oblique scarfs. It is uncertain whether components of frames were fastened to one another with anything other than treenails that secured the planking to the frames. In the lowest portions of the hull, there was flush laid ceiling planking. Higher in the hull, longitudinal timbers were placed less closely. In several of the photographs, gaps are visible between the planks. Another significant feature of the internal hull structure is a series of heavy transverse riders fastened over the ceiling. These form a second set of framing for the ship. From the site plan provided in Salisbury and from the sections he provides, the riders appear to have been spaced at about 2 m. intervals through the hull. They appear to have had a siding of about 45 cm. Determining a moulded dimension is a bit more problematic, but a figure of about 50 cm. does not seem excessive. They could not have been placed into the hull until the ceiling had been laid. From the sections and plan of the site, it is clear that the riders were constructed of a number of separate pieces fastened with hook scarfs. The riders were fastened to the ceiling and, probably, to the framing with treenails. At about the turn of the bilge (and possibly at a level further up the side of the ship), a set of stringers is evident. In photographs these appear to run over the tops of the riders. Several of the illustrated sections suggest that stringers sat in notches cut in the riders. The second set of stringers further up the side of the hull can be seen on the plan of the site and in section L-M. Such components, if securely fastened to the heavy riders, may have provided considerable longitudinal strength to counter hogging and sagging. To interpret the origins and life of the Woolwich ship, it is necessary to note a number of other discoveries made when the ship was unearthed. With the exception of some stone shot, which measured between 8 and 32 cm. in diameter, no ballast was found in the hull. Based upon a calculated beam of the vessel at section E-F, and documentary sources for the lengths of other vessels of similar beam, Salisbury calculated that the ship discovered at Roff’s Wharf would have had a length between 37 and 38 m. and a maximum beam of around 14 m. With such dimensions and knowledge of the vessel’s construction, interpretation of documentary sources regarding the life of the ship is made easier.

Identification of the Woolwich Ship
From evidence of stone shot and from the importance of Woolwich as a naval center at the beginning of the sixteenth century, Anderson determined that the vessel was, quite likely, an early English ship-of-war. In his article in Mariner’s Mirror, he stated that he had “come to believe that the Woolwich ship was the Henry Grace à Dieu, if only for the simple reason that I cannot think of any alternative. Salisbury’s investigation of the ship and of the documentary record was far more exhaustive than Anderson’s, though. In his article, published two years after Anderson’s, Salisbury offered two additional possibilities, the Great Galley and Sovereign. Salisbury approached the possibility of each historical vessel being the Woolwich ship in a very methodical manner, eliminating two of the possibilities for good cause, until a single possibility remained. Henry Grace à Dieu was an unlikely candidate, in Salisbury’s opinion, because the vessel discovered was much finer in shape “than that of ‘great ships’ either before or after her time. Also, the remains found at Roff’s Wharf yielded no evidence of fire, the cause of Great Harry’s demise. The second candidate, Great Galley, was more likely in Salisbury’s view. The ship had originally been constructed in 1515 and was rebuilt on at least two occasions, once in 1523 and a second time in 1536-37. Between 1562 and 1565, Salisbury stated, the ship disappeared from the records. There is also evidence that the ship had originally been built using clinker construction methods. This is found in a letter from Sir William Fitzwilliam to Henry VIII written at the time of Great Galley’s first rebuild. The document states, “The galley will not be ready before (another month), for Brigandine intends to break her up and make her carvel so as she shall be made in every point as your grace devised. The possibility that the Woolwich ship was Great Galley was left open by Salisbury. In 1971, however, Tom Glasgow, Jr. refuted that possibility in a note in Mariner’s Mirror: “The Great Bark, alias Great Galley, was rebuilt in 1564 as the White Bear...
[T]his seems to preclude the Great Bark from its place of consideration as a possible candidate for the vessel, whose remains are known now as ‘the Woolwich ship.
Moreover, White Bear went on to a long life in the Royal Navy. She even underwent repair at least twice during her career, the first time at Woolwich in 1574 and the second time in the 1590s. The ultimate disposition of this ship is uncertain. However, after nearly 90 years of use, the likelihood of her having been abandoned at Woolwich, with considerable portions of her original structure intact, is remote. Salisbury felt that the remains were most likely those of Sovereign, ordered built by Henry VII in 1488. L. G. Carr Laughton has suggested that Sovereign, along with her sister ship Regent, were built after the Breton ship Colombe which incorporated certain innovations atypical of English ships of the day. However, the innovations incorporated in the Colombe – and possibly in Regent and Sovereign – remain uncertain. Carr Laughton has suggested that the most important feature was the “square-tuck” stern, rather than the more typical medieval rounded
stern. Unfortunately, the stern of the vessel was not among the remains discovered at Roff’s Wharf. What is clear from the documentary record is that Sovereign was a well-regarded ship during her lifetime. The vessel had been built in part, from the timbers of the Grace de Dieu which served from 1446 to 1486. While in use Sovereign engaged in numerous military actions, including the short-lived conflict with France in 1491 and the War with France of 1512-1513. There is also an account of a trading expedition to the Levant in 1496 or 1497. Sovereign was so well thought of, that in 1509 she was ordered partially rebuilt. This was done
only after considerable opposition was mounted against forces that sought to break her up. Those in favor of rebuilding argued that Sovereign’s “form is so marvellously goodly that great pity it were she should die. After rebuilding, the ship served for over two more decades. Finally, in the 1530s, she was taken to Woolwich to be rebuilt a second time or broken up for use in the construction some other ship. As late as the 1546, there is a reference to the ship sitting in a dock
awaiting final disposition. The most likely explanation for the remains discovered at Woolwich, is that they were those of Sovereign. After her long career she was dragged into a dock to await demolition or reconstruction. Through the years, the dock silted up and timbers that remained above ground were cut off and reused. Eventually her whereabouts were forgotten about, until rediscovered in 1912.

W. Salisbury, “The Woolwich Ship,” Mariner’s Mirror 47 (1961): 80-90.
R. C. Anderson, “The Story of the Woolwich Ship,” Mariner’s Mirror 45 (1959): 94-9.

Коллеги, у кого-нибудь есть материалы по этому кораблю? Статьи, фото? Поделитесь пожалуйста!

[Kogan]

... что мне нравится во всех этих "поздних" изображениях каракк - откровенно большая толщина мачт, аж в два-три окна на передней переборке квартердека (или гальф-вер-дека). Авторы картин, словно сговорившись, из разных стран и в разное время, единодушно рисовали одинаково толстые мачты с некими общими элементами.

Я ни к чему не призываю, но моделистов, желающих собрать копию каракки, я просил бы приглядеться к этому практически неосвещённому в литературе моменту.

...Salisbury calculated that the ship discovered at Roff’s Wharf would have had a length between 37 and 38 m. and a maximum beam of around 14 m...The mast had a diameter of 1.41 m...

Вот и соотношение...