Wappen von Hamburg guns?

     Thank you DURR, but it sounds like a hell of a job, even at one page a day and that isn't counting the 4 plans and eight photographs.  Nevertheless it's worth a go and I am grateful for the suggestion even though (and here I endeavour to reflect your sense of humour) I may still be typing just prior to my interrment!  Even so, if I arise early enough and master the art of eating in my sleep, etc. Seriously, I'll try and see what happeans and how long it takes. Flitch.

     Actually, it was the English who stayed with the nominal system (naming their guns) until  it became obvious that captured (foreign) guns, would not fit into their system.  Even so, it was not until c.1716 that they went over to the "continental" (every other European navy except the English) system of identifying their guns by calibre and weight of shot, which had been in use for about 150 years previously.  So using the gun's weight of shot for French, German, etc sailing ships, after c.1550, is quite correct.  Incidentally, although UK is part of Europe, every other country in Europe is , in the eyes of the Brits, continental.  Good 'ere innit?  Hope it helps.  Flitch

say where can i get one of these hamburgs

burgerking or macdonalds     lol  lol

just kidding

say flitch if you have a scanner you can translate whole pages or if not you can type in sentences 1 or many at a time on this site

http://babelfish.altavista.com/raging/translate.dyn it is a free translator. it will save you from going to your dictionary 1 word at a time

searat12 wrote:

Well, I wouldn't count on Vasa as a guide (she capsized and sank on her maiden sail!).  Probably best to go with 24's on the main deck, 12 or 18's on the upper deck, and perhaps 8's on the quarter deck with 6's elsewhere....

Hello,here is a list of the Swedish Warship Wasa's armements writen by Dr Frederick Hocker.It may be of some help,Walter http://home.att.net/~ShipModelFAQ/ResearchNotes/smf-RN-VasaGunCarriages.html

       According to a book in my possession "Wappen von Hamburg 1667" by R Hoeckel published in 1958, the 54 guns were distributed as follows: Poop - 6 Kanonen of 4lbs, 8.5 cm Kaliber, gun crew 3; Forecastle - 4 Kanonen of 6lbs, 9.39-9.8 cm Kaliber, gun crew 5; Upper deck - 20 Kanonen of 8lbs, 10.2 cm Kaliber, gun crew 7; Batterie (Gun?) deck - 22 Kanonen of 12 lbs, 12 cm Kaliber, gun crew 8; Heck (Stern) - chasers I presume - 2 Kanonen of 18 lbs, 13.5 cm Kaliber, gun crew 9.

     The book is entirely in German of which I have not the slightest knowledge.  The above was translated with the aid of my Langenscheidts German/English dictionary.  I feel obliged to tell you, therefore, that the entries which I have put as "lbs" appear under the heading  "Pfungewicht jeder Kugel", which I translate as "pounds weight".  Good luck.  Flitch 

 

 

Chuck Fan wrote:

One can not always count on major warships of minor navies to fall neatly into the catagories  used by the larger navies, or carry armaments normally found aboard ship of similar rate from a larger navy.    These navies do not expect their bigger ships to play traditional roles assigned for each class by the bigger navies.     Instead they have other special requirements, like stronger than anything faster and faster than anything stronger, carry a flag officer eventhough the ship only has 50 guns, etc    So it is not entirely impossible that Wappen Von Hamburg did indeed carry outsized guns for her rating.    USS Constitution is one example, and by no means the most extreme example, of a minor navy building ship with outsized armament for its nominal class.   Similar examples can be found in the navies of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal.

Well, that is certainly a good theory, but the structural strength needed for significantly heavier guns means a much larger vessel is necessary, and the Wappen is pretty much a typical Dutch 56-60 gun third rate in dimensions (actually, at the time Wappen was built, this would have been considered a quite large and powerful warship by the Dutch).  When the French introduced the large 74 in the later part of the 18th century (100 years later than the Wappen), they were almost twice the size of the Wappen von Hamburg, and this was largely due to the requirement of putting 32's (36's actually) on the lower deck, and 24's on the upper deck.  To make a better comparison, these 74's and 80's were virtually as big as the HMS Victory (though not as tall in decks)!  USS Constitution and sisters were known by the British to have been built 'with scantlings like a 74,' which was largely necessary to carry the enormous weight of the 24's.  In fact, one of the initial responses of both the British and the French was to create 'razees', which were old 74's with the upper deck 'razored' off to make a (slow!) frigate that could also carry 24's to square off against the US 'super-frigates'.   Wappen von Hamburg was not built to 'stand in the line,' as there were really not enough ships in the Hamburg fleet to form much of a line.  Instead, Wappen von Hamburg was built to escort merchant convoys, to protect them from pirates and Algerian corsairs, not square off against an enemy fleet, so there was really no need to have unusual characteristics..... As well, when the Wappen was built, there really wasn't much notion of ship 'classes' as they were eventually to be considered.  A ship was larger, or more powerful, but all were considered to be part of the fleet to be used in 'melee' fighting, rather than opposing lines of comparable warships.  thus, you could well have a nominal 5th rate of 40 guns squaring off against a 90 gun three decker.  This is what makes this period of naval history and warship design so interesting, as all the principles of naval warfare, blockade, 'fighting instructions' signalling, centralized control of squadrons and multiple squadrons that were used by all navies until the advent of steam were developed during the Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th century....

Chuck Fan wrote:

One can not always count on major warships of minor navies to fall neatly into the catagories  used by the larger navies, or carry armaments normally found aboard ship of similar rate from a larger navy.    These navies do not expect their bigger ships to play traditional roles assigned for each class by the bigger navies.     Instead they have other special requirements, like stronger than anything faster and faster than anything stronger, carry a flag officer eventhough the ship only has 50 guns, etc    So it is not entirely impossible that Wappen Von Hamburg did indeed carry outsized guns for her rating.    USS Constitution is one example, and by no means the most extreme example, of a minor navy building ship with outsized armament for its nominal class.   Similar examples can be found in the navies of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal.

Well, that is certainly a good theory, but the structural strength needed for significantly heavier guns means a much larger vessel is necessary, and the Wappen is pretty much a typical Dutch 56-60 gun third rate in dimensions (actually, at the time Wappen was built, this would have been considered a quite large and powerful warship by the Dutch).  When the French introduced the large 74 in the later part of the 18th century (100 years later than the Wappen), they were almost twice the size of the Wappen von Hamburg, and this was largely due to the requirement of putting 32's (36's actually) on the lower deck, and 24's on the upper deck.  To make a better comparison, these 74's and 80's were virtually as big as the HMS Victory (though not as tall in decks)!  USS Constitution and sisters were known by the British to have been built 'with scantlings like a 74,' which was largely necessary to carry the enormous weight of the 24's.  In fact, one of the initial responses of both the British and the French was to create 'razees', which were old 74's with the upper deck 'razored' off to make a (slow!) frigate that could also carry 24's to square off against the US 'super-frigates'.   Wappen von Hamburg was not built to 'stand in the line,' as there were really not enough ships in the Hamburg fleet to form much of a line.  Instead, Wappen von Hamburg was built to escort merchant convoys, to protect them from pirates and Algerian corsairs, not square off against an enemy fleet, so there was really no need to have unusual characteristics.....

CaptainBill03 wrote:

Good morning Chuck Good point, the only comment I would add is that Constitution was 30 % larger than the average heavy frigate and hence better able to carry the heavier guns.  Remember Constellation originally carried 24 pounders but was reduced to 18 pounders because the weight of the bigger guns adversely affected her sea keeping. Wappen von Hamburg at 900 tons was smaller than Centurion at 1000 tons.

Is that Centurion of Admiral Anson's fleet?  That centurion was built 60 years after than the Wappen von Hamburg.   During that period,  even for ships of nominally the same rating, the size of the hull increased substantially in order to improve sailing quality and increase operational endurance.  For example, the giant French 120 gun first rates that shocked the world around 1670 were reckoned to really be about 1500 tons.    By 1740s, French 74 gun ships had grown beyond that tonnage.   The guns in each rate didn't necessarily get heavier or more numerous, but the hull around them grew a lot in size.    

Good morning Chuck

Good point, the only comment I would add is that Constitution was 30 % larger than the average heavy frigate and hence better able to carry the heavier guns.  Remember Constellation originally carried 24 pounders but was reduced to 18 pounders because the weight of the bigger guns adversely affected her sea keeping.

Wappen von Hamburg at 900 tons was smaller than Centurion at 1000 tons.

One can not always count on major warships of minor navies to fall neatly into the catagories  used by the larger navies, or carry armaments normally found aboard ship of similar rate from a larger navy.    These navies do not expect their bigger ships to play traditional roles assigned for each class by the bigger navies.     Instead they have other special requirements, like stronger than anything faster and faster than anything stronger, carry a flag officer eventhough the ship only has 50 guns, etc    So it is not entirely impossible that Wappen Von Hamburg did indeed carry outsized guns for her rating.    USS Constitution is one example, and by no means the most extreme example, of a minor navy building ship with outsized armament for its nominal class.   Similar examples can be found in the navies of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal.    

Good evening Mike

I'm starting with the Lindberg Wappen von Hamburg, and the lower gun deck has 11 ports per side, the upper  has 10 per side, the half deck has 4, poop has 2, and forc'le  has 2, for a total of 29.    Adding 2 stern guns brings the total carried to 60.   This matches the "Friederick Wilhelm zu Pferde".

 I know that the typical ship of 60 gun ship, like HMS Centurion, and the later 64's, like Agamemnon, carried 24 pounders on the lower deck, and 12 pounders on the upper deck.  So I agree that the Dutch ships were usually out gunned because they had only 24 pounders on the lower deck.

Putting all this together I think it's most likely Wappen Von Hamburg would have had 24 pounders on the lower deck, either 12 or 18 pounders on the upper deck, and the remainder 8 or 6 pounders.

Carmike wrote:

Just to make matters more difficult, the "Rand McNally Color Illustrated Guide on Sailing Ships" by Attilio Cucari (1978) lists the armament of the "Wappen Von Hambourg" as being: "first battery, thirty 32-lb cannons; second battery, eighteen 24-lb cannons; third battery, four 9-lb cannons."   I'm not sure as to the accuracy of this information since the color illustration of the Wappen Von Hamburg provided in the book is not a good match to the commercial plans available or to the Lindbergh kit (which is a good match to the commercial plans). The guide also has information on a later Brandenburg ship, "Friederick Wilhelm zu Pferde" (built in Lubeck, 1681, 900 tons displacement, length 195', beam 33', depth 22') has a plan view that is very similar to the commerical plans for the Wappen Von Hamburg and the armament is reported as: "first battery twenty-two 32-lb cannons; second battery twenty 24-lb cannons, third battery fourteen 9-lb cannons" which is pretty close to the armament provided in the Lindbergh kit. Don't know if this helps a lot, but I'm thinking that the 32 pounder may have been the standard weapon for the lower gun deck, 24 pounders for the second gun deck, and 9 pounders above. Would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this. Mike

Doesn't sound too likely in a ship of this size, as a mix of 32's and 24's are more suited to a 70 or even 80 gun ship of this type.  Most Dutch ships of the time carried 24's on the lower deck, and some only 18's (Tromps' flagship 'Brederode' carried 4 demi-cannon (32's), 22 culverins (24's), 26 demi-culverins (18's), and 8 sakers (9's), and even the mighty 'Eendracht' and Zeven Provicien' were only equipped with 24's on the lower deck with a couple 32's as chase guns.  At the same time, English ships like 'Britannia' would have a complete lower deck of cannon-drakes (42's).  Generally you don't start to see 24's on the upper deck of third rates until the big French 74's of the late 18th century (see 'The Anglo-Dutch Wars 1652-1674 by Hainsworth & Churches)

Just to make matters more difficult, the "Rand McNally Color Illustrated Guide on Sailing Ships" by Attilio Cucari (1978) lists the armament of the "Wappen Von Hambourg" as being: "first battery, thirty 32-lb cannons; second battery, eighteen 24-lb cannons; third battery, four 9-lb cannons."   I'm not sure as to the accuracy of this information since the color illustration of the Wappen Von Hamburg provided in the book is not a good match to the commercial plans available or to the Lindbergh kit (which is a good match to the commercial plans).

The guide also has information on a later Brandenburg ship, "Friederick Wilhelm zu Pferde" (built in Lubeck, 1681, 900 tons displacement, length 195', beam 33', depth 22') has a plan view that is very similar to the commerical plans for the Wappen Von Hamburg and the armament is reported as: "first battery twenty-two 32-lb cannons; second battery twenty 24-lb cannons, third battery fourteen 9-lb cannons" which is pretty close to the armament provided in the Lindbergh kit.

Don't know if this helps a lot, but I'm thinking that the 32 pounder may have been the standard weapon for the lower gun deck, 24 pounders for the second gun deck, and 9 pounders above.

Would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

Mike

Correct; partially.  Yes, Wappen was a fair bit later ship than Vasa, and was also Dutch designed (and i believe Dutch-built as well), which is why Wappen makes a good 'stand-in' for a mid or late Anglo-Dutch wars Dutch ship.  As for gun nomenclature, the English Ordinance Establishment of 1677 stiill refers to guns in archaic terms.  For instance, under the 1677 Establishment, the Britannia was equipped with 26 x cannon-of-seven, 28 x culverins, 28 sakers, 16 light sakers, and two 3 pounders.  '24 pounders' make their appearance in the Ordinance Establishment of 1685, but at the same time cannon-of seven, demi-cannon, culverins, demi-culverins, sakers, and minions are still very much in evidence!  You really don't get a complete switch-over to 'pounder' designations until after 1700, and for good reason; cannons are expensive, last a long time, and there is no sense in recasting, or replacing perfectly good guns when you already have a fleet equipped with them! 

While I am not certain as to the exact type of guns were used by the Hamburgers on Wappen, chances are they got their guns from the Dutch as well.  The Dutch had a hard time getting sufficient guns throughout the 17th century, partly because they had no good local sources of raw material (iron, copper and tin), and partly because they spent a lot of the century either at war with one or other (sometimes all!) countries that DID have such resources (Cornwall was the major supplier of tin in Europe), or were under one sort of trade embargo or another.

Unsurprisingly, Dutch ships of the period were noted not only for being undergunned in absolute numbers, but also were often undergunned for their size as well in terms of calibers.  Partly this was a result of the need to keep the draft of these vessels as shallow as possible because of the very 'thin' water available in the Sheldt and other waters of the Netherlands, but also because in many cases suitable guns just were not available.  The Dutch adapted their tactics to deal with this situation, by emphasizing boarding enemy vessels as soon as possible, while the English preferred to stand off and pound with their heavier (and more readily available!)artillery.......   

Actually, if this was the same Wappen Von Hamburg I am familiar with, then she was built in around 1670s and would be more close to being contemporay with true ships of lines like De Zeven Provence, Soleil Royal, Brittannia and Royal James than she would be with the pre-SOLs like Wasa.  Warship appearence actually changed quite dramatically in the 30 years in between.   The sheerlines have been dramatically flattened, the beakhead drastically shortened, bow and stern armament reduced in favor of maximal broadsides, and If I am not mistaken,  by that era the guns, or at least the English and French ones, would have already been denoted by shot poundage rather than the archaic Elizabethan terms.   Also, the tradition of having a unified battery on each gun deck, with the heaviest batteries on the lowest decks, would have already been well established.

 

 

Well, I wouldn't count on Vasa as a guide (she capsized and sank on her maiden sail!).  Probably best to go with 24's on the main deck, 12 or 18's on the upper deck, and perhaps 8's on the quarter deck with 6's elsewhere....

Good morning

I know that definitions and shot weights were somewhat elastic, so I am assuming approximate types.

After looking at the kit again, the two guns decks both carry the same size guns, and the half deck and forecastle and poop have two sizes.  So the kit at least appears to have 24 pounders on gun decks, 12 pounders on half deck, and 6 or 8 pounders on forecastle and poop.  I know that Wasa is similar in size and carried two decks of 24 pounders, so this configuration is possible.

Well, there is a bit of a problem here, as when the Wappen Von Hamburg was built, cannons were not measured in cannonball poundage.  Instead, they were called things like 'cannon-drakes,' 'demi-cannon,' 'culverins,' etc, and were all slightly different depending on who made them (i.e. Dutch culverins different from English or French, etc.).  However, for your purpose, 24's on the lower deck, 12's on the upper and 6 or 8 pounders for the rest would do quite well....