With the vigorous cleaning of decks and hard use that happens on age of sail English warships I doubt the deck was painted. It would wear off rather quickly being scrubbed with holystones quite often. The sanding the deck to make it less slippery in combat part is true.

The interiors were painted blood red.

@@chrisbrent7487 the Bulkheads, inside of the Hull and oder structures were painted red. the Deck was left unpainted

warfare in the age of sails was unimaginably brutal. And we didn´t even start thinking about boarding parties.... Fun fact no. 2: oak dust is classifies as hazardous substance, as it is cancerogenic and can lead to allergies. Teak has the advantage of being naturally oily, so it doesn´t degrade in prolonged contact with sea water. It is also slightly toxic and can cause allergies. (tbh, oak does also fare pretty well in water due to its tannine content, but it tends to cause iron to rust pretty quickly for the same cause)

@@rustknuckleirongut8107 don't know really about that. I work with oak all day and if u get deep splinters they get puss and infected if i dont pull them out.

Same here! Shots of rhum to that !

Do you see Torpedo Boats?

I was expecting to find this post right there :)

So You need these two videos. Please also check the descriptions. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bNCCm6iazsjMc5c.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oq90qJp_tbLGp5c.html

@@lukaszg2280 I was worried this would be one of those insufferable spam comments. I am rarely pleased to be wrong, but this is one case of that.

The fastest speed was just over the speed of sound and the lowest around 200 m/s. A 24lb shot.

Fred Hoecker has another longer and more detailed video on the whole thing, which includes more data

1939?

1940

Vasa ship in Stockhom, you remember ?!

Är ju inte bara svenskar som kollar på det här... så ja lite grann verkar det som 😂

Do you mind telling me if the word the Swedish guy used for missile is the normal word used in Swedish. I had never heard that one before.

@@JackHiper Hi there. Yes we do but we have a bit different pronunciation. Missile - missil (mis-sil) Canon - kanon (ka-non) Ammunition - ammunition (am-un-i-tion) Kind of sort. Eng - swe

@@hannescamitz8575 min svenska är dålig. Tack för hjälpen.

C_N66 Gick den inte igenom tallen också? Mäktig kraft i dessa!

Japp det gjorde den :)

Svartkrut är kraftiga grejer🔫💣☠

Leif haglund

Peter Englund har en del målande och fruktansvärda beskrivningar i en av sina böcker vad den här tekniken innebar för tätt packat manskap i slagformering på 1600-talet...

They cast a replica gun for these tests. No way would they risk a piece of history.

8 pounder. And 700 meters a second is TWICE the speed of sound. On what ocean is that "low velocity"?

700 m/s seems too high for a cannon of the period, I wonder if they supercharged it?

1600s, and they tested about 200-360 m/s.

You mean your Wasa-card? 🙂

I would be very interested.

@@hanspeterlillese2225 thank you! There is a lot of information using the Swedish search words which do not show otherwise.

It’s the mess it makes inside that kills an mames. Have a look at the Vasa cannon video by Dr Fred.

@@keithwoodburn7895 which is precisely why I find the small size of the entry hole so surprising (because of the carnage on the rear side).

That's what he said.

Same thing happens with a bullet - even if it passes through a very brittle material such as glass, it’s entry hole will never be any bigger than the bullet. But the shockwave from the initial impact travels through the entire length of whatever it hit, in the form of an expanding cone, making more and more shrapnel the more materials they pass through. That’s why a 19th century torpedo boat, with, by definition, no armor, would be the safest place to be - a big battleship shell will hardly do anything after passing through what’s essentially a sheet of tin.

Just a guess here, but I think it has to do with not having to put hands in line of fire of loaded gun.

@@cola98765 Good guess, but the gun isn't loaded until the round is pressed fully against the breach, the bag is broken, and the quill is set in the vent. Then it's a loaded gun.

@@Panzerhauptman Still, the powder is in the barrel, and so there's no reason not to be safe about it.

Chicken Ramrod :D

Well if it hits the armor it probably would just bounce off without causing real damage. I guess you might be able to destroy some equipment like cameras etc. if you hit those spots.

@@HingerlAlois I am sure you hit the same spot 80 times, surely you got to punch through eventually

@@wonniewarrior I doubt it. I would expect almost no effect on modern MBT armor.

@@HingerlAlois One should try it :-) Would love to see what happens if lots (!) of old 16th century powder guns would continously fire on a modern surplus tank. (Maybe for one hour)

@@Schlipperschlopper You would have at most just a bump in the armor. Modern ammunition hits so goddamn much harder.

Why do that when it is a copy of one of Gustavus II Adolphus 24 pounders from the il fated flagship Wasa?

So what youre saying is that 1600 era oak would have stopped that? Pretty sure that the oak used came from Visingsö where they have been growing since the 1830's. Authentic are for a few reasons an impossibility.

They actually went to quite a bit of effort to get the cannon to perform like it would have back in the 1620's. Modern powder of course doesn't behave like 1600's powder, but there are gunnery manuals from back then that provide expected ranges at certain elevations for these guns, and from that they could calculate what the muzzle velocity should be and then make a powder charge to get that velocity. Fred Hocker who you see featured in this video has written a very interesting paper about these trials, which you can check out here: kurage.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/hocker-isbsa-14-proof.pdf

@@renhanxue I guess they used moist powder - or why not store the powed underdeck in woden ship -let it degenerate and then fire

@@renhanxue Thanks for the link.

@@jari2018 your nitpicking too hard