To one of Humans failures, the Emperors New Clothes

Thats true

Henry VIII of England and the Mary Rose springs to mind. You cant say no to a King.

@@taketimeout2share and you aint from the middle ages

@@christianjudeberbano3134 Certa, Sum . ( Yes I am, you ignorant twat. (Vulva Ignorama).

@@christianjudeberbano3134 Neither is this ship or anyone else mentioned here

Nice, my aunt through marriage contributed the museum's construction.

then: "what happens if you put more cannons on a shallow build ship?" "don't know, maybe the surface has to push up more?" "great idea we can use that." the value of an education.

Dude have you actually taken your time to read about why the ship sank? It clearly states (even at the museum) that what made the ship sink was extremely poor management and not the fault of the ship’s engineer.

@@williamw4643 engineer knew there were flaws but they kept silent they knew at the first breeze the ship would capsizes, plus if you let 10 hole in the side of your ship he's gonna sink anyway if the hole are too low the ship would just take water and in conclusion you have a vessels who can't even open his sabord because he will instantly- take water, you'ld think an engineer would have see this flaws. at the end the ship sink in less than 3 min after having left his harbor. the ship was unbalaced becausee of her high strcture and she had low gun hole.

@@williamw4643 I thought it capsized because the 2 gun decks made it top heavy and it couldn't withstand strong winds?

​@@Raesling1 You are correct. Although there were many combined reasons why it ended up sinking. The height as you mention was one, as well as the low gunports being open at the time. Another reason was way too little ballast in the bottom of the ship which made it into a disaster waiting to happen. Approximately 40 years after Vasa, another ship called (Regalskeppet) Kronan sunk in battle south of an island called Öland after only a few years of service. It turned too fast, the gunpowder in the front bottom of the ship caught fire and the entire ship went down with approximately 10% of the entire Swedish navy...

I was working on a large project in Denmark, at a leaving party for a senior design engineer. He Spoke of the Vasa and the danger of influenced by upper management. He couldn't be influenced and was asked to leave the project, upper management did not get their way, so his comparison to the Vasa was not in vain

@@TheByard Vasa sails again....

@@jandoerlidoe3412 Without Top heavy management I hope.

@@TheByard What I mean is that your story indicates that corporate mentality has not changed since Vasa...

@@jandoerlidoe3412 Thanks

That is not the original footage

@@braydenburgess6064 how can you be sure about that?

@@mysticprophecy5395 how can you be sure?

@@mysticprophecy5395 i hope this is a joke

@@vamp5527 you are a joke

Engineer realising he made a typo in the blueprint : *o h f u c k*

Not originally. Vasa was planned only to have one battery deck but the king ordered a second battery deck when the construction had already begun so they couldn't widen the ship only make it taller. If they would have stuck to the original plans she would have sailed just fine but then again we would probably not have the Vasa-museum...

@@denforundrade695 Plus that idiotic idea of placing the same guns ( 24 pounders) on the upper deck as well. Just have a look at the "Victory", built in the 1750s: Lower gundeck: 32 pounders, middle deck: 24 pounders, upper deck: 12 pounders only. And then that strong "tumble home" of the sides. A cross-sections shows that those three deckers were almost built like a vase. The "Vasa" was/is an oversized Dutch "Fleute" with too heavy guns.

@@christiankastorf1427 Yes but do remember that when they built Vasa they could only make a ''qualified estimate'' while during the construction of HMS Victory they could actually calculate and didn't have to guess. You could say that Vasa was the result of vad politics...

If the Centre of Buoyancy is ever permitted to be below the Centre of Gravity of the vessel, it's unstable. End of story.

dank

@@AmadoDom ,ich

Hubris sunk the Vasa: It's a much bigger enemy to mankind than any external foe is.

​@@faderneslandet3489 You probably already know, but for all wondering, the reason why Denmark is not known for its fleet in later years is that it was stolen. Yes, stolen, or perhaps better put, it was captured. in 1801 and in 1807, there were two big battles between the english and danish. in 1801 it was a naval battle, with the danes facing of Lord Nelson, and while losing, putting up a good fight. In 1807, the english landed a large force and bombarded the danish capital Copenhagen, which forced the danes to surrender several large ships. 49 ships in total, or around that number. So after 1801, we had to repair our fleet, and in 1807, nearly half of it (of which 18 were ship-of-the-line and 16 frigates) were taken away, and these were ships that had not engaged the english in battle during the bombardment, meaning the english got away with ships in prime conditions. There are a few exceptions, with some of the ships been either burned in Denmark by the english or salvaged back in england, but the majority of the large ships were given new english names and made part of the english royal navy. So with that, Denmark went in 1807 from being a major naval power in the world, one that could potentially threaten the english due to its size and proximity, to a minor naval power. Denmark in particular had the problem, that in 1807, we had effectively run out of wood for ship building, nearly all forest were at this point gone, so it was not possible to rebuild the fleet after 1807. As for the english fleet, the capture of several large ships, coupled with the previous destruction of the french at Trafalgar, meant that the english fleet now reigned supreme.

​@@And-ur6olthe British were quite famous for stealing other countries' stuff just look at the British museum.

It was Poland and Sweden that was in war

@@YonaziMtana you are correct. I saw the ship for the first time three weeks ago. Absolutely blew my mind. This video does do the size of the ship justice. But yea, Sweeden were at war before and after the building of the ship, but during it construction, they were at war with Poland, and it was intended to fight to polish navy.

​@@And-ur6ol Spoils of war! If it had been the other way around....Danes would have happily grabbed our ships too 😅

Swedish have learn from briton

WHAT

W H A T ??? Beautiful? Please delete you

maybe, the ship shouldn't be so beautiful - but must have more floatability :> :>

@@Svitjodrus. u mad bro Vasa was a ugly ship; as most ships of this period, but Vasa was more ugly since she was tall and narrow. To much of a fleute, rather than a galeon.

@@Pilum1000 not that wrong they should have made her like the titanic, wait bad exemple it's also a ship who sunk in her maiden voyage but atleast it wasn't the fault of engineering except this fire on the naval yard which fragilised the titanic. atleast the titanic didn't sunk because of the wind she sunk because of refrigerated water.

The Olympic Class was a success. Three boats were built. The Titanic was sunk due to arrogance and incompetence - speeding through an ice field and not providing enough lifeboats for all onboard. . The Olympic, the first of the Olympic Class boats built, provided reliable service for 24 years before being scrapped. The Olympic even served as a Troop Ship in World War 1 and actually sank a German Submarine by ramming it. She was known for her reliability. . The Titantic, the second Olympic Class Boat built, was not a failure. However, the idiot driving it at high speed through an ice field was. At least the Captain of the Titanic had the decency of going down with his ship and the passengers he failed to protect unlike Francesco Schettino (Captain Coward) of the Costa Concordia. . The third Olympic class boat built, the Britannic was sunk by a sea mine while operating as a Hospital Ship. However some still claim she was torpedoed by the Germans - which would be a serious and shameful war crime. . Interesting fact - a Nurse called Violet Jessop was on board he RMS Olympic with it collided with MHS Hawke in 1911, survived the sinking of the Titanic, and later survived the sinking of the Britannic. Lucky lady. . It would be fair to say that the Olympic Class was a success unlike the Vasa which floundered and sank after sailing about 1,300 m on her maiden voyage. . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic-class_ocean_liner

Don't plan on going to swedastan any time soon

@@hopatease1 was there just in April, Stockholm is a good place

PickelJars ForHillary lmao.

Not funny

like most Ikea stuff, ship couldn't be assembled properly.

Ben Vette O

Ben Vette p

:(

No she was unbalanced

@@GeneralHeavy Technically both are right. A ship being too heavy at the top makes it unstable which can lead it to capsize or roll over.

Indeed. And too narrow. They also put the lower gun deck too close to the water line. At that time there still wasnt much of a science to building ships. They kind of just built them how they thought they should look. Not to mention the detrimental oversight from the king.

Sorry i needed to laugh very hard when the ship sinks

Kronan too

@Wilhelm Bengtsson någon hade säkert kommenterat innan och han svarade fast glömde att svara på den personen, sen tog väll personen bort sin kommentar

@Supp D you are correct but according to the last info not only because of the placement of the cannons that weigh too much but placing the potholes far too low but together with the very top heavy ornaments, basically it was too narrow, too top heavy making the ship too unstable despite putting tons of ballast but it was not enough. It was quickly found out that it was too unstable during the stability trials as it had to be stopped because it was rolling far too much and uncontrollably not to mention that the crew was alarmed when the seawater was easly splashing in lower portholes. This beautiful ship should have went immediately back to the shipyard for a major refit or at least attenuated it's problems but nobody had the courage to tell the king only to sink in front of whole Stockholm.....

@Supp D very well said and informative! In theory the building of the Vasa should have been handled by the Dutch designers but built by swedish carpenters and polish or whoever so it is no wonder that it was crooked and leaning on the side, I think the left. Regarding the Kronan I really know little but I will have a look! Thank for your insight!

Why they built gun ports so close to water line?

Anony Mous sänkte det*

Tur att han bara sjönk det och inte sänkte det 😂

Google translate

It would be a 10 minute video lol

Wait, that does not quite work - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not established until 1830, some 200 years after the reign of Gustavus Adolphus. The religious conflict of the time was between the Catholics and the Protestants, with Gustavus Adolphus standing on the Protestant side. Possibly your ancestor joined the Catholic church and one of his descendants then joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 19th century?

@@walterscientist Yes, you are correct about the time line! I didn't mean at the time of the Vasa sinking. If you noticed, I said He was the Later King's linguist. It was much later, in the 19th century. I should have made that more clear. Sorry! I have edited my original comment to clarify. All the best to you!

@@edwarddavenport3414 Ah, ok - that makes sense. I thought that by "later king" you meant that he was the linguist of Gustavus Adolphus before Gustavus became the king.

From what I know, the cannon windows were too low, and the stabilizing rocks in the keel weren’t evenly spaced.

Not hull, trim.

@@v.lacbergs821 could be, that's why she sank.

@@amirtahta1974 She sank because she was top heavy...

@@Stillnapie she sank because her draft was too big, the angle of the heel was too extreme, and the cannon hatches close to the waterline where open and some water flooded in, that created a cascade of shitstorm wich lead to vasas sinking

@@v.lacbergs821 Draft isn't "big"... it is either deep or shallow, learn the proper terms.. Vasa's draft was to shallow (not "big") as she set too high in the water and was top-heavy allowing her to heel to far. As you state the open gun ports caused the flooding.

go to the museum in stocholm.

You were a kid somewhere ?! How can anyone be a kid nowhere ?

I believe that there is no concrete proof of how she sank, though capsizing is one of the theories

The ships you refer to... do they exist...??

För att känslan du känner är stolthet!

@@MrYrgas Från fornstora dagar. Jag börjar också tänka mycket på det enorma slit för skeppsbyggarna detta innebar då deras storverk tillintetgjordes på några minuter.

@@MrYrgas stolthet över vad?

@@markusernstsson har du ingen känsla!!!!!

@@Svitjodrus. det var ju uppenbarligen en jävla pissbåt. Det är väl inget att vara stolt över!!!!

The king duh

It was the king

China

@@TheNightWatcher1385 I won't name him, but in my opinion another one is on front line. There has been another hierarchy issue, this I will name: Ferdinand Piech, who is the grandson of the famous Ferdinand Porsche thought himself to be superior to his engineers and drove VW into this deastrous and criminal way of betraying his customers.

True. Wasa was not properly ballasted and prepared for the launching event and was tender due to too many cannon fitted, low freeboard of the lower cannon deck, not enough crew to operate the vessel and close the gunports and reduce sail in time, and a host of other issues. Ships of her day were designed purely from tradition and experience, and great ship like Wasa were under-tested prototypes with regard to size and handling. The race to compete with construction of royal baroque galleons of great size was not discouraged by the Wasa tragedy. England built HMS Sovereign of the Seas and France built La Couronne shortly thereafter.

@@DARIVSARCHITECTVS Agree, I think that the project was doomed from the start because it was poorly designed. The king wanted to enlarge it a couple of times when the work was in progress, the original designer died in the middle of the project and his assistant continued it. Increasing the ballast was not possible because it raised the waterline. By design the embrasures could not be raised because there was no space with the upper deck, in short, it was impossible to correct it without making a very important modification of the entire structure. Better to make a new one ...

@@rulfi1950 Back in those days, ship building was a trade that grew with experience, and calculations for stability and trim were nonexistent. Wasa was experimentally large in size, much like La Couronne or HMS Sovereign of the Seas. Naturally, mistakes were going to be made.

They were actually in the middle of firing the guns for a salute.

Then it would never have survived a broadside!

Pretty sure the Dutchman’s design is somewhat based on the vasa

@@iforgor8271 No its probably based on how dutch ships looked. Pretty similar

The Flying Dutchman was based on Dutch ships and a Swedish galleon called Vasa

@@dixyleyva9212 The flying dutchman is a legend that has existed long before pirates of the caribbean tho. Its a dutch 17th century ship but yeah the vasa was that type of ship so it looks the same

That's a historical irony. Her being a fiasco and sinking less than an hour after departure - in the perfect spot no less - made her survive largely intact at the bottom for more than three centuries. A fiasco at her time became a roaring success in modern times as a museum ship. Her discovery in the 1950's and later salvage made her remembered by the public. Prior to the discovery the sinking was almost completely forgotten (kings of the past didn't want failures to tarnish their names in history books) and only historians who researched old ships knew about her. The Swedish public only learned about Vasa when the salvage operation began and it was a success. Here's an interesting anecdote: The Swedish maritime museum at first actively fought *against* Vasa being salvaged and didn't offer their help. They actually argued it would be better to leave the ship where she was...

The king had but to blame himself....the subsequent inquiry was a cover up to blur the king's responsibility ( he had told how to build the ship ) and the blame was given to a shipwright who was already decedent...

The price of stupidity of designers

☑

Respekt!!!!

I guess you could say the British sink their ship when they hit the iceberg, but the Swedes sink their ship before it hit the iceberg to save us all the trouble. ^^

Absolutely what I was thinking

Tru Dat, man!

@@thelumberjackguy6848 did you just answer yourself