3 ms·
In slightly fewer words - Vasa sunk because it was built tall and thin, and because of its high centre of gravity, tipped over on its maiden voyage in 1628. Li
by KineticLensman 8y ago
In slightly fewer words - Vasa sunk because it was built tall and thin, and because of its high centre of gravity, tipped over on its maiden voyage in 1628.
Like the Mary Rose in England, the ship turned out to be an archeological treasure trove, and the museums make an excellent visit.
I had to work in Stockholm a few years ago with some colleagues from various nations at a standards meeting. We visited the Vasa museum and had a great time soaking up the history. But to our modern eyes, the height of the ship looked crazy compared with its width, and we were all amazed that anyone could have ever thought it would ever stay afloat, even back in the 17th century.
By the way, the redundant diagram of nautical terms lacks the one term relevant here: beam, the width of a vessel
- Tomte 8y agoI think they said on the tour that only some centimeters were missing in width, and everything would have been fine.
- gokhan 8y agoOn tour, we've been told that a sister ship made at the same time was one meter wider and served 10+ years without problems.
- rags2riches 8y agoThey built several "Vasa class" ships. The other ships sailed. As time went on, they continued to build higher ships with even more guns on more decks.
- KineticLensman 8y agoYes, but over time the trend was to make them wider as well, so much more stable. By the 1800's for example (battle of trafalgar era) the ships were uniformly more squat.
- rags2riches 8y agoAt one visit to the museum, my son played a computer game where he had to hit the sweet spot designing a ship for the king. First attempt failed like the Vasa. The second was rejected because it lacked firepower. The third was stable and had plenty of guns. It was also unmaneuverable. The best warships were probably right up to the edge when handled properly, like a race car.