Her Fore and Mainmast were both shot away at Trafalgar. She was towed to Gibraltar for repair and these composite masts were fitted later. Yes, they hold historical importance, but certainly not her own masts. A shame NMRN aren't a little more clear on these things.
@@benwilson6145 Somewhere between 12-25% of Victory is ORIGINAL build. Obviously now she's having a major overhaul that could be subject to change but a lot of what is being replaced are timbers fitted in the 80/90s.
HMS Victory looks naked without her masts and rigging. As a kid was in SCC Chichester we used to parade on the 11th of November every year. Made me proud.
This is so neat. This has been a good year for the preservation of the old wsrships with so many getting much needed yard time, or in the case of one Dreadnought her hull in water after over a year
I wonder how the Dock Yard crews did the job when Victory was a working vessel plus, of course, there would have been many similar vessels. Is this what is called 'stepping the mast'?
There's an old joke about an old 'original' hammer - two new heads and three new handles. Same thing with these old sailing ships, various items have to be replaced during their lifetime due to wear, tear and battle damage. I guess the replacement wrought iron lower main mast was the latest thing in sailing mast technology when it was fitted after Trafalgar. Others below have wondered, as I do, just how these ships were built and maintained without modern technology. Imagine a Sheer Leg A frame capable of installing that lower mainmast! What a sight. If you ever get the chance visit the old Dockyard at Chatham in Kent - the layout loft there js eye opening.
As originally built in the 18th century the masts were iron? This surprises me. Did they have the technology to make such? I always thought the masts would have been made of lengths of wood fitted together.
@@benwilson6145 Many thanks. The producers of this video could done a much better job by stating that these were not the original 18th or 19th century masts. Thinking about it does make sense in that these are replacements, for how could 200-250 year old timber, no matter how massive or treated or cared for survive battle damage, wear and tare, and centuries of exposure to the elements. Found a reference in a 2003 book to the replacement of Victory’s wooden masts with those of HMS Shah.
@@benwilson6145 Thank you! I was about to dig out research to see whose legs she had currently. I recall that Shaw's masts were considerably shorter then Victory bore in her fighting days.
If the ship was in the water (they usually were, dry docks were mostly needed for building new ships or very major rebuilds), then sheer hulks were used. These were large old ships, usually retired ships of the line, with upper masts removed (and often all except the lower mainmast taken out). A massive boom attacked to the base of the mainmast and supported from the top of the lower mainmast so it could swing out over the side. Major harbours would all have a few sheer hulks. One would be moved alongside the ship being repaired, then the boom would be swung out over the lower mast to be lifted out, and blocks and tackles used to lift it straight up. I'm guessing things would be extremely stressful for all concerned until the old mast was safely lifted out of the way !
God that pink paint is ridiculous - not one single contemporary account mentions the slightest pink tinge or even tendency to her Trafalgar livery. 'Ochre' and 'Sad yellow' are the most common descriptions of the time. But that's 'experts' for you.
Hi, thanks for your comment. You may wish to view our video on HMS Victory in Her True Colours. This short film captures her new look with time-lapse, and background interviews with the team involved and the research supporting: ua-cam.com/video/KmNXRWtQ-P0/v-deo.html ^SF
@@muttman325 My personal guess at the cause of the error is that while they sampled paint chips believed to be Trafalgar period, they did no research at all into how those pigments had weathered and changed over time - they simply 'matched' them. Ship's paint was not of the best quality in the first place, and was often stored badly and freely mixed with unknown agents and mediums. They have no idea what colour she was based on the _current state_ of the samples they took.
Her Fore and Mainmast were both shot away at Trafalgar.
She was towed to Gibraltar for repair and these composite masts were fitted later.
Yes, they hold historical importance, but certainly not her own masts.
A shame NMRN aren't a little more clear on these things.
Today I learned HMS Victory had wrought iron masts. Thank you for that.
They were replacements, fitted after Trafalgar.
Nothing on Victory is original, everything has been replaced, some many times
@@benwilson6145 Somewhere between 12-25% of Victory is ORIGINAL build.
Obviously now she's having a major overhaul that could be subject to change but a lot of what is being replaced are timbers fitted in the 80/90s.
Only from 1894, when she was 129 years old
Makes you wonder how the old ship builders got the masts into position in the first place.
HMS Victory looks naked without her masts and rigging. As a kid was in SCC Chichester we used to parade on the 11th of November every year. Made me proud.
This is so neat. This has been a good year for the preservation of the old wsrships with so many getting much needed yard time, or in the case of one Dreadnought her hull in water after over a year
I wonder how the Dock Yard crews did the job when Victory was a working vessel plus, of course, there would have been many similar vessels. Is this what is called 'stepping the mast'?
There's an old joke about an old 'original' hammer - two new heads and three new handles. Same thing with these old sailing ships, various items have to be replaced during their lifetime due to wear, tear and battle damage. I guess the replacement wrought iron lower main mast was the latest thing in sailing mast technology when it was fitted after Trafalgar. Others below have wondered, as I do, just how these ships were built and maintained without modern technology. Imagine a Sheer Leg A frame capable of installing that lower mainmast! What a sight. If you ever get the chance visit the old Dockyard at Chatham in Kent - the layout loft there js eye opening.
Music *insanely* loud relative to first voice.
How did they manage to get those big masts in place when she was built with the equipment available at that time?
Sheerlegs.
As originally built in the 18th century the masts were iron? This surprises me. Did they have the technology to make such? I always thought the masts would have been made of lengths of wood fitted together.
They were replacement masts, fitted after Trafalgar.
These were replacements fitted jn 1893 by masts from HMS Shah
@@benwilson6145 Many thanks. The producers of this video could done a much better job by stating that these were not the original 18th or 19th century masts. Thinking about it does make sense in that these are replacements, for how could 200-250 year old timber, no matter how massive or treated or cared for survive battle damage, wear and tare, and centuries of exposure to the elements. Found a reference in a 2003 book to the replacement of Victory’s wooden masts with those of HMS Shah.
@@benwilson6145 Thank you! I was about to dig out research to see whose legs she had currently. I recall that Shaw's masts were considerably shorter then Victory bore in her fighting days.
How did they do this in the 18th century, my mind is wondering? She was 40 years old by the time of Trafalgar.
I wonder how those huge masts would have been stepped in the 18th century. Would tthey have used A frames and windlasses?
If the ship was in the water (they usually were, dry docks were mostly needed for building new ships or very major rebuilds), then sheer hulks were used. These were large old ships, usually retired ships of the line, with upper masts removed (and often all except the lower mainmast taken out). A massive boom attacked to the base of the mainmast and supported from the top of the lower mainmast so it could swing out over the side.
Major harbours would all have a few sheer hulks. One would be moved alongside the ship being repaired, then the boom would be swung out over the lower mast to be lifted out, and blocks and tackles used to lift it straight up. I'm guessing things would be extremely stressful for all concerned until the old mast was safely lifted out of the way !
These guys were used to moving heavy weights, each anchor was about 4.5 tons and each of her 32 pounder cannon was 3.5 tons
sorry to say this but her current masts look like stumps not the fully rigged ship i remember
The ancient hulks are in better condition than your new aircraft carriers / targets.
Why the loud music and no commentary when obviously people were discussing the project Very poor
God that pink paint is ridiculous - not one single contemporary account mentions the slightest pink tinge or even tendency to her Trafalgar livery.
'Ochre' and 'Sad yellow' are the most common descriptions of the time. But that's 'experts' for you.
Hi, thanks for your comment. You may wish to view our video on HMS Victory in Her True Colours. This short film captures her new look with time-lapse, and background interviews with the team involved and the research supporting: ua-cam.com/video/KmNXRWtQ-P0/v-deo.html ^SF
@@NMRNPortsmouth Seen it. Remain totally unconvinced, as do many others.
@NMRNPortsmouth then why does it look different to contemporary paintings and mixes written down in several books?
@@muttman325 My personal guess at the cause of the error is that while they sampled paint chips believed to be Trafalgar period, they did no research at all into how those pigments had weathered and changed over time - they simply 'matched' them.
Ship's paint was not of the best quality in the first place, and was often stored badly and freely mixed with unknown agents and mediums. They have no idea what colour she was based on the _current state_ of the samples they took.