"Naval deck planking width?" Topic

I don't know where this is supposed to go, but I'm sure it'll find it's way.

I'm curious as to the general width of the individual planks on the decks of naval ships. I'm wondering if they were generally the same, or would one nation's navy's planking be different than another nation's navy?

Thank you.

Not a great deal of help for this period, but iv'e seen several old country houses here (UK) where the floor boards were laid with a view to using them as decking if the need arose. These were about 18" width.

Interesting. I'll note your response, eastridingmilitia, and thanks!

I live in the seacoast New England area, and a lot of old houses are similar, and some reputedly re-used wood from scrapped ships. About the same width. Those old yankees threw nothing away.

width of deck planks
There are exceptions, but as a practical matter, the modeler should probably limit plank width to 12" at scale. I don't think there was a standard width of plank …this depended on what timber was available. The important thing to the shipwright was thickness, which is irrelevant to the modeler. In Steel's The Shipwright's Vade-Mecum (1805), the planking on the gun-deck of a 74-gun ship is given as 4". He goes on to say:

"Five strakes of English oak next the waterways. To shut in between the headledges in midships with oak one inch thicker than the deck flat and rounded to that size at the coamings. The remaining part of the deck is laid with English oak, or the best East-Country plank,, if a Gun-Deck or with Prussian deal not more than ten inches broad, clear of sap."

In planking the Upper Deck, he specifies 3" thickness, except for "Two oak binding strakes next the coaming which are to be 4" thick. The deck is to laid with Danzig deal, except for four strakes of English oak next the waterways."

The Quarter-Deck to be planked with Prussian deal 3" thick, with two strakes of English oak next the waterways.

[The headledges were the supplementary beams or transverse members which framed the hatchways and ladderways. They were about an inch thicker than common ledges. 'East-country plank' meant timber brought from the Baltic countries in general. Just what distinguished Prussian from Danzig deal I am not sure, but imagine this would have been yellow or red pine, or perhaps fir. The binding strakes would have been let into the underlying beams and ledges by an inch.]
In 1970, David & Charles (copublishing with NIP) reprinted some sections of Rees' Cyclopedia or Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature under the title Rees' Naval Architecture 1819-20. This includes some plates relevant to the discussion. Lars Bruzelius will be better able to comment on this, but I suspect they come from Steel's Naval Architecture . Anyone Plate VI of this work shows the upper-deck of a 74, which features two double-strakes planked anchor-stock fashion. These are placed two or three strakes in from the waterway. Plate V of the work shows the two binding strakes referred to in the Vade-Mecum.

Peter Goodwin Construction and Fitting of the Enlgish Man-of-War page 59, suggests that the purpose of the top-and-butt or anchor-stock deck planking was to resist transverse stresses. IMO, its purpose was analogous to its use in planking the wales ….that is to say it increased the girder strength of the vessel at this level, counteracting longitudinal compression and tension as the ship rode the waves.

Most modern modelelers have Charles Davis' Ship Modeler's Assistant on their shelves. On page 30 he notes: "The ends of the deck planks should never show a sharp slim point. Ships were never built so." Where necessary the planks are joggled into the margin-plank, rather than being tapered off. His 'never' stretches things a bit, since if we go back a bit, examples of tapering planks, and planks tapering to a point, are to be found in earlier vessels ….see for instance Plate XXVI of Le Vaisseau de 74 Canons, or Plate 4 of the spectacular set of plans of VASA drafted by Eva-Marie Stolt. Kroum mentioned planks of widths well beyond 12". The VASA plans show a margin-plank which must be at least 18" across. I call it 'margin-plank' because it sits just inside the waterway. No planks are, however, nibbed into it.

link

Saginaw,
I was just painting my 1898 Spanish, and paused to look something up in the Osprey. I came across a photo of US Marines presenting arms on the deck of a ship. The officer's shoes seem to be about as long as two planks are wide, so I'd say the planks are about 6 inches/150mm wide.

Flipping through the photos in The Ottoman Steam Navy (I'm getting sucked into your question now), some of the ships have wider planks, like the Asar-i Sevket. She was built in France for the Egyptians int the late 1860s and taken over by the Turks when the Egyptians defaulted, so anybody's guess as to whose specifications she was built to. Her planks look to be about 9inches/225mm. A photo of the royal yacht Ertugrul, built in Britain in 1903, looks like the planks are 150mm again.

So, I'd say different sizes of planks were used, but with no larger sample than this, I don't know whether it was a national thing or what. Keep in mind, my approach here is to compare plank width to men's shoes--maybe US Marines have big feet and Turks have little feet.

By way of your icon, I was in Houston two weeks ago and visited the USS Texas: if I'd have know the question would come up, I could have measured her planks then.

Grelber

Teak deck planking on all of the ships that I sailed on that had wooden deck sheathing was about 6" wide. It wasn't structural of course!

Going by several photos of the Battleship Texas I just checked, I would estimate about 6" wide on her main deck.

You might try emailing these fellows and asking them directly:

bb35foundation@sbcglobal.net
Website: battleshiptexas.org

I have been able to spend the night aboard Texas and it was a great experience.