THE MARY ROSE.

[fernando]

So in the Mary Rose second intervention in 1536, she was extensively modified, her tonnage increasig from 500 to 700 tons (some say 800). In floating terms this is a delicate issue; experts have to ponder on her draft (not) being reduced and, more critically, portholes reaching closer from water line. Such portholes being 'effectively' watertight, it has been assumed that, as the cannons were fully loaded when examined (not meaning that they hadn't previously fired), crew men were professional enough to seal them. I wonder whether portholes are usually sealed and reopened every single time the cannons make their discharges. A different approach by a French witness that what happened was that she was hit by their galleys had no other support at the time, although the expert that planned her raising in 1982 did not discard such possubility. Either way, a couple shots on the hull by the water line or a couple (even one ?) portholes not sealed (or broken) would be enough to provide for the ship's taking on water on a dramatic speed; agravated by the fact that, when she turned around to reach shallow waters, the inclination worsened the situation; as shown by tests made with a fan to simulate the breeze.
For those interested in the navigation & artillery saga, there is a paper by John F. Guilmartin, Jr., where he gives, among other, emphasis to the watertight porthole.


.