HOME | DD

Published: 2012-12-17 21:55:56 +0000 UTC; Views: 26244; Favourites: 478; Downloads: 889
Redirect to original
Description
-What time is it?- Reeeeeeenown time!
This battlecruiser as well as her sistership HMS Repulse was built because of efforts of single man - John Fisher. In November 1914, he became First Sea Lord (thanks to Winston S. Churchill who was First Lord of the Admiralty that time). This rank allowed him to satisfy his ardent desire to build some new battlecruisers. It's unclear why Fisher loved such a ships with sufficient speed and armament, but cardboard armor. Admirals and even Churchill himself cast doubt on Fisher's ideas. But Fisher was lucky. Immediately after the Battle of the Falkland Islands, in which british battlecruisers destroyed entire German squadron, Fisher suggested to Churchill to build several new battlecruisers. But wise Churchill declined. The Fisher's last argument was so-called Baltic Project. It was a plan of a landing operation on the North German coast. This plan required some shallow draft battlecruisers to support the invasion fleet. Churchill and Prime Minister liked this plan, so permission to build battlecruisers was granted.
The Director of Naval Construction Eustace Tennyson-D'Eyncourt produced preliminary project of the ship within only a day, and after all consultations with Fisher the project was completed within nine days (!). Fisher’s desire was to get both ships within 15 months, but builders failed because of lack of resources and workers. Renown was built within 19 months, while her sistership was completed within 18 months. But Admiralty didn’t hurry to use them in battle. Everybody remembered the Jutland, where Germans sunk 3 British battlecruisers with 3000 men on them. Fisher couldn’t force the Admiralty to use the sisterships, because Fisher and his friend Churchill were kicked out from their posts because of fail of the Gallipoli campaign. So Repulse was used only once in minor operation, while Renown never saw the enemy during WWI. Seamen even called these battlecruisers ‘white elephants’, because they were very expensive and almost useless because of their paper armor.
After the war battlecruisers were under never-ending repairs and modernizations. Their armor became thicker and heavier, while their speed became lower and lower. Total cost of their inter-war modernizations was several times higher than their starting cost. Seamen even called these ships Refit and Repair.
But during WWII seamen changed their attitude to these ships. Only they and the mighty Hood could catch up and destroy German pocket battleships. The fates of Repulse and Renown were different. Repulse was destroyed by the Japanese base aviation near Malaya in December, 1941. The Renown survived the war. She fought with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in 1940 during Norwegian Campaign, than she was attached to admiral Sommerville’s Force H based at Gibraltar, where she fought against Axis side by side with other famous ships, such as HMS Arc Royal. Than Renown was transferred to the Eastern Fleet in the Indian Ocean to support the attacks on the territories occupied by Japanese Forces. In 1948 Renown was scrapped.
This picture represents Renown in Australian waters in 1920. That time this mighty ship used as a yacht for Prince of Wales in his foreign voyages. The ship still had no his recognizable Queen Elizabeth class battleship-style superstructure. It was made only during modernization of 1936-39.
_______________
Support me on Patreon
Commission info
Related content
Comments: 56
NeedingABreak [2022-05-16 11:29:40 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
bblairwilliamson [2021-10-20 00:56:35 +0000 UTC]
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
CrowShadowhawk [2019-10-05 05:02:44 +0000 UTC]
Will you be doing a future piece of Renown in her post-WW2 refit configuration?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to CrowShadowhawk [2020-08-03 23:33:50 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Packless1 [2015-07-24 20:21:53 +0000 UTC]
Too big guns and a too thin armor...
The crew nicknamed her 'HMS Repair'
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
moosemin In reply to Packless1 [2016-09-20 00:01:10 +0000 UTC]
When Winston Churchill was Lord of the Admiralty, before the First World War, he was assigning names for the then-building class of battleships. He wanted one to be HMS Pitt, to honor the two (father & son) prime ministers of earlier times. King George was also a navy man, and served in the Royal Navy since his teen years. Having served among the crews, he knew that sailors always came up with nicknames for their ships, sometimes those of scatological origins. He thought that the obvious upcoming nickname was simply too easy, and vetoed it. Churchill demurred, but wrote his sovereign that such an observation was "not worthy of the Royal mind"!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
U-Joe In reply to Packless1 [2015-08-26 15:18:53 +0000 UTC]
Interesting. I suppose, HMS Renown had the nickname like that too?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Packless1 In reply to U-Joe [2015-08-27 14:54:33 +0000 UTC]
u.r.right.
Might have confused her with her sistership
One was nicknamed 'Repair', the other one 'Refit' - but i didn't know who's who then
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to Packless1 [2015-09-03 16:06:56 +0000 UTC]
It doesn't matter, both nicknames are expressive enough. :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
County1006 [2014-09-03 14:35:22 +0000 UTC]
A beautiful picture of a classic ship. A pity they ruined her by reconstruction but you have captured her at her best for all time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
monteGlover [2013-03-30 02:30:44 +0000 UTC]
Though I don't have warships in my hometown, this reminds me of when I used to live by the ocean and see many ships everyday.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to monteGlover [2013-03-30 08:06:48 +0000 UTC]
Happy man you are. I saw the ocean only once.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
monteGlover In reply to U-Joe [2013-03-30 17:24:26 +0000 UTC]
Amazing though because you're able to depict the nature of the sea very well; right down to the colors of the sky that I am very used to seeing (I loved it when the sun was setting in summer and the whole sky turn rage pink against the waters).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to monteGlover [2013-03-31 10:41:16 +0000 UTC]
Tnank you. I'm glad that I could remind you those feelings. I hope sometime I can see such a wonderful view by my own eyes to depict it more precisely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
DameOdessa [2013-03-02 12:07:57 +0000 UTC]
Painting? Ok... Well, I think I just have no word to tell how amazed by this work
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to DameOdessa [2013-03-03 20:28:26 +0000 UTC]
Really? Oh, thanks a lot, lady.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to rosefai [2013-02-20 08:09:58 +0000 UTC]
Oh, thanks, I'm glad to hear that. It's very unusual for a lady to like the pictures of warships.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
U-Joe In reply to Wingnut55 [2013-01-23 17:57:52 +0000 UTC]
I'm very glad that you like it, sir.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
U-Joe In reply to Tink29 [2013-01-22 17:35:34 +0000 UTC]
Thanks. Honestly, I didn't even expected to obtain such a nice colors.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
battleshipsvsbeasts [2012-12-28 21:33:47 +0000 UTC]
A stunning ship, I also have a 1/350 scale model of her sister ship HMS Repulse in her 1941 configuration
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to battleshipsvsbeasts [2012-12-29 23:52:41 +0000 UTC]
Really? You mean the model produced by Trumpeter, right? It seems I have the same model. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to paint it. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
battleshipsvsbeasts In reply to U-Joe [2012-12-30 16:34:42 +0000 UTC]
The one and only!
Unfortunately I've only done up to the main deck and two gun turrets, so finishing it is now a project for 2013
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to battleshipsvsbeasts [2012-12-31 17:24:37 +0000 UTC]
Sounds familiar. I started to assemble Japanese light carrier Ryujo (1/700 scale model by Fujimi) in November, but it still have no flight deck nor AA-guns. :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
uglygosling [2012-12-18 02:10:07 +0000 UTC]
Renown was reconstructed in the late 1930's with a profile similar to the rebuilt HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant (but with 2 funnels). All 3 ships had a secondary armament of 20 4.5" guns in ten twin mounts.
In 1999 S E Vinogradov put out a book about various Russian battleship projects that never reached fruition due to WW I and the Russian Revolution.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to uglygosling [2012-12-19 08:31:43 +0000 UTC]
Thanks for the remark about years of refit, I fixed the description. Also thanks for the tipping off about the book. Maybe it will be useful in the future.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
rOEN911 [2012-12-18 02:00:34 +0000 UTC]
Joe I belive this is your best work so far ,great details and lighting i like it a lot !
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to rOEN911 [2012-12-19 08:15:03 +0000 UTC]
Really? o0
Thank you, friend. Your words is the highest reward for the work I did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
rOEN911 In reply to U-Joe [2012-12-20 00:07:16 +0000 UTC]
well i never comment if i dont like something !
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tzoli [2012-12-17 22:07:53 +0000 UTC]
Great work as always!!!
And a little side note:
HMS Resistance, could be the last ship of the Revenge class BB's or Renown class BC's
(British was very consistent with their ship naming eh? )
I wonder if you will draw Fisher's other Battlecruiser idea the Furious/Glorious class maybe in some action? 2 single 18inch cannons fire broadside?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to Tzoli [2012-12-17 22:30:25 +0000 UTC]
Thanks a lot.
I didn't mentioned Resistance, because this 'bedsheet' of text is too small to describe entire situation with British WWI shipbuilding, and too wide for my poor English skill. ^_^'
Hmm, I'm afraid to draw WWII-unrelated ships. That's why it's better for me to draw Furious/Glorious in their carrier hypostasis.
I wanted to draw Repulse of inter-war period next. I only pray that head of department have complicated quests for me this week. In this case I'll satisfy my desire. :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to U-Joe [2012-12-17 22:47:29 +0000 UTC]
Well a WW1 era Furious is good too!
But did you considered your own nation's ships? The Kirovs/Maxim Gorkys, Chapayevs and Sverdlovs?
OR I can tell you a list of Russian and Soviet Never Weres
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to Tzoli [2012-12-17 23:13:36 +0000 UTC]
I've thought about the Kirov and the Molotov. I even saw the plastic model of Kirov somewhere. Another idea was to draw the battleship Arkhangelsk (former Royal Sovereign). But the most interesting theme for me is soviet destroyers, especially those ones of Northern Fleet. But I have no sufficient information about them now.
Never Weres isn't good idea, I dare to say again. ^_^'
BTW, did you ever read the books of V. Pikul? He wrote tens of interesting books about history of Russia and Europe of different eras. 'The Requiem for Convoy PQ-17', for example, is the most well-known book for non-Russian readers. Of course, Anglo-Saxons don't like that book, because Pikul described Churchill and Dudley Pound as not-so-good men. If I remember well, some of Pikul's books were translated into Eastern Europe languages - Polish, Bulgarian etc. Maybe, Hungarian too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to U-Joe [2012-12-18 00:00:15 +0000 UTC]
I see.
I don't know about the book
What about the Sovietsky Soyuz? There are photos of completed model of the ship but I don't know where this model located or if it's still can be seen.
You can read these sites better than me:
[link]
[link]
And here is a very detailed modern model:
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to Tzoli [2012-12-19 08:11:58 +0000 UTC]
Thanks for the links. Sovietsky Soyuz was never finished, thanks Lord. Such a huge and complicated battleship would be heavy burden for the industry... It will not be wise to draw this ship. It's better to draw one of the Gangut-class battleships, I dare to say. They existed and fought the enemy, after all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to U-Joe [2012-12-19 09:21:32 +0000 UTC]
But they look great! And the Stalingrads too!
Also I know of some weird and very limited usefulness or difficult to build at that time battleships.
Like the Kostenko 1936 Battleship and the Linkorov Design (BBCV with Nelson like layout!!!!)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U-Joe In reply to Tzoli [2012-12-20 20:17:45 +0000 UTC]
...and all of them were 'never weres'. To draw them means to create fiction pictures. I'd prefer to draw tiny submarine chasers that existed than steel mastodonts which were never built.
By the way, Nelson and Rodney were rather ugly battleships. Even Andrew Cunningham, who was the captain of Rodney in the early thirties, said it. So, if somebody would force me to draw Nelson some day, I'll cheat and draw the admiral instead the ship. Or not? According to the portraits, Horatio Nelson was quite handsome... But some facts of his biography look really awful. It's better not to draw him at all. We can find much better men and ships. For example, Nelson's potatoe-nosed friend lord Hood and the battlecruiser named after him. They're really great.
Erm, my thougts flew far away from our topic, sorry. ^^'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>