RN Battle Cruisers - World Naval Ships Forums Archive (Page 2)

Naval History by Country :

ROYAL
NAVY

US
NAVY

GERMAN
NAVY

FRENCH
NAVY

*VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE*
NAVAL ART	AVIATION ART	MILITARY ART	SPORT ART

ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :

20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS

BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS

FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

RN Battle Cruisers - World Naval Ships Forums Archive (Page 2)

RN Battle Cruisers (Page 2)

Posts 51 to 77

After my abortive effort above, here is a sequence of Hood leaving Portsmouth, and if the year given, 1939, is correct, then my late father would have been onboard when taken, regards, Bert.
Attachments :

Hello Bert: I think that last frame might be your old friend REPULSE.

[QUOTE=patroclus;10094600] I think that last frame might be your old friend REPULSE.[/QUOTE] Indeed, it [u]is[/u] HMS [I]Repulse[/I], my favorite RN battlecruiser! She is seen in a LOT of footage from the various newsreel archives-- British Pathé, IWM, Movietone, etc. :)

I can see that Foxes Pause bedevilling me for the foreseeable future, regards, Bert.

This series of shots is from a reel with colour footage of HMS Hood that has been in private hands for some time, but has now been donated (sold?) to (IIRC) a naval museum in Portsmouth. Bruce Taylor's Hood book had an early start with a few stills. As a modeler, I find it interesting how dark she is here. The blue appears to be a bit much.

It appears that numerous Battlecruiser photos posted on this thread came from [URL="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g2KCAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA178&dq=Clydebank+Battlecruisers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_scMVJytOM7xaNbygeAG&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Clydebank%20Battlecruisers&f=false"]this [/URL]link, which is a review of a book, available for purchase as an ebook. The book is captioned that the photographs are [B]Crown Copyright[/B] and reproduced by National Records of Scotland. Consequently, they do not appear to be in the Public Domain and have been deleted from the thread. Members should not post copyrighted material onto the Forums. Jim

I have removed a number of off topic posts from this thread. The Forum has a [URL="http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7503"]Code of Conduct[/URL], which we expect members to follow. This thread is for photos of Battle Cruisers Jim

HMS Hood during her visit to Australia in 1924
Attachments :

HMS New Zealand at Vancouver, 1913
Attachments :

[QUOTE=jbryce1437;10123465]It appears that numerous Battlecruiser photos posted on this thread came from [URL="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g2KCAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA178&dq=Clydebank+Battlecruisers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_scMVJytOM7xaNbygeAG&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Clydebank%20Battlecruisers&f=false"]this [/URL]link, which is a review of a book, available for purchase as an ebook.[I][COLOR="SlateGray"] The book is captioned that the photographs are [B]Crown Copyright[/B] and reproduced by National Records of Scotland. Consequently, they do not appear to be in the Public Domain and have been deleted from the thread. Members should not post copyrighted material onto the Forums. [/COLOR][/I] Jim[/QUOTE] This may bear looking into as I have vague recall something about there being no restriction on these old images.

[quote=TCC;10135761]This may bear looking into as I have vague recall something about there being no restriction on these old images.[/quote] The book has a copyright notice for the photographs dated 2011, we can only be guided by that. Jim
Attachments :

[QUOTE=jbryce1437;10135762]The book has a copyright notice for the photographs dated 2011, we can only be guided by that. Jim[/QUOTE] Most if not all the photographs in Mr. Johnston's book were taken by the shipbuilders' employees, no? If so, the companies held the copyrights, which passed to National Records of Scotland in 1971 (after Upper Clyde Shipbuilders folded). Generally copyright in UK expires 70 years after the author's death, and the work then becomes public domain (two exceptions are the [I]King James Bible[/I] and [I]Peter Pan[/I]). However the situation for photographs is more complicated. Leeds Beckett University [URL="http://libraryonline.leedsmet.ac.uk/sys.files/guides/photographs_copyright_guidelines.pdf"] has a guide[/URL] for scholars to these murky waters which might help. When the author (who might be the photographer, or might be the owner of the plate/film, depending on the date the photo was taken) is unknown, the photograph becomes public domain 70 years after it was taken, or [I]first made available to the public[/I]. These photos were taken by the shipbuilders as private records of the construction and equipment of the vessels they were building; thus they did not become "available to the public" until the NRS took possession in 1971, and so they will not become public domain until 2041. [B]Bottom line[/B]: I think Jim is quite correct to err on the side of caution (though you could always ask NRS for permission to post them!).

HMS Repulse...Athol Bight,Sydney 1924...Regards Brian
Attachments :

With another in the background against the far shore!

[QUOTE=BlackBat242;10149429]With another in the background against the far shore![/QUOTE] That must be HOOD. Steve

Yes with the funnels the same height.

HOOD and REPULSE visited Sydney 9-20 April 1924 as part of their world cruise.

I would like to let you know about the new animation of the Battle of Jutland on my site, Jutland1916.com. It's a 24 minute account of the battle and its aftermath. Here is the link. Please let me know what you think, join me on Twitter and visit the site. Best wishes Nick Jellicoe [url]http://www.jutland1916.com/understanding-the-battle/[/url]

With the commemoration of the Battle of Jutland and the loss of among others HMS Queen Mary, I could not help thinking that on the face of it there was some similarity between the loss of HMS Queen Mary and HMS Hood, both being RN Battlecruisers lost with most hands as a result of a major explosion following German Navy gunfire. Not having looked through an reports on the loss of Queen Mary but understanding that it may have been due to poor (non approved methodologies) for the handling of cordite, so that a faster rate of fire could be maintained. When Hood was lost due to an explosion in the aft magazine. Is there not a similarity between the loss of these two battlecruisers? If so is not sad that the lessons of Jutland may not have been learnt?

[QUOTE=PhilipG;10151206]With the commemoration of the Battle of Jutland and the loss of among others HMS Queen Mary, I could not help thinking that on the face of it there was some similarity between the loss of HMS Queen Mary and HMS Hood, both being RN Battlecruisers lost with most hands as a result of a major explosion following German Navy gunfire. Not having looked through an reports on the loss of Queen Mary but understanding that it may have been due to poor (non approved methodologies) for the handling of cordite, so that a faster rate of fire could be maintained. When Hood was lost due to an explosion in the aft magazine. Is there not a similarity between the loss of these two battlecruisers? If so is not sad that the lessons of Jutland may not have been learnt?[/QUOTE] I've read one book that theorised that the killer blow to Queen Mary was a hit that caused a flash to reach a forward 4 inch magazine which in turn set off the forward 13.5 magazines.(think it was an Osprey book on the Battle of Jutland) A recent Book about HMS Hood (Santori?) which theorised that a hit from Bismarck caused a flash fire in a 4 inch ready use station that spread to the 4 inch magazine and subsequently the rear 15 inch magazines. Hood however was a very different ship to HMS Queen Mary. Hood at the time of her construction was probably as well protected as a Queen Elizabeth class battleship and at least 7 knots faster.

HMS Hood at Ocean Pier Hobart,Tasmania in 1924.....Courtesy of the Hobart City Archives....Regards Brian
Attachments :

[QUOTE=brian james;10153691]HMS Hood at Ocean Pier Hobart,Tasmania in 1924.....Courtesy of the Hobart City Archives....Regards Brian[/QUOTE] Nice photo, but it's HMS REPULSE: note the triple 4" mountings.

[QUOTE=Gwyrosydd;10153715]Nice photo, but it's HMS REPULSE: note the triple 4" mountings.[/QUOTE] It's neither [I]Hood[/I] nor [I]Repulse[/I], but HMS [I]Renown[/I]. A truly magnificent image, it is! :)

If the date is really 1924, then it has to be [I]Repulse[/I]. [I]Renown[/I] decommissioned in July 1922 to begin a reconstruction that didn't finish until September 1926! [I]Repulse[/I], along with [I]Hood[/I], set out in November 1923 from the UK, heading west through the Panama Canal, visiting various ports in the Pacific, then the Indian ocean, through the Suez canal, through the Med, and returning to the UK in September 1924! Renown did visit Australia in 1920 with the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII)*, and again with the Prince Albert of York (later King George VI) in January - July of 1927. * I'm not sure if they stopped in Australia during their October 1921 - June 22 tour of India & Japan.

[QUOTE=RNfanDan;10153721]It's neither [I]Hood[/I] nor [I]Repulse[/I], but HMS [I]Renown[/I]. A truly magnificent image, it is! :)[/QUOTE] I think you're right: it is the RENOWN after her 1923-26 refit: the external bulge and details of the bridge work distinguish her from her sister. The original caption must be wrong about the date was well as the ship (RENOWN did tour Australia Jan-July 27 with the Duke of York -- the future king, not the ship).

It's an understandable error re: image dating, occasionally (if not frequently) found among the thousands of archival pics springing forth in recent times. I'm just thankful for the opportunity to enjoy these treasures, and to those who bring them to light. This really IS a great forum! :o

re: the photo in post [URL="http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10153691&postcount=71"]#71[/URL], the background does look like the Ocean Pier at Hobart, so presumably they got that bit right; RENOWN was at Hobart 16-20 April 1927. Here's another photo of her during the same visit, this one from the [URL="https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/044780/"]Australian War Memorial[/URL] (it is captioned as being 1920, but RENOWN did not look like that in 1920: can our antipodean cousins ever get the dates right? ;))
Attachments :

Previous Posts

Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts. Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269. Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Return to Home Page