My favorite battlecruiser. If the sea wasn't as rough I bet HMS Renown would have given the Terrible Twins a good run.
@DeCasoU1
Жыл бұрын
If one of the anti-torpedo hadn't sprung at the bow and become a significant amount of extra drag it would have made a difference. The German post battle reports are worth reading. The ability of Renown to continue to deliver a truly outstanding rate of fire in spite of the sea state is commented on. The Twins on the other hand had problems which severely impacted their firing rate. What I do not know is when it was discovered that HMS Renown's engines could deliver an extra 40,000 hp when required. Once something is discovered it can't be "undiscovered". You can issue instructions that the design maximum should not be exceeded but once the engineering staff have established that the extra power is readily available if needed and has no ill effects on the machinery you have more chance of them looking for more power than you have of them sticking to an artificial limit.
@mattblom3990
Жыл бұрын
Renown is top 5 on my "Criminal They Weren't Preserved As a Museum Ship" list. So much good service. Warspite, Oregon (should have never been stripped to a hulk), Yavuz also on the list.
@danx4880
Жыл бұрын
Renown is a fabulous vessel, as you've pointed out, and my personal favourite battle cruiser. One of the reasons why i ask about it so much on your streams (when i have time to attend)! 😌 Her service life definitely is overshadowed by QEs, even Hood, regardless of her relatively quick demise, reasonable, but not righteous imo. So glad she receives so much love on your channel! Cheers Dr Clark! Keep it up!
@JohnnieE1961
27 күн бұрын
Thanks, great video (again). At Jutland, with 9x15" they could have stood off and picked off Hipper's ships, but can you really imagine Beatty settling for that?
@robmarsh6668
Жыл бұрын
I've always thought Hood looked disproportionate, but the Renown was truly beautiful.
@juicysushi
Жыл бұрын
As I said before in a live, the Renowns are basically the time the RN got to build a hot rod. I think if they arrive before Jutland they might end Glorious, Furious, and Courageous, as their demonstrable superiority might mean the RN goes “Right, 3 more of those, please.” Which means perhaps the Hoods are either not considered, because 5 Renowns mean there is less need, or they take a very different design path, but maybe get Lexington’d and become the carriers. After Jutland, still impressive, but maybe the Hoods just go to triple turrets. Not sure if there is enough time to correct the follies.
@Jpdt19
Жыл бұрын
Very good as always Doctor C
@lesbois53
23 күн бұрын
I have an original photo of Renown, with a quote from Churchill alongside the photo. I have had it for years.
@georgehughes8698
Жыл бұрын
Very good overview of the career of HMS Renown! She was a Beautiful ship!
@auggie8958
Жыл бұрын
My favorite capital ship. I often wonder if it would be viable to keep her around post-war. The old battlecrusier compares somewhat favorably to the KGV ships. Of course, she was way past due for an overhaul.
@davidpnewton
Жыл бұрын
Absolutely not. The ship was 30 years old at that point. Even in peacetime that was very old. Add in 6 years of being thrashed in wartime and it was simply utterly worn out. Obsolete, worn out vessel.
@auggie8958
Жыл бұрын
The boilers and turbines were completely replaced in the 1963 rebuild. It was a complete reconstruction of the entire ship. Renown was descended for another minor refit in 1945, but it was canceled due to the rearrangement of resources and the war coming to a close. The refit was unfinished when it was canceled. Secondary turrets were removed for better versions and never replaced, as stated in the video. I think the reason Renown wasn't kept around wasn't capability but because it would have required money to bring her back into tip-top fighting shape. Wasting that precious resource on what was already seen as an outdated concept was not going to happen.
@Peorhum
Жыл бұрын
Funny, I never though of her as underated. I always thought of her a good hard working ship. I thought stopping her from taking part in the Bismarck surface battle a mistake. Sort of shame she did not get a join the KGV and Rodney. As I grew up, She was one of the stars of the RN during the 1st half of the war. I always thought the Repulse was underated due to lack of refit, adding more AA guns. Repulse was an elite ship despite lack of AA guns and her performance in Force Z proved it. She missed out on the Bismarck action, then being sunk by the Force Z stupidity. Renown was a star!!
@martinpeacock1893
Жыл бұрын
While I think the prospect of a 3x3 15" gun Renown class is a nice "what if" I do feel Fisher made the right call. It is far better having a good ship to fight the war your currently in than the ideal ship finishing after it is over. On the question of th3 Triple turret Renown class itself I am not sure they are the interesting ships for WW1. Yes them taking part in Jutland possibly changes things, particularly if one of them is sunk I don't see it being a big enough change to the battle to be truly notable. The end result is stil the same, Britain in control of the worlds oceans and the Kaiserliche marine being bottled up in home waters. The interesting question is twofold. 1, as you ask what happens to them and the rest of the RN's capital ships in the inter war years. 2, What effects are had on HMS Hood and possibly the other admirals. IIRC part of the reason new Battlecruisers were considered preferable for Battleships is was the notion that the war build ships could not fight German Battlecruisers. While I am not sure a 50% increase in main gun firepower changes that massively given the lack of armour in the initial designs it could make things more complicated. If the Admiral design is not completed before Jutland and the Renown's perform well but take a beating due to less armour then the Admiral design likely reflects that. Therefore the Admirals could all be built as 4x3 15" gun ships designed from the off as more Battleship level armour. If that happens what is done with the "under armoured" Renown's as well as any Washington treaty with the new and improved Admirals?
@hazchemel
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for this. She's a wonderful and very significant ship and just so apt. Steaming HMS Renown to my master's salt mine, then back home to my modest plastic bag in a septic tank home would take a mere 40,000 to 50,000 litres of oil. Parking and traffic conditions however should be straightforward, being a concern more for others than for me.
@ScienceChap
4 ай бұрын
When I look at Renown, I cannot help but wonder what sort of ship Hood would have been had she had her mooted deep reconstruction.
@JohnnieE1961
7 күн бұрын
@@ScienceChap I'd suggest a visit to Drach's "If the Hood had Survived' post.
@level98bearhuntingarmor
10 ай бұрын
In my opinion she is peak Battle Cruiser
@seanmcintosh2003
Жыл бұрын
Refit Royal Oak vs Repulse… 6 vs 8 15’ guns? Yes, but do you have the speed to actually get into position to engage? My vote is to refit Repulse every time.
@EA-History
Жыл бұрын
Once again, Dr Clarke, a very good video! :)
@spencerjones841
Жыл бұрын
pity repulse didn't get more upgrades during her major refit. if nothing else you think the RN would have removed all her single purpose 4" guns and put in DP mounts and the directors for them and maybe some more light and medium AA. that extra flak maybe could have kept her and POW alive.
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
her certainly, with her manouvering it could well have made the difference... with Prince of Wales it's one part bad luck, one part sticking to a portion of air defence doctrine which mediterranean operations, let alone norway operations, had disproved completely...
@spencerjones841
Жыл бұрын
@@DrAlexClarke and even if the doctrine had worked force Z really needed a few cruisers and at least a flotilla of destroyers to have the needed mass of fire. heck honestly the thing that doomed prince of wales was bad decisions tied to the treaty as related to not enough redundant electrical generation since that weighed stuff that could be cut. yet another thing the UK should have not done given the period POW was laid in. aka when the treaties where all but dead.
@timandellenmoran1213
Жыл бұрын
Awesome, nice presentation thanks!
@jackwardley3626
10 ай бұрын
The Renown class and the courageous class the last battlecruisers built
@johnreynolds7996
4 ай бұрын
I always thought the greatest disappointment of HMS Renown's career was that she didn't get the opportunity to come up and polish off Bismarck. Renown and Ark Royal were just over the horizon when KGV and Rodney were pounding Bismarck - the crew on Renown could hear the gunfire - but Somerville's increasingly strident signals to Tovey seeking clarification of how the battle was going were unanswered. The man must have been beside himself with impatience. But Sheffield had been detached the day before to shadow Bismarck, which meant that taking off with Renown to join the battle would have left Ark Royal unprotected, which was unthinkable absent a clear call for assistance from the Home Fleet. So Somerville stayed put. Once Sheffield did rejoin Force H then Renown took off like a startled gazelle (by this time Tovey had signaled that he was leaving but Bismarck was still afloat) but it appears that Somerville only managed around half the distance when Tovey signaled that Bismarck had slipped beneath the waves. Pity.
@jasonherring2419
10 ай бұрын
Regarding the triple 15's, would the hull accommodate not only a larger barbette needed but the additional structural load of the weight and shock of 50% more recoil force from the three guns firing? I suspect these ships were built more stoutly than the Furious but that is in theory quite an uplift in engineering requirements. As far as configurations go it might make sense to use an Andrea Doria-style combo of triple (main deck) and twin turret (fwd superfiring) layout to reduce stresses that high on the hull structure?
@sniper.93c14
Жыл бұрын
This is all conjecture on the way Renowns boilers may have worked, however, I would guess that by going from 42 boilers to 8 new boilers and maintaining a similar power on paper, the Royal Navy would have desired either one or two things, 1 is that each new boiler had a similar power to 5 of the old ones, and hence lost a bit of power and speed (especially considering the weight added with new armament and aircraft etc) OR that each boiler could in fact produce as much power as 6 of the old ones and so with 8 it had in fact the equivalent of 48 old boilers worth of power. And that the Royal Navy was conservative/lied in the official stats to say that each new boiler was as roughly powerful as 5 older boilers but in fact were the same as 6 which would explain the anecdotal increase in top speed especially given the extra equipment and weight added to her.
@michaelcouch66
Жыл бұрын
For scenario B a lot depends on how the tripples are percieved within the RN - are they seen as successful? Are they, for example, seen as too cramped to be operated efectively? And what size turret ring do they require (wider ring means fatter ship, so tRenoun and Repluse might lose some of their performance). In effect Renown and Repulse just became proof of concept ships for the RN tripple turret. If the tripple 15 is seen as a success, and the turret ring size isn't too large, then that could impact the QE refits - imagine Warspite coming out of refit with 4 tripple 15s and a mad glint in her eye! Even if weight /topweight issues prevent 4 tripples, they might manage two tripples with superfiring twins for a 10 inch broadside.
@andredegraaf1643
11 ай бұрын
I enjoyed listening to your lecture. I have to admit that I know next to nothing about naval history. I was just doing research on my newly acquired HMS Renown model. Regarding that research, what was the paint scheme of Renown in 1944? Camouflage or Royal Navy Grey? Additionally, it seems that these ships sit quite low in the water with films showing water washing over the bow regularly. Was there any motivation to make them higher or was it just a function of the required shallow draft (if that was a requirement).
@20chocsaday
Жыл бұрын
Fascinating.
@Duke_of_Petchington
Жыл бұрын
HMS Renown (and her sister) is one of those ships that should’ve really seen more of the RN’s boldness in tech development as well as being class of 5 ships. By tech development I mean 3x triple 15” gun turrets. List of theorised names if they had made 5: HMS Renown HMS Repulse HMS Resolute HMS Redoubt HMS Revelation
@Duke_of_Petchington
Жыл бұрын
Historically Renown was an absolute Menace to her opponents in WW2, Hood may have been power house but she wasn’t the true work horse of the RN Battle cruisers, but the Renown class.
@jonsouth1545
Жыл бұрын
Tripple 15s would have meant significant changes to the barbettes and hull however triple 13.5s wouldn't and would be almost identical to a twin 15 in barbet size. Often overlooked because of how good the 15-inch was, the 13.5 was still an excellent gun (the 15-inch gun was the exact same design just scaled up). A 9 13.5-inch gun battlecruiser would have been very interesting it would still have a significant firepower advantage over the previous generation of Battle Cruiser i.e. Tiger, Kongo, etc while giving the advantages of a 3*3 layout. The 13.5 inch in WW1 was capable of over 20,000 yards and with elevation improvements, they did range out to 40,000 yards when used as railway guns in WW2 so with supercharges or 20-degree elevation in the turrets she could easily range out to realistic battle ranges also the heavy shell introduced during WW1 was 1400 lbs 635kg which is still pretty big (40% bigger than the shells on Scharnhorst etc) in fact 9 13.5-inch using the late WW1 shells would give a throw-weight of 5715kg (12600lbs) which compares very well to the 5274kg that Renowns 6 guns could launch at you in real life Plus since the 14-inch guns on KGV the BL Mark VII were designed to be able to use the same hoists and mountings as the 13.5-inch gun (although I'm sure some adjustments would need to have been made) largely due to advances in gun making made it so the 14-inch gun was only 2 tons heavier and only 3 ft (90cm) longer than the 13.5. It is theoretically possible to upgrade to 9 14-inch guns although would breach the treaty but if done after 1936 it's fine and if done her weight of fire would go to 6480kg. Even without the upgrade to 14-inch guns, 9 13.5s would have been more than enough for most ships to handle. just for comparison the shells on Scharnhorst were 336kg that's only just over 60% of the 13.5 heavies and less than half of the 14-inch shells giving Scharnhorst a salvo weight of a pitiful 3024kg hell an upgraded 9 14-inch gun Renown would have had a main battery broadside 80kg heavier than Bismarck.
@Duke_of_Petchington
Жыл бұрын
you’d have to remember that Royal Navy’s Technological arms race with US and some of the other Minor Majors. It would be seen as a step out of the race if they went with a smaller calibre than 15s. So the slight increase to hull width would not be seen as much of an issue than compared to the increase of fire power, plus the development of large calibre triple gun turrets would affect other vessels down the line and some with more positive affects.
@johnfisher9692
Жыл бұрын
As requested Dr. Clarke, I have noted down the day you said something nice about the Kaiser. Based on your analysis of the purpose and design of the German 1st SG should the Moltke, Seydlitz and Derfflinger classes be more correctly rated as Light Battleships and not Battlecruisers? Then again I call the six I class ships as Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers as that is what they were conceived, designed and built as. Von Der Tann didn't exist when they were designed. Germany had the great advantage of going second, seeing what Britain had and was building and building to counter them. Hope your trip to Australia was enjoyable and informative, even if you couldn't smuggle HMAS Vampire back in your luggage 😄
@StuartKoehl
Жыл бұрын
Had Hood received a modernization rebuild similar to Renown's, she would have been a much more formidable fast battleship than the one that fought in Denmark Straits.
@renown16
Жыл бұрын
my favorite ship as you can tell by my name
@Aubury
3 ай бұрын
Where not these ships and others built for the Baltic strategy, that Fisher conceived, based on the use of sea power, and a small army projectile. As was the case and method of the British way of war.
@DrAlexClarke
3 ай бұрын
Courageous, Glorious & Furious yes, Renown & Repulse no... the former had all sorts of weird compromises for that, whereas the latter were economic warfare stereotypical RN Battle Cruisers
@youdouche6805
Жыл бұрын
If renown and repulse had been completed and worked up in time for Jutland, does 5th battle squadron under Evan-Thomas still get attached to the battlecruisers at Jutland?
@matthewkeeling886
Жыл бұрын
Twin or triple turrets on the Renown Class doesn't matter significantly for the Jutland scenario; the two extra battlecruisers with really big guns do. If they are assigned to the battlecruiser squadron and can actually hit anything it would definitely have improved the perception of battlecruisers as losing a couple during the fight on both sides plays better in popular history than three explosions versus one foundering on the way home. New ships with the gunnery training Beatty was giving his squadron could mean they are totally ineffective though, worsening the type's reputation. The terrifying thought for the Germans would have been these ships being assigned to 5th Battle Squadron as an organic scouting element instead of the battlecruiser squadron. That makes quite a formidable raiding and reaction force for which there is no effective counter available. The real interesting question is what happens to both of them after the war if they are triple turret designs and what happens to the Admiral Class and later ships. I would guess 1930s rebuilds similar to Renown's actual reconstruction will happen for both and they will likely be doing a lot of work in the North Sea and Mediterranean when the next war erupts. The next battlecruiser class after them is the Admiral Class and these might come out as improved Renowns designs with thicker armor, improved engines and perhaps the 5.5 inch guns instead of having a QE style four turret layout. This design, likely being faster to build and thus possibly having 2-3 completed or in a state to make carriers out of when the treaty considerations come up, then can evolve into the basis for future RN fast battleship designs in the interwar period. KGVs with nine 15 inch guns and 32 knot design speed sounds like a decent step up for the 1930s battleship design and could cause a few headaches for their enemies the actual type could not.
@Duke_of_Petchington
Жыл бұрын
Hood would most likely come out as 4x triple turret worship anyway but with a slight adjustment to her width/been because of triple turrets. The Admiral Class design was a reaction to what had happened to the BCs at Jutland, so as a result the Fully armoured Battlecruiser was born (a term created by Churchill). The Australia before the naval treaty would actually try to build the triple turret renown class as improved renowns.
@Duke_of_Petchington
Жыл бұрын
Also for they would’ve built the KGV design 15C which was a 30kn BB with triple 15” L/45. Considering they had to fit a lot more armour on the KGV compared to renown’s 3-9” belt.
@matthewkeeling886
Жыл бұрын
@@Knight6831 They wouldn't go for the 12 gun Admiral design. Hood already barely fit into many of the few drydocks that could take her, if being generous with the definition of "fit". This was a known issue at design stage and was not guaranteed to be addressed soon. Indeed, it was one of the limitations on the class's dimensions. Given that changing to triple turrets would add about 1000 tons of weight relatively high up in the ship, on a design that was already relatively wet in design stages and ended up somewhat overweight. The increase in beam to accommodate this would then have to be relatively substantial and to keep performance up they would have to increase both length and engine output. This would then require an extension of the belt armor and an extension of the thickest parts of the deck armor, requiring more power and buoyancy reserves, requiring a larger hull. I would not be surprised if the end result was a 48,000 - 50,000 ton ship that simply could not fit in more than 2 drydocks in the entire empire. This was simply not acceptable for a multi-ship class such as the Admirals. The designers would have recognized this early on in the design process and moved to three triple turrets out of sheer practicality. This would still give her the greatest firepower in the world along with the speed and size needed for her role. The most logical starting point for this design is then the (also three triple turret in this scenario) Renown Class rather than the Queen Elizabeth Class as in reality.
@matthewkeeling886
3 ай бұрын
@@Knight6831 Realistically, they did not go for that setup for a reason. First: for a battlecruiser (which is intended for extended patrol) you will need the larger shell capacity, you don't want it running out and we have seen that happen on capital ships multiple times with low shell capacities. Second: you are not figuring in the extra armor added to the design post-Jutland, which takes away from the ability to add more firepower due to weight issues being run into. Third: There are likely stability issues with the superfiring triple turret being quite high up in the ship as it increases the metacentric height which would necessitate a wider hull to counteract and thus greater length to keep the length-beam ratio, this was probably figured out during the pre-testing mathematics phase. Finally: Hood had few drydocks she could actually use already and several of those are basically only available to her in emergencies because of her size, any significant increase would have dramatically reduced that number and limited her in her role dramatically.
@matthewkeeling886
3 ай бұрын
@@Knight6831 Parliament was determined to avoid all infrastructure upgrades due to the expense, that refusal is why the G3 and N3 were such strange designs. The Royal Navy already knew this by the time the Admirals were approved, it is the reason for several of the Hood's design choices and why she was not bigger herself. They knew they were not getting the scheduled infrastructure upgrades and planned accordingly.
@karlvongazenberg8398
Жыл бұрын
A, Does Jutland happens as it was? Like the German BC force didn't became more cautious and didn't got additional ships, like Mackenzens? B, The world (or at least the seven seas) become a faster place...
@stephenrichards339
Жыл бұрын
Beneath the guns, nice
@aw34565
Жыл бұрын
The Scharnhorsts were battlecruisers. If Gneisenau had been upgraded with 6x15" guns then she would have had the same armament as Renown and Repulse, and so even more a battlecruiser (high speed, weak deck armour, fewer guns of the same caliber than the comparable Bismarck class battleships.).
@Peorhum
Жыл бұрын
Remember Fisher had a time line to work with.The Twin 15 were reliable turrets, which is why they lasted so long as far as new constructions went. I likely would have picked them too if I was Fisher. The problems of designing and removing all the bugs you get in new turrets in time for war is not something you take likely. The 15in twins evolved from the 13.5s. Likely would have been easier to put 16in guns in the twin turrets, then designing a triple 15in turret. Look at the turrets for the Rodney and Nelson and the KGV class. The designers had the nelson class turrets to use, for designing the 14in turrets but STILL had problems. NO, Fisher made the right decision with the Twin turrets.
@hwclor7094
Жыл бұрын
What would have happened if Renown vs Sharnhorst and Geiseneau got within the ranges Washington and South Dakota had fought Kirishima?
@philiplafleur4504
Жыл бұрын
OMG! So many boilers! Think about it. Less emoting, more history.
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
??
@toddwebb7521
Жыл бұрын
Well the WWI version of Renown and Repulse only had 6 inches of belt armor like an Invincible so my money is on an 11 or 12 inch shell to the magazine and a big kaboom if they end up at Jutland in WWI format much like invincible and indefatigable. If you handwave getting the 9 inch belt upgrade and still getting built on time somehow well it's definitely not as vulnerable as a 6 inch belt version but it's still no better protected than Queen Mary so one of them could just as easily get her fate.
@nichtvorhanden5928
Жыл бұрын
Dr. C saying somerhung good about Willy II. the 2nd of July is marked in calender as a new memorial day.
@salonebobo
Ай бұрын
"Significant doesn't carry the same weight"" hahahaha
@karlvongazenberg8398
Жыл бұрын
4:40 Forty-two? I get my towel...
@panic_2001
Жыл бұрын
without knowing the details Renown and Repulse make 30+x knots and can therefore accompany all English and American carriers.
@toddwebb7521
Жыл бұрын
But what is it in rods per hogshead?
@davebell4917
Жыл бұрын
I make it roughly 850 but the hogshead had so many different sizes.
@toddwebb7521
Жыл бұрын
@@davebell4917 63 US gallons is the current modern definition
@andrewcox4386
Жыл бұрын
Renown Too late for the Plate Too slow for Haguro But soooo much more!
@Eulemunin
Жыл бұрын
Feeding the algorithm
@terrykidd265
Жыл бұрын
FFS liven up your delivery
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
???
@MartinMcAvoy
Жыл бұрын
This was a disappointing video Dr Clarke. Before watching, I read the Wikipedia article on HMS Renown and you repeated what was written, almost word for word. The ship served in the RN for 30 years but you did not provide a single anecdote or fact that has was not stated in a the world's free online encyclopaedia. You must know that Wiki is not accepted as academically reliable, unless the sources are directly referenced. 3/10. Try to do better next time.
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
Uh? Wow... Possibly because I used the pictures from wiki (as said before it's a way of ensuring they are free to use) it has similar form, but honestly it's probably similar because I was using similar or more than likely the same sources and going in a chronological order - I was going from books rather than archives on this one as I hadn't time to do an extra archive trip... I have to admit I did go more from my script in this one than normal, but I wanted to make sure I got all the facts absolutely correct. I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I've actually had this come up before and normally found I've taken the same phraseology from the books as those who were writing the wiki have when it comes to the evidence, which I would say shows the quality of those book authors. But the argument/analysis I would say is mostly mine, I say mostly because it is both informed by & a reaction to my reading. I will also add that because I was still trying to aim it as short as possible, I probably did a little bit too much fact listing vs to little analysis discussion. Ps I'd add that I'm seriously considering redoing this one due to the book I got given whilst in Australia, honestly being trying to get a copy of it for years but never found one, it gives a great overview of her 1920s. Pps some sources used: Peter C Smith's book(pretty much the only work still available to buy purely on HMS Renown - basically another needs to be written, but it's finding the time), Geirr Harr's excellent Battle for Norway Trilogy (April-June 1940 is specific to events covered), RA Burt's 1993 version of his British Battleships book & a smattering of other works where I thought useful. But as said I only had archival stuff for what I'd already done, which was mostly about Force H and her time with Ark Royal, but there again Mike Rossiter's Ark Royal book covers a lot of that too... so I wouldn't be surprised to find that out in the wilds as well.
@MartinMcAvoy
Жыл бұрын
@@DrAlexClarke Thank you for your reply. Only about 1/5 of my posts make it through the filter and no content creator has ever replied to me with your detail. I apologise for upsetting you. I am sure all of us enjoy the passion you invest in your research and it is unkind to criticise the hours you put into these videos. Men are interested by things and women are interested in people. I am a details fella too but sometimes I get overwhelmed by facts and wonder about the human stories. I remember a documentary of HMS Belfast at the battle of North Cape. An engine room stoker was interviewed about his memory of the day. He heard little and saw nothing but knew if the ship was hit badly, his chance of escape was almost zero. Hearing stories like that always put the facts into context and provide a voice for people who are often forgotten. Sometimes, please try to let them speak. Anyway, as a penance I will order your book on destroyers, to show how much I appreciate your scholarship. There's a bit in Ford vs Ferrari, where Matt Damon, playing Carroll Shelby, says a man is lucky, if he knows what he wants to do in this world (and does it); because he'll never work a day in his life. You obviously work very hard but I think Matt/Carroll had a point you demonstrate, all the time. Thanks.
@DrAlexClarke
Жыл бұрын
I try to always respond if I think I can answer or be of use, this one I must admit is rather on the fact side - I agree, but it's like I added at the end - a book I've been for looking for for ten years, showed up in Australia. There will be more about Renown to come, I have a book in mind to write about the British Battlecruisers in 1920s & 1930s, what Renown, Repulse, Hood & Tiger got up to in those years - I think it will be kindle self published as I doubt any publisher will want to touch it, but that is the option these days, we can do that. I too love those stories, but I can only include them if I can prove them or reference them at least, so I need to wait till I have a book usually or certain very credible websites to prove them. I will say you didn't upset me in probably the way you think you might have done, it annoyed me I had got the fact/story balance that far off, it's a balance to get it right and this video was important and I went so far one way, I just gave the history facts as far as very interested viewer, i.e. yourself, could see... That is a failure on my part, both to the ship and to you... I will do better in future. And yes, I definitely agree with the movie Carroll Shelby quote - it's why I thank the world every day that I get to do this. yours sincerely Alex p.s. I hope you enjoy the book, it still shocked me that it's got to a second edition, there again I'm still surprised a publisher wanted to put out what I wrote about Tribals, Battles & Darings.
Пікірлер: 71