AHC: HMS Incomparable sinks a major enemy warship!

Six 20" guns, 35 kts speed, a smattering of armour... HMS Incomparable is a silly ship, so this is really a bit implausible. But anyway.

First we need her built in the first place. She was intended for the Baltic Project, so we need the Baltic Project to be vaguely feasible. This means a weaker HSF. This can be achieved by a major fleet action early in WW1, or by just having less German construction. Let's go with a HSF sortie that goes horribly wrong in 1914 or early 1915 as this gives the Navy and Fisher more prestige, to support building the silly thing and the Baltic Project. With the HSF gutted, the GF can think of breaking the minefields around Denmark and fighting off torpedo boats and U-boats.

Next we need to keep Fisher as 1SL. This seems to mean getting Gallipoli to work. This is doable, it just needs better planning and coordination of minesweeping, bombardment and landings and and ties in well with the requirements of the Baltic Project. The additional dreadnoughts available after defeating the HSF help too.

So now it's 1917 and our 20" light cruiser is ready. Unfortunately we've already sunk most of the German fleet and another fleet action is basically not going to happen. She may well see action, but probably not against German battlecruisers or dreadnoughts. The next challenge is to get her to survive the peace. This is a big problem because, as a silly ship, she will be one of the first up for the chop in post-war savings. So we need the war to have ended earlier, with less damage to British finances. That's okay, success at Gallipoli can lead to an Entente victory in, say, 1916. Hmm, let's say an Armistice in 1916 that drags on a bit with Peace in 1917. So Incomparable still gets finished. But now we need another war.

Plus we have a problem with naval treaties. Let's just assume that a treaty sees no value in here, and hence she doesn't need to be disposed of, or that a stronger Britain isn't particularly interested in a treaty. The 1923 Japan earthquake and general disinterest will probably preclude a serious naval arms race anyway. Don't even think about converting her into a carrier either...

So the 1930s come along and some sort of war breaks out again. Let's assume Germany, if we haven't butterflied the Nazis entirely. HMS Incomparable forms the core of a raider hunting group. She spots a German pocket battleship or battlecruiser raider in the Atlantic, and dumps a 20" shell into the raider's magazine.
 
So the 1930s come along and some sort of war breaks out again. Let's assume Germany, if we haven't butterflied the Nazis entirely. HMS Incomparable forms the core of a raider hunting group. She spots a German pocket battleship or battlecruiser raider in the Atlantic, and dumps a 20" shell into the raider's magazine.

You're assuming the German ship doesn't get a shell into her magazine first.:p
 
Okay, two points of order.

1. Incomparable was a fast battleship with eight 16-inch guns, heavy armour, and diesels for 25 knots. The ship you're thinking of is Citadel - admittedly, the error is made by virtually everybody.

2. In any case, it's unlikely that either name would be used. DREADNOUGHT started out as Untakeable; INVINCIBLE came from Unapproachable and Uncatchable. COURAGEOUS came from Onslaught. RENOWN was Rhadamanthus - no, it doesn't fit with the general theme, and I haven't a clue why.

For that matter, Citadel was conceived as an enlarged Rhadamanthus to mount the 18-inch gun, and only later enlarged to take the notional 20-inch gun. A 1917 completion date is just about feasible for the 1915 design with 18-inch guns, but I'd look to 1918 or 1919 as more likely. The 20-inch design was produced in 1916 or so, which would be the earliest laying down date, meaning we're looking at completion around 1920 as for HOOD. Actually, some of the early concepts for HOOD called for six 18-inch guns, so building HOOD as a Citadel ship makes sense.

Career is probably similar to that of HOOD. Difference is, at Denmark Strait nobody is going to think she has armour to withstand 15-inch guns, and ship handling will be different as a result.
 
Okay, two points of order.

1. Incomparable was a fast battleship with eight 16-inch guns, heavy armour, and diesels for 25 knots. The ship you're thinking of is Citadel - admittedly, the error is made by virtually everybody.

2. In any case, it's unlikely that either name would be used. DREADNOUGHT started out as Untakeable; INVINCIBLE came from Unapproachable and Uncatchable. COURAGEOUS came from Onslaught. RENOWN was Rhadamanthus - no, it doesn't fit with the general theme, and I haven't a clue why.

For that matter, Citadel was conceived as an enlarged Rhadamanthus to mount the 18-inch gun, and only later enlarged to take the notional 20-inch gun. A 1917 completion date is just about feasible for the 1915 design with 18-inch guns, but I'd look to 1918 or 1919 as more likely. The 20-inch design was produced in 1916 or so, which would be the earliest laying down date, meaning we're looking at completion around 1920 as for HOOD. Actually, some of the early concepts for HOOD called for six 18-inch guns, so building HOOD as a Citadel ship makes sense.

Career is probably similar to that of HOOD. Difference is, at Denmark Strait nobody is going to think she has armour to withstand 15-inch guns, and ship handling will be different as a result.

Oh, really?
 

Archibald

Banned
DREADNOUGHT started out as Untakeable; INVINCIBLE came from Unapproachable and Uncatchable. COURAGEOUS came from Onslaught. RENOWN was Rhadamanthus - no, it doesn't fit with the general theme, and I haven't a clue why.
How about HMS Absurdity ?
 
Yes, really.

The poster of the above has done extensive original research from Fisher's papers, whereas the Wikipedia article is based on press misunderstandings and a century of Chinese whispers.

With all due respect, your link is literally the only place where said information exists.
 
With all due respect, your link is literally the only place where said information exists.
Everything previously published about Incomparable was based on an incorrect secondary source, amplified by an echo chamber. The link I provided is based on research from primary sources which are referenced in the link.
The power of Wiki.........
In fairness, the misunderstanding is nearly a century old, and Wikipedia is correctly recording what's in the published secondary sources. Since they reject original research and forum posts, and strongly dislike primary sources, it's hard to see what the alternative is.
 
Last edited:
the Mary Rose?
Thats Yet another case of stupidity compromising a design. "I know we need extra guns. Let's put in more gun ports so low down they'll be awash every time she turns." And they wondered why it sank.

On the subject of Incomparable (or whatever its called) and her guns, the 16's on the Rodney used to damage the ship every time they fired and that was a ship with very heavy armour. Don't know what the 18's did to the yamato class but incomparable would be a lot more fragile and dealing with an even bigger bang. You might get away with a rolling broadside but trying to fire all of them at once could lead to blowback and the pressure wave snapping the keel. At that point a lot of people end up alotta dead. It really was a bad design but then the battle cruiser was a lethal dead end in the first place.
 
Everything previously published about Incomparable was based on an incorrect secondary source, amplified by an echo chamber. The link I provided is based on research from primary sources which are referenced in the link.

In fairness, the misunderstanding is nearly a century old, and Wikipedia is correctly recording what's in the published secondary sources. Since they reject original research and forum posts, and strongly dislike primary sources, it's hard to see what the alternative is.

Er its an encyclopedia. Why on earth would they have a problem with primary sources.? It seems a bit silly to reject the raw data that everything else uses as a soutce. Would that mean I can't quote Einstein's original paper if I write about relativity? Weird!
 
Er its an encyclopedia. Why on earth would they have a problem with primary sources.? It seems a bit silly to reject the raw data that everything else uses as a soutce. Would that mean I can't quote Einstein's original paper if I write about relativity? Weird!
The official line is that primary sources can only be used to make straightforward descriptive statements. Any interpretation must be referenced to a secondary source.
 
Top