HMS Incomparable as a carrier.

Certainly a good talking point and I suppose our respective view points acurately reflect our respective navie's design philosophies.

[ img ]

Beautiful work, Certainly looking forwards to the 1940-1945 versions!

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

Thanks Rodondo, she would probably have sunk by then.

Looks fantastic! Great work and she really looks like Ark Royal on steroids!

I'm not convinced on the need for three accelerators though, I doubt all could be used at once.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Fantastic work!

I'd love to see 1940-1945 versions too.

erik_t wrote:

Well, I think one can reasonably advance the argument that this carrier is so big that she cannot efficiently operate all of the aircraft that she could theoretically carry. Spending weight on a heavier gun armament would be worse than building a right-size carrier, but the hull is presumably already built. If some of the hangar space is not useful, one might consider more guns (even if we can say they would have been useless in retrospect). As I recall, the Midways carried more F4U-scale aircraft than were really efficiently operable before the angled deck (and before larger aircraft reduced the total number carried). Not saying your line of thinking is incorrect, just something I was pondering.

YES,
you understand that this (early 1920s designed) design is ultimately TOO BIG for its era (1920s-late 1930s, even 1940s U.K needs !!!).
In the Best (U.K) case, it is a Hood battlecruiser-hull converted into carrier during 1920s (the U.K counterpart of the U.S Lex/Sara & the japanese Kaga/Akagi), no bigger !!!

Well Mike that is an interesting viewpoint. However HMS Incomparable had she been built would have been 1000 feet long. That is only the next step up from Hood 1920 at 860 feet . That's just the way the trend towards larger ships was evolving. We went from Agamemnon 1906 443 feet to Hood in 14 years. It was only the Washington treaty and lack of cash that killed these, the G3s and N3s off.
My line of thinking is the best thing to do with a discredited battle cruiser is turn it into a carrier and at least make some use of the hull, which is what I have done.

Quote:

YES,
you understand that this (early 1920s designed) design is ultimately TOO BIG for its era (1920s-late 1930s, even 1940s U.K needs !!!).
In the Best (U.K) case, it is a Hood battlecruiser-hull converted into carrier during 1920s (the U.K counterpart of the U.S Lex/Sara & the japanese Kaga/Akagi), no bigger !!!

As the Hoods built as carriers do you mean these.

[ img ]

Just because 1000ft is too big for a carrier doesn't mean you'd take the thing into a graving dock and chop out 200ft of midsection. It's a conversion: the hull you have is the hull you have.

Bombhead wrote:

Well Mike that is an interesting viewpoint. However HMS Incomparable had she been built would have been 1000 feet long. That is only the next step up from Hood 1920 at 860 feet . That's just the way the trend towards larger ships was evolving. We went from Agamemnon 1906 443 feet to Hood in 14 years. It was only the Washington treaty and lack of cash that killed these, the G3s and N3s off. My line of thinking is the best thing to do with a discredited battle cruiser is turn it into a carrier and at least make some use of the hull, which is what I have done.

Colombamike wrote:

YES, you understand that this (early 1920s designed) design is ultimately TOO BIG for its era (1920s-late 1930s, even 1940s U.K needs !!!). In the Best (U.K) case, it is a Hood battlecruiser-hull converted into carrier during 1920s (the U.K counterpart of the U.S Lex/Sara & the japanese Kaga/Akagi), no bigger !!!

As the Hoods built as carriers do you mean these.

Bombhead,
Your drawings "look" good, But...

1) In all cases, the HMS Hood (launched by 08/1918 & completed by 05/1920, was the largest/most impressive warship of the world from 1920 to 1927 ! (before the US Sara/Lex carriers & the british Nelson/Rodney BBs)), would never have been converted, it would have remained a battle-cruiser...

2) I know this (the Infamous & Suicidal "BIGGER & LARGER") trend (the problem is that it is not Eternal, you can not finish:
- In 1946 with a U.K 55 000 tons, 28 knots battleship armed with 9 x 406mm guns.
- In 1958 with a U.K 75 000 tons, 28 knots battlehips armed with 9 x 406mm guns, few ASW helico & some nuclear-armed large cruise-missile & three dozens of Seaslug AAW missiles...
- In 1984 with a U.K 75 000 tons, 28 knots battleship armed with 9 x 406mm or 12 x 203mm DP or 16 x 152mm full DP guns and 200 VLS, nuclear-powered-ship.....

.......)

All these big capital-ships are FULLY obsolete "even by 1956" by the first effective Russian A-bombs/H-bombs......

3) Back to the Hood (postwar incomplete) hull's :
When you see that the HMS Hood was keel laid down by 1916, launched by 08/1918 & completed by 05/1920.
It is clear that the three other Hood class hulls (Rodney, Howe, Anson), keel laid down by 10/1916-11/1917, will be "tentatively launched "around late 1919/late 1921" & completed "by 1921-1924" ?...
Here is the big question: 1921 or 1924 or 1928 carrier version : what was the conversion for these three hulls ?
=> Very doubtful to see a enlarged 1919/1921 Furious style ( bastard style early carrier design).
=> Rather doubtful to see a enlarged Eagle/Hermes 1921/1924 style (tripod mast/long bridge on this 260 meters hull, not really a UK design philosophy !).
=> Much more possible to see a enlarged courageous/glorious by 1928/1930 (and improved by 1935-1936).

Since the 239 meters hull from HMS Furious was used as a test for severals modernizations by 1917/1918 & 1922/1925.
Given the Enormous cost of these (Hood) hulls and their reconstruction, it is quite possible to imagine the three remainings hulls incomplete during 1921/1923 (washington treaty period) and rebuilt/completed during 1924-1928 (same as courageous/glorious style, with some alterations made by 1935-1936).

Think cost, austerity and Efficiency.

- Unlikely to see a british 260 meters hull carrier with a long bridge & a tripod mast (Eagle/Hermes style).
- Due to cost reason, very unlikely to see these 260 meters carriers Heavily Reconstructed by 1936-1940s era (think the HMS Hood carreer).
- Think a much enlarged Glorious/courageous (two era: 1928-1935 & 1936-1940s)

Sorry for my very bad english

This illustrates the basic problem of carrier conversions where the blueprints or even notion of a carrier conversion never existed, let alone for a hull that itself was never actually blueprinted.

I would therefore argue that every single ship represented in this thread (including the Hoods) are personal designs, not never-weres.

Shipbucket

Who is online