Talk:Invincible-class battlecruiser

Statement in the Lead

A statement like this in the lead, "… the loss of Invincible to a magazine explosion during the Battle of Jutland owed more to flaws in British ammunition handling than any flaws in the design of the ship" needs either referencing or removing. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 16:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that that's a paraphrase of Roberts, but I'm away from my library and can't check for at least a week. But thanks for the quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement as it stands is still no good:

“ An example is the loss of Invincible to a magazine explosion during the Battle of Jutland, although this explosion owed more to flaws in British ammunition handling that exposed numerous cordite charges to the fire in 'Q' turret than any flaws in the design of the ship. ”

The key words in Brown (p. 166.) in citing the example of Lion are "it throws light on what may have happened in other ships." Italics added. All that can be stated with certainty is that "Q" magazine exploded after a hit on "Q" turret. Brown makes non reference to ammunition handling. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 17:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Simon, what do you want, a little dose of quibble in the sentence? The explosion most likely owed more to flaws... The inescapable conclusion drawn by Brown in the Grand Fleet and in his WI article is exactly as I stated although he's lawyerly careful not to actually say so. So if it wasn't ammunition handling what was the cause of the explosion in the magazine? A flaw in the design of the entire ammunition handling system itself? That was about the only realistic avenue for a fire to reach the magazine from the turret. Or was there no cause and effect relationship between the hit on Q turret and the explosion of its magazine a few minutes later?

The funny thing is that the statement that you're objecting to isn't even mine, although I agree with it. It's a legacy piece from whoever wrote the earlier version and I'm a bit bemused by the fact that I'm defending it so ardently. And if she'd been hit anywhere else other than the turret like Indefatigable was I'd be blaming her loss on design flaws.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who pushed this article for GA and presumably wants to take it to FA one day: I'd have thought you'd make some effort to get it absolutely right. And I have my copy of The Grand Fleet in front of me and there's nothing which suggests an "inescapable conclusion." You haven't even cited the WI article.

Didn't think I needed to for such a non-controversial point. But I can add it in if necessary although Brown dances around the point just like in his other stuff. And I guess we have different definitions of inescapable conclusion. Much like beauty, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a two part TV documentary on Jutland that is repeated on documentary channels on Sky where they combined narrative about Jutland with dives on the wrecks. The dives found evidence that backed up the ammunition handling issues on several of the British ships they looked at.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's the documentary I recall from 6 years ago, then it didn't prove much of anything through flawed methodology and incompetent talking heads. I will drag out my copy to check though. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, Simon, as I will agree with you without even having seen it. I've seen too many so-called documentaries here in the States to trust anything purveyed by them unless I know the "experts" involved. And even then there's usually too little evidence proferred in support of the controversy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote line in introduction

This one:

They were least successful when standing in the main line of battle where they faced enemy battleships although the loss of Invincible to a magazine explosion during the Battle of Jutland, although this explosion owed more to flaws in British ammunition handling...

Seemed a strange structure, with two uses of although. Changed it to "...battleships. An example of this is the loss..." JJJJS (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Why is the Invincible the lead ship when it wasn't laid down, launched, nor commissioned first?