Jump to content

Talk:Town-class cruiser (1936): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Recent edits: Sverdlov class not contemporary to Town class.
Line 18: Line 18:


This article [http://www.britishnavalhistory.com/sverdlov_class_rn_response/] has nothing to say about RN Town Class cruisers. The first [[Sverdlov-class cruiser|Sverdlov class cruiser]] was not completed until 15 years after the first Town class cruisers.
This article [http://www.britishnavalhistory.com/sverdlov_class_rn_response/] has nothing to say about RN Town Class cruisers. The first [[Sverdlov-class cruiser|Sverdlov class cruiser]] was not completed until 15 years after the first Town class cruisers.
In reply I would say that post war the Town class cruisers represented the only viable cruiser platform to update and counter the Russian Navy and Sverdlovs. The County class were too old post war unless reengined and like the Dido class all seemed worn out after about 20 years service. The Town class were larger and faster in a seaway and potentially capable of longer life and effective modernisation. In 1959 the Belfast reentered service after an extended refit intended to give it another decades life. Modernisation of the Birmingham and Newcastle received greater updating than the Colony class. Only Liverpool and Belfast were considered to have the internal space that would have allowed fitting three twin Mk 26 turrets.
British WW2 medium AA was very poor and both the Army 3.7 and Navy twin 4 seem very dated weapons of doubtful effectiveness and useless post war, cf with US 5 and 3 inch mounts form early 50s

Revision as of 00:55, 20 March 2016

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Maritime / British / European / World War II Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Maritime warfare task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
WikiProject iconShips Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articlesWikiProject icon
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I have seen mention of these as "City" class - since some of the Towns they are named after are actually British cities. Anyone have info on this.GraemeLeggett 13:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not an official title as far as I know, just something that must have been applied by an author, just like Exeter and York were never known as the "Cathedral" class. Emoscopes Talk 09:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Displacement of Class

The displacements of the three types of "Town/City" class cruisers need revising in view of HMS Belfast being 11,553 tons after her repair Patrick.

Recent edits

Editorial comments and anti-historical arguments have no place in Wikipedia. Content should be written from a neutral PoV. The 4in Mk XIX and Pom-pom compared quite favorably with contemporary and comparable weapon systems. In 1939 the German navy, for example, had no comparable automatic CIWS and the German, Italian and Japanese navies never fielded an AA radar FC system. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article [1] has nothing to say about RN Town Class cruisers. The first Sverdlov class cruiser was not completed until 15 years after the first Town class cruisers. In reply I would say that post war the Town class cruisers represented the only viable cruiser platform to update and counter the Russian Navy and Sverdlovs. The County class were too old post war unless reengined and like the Dido class all seemed worn out after about 20 years service. The Town class were larger and faster in a seaway and potentially capable of longer life and effective modernisation. In 1959 the Belfast reentered service after an extended refit intended to give it another decades life. Modernisation of the Birmingham and Newcastle received greater updating than the Colony class. Only Liverpool and Belfast were considered to have the internal space that would have allowed fitting three twin Mk 26 turrets. British WW2 medium AA was very poor and both the Army 3.7 and Navy twin 4 seem very dated weapons of doubtful effectiveness and useless post war, cf with US 5 and 3 inch mounts form early 50s

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Town-class_cruiser_(1936)&oldid=710946119"