Talk:Town-class cruiser (1936)

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)

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)

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.

The displacement of ships changes with refit in service, I would suggest that the design displacements are relevant but don't necessarily tell a complete story, however if the displacement increases then sine the beam and length probably has not then the draught has increased.

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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.190.36 (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You should add comments on the next line so they are easy to differentiate from preceding comments. Add four ~ at the end of your comments to sign them. In 1939, the 4in Mk XIX compared well to contemporary cruiser secondary armament and the RN was very pleased with the performance and reliability of this weapon. Comparable 1939 weapons were the USN 5in/25, the IJN 5in/40, the RM 3.9in and the KM 4.1in. Post war, aircraft speed had increased to the point that non-guided weapons of any sort were of very limited utility but really this is beyond the scope of this article.Damwiki1 (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself

The infobox says that 12 ships were completed and of those three are preserved. The article says however that only HMS Belfast is preserved, which also shows from the list of ships. Also the list of ships only shows 10 completed ships. Also the number of scrapped ships doesn't add up, 6 according to the infobox, 5 according to the list. The numbers in the infobox also don't add up, the lost, retired and preserved add up to 13, not 12. I am no expert on these ships so I will leave the editing to someone with knowledge about the subject and straighten out the information.

Never mind, I see changes were made by an anonymous user which seem factually incorrect (adding phantom ships, changing it to a heavy cruiser, changing the weaponry) which seems inconsistent with other information on hand. I decided to be bold and restore an earlier version of the page.Fogeltje (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)