Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
County-class cruiser
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===''Kent'' class=== Originally planned as a programme of 17 Royal Navy vessels, the numbers were cut back significantly following the formation of the [[first Labour Government]] after the [[1923 United Kingdom general election|election of December 1923]]. Of the eight ships planned to begin construction in 1924, only five were approved, with a further two ordered later by the Royal Australian Navy.<ref>Marriot (2005) c.3, para. 6</ref> These initial seven ships β {{HMS|Berwick|65|2}}, {{HMS|Cornwall|56|2}}, {{HMS|Cumberland|C57|2}}, {{HMS|Kent|68|2}}, and {{HMS|Suffolk|55|2}}, built for the Royal Navy, and {{HMAS|Australia|1927|2}} and {{HMAS|Canberra|1927|2}} for the Royal Australian Navy β formed the '''''Kent'' class'''. All were ordered in 1924 and commissioned in 1928. It was quickly found necessary to heighten the funnels by some {{convert|15|ft|m}} to clear the [[flue]] gasses from the aft superstructure. The Australian ships, ''Australia'' and ''Canberra'' had them raised a further {{convert|3|ft|m}}. Between 1930 and 1933 the aircraft and catapult were added, as was a high-angle [[HACS]] director for the 4-inch guns. ''Kent'' received an additional pair of 4-inch guns in 1934, and she, ''Berwick'' and ''Cornwall'' each received a pair of [[Vickers machine gun|QF 0.5-inch Vickers]] machine guns added abreast the fore funnel. By the mid-1930s, the British ''Kent''s were due for modernisation. However, there was little surplus weight for the designers to work with while remaining within the Treaty requirements; they were between 150 and 250 tons under the treaty limits and it was estimated that a further 200-odd tons could be gained through various savings.<ref name="lenton"/>{{Page needed|date=January 2020}} A {{convert|6|ft|m|adj=mid|-deep}} armoured belt, {{convert|4.5|in|mm|adj=on}} thick, was added amidships, extending down from the armoured deck to 1 foot below the waterline. ''Cumberland'' and ''Suffolk'' had the aft superstructure razed and replaced by a large hangar for two aircraft and a fixed athwartships catapult. A crane was fitted on either side of the after funnel, and the rear gunnery, navigation and control positions were relocated to the hangar roof. The single 2-pounder guns were removed, and quadruple mountings, Mark VII, were added on either side of the bridge. The 4-inch guns were relocated, and the rearmost pair were replaced by twin mountings Mark XIX for the QF 4-inch Mark XVI. To keep weight within acceptable margins, the hull was cut down by one deck aft of "Y" turret. ''Berwick'' and ''Cornwall'' were similarly converted, but with more weight in hand the hull was not cut down; all four 4-inch mounts were twins and the 2-pounder guns were octuple mounts. By 1939, the torpedo tubes had been removed in all four ships. ''Kent'' had less weight available for improvements and therefore was not given such an extensive modernisation. While she received the 4-inch armour belt and the double 4-inch gun mounts like her sisters, she retained the rotating catapult and after superstructure, with an additional fire-control position mounted on a distinctive lattice structure aft. Her anti-aircraft armaments were improved as for her sisters, but the multiple 2-pounders and their directors were carried aft, by the lattice structure. The naval historian H. Trevor Lenton estimates that despite the best attempts, none of these ships stayed within the treaty limits; ''Kent''{{'}}s full load displacement was 14,197 tons, indicating a standard displacement of around 10,600 tons. Lenton expresses doubts whether the Admiralty ever informed the Government of these excesses, as with war imminent, "there were more pressing demands on their time".<ref name="lenton"/>{{Page needed|date=January 2020}} Another historian, Leo Marriott, gives an alternative displacement of 10,300 tons and notes that it was "unofficially accepted" by the UK, USA, Italy, France and Japan that refits could allow ships to exceed the London treaty limits by up to 300 tons.<ref>Marriot (2005) c.3, para. 9</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)