Talk:Dido-class cruiser

This 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 articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European

This 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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dido-class cruiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66kq6FAdT?url=http://www.world-war.co.uk/index.php3 to http://www.world-war.co.uk/index.php3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify?

Post war modernisation proposals were limited by the tight war emergency design which offered inadequate space and weight for the fire control and magazines for four or five 3-inch twin 70 turrets combined with the fact the heavy-to-handle 5.25-inch shells[2] fitted when the cruisers were built had a large burst shock which made them a more effective high level AA weapon than post war RN 4.5-inch guns

Sentence is a bit long, and appears to combine two contradictory ideas: a) postwar retrofits were limited by tight design (bad) b) 5.25 were more effective high altitude weapon (sounds good)

not sure where the "twin 70" fits into the mix Feldercarb (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In context, I believe "twin 70" refers to twin-mounted 3"/70 Mark 26 guns in 4 or 5 turrets. Twin 3"/70 guns were considered better than the underpowered 20mm Oerlikons for stopping Japanese aircraft, and with a higher probability of kill (mostly due to higher rate of fire) than the 5"/38 single guns on most DDs and DEs in the Pacific theatre.

But yes, I agree, that sentence it very unwieldy, and severely lacking in commas, at the very least. — sbb (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]