Talk:Dido-class cruiser

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.

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

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)


 * 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. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 20:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)