Template talk:Leander class cruiser 1931

Cruiser timeline
There is a rationale for which I feel that York should be the preceding class for Leander;


 * The Yorks and Counties were built to the terms of the Washington Naval Conference of 1921, which put down the limit of 10,000 tons standard displacement and 8 inch guns for cruisers. However, they are pre-London Naval Conference 1930, where the distinction between light (6" gun) / heavy (8" gun) cruisers was put down on paper. They are therefore "retrospectively" put in the heavy cruiser pigeonhole.
 * The Royal Navy only built 2 classes of Washington treaty cruisers, which they called 'A' (the Counties) and 'B' (York). As a result of London 1930, they switched to building more, smaller 6 inch cruisers instead. Therefore this is something of a dead end in the RN cruiser family tree.
 * The Leanders were ordered as a direct consequence of cancelling the 2 planned County-type ships Surrey and Northumberland in favour of a smaller, 6-inch gun type.
 * There is little direct link between Emerald and Leander. The former was the ultimate expression of the C / D classes of World War I. They were not built to treaty restrictions. They were only classified as "light" cruisers retrospectively, in light of later treaties.
 * The Leander design borrowed heavily from that of York.

Therefore, in my opinion, and in terms of the progression of orders, technology and British cruiser development, the Leander follows York, and not Emerald. The only reason I can see to put Emerald there is that it is the previous "light" cruiser class. However, there is really no other connection between the designs, and this is in my opinion is a false progression based only on 1 later treaty. For the same reason, I feel it incorrect to put Hawkins in as a heavy cruiser; as it was developed from (what was called at the time) a "light armoured cruiser" and was only given the former classification retrospectively.

Does that make sense? Please let me know your thoughts if you disagree.


 * I don't particularly mean to debate the essentials of what class comes first, or what class can be considered just a run on from a preceding class, but I strongly feel that we should be consistent. At the moment, our List of cruiser classes of the Royal Navy lists light cruisers together in the order that they developed, and the heavy cruisers in the same style, but seperate from an independent to the other classes.  I feel it would be a mistake to try and link across these divides.  If they were originally classed as light cruisers, then they should be listed together as such and the links made within the wider class.  If we try and link between a light cruiser class and then a heavy cruiser, then back to a light cruiser, etc. then we are creating a confusing situation and where really do you draw the line, in that it's a short step from linking from light cruiser to heavy cruiser to battleship to minesweeper to submarine classes which I definately think is too confusing, so I'd be in favour of changing it back to how it was before. Benea 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Emoscopes Talk 17:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RAN Amphion Class
Amphion & Apollo were briefly commissioned into the Royal Navy; Sydney was laid down as Phaeton, but commissioned directly into the RAN. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see someone has changed Amphion Class to Modified Leander Class ("Perth Class"). The RAN used the term Modified Leander Class, so fair enough, however I cannot find a single reference to Perth Class. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 12:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted that change. Not only did it break a few conventions, i.e. the use of capitals in 'Leander Class Cruiser', they did spend a period under the names of Amphion and Apollo, and there would also be a case for including Phaeton as well as that was the name she was built, launched and fitted out under.  Therefore they should be included as part of an RN section and not just removed.  Also the name of the Amphion as a subclass should also not be removed just because that was not how they were known as for much of their lives.  Amphion/Perth class or Amphion/Modified Leander class would give the nod to all their service. Benea (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The convention, as far as I am aware, is that ship articles are known by the name under which that they spent the bulk of their career. We do not have separate articles for Amphion, Apollo or Phaeton, and Perth, Sydney and Hobart barely held those names, so an "ex-...." is sufficient.

Benea, I'm not sure what standards of the "RNZN" you are referring to (in the edit summary). I think you mean the RAN and it has always named the classes of ships it has used. (To cite a more recent example, the Alvaro de Bazan class frigate is going to be known as the "Hobart class" by the RAN.) The name "Perth class" is less common than "Modified Leander class", but has been used by none other than the Australian Department of Defence: "More accurately, HMAS Sydney II, variously described as a modified Leander or Perth class light cruiser." I can assure you that Australian authorities never refer to Perth, Sydney or Hobart by the British name of a ship that barely saw service with the RN (Amphion). Grant |  Talk  14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah delighted you popped by. Yes, I had mixed the RNZN with the RAN, mea culpa. I remember now you asked that earlier today about HMNZS Achilles (70).  Did you get my reply?  If not, then no we can have two articles about one ship under two names, and indeed do in many cases.  In these cases we don't.  I haven't looked at seeing if they might be split, but if they could feasibly be done, than no there wouldn't be any reason not to.  As it is articles titled Perth, Sydney and Hobart are quite sufficient to cover their careers as as you point out, their RN careers were short and not as notable.  My point stands though really, the RAN's standards are not mandated here, any more than the RNZN's, the RN's, or the USN's would be.  A mention of the RN navy presence (however brief) is in keeping with our conventions, along with a mention of Achilles' turn with the Royal Navy, the Royal New Zealand Navy and the Indian Navy. If you wanted to add Amphion/Modified Leander class, then there isn't any reason why you can't do that, but I remember a similar discussion on the Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran talk page.  Just because the Australian authorities never referred to these ships as anything other than Sydney, Hobart etc may well be true but it is beside the point.  The British only referred to Achilles as Achilles but we acknowledge that to the Indians, she was Delhi.  Benea (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, why are we supposed to call it the Amphion class or "group" or whatever? What convention are you referring to? Grant  |  Talk  15:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that was what they were also called in addition to the Perth class . Both are acceptable, and we can use both.  Why is only the Australian version acceptable to you?  The Amphion/Perths were built as a subgroup, that is to say a modified design of the Leanders.  They were distinctly different enough to warrant a specific designation, but remained as part of the overall Leander design.  A similar example is that of the County class cruisers, which also had separate subclasses.  Take a look at the template for the Flower class corvette, where many ships served with a wide range of navies, swapping in and out as they were sold on from one to another.  They changed names BUT they are listed as HMS so and so when they were with the Royal Navy, HMCS such and such with the Canadians and so on.  We are trying to give a full account of these careers.  With the Delhi/Achilles we list her with the RN as HMS, the RNZN as HMNZS and the Indian Navy as Delhi.  Not just Delhi (ex-Achilles). Benea (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me! Benea (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)