Leanders

[Gary]

Hello.

Did all of the Leanders recieve twin 4 inch mounts (secondary battery) to replace the old singles?

[Byron Angel]

Hello.

Did all of the Leanders recieve twin 4 inch mounts (secondary battery) to replace the old singles?

..... Following taken from Raven & Roberts, "British Cruisers of WW2" -

LEANDER was not fitted with twin 4in until sometime after her damage in July 1943. She underwent temporary repairs in Auckland NZ Aug-Dec 1943, then to Boston for permanent repair Jan 1944. Boston repair completed Aug 1945, then to Rosyth and Portsmouth for completion of refit. She is listed as carrying twin 4in mounts after this two years repair/refit process.

ORION never fitted with twin 4in mounts.

ACHILLES fitted with twin 4in mounts during her April 1943 - May 1944 Portsmouth refit.

AJAX never fitted with twin 4in mounts.

NEPTUNE never fitted with twin 4in mounts.


Byron

[Gary]

Thanks Byron

[Byron Angel]

Thanks Byron

My pleasure, Gary. Glad to have been of service.


Byron

[paulcadogan]

AJAX never fitted with twin 4in mounts.

Then how come models of Ajax (e.g. Airfix 1/600), line drawings of Ajax and the photo below, have Ajax sporting four twin 4-inch mounts?



Also other pics posted on this site show her with twin mounts:

http://www.world-war.co.uk/index.php3



Paul

[Byron Angel]

AJAX never fitted with twin 4in mounts.

Then how come models of Ajax (e.g. Airfix 1/600), line drawings of Ajax and the photo below, have Ajax sporting four twin 4-inch mounts?



Also other pics posted on this site show her with twin mounts:

http://www.world-war.co.uk/index.php3



Paul

Gary, I owe you an apology.

Paul's most recent post caused me to look further into this matter. I had originally noted that the class had completed with single 4in AA and then consulted the "War Modifications" notes provided by the author in the appendices. After Paul's post, I read through the the chapter text on design/development of the LEANDER class more closely and found the correct answer tucked away at the very end of the chapter. The fitting of the twin 4in mounts had in fact been largely accomplished before the outbreak of war and hence were not "War Modifications".

Quoting the correct refit data as follows -

"Prior to 1939, modifications were minor compared to those enjoyed by the older COUNTY class, and consisted mainly of improving the anti-aircraft capability. This took the form of replacing the 4in single mounts by 4in twins in the same positions, increasing the theoretical AA capability by approximately 70 per cent. These were fitted as each ship came in for refit between 1936 and 1938, except for ACHILLES, which was not due for this improvement until 1940."

Thanks for catching my error, Paul.

Byron

[Gary]

Thanks fella's

[paulcadogan]

Thanks for catching my error, Paul.

No problem Byron...

As an aside, it was Exeter that, after the River Plate engagement, had her single 4-inch secondaries replaced by 4 twin mounts.

Paul

[t-geronimo]

Were Raven/Roberts a little bit confused about Achilles? Or am I?

If I understand them correct, the Leander-Class had 4 x 4" Mk V in single mountings Mk IV when completed.

In the main chapter about this class they write:
"This took the form of replacing the 4in single mounts by 4in twins in the same positions, increasing the theoretical AA capability by approximately 70 per cent. These were fitted as each ship came in for refit between 1936 and 1938, except for Achilles, which was not due for this improvement until 1940."

In appendix 2 (war modifications) they write for Achilles:
"1942: all single 4" replaced by an unknown number of single 20-mm-mountings."
"Portsmouth, 1 April 1943 - 20 May 1944: single 4"-guns replaced by twin mountings."


Are they mixing up something, am I understanding something wrong or are armament changes for Achilles really that bad recorded?

[paulcadogan]

I think your info for Achilles is correct.

If you browse the pictures of her on the site I gave earlier, you'll find a couple early war photos showing the midship section with the single mounts. The 1944 or later pictures show her with twin mounts.

Paul

[maxs75]

OK, but which kind of weapon did Achilles carry when she was damaged by a japanese aircraft?
8x6"
No 4"
No 2 pdr.
some 20 mm
8-12 MGs

Is it correct?

Max

[dunmunro]

This was Achilles armament after her 1943/44 refit:

The rearming of the Achilles involved the removal of one of her after-turrets, thus reducing the number of her 6-inch guns from eight to six. Four additional 4-inch dual-purpose guns were mounted, increasing the number of these weapons to eight. The four two-pounder pom-pom guns were retained and the close-range antiaircraft armament was increased by fitting eleven 20-millimetre Oerlikon guns. The fighting efficiency of the ship was increased by the installation of the latest types of radar and other equipment in which rapid developments had been made during the war. The appearance of the Achilles was altered by substituting tripod masts for those of the single-pole type.
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-W ... 56-mention

So prior to the hit, she was armed with 8 x 6in, 4 x 4in, 1 x quad pom-pom and several 20mm.

Edit: she may have been fitted with 4 x quad pom-poms and probably some quad .5"

[maxs75]

Thank you very much.

I would say that probably she did not have 4 quad 2 pdr, but maybe one quad. Some ships had a quad 2pdr fitted instead of the aircraft catapult. Do you know if the catapult was retained after the late 1942 refit?


I asked in another forum and the answer was:

The normally reliable 'British Cruisers of the Second World War' by Raven & Roberts states that Achilles had all her single 4in HA armament replaced by a "unknown number" of single 20mm mountings in 1942, I can find no photographic evidence to support this. Nevertheless, if this report is correct (removing a cruiser's entire heavy AA battery would certainly be unusual if not unprecedented) then this arrangement could only have been a temporary measure. In any case the standard Mk XIX twin 4in mountings (and 4 quadruple 2pdr's) were certainly not fitted until this ship underwent her major repair at Portsmouth in 43/44.

If the 4" guns were removed, what could have been the reason?
That rearming is really unusual. I can't understand why. I believe that she was not overweight by that time.

Max

[RF]

Interesting that the refit reduced the main armament by a quarter. Wasn't the Achilles therefore more of a lightweight in a surface action?

[maxs75]

No it wasn't the main armament removed. The main was 8 6" (4 twins) while the AA was 4 single 4".
It was the 4" that were removed (? why ?)
Max