HMS cruiser London

The London is one of the most interesting examples of a warship totally trans. formed by modernisation. It is hard to see in her any trace of the elegant, almost Edwa-diM grace of the 'County' class cruisers, but she was in fact a sister of the Sussex. The only external clues to the transformation lay in her flush deck, with its high freeboard, and the familiar shape of the twin 8-inch gun turrets.

Like her sisters Devonshire. Shropshire and Sussex, she was a unit of the second group of 'County' class cruisers built under the 1925 Estimates. The most pernicious effect of the Washington Disarmament Treaty was the way in which it encouraged the world's major navies to build up to the limits of tonnage and gI,Jn-power, rather than build a type of warship suited to each navy's needs. The 'Counties' were the most obvious example of this, for they violated one canon of British cruiser-design; they were too large and too costly to be built in large numbers, even if there had been no quantitative limit imposed by the Treaty.
Costing as much as a pre-1914 battle-cruiser, they were a tremendous drain on the Naval Estimates, without having any clear-cut superiority over a smaller design which cost less.

The Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy built thirteen 'Counties' between them, followed by two experimental types, Exeter and York , which displaced only 8,000 tons. Their foreign rivals built similar ships, and in the case of Japanese and German cruisers, any superiority in design was considerably assisted by a flagrant disregard for the conditions of either the Washington Treaty or the London Treaty which succeeded it. Both these nations built heavy cruisers which seemed to offer greatly increased efficiency when compared to British and American designs, but it was only confirmed after 1945 that their true standard displacement had exceeded 13,000 tons.

By 1936, with growing evidence of the aggressive intentions of Germany, Italy and Japan, the existence of fast, heavily protected 8-inch gun cruisers in European waters and in the Far East weighed heavily on the minds of the Director of Naval Construction and his staff. The 'Counties' needed some measure of modernisation to enable them to make a good showing against such cruiser-types as the German Hipper and the Japanese Mogami. As a first step the five British Kents (but not the Australian pair) were taken in hand in 1935;
waterline belt armour was added, thus remedying the most glaring weakness, and an effective anti-aircraft armament was provided. As an indication of the low ebb to which British naval aviation had sunk under R.A.F. control, it was necessary to waste valuable space and topweight to provide a hangar and catapult for reconnaisance aircraft, a requirement which should have been met by carrierborne aircraft.

The money spent on the Kents in 1936-37 gave no conspicuously handsome return, for it provided merely the bare essentials for survival under modern war conditions. It was realised that the heavy cruisers were like the old battleships, needing drastic reconstruction rather than long refits to make them truly battleworthy. Accordingly the Londons and the Dorsetshires were earmarked for a wholesale rebuilding; this would give the Royal Navy the nucleus of a tough cruiser force which could defend trade-routes against German and Japanese ships of similar power.

This ambitious plan was cut short by the Munich crisis of 1938 and the consequent acceleration of British rearmament plans. To avoid laying up too many cruisers London was chosen as the only one to undergo full reconstruction. The wisdom of this deision is obvious now, for London was not finished until 1941. As tlJIe main problem was armour, machinary and boilers were replaced  by new equipment of 15 per cent less weight, which allowed for generous side protection up to 5 inches thick, and measuring 250 x 18 feet. At the same time the old superstructure and funnels were replaced by a two-funnelled layout modelled on the new Fiji class.

London and her three sisters served in the 1st Cruiser Squadron, in the Mediterranean from 1929, and London herself was paid off in 1938 for extensive modernisation at Portsmouth Dockyard. On recommissioning in mid-1941 she joined the Home Fleet, and took part in many operations, including the ill-fated convoy PO.17. She served in the Far East in 1944-45, and also after the end of hostilities. Her last action was in 1949, when she unsuccessfully tried to cover the withdrawal of the frigate Amethyst in the Yangtse. On that occasion, the narrowness of the river prevented the cruiser from using her overwhelming superiority in firepower to full advantage, and she had to continue upstream without achieving anything useful. After twenty years of service the old ship was sold on 3 January 1950 for scrapping, and arrived at the Barrow yard of T. W. Ward Ltd. later that month.

The drawing shows H.M.S. London as she appeared on completion of her refit in mid-1941. Of special interest is the enormous bridge, almost as big as that of Warspite or Renown. The aircraft hangars are disposed to port and starboard of the forefunnel, as in the SoLJthampton and Fiji class cruisers. The multiple pom-poms on top of these hangars are of the eight-barrelled type, however , unlike the four-barrelled type found in the newer cruisers; this was due to the greater beam of the London, which allowed far more topweight. The weight of the hangars was partially offset by having a fixed (non rotating) extending catapult fitted athwartships between the funnels, and capable of launching on either beam.

The 8-inch turrets remain unaltered, excepting the light anti-aircraft guns added on their crowns. Curiously, the .5-inch machine-guns have been sited on 'Y' turret, whereas they would normally have been sited on 'X' turret, as in Sussex and others. The after superstructure remains almost unchanged from what it was before reconstruction, apart from the tripod and the searchlight towers. These towers are another unusual feature, and one of the three 44-inch searchlights was replaced by Type 273 radar in 1942.

The radar installations include all the new sets available in 1941, a Type 279 air warning type on both masts, a Type 284 with two aerials, one on top of the 8-inch director and the second across its front, and Type 285 on the high-angle directors controlling the anti-aircraft guns. In addition there are Type 282 pom-pom directors projecting from either side of the hangar, an arrangement unique to the London. A significant omission is a surface search set (Type 273), which was only added in 1942 (see earlier note).

The London never engaged an enemy 8-inch gun cruiser during the War, so the efficiency of her modemisation was not tested. However, her record of reliabiiity and her efficient equipment would have made her a worthy opponent for any contemporary foreign cruiser. Certainly her freeboard would have been an advantage against German or Japanese ships, and with her guns firing around every 11.4 seconds (as achieved during tests in the Kent in 1928) she had little to fear from a ship carrying a larger number of guns. She stands out as the most powerful British cruiser of her day, with the possible exception of the Belfast and Edinburgh, which had protection against 8-inch shells but relied on heavy 6-inch gunfire to neutralise any advantage in gun-calibre.