Treaty weight constrained enclosed Tribal-class mounts

Could an early twin 4.7-inch dual-purpose turret have given Tribal-class destroyers enclosed mounts and better anti-aircraft performance?

The treaty-era Tribals probably lacked the weight margin for a safe enclosed turret, but later enlarged ships could have adopted such a mount after treaty limits disappeared.

The comment imagines an early upper-deck twin mount that could improve Tribals, cruisers, and later Battle-class destroyers. The treaty-limited Tribal design probably could not carry a fully enclosed turret that was both protective and safe, since a badly compromised enclosure might trap an explosion. The later 4.5-inch upper-deck mounting took time because designers had to combine protection, powered movement, and acceptable weight, and the Daring-era solution remained too heavy for a 1937 Tribal. Once treaty limits collapsed, however, a larger next-generation Tribal could plausibly adopt the new twin dual-purpose mounting.