Worth’s book does three things well:
1) Defines the cruiser designation in a historical context with special attention to “Treaty Cruisers.”
2) Explains how armor layout was as much art as science and how that renders many standardized references on the topic moot or misleading.
3) Compares Treaty Cruisers across navies in Med and Pacific contexts.I found most of it fascinating and read it through in one sitting. I also share most of Mr. Worth’s biases. But it bears mentioning that:
1) There is little discussion of torpedo or AAA doctrine and virtually none on underwater or AAA protection.
2) His choices for “best” are not classes of cruisers but ‘one-offs’
3) This pamphlet cries out for comparison tables with a variety of weightings.Yes, Worth is correct that raw numbers are misleading and on the continuum of data -> information -> knowledge, his discussion quite refreshingly belongs in the realm of knowledge. So, no doubt about it: he’s done his homework and expresses his opinions forcefully. But this publication would have been better if it ALSO organized his decision criteria in tables (not merely in the text,) so that readers could more conveniently assign (or add) their own weightings and arrive at their own conclusions.
Still, this book will be a real eye opener for beginners and a great niche publication for those who have already spent considerable time dwelling on the trade-offs inherent in warship design…as long as they don’t find the price too dear for 40 pages. Btw, interspersed throughout the text are some wonderful black and white “ship portraits” (i.e. pictures) that I’ve never seen published before.
Recent Comments