Another attempt to resolve pollution of the very enjoyable Garibaldi thread.
Different navies have different requirements and it's far from a given that the "types" preferred by the larger ones are a good fit for them, far less the classification, both contemporary and subsequent.
The Garbaldi proved to be a very nice fit for some navies, not just because they were readily available but because the design followed different ctiteria than most other contemporary "cruisers". IMO small navies shoulf avoif the trap of attempting to copy what larger ones are building but "think out of the box" about what's best for them to achieve their county's stragegic goals with the available budget.
Lookking at "what next" after the Garibaldi, two designs come to mind, but one is a "battleship" while the other is a "cruiser".
Comparing Constitución/Swiftsure and Pisa is a very good illustation of Fisher's kitten/cat argument. I prefer the Italian design for the additional knots, that probably owns a lot to the designers thinking "cruiser" rather than "battleship". The Garibaldi's main weakness was speed was a bit too low to reliably outrun what they couldn't outfight though in the triple expansion coal burning era, not to mention no anti fouling paint, actual speed in combat could be heavily influenced by "non design" elements.
Pisa was probably cheaper than contemporary large ACs that were a couple of thosand tonns, is not more, larger, the difference comming at the cost of range, but she was not intended for commerce warfare.
Different navies have different requirements and it's far from a given that the "types" preferred by the larger ones are a good fit for them, far less the classification, both contemporary and subsequent.
The Garbaldi proved to be a very nice fit for some navies, not just because they were readily available but because the design followed different ctiteria than most other contemporary "cruisers". IMO small navies shoulf avoif the trap of attempting to copy what larger ones are building but "think out of the box" about what's best for them to achieve their county's stragegic goals with the available budget.
Lookking at "what next" after the Garibaldi, two designs come to mind, but one is a "battleship" while the other is a "cruiser".
Comparing Constitución/Swiftsure and Pisa is a very good illustation of Fisher's kitten/cat argument. I prefer the Italian design for the additional knots, that probably owns a lot to the designers thinking "cruiser" rather than "battleship". The Garibaldi's main weakness was speed was a bit too low to reliably outrun what they couldn't outfight though in the triple expansion coal burning era, not to mention no anti fouling paint, actual speed in combat could be heavily influenced by "non design" elements.
Pisa was probably cheaper than contemporary large ACs that were a couple of thosand tonns, is not more, larger, the difference comming at the cost of range, but she was not intended for commerce warfare.
statistics: Posted by TOS1956 — 8:47 AM - Today — Replies 4 — Views 79