The Royal Navy's Crown Colony class cruisers of the 1930s/40s baffles me. They were designed essentially as scaled-down versions of the previous Southhampton/Edinburgh class light cruisers to conform to the new 8,000 ton treaty limit. But as far as I can tell, the British didn't really get anything new out of utilizing this scaled-down design other than political acceptibility. Most sources state that the Crown Colonies cut back on armor and, from what I can recall, machinery, so they just seem like less capable and more cramped Southhamptons.
Did they have any technical advantages whatsoever over the Southhamptons? Were the Crown Colonies actually more economical to use? I'm wondering why the British didn't just revert to the earlier larger light cruiser designs, which could have been fitted with heavier armor, would've had more room for technical upgrades, and would have been more stable. It seems like the RN really shot itself in the foot in deciding to go with a cut-price Southhampton.
I've previously discussed the 'Crown Colony' class here, albeit from a more technical standpoint. As far as the reasoning behind them goes, political acceptability was a huge part of it. The Royal Navy had to, as a matter of policy, stick to the treaty limits. The Second London Treaty was a key achievement for a British government that had to assuage the large pacifist section of the British population. Equally importantly, by preventing another naval arms race, it would keep down the costs of the Royal Navy's building program. The British could not break the treaty limits, as to do so would negate their hard work establishing the treaties and getting other nations to agree to them. The earlier smaller designs, like the Arethusas or Leanders, were too small to fight the larger cruiser designs that Japan, Italy and the USA were constructing, while the 'Town's were too big for the treaty limits. A scaled-down 'Town' was the only solution.