G' Day crew,
This thread goes back to some lengthy discussions we had while doing some preliminary research for a Med Campaign awhile back. After quite a lot of digging and discussion using data that had not been available when the Ship Log stats were originally developed, we determined that the Italian Zara class was undervalued and a revision was in order. While the Med project is still in the que, behind several other projects being finished first, it's time to incorporate the revision. Here is my conclusion and rationale without getting into the depth of many extensive discussions and data reviews.
1. The Zaras should be increased to eight Hull Boxes. The Hull Boxes in the Ship Logs are based primarily on standard displacement, and more recent data makes it clear that the Zara's standard displacement is inline with the later US heavy cruiser classes such as the Baltimore's and the Wichita - not to mention later classes - which used a similar design approach to provide a cruiser with substantial protection and size to withstand hits from other cruisers. It's been disclosed for some time that the later US cruisers had considerably more than the "10,000 ton" standard displacement listed in all the old, traditional sources. In addition, while most Italian ships are viewed as being lightly built (due to the general Italian design approach and the lasting effects of British propaganda), the Zaras were not. Their design was a significant departure from the normal Italian approach. A review of them using modern sources indicates a sturdy, well thought out design more akin to the later US heavy cruisers. An advanced design with size, sturdy construction, compartmentalization and protection to take a fair amount of damage and keep on functioning. Quite far from the "treaty clad" designs that dominated most of the interwar period. The RMI even conceived that they could take a place in the battle line in an emergency against the anticipated French naval opponents if needed. Eight Hull Boxes reflects the sturdy design (unlike other Italian cruisers and destroyers) and brings them in line with their contemporaries in other navies.
2. The hull armor for the Zaras and the US cruisers mentioned above will be maintained at CA The classifications used in GQ 3.3 for vertical armor are CA = 4" - 5" and BD = 6" - 8". I deliberately left a gap between the classifications to allow for unique ships that didn't fit easily within the normal boundaries. Ships which are right at the lower edge of these ranges are cases where judgement applies. Further, the Hull classification in GQ 3.3 is also used to reflect hull size, compartmentalization, sturdiness and the extent of damage columns on the various bomb, gunfire, mine and torpedo damage CRTs. A BD classification reflects a much larger (in effect a small capital ship) type hull on these CRTs. To rate the Zaras and other cruisers listed in the above post with BD Hull armor would require special, complex adjustment rules for each of these damage CRTs. These ships are cruisers, large and well protected, but clearly cruisers in size, compartmentalization and ability to withstand damage from bomb, mine shell and torpedo hits. In the case of the Zaras, it's easy: 150mm maximum belt armor = 5.9", a little less than the minimum BD classification. They are CAs. That also applies to the US cruisers listed in the above post as most of them are right at or on the lower cusp with less than 6" belt armor or belts that range between 6" - 4" along their hull sides. Armor falling just at or a little below the minimum BD armor rating does not justify a BD rating in the larger context of various types of damage. Thus, within the GQ.3.3 system, they remain cruisers.
3. The Zaras should have their turret armor increased to BD. This is a more difficult judgement call. They are right at the lower margin of the BD armor range, but a BD classification provides a reasonable reflection of the effect of their heavily armored capacity and well armored barbettes against the lighter and less protected British and French cruisers in the Med. It also does not affect the damage column used on the damage CRTs. Given that this is a tough call, we playtested moving the Zaras to both BD (BD) ratings and CA (BD) ratings in the GQ 3.3 system. The CA (BD) rating worked effectively to reflect they were larger, better protected and a tough challenge for their european cruiser opponents, while the BD (BD) rating made them unrealistically dominant and significantly distorted combat results. So, the CA (BD) rating is a sensible change to reflect the strong Italian design, quite different from their other cruisers. Hence, this will become an official GQ 3.3 revision.
4. The US cruisers will retain their existing turret armor ratings. The Baltimores and Wichita are already rated CA (BD)which is a fair reflection of these tough ships with 8" turret faces and 7" or more barbettes. The New Orleans class on the other hand had 8" turret faces, but only 5" barbettes (6.5" in two cases) which puts the composite main arment protection at the lower cusp of the BD rating at best. And, the Brooklyns and Clevelands - dear as they are to my heart - have turret faces and barbettes right at the lower limit of the BD rating. Playtesting with the higher BD turret rating for these classes made them truly unrealistically dominant - especially the Brooklyns and Clevelands with rapid fire capacity at night, etc. Thus, my determination is to keep the New Orleans, Brooklyn and Cleveland classes at the original CA turret armor rating.
Some of these choices could in theory be called either way. I applied judgement to finalize the "on the edge" classification decisions to reflect historical type results within the interrelated GQ 3.3 systems and CRTs - which has been borne out by playtesting the proposed alternatives. You, of course, can make your own decisions. I provided the fairly extensive explanation above to assist you in reaching your own conclusions.
I have updated the Italian RMI Ship Log sheet to incorporate the change in the Zaras' armor classifications to CA (BD) and eight Hull Boxes. This will be posted in the Bonus files in the next couple of days for your download and use. It will be considered an official revision. Those that do not agree can continue to use the original Ship Log sheet as is.
LONNIE