Talk:Zara/@comment-26375216-20160210191609/@comment-24093250-20160211082051

Some naval historians argue that the Japanese heavy cruisers tended to be overarmed, and their torpedo tubes could be a liability as well as a bonus.

In terms of armor, the Takao-class was inferior to Zara; it's not correct to consider internal bulkheads as pure armor, since the metal with which they were built was not the same as used for armor. And in this respect, it seems that Italian face-hardened armor was of excellent quality.

At long ranges her guns suffered from high dispersion; but one thing they did hit, the Y turret of HMS Berwick. Small thing, sure, but an improvement from "not hitting anything". Also, this shows an edge that is ignored: the Zara-class had well-protected turrets that had a reasonable chance of surviving to being hit by a 203 mm gun. All other heavy cruisers had paper-thin turrets and barbettes, so one hit, one turret out of commission.

What cruisers were best than her? All the British ones had way less armor, and their guns don't seem too good. Same goes for the French ones, save for the Algerie. The US early ones suffered from the same issues to their guns as the Zara, and were still insufficiently protected. The Japanese ones not only were bigger (so, easier target), they were all top-heavy, so much that they had to be rebuilt (did the Zara have to?), and their design ended up being criticized as attempting too much in too small of a hull size.

True, the Zara had some things going against her. But in daytime she would have been a fearsome opponent.