WesWorld

I put the "cruisers" in quotes because they'll count as capital ships.

Essentially they look like an Italian 8" version of USS Brooklyn, with 15 8" guns, 8 3.9" guns, and solid armor. A little slow for cruisers, and with the now customary HUGE range.

I'm not sure about the TDS being used as a splinter plate: it seems that with the depth of the ship and the height of the belt that most of the area protected by the belt would not be protected by the splinter plate.

Well they started off with 12x203mm but I wanted more firepower. The large range gives more flexibility.

Good catch on hte 40mm inboard plate. It should be about 10m tall, i.e. extending above the waterline to the armour deck.

I would assume that the Agusto Class and the Claudio Class ACRs will be replacing the Conte di Cavour Class and Caio Duilio Class, right?
I like the Claudio class. Reminds me a bit of my Mega Mogami design. :-)

I find it interesting that the Italians (or maybe just RA) say something is a poor idea, and then do it for Italy.

I'm wondering why Italy didn't go for the "Midrange Tonnage" or the Japanese split Capital Ship tonnage suggestions from 1929 and 1932 when they are building these Large Cruisers. Such items would seem to be to their advantage at this point in time. Its not that they can't build these vessels under Capital Ship tonnage, just that they wouldn't have to give up their remaining battleships to build these Cruisers in numbers, nor would they need to be "sneaky" about things.

They didn't vote for it because then everyone else would be able to counter the ships they are building now.

There is a fine line of cost/effectiveness in these ships. It is possible to build 2.5 - 3 of them instead of a battleship. They can be in many more places at once and are much more suited to any scenario Italy is likely to find itself in.

Excellent perception from Atlantis - not quite total, but good enough.

..that and the overall CT limits for nations would go up as well for a new type of ships.