Talk:O-class battlecruiser

Build time

Does Garzke & Dulin specifically say 3 years? 'Cause Groner's says 3.5 years for the estimated build time. I generally trust what Groner's says (since he used official blueprints and other original documents for his work). Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The book does say three years, but please change that; it was most likely rounded off. Or we could put 3^{ref to G&D}–3.5^{ref to Groner} years... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Since they were only estimates, it'd probably be better to include both. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Order

How do we want the sections ordered? Specifications followed by how the design came about, vice versa, or the specs between the P class summary and the battlecruiser section? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally prefer to have the "how the design came about" section first, followed by the specifications. I think the "Battlecruisers" section should go second, since it's also part of the "how the design came about" bit. What do you think? Parsecboy (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. :) Moving now.

Interestingly, only about 1 1/2 pages of Garzke and Dulin are devoted to the design history. The one before that are for the P class, the next 7 1/2 are about the specs, and it then wraps up with a "summary"/critique of their design with a little new info on what the ships were intended to do. Got a ways to go yet, but I'll get it to DYK-worthiness by Saturday at the latest followed by GA-level sometime in the next two weeks (whenever I have an uninterrupted long amount of time on the computer...) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty good plan. I've just about used up Groner's for all of the technical data, so anything that G&D can add would be great. I just checked my Conway's All the World's Battleships, and it has a short listing of the class (but interestingly calls them "P class battlecruisers" (I guess a legacy from them being beefed up P class cruisers), but it doesn't say anything that isn't already in Groner's. I suppose I could replace a couple of the Groner refs with this one, so we have more diversity of references. Do you think it's worth the effort? (normally I wouldn't worry about it, but it was raised at Moltkes FAC). Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be adding it in sometime when I've got time. If you want to add cites, double cite them! 2 cites > 1. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Image

Does Garzke & Dulin have any schematics for the ship? Groner's has one that gives a side and top-down view that I could scan in, but it's not my favorite :/ I can scan it in if you want me to though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a few, but I have no access to a scanner when I am at home; the local library does not have one. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, there is also a stern-on painting by Richard Allison of the ships on p. 350 of A&N BB of WWII (caption here, no preview for the painting though), and upon further reflection, I think that I may be able to get to a scanner if I have too... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds promising :) As I recall, the problem you had with that painting of the 1047s was that you couldn't provide the copyright holder, which won't be a problem here. Now just find a scanner! Parsecboy (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be attempting :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about the painting

The painting looks wrong; it looks like the ship has two main turrets aft. We can’t see the bow of the ship. I am wondering if this is actually a view of what the H Class battleship would have looked like, the number of aft turrets and the two smokestacks make it seem so. The O class was, according to the text, supposed to have only one aft main battery turret. Or am I to assume that the superimposed turret in the painting is actually a pair of 15cm secondary guns? 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

One pair of 15cm guns was placed a superfiring turret over the rear main battery, see the paragraph on the secondary battery. Parsecboy (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Which main gun info is correct?

Conflicting info on the main armament size/caliber. The first mention in this article shows them as "380 mm (15 in)/47 caliber guns", while they are next mentioned as "38.1 cm (15.0 in) L/47 SK C/34", while that itself links to the 38 cm SK C/34 naval gun article, which gives the length as 52 calibers. Which is right? Russ3Z (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably really late in answering this question, but both are the same gun. There's a lot of inconsistencies with German naval gun caliber length (for example the 15 cm TbtsK C/36 naval gun is often given the caliber-length of 55-calibers (15 cm/55) long but in reality was actually 48-calibers (15 cm/48) long). In regards to the O-class' main-battery, I think this excerpt from NavWeaps would answer the question:

"Used on the famous Bismarck class battleships, this weapon is usually - but incorrectly - referred to as being 47 calibers long, but it was actually 51.66 calibers in length."

Aeris97 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not incorrect to refer to either gun by either caliber (and in fact, the "wrong" one is actually the "right" one, i.e., the one the Germans used). The Germans designated the caliber by the length of the gun barrel itself, while most other navies included the breech assembly. That's where the discrepancy comes from. Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The "Renderings"

The renderings used for this ship are very clear screenshots from World of Warships, and the ship features a fictional modernization (nonexistent 128 and 55mm guns). Is this acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaparrot876 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not - I'll remove them. I wondered about them when they were added, but I don't play the game and didn't have solid evidence that they're from it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Just checked to confirm this myself. They're images of the World of Warships vessel Siegfried with the paint stripped off. WarGaming has a huge habit of bastardizing historical vessels so it's best to remove them. 124.170.164.48 (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I found a WoW wiki with images from the game, and compared the two versions that have been uploaded here with this one, for instance. It's very clear that they're the same models. Rust spots are in the same places, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Is File:O Class Battlecruiser Germany 1941 3.png not also a copyvio? (And unfortunately that's been uploaded by the same person who did the rendering at the top of the article.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• OclassCruiser2Dmap4-eBigFlagalt.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• OclassCruiser1-23BigGuns1A1hullMid.blend.jpg
• OclassCruiser1-24ShipRearAngleA1hullMid.blend.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)