The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the advent of war with Great Britain,
Adolf Hitler's
Plan Z stipulated that the O class battlecruisers would be tasked with destroying
convoys before they could deliver their cargo to the British?
Current status: Good article
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
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)reply
The book does say three years, but please change that; it was most likely rounded off. Or we could put 3ref to G&D–3.5ref to Groner years... —Ed(Talk •
Contribs) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Since they were only estimates, it'd probably be better to include both.
Parsecboy (
talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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."
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply