Schlachtkreuzer O

Discussion in 'Warship Builds' started by U.S.S. Arazona, Feb 21, 2013.

  1. U.S.S. Arazona

    U.S.S. Arazona Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Posts:
    191
    So I have finally decided to build the O-class Battlecruiser. Under treaty rules it has 5.5 units with a 25 second speed. It'll end up being 70" long and 8" wide, longer than the Bismarck with the same beam. I'm going to try and design it on the computer and get it cut out by a CNC machine. I have a set of plans for it, I'll resize it on the computer and get part of the design process out of the way this Sunday.
    [​IMG]
     
  2. jstod

    jstod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2012
    Posts:
    1,020
    Location:
    Syracuse, NY
    ok if it is longer then the Bismarck then how does it get the BC classification? Also I believe the Bis 9" wide.
     
  3. U.S.S. Arazona

    U.S.S. Arazona Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Posts:
    191
    It didn't have the armor to be considered a battleship, so it gets classified as a BC. The O and the Bismark both have a 30 m beam, which is 8 and 3/16 inches.
     
  4. jstod

    jstod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2012
    Posts:
    1,020
    Location:
    Syracuse, NY
    Ah I see, damn long BC. Oh and bismarck has a beam of 118ft 1in which roughly comes to 35m according to Conway's and for 1/144 scale it is approx 9.8". I like the look of the O from the drawing you posted but I wonder what made them design it with only 3 main turrets rather then four like the Bis and Tirp. seems odd to me. Well I am interested in seeing your progress on this thread. Good luck!
     
  5. U.S.S. Arazona

    U.S.S. Arazona Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Posts:
    191
    It probably had to do with saving weight and increasing the speed, although I could be wrong. And you are correct, the Bismarck is wider, the place I checked had it marked the same, whoops.
     
  6. Hovey

    Hovey Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    323
    Location:
    Washington
    They were designed to hunt cruisers and convoys. A good roll for a BC and I am sure they would have caused a lot of concern amongst the British admiralty. Having to escort all of their convoys with a protective BB would have been a major drain on resources for them. I like their lines better then Bis/Tirp, but probably a waste of resources given the advances in airpower and having to run past Great Britain just to get a chance to do their job or return to base.
     
  7. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    KM ship designers really seemed to be seriously afflicted with "fighting the last war" syndrome.
     
  8. Hovey

    Hovey Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    323
    Location:
    Washington
    While I generally agree the KM was trying to fight the last war. I don't think that was the case here. They were designed as commerce raiders and would have made good ones. ALL ships were very vulnerable to air power at the start of the war as none of them were carrying enough AA. This problem haunted every navy for several years before radar guided guns came into play. But to defeat GB one has to destroy her supply lines first. Before the great war they were hoping to create a decisive Mahanian battle, plans for WW2 were more akin to a fleet in being and trying to spread the British too thin.
     
  9. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    They make Renown and Repulse seem well armored. Jackie Fisher would have loved them though.
    (if they weren't German that is)
     
  10. Hovey

    Hovey Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    323
    Location:
    Washington
    Yeah Fisher would have loved them despite their being German. He probably would have started a BC arms race over it out of jealously.