Naval History Forums

Hello all,

I would like to hear what are your opinions on the German "O" Class battlecruisers. How would you compare them with, let's say, the USN Alaskas, considering both types would have had almost identical displacement and similar commissioning periods? I think we could have a good civil discussion about it.

Best regards from Spain!

Have those displacement figures been validated? On around 8000 tons less than the KGVs, they intended putting out bigger (admittedly fewer) guns, reasonable armour and a higher speed.

The actual ships may have been a little heavier, but those are the design figures. The "O" Class was certainly lighter than the Scharnhorst.

MikeBrough wrote:Have those displacement figures been validated? On around 8000 tons less than the KGVs, they intended putting out bigger (admittedly fewer) guns, reasonable armour and a higher speed.

... My impression is that the armor scheme was designed against heavy cruiser gunfire (8" shells). KGV's armor scheme was designed to protect the ship against 16" shells...

My immediate thoughts were that these vessels would have been far more successful than the Deutschlands as commerce raiders, and far better equipped to face circumstances such as those encountered by Graf Spee.

On the whole however, I don't think they could have benefited much better than other Kriegsmarine warships at large, due to lack of bases from which to operate. Being supplied from tankers and depot ships which, themselves were subject to Allied warship, submarine, and aerial attack in the open ocean wastes, was a significant weakness in any long-term raiding mission.

Otherwise they were --at least, on paper-- probably closer to HMS Renown and Repulse, than to the US large cruisers of the Alaska class.

Thank you for authoring this thread, Mr. Rico, and for my opportunity to comment. I hope it becomes a busy topic!

Dan

I would say it was a weak design - much too weak armour for such an expensive vessel. And what would have been the benefit of a battlecruiser in the time of fast battleships? Designing a battlecruiser in 1940 was definitely going in the wrong direction.

northcape wrote:I would say it was a weak design - much too weak armour for such an expensive vessel. And what would have been the benefit of a battlecruiser in the time of fast battleships? Designing a battlecruiser in 1940 was definitely going in the wrong direction.

Agreed. 2 or 3 8" cruisers would make much more sense.

As it can be read in G&D, the three planned ships of this class (O,P,Q) led to the nickname "Ohne Panzer Quatsch" in the german navy. "Ohne Panzer Quatsch" means "Makes no sense without armour".

northcape wrote:As it can be read in G&D, the three planned ships of this class (O,P,Q) led to the nickname "Ohne Panzer Quatsch" in the german navy. "Ohne Panzer Quatsch" means "Makes no sense without armour".

... But they would have been pretty close to Renown and Repulse as far as armament and armor are considered. And a bit faster, by the way. And that type of ship could have served KGM's interests quite well... especially early war...

Remember the Deutschland class was also under-armored, yet the 3 ships obtained remarkable results in the first year of the war...