Shipbucket

Pensacola and SLC didn't have hangars, but they did have relatively robust aircraft handling amidships, and enough clear deck area I can imagine attempting to service aircraft on a relatively long cruise.

I can't imagine perching myself atop a tall centerline catapult and trying to perform maintenance with any real finesse! Although I think men and women were made of more steely stuff back in those days.

Hi Colo,

I've reached out to my contacts in St Petersburg and although they used some artistic license the design is pretty real and in fact pretty close to the drawing. The only major difference is that they have used a mixed triple-twin main battery layout (instead of all twins) and 5"/38 guns/turrets for the secondary battery instead of the 5"/25s given, but this seems to be a reasonable upgrade.

The design can be found on page 203 top of the Cruiser book, titled 4-C. I've included the drawing and the design here:

https://imgur.com/TcBcyMr

https://imgur.com/SBIP42X

Also for those who do not play WOWS:

https://imgur.com/ta211gz

So in fact you drawing can be moved to the Never-weres category IMHO.

I got more or less the same answer from one of the WG guys on the WOWS reddit -- that Dallas was "based on" the Scheme 4C. "Based on" is about all I could possibly give it, with all the artistic license taken with the design. There are so many obvious differences I'm having a hard time believing WG gave 4C anything other than a cursory overview.

Obvious areas of 4C that don't match Dallas at all include the machinery and uptake arrangements, basically the entire forward superstructure, gun armament (which you've noted), hull break location, length, etc. 5" mounts abeam the bridge on the 4C design do not appear on Dallas. The 4C drawing does not indicate main battery gun director types, but I suspect the USN designers were going for Mark 31 directors (as mounted on the New Orleans class cruisers), and not the Mark 34 directors shown on Dallas. I don't like WG's insistence that this ship is a real preliminary design when it very clearly isn't; at most, they can say it's "inspired by" 4C.

Given the differences there is no way I'd feel comfortable moving this to the "never built" section and uploading to the site.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Well most of the paper designs and non-historical upgrades are falling into the same category in the game, with a hefty dose of artistic license taken. They actually have a real shipbuilding engineer on their staff so probably they are not so far off.

In case of 4C it was a preliminary sketch design only, not a detailed, down-selected one so I think what they have done to it is within the acceptable limits (maybe not the main battery change). Same for Seattle (T9 ship, based on Worcester class prelim).

On the directors from the drawing it appears they got at least the order of placement right, the rest (type is hard to tell at best), but since this design is concurrent/immediately subsequent to the Brooklyn class design effort I'd take those ships as a base reference.

If they were right or not is another discussion entirely, but I certainly would not consider the 4C and the Dallas the same ship in any way.

(this comparision is just an quick edit and does not take into acount the fact that 4C and Dallas were not the same length.)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I think we're basically barking up the same tree here.
Yes, this seems to be trotted out whenever questions are raised about their designs. I'm sure from an engineering perspective the design is sound and the hullform is correct and has a proper cB or whatever other springsharp-y nonsense applies -- I am personally not interested in this stuff as I am not a naval architect. All I can comment on are irregularities in detail stemming from my own years of research into USN surface combatant fit & design practice of the time.
Again, this is a fair assessment -- I'm not disputing that Dallas was "based on" 4C. I think it should be fairly obvious that 4C was modified way beyond the original sketch to create Dallas (is really all I'm saying here).
Yes, I'd stand by my original comment about 4C being designed with Mark 31 directors for the 6" guns though. The darkened spotting glasses turned fore & aft on the sketch seem to indicate this. The New Orleans class cruisers had these directors above their pilothouses, with the foundations surrounded by battle lookouts -- this would line up nicely with what WG has portrayed on Dallas, with the director foundations fore and aft surrounded by surface lookout positions with viewing slits.

Anyway, think we've beaten this one to death by now.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

"Anyway, think we've beaten this one to death by now." - so now I hope you will do the original 4C some day (or some other Brooklyn prelims) hehe.

Very nice drawings in this thread as well btw as usual.

Hehe, there are too many real life ships left to draw - maybe some day!

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Somebody had better show me a picture of this "Seattle" Class... Lol

_________________
"It is better to type nothing and be assumed an ass, than to type something and remove all doubt." - Me

Google is your friend. Interested in your take on the design.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)