Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
AyanoMidori

USS Dallas Inaccuracies

45 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

203
[-ARP-]
Members
423 posts
3,803 battles

I'm reposting this from Shipbucket.com. Someone I know drew the upcoming Dallas from a render. He addressed the errors regarding the design of based on the doctrine and practice of how American cruisers were made at the time.

"I broke with tradition and drew a non-real life ship. ;) Thanks to DeskJetser for the awesome render!
 
WG_Dallas_Notional_1943-06.png
This is the American light cruiser "Dallas" from World of Warships. As far as I can tell, this ship is not based on any particular "spring style" or preliminary design. Indeed I have had trouble figuring out just what exactly it's supposed to be. Main armament is ten 6"/47 rifles in twin and triple turrets (superfiring turrets are triples). WG seems to have invented a twin 6"/47 mount (of the same type used aboard the real life Brooklyn, Cleveland, and Fargo classes) specifically for this ship. Secondary armament are 5"/38 Mark 12 guns (in early twin Mark 29 mounts, a nice touch) and Mark 30 open mounts amidships. I have trouble believing the USN would choose to only mount two open mounts amidships - I suspect another pair would be mounted just forward of the catapult above the hull break. 

The bridge structure seems to be built around a large armored conning tower... certainly a departure for a ship of this size. The forward main battery Mark 34 director sits right on top of the conning tower, which is most likely just an error on the part of the designers as this director required one level of deck penetration, and I don't think the WG artists understood this when designing this ship. The aft Mark 34 has the same issue. There is a chance the structure around the Mark 34 director foundations are intended to "surround" the barbette, but this is contrary to USN design practice as I understand it and I think the placement of these directors is just an oversight. 

Mark 33 directors for 5" gunfire control sit on pedestals above the bridge. Their Mark 4 radars basically require the Mark 34 directors below them to be fitted with the oblong Mark 3 Mod.2 radar. The square Mod.1 radar would be a better choice here but the strange director positioning prohibits it. Early design practice dictated the main battery directors should be placed higher than the secondary battery/DP directors - this was found to be a mistake, as having the AA directors above the main battery directors gave better sky arcs. This problem persisted all the way to the Cleveland class, where it was resolved with the introduction of the "square bridge" Clevelands which mounted their Mark 37 DP directors above their Mark 34s. As this "Dallas" class cruiser is clearly meant to portray some sort of pre-war design, I think the director positioning WG has chosen is an error.

The foremast has a small platform mounting an SA air search radar, and the mainmast (correctly) shows an SG surface search set. The SA air search radar was not fitted to combatant units larger than DDs (and usually only to DEs); a cruiser of the Dallas's importance would at least receive SC or SC-2. The small foretopmast supports a truck light; this is also erroneous, as the SA and SC radar sets could mount a truck light behind the reflector to reduce the need for lighting masts above the radar set. 

The amidships catapult is mounted on the centerline, and there is no aircraft hangar. I am highly skeptical of this as no USN cruiser after the Omaha class shipped aircraft without a hangar of some sort. Cruiser scouts (considered the eyes of the ship in the pre-radar days) were extremely valuable and the designers went to great lengths to make sure they were protected (not so with the BBs, where the aircraft were understood to be expendable gunfire spotters and were expected to be lost). A cruiser of this type does not fit USN doctrine or design practice without a hangar in my opinion.

Finally, the ship is camouflaged in an adapted version of Measure 32/1D (the ship's "permacamo"). Based on the radar fit, gun mountings, and deck equipment, I've dated this design to a time range of late 1942-mid 1943. It's unlikely that this ship, were it real, would be painted in dazzle camouflage while remaining in this configuration, but WG is known for ignoring configuration when creating camouflages so I'm not surprised. A more correct camouflage for this ship would just be overall Navy Blue Measure 21.

Here's the WG version in Measure 21 and the Measure 22 (perhaps it's serving in the Atlantic Fleet?):
 
WG_Dallas_Notional_2_1943-06.png
WG_Dallas_Notional_3_1943-06.png
Finally, because I wanted to challenge myself and see if I was even capable of doing what everyone else here does so easily (draw a non real life ship), I made some edits to the Dallas to hopefully make it a bit more realistic. Adding a hangar was too much work so I didn't bother, but I did add a deck level to the forward superstructure, removed the ridiculous conning tower, added the usual open bridge, and swapped the gun directors to a more realistic (and time appropriate) arrangement. I removed the foremast radar platform and added an SC radar, giving this ship a radar fit comparable to Helena (CL-50) as lost, or the CLAAs through 1944. 
CL_Dallas_1943-06.png
 
Would love to hear everyone's thoughts on these."
Edited by AyanoMidori
  • Cool 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[-ARP-]
Members
423 posts
3,803 battles

Hopefully Wargaming will read this ;)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
23 minutes ago, AyanoMidori said:

Hopefully Wargaming will read this ;)

I hope they will too, but you and I both know the results already (assuming they do).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,502
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,488 posts
3,435 battles

While an interesting read, it's unlikely to be changed this late in the development cycle. As well, WG does have their own in-house naval architect or two on payroll that they have stated in the past as having used to help model the fictional refits as well as their own rendition of mostly period accurate designs for many of the ships in-game.

So what we're getting is their rendition of the Dallas based on whatever designs they picked from. I'm not saying it's right, nor am I saying it's wrong. It's just their interpretation with balance adjustments made for the purposes of the game, which ultimately is the biggest consideration.

That being said, it wouldn't be out of place if it turned out Dallas did need the extra 2 guns and was given it later on at around the 6-12 month check (after the stats normalize sufficiently) as a gun upgrade option. The rest of the setup (AA/secondaries) entirely depends on what WG wants/needs at T6 for the ship. As well, the unique 2-3-3-2 setup would parallel the newly downtiered Pensacola. Realistically speaking however, they're more likely to just tweak RoF values to compensate if it proves necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[XBRTC]
Members
1,414 posts
7,427 battles

a far, far worse sin than that is having the heavier 3-gun turrets mounted so high compared to the 2-gun turrets. In reality, this is going to have some very, very nasty implications for stability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,960 posts

It's only WG's version of Dallas. Pay it no mind. No different than their own interpretations of Iron Duke, Konig, Kaiser, Bayern etc. I would like to see the Measure 21 camo but let's face it, WG has a fetish for dazzle patterns and lurid camos. AFAIK, none of the USN tech tree ships can be fitted with Measure 22 camo, only French cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[-ARP-]
Members
423 posts
3,803 battles
3 hours ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

I hope they will too, but you and I both know the results already (assuming they do).

 

2 hours ago, YamatoA150 said:

While an interesting read, it's unlikely to be changed this late in the development cycle. As well, WG does have their own in-house naval architect or two on payroll that they have stated in the past as having used to help model the fictional refits as well as their own rendition of mostly period accurate designs for many of the ships in-game.

So what we're getting is their rendition of the Dallas based on whatever designs they picked from. I'm not saying it's right, nor am I saying it's wrong. It's just their interpretation with balance adjustments made for the purposes of the game, which ultimately is the biggest consideration.

That being said, it wouldn't be out of place if it turned out Dallas did need the extra 2 guns and was given it later on at around the 6-12 month check (after the stats normalize sufficiently) as a gun upgrade option. The rest of the setup (AA/secondaries) entirely depends on what WG wants/needs at T6 for the ship. As well, the unique 2-3-3-2 setup would parallel the newly downtiered Pensacola. Realistically speaking however, they're more likely to just tweak RoF values to compensate if it proves necessary.

I'm well aware WG won't model any major redesigns, and it is a shame. I just hope they'll do more research next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
514
[POP]
Members
1,162 posts
15,052 battles

USS Dallas

Is this the ship your talking about

Image result for uss dallas hunt for red october

Sorry had to do a Hunt For Red October homage

regards

  • Funny 4
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,960 posts
1 hour ago, AyanoMidori said:

I'm well aware WG won't model any major redesigns, and it is a shame. I just hope they'll do more research next time.

I won't be surprised if WG actually did do their research but chose to implement their own version anyway. Even if they did see this thread I think we know what their response will be, that this is their game and they can do whatever they want to any ships, historical or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,987
[ARGSY]
Members
6,285 posts
4,243 battles
22 minutes ago, tm63au said:

USS Dallas

Is this the ship your talking about

Image result for uss dallas hunt for red october

Sorry had to do a Hunt For Red October homage

regards

No guns at all, but the torpedo specs are off the scale. Are you sure she's not a Japanese DD? :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
691
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
2,044 posts
25 minutes ago, tm63au said:

USS Dallas

Is this the ship your talking about

Image result for uss dallas hunt for red october

Sorry had to do a Hunt For Red October homage

regards

Actually after I did a search I found out there was a USS Dallas (DD-199)and it was not a Sub nor was it a Cruiser it was a Clemson class Destroyer the second ship named for Captain Alexander J. Dallas and was later renamed Alexander Dallas,   Launched 31,May,1919 by Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company,  Sponsored by Miss W.D. Strong  Great Grand Daughter of Captain Dallas commissioned 29,October,1920, Lieutenant E.H.Roach in temporary command,  Lieutenant  A.R. Early assumed command 10,November,1920

Edited by shadowsrmine
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
514
[POP]
Members
1,162 posts
15,052 battles
3 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

No guns at all, but the torpedo specs are off the scale. Are you sure she's not a Japanese DD? :Smile_teethhappy:

You know WG any things possible  :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
514
[POP]
Members
1,162 posts
15,052 battles
25 minutes ago, shadowsrmine said:

Actually after I did a search I found out there was a USS Dallas (DD-199)and it was not a Sub nor was it a Cruiser it was a Clemson class Destroyer the second ship named for Captain Alexander J. Dallas and was later renamed Alexander Dallas

Those crazy kids at lesta they will change any thing just to make it work  a DD disguised as a Cruiser :Smile_medal:

Edited by tm63au

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
420
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,774 posts
5,809 battles
13 minutes ago, tm63au said:

You know WG any things possible  :Smile_honoring:

Anyone who doesnt believe you needs to look no further than the Khab.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
691
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
2,044 posts
11 minutes ago, tm63au said:

Those crazy kids at lesta they will change any thing just to make it work  a DD disguised as Cruiser :Smile_medal:

And no according to WG's  wiki the Dallas will not get torpedo's nor will the Helena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,641
[KNMSU]
Members
3,368 posts
3,951 battles

It should have been a stock Brooklyn with classic lines and a nerfed ROF. There was literally zero reason to go inventing a ship.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,581
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts

Wait till you see the Seattle, its much worse and much more of an aberration of USN Cruiser Design. For one; Flush Decks make up the majority of USN Cruiser Designs (and launched specimens), so I am unsure why both the Seattle and this Dallas have raised foecastles. For two, this ship exactly highlights why I was always against raising the Cleveland to T8 (well, one of the reasons); any 'older' *realistic* USN Cruiser design would be a *straight* upgrade over the Cleveland in the ways that matter in WoWs; as they all typically were designed or built with more primary armament, of the exact same type as the Cleveland (mK16's) and thus, represent a straight upgrade. Only because of artificial range caps are these ships 'inferior' (the Cleveland *still* having an artificial range cap (it's max effective firing range was 18.5km, and maximum possible range (45 degree angle shot) of ~22km) for some reason, something *other* T8 Cruisers do not have btw) to the Cleveland.

For some reason Wargaming is considers it a huge aberration to leave holes in the ship trees, which is odd since their sister game, WoTs, has TONS of holes in their skill trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
691
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
2,044 posts
7 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_NewZealand said:

It should have been a stock Brooklyn with classic lines and a nerfed ROF. There was literally zero reason to go inventing a ship.

Well they Didn't Invent a ship.............Reinvent and Redesign  yes that they did,   lnvent no

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,787 posts
5,663 battles

Image may contain: outdoor

What do you call the super-elevated turret on the Uss Newport News(148). During the war ships were being experimented on all the time. So it all depends what blueprint or what picture WG has for the design, That is the only picture I can find with that gun. They do not invent guns. WG stated at the beginning they use Blueprints provided to them from the various nations to built these ships. Even Paper ships have initial drawings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,641
[KNMSU]
Members
3,368 posts
3,951 battles
26 minutes ago, shadowsrmine said:

Well they Didn't Invent a ship.............Reinvent and Redesign  yes that they did,   lnvent no

Okay, well, the fact remains that the Dallas is as real as that novel I haven't started yet. There were real American light cruisers that could have been slotted here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,065
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,176 posts
11,693 battles
5 hours ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

a far, far worse sin than that is having the heavier 3-gun turrets mounted so high compared to the 2-gun turrets. In reality, this is going to have some very, very nasty implications for stability.

 

it depends on why it was done.  The USN did it with the Pensacolas and had designed the 10 X 14" Lexington the same way, due to hull lines and keeping the triple turret drier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,065
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,176 posts
11,693 battles
21 minutes ago, Raven114 said:

Image may contain: outdoor

What do you call the super-elevated turret on the Uss Newport News(148). During the war ships were being experimented on all the time. So it all depends what blueprint or what picture WG has for the design, That is the only picture I can find with that gun. They do not invent guns. WG stated at the beginning they use Blueprints provided to them from the various nations to built these ships. Even Paper ships have initial drawings.

Newport News had a turret exploding.  They removed the gun, plated it over and call it a day.  It started off as a triple turret.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,228
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,405 posts
9,562 battles

I look forward to playing with the Dallas in the Co-Op bathtub.  Might even try a random or scenario if it's up to it.

Author is absolutely correct in the proposed changes.  They should be adopted and implemented.

They are mostly cosmetic and won't change any parameters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[-ARP-]
Members
423 posts
3,803 battles

Dallas as is very pretty and well modelled so I'll still be grinding for it even after I get Cleveland.

 

And don't get me started on Seattle... my god what a strange and out of place looking ship. I would've liked to see a Fargo class with artificial buffs instead tbh.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41
[JTF67]
Members
59 posts
3,099 battles
2 hours ago, Battlecruiser_NewZealand said:

It should have been a stock Brooklyn with classic lines and a nerfed ROF. There was literally zero reason to go inventing a ship.

This times 1,000. A stock Brooklyn would have made way more sense than a paper design. Same at Tier IX with "Seattle". Could have easily put in a Fargo there. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×