Doesnt Wargaming own the O-I patent/design or something?
I mean if one side has provided reasonable evidence, then it is up to you to counter it, and if you cant then it can be assumed they are correct
If I remember correctly, it’s his finemolds that possess them
Object 279 is even worse example because it’s cold war heavy tank, not a paper ww2 super heavy tank, and unlike O-I was fully made and tested. 279 was not accepted due to being overcomplicated, ineffective to produce and cramped.
Except its not reasonable evidence. Its all subjective and secondary in nature. Knowing the historical context of Japan at the time makes it extremely unlikely to have existed. Gaijin has researched this and found no compelling support, and they would probably love to add it.
1 Like
fair
I personally believe them to be quite thorough but I wish theyd be more open about that kinda thing
To be honest it is really sad to see that messages as “proofs”
Spoiler
Actually story about O-I finished on the fact that 100t vehicle was built which can be called “tank testbed”
It was tank with hull only, without turrets (or wooden mock ups, not sure here), which was missing part of armors (O-I front armor was made by 2 plates and external was missing) also missing the one side 35mm armor plate which was placed after trucks (again it had 2 armor plates and only external one was missing, structure 35mm of hull was there)
This testbed was driven near factory in 1st of August but then it got damage.
All of this is coming by the book which author got the documents by Finemolds. There is published some of the blueprints which are well known and some which was never seen.
Most interesting he rewrote the O-I (also known as Mi-To because tank was done by Mitsubishi) research and development document for O-I made by Mitsubishi. It writes all story of O-I project since 1941 to 1943.
Unfortunately I read it long time ago and can misremember some details and doesn’t have time to reread whole book written on foreign language for me. But the fact that testbed (as again it was pretty different from final planned O-I but body, engine, transmission and main hull was same) was built and tested - is fact.
The documents of O-I is also fact and talking that it is 1970s fakes (written exactly same way as many other Japanese manuals and war time documents on same “old Japanese” language (pre 1945 language is very different from modern one)) using the manual for gundam and O-I churches - is just disappointment, and trying to argue with it - waste of time
6 Likes
O-I was built, and even complete enough to do mobility trials, which is more than the E-100 for example. While it still wasn’t completed (iirc it was missing all turrets and the roof plate) that’s enough for it to be added to the game.
If it was entirely paper there wouldn’t be an accepted suggestion for it.
Yes, both Ho-Ris in game are wrong. The prototype is a historical misinterpretation of what the actual Ho-Ri would’ve been based on a plan that wasn’t the final design, while the production is just made up.
The real Ho-Ri was under construction by the end of the war, with work on 5 prototypes stated to have been 50% complete. This is also passed as a suggestion and would be great to replace the fake Ho-Ri tanks we have now.
4 Likes
There was no Object 279 with 100mm, only with 130mm. And there was only one built as other two prototypes didnt get approval.
After WW2 USSR completely ditched an idea of a heavy tank recieving 100mm gun, with last soviet heavy prototype with 100mm being one out of Object 701 prototypes, which was a prototype precursor to the IS-4.
Object 279 though just like it’s precursor and later soviet heavies protos utilised 130mm (if you ignore entire T-10 family ofc). They did plan to make some ATGM barrel fired variants as well as iirc some very long barrel 130mm, although other than T-10 with Object 775 like turret nothing was ever made.
Theres also some protos of T-10M adding ATGMs to it or T-10 vehicle with just two ATGMs instead of the turret.
There was also one proto of T-10M with LRF from 1970 but we dont even have imagery of it.
wait what? that sounds epic
Thank you for the confirmation. I only had photos of the manuals; I didn’t have some of the documents you posted! big thanks.
3 Likes
As again it is only book which used all this document for make a real story about O-I
I would be really happy to have originals of it but Finemolds owns it and doesn’t share it with everyone persons (what is pretty common for private Japanese document holders, for example ~400 pages manual for A6M8 exist but it is in private hands unfortunately).
2 Likes
Yeah, it was designated Object 757, and at first proposal it was to use 160mm gun launched ATGMs with autoloader, 7,62 and 14,5 coax MGs, however later they switched to same 125mm with same ATGMs 775 would later use.
It was mostly to trial driver controls being in the turret of the tank like later on Object 775, as Object 241 already trialed Object 775’s gun and ATGMs.
Object 757
Object 757 today, although gunner sight is removed, and I am not sure if it was mounted to begin with.
1 Like
50% of complete for all, not 70%
1 Like
The E100 had a engine, the hull ran and drove in British testing. They completed assembly after the Americans handed it over after they captured it. The problem was that it only had a 700hp Variant of the HL230. The Supercharged variant was never produced, or even tested.
HELL THE THING REPORTEDLY STILL EXISTS, it was buried by the Scrap yard it was sold to, because it was just too big and heavy to try and scrap.
4 Likes
Isn’t it confirmed a Ho-Ri prototype was built? But the Japs dumped it in a lake to keep the Americans from getting a hold it it? Much like the Complete Chi-Ri’s?
The only Chi-Ri that was captured was incomplete, But we know two were fully complete before the war ended, and there were rumors Japan dumped them, and other Prototypes in a Lake near the testing facility they were at.
1 Like
It wasn’t. Story of dumping tanks in lake is fake by Mai or someone else.
It is documented in Japanese documents that 5 Ho-Ri were under construction and finished only on 50%
2 Likes
I think any unfinished or paper tank with enough details available on dimensions, armor layout, gun type, ammunition, and engine power should be added. The ridiculousness of top tier classified vehicles having basically made up specs and map/game design being more resembling of moba games than a realistic sim makes such “paper” vehicles even a better fit imo than modern tanks and jets with fictional stats, at least we have original documents made by real engineers for specifications not the wild speculations of Gaijin devs…
What lake was O-I in dumped in? Its believed the Chi-Ri was dumped in Lake Inohana a salt water lake so it would likely look kind of bad by now.
The belief is O-I was left in China and is likley been long cut up or forgotten somewhere. If its in a lake good luck finding it in China though if it was found I’m sure the Chinese would put it up for public view in there armor museum instead of cutting it up. Don’t know what lake O-I would be in Japan if it was dumped there but most likely it would be cut up because well the war.
1 Like
It could have been left in China and scrapped for materials for bunkers, because the Russians found more documents mentioning super heavy tanks and also the infamous bunker turret picture that resembles the documents
And before anyone says these are faked by WG no they weren’t, these images were floating around before WG was even a company and they exist physically in Russian archives (there could be even more info there but WG devs were only able to see those afaik).
3 Likes