Where is this response?
Aye, or heck, No.13 when A-140 Prelims when, etc.
As a note, I’m not counting Krons as a purely paper ship, as Project 69 was at least laid down with the intention of being armed with 305mm guns and does represent the finalized design of the ship wait said weaponry.
Over on the Gaijin issue tracker,
Неправильно замоделен арт-директор IJN Amagi // Gaijin.net // Issues
Линейный крейсер IJN Amagi, не верно замоделен мостик // Gaijin.net // Issues
The exact response as translated is:
“In the game, the ship is made according to the drawing of 1919. It is not a mistake.”
Also pardon the double post, your response didn’t pop up until I hit send
2 Likes
It was built at ~10%. Many vehicles with a higher degree of readiness were refused entry due to “incompleteness”, for example, the Ki-91 - the developer declared that 60% readiness “is too little”. However, a low degree of readiness is only half the trouble. Much bigger questions are raised by the technical impossibility of completing the construction of the ship according to the project. The main caliber turrets only had sketches, and the design of the secondary battery and air defense turrets had not even begun. The turrets and guns could not be manufactured according to the project within the changed deadlines, so German turrets were ordered to replace them. However, even they could not be virtualy installed, because the Soviet side never received information about their weight and dimensions to redesign the ship. The ship’s engine also could not be completed - to achieve the required power, the boilers had to withstand fantastic pressure and temperature, for the first time in world practice, boilers of such parameters were created only in the 70s (by the Americans). Moreover, the factory where the power plant was to be built was never built - its construction was frozen due to a complete lack of equipment. The ship’s FCS was, albeit modernized, the FCS of a WWI-era ship. Adequate aimed fire could be conducted at a distance of up to 15 km, if we take the theoretical limit, it was 25 kilometers. Cemented armor with a thickness of over 230 mm could not be produced. This list can be continued for a long time, but the essence is one - the ship was an unrealistic fantasy. None of these restrictions are reflected in the game.
The ship was constantly cut in characteristics during construction so that it could be produced - they agreed to abandon the cementation of armor plates, agreed to low-strength rivets, agreed to the impossibility of implementing artillery weapons in the given time frame and tried to import foreign, etc., etc. However, in the game, the ship is realized precisely in a fantastic, physically unrealistic version. Despite the seemingly laid down hull, it is as realistic as the H-44 and even less realistic than, for example, the A-150.
3 Likes
Am I the only one feeling that Type 3 APC and Type 5 APC working properly?
It seems like those APC shells only works constantly against broadside IJN Fuso andUSS Alaska, which has its shell room and magazine directly after the hull. Last day I just failed to detonate bow-in USS Des Moines, which was usually the easiest thing to detonate on battleships. Shell room and Magazine did hit, but only gets red, not black.
I don’t know what’s the main problem. It seems those APCs does penetrate armor, but sharpnel does not act properly, or fuze is too short that it is work like HE. Literally now it is better for IJN Mutsu to be used as high explosive main battleship with 140 mm, not an AP battleship what it should be.
Gaijin still have at least two(Tosa, Nagato) and can be some more if multiple non-comissioned ships are allowed. It will be the pinnacle of IJN’s supremacy over another navies in-game, but it is ruined by terrible APC.
3 Likes
Hello!
I’d like to recruit for a squadron that’s affiliated with a lot of the discussion threads concerning Japanese and ASEAN military vehicles. We also have an active Discord where we discuss and research military vehicles from East Asian and Southeast Asia.
2 Likes
Yeah, that’s true; Krons has a lot of fantastical elements in-game. I’d imagine Gaijin overlooked a lot of those factors to make a ship that can perform decently in-game. That said I’m surprised they haven’t added in Project 69-I with the 38cm guns yet or even the already modeled Project 82. I’ll amend my statement, though, to recognize then that Amagi is our first unfinalized preliminary design that’s been implemented. That said, I’m not necessarily opposed to them adding more ships like that for gameplay purposes, but I’ll admit I’m somewhat disappointed we don’t have the finalized Amagi with the very nice trunked funnel and of course the very fancy observation balloon lol
3 Likes
Is there any armor that is being ignored by Amagi? I believe any armor over 30 lbs is thick enough to be modeled in game, but I believe there is armor near the deck and on the sides under the secondary guns that is listed as over 30lbs.
It seems that Amagi does not have bulkheads like Ise and Fuso. Is this correct?
amagi
ise
fuso
Is it correct that the modules in the barbette are turrets and not elevators? On the Mutsu they are elevators.
amagi
mutsu
Is it possible that the longitudinal bulkhead on the middle deck is also the wrong shape? It doesn’t cover the #1 turret.
https://iiif.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/repo/s/hiraga/document/96996dc3-bc42-4393-a14f-fde489ea034d#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=1&xywh=4687%2C2616%2C1327%2C2040
5 Likes
I found the blueprints for Amagi that Gaijin used as a reference. Taisho 8 is 1919.
2 Likes
Question about the event related to new crew voices. After translation, the 3D decoration is supposed to be “available worldwide”. I have already won more than 10 naval battles but didn’t receive the reward (yes, I’m aware of rank and activity requirements) . Is this some kind of a bug, or just translation error ?
Sadly, the event is limited to players connected via DMM.
I thought that based on the wording, the event would be similar to DMM’s 2021 twitch tournament, where worldwide players got a title and other item, even though it was supposed to be limited to DMM players as well.
1 Like
Aye, it looks to be roughly the same ship they modeled in-game. That said, I have been looking into the funnel issue, and it seems that the superstructure arrangement was not finalized when Amagi was laid down. The arrangement was only finalized in September 1921, which is when the shipyard blueprints were made.
1 Like
This drawing is a prediction I made based on the keyword 1919 and the fact that it is close to the modeling in the game. I can’t guarantee that it’s accurate. Also, I can’t guarantee that this drawing itself is correct. As pointed out, Amagi has been redesigned several times.
2 Likes
So it seems Lord_Vader tried to report the anachronistic Heavy Cruiser shielded single 120s on Amagi. He was oddly met with the same response as the other bug reports:
“In the game, the ship is made according to the 1919 drawing. Is not an error.”
IJN Amagi Anti-aircraft guns model problem // Gaijin.net // Issues
Quite a baffling response
3 Likes
If that is the drawing they used, then why did they give her the updated turret models that were actually produced for the Amagi and Tosa classes and later refitted onto the Nagato class rather than the original unmodernized Nagato style turrets as featured in the drawing? They obviously can’t have exclusively followed that as a reference.
1 Like
Because they just want to hide they are lazy and lack of enthusiasm.
When it comes to a far future, do you think this is how it will go down?
1 Like
Recently Veryfire comes out with IJN Yamato with newest design, not only following drawings left by IJN but also pictures and testimony of survivors, plus survey result done with diving.
It clearly shows that some designs should be changed from what we’ve known, including one of 25 mm triple enclosed mount links to bridge.
Recently disgraceful behavior of Gaijin worries me whether they were to solve such modelling problem as they already made IJN Yamato’s modelling.
That’s the genuinely baffling part because the turrets, even on the finalized drawings, are entirely different. That said, the turret modeling issue is the one report they did accept and haven’t used the 1919 excuse on… yet.
The report also included images of one of the Coastal Defense fortifications built around one of the unmodified Amagi turrets:
IJN Amagi Turret Modeling Issue // Gaijin.net // Issues
A Comparison of the turrets found on the Kaga and Amagi-class ships
Source: What are the problems with the Amagi modeling of War Thunder? - A detailed explanation of the construction of the Amagi-class battlecruiser - Bilibili
5 Likes
It looks like someone is trying to get Amagi somewhat corrected again. I wish them luck!
3 Likes