From what I understand the tank would’ve been ~150t in the full configuration. However the tank as built never fitted the roofplate and main turret before the project was cancelled and the tank scrapped, leading to different weight.
The 100t and 120t configurations would’ve likely been misconceptions based off of the built example. 100t being the weight with only one layer of armor, while 120t would’ve been the full armor. However since the full armor likely wasn’t fitted before cancellation either, the “120t configuration” was only planned, leading to confusion of a different full tank design being planned.
I recently had an argument in the subreddit with someone much similar to yourself, except focusing on the Ho-Ri, a tank also lacking widepspread documentation. I sent a link to the old forum suggestion for the Ho-Ri II, alongside 7 real wartime documents saved in online Japanese archives that were displayed and analyzed in said suggestion, proving that the Ho-Ri prototypes were around 50% complete by war’s end. Despite this, the person continued to claim that the vehicle was somehow paper because apparently the verified primary sources I posted weren’t good enough.
From what I see here, you appear to discredit the authenticity of the documents that コタリ posted simply because you require more documents to prove them? That is not always how things work, the O-I project was known to be a tight-knit secret held by those who worked on it. In addition, many of the documentation for this vehicle was destroyed to prevent the allies from obtaining it, so it shouldn’t come as a suprise that there aren’t much in the way of spare sources to cite. I find it ironic that you and so many others still fall for this shroud even though many of the previously hidden documents have now gone public and more still are held by model company FineMolds.
You may consider yourself like many to have the right to express your opinion, but in this case, the existence of the O-I prototype has long since lost any grounds for debate. Not only can the deniers never display actual evidence to support their claims, but as shown already there are multiple historical Japanese documents from the second world war detailing both the construction of this tank, but its automotive testing as well (not to mention the track link that is likely to be from this vehicle). You just refuse to believe it because there are no photos or extensive postwar American documentation.
Small note here, the Ho-Ri being built at war’s end was based on a Chi-Ri hull (and retained the hull gun), so very much unlike what we have now in-game.
Any documentation to confirm that, since most i know is that during its testing phase, it was bulging down into the ground due to sheer weight which was the major contributing factor for its collapse.
There is currently not sufficient evidence and documentation to introdeice the tank to the game. This may change it course in the future if more becomes available. But the developers have confirmed the tank can’t be implement as it currently stands.
There is no problem about adding event vehicles to certain TT. The problem os that there is no real benefit in adding more heavy tanks because that in war thunder heavy tanks act as slow medium tanks with slightly more armor
It’s nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with information availability. We are game based on historical vehicles. If there is not enough historical information, resources and practical sources to implement a vehicle, there is a limit of what can be added to the game.
Here is the test drive documents translated, but the AI struggled:
Spoiler
Translating handwritten documents accurately, especially from an image, can be quite challenging without the ability to directly interact with the text and its context. The translation of the images provided may not be completely accurate due to the handwritten nature and potential technical terminologies used. However, I will do my best to provide a translation based on the visible content.
Translation of the Provided Documents
First Image:
Left Page:
July 30:
[Content unclear]
July 31:
Deploy to location A at 8:31 AM, Task 2: move to location B.
Procedure for dismantling equipment:
Begin disassembly at 7:03 AM, all necessary tools are ready.
Dismantling starts with [illegible text] and proceeds to the main body.
August 1:
Move to base location (coordinate B).
Perform the following checks:
Check oil levels, replace if necessary.
Inspect cables for wear and tear.
Ensure all bolts are tightened securely.
Equipment Diagram:
Illustration of a gear mechanism with annotations N6.7, N6.8.
Description of assembly sequence and positioning.
Right Page:
Procedure Details:
Installation of the main unit should follow the outlined steps.
Connect the power supply to the primary unit and secure all connections.
Diagram of installation site:
Dimensions: 1200mm x 500mm.
Positioning notes and placement instructions.
Final Checks:
Confirm all systems are operational before starting.
Perform a trial run to ensure everything is functioning correctly.
Make adjustments if necessary and document any changes made.
Notes:
[Several points about installation specifics, measurements, and conditions.]
Second Image:
Left Page:
Component Overview:
Descriptions of individual components, their specifications, and installation requirements.
Illustration: Depicts the assembly of a mechanical part.
Assembly Instructions:
Step-by-step guide to assembling the equipment.
Tools required for each step.
Testing Procedures:
Details on how to test the equipment once assembled.
Criteria for passing the tests.
Right Page:
Quality Control Measures:
Procedures for inspecting the final assembly.
List of common issues and how to address them.
Operational Guidelines:
Instructions for operating the equipment safely.
Maintenance schedules and troubleshooting tips.
Performance Data:
Table with performance metrics and expected outcomes.
Comparison with standard benchmarks.
Please note that some parts of the handwritten text were unclear, which may affect the accuracy of the translation. If you have more specific sections that need to be translated or if there’s additional context you can provide, please let me know!
Yet the Ostwind II was added based on a single line saying a production order was placed? Also the only 2 historians Doyle and Jentz who claimed that the vehicles did begin production, later removed those claims in subsequent editions of the books that the claim was made? The vehicle that doesn’t even have any blueprints to even base a 3D model on so has an entirely made up turret in game?
Same with the Zerstorer 45 that once again had a single line in documents that ordered the production of the vehicle with no actual documents showing what the vehicle looked like.
The O-I has way more evidence than that if those 2 vehicles are the standard of minimum documentation for what could be added. Like we at least know what the O-I looks like which is way more than could be said about the other 2.
I remember that, however since that statement was last given a lot of time has past and information surfaced. Not too long ago the suggestion for it was passed as well.
As it stands now, information on the O-I is far more detailed than any of the mostly classified modern MBTs are.
For a more fitting comparison the German Ostwind II and Zerstörer 45 both are in a similar state of being real, but not photographed. However, unlike those two, there are detailed plans on the O-I, while the Ostwind II and Zerstörer 45s exact layouts had to be based off assumptions.
So with all of that in mind I doubt the O-I is still being rejected by the developers.
Ostwind II was based on a shipment manifest, it was on a train, it got lost sometime after being shipped.
A combat-capable Ostwind II was still shipped, and there’s no evidence those government documents were forged.
Vs OI which actually has no confirmation of one being built.
