Even today Warship bridges and vulnerable areas have some degree of armour protection. Its rarely dedicated armour plates (though they do exist) but rather kevlar xirtains and panels and bullet proof windows as the main threat is now from rapid fire low calibre weapons, rpgs etc.
All ‘gun age’ vessels would have been more concerned with larger calibres and the mass amounts of potential shrapnel. Even open bridges werent easy targets for direct fire.
Not sure what the problem is - the actual battle bridge has 330mm of armor, and the windows in it count as that as well.
Just waiting to see how long it would take you to be more of a tosser than usual… I lost my bet - I thought more than a minute.
Whatever you do, just make sure you don’t address the actual issue or have any sort of reasonable discussion…
Nice deflection “tosser.” Keep enjoying your protected status.
Yes Gaijin, flag my older comment, bury the truth.
Let me put it like that. It is real.
I know, as i was the one who took that screenshot. Or at least i am one of the people who did.
It is, it was a joke, I think this kids just a snowflake, don’t worry about him.
Yeah I also took a screenshot
Is this dude schizo or did staff delete comments
This is such a weird overreaction for a visual bug that doesn’t actually effect the armor itself which is modeled properly.
Like yes it’d be nice to have it modeled correctly but you can’t be surprised you made a bug report with no sources and then they asked for sources.
Especially since its not a given that ships had heavily armored conning towers.
There was a trend of commanders directing from outside the tower for better visibility which lead to the KGV class ditching heavy armor for their conning tower entirely for 4" max which was enough to protect from splinters and the lighter weight let them elevate it higher further increasing visibility.
What if the model was accurate and the armor on it was a bug or it was correct and the commanders just really wanted a mix of protection and visibility?
We need to know a fact that the Japanese never requested such a huge observation window on the command tower after entering the era of dreadnoughts, which is consistent. （The hierarchical system of the Japanese Navy makes it almost impossible for their battleship captains to demand that shipbuilding technicians change their designs according to their ideas like you mentioned）From the earliest purchase of the Kongo class battlecruiser from Britain to their final construction of the largest battleship in history, the Yamato, all Japanese battleships during this period had thick armored command towers with only small observation slots. Naval warfare is different from land warfare. The commanders on battleships do not only have one bridge to use. In daily situations where good visibility is needed, there are spacious and bright navigation bridges to use. Armored command towers only become the command positions of senior officials on board during intense artillery battles. Therefore, whether considering historical consistency or realism, as a continuation of the Japanese Navy’s shipbuilding philosophy, the Amagi class battlecruiser should not have such a huge command tower window.
Meh - so the windows are the wrong size - it’s a mistake, but it doesn’t affect the game so it’s not really important.
Get over it.
Yes, the armored model looks great, but its appearance looks very strange, including huge command tower windows and a strange navigation bridge above, which is different from any Japanese warship in history and looks very strange. Perhaps this is related to Gaijin’s modeling outsourcing? Considering that this warship has never been actually built and lacks absolute certainty in details, external modelers may not be aware of some historical factors that have led to issues with their autonomy in details. I don’t know.
Yes, this doesn’t actually affect the game, but we all know that appreciating the beautiful warship/tank/airplane models in the game is also a part of the game, so of course gaijin should fix it to make it as realistic as possible, right?
good. Gajin has been putting far too much effort into a gamemode that almost no1 plays
this company is tone deaf, making bug repots is a waste of time.
It’s a long way down any list of priorities I would make.
But in any case the would need to be a picture of what they should be like.
Got one?
How can we obtain pictures of this ship if it hasn’t even been actually finished? It’s just that it can be determined through inference and drawings that what gaijin did was wrong. You can refer to this detailed report:Community Bug Reporting System
Given that there aren’t many people playing naval battles at all, I think Gaijin should reconsider and not hastily add new ships without sufficient confirmation that the production is correct. After all, there aren’t many people looking forward to it, especially when your ship model is very strange.
well given that they are adding hms repulse in “1941” refit but the weaponry is just straight wrong on it and it is closer to a 1938 refit you can hardly expect them to get a ship that never entered service to be correct and it is why i feel that they should never have gone into the land of the project and paper ships
