From what ive seen with others playing around in the dev server. Iowa might very well do well against Yamato purely because she can angle without exposing a major weakness.
Yamato cannot go bow in for any reason because thats an instant shot into the magazines.
No matter how well the Iowa was prepared to defend itself, after only one bombardment, it was sunk not only by the Yamato but also by the Soyuz and the Roman bombardment.
Isn’t the rule that it has to be laid down (which neither of these were)?
Montana never existed, was never laid down. With current ruleset its impossible to be ingame. US abandoned the project before even a single frame was laid down. As far as I understood it, the project had alot internal resistance, cause how stupid it was to buld these huge, useless things. The production was stalled for many months. Another reason for the delay was an order of like 100 new destroyers for the Battle of the Atlantic. Then all ressources were shifted to aircraft carriers and the project was buried before it physically started.
Beside the Soyuz, the H-class would be a Yamato contender. Soyuz had been laid down and thats it. Its ingame.
Same for the H-class, construction had started. Like you can see here: Blohm & Voss dockyard in Hamburg, 1939. Guns were also produced. So this will be most likely ingame. Should have been this patch tbh, considering that Bismarck is just a third rate ship with the huge leap forward in the next patch to Yamato, Iowa, Soyuz.
If u can’t beat Yamato on sea, just change u F117 in air, and use your paveway guided bomb and bomb them !
Only one of these items is required. Both the A-150 and Montana meet item 2.
Being laid down is one of the options to be considered a prototype, it is not mandatory.
In the case of Montana, she had her primary and secondary batteries fabricated along with purpose built internal machinery, and on the flip side, the A-150 had her gun tubes built.
Have we ever had a vehicle added to the game which only met that second item though? I struggle to think of one. I feel like the unstated rules for stuff to actually get added are a bit stricter than the stated rules to merely suggest stuff.
Why can’t Montana class battleships be added?
Just like the Soviet battleship, its plan was cancelled during construction due to certain reasons
Unless Soviet warships are also not added
Montana was never laid down.
Every vessel in War Thunder was laid down.
There are no fake Soviet vessels in War Thunder and fake vessels will never be added to the Soviet tech tree.
Are you sure?
Yes. Cause every time a laid down ship is added to your seemingly favorite tech tree, everyone complains about it being added, then someone provides photographic evidence of the vessel in drydock.
This is just a photo of the dry dock. …
Do you have any photos of sailing at sea?
In reality, I have never heard of the names of these ships
Doesn’t matter. To add a naval vessel in War Thunder all that needs to be proven is it was being manufactured.
I just hope it’s not a double standard
According to Lolman345’s post about gaijin’s stated rules, it can be added, along with the A-150.
Aye and we have evidence that the USN was actively procuring armor plates and other materials in preparation to lay the ship down. That said the 5”/54 and the diesel generators (both designed specifically for Montana) should be enough to make a suggestion at minimum like A-150 as both are ship specific parts unique to Montana.
“Compete”? If anything, Yamato is by far the weakest of the top tier ships, and the A-150 would probably be even worse, so there’s not much to go for the Japanese tech tree
thay cant add the montana because its a paper ship