It has been stated the montana cannot be added unfortunately
Her bow spaced armor is real wonder. Now I can understand why designer report ‘in some angle protection will be worse than bow-in’.
It’s funny that only ship can penetrate those fantastic bow armor is Yamato, but Yamato would die before aiming it.
No, only if the ship had been laid down they can be added to the game. By this standard G3 can be introduced as well since the armour and turret parts had been manufactured and some of them were later used on Nelsons. As far as I can tell developers have no plan to introduce ships didn’t laid down like the G3, same goes for Montana
1 Like
Then Vanguard should be under Hood, not Warspite.
how bad is the ammo rack compared to say, Courbet or the USSR premium ship morat
She’ll be as vulnerable as any US ship at shorter ranges as she must present a broadside to fire
I thought it would be pretty durable based on historical pictures of hits.
Musashi and Yamato took bomb and torpedo hits after hits…only being ammo racked after many torpedos hit it
You should never directly draw impressions of the ship’s survivability in a video game from a real life record. Even in real life, the survivability of a ship can never be described by actual battle records:
The “survivability” of ships in a real battle is predominantly determined by luck, following by many other factors, and the armour and protection scheme of the ship itself comes last as the least significant factor.
That is very much not the case as the O class battlecruisers, which only had their powerplants built and their guns just got accepted by the devs as a suggestion.
Suggestions Passed to the Developers - May 2025 - Suggestions - News - War Thunder — official forum
The O class was never laid down and construction never began before the ship was terminated, much akin to the story of the Montanas.
You only need major parts completed to be accepted as a suggestion.
You can suggest the G3 ships if you want as, as far as I am aware, they meet the same standard as the O Class which was just passed along.
As long as the suggestion complies with the guidelines of the suggestion sub forum and is considered of high quality content, it should have chance to be passed to developers by suggestions moderators. A suggestion being passed to developers doesn’t mean developers have to accept or implement it.
1 Like
I am aware, however, it does mean that the vessel or vehicle is on the table, in the past this was not an option full stop even at the level of being suggested.
Many people are acting like these vessels cannot be suggested or even talked about because they were not laid down and such is not the case, I seek to stop such rhetoric as it is unproductive and spreading.
It is the case actually, states so in the suggestions section that if the vehicle was not at least partially built or had its weapons system built, it can’t be suggested.
No its not, go and read the suggestion guidelines, if a major component is fabricated for the vehicle it can be considered a “prototype”.
I have multiple times.
Curious then that you willingly missed this.
It is quite a shame that he does not know that there is literal documentation on the parts bought for Montana and are indeed unique.
The only issue with that is that the Montana was never laid down. It was planned, too, but it was never due to delays and redesigns. The only loophole that could be used was that its propulsion system was built (but for use on the Midway-class aircraft carriers, so debatable on if that’s applicable)
Once again, a suggestion requires one of the three items there to be accepted as a suggestion, being laid down is one of the three, it is not required if other options are filled.
Show me one ship in game that was never laid down if you could please
1 Like