The engines reliability was questionable at times, and often the armor was lacking enough, that they would bury tanks fairly often, merely to use the gun.
A tactic used by various armies. Japan isn’t the outlier.
Engines tend to be fickle, just like Germany’s and Russia’s. You’d clog up too if you’re running in muddy terrain and salty air.
They were built to clear out infantry with next to no antitank capability. Japan’s tank industry as a whole wasn’t exactly ‘modern’ by 1941 and archaic by 1944. However, comparing a tiny island nation like Japan to the industrial juggernaut that is the US is like an ant vs a dog.
Edit
Japan was a powerhouse in its region of the world but it could never stand up to the likes of the US.
Russia is a different story but whereas Japan could easily succeed on sea, I’m not so sure about on land. Russia’s army was gargantuan and the tanks were actually competent, if very hit or miss with each particular vehicle’s construction.
Air is the one I have no idea about: Stalin was terrified of flying and Russia’s air force suffered because of it. This is obviously off topic at this point.
2 Likes
That wasn’t my point. The Montana being completed was far more realistic than the Soyuz as it’s shown in game. The 16”/50s saw service. The 5”/54s saw service. I believe the Midway class used the engine designs. There isn’t anything about the Montana class that the US shipbuilding industry hadn’t shown the capacity to complete.
It’s a little ridiculous that a ship that couldn’t have been completed is allowed in game because a few plates of steel were welded together. The turbines weren’t completed. The prop shafts weren’t completed. The armor wasn’t possible. The turrets weren’t completed. A few plates of the hull is the easiest part.
8 Likes
Chi-Ri, Type 87 RCV, Type 81, Tan Sam, Type 03, Type 99 (at least if you compare it to the pzh2000 at 0.3 br higher, but with laserrangefinder, better survivability, 2.3 more hp/ton and 2.5 sec faster reload at least for first 3 shells. Probably more the pzh being undertiered more than the type 99 massively overtiered)
1 Like
For the most part none of these are ovetiered.
More like the pzh2000 is under br’d still.
the last time i checked the requirement for adding ships was being laid down, soyuz was laid down, right? i know montana was never laid down however
I’m not denying that’s the standard. I think it’s a lame standard but I understand they have to draw the line somewhere.
2 Likes
Yep. Meaning they did this to add Russian magic ships that would never be completed
4 Likes
Russia’s naval tree would have two battleships that aren’t the russian dreadnoughts: Royal Sovereign and a Conti di Cavour.
It would end at 7.7 and then be a weird jump to missile ships.
Ok? Well, the US doesn’t have an end game battleship with immunity to its own guns, so I guess the Montana has to he added.
Blame poor implementation of the ship.
It’s literally the Scharnhorst problem all over again and I’m in agreement that Soyuz needs a plate nerf.
No, I’m going to blame the failed Soviet shipbuilding capabilities.
1 Like
Wait til you see just how many uncompleted ships are in the german naval tree.
They shouldn’t be added either.
1 Like
Why?
Because they weren’t finished?
Yes
3 Likes
I mean Chi-ri is obvious nearly br higher than it should be. But even earlyer ww2 stuff like Chi-ha kai to 2.0, Chi-he back to 2.3, Chi-nu is okay ish now with all the other 3.3 mediums moved up still not great Chi-ha lg, Ho-Ni 3 also not really worth diff br from Ho-ni 1 as its just extra crew less armor version. Chi-nu 2 still not really much better than Pz.IVs at 4.0 its simply trade of with slightly better gun and way less armor, worse reload, taller profile, Ho-ri prototype, Heavy tank n6 to 5.7 (basically worst of the 6.0 tigers by far and keeps the launchers) etc.
Saying Japan doesnt have overtiered stuff is like saying majority of germany ground teamates arent blind.