Wdym didnt montana was almost if not fully Built?
More then soyuz fs
https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/us-navy-ships/battleships/montana-class-bb-67-71.html#:~:text=The%20Montanas%20also%20would%20have,power%2C%20their%20construction%20was%20cancelled.
Montana’s were never even laid down
Here is a image of the laid down Soyuz
It was laid down berly half bulit bro
Well that’s gajin’s decision, they maintain that as long as either
A: A ship specific part was built (Battery, Engine etc)
B:The ship itself at least had its keel laid down
The ship got far enough into construction to be added
We already have other unbuilt ships/configurations in the German, Italian, Japanese and Soviet trees so that’s gajin just being gajin
1 Like
I am curious as to if a picture of the montana in question can be provided
Ig its fair
All tho u must agree that they unrealsticly buffed the soyuz
Like 40kg tnt equivlant with nearly iowa pen with less then half tnt equivlant
1 Like
That I can agree yea.
Montana parts were used in the Essex class carriers, so parts of them were actually used. Which is more than the Soyuz on the water.
1 Like
Are you perhaps talking about the Montana of South Dakota 1920’s class?
No, the Montana class Super BB.
So the one that never actually saw the light of day as a hull
They were saying that Montana was Laid down and also Hull was half built, which is true for the Montana 1920’s but not Montana 1940’s.
Maybe they mixed both of them up?
1 Like
Thing is that one isnt well known, people see montana and instantly think of the one that wasn’t
1 Like
No i was talking on the soyuz
1 Like
Indeed - but that is a different issue to whether it meets Gaijin’s requirements for inclusion - which it does.
The Montana (1940’s) does not - parts were maybe built, but the requirement is ALSO that the hull be laid down - which never happened.
What parts? Not the engines - which were a different type entirely, and not the 5" guns - for which ditto
Parts from Sovetskaya Belorussiya were used in a floating battery at Leningrad.
I’d argue the hull, while technically important, is the least important thing in the ship. If you can’t go anywhere, nobody cares, if your weapons don’t work, you’re useless, not to mention armor.
The entire propulsion system was used from the Montana in the Essex.
The Belorussia wasn’t constructed and used as a floating battery, materials for it were, there’s a big difference.
This idea that a hull had to be laid down is just a simple qualifier for Gaijin to include paper ships for Russia so they don’t feel left out, the Russian navy has never been impressive or capable.
1 Like
And how would any of that get anywhere without the hull
The hull is probably the easiest thing to manufacture. The Russians couldn’t build the armor for the Sovietsky, yet it has its proposed armor in game…
And the armor is part of what on a ship, you can ask the audience if you want