Lions were laid down, the hull was partly used for vanguard
1 Like
Appears I was incorrect (I’m glad about that)
No, the Lion class very much can be suggested, also I literally have made that suggestion. Even if there is any debate on keel laying for the Lion class thought from what I found it indicated 2 were laid down, there is a photo of one of those guns online when it was being made that was intended for Lion which alone is enough for the suggestion. The lack of any photo evidence could be also attributed to the same reason photos for HMS Vanguard were so restricted during the second world war which would explain any lack of photos for the ships.
1 Like
Theres a reason the lions and vanguard share a hull profile
They decided to use the same Mark 7 guns used for the Iowa class because it would be faster. I don’t mean Lexington’s own engines. I mean the engines designed for Lexington. They were planning to put 8 of these engines. 2 of them were completed for the first Montana project planned in 1942, But never start. In 1944, the materials to be used were collected and a suitable dry dock was awaited for construction.
Not exactly, the Lion’s original approved design is more or less a King George V class in design if you look at it visually. The Vanguard resembles more so the Lion class with the revised designs they made as Lion’s keel was just sitting around. If anything, it’s more likely the design changes they put into Vanguard came out of the same design choices in the revised design choices of the Lion class.
If they never began construction they cannot be added into the game
That’s why I asked, is it enough to have weapons and engines?
No, hull has to be started as has been said many times already, since the montanas never were, they cannot be added
By the way, USS Montana was my college presentation project. I researched almost everything about Montana.
Sorry to disappoint you then, but every ship in game at minimum had the hull started
USS Iowa and Yamato are about equals in-game as-is.
Montana was never laid down, it cannot be added.
Every ship in War Thunder was manufactured to at least some stage of its physical vessel.
Montana never even got a drydock order.
Soyuz on the other hand is the new Scharnhorst of Naval.
Adding USS Montana would be a drastic change to vehicle additions into War Thunder that isn’t necessary as it’d cause infinitely more arguments for a ship that’s not even necessary for the game.
Once again, said Mk 7 guns would have had to be ones intended for use on a Montana class, as of course there would-be spare Mk 7 barrels lying around as spares for the Iowa class, if it was the case or making the argument is could be suggested since they would have used the same guns, a suggestion on the Montana class would have been made by now, there must be a source to indicate that there were guns specifically being made for a Montana in particular, not any spares. Also, if you have made a college presentation on it you would of course have to have sources on it but just keeping it simple if I were to just go off Wikipedia as a mere reference point it doesn’t suggest that the engines which were used resemble the engines of said Lexington’s and were not Lexington’s engines. Now I do not believe every single little thing mention on Wikipedia which is why I ask what source you might have found that would suggest there were spare engines from the Lexington that were to be used in the Montana class then that might be enough for a suggestion, but that also depends on quality of the source, and ideally multiple (2 at least) would be needed.
1 Like
The Iowa was designed more like a battle cruiser than a battleship. That’s why its class is a fast battleship. Also, its only advantage against the Yamato is that it has a radar rangefinder, but unfortunately this feature is not in the game. Everything about the Iowa was designed to be fast. The long, thin hull. The 250,000 horsepower engines. The spaced side armor. Everything about the Iowa was designed to be faster. Not for head-on combat.
Can always just add one of the iowa class battleships with the 1984 refit if the “paper” battleships get too strong lmao.
2 Likes
This would be like stopping a forest fire by igniting the earths atmosphere
1 Like
First, Gaijin needs to see how the Iowa performs in top tier because rn shes verh competetive. Unlike Yamato, she can angle without exposing any glaring weakspot and has the speed to force whoever she’s fighting in a long or short range slugfest.
If Iowas completely incapable, sure, consider Montana. But if she holds her own? Then theres no need.
From what I hear it’s the Soyuz, not Yamoto.
You do have the general idea down, though other nations have eligible options to combat the Soyuz (Lion, H39 and A150)
Rennie isn’t wrong, we haven’t seen such ships yet, so keel laid down is minimum.
Ironically, Yamato might be one of the most reliable Soyuz killer out of all the top tier BBs. Soyuz is at her strongest bow tanking, see that huge armored section on her bow to catch and set off AP fuzes
Thanks to Yamatos horrendously long fuse time her AP can travel through the bow and detonate right where the magazines are.
EDIT: Also, Soyuz does not have inclined armor, meaning she’ll be quite vulnerable to crew loss around her machinery. If she holds a broadside nearly every single top tier BB can deal with her 420mm belt around her magazines in typical NRB ranges.
1 Like