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
I’m not trying to say he is wrong, I’m trying to say there are two criterias as outlined by Kururocks, while Montana can’t meet the laid down, it could meet the part criteria IF sufficient proof comes to light.
Until said sufficient proof comes to light, then Montana can’t pass
1 Like
so far with tests it holds up pretty well against Yamato.
Not really.
There was some division and people who had an idea of it’s true size but even in late '42 US naval intelligence thought Yamato was 35,000 tons and was armed with 16" guns
Even in early '44 after they were finally realizing the true size and weight of the ship there was still heavy debates about gun size and it was halfway through the year that they accepted it’s true gun calibre, long after its cancellation.
Yamato has no bearing on the design of Montana nor was it designed to face it.
And of course Iowas were built for head on conflict, they were battleships.
Their immunity zone was heavily effected by the new super heavy shell but they had a 16,000-27,000m immunity zone against the earlier 16/45 so it would have been able to hold up against most all the Japanese battleships outside Yamato.
But Montana construction was suspended in early 42 and officially canceled in mid 43.
There was nothing approved in 44
Not to be pedantic here, but on a technicality there is one ship that’s super iffy in game at the moment. The ship in question being Amagi. Now yes the thing did get laid down and had stuff built for it, but the Amagi we have in game is not representative of the Amagi that was authorized for construction. Rather she’s a time traveling mess based on the 1919 preliminary design studies that were never authorized for construction.
Amagis hull was fully completed and launched however
1 Like
I don’t disagree with you there. Im just pointing out that the Amagi in-game isn’t the design that was approved for construction and isn’t representative of what was built. Rather for whatever reason the ship we have in game is one of the 1919 preliminary designs that isn’t representative of the final design. So ergo you could argue that Amagi in-game is a paper ship.
Not always…
Q: Designing a ship (not a boat) is a very serious matter, it cannot be seriously redesigned if mistakes come up when it’s already been built. That’s why everything is calculated in advance, and in truth, a ship is born long before it reaches the shipyard, it’s born in the final construction blueprints. Will navy branches include projects that were never realized in metal, but existed only in blueprints, not to mention those that never got past the stocks?
A: Yes, we’re not ruling that out, especially with regard to projects that were completely ready, but whose construction was never finished for one reason or another.
Q. Will there be projects for series H battleships for Germany in the game? They were laid, but were soon dismantled. The battleship Bismarck will not be able to withstand Yamato and Iowa on equal terms. We would like to see the H-39 project.
A: We consider as possible the addition of similar ships, those that were laid down, but were not completed in reality.
I would not be surprised to see Montana if Iowa is not performing well enough. All the systems are in place for it.
1 Like
Am I misremembering or not, wasn’t there a devblog or moderator comment that the developers might implement ships that had plans drawn, because as you said, once a plan is made it HAS to be perfect since a ships can’t be made in mass unlike tanks and planes?
IIRC the G3s were layed down, but with the washington Naval treaty the G3s were scrapped in place, despite being offered to be able to convert them into carriers (this proposal was denied, unlike the Japanese and US which converted the Lexington Battle Cruisers into Carriers and the Japanese with the Akagi and Amagi, (earthquake destroyed it under construction, replaced with Kaga, a Converted Tosa class Battleship)
so, like the Lexingtons they were being built actively, just never completed due to new treaty restrictions
So like we have the Amagi in game, it’s entirely plausible that we get a G3 or Battlecruiser Lexington, similar to how we have the Ersatz Yorck,