Isn’t it enough to have the guns and engines ready?
If the g3 isnt allowed despite it being laid down the montana is not either, accept it and move on
1 Like
The post I just linked literally said if another vehicle specific part was made, then it passes.
If there was any parts of the Montana (and by proxy other ships) being made, not even the keel, then it passes.
Also I thought the G3 was never laid down?
2 Likes
G3 class was but was cancelled shortly after starting construction, the only USS montana that physically bagan construction was in 1921
Well going off my past experience making suggestion and discussing this with a senior suggestion mod back on the old forums, they don’t even need to be laid down. In the past I wrote a suggestion on the Gascogne which was never laid down but had materials gathered for its construction as the dock the ship was to be laid down was being used by Jean Bart, the mods when I made that suggestion did approve it however, I still had to have a source which mentioned this, though looking back on it might be questionable still so it’s why I refuse to remake it, however this is why the A-150 suggestion got approved which honestly has better justification behind it. It’s all good to say that materials were gathered and it’s another to have some sort of source to back this up as I have not heard of Montana class having materials gathered for any keel laying.
Also, gaijin does not consider parts that were also used for other ships as enough to make a ship valid to suggest, so no if there were spare Mark 7 guns lying around that isn’t enough to make a valid suggestion, it would have to very much be ones which were being prepared for a Montana class which requires a source. Also, the claim that Lexington’s engines were to be used should alone raise red flags since Lexington (CV-16) was commissioned in 1943 while the OP mentions the Montana’s were approved in 1944, so how would the engines from Lexington be used if the Lexington was already in service. Unless the OP can provide any valid sources that isn’t simply Wikipedia there is no evidence that even materials were gathered for any Montana’s as it seems more like they are making all this stuff up at the moment.
3 Likes
He means the 1920s lexington which were going to be used on the 1920s south dakota class, a completely different ship
I see
Thank you for clarification, shame it most likely means we won’t get the G3 or Lion but oh well.
I’ve seen that the G3 laying down is pretty disputed
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