If you’re selling Ka-Chi again, why not fix it eventually? I understand releasing once underdeveloped sh*t. But the second time??
Apart from the rest of the problems, I would start with this
You cant? So dont f sell broken staff over and over again.
To actually open and look out that hatch, the commander would need to be standing on a rung on a ladder that goes down that hatch. That would be very impractical, not to mention kind of hard to do as that hatch is a sealed one as the Ka Chi in this configuration was meant to be launched from subs.
I would just like more amphibious vehicles in general and hatches on vehicles that had them.
(cough cough Daimler cough cough)
Well the only other Amphibious tank the devs can realistically add is LVT(A)(4), as all the other ones either arn’t proper amphibious tanks, or are just won’t work for this game due to how their amphibious nature works like the DD tanks, or are just plain bad like the Soviet attempts.
Or other LVTs if they add APCs.
Just some amphibious vehicles as an event would be nice.
You realize that the commander is already on this ladder, right?
He has ayes at this height:
So I dont see problem here.
In addition, removing the chimney apparently was not so difficult.
That could be another solution.
In game? Less impractical than heaving not this option at all.
At what depth exactly that they had to weld everything? In ww2 there were water sealed hatches not based on welding everything down. Becouse I didnt find any info about not working hatch could you send it?
Also snorkels werent clogged too aparantly. You know, engine need to breathe sometimes…
APCs would be cool, and I would definitely use LVT over M3 Halftrack if given the chance.
With its 50. cal it could still take on Japanese tanks.
With the merge it would be a powerful low tier vehicle.
No, he stands on the floor if he wants to see out of the cupola. To open the hatch and see out of that, the commander would have to go up at least a few rungs.
It was doable, but you completely remove all commander sights so it basically becomes like driving a T-34. If that is what you would prefer fine, but there are plenty of people who will complain about that.
No one said anything about welding a hatch shut, but it would be like trying to open a submarine hatch. There would be no point in doing that in active combat because if you waste your time getting the damn thing open, your crew will probably be all dead by now.
In your dreams xd
I came up with this alternative option for people like you. All I need is a working hatch
Thats just stupid on so many levels.
Possiblity for looknig around is great way to not die in combat. You know, all f tanks have it for a reason. And it is used.
Working hatch is great way to fly and not be dead. You know commanders need to evacuate somehow when tank got hit.
when it comes to the time needed:
In real live: they had time get rid of pontoons, but hey didnt for makeing hatch work? You just made it up.
In game: crew dont get off and dismantle it. Its just could work as default
sooo maybe its just working as normal hatch?
its not f submarine, it f floats on surface. Those few secunds under water doesnt caunt (If you really want to lunched it from a submarine that does not exist in the game). Also if those secunds are so crucial, and tank has to be so f waterproof as you say, crew must get off it and unclog snorkles because the engine without oxygen will not start and the crew would suffocate. How crew will get off tank and unclog snorkles? Idk, you tell me, their hatches is blocked and can be only unsealed externally in your opinion xd
what you said just dont make any sense sry
And I dont think it was even lunched from underwater. It was tansported by submarine, not lunched by it from under surface. Submarine had to resurface and open its transport hatch. Just as in the case of submarine transport of aircraft. So there is no need for waterproof sealing of the hatch. You had this chimney high as snorkles for the reason.
No, the cameras in the game say otherwise as evidence by the cupola use, and Japanese doctrine also says otherwise.
Even if it was not, the hatch needed to be watertight beyond the level of other amphibious tanks because it was expected to be launched further away from shore than any other amphibious tank like the LVT and the Ka Mi.
So there is no reason at all for makeing not possible looking around useing hatch. You contradict yourself. Just make commander stand\levitate higher above floor of turret when looking thorugh hatch. As he is standing higher when looking through visiers.
what part?
Still doesnt justify its complete disability. Not a bit…
how exactly did you measure this level? Or You just think you would design it that way? And again, why this level of waterproof makeing hatch unusable, when is its existence in this place is obvious proof that it was supposed to open up and sarve its purpose?
No, when sticking out the cupola, it would not not work because you actually have to model the commander. You can only get away with such nonsense inside the tank where people cannot see the scuffed models.
The part where they talk about the Ka Chi.
The fact that there are two hatches that have to be opened, and the fact that it was a waterproof hatch instead of a water tight hatch like in the case of most other tanks does not clue you i to the fact that it is significantly harder to open? And with this level of waterproofing, would it not make sense for it to be really hard to open in combat, to the point that opening it might not be worth it as it would take so much time and effort that the tank would likely be dead by the time you get to it?
I think that is a pretty poor assumption.
The hatch is for crew egress, so clearly it needs to be reasonably easy to open to be any use at all!
Sure it is waterproof to some depth, but that can be done with sealant and 2 mating flat surfaces since the water pressure will work to keep them pressed together - it doesn’t require welding or anything that permanent, nor is the tank expected to be taken very deep if being carried by a submarine - if nothing else the hatch presumably has to be openable for the crew to get into the tank prior to being launched.
Being pedantic about whether the commander would need to stand on a ladder rung or not is irrelevant IMO - Enlisted gave up any pretense at realism many, many moon ago.
FYI wiki gives the following refernce to being able to be carried by a submarine, and notes that the hull is in 2 layers, with hte inner being a pressure hull:
yeah couse commanders out of cupola looking very much realistic already. There would be no diffrance.
quote part where they say they wont use hatch couse whatever you made up xd
you f made it up all over again? Please read it again. Did they also sealed that way gun barell and snorkels xd (which are at the same height as the hatch btw)?
Thats you:
“You know, it would be really hard to open it in combat so maybe they just sitting in place where sea washed them ashore. Useing gun and engine might be not worth it as it would take so much time and effort that tank would likely be dead by time you get to it” xddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
There were more than one “holes” to be sealed. If they clogged almost permanently, everything as you claim, the tank would be literally inoperable for any activity, including moving. Think about it a little bit. Couse now it looks like you just dont want to admit you made meaningless post and you go on with it xd.
Again, you can see the commander model and how scuffed it would be if he could pop out. Right now no one can see how scuffed it is. You might not like it, but it is preferable to have scuffed things we can’t see than scuffed things we can see.
I said the doctrine said to use the Cupola, not to never use the hatch. At least try to remember my arguments so I can somewhat take you seriously.
Uh no, I never said they launched under water, I only said they launched from subs and from deeper waters than any other amphibious tanks. Deeper waters means the potential for rougher waters and as a result, the hatches had to be waterproof instead of water tight like on other tanks. thus they were harder to open the same way a boat’s doors were harder to open. At least try to understand everything I say before constructing an incoherent ramble.
no, its prefeablle to use damn hatch xd
Then why do you insinuate that because of this the hatch was not needed for anything, so it did not have to work and it didnt? Really, man, you don’t have the right to say who you’re taking seriously at this point haha
DID THEY SEALED ALSO GUN BARELL AND SNORKELS THIS WAY IN YOUR OPINION MORON???
If so, the tank is useless, until everything is unpluged what in your opinion would take huge amounts of time that it is not worth doing as you say. If not (tell me also why hatch would be sealed that way and snorkels not btw), there is no reason for the hatch to have trouble opening from inside and you are just f wrong, which I sincerely believe.
it’s hard to say what exactly you meant since you’re making a waterproof everywhere submarine out of Ka-Chi
For you maybe, but evidently you don’t speak for the devs.
I made two seperate points. The first point was that the Japanese used the Cupola as intended, and the second point was that the hatch remained sealed in combat due to what the tank was designed to do. If you mixed up the arguments, that is on you.
No they did neither of those things, I just thought that those questions was rhetorical and you were smart enough to figure it out on your own. Evidently I was wrong, although I suppose you could argue by closing the breach with a shell in it, that technically counts as sealing the gun. As for the Snorkel, if you take a moment to look at it, you will see it is designed in such a way that it repels water around the vents to prevent water from entering into the engine bay. The hatch does not have such a thing on it, so it was made waterproof instead. Simple enough?
Subs typically launched any ordinance, torpedoes included on the surface. So if they launch torpedoes on the surface, what would posses anyone to launch a tank from underwater. And no, I have only ever said the top hatch was waterproof, bot the rest of the tank. Anything else was your poor attempt to read between the lines for something that was not there.
There is no evidence to support that claim.
But there IS evidence to support THAT conclusion - since apparently the tank was made with 2 hulls, the inner one being described as a “Pressure hull” on wiki.
They were deployed into combat from the ocean where the hatch was to be sealed to prevent water from getting in, the same way you are supposed to close the door to a ship’s bridge when no one is entering or leaving it. In this case, no one should be leaving the tank until all the fighting is over, at least in the configuration that the tank is in, which is with the pontoons and snorkeling gear. Like that, it was meant to go on deep seas, and as a result you definitely wanted to seal the hatch.
From what I have seen, that inner and outer hull thing was more for buoyancy than for anything else, although I suppose with it being a boat tank, the outer layer would have to be waterproof anyways
