Comments on: Ensign’s Q&A #10 http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/ensigns-qa-10/ Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:08:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Ensign’s Q&A #11 | For The Record http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/ensigns-qa-10/#comment-22687 Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:37:57 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1440#comment-22687 [...] Previous Q&A [...]

]]> By: Guest http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/ensigns-qa-10/#comment-20517 Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:16:20 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1440#comment-20517 How they get numbers like RPM is from the timing of 1 firing cycle and then extrapolate. LOL

]]> By: EnsignExpendable http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/ensigns-qa-10/#comment-20023 Mon, 12 Aug 2013 01:58:33 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1440#comment-20023 The methodology is described in tank test documents, including the one where they test a captured Tiger II, which is available entirely online.

]]> By: EnsignExpendable http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/ensigns-qa-10/#comment-20002 Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:15:19 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1440#comment-20002 The Lee doesn’t deserve a mention :P

]]> By: EnsignExpendable http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/ensigns-qa-10/#comment-20001 Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:14:30 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1440#comment-20001 I don’t know how it was “tested”, but it was tested with one minute of fire.

There is no combat scenario where you would expend your entire ammunition supply without changing targets, so there would be no point in testing it like that.

]]> By: Xel M http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/ensigns-qa-10/#comment-19975 Sun, 11 Aug 2013 19:38:11 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1440#comment-19975 I understand why you would say it makes sense to do it in the actual tank but I’m not positive they actually did so unless proof of such a methodology exists. I’m not doubting you, but I don’t think it is something we should take as given. Military forces around the world are quite bad at doing independent testing without fudging the numbers in some way. Whether it is on purposeful or accidental. Would be interested to see some documentation on how such testing is done.

]]> By: Kellomies http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/ensigns-qa-10/#comment-19881 Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:22:51 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1440#comment-19881 It would also imply the *intial* RoF before the loader started getting tired and had to begin fetching the munitions from the more out-of-the-way secondary racks would have been a fair bit higher, which hardly seems credible.

]]> By: Kellomies http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/ensigns-qa-10/#comment-19878 Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:20:55 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1440#comment-19878 Should be easy when you had none in the first place.

]]> By: Anonymous http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/ensigns-qa-10/#comment-19860 Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:01:35 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1440#comment-19860 I rest my case.

]]> By: Kellomies http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/10/ensigns-qa-10/#comment-19850 Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:43:29 +0000 http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=1440#comment-19850 …and the second would be of more than curio concern why exactly?

]]>