Comments on: FTR QA 2 – Answers

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 23:08:02 +0000

thats a no, Israel didn’t even exist during WWII, so that is just too far a stretch for WWII era vehicles…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 23:02:43 +0000

these questions arent asked through the russian QA, WG are doing a special QA just for FTR :)

By: IndygoEEI

IndygoEEI — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 20:10:32 +0000

Hey, SS can you ask him if we will see even a EU tree branch of the Isrealies? I’m wondering if it’s even possible with the recent news on no Israeli tree.

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:10:20 +0000

That’s because here the decent questions aren’t outnumbered twenty to one by retarded bullshit. I got the impression SerB is the only guy in the dev team pervy enough to wade through that crap more or less daily and like it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 09:13:47 +0000

Not entirely true. There were many attempts to rigid mount the tank gun without any recoil systems at all. Those were dropped mainly because of the long-term wear effects. But comparing it to a car crash – certainly not.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 08:39:18 +0000

Very good SS, not bad questions, reasonable answers, just as it should be. It’s a shame for WG, that you are doing what the EU/NA community managers should do… I can understand, that on daily basis they communicate on the RU forum Fine, and understable, but the complete lack of even an occasional opportunity to ask direct question form the users from other servers didn’t help the feeling, that the RU users are priviliged.
So, I’m very glad that from time to time there will be such an occasion, just maybe leave the window for asking questions wider, or chose one, permanent day when the thread for asking questions would be open, like i.e. every Monday every two weeks or so on.

By: Captian Nemo

Captian Nemo — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 00:44:45 +0000

Panther II is not that different from Panther chassis. In all seriousness.

Most projects, if you start to dig, were based off the reliable Panzer III and IV chassis.

the advantage of the later chassis is more mass and more suspension for the recoil to be transferred through and a overall more stable platform for firing. However wasting an E100 hull for a anti tank platform is beyond stupid. Using a gutted and knocked out Panther seems more practical. Its what was done with the Pz IIIs and IV’s and even a few Tigers I’s.

Not all records survived. Also the military might not have kept the drawings and returned them to the company and or the company lost the originals. If anything its possible its hidden away on microfilm. It was popular in the 40′s and 50′s to copy it all to microfilm and toss the paper copies. Saves a lot of space.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 23:18:22 +0000

Skorpion is not tier 10 material with a standard Panther chassis, but how about an E-50 or Panther II one?

Not to mention 12.8cm is more popular than 15cm, and dev can jam any gun on anywhere like the always did.

As for no drawing for British tanks…..god they are lazy.

By: Leedar

Leedar — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 22:47:50 +0000

That’s because SS carefully selects questions that are more untenable to troll, and perhaps there is existing some sort of good will, considering the devs are going out of their way to answer these questions specifically (instead of the nigh-unchecked masses of idiots that submit questions on the RU forum).

By: Kena

Kena — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 22:04:56 +0000

So we can expect the Habakkuk carrier to become the “Ratte” of WoWs on the forums when it’s released?