<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: T114 Tank Destroyer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:08:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sakuji</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/#comment-119748</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sakuji]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 23:40:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8569#comment-119748</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WoT = 99.99% fun crowd and .01% history buffs who would leave if something like this was added and balanced &quot;unhistorically&quot;.

I say let them leave, and the remaining 99.99% can continue to have fun.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WoT = 99.99% fun crowd and .01% history buffs who would leave if something like this was added and balanced &#8220;unhistorically&#8221;.</p>
<p>I say let them leave, and the remaining 99.99% can continue to have fun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Herman_der_German</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/#comment-119747</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Herman_der_German]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 23:20:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8569#comment-119747</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I do not think it is a good solution as an overall auto loading system but the reason is to keep the whole thing compact and reduce the overhang of the gun when in transit.   If the mag and loading mechanism were located behind the breech then the whole thing would be longer.  So the gun would stick out further at the front of the tank or the autoloader would stick out at the rear or a bit of both.  Since it is a recoilless gun the pressure in the barrel never gets very high compared to closed breech weapons so the barrel need not be very thick and may even be made of  light alloy so having it move need not be all that slow.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do not think it is a good solution as an overall auto loading system but the reason is to keep the whole thing compact and reduce the overhang of the gun when in transit.   If the mag and loading mechanism were located behind the breech then the whole thing would be longer.  So the gun would stick out further at the front of the tank or the autoloader would stick out at the rear or a bit of both.  Since it is a recoilless gun the pressure in the barrel never gets very high compared to closed breech weapons so the barrel need not be very thick and may even be made of  light alloy so having it move need not be all that slow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Otto-matic Reiffel</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/#comment-119745</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Otto-matic Reiffel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 23:02:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8569#comment-119745</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Because they like to have some historical basis, otherwise they will lose more of the history crowd. It&#039;s dodgy enough with their balancing of penetration but it would start getting silly if guns have less than half what they had IRL. 
Plus smoothbores also lead the way to gun launched missiles/rockets.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because they like to have some historical basis, otherwise they will lose more of the history crowd. It&#8217;s dodgy enough with their balancing of penetration but it would start getting silly if guns have less than half what they had IRL.<br />
Plus smoothbores also lead the way to gun launched missiles/rockets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: General Winter</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/#comment-119743</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[General Winter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8569#comment-119743</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[nice]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>nice</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark78</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/#comment-119732</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark78]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:35:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8569#comment-119732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually wouldn&#039;t it be four?  One pre-loaded and the others in the three round clip?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually wouldn&#8217;t it be four?  One pre-loaded and the others in the three round clip?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kellomies</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/#comment-119730</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kellomies]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:24:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8569#comment-119730</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Answer this: why bother letting that genie out in the first place? Smoothbores are such a can of worms in no small part because historically they were something of a herald for a generation shift in tank building, quickly followed by composite armor and other funny stuff.

Most of which works by quite different dynamics than the old big rifles and solid steel plates, ie. it&#039;d be hard to avoid a lot of system reworking which has &quot;messy&quot; written all over it.

The fact that they could throw out older-style ammo at pretty stupid muzzle velocities hence producing some pretty potentially appalling penetration values even without descending into the lunacy that is finned long-rods doesn&#039;t exactly help. By the by, IIRC just about the first ones to start putting both smoothbores and composite armour into tanks were the Soviets... do I need to spell out the implications?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Answer this: why bother letting that genie out in the first place? Smoothbores are such a can of worms in no small part because historically they were something of a herald for a generation shift in tank building, quickly followed by composite armor and other funny stuff.</p>
<p>Most of which works by quite different dynamics than the old big rifles and solid steel plates, ie. it&#8217;d be hard to avoid a lot of system reworking which has &#8220;messy&#8221; written all over it.</p>
<p>The fact that they could throw out older-style ammo at pretty stupid muzzle velocities hence producing some pretty potentially appalling penetration values even without descending into the lunacy that is finned long-rods doesn&#8217;t exactly help. By the by, IIRC just about the first ones to start putting both smoothbores and composite armour into tanks were the Soviets&#8230; do I need to spell out the implications?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kellomies</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/#comment-119727</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kellomies]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:17:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8569#comment-119727</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Makes sense I guess, certainly I was having a hard time trying to figure out how the backblast (per definitionem vented out of the rear) could be used to push the barrel forwards. Makes you wonder if it wouldn&#039;t have been easier to move the &quot;breech&quot; section back to create the space needed to feed the next shell though... less mass to shift and the mechanisms less exposed to combat damage, you&#039;d think.
But then I&#039;m no tank or gunnery engineer.

Random musing: am I imagining things or does the system retain the ubiquitous .50 spotting rifle? The much thinner tube by the main gun seems to have no other readily apparent role...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Makes sense I guess, certainly I was having a hard time trying to figure out how the backblast (per definitionem vented out of the rear) could be used to push the barrel forwards. Makes you wonder if it wouldn&#8217;t have been easier to move the &#8220;breech&#8221; section back to create the space needed to feed the next shell though&#8230; less mass to shift and the mechanisms less exposed to combat damage, you&#8217;d think.<br />
But then I&#8217;m no tank or gunnery engineer.</p>
<p>Random musing: am I imagining things or does the system retain the ubiquitous .50 spotting rifle? The much thinner tube by the main gun seems to have no other readily apparent role&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark78</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/#comment-119726</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark78]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:15:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8569#comment-119726</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thing would be far better as a Light Tank.  About 7 tons, over 20 hp/t, 58 kmh, very small, no armor, gun is already &quot;balanced&quot; with three shells in the autoloader, based on the M114 Command and Scout Carrier (ie, recon vehicle).  

It&#039;s role in the game.  Passive scout, ambush.  Muzzle velocity is kind of low.  Can easily be balance from Tier&#039;s 8-10 with soft stats, reload, etc.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thing would be far better as a Light Tank.  About 7 tons, over 20 hp/t, 58 kmh, very small, no armor, gun is already &#8220;balanced&#8221; with three shells in the autoloader, based on the M114 Command and Scout Carrier (ie, recon vehicle).  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s role in the game.  Passive scout, ambush.  Muzzle velocity is kind of low.  Can easily be balance from Tier&#8217;s 8-10 with soft stats, reload, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kellomies</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/#comment-119725</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kellomies]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:11:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8569#comment-119725</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Later AMX-13 upgrade packages apparently included fully automatic loading mechanisms, but then I for one I have no idea if Herman is talking about the Fifties &quot;barillet&quot; jobs or more recent stuff - though I&#039;d be very surprised if the Leclerc&#039;s wasn&#039;t hydraulic or electric.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Later AMX-13 upgrade packages apparently included fully automatic loading mechanisms, but then I for one I have no idea if Herman is talking about the Fifties &#8220;barillet&#8221; jobs or more recent stuff &#8211; though I&#8217;d be very surprised if the Leclerc&#8217;s wasn&#8217;t hydraulic or electric.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xelos</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/19/t114-tank-destroyer/#comment-119676</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Xelos]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:13:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8569#comment-119676</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I said use them as starting point but don&#039;t have game revolve around these historical values. We already have Tiger tanks fighting T54s so just stop with pony shit you tool.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I said use them as starting point but don&#8217;t have game revolve around these historical values. We already have Tiger tanks fighting T54s so just stop with pony shit you tool.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
