Yea, nah. It is not a normal Cr2 version
Ok got it
As long as the mounting is the same it shouldnt matter the variant of the challenger, it can definitely be used as a sourced supporting others.
Heres one with a .50 cal outside the enforcer 2
Would be good to see a pic of the FVC114, the FVC110 on the right doesn’t look like ours.
FVC114 has no picture but states “Licence to develop market and manufacture the FVC 114 was later sold to AEI Systems.The FVC 114 has been trialled on the BAE Land Systems Spartan CVR(T) and by an undisclosed European country on the BAE Global Combat Systems M113 APC.”
Spartan cupola for comparison.
I’ll look into it !!
2 Likes
I suspect, as it states it is on Cr2, it is the loader coupola.
Hey folks
Just woke up so forgive my lack of replies - I’m unconvinced about the whole dust cover thing. I haven’t found any sources saying that’s what it is, nor does it make sense.
Why would it need a dust cover? It sits flush against the baseplate?
@Gunjob do you know if there’s any sources for that dust cover statement or any proof its hollow? The photos only showed exactly what I sent - a solid metal backing plate, but the ticket was closed by TricKKzter?
I’ll pan for some more sources today :)
6 Likes
Keep up the good fight man
1 Like
It just doesn’t make much sense. What good would a dust cover do, for a non moving parts baseplate? Theres no reason to have to worry about dust getting in somewhere
1 Like
Thats what i was saying. “Oh no! My STEEL plate got dust on it!” unusable
1 Like
You’d use a dust cover, if there was something like moving parts or something that could jam. But what difference does it make if theres dust on the mounting bracket or bricks? They are not that delicate
I’m just going to point out how ridiculous it is that someone like the infamous tech moderator can say “it’s a dust cover” with no sourcing or evidence, then we have to try to disprove it.
Same with the made up aluminium thing.
It’s ridiculous.
3 Likes
This is the right kind of thinking, every component on a military vehicle has a purpose.
1 Like
On the aluminium, the additional armour weighs something like 15-20 tons? If you think bolts or thread inserts in an ally plate of any thickness will hold that while the vehicle is going cross country then I have a bridge to sell you.
1 Like
Find the dimensions of the mounting plate.
https://www.steelexpress.co.uk/steel-weight-calculator.html
Challenger 2 is already a heavy tank
Adding more weight would put strain on the engine and suspension so each addition, especially applique armor, needs to be carefully considered.
In this case, the baseplate gets installed, and the ASPRO-HMT sits flush against it. The bricks would be installed PRIOR to the deployment of the tank in combat, so its not like they’re concerned there’s dust and sand in the mounting brackets that might prevent brick installation. You install ERA and Appique armor before it leaves the FOB.
There’s no moving parts here either so once installed - dust or not, the armor will do its job.
Keep in mind also, these are 5+ ton armor packages. You would need a strong baseplate to support this weight.
The dust cover theory makes 0 sense and has no evidence to support it. TricKKzter has provided no sources for this, @Gunjob do you have anything that can shine a light on this? I’m having to prove the lack of something existing, which is pretty impossible.
8 Likes
TES’ armor kit is 5.6t I think. Though maybe thats compared to 2F I forget.
The interesting part is also that they removed the dust cover screens after the Chally 2E pack, that kinda shows that dust is not something they are concerned with
Dust protection screens installed
Gone on later Dorchester versions
1 Like
“As of the current game version, the only difference to the TES and the 2F, is the addition of 5.8t of additional weight and a far larger profile”
Source; you!
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/gpuxRxnCZtm7
1 Like
Damn, off by a little haha
Still waking up :P
3 Likes