@Gunjob I’m at a bit of a loss here. The baseplate is very obviously one solid block and is shown here. No dust cover…
2 Likes
We appreciate that there is frustration. But directing it towards moderatiors and staff is not the way to go about things.
It’s not an excuse for personal attacks and targeting as happened previously.
It’s not constructive and will not help progress things in any manor.
3 Likes
Smin, could the report regarding the challenger 2 baseplate be re-opened please? The above image clearly shows it’s a solid metal plate.
1 Like
It’s better to make a new one with all sources attached and properly sourced (where from).
3 Likes
No worries :)
1 Like
Not attacking anyone just wondering why moderators don’t have to provide sources for their answers. Because there is no source for aluminum and also no source for it being a dust cover. The problem lies with the discrepancy that changes are made that are incorrect and have no factual bases which makes it near impossible to get sources to contradict them.
Other than Trixxters “It is a dust cover” (which according to gajins own rules should have 2 secondary sources or a single primary) under every report regarding this topic we did not get any sources at all why those reports were dismissed.
I’m sorry I don’t see a developer Answer there just the answer of the moderator without any source for the claim.
And to clarify this again, I do not want to attack anybody, after all we are all humans and can make wrong assumptions and mistakes, me included.
It is simple just the issue that we need sources for everything while moderator stuff can apperantly be passed without sources like in the case of the “dust cover”
5 Likes
British engineers love dust covers, here we can see HMS King George V sporting its dust cover to protect from dust when at sea
8 Likes
While I don’t think we should be targetting anyone - The protection analysis explaination is blatantly wrong and needs to be retracted.
8 Likes
Wouldn’t be the first time, reminds me of the time they said the ERA needed the backplate to qualify for the armour protection XD
We just want sources, preferably a primary and perhaps 2 secondary please :)
3 Likes
Am i seeing this right?
Pretty sure the purpose of the dust cover is also so that the crew can step on it, rather than snapping an ankle between hull and armour. Looks like a 3-5mm steel plate to me.
2 Likes
This FVC114 sounds like what was sold by AEI as the “ODIN” turret. Was UOR for Spartan 235.
It used the Thales (formerly SELEX) STAWS imaging system the same as the Enforcer RWS, so I imagine it was a Selex/Thales product to begin with.
1 Like
Does anybody know the penetration value of dust?
1 Like
If they make the claim, you would think they would be able to provide a source which they will have to hand and it would be super easy to say, even if it’s a book title with page number.
This entire ch2 blog is a disaster and should be re-done, this time actually paying attention and reading the bugs they link.
1 Like
Infinite, that’s why you have to put dust covers everywhere.
2 Likes
The only mention of dust covers in Challenger History is during the initial Operation Telic.
Where they apperantly also weren’t even fitted uniformly
And were removed very soon. Note the text
Also in which logic do you make dust covers out of solid metal?
these dust covers are only to stop dust swirling around the tank and to direct it backwards to reduce the tanks visibility, not to get dust out anywhere.
Found dust covers for Chally 2. Only fitted once to 2E while the sales pitch to Greece happened
Note that they are again made from a rubber like material
1 Like
Any guesses on the actual shell I used for this?
4 Likes