Re: Morris-Commercial C8 FAT
 

Good day,

Thought I'd add my two cents worth in here since it's my Quads (with armour) that Chuck is trying to blow up. I just spent some time looking around and everything in can find makes no mention of the Quads being armoured, no matter whether built in the UK Canada or India. Studying some pictures of various Quads I see no evidence of this either. Now she does look damn military and "looks" like she should be armoured but alas NO, IMHO, is the final answer. I used the CMP Armoured Truck for comparison and on her you can tell she is plated. The ammo limber has no armour either.

The confusion is likely long standing; I've always assumed she had some armour as well.

Cheers

Re: Morris-Commercial C8 FAT
 

Hi DRG
Clauses Reference,
http://www.oldcmp.net/qldfat12.html
states
"Although the chassis and front sheetmetal were original"
So It appears that the vehicle is made of sheet metal? looking closely at the pictures seems to confirm this, this would offer some minimal protection against schrapnel as much of it loses its punch very quickly owing to its un-aerodynamic shape. Obviously it's tissue paper when fired at by small arms.
Modeling this limited defence against schrapnel by giving it a 1 armour greatly distorts the vehicles real abilities, as in game terms it is now a fully blown APC.
So if indeed the vehicle is mild sheet metal, then the advantages (realistic) of giving it armour values of 1 are
Models some extremely limited schrapnel stopping ability of the vehicle.
disadvantages (unrealistic)?
1. Now impervious to small arms fire.
2. If you try to pick up a guns under counter battery fire in a regular sheet metal (unarmoured) truck its virtually impossible because it just get destroyed. Good and proper. However the sheet metal quad can do it very easily, this is wrong because the quad should suffer just as badly from counterbattery as any other sheet metal truck. This 'easy pickup' for the Quad also completely ignores the fact that eveyone has to get out of the quad to collect the big heavy traverse wheel, dig the gun out, collect the loose ammunition and bits and pieces, attach the limber and attach the gun.
3. The British have a very handy rear area APC, it even has a better Carrying capacity than the genuine article the M3, carrying four more troops. Its Carrying capacity only needs to be 8, rather than 16 to carry the 25 pdrs around.
4. It is unfair. There are any number of other sheet metal vehicles around that dont get armour values of 1.
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Morris-Commercial C8 FAT
 

I did a search and couldn't find info that the Quad was armoured.

Here's some good photos of a Canadian restoration:

http://www.waryearsremembered.co.uk/home/MORRISQUAD.htm

Re: Morris-Commercial C8 FAT
 

The Canadian War Museum does not have a Morris Quad but it does have a Ford FAT "Quad" like the one in Clause's link. I measured the rear door and came up with 1/8" of an inch of steel. Substantial "sheet metal" but still only worth 1/3 of a point of armour. The windows were decidedly non-armoured looking. The C15 ambulance was definitely beefier looking - didn't measure that one though.

Pat

Re: Morris-Commercial C8 FAT
 

Well dont forget an eight of an inch of steel isnt an eighth of an inch of armour, The steel has to be treated before it gets the armour label. I think rolling for instance makes the steel denser as well as more 'even' or homogenous.
Also, besides the windows the other characteristic that makes this vehicle unique amongst all other armoured vehicles is the completely unprotected underbelly. Theres an awfully exposed, big fat fuel tank and lines under there.
And of course edges can be joined, turned, beaded etc, you really need to take in your hand drill, drill a hole through the middle of one of the panels and measure it there, just to be sure.
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Morris-Commercial C8 FAT
 

Just for fun everybody please go look up the word "compromise" and come back when you understand what it means.

As I have explained in the past, and what should be obvious, we have a situation in the game where we deal in armour in centimetres. We deal in centimetres for both games because if we didn't we wouldn't be able to properly give modern armour the ratings we do without totally tearing the game code apart ( the limit would be 999 millimetres and there are many tanks in SPMBT with armour ratings of 100 cm and above and allowing four digits for 9999 millimetres is simply NOT repeat NOT an option

UNARMOURED VEHICLES like a truck or a jeep type vehicle are given zero armour and are vulnerable to small arms and shrapnel. So........ what to do with something that has 1/8 of an inch of steel and was given that specifically to deflect shell splinters and offer some measure of protection to the crew inside when the only two choices we have are zero armour or 1 cm of armour ? Do we just say " too bad" and make them as vulnerable as a sheet metal truck or give them some protection in the form of a 1? What you do is weight the pros and cons and MAKE A COMPROMISE knowing full well SOMEBODY will always think this is the wrong solution.

When you only have a choice between zero and 1 what number do you choose when you want to reflect that a vehicle is better protected that a simple truck ?

?????

The answer is you give it a one for the reason that giving it some protection when it did indeed HAVE " some protection" is better than giving it no protection because this is more fair and accurate way to depict them given the restrictions we have to live with.

Don

Re: Morris-Commercial C8 FAT
 

You really don't bother to check things like this in the game do you Chucky?

Please do change the carry capacity of the Quad to 8 then try to load a 25 pounder and come back and tell us all how successful you were.

Don

Re: Morris-Commercial C8 FAT
 

Hi Don
You are correct, I had been testing various LLoyd carrier combinations and thought the "rules" I found there would apply to 25 pdrs. Would you be so kind to inform me why the Quad cant carry the 25 pdr when given a carry capacity of 108?
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Morris-Commercial C8 FAT
 

Because the load cost of the gun + the crew is greater than 8.

Don

Re: Morris-Commercial C8 FAT
 

I see thank you.
A quick look at
http://www.tarrif.net/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_25_pounder
gives the 25 pdr a crew of 6
So the current in-game 25 pdr crew of 8 appears to be an error. And of course with the correct 6 man crew and a load cost of 1 the gun ceases to be a reason to give the Quad the wrong carrying capacity. So if the gun has the correct number of crew then the Quad can now have its correct carrying capacity (7 maybe or 6 judging from the pictures Ive seen) and still tow the gun. Also the quad seems to have a crew of 3, this should be 1 I think.
edit
http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/p...quad_story.htm
says Carrying capacity should be 6 men.