Morris-Commercial C8 FAT

[cbo]

chuckfourth said:
Unit 104 in the British OOB, "Morris Quad GT" is modeled in the game as armoured actually It appears it was unarmoured.
Assuming that the "Morris Quad GT" is actually "Morris Commercial C8 FAT" Mk III.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_C8
amongst others.

Maybe I'm missing something, but where does it say anything about the Morris Quad being armoured or not?

I think its pretty clear that the "Morris Commercial C8 FAT" Mk III isnt armoured all the references Ive been able to find confirm this. From a common sense point of view why would you armour the vehicle and leave the windows glass? without any armoured shutters, and if the limber, gun and gun crew arn't armoured whats the point of armouring the vehicle?

That is some nice speculation, but again, where does it say anything about the Morris Quad being armoured or not?

I dont know whether whether the Morris Quad was armoured or not, but I think Pat has a valid point, speculation doesn't quite do the trick. To solve the riddle, you need some references which actually discuss the material and thickness of the cab or a measure of the cab itself, if possible.

As for partly armoured towing vehicles towing unarmoured guns, there are other examples. It is obviously rather difficult to armour a towed gun, but as long as the towing vehicle is capable of movement, you can at least move the gun out of harms way, even if it is damaged. So it might make some sense to put light armour the towing vehicle.

The picture Pat was referring to as apparently showing an armoured quad apparently pictures a Canadian Ford built gun tractor:

http://www.sixtharmygroup.com/portal..._1941_p_42.jpg

Somthing like this one:
http://www.oldcmp.net/qldfat12.html

The armoured Quad Ive not seen before. It doesnt appear in any WWII pictures Ive ever seen, maybe its a post war development? or a one off? Also, it appears the rear 'tray' isnt armoured, this seems to have a canvas cover, so wether it is a field artillery tractor(FAT) is questionable. Lastly, the not inconsiderable extra weight of the armour would probably mean less ammunition for the gun and a less mobile gun tractor.

What picture are you referring to?

If it is this one:
http://www.sixtharmygroup.com/portal...-scout-car.jpg

.. you are right, it is not a gun tractor, it is a Canadian produced C15TA armoured truck. AFAIK it was used as an APC, ambulance, radio vehicle and other purposes.

cbo

[DRG]

cbo said:Maybe I'm missing something, but where does it say anything about the Morris Quad being armoured or not?

Claus, In the wiki article it has "Armour -- none" just below crew and just above the engine specs.

There are a lot of comments in various sources about the Quad offering "protection" for the crew which is no doubt why it's been given a nominal (1) armour on the front, side and rear ( but not top ) since Day 1. If we want to model a vehicle with some kind of "protection" for the crew 1 point of armour is as low as we can go.

And yes, that other photo is indeed a Canadian C15TA armoured truck which is no relation at all to a Gun Quad

Don

[cbo]

DRG said:

Claus, In the wiki article it has "Armour -- none" just below crew and just above the engine specs.

Ah, that's where it is

cbo

[chuckfourth]

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.

[Cross]

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

[PatG]

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

[chuckfourth]

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.

[DRG]

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

[chuckfourth]

Hi DRG
I would look at it this way.
It doesnt matter that the Quad gave the -crew- "some measure of protection" in game terms whats important is that the vehicle -itself- doesnt have this protection. The windows, the underbelly and most importantly, the radiator arn't protected at all.
see http://tanksww2f.chollie.co.uk/files...ord/Quad3J.jpg
Though the crew may have some protection the vehicle itself cant survive in schrapnel (let alone small arms fire). If because of nothing else other than that the radiator would be holed immediately, I doubt the engine would run for long dry. It is clearly not an armoured car.
As far as compromising goes without going into semantics the Quad is clearly 9/10ths truck and 1/10 Armoured(steeled really) car. It would seem to me that 0 is a far more reasonable option than 1.
There is no evidence that the body was desgned to deflect shell splinters.
Best Regards Chuck.

[DRG]

Chuck

The game will never be as "realistic" as you desire . It's a game, the game engine has provided a large number of people with a lot of enjoyable hours of play but it's not perfect and never will be. Dig deep enough and you will likely find hundreds of "realism errors" that are insignificant in the big scheme of things that will drive the sticklers for accuracy crazy but the game wouldn't function properly if everything was exactly by the book or would generate complaints from other people more concerned with just getting on with the game. Artillery transports are one example where carry capacity was given with an eye to game play over "historical accuracy" The British "Howitzer Tp/T" is a good example. It works well enough for 99.9% of the players but there are problems if you look at it. In the early 1930's it has three guns and two transports and all three guns have to load into each of the transports regardless. We have no way to force players to choose the "correct" transport. We can "advise" but most people don't read the information. If we set up the transports and guns exact to "historical" standards people are going to pick a gun and a transport combination that won't fit and ***** about it. ( Basically, SOMEBODY is going to complain we should do things differently no matter WTF we do.) For that unit in late war years there are four guns and three transports and although it might be too gamey for some people we have to ensure that each gun can be transported by each of the transports and sometimes that means numbers get fudged a bit. ( and if we take units away somebody at some point will ***** that we haven't included that unit and should for "historical accuracy" ) Putting in the correct gun crew numbers and transport capacities would cause no end of aggravation from a game perspective and all basically to keep a very, VERY small percentage of people who are concerned about such things happy. The gun quad really should only be used to pull 18 and 25 pounders but the nature of the game allows it to be used to pull things it never did in reality.

Here's another example. The Ordnance QF 18 pounder had a "gun crew" of 6 men but there were another 4 that were responsible for ammunition supply that were usually behind the gun lines and generally only met the gun crew when they went forward with ammunition ( but not always ) so TECHNICALLY the full crew compliment was 10 men though only 6 usually served the gun. We give it 8 men, same as the 25 pounder. Why 8 ? Offhand I have no idea. Likely a compromise. Many guns in that range are given an 8 man crew. I do know it's been that way for years without any complaint whatsoever until now and I'm assuming that all this started because some idiot decided to use gun quads as APC's in a PBEM because we gave it 1 armour

I'll tell ya what. I'll put it on the list and maybe in the fall I'll look into it. I'm fairly certain the carry capacity of 116 for the quad could/should probably be reduced but likely not to "historical" levels. Perhaps the gun crews as well but if the Brit gun crews and arty transports get reviewed then all nations may need looking at which turns what is an insignificant little "problem" into a job that will consume far more man hours that it really deserves that will have next to zero impact on the game 99.9% of the people play.

Don