View Single Post
  #33  
Old 13-12-14, 10:25
Hanno Spoelstra's Avatar
Hanno Spoelstra Hanno Spoelstra is offline
MLU Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 14,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Hayward (RIP) View Post
1. Regarding the Australian FAT Rear-engined: note this was supposed to be a Field Artillery Chassis, and yet the official description albeit of the original model was "Rear-Engine Armoured Car" [Ford Model C011QRF...my square brackets]. I could not decide therefore after reading your reasoned and authoratitive note whether the Australians had ordered any FATs. Then I remembered that this point had already been discussed on the old forum. Because my PC crashed I lost all unsaved data. This file has been a casualty...I think we agreed before that this chassis was a Ford C291Q, # 13 Cab as per THE HISTORY OF FORD IN AUSTRALIA, P. 109, Australian design No. 8, on the F-GT chassis. So I was wrong, and will amend thje original posting. AMENDMENT HERE: but I seem to remember that it was thought that the 1942 3-ton FAT chassis for Australia was the same model, so can I correct that to C291QH please?
A "FORD ARMOURED VEHICLES Chassis Instruction Book" lists two models:
- Rear engine chassis 4x4 C291QR
- Modified G.T. Chassis 4x4 C291QH
plus views of the chassis supplied (see attachments)

Click image for larger version

Name:	Ford C291QR chassis.jpg
Views:	8
Size:	35.9 KB
ID:	69793 Click image for larger version

Name:	Ford C291QH chassis.jpg
Views:	12
Size:	35.9 KB
ID:	69794

Obviously the rear engined C291QR chassis were used for the Indian Pattern Wheeled Armoured Carrier. I think it is logical to deduce that the "modified GT" C291QH chassis was used for the Indian Pattern 4x4 Armoured Truck - please refer to the attached scan from Bart Vanderveen's book Historic Military Vehicle Directory.

Click image for larger version

Name:	Ford chassis for Indian Pattern vehicles_resized.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	120.6 KB
ID:	69795

I think David Hayward would have loved to have seen this....

H.
Reply With Quote