![]() |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The F definitely was applicable to the right-hand, not to the central-drive chassis. Could it be possible the F in parentheses meant it was an option? I.e. both the C291QRF right-hand drive chassis and C291QR central-drive chassis were available? Dropping the F in the chassis designation code was possibly done because by that time chassis were right-hand drive by default, but it did not help in clearing up matters where chassis were actually not right-hand drive. When dropping the F, they should have substituted another code for the left- or central-drive chassis. Is there any indication this was done? A good example of this confusion are the chassis supplied to NZ: as the NZ pattern Wheeled Armoured Carrier were a variation on the Indian Pattern Armoured Carrier, the first few were built on C191QRF chassis sourced from India. The Indian Pattern Mk's II and III had right-hand steering (see pictures in the Old Forum thread "Carrier, Wheeled, 4x4 (Indian Pattern)"), hence the drivers position on the first NZ Pattern ones was on the right too. But when the C291QR chassis NZ ordered in Canada (SM 2390) arrived, it turned out that these were central and not right-hand drive chassis. The design of the armoured body thus had to be altered with the driver's visor moved to the centre line of the Carrier. On the C291QR chassis, India designed the Mk.IV Wheeled Carrier with a radically changed hull front (see picture in the Old Forum thread "Wheeled Armoured Carrier in Afghanistan"). Note: there is a thread "India Pattern Carriers" on this forum also. Interesting stuff this is, let's keep digging. Hanno |
|
|