the windsor vs the T-16

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by alleramilitaria
after doing the research (and i do NOT mean to upset anyone) it seems that the windsor carrier was a better vehicle for towing artillery and as a transport that the T-16 (but still had flaws).

reasons
1) the windsor was easier to maintaine and not as complicated as the T-16.

2) there is much more room in the windsor.

3) you can use most UC parts on the windsor, not on the T-16

Hypothesis: "the windsor carrier was a better vehicle for towing artillery and as a transport that the T-16".

Re. 1) and 3) I can't see why the Windsor was easier to maintain than the T16. But if it was, why that would make it either a better towing or transport vehicle. The same applies for commonality of parts.
If a vehicle is easier to maintain and spares are available when and where needed, it improves the availability of the vehicle, not the suitability for a certain role.

Re. 2) Yes, there was a little more room in the Windor than the T16, so that speaks for the hypothesis that it is a better transport vehicle than the T16. But, more room is not necessarily better for towing artillery.

One reason you fail to mention is that the steering mechanism of the UC, which was applied to the Windsor also, was not effective on the Windsor with it's longer hull. It severly hampered mobility when loaded or when towing. It was for this reason Ford US decided to fit a proper controlled differential to the T16. So, that's a minus for your hypothesis.

Question: which sources did you use for your research?

H.