[David_Hayward (RIP)]

On 30 September 1939, Stan Ellis cabled in code from the High Commission to W.R. Campbell who was by then the Chairman of the War Supply Board, referring to [N.O.] Carr’s enquiry to Canada House regarding the Guy Quad Ant. This vehicle had been designed throughout as a 4-wheel drive [4 x 4] 25-Pounder gun tractor and was also equipped with a Winch. Could Campbell explore the possibility of using the Marmon-Herrington front end drive on the Ford of Canada 101 [-inch] chassis with an off-centre to the left rear axle differential and a rear drive shaft from the rear side Marmon-Herrington front drive shaft takeoff position on the transfer case? It would be necessary to have an offset drive shaft to provide clearance for the Guy Winch which apparently could be mounted in the [Ford chassis] frame with offset Hotchkiss drive shaft as close as practicable to the left side spring. The Guy Winch was from a conventional drive shaft universal joint position: this was desirable unless a transmission power takeoff of 20 h.p. capacity was available to use with an Air Compressor [to use for tyre inflation]. The Guy Winch was the best type for their [Ford] design providing an off-centre drive shaft feasible. Ellis was mailing Blueprints of the Guy chassis and Winch and anticipated body details later. A photograph of the body had been mailed to Carr, as well as the drawings of the Dunlop wheel on the 22nd. ...

Ellis cabled the National Defence Headquarters, or N.D.H.Q. from the High Commission on 3 October 1939, the message being intended for Carr. Regarding the adaptation of the 101-inch chassis as an alternative to the Guy, he suggested that there be a joint discussion between Carr, Swallow and General Motors of Canada regarding the chassis details to permit the advance study of possibilities of using one body for both chassis [i.e. Ford and Chevrolet]. The instruction book and general specifications had been mailed to Carmichael [at Oshawa] by Clipper that week with another copy to Windsor [for Ford]. However, the book did not show any details.......On receipt of the information, and after a reasonable time allowed for the study thereof, it was suggested that a meeting should be arranged between the representatives of Ford, G.M. and the D.N.D. to discuss the possibilities of using a common body for the vehicles of this nature which might be manufactured by their company and G.M. Consideration might also be given to the interchangeability of certain chassis components both within each company’s chassis and between the chassis of the two companies. It had been suggested to G.M. that subject to the companies’ approval that the proposed meeting should be held at Oshawa. He also wrote the same date to G.M. of Canada in more-or-less the same terms. H.J. Carmichael, Vice-president and General Manager at G.M. of Canada replied to Charles Burns, by then Assistant Deputy Minister in the D.N.D., 6 October, that he wished to assure that their company would co-operate 100%, and would do everything in their power to facilitate arriving at a proper unit to be built from Canadian component parts, to serve the purpose that the unit served in England {sic.}. Carmichael added that they would be more than pleased to have a conference there in Oshawa with officials of the Department, Ford officials, and the company’s Engineers and ‘economically work out a satisfactory unit’. This is an interesting choice of phrase, and echoes the attention to economics that pervaded the Canadian war effort. Ellis cabled Carr 15 October 1939 and asked to be rushed a reply to his query regarding the adaptation of the Marmon-Herrington system for an Artillery Tractor. DesRosiers then telegraphed Ford with a copy of the Cable and asked for a copy of the reply that they had sent to Ellis. Davis at Fords replied that they had no record of the request, and so would the Department please send them details? Carr then sent Campbell, as chairman of the War Supply Board, a copy of all the correspondence and cables relating to Ellis’s request in order to settle the matter. Campbell acknowledged the next day. The Blueprints were received on 10 November ex the S.S. Duchess of York, and the High Commission advised the D.N.D. accordingly 15 November, with a stereotype address letter that suggests that there was a regular and established system for mailing information to the D.N.D. in Ottawa. Major (D.O.) J.J. Harris, R.C.A. requested the Director of Contracts on 28 November that the Blueprints be released and sent to Carr at Room 509, New Post Office Building, Ottawa, immediately.

On 1 December 1939 Ellis mailed Carr Drawings regarding the General Arrangement plan of the Morris and Guy Type C8/Four-wheel drive chassis, and the Winch arrangement. These did not arrive though in Ottawa until 29 December, the same as another letter of even date'.

It seems that it was Stan Ellis who in October 1939 wrote to the DND stating that WD 30-cwt lorries that were required from Canada should be equipped with M-H 4-wheel drive in 1/3rd of the trucks...that would explain a mix of MCP and 30-cwt CMPs. Also that all 3-tonners should have 4-wheel drive.

It appears that Ellis studied a sent-over GMC 4 x 4 that was tested at Farnborough. 'Ellis said that he had not seen the G.M. set-up since the failure, though as he had had no reports of failure of components having been received of the Marmon-Herrington equipment, perhaps G.M. would have been well advised to study a Marmon-Herrington set-up or pay more attention to assembly as their design was comparably substantial [to G.M.’s]: M.-H. used Timken gears in their front transmission arrangement of course. A ‘Ford’ 4 x 4 Tractor, H 351836 was ordered under Contract Dds. 7142: could this have been a Marmon-Herrington conversion Gun Tractor that was also on trial?'

I think that the evidence points to the 15-cwt 4 x 4 being a late entry in the line-up with GT, 30-cwt and 3-tonners first as I suggested. Also that M-H components were specified for Fords, and Timken-Detroit for GMC then Chevrolet BUT the Fords used a development [possibly built in the Windsor axle plant] with PTO and Chevrolets moved to a licence-built system by McKinnon Industries. The evidence also shows that considerable attention was paid to the GTs, and again suggest that it was Gun Tractor chassis that begat the rest of the range up to 3-tonners.

I also found that there was a requirement for 8-cwt. trucks to replace the 1938 Chevrolet GS in the personnel transport role in Canada. It appears that 8-cwt. was chosen as a light commercial chassis initially.