View Single Post
  #7  
Old 05-09-05, 22:36
David_Hayward (RIP)'s Avatar
David_Hayward (RIP) David_Hayward (RIP) is offline
former Resident Historian
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The New Forest, England
Posts: 3,841
Default MCC Leader

That's what I suspected Richard: here are details of Leaders that I have from the WD Trials in 1936:

Quote:
Type C.S.10/80

This was a standard 10 ft 6 ins-wheelbase Morris Commercial Cars Ltd (MCC) commercial transport vehicle and had been tested for the carriage of 2-ton Military loads. The chassis was modified with as regards tyre equipment and by fitting a double-skinned cab roof for protection from the sun in tropical countries, a number of them being operated in Egypt

Type C.S.14/80
This was a standard commercial transport vehicle, identical to the C.S.10/80 except for the 14-feet wheelbase.
So, '10' = 10-feet wheelbase and '14' 14-feet, and '80' = 80 cwt, or 4-tonner, but for military purposes with 4.75 ton gvw it was a 2-tonner. However I have just found out that in the 1937 Trials, the 2-ton Leader was also capable of carrying a 3-ton load.

Also:

Quote:
C.S. 11/30

This 30-cwt MCC lorry had been acquired as there was a need for a 30-cwt 4-wheeled lorry of improved performance for use in Egypt.
I assume that they had a 11-feet wheelbase, and of course were rated at 30-cwt or 1.5 tons.

Care to suggest that the Singapore truck is a C.S.14/80 and the Irish one a C.S.10/80 as with twin rear wheels it must be a 2-tonner as suggested? The Singapore truck looks as though it has a different front end, and extended rear overhang to the 'civvy' truck.

In the 1937/8 Trials apart from the Leader and a C.S. 11/30 there was also a C.W.S. 13/60 which was apparently a Leader with 'considerably more power'...it gets very confusing all these MCC model numbers!

This is presumably a C.S. 13/60 armoured version? The load carrier per se would I assume have the same front end, a la C.S.9, and the same engine as the armoured version. Rating 60-cwt/3-tons?


Last edited by David_Hayward (RIP); 05-09-05 at 22:56.
Reply With Quote