Vehicle weight, payload, troop capacity

[Golf33]

Hi folks!

I shall use my first post on this forum to embarass myself by asking what is probably a really obvious question. However, it's one that I haven't been able to find an answer to anywhere else, so your help would be greatly appreciated!

I'm currently researching the vehicle allocation of various WWII British/Commonwealth organisations (like Inf Bn, Fd Arty Bty, RASC Tpt Coy and so on). In the War Establishments, the following vehicles are listed:

1. Truck 8 cwt
2. Truck 15 cwt
3. Lorry 30 cwt
4. Lorry 3 ton

I believe "cwt" is an abbreviation for "hundredweight" which is 100lb, although given the numbers below I could be wrong about this!

If I understand correctly, these weights should refer to the payload of the vehicle, but as far as I can tell on the CMP Specifications page on this site (the only decent resource I've come across for these vehicles at all) this doesn't seem to be the case.

I thought "Maximum gross rating" would be the weight of the vehicle fully fueled, crewed and with full payload, while "Curb weight" would be the weight of the vehicle fully fueled but with no crew or payload. This can't be right though, because doing the math the C8 would have a payload of 15 cwt, the C15 would have a payload of 63 cwt, the C15A a payload of 30 cwt, the C30 of 52 cwt, the C60S of 92 cwt, and the C60L a payload of 90 cwt or about 4.1 tons. This seems really strange since the 15 cwt C15 would have a greater payload than the 30 cwt C30!

Can anyone clear this up for me? What were the gross weights fully fueled, crewed and loaded for these vehicles?

Also, does anyone know on average how many combat-equipped troops could be loaded into each?

The information is for use in developing equipment lists and characteristics for a WWII computer wargame (more information on request).

Your assistance is greatly appreciated!

Regards
Steve Long

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

There were 20 'Hundredweights' in the Imperial Ton, so 1 cwt = 112 lbs. This was also a bag of cement so I know how much it is to carry just 1 cwt! !Ho hum! What a typo! 16 ounces or ozs in a pound, 112 lbs in a cwt. and 20 cwts in a ton! And 12 x 12 = 144 or ONE GROSS! Kids nowadays only go to 10 x 10!

If you think that the military ratings are odd, just consider the variety of ratings that the civilian authorities used when the trucks were demobbed!

There has always been it seems a disparity between US ratings and say British ratings. For example the 1929-32 Chevrolet Light Delivery was in the US a 1/2 ton chassis or 10 cwt. but the British rating was 12 cwt. From 1927-28 the 1-Ton US chassis was 20-25 cwt., and then 1929-32 25 cwt. The British rated 1 1/2 ton US modified Canadian and US 4 x 2 trucks from 1940 as 3-tonners

Originally posted by David_Hayward
There were 20 'Hundredweights' in the Imperial Ton, so 1 cwt = 120 lbs. This was also a bag of cement so I know how much it is to carry just 1 cwt!

OH DAVID!

I may have gone to school before you did. . . . .

Not right at all, and I can still still remember it as bashed in by rote as we used to do.

"16oz one pound, 14 pounds one stone, 2 stones one quarter (of a hundredweight), 4 quarters one hundredweight, 20 hundredweight one ton."

Therefore the old ton is 2240lb and 1cwt is 112lb not 120lb.

For Steve's benefit, this is the old British ton and these measures were used in WWII and often seen chalked in a standard shipping table on vehicles for D-Day. The term cwt of course is simply "C" being the Roman numeral for 100 and then "WT" is obviously just "weight".

Our change to metrication produced a very similar measure in that 1 tonne (the tonne being specifically a metric "ton" but still confusingly being pronounced "tun") is 2200lb and so just 40 lb short of the old Imperial ton and 50kg being 110lb is near enough an old cwt.

Interestingly this gives the post-war army Land-Rover is nickname of a "One tunny" being a 1 metric ton pay-load vehicle and having all the syllables of "tonne" pronounced.

The 15cwt WWII truck was a common item and intended for this pay-load over all passable terrain, invariably these were often overloaded to a ton as needs must. Post war, when the British Army re-equipped, they somewhat mistakenly saw a continuing need for fleets of up-rated 15cwt to 1 ton trucks and had them built in quantity only to find they're really too small and so many examples seemed to go into store and then to surplus.

It is obvious that many WWII examples are quite under-rated but this does allow for the rigours of cross-country use, subsequently in peace-time dual ratings were commonplace for road only applications and alternately all service uses.

How easy do you have it now !! Count to ten and carry one, but when I was at school we had money in a base of 12 for pence to shillings and than a base of 20 for shillings to pounds, plus the weights in a base of 16, 14, 4, 112 and/or 2240.

Think of the endless possibilities for masochistic math teachers, and I had some I can tell you, hours spent struggling with homework that went something like:
"You need 1t 13cwt 1qt 7lb of widgets that cost 3/11d per stone, how much does it cost?"
No pocket calculators (pre transistor even), no slide rules and no log tables.

Don't remind me. . . . . . . . .

R.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

...wot about those logarithm tables? No calculators then!

David [49]

Originally posted by David_Hayward
...wot about those logarithm tables? No calculators then!

Ah, the delights of double ruling down the right side of the paper and heading it "Number" and "Log"; not until the 4th form though. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

David [49]

Oh, I'll give you 9½yrs then

Cryptically, the originally planned day for Overlord + 2yr.

Seeing as how Maj. H.M. (REME) (TD AmI Mech E) was in Germany till the end plus a bit it makes sort of chronological sense doesn't it?

R.

[Jon Skagfeld]

Originally posted by Golf33
Can anyone clear this up for me? What were the gross weights fully fueled, crewed and loaded for these vehicles?

Here's a direct quote from "Canada's Fighting Vehicles", Canadian Military Historical Society:

The curb weight of a vehicle as given is the weight of the complete vehicle (front or rear axle as stated) less all personnel, but with full tanks of gas, oil and water. It includes tools normally with the vehicle and built-in equipment as delivered from manufacturers.

Laden weight is also termed "maximum gross rating" and "gross vehicle weight". It is defined as grand total weight of complete vehicle, fully equipped and serviced for operation, including maximum payload, and personnel with full kit.
Payload is calculated by subtracting curb weight from laden weight. For calculations, the weight of a man with full kit, including kit bag, blanket, rifle and ammunition is taken as 240 pounds.

Hope this helps.

[Tony Smith]

Dad always used to tell me that the Chemists shop received their condoms in cartons of 144, but that was only for the grossly oversexed.
Now they come in boxes of 10 in cartons of 100 so you can count off on your fingers how many you've used .

[Golf33]

Thanks gents!

It does seem from the numbers on the Chevy specs page (http://www.mapleleafup.org/vehicles/.../chevspec.html) that the vehicles could all be significantly overloaded from their 'class'. If I take the MGR (in lbs) and subtract the CW (in lbs) given in that table, and then use 112lb per cwt, I get the following payloads in cwt:

1. C8 - MGR 7250, CW 5750, payload 13.4 cwt
2. C15 - MGR 11200*, CW 4805, payload 57 cwt**
3. C15A - MGR 8500, CW 5485, payload 26.9 cwt

4. C30 - MGR 11200, CW 5920, payload 47.1 cwt
5. C60S - MGR 15700, CW 6503, payload 82.1 cwt
6. C60L - MGR 15700, CW 6658, payload 80.7 cwt

* if you add the axle weights in the table for this vehicle, you get a total of 7570 lb which seems far more likely than 11200. This looks like it might be a typo as the C30 has an MGR of 11200 lb.

** if you use say 7600 lb as an MGR for this vehicle, assuming the CW in the table is correct (it seems reasonable), then the payload would be about 18.6 cwt which would be a bit more credible than the figure above.

I note that apart from the C8, the table lists the CW as "chassis and cab" rather than "cassis, cab and body". Could this also account for some of the 'extra payload', since the body would have to be fitted in order to carry a payload?

Regards
Steve

Originally posted by Golf33
1. C8 - MGR 7250, CW 5750, payload 13.4 cwt
2. C15 - MGR 11200*, CW 4805, payload 57 cwt**
3. C15A - MGR 8500, CW 5485, payload 26.9 cwt

Oh Steve, what have you done
Taken our difficult old system and made it easy with decimals, this wont do; wont do at all.
:idea:
13.4cwt should be 0T 13cwt 1qtr 1st 3lb
57cwt should be 2T 17cwt 0qtr 0st 0lb
26.9cwt should be 1T 6cwt 3qtr 1st 3lb

Now, that's better isn't it? :

R.

Originally posted by David_Hayward
Kids nowadays only go to 10 x 10!

Ah, but look at the fun we have when they ring up £1.87 on the till immediately followed by the 2 quid we offer for the electronic brain to do the change sum and then say, "Oh! here's a 2p to make it easy for you. . . . . . . . . ."

R.

[Golf33]

Originally posted by FV623
Now, that's better isn't it? :

Heh. Better for what, one might ask

Regards
Steve

Originally posted by Golf33
Heh. Better for what, one might ask

Well, this chap : in the post is quite meaningful and important in this context.

It is historically correct, whilst I rarely if ever attend vintage bus and truck shows so no pictures to hand, these vehicles would have their net and gross weights sign-written on them in this fashion as a legal requirement.

R.

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by FV623

It is historically correct, these vehicles would have their net and gross weights sign-written on them in this fashion as a legal requirement.

R.

And when the Farmer turned up at the market and was told that Grain was 3/6 per Bushel, he could uncannily work out how much the cheque should be! Buggered if I know how!