M38A1 in Aust. army

[AUSM38A1]

The jeep in the photo from willamstown airbase sure looks like an M38A1 mainly because of the recessed headlights in the front grille it also has the lift rings but yes they could be fitted to a cj ..its hard to tell but the front springs seem to be fixed at the front (no front shackles)and its a shame there isnt a shot from the other side which would show the recessed recepticle if it is an M38A1 ...used for jump starting the jeep and for the jeep to jump start other vehciles...cause it is a pain to undo all the thumb screws to get to the batteries ..cheers mick

[Col Tigwell]

The Australian army purchased an kit from the US army to train staff in airdrop procedures on the C130. When the kit tuned it include a M38 jeep which if I recall correctly was in US army colours and had a USA registration.

The jeep was air dropped on countless times until on the last drop a malfunction took place and the jeep was destroyed.

I am asking loadmaster friends if they have any photos of it which is highly likely.

We also had a M38 at Vung Tau which the Yanks did not back but we were not allowed to bring home. It too was in US army colours etc and never was on charge with the RAAF.

Will revert if more comes to light

regards

Col

[Col Tigwell]

I suspect that the jeep rigged ready for airdrop in the photo was 107422 if it was the ex us army one then it could have a ARN to allow it to be driven off the base.

Looking at the photo this jeep appears to be set up for droping from a caribou as the platform would not suit the C130 airdrop system.

Still waiting for info and photos back from the troops.

Regards

Col

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Gents,

Been offline for a month or so.

Ron: the trials reports state that the vehicle was an 'M38A1', with 24 volt system which 'functioned satisfactorily throughout the trial'. It was also fitted with lifting sling fittings, described as 'towing loops', front and rear. The phase 2 trials report concludes with the statement 'The M38A1 at the time of original manufacture was probably in advance of anything else then made. By todays (ie Dec 1959) standards it begins to fall short in comfort, handling, and durability'. The trials had problems with spring settlement and breakages, among other defects.

The vehicle pictured in the airdrop image posted earlier is ARN 107422. The other one purchased was ARN 107421, and was the main subject of the phase 2 trials mentioned above. It was described as 'Willys M38A1 Serial Number 357144:15719, engine no. 114632.'

There are also several references to the equipment and fittings on the vehicle being of US Army standard, for example, under 'stowage', it states: 'Provision for shovel only - location under bonnet. Not satisfactory for Aust shovel, suitable for apopropriate US pattern shovel'. Under 'horn' it states 'presumably approved in US Army'.

It would seem that, as far as the Australian testers were concerned, they were dealing with a 'standard' 1958 manufacture M38A1.

Mike C

[AUSM38A1]

Thanks for clearing that up Mike..thats some great information there..Gee they where hard in there assesment of it not sure what else at the time would of held up better after being dropped from a plane???...the lift rings are very rugged and so are the springs ...something else i notice with the M38A1 is its alot stronger frame than the cj5 and it has tie down points in several locations along the frame rails..will post some pics ... thanks again for the info thats hard to get stuff... Mick