CCW Carrier transporter

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

I don't seem to have any British contract numbers for CCW-353 lorries. These are from my notes:

The 5-ton CCW-353 was a 1941 development of the CCKW-353 without the front-drive axle and transfer case partly emptied so that there was no front axle drive shaft and related components. First orders were in 1941 for the U.S.Q.M.C. for Defence Aid: DA-W-398-QM-62 for 2,000 trucks. QM-78 was for 2,100 trucks for British and/or Commonwealth forces in Middle and Far East, delivered 1942. QM-203 was for Lend-Lease [# 7001 to # 11440] during 1942; QM-11595 and W-398-ORD-2597 were for # 11705 to 26400 with bulk delivered 1942 and balance of 265 in January 1943.

CCW-353 5-TON 6 x 4 164 in. W.B. [REAR AXLES 44 in.] [SERIALLED # CCW-353-2003 to 4002; -353-4003 to 6102; 353-7001 to 353-1140; 353-11705 to 353-26400]

CCW-353: ENGINE: 270 CU. IN. [35.34 h.p.]; 5-SPEED CLARK GEARBOX; TRANSFER CASE: ONE-SPEED MODIFIED GMC 591321; I-BEAM FRONT AXLE: TIMKEN-DETROIT MODEL 31116-H-X4 AS USED ON AC-502 AND CC-351; REAR AXLES, BANJO, TANDEM BOGIE WITH TORQUE RODS CHEVROLET 3665609 & 3665610.

[Rob Beale]

The Kiwi made RL deck has a deep box section along the side of the deck, with pockets for the 4x2 box section posts that support the drop sides.

The stores deck has fixed bolted sides, but still on a deep box section.

The give away is the deck floor which has inverted 'V' ribs full length at about 6" centres

The photo shows a stores deck ( 4 hood bows vs 3 on the dropside deck)

Rob

[Rob Beale]

Dave

I have a list from around 1949 which includes over 578 CCW model GMC, but very few CCKW.

83 are listed as Carrier Transporter LP (ie Local Pattern)

There is no detail of chassis serials recorded.

The list was compiled from returns after the war, so many early vehicles must have been disposed of by then: nearly all the first 1800 NZ census numbers are missing.

Rob

ps there are also 491 C8AX listed including GS (393), Wireless (50), Ambulance 4Str (31), LP Water (13), LP Disinfector (2) and Compressor (2)
The last 3 are news to me. I want to see a photo of them now!

The LP water cart is described in another memo as 132 gal (the MW Bedford is 200 gal)

[Lynn Eades]

It was probably some abortion ,using 3 x 44 gal drums.

[motto (RIP)]

I have a Kiwi friend who assures me that the CCW had a heavier chassis than the CCKW to upgrade the carrying capacity to five ton. I don't believe this to be the case but have no way of checking it out myself so can someone give a definite answer on this point?
Part of the reason for asking, apart from stumbling across this thread, is that there has been a bit of argument going on on another forum about load ratings for the CCKW as to whether they were rated for five ton on-road and two and a half ton off-road or just two and a half ton regardless.
I have the TM 10-1565 for the Studebaker US6 and 6x4 and it clearly states 6x6=2 1/2 Ton, 6x4=5 Ton but fails to give exact differences between the two trucks so still doesn't help define the philosophy.
David

[jeff davis]

I have had a look at several and do not find a diffrence between the CCW and the CCKW I believe it is only the difffrence between on road and off road(cross country)
The latter M135 and M211 also uses the same refrencee on road or off
Jeff

[Ken Smith]

Good day fellas,
I own GMC 6x4 chassis No CCW 4355 and there is no difference between it and a normal 6x6 chassis.I also own the remains of a later truck and the cab on it has the sliding roof hatch that seems to be a New Zealand modification.In Australia the 6x4 type seem to be mostly for the RAAF,including for use as the prime mover on the huge airfield cranes seen elsewhere on the forum.
Cheers Ken

[cliff]

Originally Posted by motto

I have a Kiwi friend who assures me that the CCW had a heavier chassis than the CCKW to upgrade the carrying capacity to five ton. I don't believe this to be the case but have no way of checking it out myself so can someone give a definite answer on this point?
David

The only difference between the CCW 6X4 and CCKW 6X6 was a driven front axle on the 6X6. Other then the missing transfer case, front drive shaft and an 'I' beam front axle instead of a front driven axle all other features between them were the same. The CCKW 6X6 were rated as 2.5 ton only because of their off road capacity but on road could carry a 5 ton load the same as the 6X4 CCW.

[motto (RIP)]

Thanks fellas, this is exactly as I understood the situation to be but when I tried to find some documentation that actually states the 'on road' capacity of the CCKW as being 5 ton I can find nothing.
There is no doubt about the CCKW being able to do it without stress as the DUKW proves. It's 2 ton heavier than the CCKW to start with and still has the same placarded payload and towed load rating and I have literature that proves the Australian Army rated them up to 4 ton or 40 men, the DUKW that is. Curiously, the same document that rates them as 40 Australian men rates them at 25 American men. Plenty of room for jokes there but if you think about it, if an Australian operated duck sank with more than 25 Americans on board when they rated them at 25 it would be an international incident. If one sank with forty Australians, ho hum, get another lot.
David