Ford of Canada hybrid hull UCW Carrier

[David Dunlop]

I wanted to move this topic off the Loophole Thread to avoid any hijacking issues.

A mystery has popped up from the wartime UC production lines at Ford of Canada, and hopefully the combined analysis we can all provide, may help solve it.

As we all know, Ford of Canada UC production mirrored that of British wartime production of the carrier in that the upper hull assembly was a riveted item, front to back (as opposed to being a welded assembly). It has now come to light that a UCW vehicle existed at the Ford of Canada plant, at some time during the war, which had a hybrid hull. The rear compartment was the standard riveted assembly, but the forward compartment, with it's heavier armour, was a welded assembly riveted to the rear hull unit.

I went through the Ford of Canada factory photos I have available and pulled any on which a welded front armour assembly appeared. A surprising number showed up. These first four are numbered by Ford as UCW 5, UCW 15, UCW 18, and UCW 22. The last two clearly show the extent of the welded asemby on the front armour.

[Michael R.]

I believe Nigel Watson comments on the welded hull advantages, meeting minutes, work orders, contract and production numbers in his Universal Carrier book series.

[David Dunlop]

Clearly, the shots in my previous post are all of the same carrier, set up for top bows and a canvas cover. The first picture of this set is Ford # UCW 28 and shows an overhead interior shot of the vehicle. One of the small posts for mounting the top bows is clearly visible at the front left corner of the rear compartment, just left of the B-Set aerial base mounting bracket. The rolled tubular top of the side armour has been notched away to allow installation of top bow post.

The only references I can find for a Mk II * UCW vehicle built by Ford of Canada that was equipped with a canvas top, are in Bill Gregg's Profiles publication where it was stated Ford was working on an order for the British Army for such a vehicle, needed in the desert. The wording is odd, however, in that it states the order was "originally intended for the desert". Was it cancelled? Was it applied to other orders as well? Photos of this carrier also show up in one of Bart Vanderveen's publications.

So, the questions become:

- Do these photos document a one off prototype that never went into production?

- If this was just a prototype, why would Ford bother putting a welded front armour assembly together for it, when hundreds of ready to assemble riveted components were already available in the plant?

- Could a welded front armour assembly have been part of the requirements of the British Army when they tendered a contract for desert vehicles? Had they found the riveted assembly prone to stress failure in combat?

- Was there some limited production of hybrid upper hull carriers in Canada during the war?

- If so, have any survived anywhere we could get a Contract Number from to see where it leads?

And now that last part of the mystery: the last photo.

This photo bears Ford # UCW 75. Quite a big jump away from all the others. Based on the vertical welding between the loopholes and head lamp, and the right front fender, this is the same vehicle from the earlier photos, with two noticeable differences: the two studs either side of the loophole to anchor the canvas cover steps, have been replaced by a pair of machine screws, and, the rolled tube cover on the top of the left side armour no longer has the cutouts to accommodate the top bow mounting posts.

This vehicle could still just be a prototype Ford was "playing with" throughout the war, but why all the welding on the front armour?


David

[Michael R.]

David, if it is the same vehicle (I do not believe it is) there are differences in the manner in which some brackets have been positioned, as well as the type of brackets. In particular, the radio guys will see the change in the radio antenna base, which has been mounted into the front compartment to the left of the gunner's head, something that does not appear in the same manner throughout. The smoke generator mounting bracket appears to have the attaching holes blanked off, and the full 2" mortar mount installed. If there are holes for mounting the second set of steps that were fitted on the pre-production sample referred by the late Dr. Gregg, the blanking bolt heads are not visible.

In the series of UCW images numbered 02 through greater than 110, there are multiple changes in stowage brackets. Another difference that shows in the overhead and rear plate images is the use of the towing attachment fitted directly to the tool plate. i.e.: not the Stacey style using the spring and extension arms.

The date is likely close to April, 1944, about production number 25,000, now in the NO2 MKII* series. By that time the "desert" theater of war requirement may have been resolved. As the Windsor Carrier contract was being prepared for production, with the second model fitted with a cover, that may help answer some of your questions.

[kevin powles]

Hi David, you have some great ford archive pictures, do you think you could run a thread on all that you have, would certainly aid those restoring carriers to get the detail correct.

Thanks Kevin.

[servicepub (RIP)]

Originally Posted by kevin powles

Hi David, you have some great ford archive pictures, do you think you could run a thread on all that you have, would certainly aid those restoring carriers to get the detail correct.

Thanks Kevin.

Self-serving message follows
Kevin, you should get a copy of the "Factory Photos" CD from Service Publications.
Clive

[David Dunlop]

This is a subject I have been pondering over for some time. Thanks, both of you for bringing it into focus for me once more.

I am going to toss a new thread out there shortly, probably in the Restoration Forum to start, as it encompasses more than just carriers and can serve as a valuable jumping off point for many military vehicle restoration projects.

Thanks and keep watching!


David