|
|
|
|
#1
02-10-13, 03:36
|
|||
|
|||
Manufacturer vs. Customer
Clive you are looking at these definitions from the wrong end. DND did not engineer or develop these vehicles and those definitions are engineering ones, looking for engineering terminology in non-engineering documentation is pointless; just like today, DND couldn't engineer a cam-stick. DND wrote a "Statement of Requirements" for the manufacturers to work from and then issued a "Request for Proposal". The manufacturers would take this away and develop and submit their proposal on how to meet that statement. From that, DND would issue a contract, within that contract there may be a deliverable such as a prototype vehicle. This vehicle is tested and rarely accepted "as is" and may be the first of several developmental vehicles built until a standardized vehicle is accepted for production. This continues today.
The first CMP (37 Ford) was built as an engineering exercise totally funded by Ford, and termed "Ford 15 cwt. 4x2 Prototype", followed by the "General Motors 15. cwt 4x2 Prototype". Neither of these were termed "pilot". Flipping through Blueprint for Victory this is all covered by Syd Swallow as he talks about the prototypes that were built and tested. There is also a nice photo (on page 20) with a caption "This Ford 15 cwt. 4x2 is either a pilot model or a very early production model. It represents the earliest true Canadian Military Pattern design. The type 2A1 G.S. body is almost identical to that shown on the 1939 Prototype III Ford 15 cwt." Also on page 18, a caption describes the Ford 1939 Prototype III "The CMP design actually evolved over a three year period." From this statement we can see that there were several prototypes built (at least three Ford variants), then a pilot conceivably with all the changes desired by DND was provided to be accepted before initial production began. This also shows that the 1937 and 1938 prototypes were part of a continuous development program that led to the cab 13 CMP produced later in the war. To suggest that these early vehicles were developed and procured in some sort of vacuum totally separate from later developments is unsupported by any factual data. In fact, the goal WAS the final CMP design. The engineering designation of "prototype", "pilot", "initial production" (or very early production) and "serial production" are very important to understand how such vehicles are brought from the drawing board to reality. Even in wartime these engineering principles are followed. If you were a WWII Jeep guy you would be all over this. 
|
|
#2
02-10-13, 04:10
|
||||
|
||||
|
My comments were made after plowing through six volumes of documents, dated betwen 1933 and 1940, dealing with the mechanization of the Canadian Army.
Syd Swallow was certainly involved but not at a senior level. His boss, Ellis, penned a number of letters and these, along with all of the DND correspondence are there. When this started in 1937 there was a fear of war on the horizon (one of the reasons why industrial cooperation between Ford and GM was sought) but there was no preconception of ultimately developing the CMP. DND at the time was struggling to get 50-70 15cwt vehicles per year and only desired that WO specs be attained - as much as possible within the confines of DND's own instructions to use as many commercially used parts as possible. In hindsight, one could say that these early vehicles were part of a three year evolution - but in 1937 and 1938 that was not DND's concern. Your statement "DND wrote a "Statement of Requirements" for the manufacturers to work from and then issued a "Request for Proposal". The manufacturers would take this away and develop and submit their proposal on how to meet that statement. From that, DND would issue a contract, within that contract there may be a deliverable such as a prototype vehicle. This vehicle is tested and rarely accepted "as is" and may be the first of several developmental vehicles built until a standardized vehicle is accepted for production." accurately describes what has happened since the 1950s but is not represenetative of the pre-war and wartime situation. DND set specifications and then worked closely with both manufacturers concurrently in order to come up with a single design accepteable to DND. Indeed, the documents show that GM and Ford communicated with each other. While the pilots were being built DND modified the specs to adress the individual needs of the manufacturers, including slightly different body sizes. A single pilot from each firm was tested at Petawawa and the contract was let on the basis of the pilots PLUS any suggested changes put forward by DND. In the case of the Ford it was sloppy steering and for the GM it was the leaf-springs. However, no additional vehicles were built to 'prove' these changes. DND intended to split the contract for the 1938 purchase of 52 15cwt GS trucks into two equal purchases of 26 per vendor - even though the prices differed. In fact the price paid was the cost of parts and labour plus 10% as a fixed profit. Only Ford's surprising decision to not tender caused the entire contract to go to GM. To encourage Ford to get involved (read 'experienced') they directed the follow-on contract solely to Ford. Insofar as the body is concerned, although the 1938 body is similar to the 2A1 it is only because they both come from the same British drawings. At the time the term 2A1 was unknown as the system of body identification was only developed with the establishment of the Steel Body Manufacturer's Assocation, a group established by DND to find efficiencies in body production and to relieve the auto manufacturers from this. From David Hayward's research Sidney [S.E.] Swallow of Ford’s Service Department wrote to LaFleche in early April suggesting that the body for the pilot models from both sources should have a body made by the same source in view of the desired standardisation of bodies. Ford had been asked to withhold from ordering their body until they received the drawings from Ottawa and further instructions . This is a further example of the unique and unprecedented situation whereby two rival companies some distance apart, were requested to, and did, work in tandem. The standard G.S. [General Service] body design was approved on 9 April 1937, and Specification No. 352-C was allocated, whilst the Drawings were given the code D.D. (V) 352-C. Woodwork was to be of thoroughly seasoned ash and white oak, free from knots, saps, shakes, wavy edges and defects. Metal parts were to be of high quality forged steel, free from defects. All bolts and nuts were to be of steel. The body was to have side and tailboards, duly hinged. Carriage bolts were to be used when assembling wooden components, though screws could be used when it was wood-to-wood. Side and tailboards were to be of 1-in. planed white ash,-tongued and grooved where applicable and finished with a “V” joint outside. The floor was to be of 1¼ in. planed white oak with plain butt joints. The spacing of the longitudinal runners on the body was not specified but was to be in accordance with the width of the chassis frame for which the body was intended. The assembled body was to be painted throughout in Service Green No.22 “Dulux” including interior, under-surfaces and hardware. A plate with the name of the manufacturer, date of completion and reference number was to be engraved or stamped on it, and attached to the left lower corner of the body. After completion and inspection, the detailed drawings and specifications were to be sent to the D.N.D. in connection with any future production. In fact, DND allowed a variation in that quality ash was unobtainable in Canada and they suggested that oak should be an acceptable substitute. DND agreed. In any event, after studying thousands of pages, there is not one single hint that these contracts were part of an intentional "continuous development program". Clive
__________________
Those who live by the sword will be shot by those of us who have progressed. - M38A1, 67-07800, ex LETE Last edited by servicepub (RIP); 02-10-13 at 04:36.
|
|
#3
02-10-13, 05:01
|
||||
|
||||
|
As a follow on to my above post, and one that may get me shot. Bill Gregg did some ground-breaking work but some of his conclusions may have been limited by the information available to him.
In his ground-breaking book "Blueprint for Victory" he shows (images 3-10) a Ford 15cwt which he calls "Prototype I". This is actually the pilot model submitted to DND in 1937 for the 1938 purchase of 52 vehicles. I find it difficult to accept "Prototype I" as it implies that there were other prototypes prior to the purchase, when there weren't. This 'pilot' was paid for, and kept, by DND and the truck was given DND number 37-1-1. The GM pilot was 37-1-2. Bill also shows (image 25) a truck which he calls a prototype of 1939 when this is one of the 52 15cwt GS trucks contracted for by DND in 1938. This example is shown approx 1940 at the Cdn Armoured Fighting Vehicle School. Clive
__________________
Those who live by the sword will be shot by those of us who have progressed. - M38A1, 67-07800, ex LETE
|
|
#4
02-10-13, 05:46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clive
No need to dig out your body armour. Bill Gregg did some great work that is a benefit to us all, and he did it at a time when all of Canada's production efforts prior to and during World War Two, had largely been forgotten and were rapidly slipping away from us. He got us thinking and asking questions in the ongoing quest for answers about this amazing time in Canadian history.
It is hard sometimes for us to shake ourselves free from the world we know today and are comfortable with, and try to understand that the world of the 30's, or 40's or 50's was a different place, functioning in a different way that worked very well. Bill Gregg's real legacy is the framework of information he was able to assemble. He would have been the first to admit it was not a complete, fully fleshed out product and he would be thrilled to see how much more information we have discovered and been able to add to his baseline. Who knows where it will lead in the future and what gems of discovery are yet to be found, not just here in Canada, but Australia, New Zealand, and anywhere else on the globe where CMP's have left there tracks. David
|
|
#5
09-05-16, 23:17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey Rob - Are you still working on the above vehicle? Don and I have the one that we bought pieces of from Gary Moonie virtually up and running. #IC-5984. Don did an amazing job of repairing and putting all the hand cut body parts back together, mostly with the original wing nuts rather than bolts, engine is fully rebuilt, (seems to run well with 100 yards on it - ha ha ), most body parts refurbished, all new brake lines, 6 volt wiring harness, switches and gauges rejuvenated by Sid Moorehouse here in Victoria, new rear wooden box made with all the original hardware. Don made a heavy duty jig and then used an anchor chain link (for the curve) to straighten out and then hand hammer both of the folded over and ruined rear fenders. Front bumper all redone to the correct curve by Pat Houle and his wonder press.
We are having problems with the clutch linkage and wondered if you had a picture of yours. The clutch will not dis-engage and the linkage bent!!!!! Cannot find another one. Let us know how you are doing Cheers Katrinka and Don Picture of "Papa Bud" Papa Bud Nov 16 2015 (38).jpg
__________________
Don & Katrinka Simpson
|
|
#6
17-07-22, 09:55
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
“This is a left-hand drive Canadian Army Pilot Model 15 Cwt.1 4X2 truck manufactured by The Ford Motor Company of Canada in late 1939 or early 1940. There were only 50 of these trucks made by Ford and 51 manufactured by General Motors of Canada. Together they were the precursors of the Canadian Military Pattern (CMP) vehicles manufactured in large numbers by both companies during the Second World War. This truck was used by the Victoria Rifles of Canada. CWM 20190197-001” AC6FDAF2-0542-49EF-A814-E62057B141B4.jpeg
__________________
Regards, Hanno --------------------------
|
|
#7
17-07-22, 13:58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beautiful piece. Ours still sits unfinished.
I have learned of a 5th example in Alberta, but it is more of a parts source.....not much left of it. It was offered to the Shilo museum, but then covid happened and we have lost touch.
|
|
#8
10-05-16, 04:04
|
||||
|
||||
|
Not wishing to hijack the thread but the following two articles on early development of the Canadian 15cwt may be of interest.
https://servicepub.wordpress.com/201...n-army-part-1/ https://servicepub.wordpress.com/201...n-army-part-2/
__________________
Those who live by the sword will be shot by those of us who have progressed. - M38A1, 67-07800, ex LETE
|
|
#9
10-05-16, 05:21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Very nice. Not a lot of progress on this one. Higher priorities have developed, and seem to keep cropping up. I need to get it painted this summer so I can continue the work through the winter. I'll look at the clutch linkage tomorrow and see if it is original. There are two others...one at the Cdn War Museum, and the last one I think went to Arlon Bauer in Alberta. That still leave the potential of 45 more...who knows? A fellow from Saskatchewan dropped by last year and left a photo of his pilot Chevrolet. So even one or two of those survived.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
