Modified Conventional Pattern Trucks

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by David_Hayward

I see where you are coming from here and it is well thought-out but the evidence shows that this may not have been the case. The first reference to the British Purchasing Commission placing orders in Oshawa was around 22nd June 1940, so the Ministry of Supply must therefore have been intending to place orders for DND Pattern and Commercial Pattern trucks some weeks earlier and thus before the Fall of France.

Agree about the date, but what it seems to boil down to is that the Modified Conventional Pattern class were Canadian-built vehicles primarily built to meet British War Office specifications. Other military users, including the Canadian Army back home, could be satisfied with Commercial trucks modified to a lesser degree.

Bear in mind the CMP range of vehicles are what they are because they had to meet British War Office specifications...

H.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Ganmain Tony

Do you fellows know more about the Australian "Local Pattern" ??

Anyone know of or have access to Australian army archival inventory lists, specifications etc??

Tony, it seems this was a term more broadly used that MCP, as in: trucks adapted or modified from commercial-type vehicles, mostly of North American origin and assembled in Australia with locally produced cabs and bodywork. Most of the pics Cliff posted are Australian Pattern trucks.
Do you have any of the Vanderveen books?

H.

[Bill Kreiner]

Thank you all for the fantastic data and pictures. I'm going to have to read everything slowly to digest it all!

Hanno, I can see the differences you refer to, between the militarized commercial Canadian Ford and the MCP Ford. As for the American ones, the 28GT is closer to commercial specs, and the G8T is the more militarized one...interesting!

I just remembered I have a book called Standard Military Motor Vehicles, which may have some additional data. I'll need to locate it. I think it was published in 1943, if memory serves.

[Ganmain Tony]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

Do you have any of the Vanderveen books?

No I dont Hanno, do they have specific detail in regards to Australian pattern trucks?? For example, what exactly a Holden bodied Chev 30 hundredweight truck was equipped with. How many came out here? How many were used as GS, ambulances... so on & so forth?

[cliff]

Originally Posted by Ganmain Tony

No I dont Hanno, do they have specific detail in regards to Australian pattern trucks?? For example, what exactly a Holden bodied Chev 30 hundredweight truck was equipped with. How many came out here? How many were used as GS, ambulances... so on & so forth?

No they do not have that information Tony. It has basic specs such as motor size, wheelbase etc. but not specific data on what they were equipped with or on how many were made. But they do have some amazing period photos of some of the vehicles. The AWM is probably the most likely to contain the data you want but the Holden records are in a libary in Adelaide I believe and not digitised.

[Ganmain Tony]

Good show Cliff!

Do you know what library in Adelaide Cliff? - I'd be prepared to go to the trouble of making some inquiries and seeing what I can dig up.

Would make interesting reading (to me anyway)........

May be its best to start with the AWM. Do we know anyone over there now who is as enthusiastic as Mike Cecil was.?

[cliff]

Is Mike no longer with the AWM?

I know it is an Adelaide Libary I think I have the exact one in my files which have not been loaded back onto my repaired computer yet but I'll find out for you and post it here in the next few days.

[cliff]

http://www.catalog.slsa.sa.gov.au:80/record=b2182756~S1

Tony I think this is the records.

[Bill Kreiner]

Ford historian Jim Wagner sent me a photo of a 1942 G8T. It's included here. It has the 6-stud wheels, as Hanno pointed out the G8T should have, since it's more militarized than the 2G8T. The date on the photo is 10-20-1942, showing it was already in production in 1942, in addition to 1943 and 1944 (and 1945??).

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/...b428df8f5g.jpg

[Bill Kreiner]

This is from Technical Manual: Standard Military Motor Vehicles, 1 September 1943. It's a 2 GT. Yet another variant? It has the 6-stud wheels. (I've been finding loads of civilian-sheetmetal U.S. military trucks in here! I'm glad I remembered I had this book.)

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/...4b5236a96g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/...171ddcac6g.jpg

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Bill Kreiner

Ford historian Jim Wagner sent me a photo of a 1942 G8T. It's included here. It has the 6-stud wheels, as Hanno pointed out the G8T should have, since it's more militarized than the 2G8T. The date on the photo is 10-20-1942, showing it was already in production in 1942, in addition to 1943 and 1944 (and 1945??).

Great photo, Bill!

But I am still hestiating to differentiate between the G8T and 2G8T as being more militarised or not. I am inclined to stick to what I stated earlier: the G8T and 2G8T are the same truck, but from different model years. Take a look at this Flathead Model ID chart, and you will note the 1G8T is the 1941 model 6-cyl. 90-hp 158"-wb 1½ Ton Truck, the 2G8T the 1942 model with the same specs, then it disappears from the list. So either they did not build any in 1943-1945, or more likely the specs were not changed from the 1942 model year. It re-appears in 1946 and 1947 as 6G8T and 7G8T respectively. So following Ford's model designations, there is no such thing as a "1942 G8T". I think the G8T designation is used as generic designation for the 6-cyl. 90-hp 158"-wb 1½ Ton Truck, as there were no model changes after the 1942 model year.
Could you check the above with Mr. Wagner?

Most likely the differences in degree of militarisation was something that was specified in each contract, rather than being model year specific. See the entry in the Data Book of Wheeled Vehicles: Army Transport 1939-1945 (the British equivalent of the US Technical Manual: Standard Military Motor Vehicles). It suggests the trucks delivered under this order had different specs from the standard Ford 1.5-ton truck to uprate it's load capacity to three tons ("special tyre equipment, reinforced frame and auxiliary springs").

Regards,
Hanno

PS: Maybe we should move the discussion on the US Ford to the thread US-built Ford 1942-model trucks in Allied service.

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

Under S.M.2451 the UK were delivered with US-built Ford 3 ton 4x2 6-cyl. 158" wb chassis with stake bodies (source: Data Book of Wheeled Vehicles: Army Transport 1939-1945).

(click on image for large size scan)

[Bill Kreiner]

Hanno,

My gosh, this is getting confusing! Firstly, let me say that I think you may be right in speculating that degree of militarization is stipulated by each contract. That would be quite logical, indeed. Thanks for providing that scan. Also, perhaps it would be a good idea to move this portion of the thread as you mentioned, since it appears to have veered into U.S. 1942-style Fords.

Thanks also for providing the link to the Flathead Model ID Chart. It seems to answer a lot of questions. For example, the 2GT I posted from my book looks to be a 134" truck, and it looks like there were 1941, 1946, and 1947 versions, too. I assume that if any were produced in 1943-1945, they'd still use the 2GT designation, though I'm not sure. I'll ask Jim Wagner.

Now, as you pointed out, there are the following 158" types: 1G8T (1941), 2G8T (1942 or 1942-1945), 6G8T (1946), and 7G8T (1947). You're suggesting that perhaps the G8T designation does not refer to a different truck, but is a generic term for that type of truck produced during 1943-1945 since the specs would have been unchanged from 1942. That does seem plausible. But I wonder if perhaps the designation was officially changed to this during the war, after 1942. Jim does refer to the G8T in his Ford truck book as a 1943-1944 model for the military. I will consult his book, and that of Tim O'Callaghan, to see what other data is available.

I've also sent our questions to Jim via email, as you asked. If he doesn't have the answers immediately, he will be able to research, as he volunteers at the Benson Ford Research Center, from where I obtained the Ford production and delivery charts I sent you. It may take a bit of time, but he'll be able to supply us with data.

I'm eager to get to the bottom of this!

Kind regards,

Bill

[Bill Kreiner]

Here is Jim's helpful reply. It seems G8T is the true designator for the military (government) wartime truck. The others with "G" are non-government models, some of which obviously were impressed into service:

Bill,

We'll have to wait and see just what SAE does before we can close the door on the book catalog. It's also possible that you'll get the 2010 edition since I could not be sure if the 2011 is available.

With respect to the Ford truck question(s) you have I believe the problem lies with the letter "G." When a World War II era Ford model designation began with "G" it was a government-oriented product, vehicle or otherwise: GAA—Ford Tank Engine, GPA—Amphibian Jeep, GP—command reconnaisance car (jeep), G8T, the militarized civilian truck you mentioned, GPW—the Willys jeep built by Ford plus many others. There is a listing of all these codes at the Benson Ford Research Center and as I recall a "G" number/letter was even assigned to the B-24 Liberator bomber.

The "other G" is the non-government designator for the 225.9-cid L-head six-cylinder engine that Ford introduced in May 1941 and was assigned according to the company's civilian model ID system: 1GT (1941), 2GT (1942 only), 6GT (1946), and 7GT (1947) are all 134-inch-wheelbase conventional trucks. The letter "T" stood for 1 1/2-ton conventional truck while "W" was used for cab-overs, which did not use the six-cylinder engine until 1948. The addition of a number (e.g. 1G8T or 2G4T) indicated indicated a wheelbase other than the basic or most common (for 1 1/2-ton trucks it would have been 134-inch, 158-inch and 194-inch [school bus chassis] being the exceptions). This explains why the 1G8T of 1941, the 2G8T of 1942, the 6G8T of 1946 and 7G8T of 1947 were 158-inch civilian trucks. This system was even used for the Lincoln cars of that era: 16H was used for the 1941 Lincoln-Zephyr and 1941 Lincoln Continental which had the basic 125-inch wheelbase (not considered special) while the 138-inch-wheelbase 1941 Lincoln-Custom was Model 168H. "1", being 1941 model, "6" being small (292-cid) V-12 engine and "H" being the primary Zephyr-heritage Lincoln.

Ford's model designation system from the original V-8 (Model 18) through 1951 (1952 trucks) was quite logical but one does need to understand how it works. The coded model identification system (also used for part numbering) was revised in 1952 and became horrendously complicated before being abandoned after 1958.

Jim

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

By the same token, the Ministry of Supply ordered Dagenham-built W-prefixed models, for 'War Department', although the jury is still out whether the next digit or letter was an 'O' or '0', i.w. WO for War Office or W0 for War Office 1940 Model...E was the usual Dagenham identifier in front of the model designation.

Stan Ellis sent to Oshawa in November 1939 drawings of the vehicles developed by Ford at Dagenham for the War Office. The quantity of vehicles then under contract was:
W0C1 Personnel Carrier and Wireless: 2,000 units
W0T2: 3,000 units
W0T1: 1,000 units
W0T3: nil

However W0T3 and W0T4 had been replaced by WOT5, which was a six-wheeled “Sussex” load carrier, and it was anticipated that 2,000 units approximately were to be ordered. There is no comment as to whether the Department of National Defence thought that Canada could have supplied these.

For clarification, W0C1 was a Ministry of Supply order Model 01C, which were in fact supplied by Ford, USA, as a 1940 Model with 30 h.p. V-8: there were two sets of orders for W0C1 from Dagenham, placed in November and December 1939 with completion by the summer of 1940.

W0T1 was a 6-wheeled 143½-inch truck chassis with 42 7/16-inch “Sussex” bogie conversion by County Commercial Cars Limited of Fleet, Hampshire, for the Ministry of Supply and Air Ministry for the RAF, with 30 h.p. V-8 engine [W0T1 was s.w.b., W0T1A l.w.b., the R.A.F. using them for barrage balloon winches etc., e.g. Engine # BB18-57147365. Which proves that they had US engines and not Canadian- (Windsor) or Dagenham-built.

W0T2 was a 15-cwt. 4-wheeled G.S. infantry truck in W0T2A-F versions for the Ministry of Supply. with 30 h.p. V-8.

W0T3 was it seems a standard chassis version of W0T1, in versions A-E, with 143½-inch wheelbase and either 1-ton or 30-cwt. capacities.

W0T4 and 5 may have never been proceeded with into production, but W0T6 was a 3-ton Fordson 4 x 4 and W0T8 a Fordson 30-cwt. 4 x 4 load carrier with 30 h.p. V-8 in either case

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Hanno may be interested to read the following which I have eventually found:

On 10th November 1939 StanEllis wrote once more to Colonel N.O. Carr, the letter being received in Ottawa via sea on 20 December. Prints had been sent as follows:
Canopy for 14-cwt. A.T. [Anti-Tank] Vehicles D.D. (V) 462/6
Box body and Canopy for 3-ton 6-wheeled truck S(V) 479, S(V) 175
F.B.E. Equipment-Lorry Body- D.D. (V) 337
Machinery Body D.D.-M-2306
Breakdown Body D.D. (V) 278, S(V) 337 and 343 and D.D. (V) 429, S(V) 343
Mounting details of lorry (technical) bodies were included as well. The significance of this letter is that Ellis went on to say that with the exception of the 15-cwt. canopy details, the other information would not be very useful

“..in view of the effort now being made to have the War Office furnish complete vehicles or bodies only for mounting on Canadian Chassis. This entire matter of technical vehicles and equipment is being pressed for a solution but in view of the acute shortage of vehicles and machinery no definite plan can be established until more is known of the War Office attitude towards the use of Canadian chassis”.

This reflects the W.D. belief in the supply of the Canadian 1st Division from British sources just as the Division had landed and were establishing themselves. On 25th September 1939, the High Commissioner in London, the Hon. Vincent Massey had written to the then Minister of Supply, Dr. Leslie Burgin, to presumably acquaint him of the offer by G.M. concerning the Southampton Plant[1] The Minister replied to the High Commissioner referring to the letter, and commented that the position was now that Colonel Loggie had

“agreed in principle that the Canadian Force will be equipped in Canada with vehicles generally interchangeable with those already in this Service, and that these will probably be built by General Motors, Canada, and Fords, Canada. So far as production capacity in this country is concerned, no difficulty is expected to arise after January next, when capacity should overtake our requirements”.[2]

Although this was meant to affirm that Canadian supply was not required, it also signified the belief that Canadian requirements would be met from British production, including for the 2nd Division which was being raised at that time. The official history states that in the early stages of the war, the British war effort was more or less self-sufficient. Indeed, whilst U.S. support was uncertain and British resources not yet fully taken-up, self-sufficiency was taken for granted more-or-less. However, from the beginning Canada had figured in British calculations of combatant strength and in British programmes of supply. The 1st Canadian Division was equipped almost entirely in the U.K. and doubts about the ability of Canadian industry to deliver goods quickly and shortage of dollars combined to keep British munitions programmes in Canada within very narrow bounds

[1] 25 September 1939: Letter: Hon. Vincent Massey, High Commissioner for Canada, London, to Dr. L. Burgin, Minister of Supply, File H.Q. 38-72-328 Vol. 2, C.N.A., ibid.

[2] 12 October 1939: Letter: Dr. L. Burgin to Hon. Vincent Massey, File H.Q. 38-72-328 Vol. 2, C.N.A., ibid.

However, there must have been a mistrust of Canadian abilities as the report of the Imperial General Staff of May 1940 stated in succinct terms that Britain required on American support if she was to avoid defeat after the fall of France.

I can only surmise that someone in the corridors of Whitehall realised that Ottawa would accept Sterling for Canadian purchases. Even so the Treasury Foreign Exchange Requirements Committee minutes show that there was a recurring belief that the British should order from the US, even after all of the French orders that had not been delivered were diverted to British account.

[Bill Kreiner]

Thanks, David, for those explanations! Incidentally, (sorry to digress for a moment) do you have any data on the Daganham staff car, the WOA1 (W0A1)? I've read it was built from 1941-1944, taking over from the civilian V8-62 model, but my production documents don't list it separately anywhere. It must be lumped in the Dagenham totals.

Here are scans of two pages relating to the G8T from Tim O'Callaghan's book Ford in the Service of America. Sorry about the slightly blurred inner-margin text. The book has a glue-only binding, and I didn't want to crack it by pressing the book too hard on the scanner glass.

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/...4c7f70f76g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/...e98aa7886g.jpg

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

The data for every Dagenham MofS vehicle to end 1942 was set out in a model listing with crude darwings, plus specs. that I have a Xerox of. It included the staff cars and all the small vans, cars, etc. There are some contracts mentioned by the way as well, including those for some CMPs, which were assembled by Dagenham to British order under British contracts. But that's another matter and not relevant here!

In addition to the Model 01, and 01A (Standard and Deluxe respectively) Dagenham also assembled to Ministry of Supply contract the Models W0A1 and W01A1 Staff Cars, which were Model 62 cars, modified with the 30 h.p. V-8 instead of the “meagre” 22 h.p., the first being equipped with 9 x 13 tyres, the latter 6.50 x 16 tyres.

The W0A2 was a Utility Car with a Station Wagon body with 9.00 x 13 tyres and the 30 h.p. engine again, and not the 22 h.p.

[Bill Kreiner]

Thank you, David! Maybe I'll start another thread on that, with the data I have.

In the appendix of the O'Callaghan book, the G8T is listed as having been produced from September 1942 through May 1945, to the tune of 77,915. I wonder why the appendix figure is slightly at variance with the one given in the text (77,604).

I had forgotten to check this book first with regard to the G8T!

[Bill Kreiner]

Ford Government Models, kindly supplied by Jim Wagner.


http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/...05435b976g.jpg

[George McKenzie]

I have a 1942 Ford half ton truck . Ford said he didn't make a half ton for civilion use .This truck has no military changes .I talk to a fellow in Texas that sold one like it and he said there was 1300 made . I know of a Cheve , Ford and 3 International Conventional trucks here that were used by the army . They all are low milage trucks about 1.5 to 2 tons with stake bodies. I saw a Ford truck that was used in the army that is a tandem drive .We had a 1940 Studabaker half ton That was used for an ambulace ,hears and taxi as there were very few trucks that had good tires for those years .We were lucky the Government didn't want it . I thankyou for this great bunch of information

[Sergey Egorov]

Originally Posted by Bill Kreiner

Ford Government Models, kindly supplied by Jim Wagner.


http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/...05435b976g.jpg

It is possible to load this file once again?

[Konstantin Chernov]

Hello.
Sorry for my poor English.
1.Chevrolet Holden model 1941.I believe this truck was assembled on the Canadian Chevrolet Maple Leaf 1543 chassis.
What was this car called in Australia? Did the springs strengthen under the army wheels? Have changes been made to hubs and brake drums?
2.Chevrolet 41-E22 model 1941 with 20mm Breda Model 35 anti-aircraft gun. Is this truck completely assembled in Canada? Marker lights over the headlights - is it a requirement of the Canadian or Australian army? 41-E22 is an Australian denotation?
3.Chevrolet Maple Leaf with the same marker lights on commercial wheels and left-hand drive.Is this Chevrolet Maple Leaf 1543?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

This is a good reference from the 1940 Chev MCP parts book. Courtesy of Keith Webb.

[Konstantin Chernov]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

This is a good reference from the 1940 Chev MCP parts book. Courtesy of Keith Webb.

Thank you very much. Very valuable literature.

[Konstantin Chernov]

Does anyone have any information on the designation of the Australian 1941 Chevrolet and 1940 Chevrolet Series 16 ?

[Mike K]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

This is a good reference from the 1940 Chev MCP parts book. Courtesy of Keith Webb.

Attachment 115283

I have that book. it was produced for the AIF by NASCO, the parts division of GMH

I believe this is the E11 model in civilian use.

A chap who posted on the Modified Conventional FB page, has one of these rare coupe utes , in his case its the GMC version he has

[Konstantin Chernov]

Is this a model E11 or E10 ?

[Mike K]

Originally Posted by Konstantin Chernov

Is this a model E11 or E10 ?

E11 has the seperate cab / tub as in your pic.The E10 has the coupe style cab , one piece, the AIF seemed to have the E11 type mainly

[Tony Smith]

Registration details are scant, but the AWM records AIF V-5252 simply as a "Chevrolet 1 Ton GS", which was shipped to the Middle East on 8 Oct 1940 on the ship Suffolk.

[Konstantin Chernov]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

E11 has the seperate cab / tub as in your pic.The E10 has the coupe style cab , one piece, the AIF seemed to have the E11 type mainly

I think that the photo is still a model E 10. The cab, separate from the body ( light truck ).