Australian CGT mystery

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Apart from seeming to settle the argument about the rating of the Gun Tractors, we may also have the means of settling the argument as to which CMP came first: F15A or GT/F8/F30S/F60S/F60L.

As Tony says the F15A [not sure what was fitted to the C15A!!] had a 1:1 transfer case, whereas all the others had a 'two-speed auxiliary transmission', with the PTO for a winch. The F-GT clearly differed from the F15A as we have discussed previously. It does seem that save for the evidence of the 30-cwt rating for the 2-pounder Chevrolet Portees, the GTs were officially rated by the DND in Ottawa as 60-cwt. chassis.

Two thoughts arise therefrom:
1. Why did the F15A have a different transfer case design from the GT save for the fact that no winch was required? and
2. Is there any relationship between the F15A and M-H case or 'the rest' and the M-H case?

Why I would like to know is because Sid Swallow created the prototype CMP as a 15-cwt. chassis because the 1938 and 1940 G/S 4 x 2 trucks that preceded were so rated, then he added 4 x 4 drive because the WD in London had changed Spec. 36 to delete 6 x 4 drive in favour of 4 x 4 for cross-country performance in 1939, and finally because he could lay his hands on proprietory components in the shape of Timken-design GM front axle and M-H components to mate with the Ford rear axle.

If the F15A used a M-H case then this proved it was the first-designed, and as the other multi-drives had/had to have a PTO facility they were developments. If it was the other way around then the production F15A owed nothing to the prototype and it was a matter of production/ component expediency..though the F15A is mentioned first in the handbook and the 'others' second.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by David_Hayward
Two thoughts arise therefrom:
1. Why did the F15A have a different transfer case design from the GT save for the fact that no winch was required? and
2. Is there any relationship between the F15A and M-H case or 'the rest' and the M-H case?

David,

As far as I know the Marmon-Herrington transfer case included a high-low ratio. While this was needed on 3-ton trucks, it was a bit overdone on a 15-cwt truck. I do not know (I only have a F15A parts list) if the 15-cwt transfer case is largely identical to the ones used on the 30- and 60-cwts (e.g. simply omitting a set of gears), or a totally different design.

Now, if Sid used a standard Marmon-Herrington transfer case to start with, would your reasoning be the FGT was developed before the F15A?

H.

[Tony Smith]

The trucks in this picture are neither F15s or F15As! The suspension on the rear axle clearly shows the auxillary springs and the extra mount pads on the chassis for these springs to ride on. As the 16" wheels and the cab type precludes them being Gun Tractors, they appear to be F30 trucks. Dr Gregg may have based his identification on the 16" wheels, which I might suggest are fitted with 10.50-16 tyres on these F30 trucks.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by Tony Smith
The trucks in this picture are neither F15s or F15As! The suspension on the rear axle clearly shows the auxillary springs and the extra mount pads on the chassis for these springs to ride on.

Tony, both the F15 and C15 had auxiliary rear springs.

The trucks in Gregg's picture appear to have driven front axles, so you could very well be right in them being F30s.

H.


Source: http://bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net/cmp_canad...ry_pattern.htm

[Tony Smith]

The F15-HB1 handbook shows no auxillary springs on the F15.

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by Hanno Spoelstra
As far as I know the Marmon-Herrington transfer case included a high-low ratio.

Not only was the M-H Transfer case hi/lo range, it was also constant 4wd (no provision to disengage the front axle). Very different to CMP Transfer Cases.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Originally posted by Hanno Spoelstra
Now, if Sid used a standard Marmon-Herrington transfer case to start with, would your reasoning be the FGT was developed before the F15A?

Yes I think that this might be right!

The drawings in the books show that the F15A differed substantially from the other Ford multi-drives...nothing like each other in fact! I am inclined to believe that the prototype 15-cwt used a M-H transfer case, Ford rear axle and GM front axle. This possibly gravitated to production with a two-speed transfer case with PTO, since the PTO was required for the winch on a GT, etc. Don't forget here please that the DND papers show that drawings were sent over late in 1939 of the Guy Quad-Ant and the MCC GT, as well as pattern trucks. It was their cab design that Swallow wanted because it satisfied WD Spec. 36...Windsor then adapted the British design to use Canadian sheetmetal and hey presto! A design that satisfied the WD specs. I believe at this point that the GT led the way to production, followed by the other chassis designs and also the F60H. The F15A was a 'development' of the basic design possibly after consultation with Oshawa and as no PTO was required a different design of transfer case was obtained for general expediency.

The next step is to see the drawings of the C15A case! Anyone got one please?

Oh! On the above basis the F-GT begat the 3-tonners! That would fit in with the 3-ton rating?

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Thanks guys! It now makes total sense...these trucks are not 15-cwt. chassis but F30S chassis, part of the original 174 CKD units. The GM front axles may well have been to replace shortages in shipments of components.

Evidence: a note was sent from the DND in Ottawa on 28 March 1940 to the Canadian Mechanization HQ in Dagenham and Southampton, and referred to parts shipped the day before, e.g. to correct production faults and missing parts. Reference was made to 108 jobs that required a “C01Q” part number, i.e. F30S!

[Angus McLean]

Greetings,
The Portee I am working on has a plate attached to the engine cover by the drivers foot giving tare and laden weight . this panel is away being blasted and beaten ,from memory the laden weight is 12600 lb.
The body shown in Tony Smiths picture was built in NZ and used as GS by NZ army and is the same that is on my Portee.

[cliff]

Originally posted by Angus McLean
The body shown in Tony Smiths picture was built in NZ and used as GS by NZ army and is the same that is on my Portee.

Angus I assume you mean cab type and not rear bodys. These 11 cab CMP's were mainly made in Canada and were imported to NZ and Australia in the early days as fully built up or CKD kit.

That photo of Tony's is probably taken in the Ford factory in Canada and not in New Zealand.

Your portee is more then likely a later Cab 12 which had a two piece grill and lifting bonnet as well as vents either side of the grill in the two small squares.

Cliff

[Angus McLean]

Hi Cliff,
you are quite right about the body , when I said NZ made I was referring to the rear tray .The plans I aquired to build the rear tray originated from the military museum in the North Island .

[Keith Webb]

Hi Angus
Where are you located?

[Angus McLean]

Hello Keith,
Located in North Canterbury in the south island of NZ (where at the moment there is a terrific gale going on ).
I have only recently become involved with CMP trucks and have found this forum a great source of information . Have come across a few Portee trucks here in various states of repair / restoration so suspect there might be a few more about than previously thought.
Regards
Angus

[Keith Webb]

Originally posted by Angus McLean
Located in North Canterbury in the south island of NZ (where at the moment there is a terrific gale going on ).
I have only recently become involved with CMP trucks and have found this forum a great source of information . Have come across a few Portee trucks here in various states of repair / restoration so suspect there might be a few more about than previously thought.

I visited the South Island around 1976 just after high winds which had knocked quite a few trees (thousands) over.
Sounds like you need to get out there with your camera so we can all sample the Portees!

[Tony Smith]

Hi, Angus. This Portee was photographed in Waimate, South Canterbury less than 1 month ago. It is the first Sth Is Portee I've seen with an original GS deck. I know of seven portees in the South, and have heard of a couple more in the North Is, but not seen them yet. Portees and C8AX's are fairly rare in the world of Canadian Military Pattern trucks, but in NZ they're like accents, everyone has one!

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by Keith Webb
I was having a look at some pictures of the "Peters 5 ton crane" which I think were taken either during or shortly after the war of an Australian CGT chassis,

Mike Cecil's book on "Australian Scout and Armoured cars" mentions Peters Brothers:
"By mid 1943, all the Model 8446 4x4 chassis ordered from Canada had arrived, and apart from those in use, were in storage at the Fisherman's Bend plant of GMH. They remained there until mid-1944 when at least75 were assigned to the company of Peters Brothers, located in the Sydney suburb of Redfern. Peters Brothers had been undertaking the construction of general purpose cranes for the Services based on various makes of wheeled tractors, such as the International W-9. Peters Brothers built at least 75 cranes based on this chassis, these being assigned Commonwealth registration numbers 144311 to 144322, 144373 to 144421 and 144722 to 144735."

Mike says these crane conversions were "For the Services", which would explain the officer in the photos, but doesn't make clear if the ARN's are assigned to the finished cranes, or were from the donor gun tractors and bare chassis. Do any of the C-GT9's numbers fall in the ranges mentioned?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by Tony Smith
The F15-HB1 handbook shows no auxillary springs on the F15.

O.k., so we have one vote against, and two votes for. Who has an F15 parts list?!?

Originally posted by FV623 on April 7th 2004 18:37 in For sale: Quad Polsten
...in unrestored form Ballard's F15 had the helper springs fitted too, ...

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by David_Hayward
Yes I think that this might be right!

The drawings in the books show that the F15A differed substantially from the other Ford multi-drives...nothing like each other in fact! I am inclined to believe that the prototype 15-cwt used a M-H transfer case, Ford rear axle and GM front axle. This possibly gravitated to production with a two-speed transfer case with PTO, since the PTO was required for the winch on a GT, etc. Don't forget here please that the DND papers show that drawings were sent over late in 1939 of the Guy Quad-Ant and the MCC GT, as well as pattern trucks. It was their cab design that Swallow wanted because it satisfied WD Spec. 36...Windsor then adapted the British design to use Canadian sheetmetal and hey presto! A design that satisfied the WD specs. I believe at this point that the GT led the way to production, followed by the other chassis designs and also the F60H. The F15A was a 'development' of the basic design possibly after consultation with Oshawa and as no PTO was required a different design of transfer case was obtained for general expediency.

David, taking Tony's note into account (see below), I think we can reject the hypothesis "Sid used a standard Marmon-Herrington transfer case to start with, so the FGT was developed before the F15A". I suspect Ford merely adopted Marmon-Herrington's four-wheel-drive layout (see my postings about Sid Swallow above). This could well mean some components like the transfer case were used for prototypes, but purpose-designed ones were actually put into production.

I think the way to find our answer is to look for dates when the WD/DND specified a need for 4x4 15-cwt trucks and 4x4 Field Artillery Tractors. As for the former, I am under the impression the British did not introduce 4x4 15-cwt trucks until after WW2 started, while the first 'Quad' was introduced in 1938. In fact, I have a picture somewhere of a pre-war Canadian prototype field artillery tractor, based on a short-wheelbase Ford with COE cab and fitted with M-H four-wheel-drive conversion kit.

Originally posted by Tony Smith
Not only was the M-H Transfer case hi/lo range, it was also constant 4wd (no provision to disengage the front axle). Very different to CMP Transfer Cases.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Hanno, there were two, one Ford-Scammell and one Chevrolet-Scammell 'Dragons', 6 x 4 that were built in 1938 but by the following year, from memory early in 1939, the WD altered Spec.36 of 1936 to favour 4 x 4 tractors and G/S trucks cross-country trucks instead of the previously required 6 x 4. Of course the Quad-Ant and MCC Quad debuted circa 1938 and thus the concept was definitely pre- 4 x 4 15-cwt.

Further from 1936 Vauxhall had been trialling a 4 x 2 military truck that by 1938 had become the progenitor of the MW series with that flat front. 4 x 2 military trucks therefore were conceived just before the 4 x 4 tractors. It was then a logical step to adapt the 4 x 2 to 4 x 4. However I date the Ford of Canada 4 x 4 prototype to very early 1940 although I may be wrong, and by then the details of the Guy and MCC tractors had landed in Canada for inspection, to form the basis of the new Ford and Chevrolet quads.

That said there was discussion slightly earlier, just after war broke out, about equipping 4 x 2 trucks with M-H 4 x 4 equipment and arguably therefore the 4 x 4 was a wartime development of the 4 x 2, whereas the 4 x 4 quad tractor was tried, tested and in production. On that basis it was 15-cwt 4 x 2, 4 x 4 GT, and then 15-cwt 4 x 4 with the 30-cwt and 3-tonners including F60H 6 x 4 being developed from the GT chassis. Perhaps it is more correct to say that M-H components were suggested for production, but the CMP components were series-production adaptations with the necessary ability to use 2-wheel drive and also a PTO winch. The production 15-cwt 4 x 4 was then perhaps a further development with a new transfer case design for component supply expediency?

On reflection it is also arguable in my mind that the 15-cwt 4 x 2 had a seperate genesis from the quads, but Ford of Canada adapted some components from the quads and of course the cab, to the 15-cwts.

Where that leaves the 8-cwt chassis I have no idea save that it was presumably not difficult to downsize the 15-cwt components/cab to fit a commercial 10-cwt or 1/2-ton chassis design.

The end result of this is that, as mentioned before, the GT was a 60-cwt. chassis according to the DND and the 30-cwt and 60-cwt chassis were derived therefrom. I wonder how the GT chassis/build compares with the British equivalent...heavier build or not?

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

On 30 September 1939, Stan Ellis cabled in code from the High Commission to W.R. Campbell who was by then the Chairman of the War Supply Board, referring to [N.O.] Carr’s enquiry to Canada House regarding the Guy Quad Ant. This vehicle had been designed throughout as a 4-wheel drive [4 x 4] 25-Pounder gun tractor and was also equipped with a Winch. Could Campbell explore the possibility of using the Marmon-Herrington front end drive on the Ford of Canada 101 [-inch] chassis with an off-centre to the left rear axle differential and a rear drive shaft from the rear side Marmon-Herrington front drive shaft takeoff position on the transfer case? It would be necessary to have an offset drive shaft to provide clearance for the Guy Winch which apparently could be mounted in the [Ford chassis] frame with offset Hotchkiss drive shaft as close as practicable to the left side spring. The Guy Winch was from a conventional drive shaft universal joint position: this was desirable unless a transmission power takeoff of 20 h.p. capacity was available to use with an Air Compressor [to use for tyre inflation]. The Guy Winch was the best type for their [Ford] design providing an off-centre drive shaft feasible. Ellis was mailing Blueprints of the Guy chassis and Winch and anticipated body details later. A photograph of the body had been mailed to Carr, as well as the drawings of the Dunlop wheel on the 22nd. ...

Ellis cabled the National Defence Headquarters, or N.D.H.Q. from the High Commission on 3 October 1939, the message being intended for Carr. Regarding the adaptation of the 101-inch chassis as an alternative to the Guy, he suggested that there be a joint discussion between Carr, Swallow and General Motors of Canada regarding the chassis details to permit the advance study of possibilities of using one body for both chassis [i.e. Ford and Chevrolet]. The instruction book and general specifications had been mailed to Carmichael [at Oshawa] by Clipper that week with another copy to Windsor [for Ford]. However, the book did not show any details.......On receipt of the information, and after a reasonable time allowed for the study thereof, it was suggested that a meeting should be arranged between the representatives of Ford, G.M. and the D.N.D. to discuss the possibilities of using a common body for the vehicles of this nature which might be manufactured by their company and G.M. Consideration might also be given to the interchangeability of certain chassis components both within each company’s chassis and between the chassis of the two companies. It had been suggested to G.M. that subject to the companies’ approval that the proposed meeting should be held at Oshawa. He also wrote the same date to G.M. of Canada in more-or-less the same terms. H.J. Carmichael, Vice-president and General Manager at G.M. of Canada replied to Charles Burns, by then Assistant Deputy Minister in the D.N.D., 6 October, that he wished to assure that their company would co-operate 100%, and would do everything in their power to facilitate arriving at a proper unit to be built from Canadian component parts, to serve the purpose that the unit served in England {sic.}. Carmichael added that they would be more than pleased to have a conference there in Oshawa with officials of the Department, Ford officials, and the company’s Engineers and ‘economically work out a satisfactory unit’. This is an interesting choice of phrase, and echoes the attention to economics that pervaded the Canadian war effort. Ellis cabled Carr 15 October 1939 and asked to be rushed a reply to his query regarding the adaptation of the Marmon-Herrington system for an Artillery Tractor. DesRosiers then telegraphed Ford with a copy of the Cable and asked for a copy of the reply that they had sent to Ellis. Davis at Fords replied that they had no record of the request, and so would the Department please send them details? Carr then sent Campbell, as chairman of the War Supply Board, a copy of all the correspondence and cables relating to Ellis’s request in order to settle the matter. Campbell acknowledged the next day. The Blueprints were received on 10 November ex the S.S. Duchess of York, and the High Commission advised the D.N.D. accordingly 15 November, with a stereotype address letter that suggests that there was a regular and established system for mailing information to the D.N.D. in Ottawa. Major (D.O.) J.J. Harris, R.C.A. requested the Director of Contracts on 28 November that the Blueprints be released and sent to Carr at Room 509, New Post Office Building, Ottawa, immediately.

On 1 December 1939 Ellis mailed Carr Drawings regarding the General Arrangement plan of the Morris and Guy Type C8/Four-wheel drive chassis, and the Winch arrangement. These did not arrive though in Ottawa until 29 December, the same as another letter of even date'.

It seems that it was Stan Ellis who in October 1939 wrote to the DND stating that WD 30-cwt lorries that were required from Canada should be equipped with M-H 4-wheel drive in 1/3rd of the trucks...that would explain a mix of MCP and 30-cwt CMPs. Also that all 3-tonners should have 4-wheel drive.

It appears that Ellis studied a sent-over GMC 4 x 4 that was tested at Farnborough. 'Ellis said that he had not seen the G.M. set-up since the failure, though as he had had no reports of failure of components having been received of the Marmon-Herrington equipment, perhaps G.M. would have been well advised to study a Marmon-Herrington set-up or pay more attention to assembly as their design was comparably substantial [to G.M.’s]: M.-H. used Timken gears in their front transmission arrangement of course. A ‘Ford’ 4 x 4 Tractor, H 351836 was ordered under Contract Dds. 7142: could this have been a Marmon-Herrington conversion Gun Tractor that was also on trial?'

I think that the evidence points to the 15-cwt 4 x 4 being a late entry in the line-up with GT, 30-cwt and 3-tonners first as I suggested. Also that M-H components were specified for Fords, and Timken-Detroit for GMC then Chevrolet BUT the Fords used a development [possibly built in the Windsor axle plant] with PTO and Chevrolets moved to a licence-built system by McKinnon Industries. The evidence also shows that considerable attention was paid to the GTs, and again suggest that it was Gun Tractor chassis that begat the rest of the range up to 3-tonners.

I also found that there was a requirement for 8-cwt. trucks to replace the 1938 Chevrolet GS in the personnel transport role in Canada. It appears that 8-cwt. was chosen as a light commercial chassis initially.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Could Campbell explore the possibility of using the Marmon-Herrington front end drive on the Ford of Canada 101 [-inch] chassis with an off-centre to the left rear axle differential and a rear drive shaft from the rear side Marmon-Herrington front drive shaft takeoff position on the transfer case? It would be necessary to have an offset drive shaft to provide clearance for the Guy Winch which apparently could be mounted in the [Ford chassis] frame with offset Hotchkiss drive shaft as close as practicable to the left side spring.

Does this explain why there was a different design F-GT etc. transfer case to the M-H design?

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

At the moment the informed opinion is that the Gun Tractor was the first 4 x 4 design, and that all others save for the F15 and the F15A were descended therefrom. I think that the F15 was a simultaneous development probably independent of the GT chassis. The F15A was an alternative, independent, solution to the changed requirements of the British War Office and who knows, it may even have been a GM of Canada responsibility? I am at the moment opined that the Oshawa designed the GT body and that they actually built the first body...although Gotfredson in WINDSOR down the road from Fords were among those who built the production bodies.

Does anyone have an offivial shot of the Chevrolet GT with body being lowered thereon, that was used in the GM of Canada Songbook etc.?

[badger1bear]

Originally posted by Hanno Spoelstra
Well yes, but was the vehicle rated at 60-cwt because of the heavier running gear, or was the chassis beefier than the 15-cwt? I'm asking because some sources state the CGT chassis has double chassis rails, while others state it doesn't.

Hi Hanno just thought I would let you know that I am nearly 99% sure that my truck has twin chassis rails, if I remember the next time I go to the farm I will take my camera and get a picture of them just to set the record straight

Regards Simon

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by badger1bear
Hi Hanno just thought I would let you know that I am nearly 99% sure that my truck has twin chassis rails, if I remember the next time I go to the farm I will take my camera and get a picture of them just to set the record straight

That would be great, Simon!

Thanks,
Hanno

[badger1bear]

Here are some pics of the twin rails, sadly the give away that they are twin is the fact that rust has blown them slightly appart over the years

there are other pics but I could only post two of them

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

My researches show that the GTs were based on Drawings supplied by the War Office in 1938-9, and that the WD-approved British Tractors were officially rated at 15-cwt!

Without gving too much away, as this will be explained I hope in the book I am draft-editing at the moment, the 101-inch wheelbase is all down to Ford's COE chassis, and the chassis chosen was civilian rated at 1 1/2-tons. As a civvy 30-cwt. was rated for military purposes at 3-tons/60-cwt., I think all the evidence and that includes some DND paperwork ['Specification No. O.A. 85'] points to the Gun Tractors, Chassis Code C-60441-M, having a 3-ton capacity.

Is it agreed now that FATs owed little if anything to the 15-cwt 4 x 4 chassis please? That said I need to remind myself as to the commonality between the 4 x 2 and 4 x 4 15-cwt. chassis! Can anyone elucidate please?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by David_Hayward
the chassis chosen was civilian rated at 1 1/2-tons. As a civvy 30-cwt. was rated for military purposes at 3-tons/60-cwt.

Very unlikely - it must be the other way round. For example, the 2.5-ton GMC CCKW-353 has a 5-ton highway rating.

Is it agreed now that FATs owed little if anything to the 15-cwt 4 x 4 chassis please? That said I need to remind myself as to the commonality between the 4 x 2 and 4 x 4 15-cwt. chassis! Can anyone elucidate please?

I´m still not sure, David. You have reseached this matter, from which I learned it seems the FAT was developed before the 4x4 15-cwt.

As for the commonality, I dare say there were more differences between the 4x2 and 4x4 15-cwt. chassis than between the FAT and 4x4 15-cwt. chassis.

H.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally posted by David_Hayward
My researches show that the GTs were based on Drawings supplied by the War Office in 1938-9, and that the WD-approved British Tractors were officially rated at 15-cwt!

Is it agreed now that FATs owed little if anything to the 15-cwt 4 x 4 chassis please? That said I need to remind myself as to the commonality between the 4 x 2 and 4 x 4 15-cwt. chassis! Can anyone elucidate please?

David,
The difference between unladen and laden weight on an early CMP FAT is 27 cwt and on a Morris C8 FAT it is 30 cwt. It is appreciated that load ratings for WD trucks, ie 15 cwt , 3 ton, etc, is very underated and in effect is the max. weight for traversing cross country, the same vehicle used in civvy use would probably carry twice the weights on the road. The double chassis rails would be added to stiffen it up for towing strains and winching, not to take extra load weight. Hope this may answer some of your questions.

Richard

[Keith Webb]

In the absence (at least here) of cab 11 FATs here's a picture of a cab 12 CGT. It seems to have a beefier chassis than the standard C15A:

http://imagecontrol.com.au/oldcmp/Im...s/1373_ag2.jpg

[Keith Webb]

Here's a shot of the chassis of a No9 (Aust) FGT:

http://imagecontrol.com.au/oldcmp/Im...ssis/fgt_1.jpg

These tractors all use the basic F15A chassis with a slightly different transfer case cross member and the double rear chassis members with fish plates.

Not sure about the early cab FGTs.