|
|
#1
21-09-11, 11:41
|
||||
|
||||
F60H story
Here goes:
THE SIX-WHEELED CMPS: THE FORD F.60H Six-wheeled lorry chassis had been used since the 1920s as Gun Tractors or ‘Dragons’, and Morris Commercial Cars and Leyland produced 6 x 4 chassis for the War Office and overseas customers alike. The National Archives have a file on a War Office Committee that discussed 3-ton 6-wheeled lorries from 1934, reporting in 1938. On 14 December 1935 the Chief Inspector of Armaments at the Woolwich Arsenal issued a formal invitation to interested parties to produce vehicles for military use to conform to various War Office specifications, W.O. Spec.36, including 6 x 4 lorries. The Bedford Division of Vauxhall Motors Limited, Luton, undertook a considerable amount of engineering work in concert with the W.O. in order to agree a specification for a four-wheel truck for cross-country work based on an adapted civilian chassis, as well as an adaptation of the Scammell Lorries Limited rear bogie conversion of Bedford chassis to produce a 6-wheel artillery tractor had been in use for some years previously as already mentioned. Vauxhall’s experience formed the basis of Canada’s own designs to meet the W.O. requirements. Because the Dominions were expected to follow suit with vehicles identical to W.O. requirements, the Canadian Department of National Defence received a copy of the Specifications with a view to them producing their own indigenous design that complied. One of the vehicles that complied with the requirements by late 1936 was the Morris-Commercial CD/SW. This was a Field Artillery Tractor but the W.O. had specified a General Service or a 30-cwt. G.S. body that could be used on a 6 x 4 chassis as an alternative. The idea of the 6-wheel chassis was that it would have adequate off-road performance in theory. The Canadians discussed whether they could use the Leyland Cub, Morris-Commercial or Crossley chassis with Chevrolet or Ford engines as this would combine Canadian-built engines with British Empire-compatible chassis. These were discounted, so the next discussion was of conversions from 4-wheel to six-wheel chassis, namely Fordson-Sussex [County Commercial Cars], UNIPOWER by Universal Power Drives Limited and Scammell, by Scammell Lorries Limited. The first was a proven Ford conversion, the second on Ford, Dodge and Bedford, and the last on Bedford chassis. The D.N.D. chose the Scammell principle as Scammells had just had approved a light gun tractor using a similar rocking beam back axle to their conversion. As Scammells did a conversion for Bedfords, the thinking was that they could also be approached to do a similar one for Chevrolet and Ford chassis for Canada. The D.N.D. then commissioned Ford and General Motors of Canada to produce prototype 15-cwt. 4 x 2 trucks to W.O. Spec.36 in 1937 and then the following year two 6 x 4 F.A.T. trucks using Scammell bogies purchased direct from Scammell Lorries. These were then tested extensively, but found seriously lacking in performance especially cross-country because of the extra bogie weight and lack of front wheel drive. Comparisons with 4 x 4 conversions of Ford chassis showed that the 6 x 4 was deficient. Then by the beginning of 1939 the W.O. had made it clear that they were now interested in 4 x 4 ‘quad’ chassis instead of 6 x 4, and at first sight it seemed that the extensive design work and engineering of two new designs was wasted. However, after war had broken out the Ministry of Supply and Air Ministry acquired 6 x 4 lorries where a longer body or longer load was required, e.g. Searchlight trucks, breakdown gantries, and Barrage Balloon trucks. This included CCC conversions on Fordson chassis as well as 6 x 4 chassis from British manufacturers. Presumably ignoring the W.O. change in direction to all-wheel drive, the D.N.D. not only commissioned Ford of Canada to design a 4 x 4 15-cwt. truck and F.A.T. ‘quad’ to the latest requirements, which G.M. of Canada adopted as well, and also a new 6 x 4 design, which would be war rated at 3-tons utilising experience already gained and using the same cab as the new 4 x 4 and subsequent 4 x 2 ‘D.N.D.-pattern’ trucks as they were initially named. Ford of Canada thus created the V-8 engined F.60H, able to take the same bodies as its British counterparts, or indigenous Canadian ones. The wheelbase was 134” to which as bogie was added. The first F.60H or Ford Model C010QF cab design was what was later called the # 11 Cab, i.e. closed, but during 1941 this changed to the # 12 Cab with ‘Alligator’ hood opening. Ford started production in the spring of 1940, indicating the amazing rush into production, but G.M. of Canada did not produce their own version though they did components for the F.60H. Assembly was then undertaken later in 1940 in England, for the Canadian forces. The Mechanical Engineering Establishment at Farnborough, Hampshire, then tested a Ford F.60H loaned or seconded to the Ministry of Supply: reputedly serial CMD 4903, a Pilot Model, Engine/chassis number 1C3685F. M.E.E. Report No. B.571 dated 31 December 1940 referred to a trial of the truck between 15 August and 28 November 1940, under Ministry of Supply file 257/Veh/956 [Census Number H 4141706?]. The report stated that a Ford 6-wheeled chassis with driven front and middle axle and trailing rear axle as supplied to the ‘Canadian Military Department’ was received for test. The truck was trialled over 947 road and 201 cross-country miles, total 1,148 in order to ascertain its suitability for W.D. use. However, the test revealed that the steering was very stiff at slow speeds in either 6 x 2 and 6 x 4 drive; The front springs bottomed badly on rough roads; the driver’s seat was too low for an average man and it was impossible for him to see the road properly or gauge the width of the vehicle which made driving down narrow roads hazardous [raising the seat 3 inches made a considerable difference]; the windscreen wiper was useless when accelerating, and the exhaust tail pipe grounded. The truck was then to be subjected to further trials: 7,500 road and 2,500 cross-country miles. A copy of the report found itself in the hands of the D.N.D. in Ottawa and was referred to in the negotiations for the development of a 6 x 6 truck. In the meantime, E.L. Simpson of the Automotive Engineering Department at Ford of Canada wrote to Brigadier N.O. Carr as he was by then, the Deputy-M.G.O. on 19 October 1940 and sent copies of composite chassis drawings showing the installation of the Lincoln Zephyr V-12 [1940-41 120 b.h.p.] engine in the “six-wheeler” which presumably referred to the F.60H, and also sent power curves of the Zephyr engine and then engine then being used in military vehicles, which was the standard Ford V-8 and not the larger Mercury V-8. The Zephyr engine was available in quantity and Ford proposed converting for test purposes one of the D.N.D. vehicles then at their plant: would Carr give permission for the conversion please? The vehicles could be converted to 6 x 6 configuration ‘at your convenience’. The advantage that the 290 cu. in. U.S. V-12 had was that it was produced in right-hand drive form. The Director of Mechanical Maintenance, Francis Farwell, wrote in December 1941 that on 15 December 1940 ten D.N.D. officers went to Kingston, Ontario to road test a 6 x 4 chassis then used as an Army Field Workshop with standard G.S. body. At the conclusion of that visit Farwell took the position that the chassis was not satisfactory for gross loads in excess of 18,000 lbs. They then asked the Design Branch to provide a heavier chassis with larger engine that would be satisfactory fro gross load sup to 25,000 lbs. That then led to discussions concerning a heavier Dodge chassis with bigger engine, and then International Harvester, Dodge and White regarding vehicles with greater horsepower and capacity for loads from 20,000 to 25,000 lbs. Gross. However, a Mr. Stevenson wrote 13 January 1941 prior to the discussions recommending that the 6 x 4 chassis be retained with certain changes and on 22 January wrote asking that tyres be changed from 10.50 x 20 to 10.50 x 16 to improve the 6 x 4 performance. However, it was apparent by spring 1941 that the 6 x 4 [Ford F.60H] was unsatisfactory: London wrote 24 May 1941 that further trials on the lorry mentioned above had been abandoned as a result of front axle and U.J. failure, criticism of articulation, power performance in comparison with British trucks, and further criticisms backed with the Farnborough tests that resulted in the decision that a 6 x 4 with both rear axles driven was preferable. On 10 May 1941, the D.N.D. H.Q. in Ottawa cabled the Canadian Military H.Q. in London in response to the latter’s # T.A. 260 to advise that a 6 x 6 G.M.C. truck with an engine producing 216 lbs./ft. of torque was being developed. A new cab and sheet metal was designed to take this engine, which was the largest that could be used with the then current axles. This would not enter production prior to January 1942 at which time the 6 x 4 [F.60H] would be discontinued. There were a number 6 x 4 trucks to be built which would fill all then presently known requirements. Ottawa had sent a Telegram on account of criticism in Canada of lack of performance and because the R.C.A.S.C. in Canada stated that they required a 16 or 17-ft. workshop body to carry more complete equipment tan specified for corresponding English {sic.} vehicles. The proposal regarding alternative vehicles mentioned in the telegram would involve cancellation of as many 6 x 4 trucks as possible, the exact number depending on availability of larger chassis. A meeting was held at Canadian Corps H.Q. on 6 August 1941. Approximately 200 Ford 3-ton 6 x 4 chassis had been provided to the Canadian Army in the U.K. These chassis had been equipped to meet “W.E.” requirements: R.C.A.S.C. Units: workshop x; stores xx and breakdown xx. R.C.A.S.C.: responsibility for maintenance. R.C.A.O.C.: x-Ray [R.C.A.M.C.]x; breakdown x; stores xx; machinery xxx; M.T. ? servicing xx and 24-passenger bus for personnel x. R.C.E.: folding boat equipment x; small box girder x; derrick x. Of these those marked “x” were chassis only from Canada with body and equipment procured in the U.K.; “xx” indicated chassis and body from Canada and equipment provided and installed in the U.K., and “xxx” represented chassis, body and equipment complete from Canada. On 14 August 1941, Ford F.60H 6 x 4 production to Canadian orders ended. A heavier truck was required and London was notified by telegram on 25 August. The Master General of the Ordnance sent a Telegram on 25 August 1941 from Ottawa to London stating that the situation with regard to the 6 x 4 chassis had been thoroughly reviewed. 1,058 chassis had been ordered to cover home and overseas requirements but in view of the results to date it had been decided to cancel 55 and divert 362 to India leaving a balance of 641 available of which approximately 534 had been or were to be shipped to the U.K. The ‘Summary of Establishments and Requirements of Vehicles in the U.K.’ as at Midnight 24 July 1941 showed total establishment 6 x 4 of 754. Some of these establishments were still provisional and no purchases had been made against them however using those figures as a basis it was suggested that London allocate the 524 to best advantage and purchase other requirements from the R.A.O.C.. If required Ottawa could ship most of the 117 remaining in Canada. It was believed that the 6 x 4 chassis was suitable for stores, workshop, S.B.G. special bodies, machinery except R.E., X-Ray, and bus if G.V.W. was scaled down to a maximum of 16,000 lbs. It was unsuitable for breakdown, derrick, F.B.E. machinery, R.E. photo, mechanical printing, recorders, plotters, pontoon, pontoon trestle, half pontoon bay. The F.60H does not appear to have been acquired for U.K. forces, and thus are not mentioned in the 1944 Census Number listing. However, they were evidently used in the Middle East, and thus would have acquired Mid-East allocated numbers. In addition, Australia and India received numbers to Ministry of Supply contracts from at least 1942, and there is evidence that Australia purchased quantities direct from Canada, and were very successful as wreckers. Although the Canadian lorries did not continue in production, overseas orders maintained production long enough for the # 13 Cab to be used, with the forward-sloping front screen. In total 4,123 F60H lorries were produced. This included a quantity of open-cabbed versions, with either the # 42 or # 43 Cabs depending on whether #12 or #13 closed Cabs were used at the time. The D.N.D. had dropped the F.60H as not having sufficient performance in favour of a 6 x 6 design, which is covered in the next part, namely the GM C.60X. 
|
|
#2
21-09-11, 11:46
|
||||
|
||||
|
C60x
As we have seen, General Motors Limited assembled M.C.P. Chevrolet 1˝-ton trucks with a Thornton four-rear wheel drive conversion to create a 6 x 4 truck able to carry 3-tons. However, there was a consistent demand for a heavier-capacity, longer chassis truck with go-anywhere capability. The answer was to stretch the C.M.P. Chevrolet chassis, and adapting the same principle with the 6-wheeler conversions marketed in the UK from 1925, the rear axles were doubled to provide two driven axles on a Bogie assembly mounted on trunnions attached to the chassis frame members. The front axle was also driven, with 6-inch Bendix-Weiss C.V. joints and full floating spiral bevel. This provided 6-wheel drive, or 6 x 6, to create the Chevrolet Model C.60X, C-60660-M-?, GM of Canada Model 8660. Ford of Canada also produced their own interpretation but of 6 x 4 design, the trailing axle not being driven in that case. Drive and brake reactions were transmitted through parallelogram radius rods. The springs were of the inverted, semi-elliptic floating type. Transfer case power take-off was not available on the C.60X since both rear output shafts were required for the rear axles.
The extra weight of the chassis would have been too much for the Chevrolet 216.5 engine, and so the GMC 270 unit was installed instead, producing 105 b.h.p. at 3,000 r.p.m. to provide a power weight ratio of 11.55 b.h.p./short-ton, but modified to accept a standard C.M.P. transmission. However, the electrics were still 6-volt. Maximum gross weight was now 18,000 lbs. The wheelbase was 160.5 in. to the centre line of the bogie. Tyres were 10.50 x 20-WD-7. The transmission was standard C.M.P. Chevrolet 4 plus reverse type, with ratios of 6.35:1; 3.31:1; 1.75:1 and 1:1, reverse 7.54:1 with a 2-speed transfer case of 1:1 and 2.05:1. Maximum speed was 47 m.p.h. at 3,000 r.p.m., cruising range 280 miles. Fuel consumption on the road at 40 m.p.h. was 7 m.p.g. Fording depth was 24 in., and gradeability in 4th gear, low transfer case, was 6%. The C.60X was the largest of the C.M.P. models, and was designed and equipped to withstand travelling over rough terrain. The chassis were of course manufactured by GM of Canada, but the bodies were generally assembled and equipped by Chrysler of Canada Limited. Total C.60X production from 1942 to 1945 was 2,710 units, the unit cost of chassis and cab being C$3,000. The history of the development of the 6 x 6 DND-pattern trucks can be traced back to the summer of 1940 at the earliest. The M.E.E. or Mechanical Engineering Establishment at Farnborough, Hampshire, tested a Ford F.60H 6 x 4 DND-pattern truck loaned or seconded to the Ministry of Supply: reputedly serial CMD 4903, a Pilot Model, Engine/chassis number 1C3685F. M.E.E. Report No. B.571 dated 31 December 1940 referred to a trial of the truck between 15 August and 28 November 1940, under Ministry of Supply file 257/Veh/956. This might well have been the F.60H with # 11 Cab photographed at Kidbrooke, and fitted with a breakdown gantry body similar if not identical to British bodies supplied to the M. of S. on Austin and other 6 x 4 chassis: there is no record of any British contract or Census number for a F.60H. The report stated that a Ford 6-wheeled chassis with driven front and middle axle and trailing rear axle as supplied to the ‘Canadian Military Department’ was received for test. The truck was trialled over 947 road and 201 cross-country miles, total 1,148 in order to ascertain its suitability for WD use. However, the test revealed that the steering was very stiff at slow speeds in either 6 x 2 and 6 x 4 drive; The front springs bottomed badly on rough roads; the driver’s seat was too low for an average man and it was impossible for him to see the road properly or gauge the width of the vehicle which made driving down narrow roads hazardous [raising the seat 3 inches made a considerable difference]; the windscreen wiper was useless when accelerating, and the exhaust tail pipe grounded. The truck was then to be subjected to further trials: 7,500 road and 2,500 cross-country miles. A copy of the report found itself in the hands of the DND in Ottawa and was referred to in the negotiations for the development of a 6 x 6 truck.[i] Simultaneous with the trials in England, discussions were held in Ottawa regarding a proposed ‘6 x 6 Army Vehicle’. On 16 October 1940 a meeting was held between Major Franklin, H.J. Stevenson, E.F. Armstrong [of GM of Canada], and A.A. Maynard. The meeting agreed the specifications for a new design of truck to be ordered from GM of Canada, with a 160-inch wheelbase to the centreline of the bogie, with new heavier Ford steering ends and D.A. Shock absorbers, plus two rear axles with one offset from the other on the centre though rear hubs and bearings to be as per existing 4 x 4 though with two propeller shaft drive and Timken type bogie. The engine was to be a ‘GMC 370 cu. in. with suitable Clutch; Largest Fan with suitable belt’, although it was in fact a 270 cu. in. unit. The transmission was to be a Clark 202V or 185F with tyre pump. The transfer case was to be standard type without P.T.O., though the P.T.O. was to be a split propeller shaft type and the transfer case had to be in neutral when using take-off. The sheet metal was to be altered to suit the larger engine and transmission. [ii] In the meantime, E.L. Simpson of the Automotive Engineering Department at Ford of Canada wrote to Brigadier N.O. Carr as he was by then, the Deputy-MGO on 19 October 1940 and sent copies of composite chassis drawings showing the installation of the Lincoln Zephyr V-12 [1940-41 120 b.h.p.] engine in the ‘six-wheeler’ which presumably referred to the F.60H, and also sent power curves of the Zephyr engine and then engine then being used in military vehicles, which was the standard Ford V-8 and not the larger Mercury V-8. The Zephyr engine was available in quantity and Ford proposed converting for test purposes one of the DND vehicles then at their plant: would Carr give permission for the conversion please? The vehicles could be converted to 6 x 6 configuration ‘at your convenience’ [hint, hint!]. The advantage that the 290 cu. in. U.S. V-12 had was that it was produced in right-hand drive form.[iii] On 26 November 1940 N.C. Millman [formerly of GM of Canada] but by then of the Directorate of Ordnance Services (Mech.) in Ottawa, wrote to GM of Canada and asked for a quote to build a 6 x 6 chassis. J.A. Lane, the Export Manager who handled such matters replied on 30 December that the chassis that ‘we are developing’ would cost an estimated $15,000. This seems to confirm that the special chassis was already underway.[iv] The Director of Mechanical Maintenance, Francis Farwell, wrote in December 1941 that on 15 December 1940 ten DND officers went to Kingston, Ontario to road test a 6 x 4 chassis then used as an Army Field Workshop with standard GS body. At the conclusion of that visit Farwell took the position that the chassis was not satisfactory for gross loads in excess of 18,000 lbs. They then asked the Design Branch to provide a heavier chassis with larger engine that would be satisfactory fro gross load sup to 25,000 lbs. That then led to discussions concerning a heavier Dodge chassis with bigger engine, and then International Harvester, Dodge and White regarding vehicles with greater horsepower and capacity for loads from 20,000 to 25,000 lbs. Gross. However, a Mr. Stevenson wrote 13 January 1941 prior to the discussions recommending that the 6 x 4 chassis be retained with certain changes and on 22 January wrote asking that tyres be changed from 10.50 x 20 to 10.50 x 16 to improve the 6 x 4 performance. However, it was apparent by spring 1941 that the 6 x 4 [Ford F.60H] was unsatisfactory: London wrote 24 May 1941 that further trials on the lorry mentioned above had been abandoned as a result of front axle and U.J. failure, criticism of articulation, power performance in comparison with British trucks, and further criticisms backed with the Farnborough tests that resulted in the decision that a 6 x 4 with both rear axles driven was preferable. [v] On 6 January 1941, Millman sent a note to a Captain R.P. Breindahl requesting that a C.D. [Contract Demand] made up for the construction of a pilot model 6 x 6 special DND pattern vehicle by GM of Canada for $15,000. The production model represented by the pilot was to replace the then present 6 x 4 special DND pattern vehicle. The new truck was to have an engine of considerably more power than the 6 x 4 with three driving axles in place of two, one piece side members, a greater load carrying capacity, improved cross-country performance and ‘increased stamina’. C.D.L.V. 346 40/41 was then issued and forwarded to the Treasury on 8 January 1941.[vi] On 10 May 1941, the DND H.Q. in Ottawa cabled the Canadian Military H.Q. in London in response to the latter’s # T.A. 260 to advise that a 6 x 6 GMC truck with an engine producing 216 lbs./ft. of torque was being developed. A new cab and sheet metal was designed to take this engine, which was the largest that could be used with the then current axles. This would not enter production prior to January 1942 at which time the 6 x 4 [F.60H] would be discontinued. There were approximately X50 6 x 4 trucks to be built which would fill all then presently known requirements. Ottawa had sent a Telegram MECH 1503 on account of criticism in Canada of lack of performance and because the RCAS.C. in Canada stated that they required a 16 or 17-ft. workshop body to carry more complete equipment tan specified for corresponding English {sic.} vehicles hence the MECH 1806. The proposal regarding alternative vehicles mentioned in the MECH 1503 would involve cancellation of as many 6 x 4 trucks as possible, the exact number depending on availability of larger chassis. The reply should therefore cover the suitability of the then present 6 x 4 with load and wheels as specified in MECH 1503 for both MGO and RCAS.C. requirements and the advisability of the introduction either of the heavier chassis previously mentioned.[vii] On 21 May 1941 the Directorate of Mechanization drew up a General Specification for a Chassis and Cab for a Mobile Workshop. The Specification called for either 6 x 4 or 6 x 6 drive, C.O.E. and r.h.d. preferred, with a minimum of a 320 cu. ins. capacity engine. The P.T.O. was to drive a 7˝ kW Generator.[viii] Colonel R.A. Macfarlane, the Director of Mechanization wrote on 3 July 1941 in reply to the Quartermaster-General’s [Q.M.G.’s] memorandum of 30 June regarding Q.M.G. workshops. In accordance with agreed procedure, the engineering section had developed a specification of the desired chassis for workshops. The Motor Vehicle Controller then put out enquiries to the different manufacturers who could approach the specifications. As a result of the enquiries the following had been learnt: FWD Model HA 4 x 4 drive with trailing axle if required. Delivery 4 months. Not considered suitable vehicle because the rear bogie did not drive. DODGE Model WK-60 6 x 4 with rear bogie driving. Delivery 5 months. This was the closest approach to the requirements and a sample was brought to Ottawa for inspection. The result of the inspection was the conclusion that this was a makeshift vehicle and there could be no assurance that there would be any improvement over the existing 6 x 4 except in power. A report was attached. The truck was possibly the 1941 Model WKA-60, 3-ton with Cab-over-Engine as used by the British in 1940 Model form as a diverted French orders. The rear bogie was a Welles-Thornton conversion using a Thornton rear bogie hence the front axle was not driven. GMC AFW-602 GMC [Pontiac] refused to give any promise of delivery and so the vehicle was not considered. The AFW-602 was a 6-wheel C.O.E. 600-series GMC chassis, and thus 6 x 4. INTERNATIONAL K8F This was a 6 x 4 with rear bogie driving. Delivery 5 months. This vehicle would not take standard W.O. wheels. No chain clearances were provided and it would be necessary to use dual rear wheels. Cost was $2,000 more than the Dodge and $3,500 more than the existing 6 x 4 [Ford F.60H]. A meeting was held with a Mr. Berry to discuss the whole situation and at that point it was decided to: a) Continue with the then present 6 x 4 for workshops until the GM 6 x 6 was available but to reduce the weight with 16,000 lbs. As the ideal as Ford had agreed that 16,500 was the normal Gross Vehicle Weight. b) Examine the Dodge to see if it would be suitable for a breakdown vehicle c) Find out from GM what interference there would be with the armoured vehicles if tooling were released on the 6 x 6 immediately. The results were: a) No further orders were to be placed for the existing 6 x 4 but Ford had been requested to complete the then current orders as soon as possible. 295 F.60H chassis had been dispatched overseas ‘recently’. b) The Dodge had been found unsuitable for use as the result of inspection by officers of the NDHQ and as a result of articulation tests. c) A.A. Maynard of GM at first intimated that the tooling of the 6 x 6 would not interfere with the armoured vehicles but since then he had changed his mind. The then present position was that GM were finishing the pilot model 6 x 6 [Model 8660] but no authority had been granted as yet to proceed. It was proposed to have GM proceed though on the basis of paragraph 2 of Maynard’s letter of 27 June 1941 until such time as the releasing of the armoured vehicle was complete. Q.M.G. workshops complete with chassis body and tool had been purchased up to and including the Armoured Division. Deliveries of the chassis up to and including the 3rd Division were almost complete overseas. Deliveries of the balance would be made over the following three months. The bodies were then in production and the tools in stores. It was proposed to complete all workshops including RCAS.C. on the basis of the lighter body, improved 6 x 4 and available tools The RCAS.C. would be a modified M.T. Servicing Lorry. It was understood that a Mr. Hart had explained to the Q.M.G. that all these vehicles with equipment had been purchased and that there would be an improvement over the 1st and 2nd Division vehicles and the Q.M.G. agreed to take the 6 x 4 until the 6 x 6 was available.[ix] However, there was no 1942 Model Year variant of the Ford F.60H though late models were equipped with modified # 13 or # 43 Cab for Australia and India, etc.. A meeting was held at Canadian Corps H.Q. on 6 August 1941: Lt. General A.G.L. McNaughton was the senior officer present, and apart from A.S. ‘Stan’ Ellis, and Herb Ronson of the T.A.M.T. branch, C.M.H.Q., the other notable officer was Brigadier J.M. MacQueen of C.M.H.Q. [Deputy Q.M.G.]. Various vehicles were discussed including GM 6 x 6 3-ton with GS body and Dodge 6 x 4 with breakdown body and equipment. Approximately 200 Ford 3-ton 6 x 4 chassis had been provided to the Canadian Army in the UK These chassis had been equipped to meet ‘W.E.’ requirements: RCAS.C. Units: workshop xx; stores xx and breakdown xx. RCAS.C.: responsibility for maintenance. RCAO.C.: x-Ray [RCAM.C.]x; breakdown x; stores xx; machinery xxx; M.T. ? servicing xx and 24-passenger bus for personnel x. R.C.E.: folding boat equipment x; small box girder x; derrick x. Of these those marked ‘x’ were chassis only from Canada with body and equipment procured in the UK; ‘xx’ indicated chassis and body from Canada and equipment provided and installed in the UK, and ‘xxx’ represented chassis, body and equipment complete from Canada. This reference was exclusive of A.P.W. machinery lorries obtained complete from the W.O. on F.D. and issued to No. 2 R.F.W., R.C.O.C. The Ford 3-ton six-wheeled chassis supplied by the DND for the types mentioned was a 3-ton 134-inch 4 x 4 chassis fitted with a frame extension and rear bogie that had been provided as the equivalent of a conventional 6 x 4 lorry. The designations used therein for six-wheeled lorries was detailed: FRONT WHEELS BOGIE WHEELS (FRONT) BOGIE WHEELS (REAR) A. 6 x 2 N.T. T. N.T. B. 6 x 4 x 2 T. T. N.T. C. 6 x 4 N.T. T. T. D. 6 x 6 T. T. T. Where T. = Tractive and N.T. = Non Tractive The Ford 3-ton six-wheeled chassis provided by the DND to Canadian Army (Overseas) complied basically with type B. There was then a discussion about the original springs being found to be entirely inadequate to support the loads imposed. Improved articulation was necessary to preclude ‘bogging’ resulting from the front pair of rear bogie wheels cutting in or dropping into a nullah and allowing the rear load to rest on the rear pair of rear bogie wheels. The Ford 6 x 4 x 2 chassis had undergone tests under R.C.E. lorries equipped with S.B.G. body and equipment as they were required to operate in almost every cross country condition. Modifications were to be made as expediency required: springs would be provided procured in the UK for 2 x 9,000 lbs capacity springs plus overall chains as required. Of the 200 chassis provided up to then, 150 were in the category ‘O’ requiring the springs. Chassis were then in the process of provision for the 3rd Division and Corps expansion which would add 136 to the ‘O’ category trucks. The total of 286 would it was expected be increased beyond that figure as then current production forecast of M.T. production in Canada included 567 in addition to the 200 issued in the UK The program of spring replacement envisaged approximately 300 vehicles that would be proceeded with by provision of 100 sets as a working stock float. Springs to establish the float would be taken from chassis only on hand and in storage at Bordon and reworked to new specifications. The Ford chassis could be used with a good measure of success for X-Ray, R.C.O.C. Machinery, 28-passenger bus and RCAS.C. workshop but RCAS.C. breakdown and R.C.O.C. breakdown were considered to be laden in excess of tractive effort and cross country ability. Ability to maintaining convoy spacing was important and the then present type did not meet requirements in that respect: the engines used in both makes of M.T. for the C.A. Overseas were generally of the same power and torque characteristics from the sedan types throughout the entire range of models and whilst this had been acceptable and satisfactory in all 4 x 2 and 4 x 4 types the power output was not sufficient for six-wheeled types. Up to that time approximately 200 Ford 3-ton 6 x 4 x 2 chassis had been provided and 575 more were included in the schedule for the C.A. in the UK Because of changes in W.E., the figures covering future provision had to be accepted as tentative. The principal factors to be considered in planning issues of a new type were: A. DELIVERY DATE IN UK B. WASTAGE OF PRESENT TYPE C. TRANSFER OF BODIES AND EQUIPMENT FROM CHASSIS IN CATEGORY ‘O’ TO NEW TYPE Reference was made to the type of chassis R.A.O.C. 6 x 4 breakdown lorry purchased in the U.S. by the B.P.C. for British Army Ordnance A.F.W. Recovery Units. Reference was also made to a Dodge chassis, which was stated to have been on test at E.WDT.D. in Farnborough. Officers from the establishment indicated that the chassis had passed all spectacular tests and the impression was given that it satisfied W.O. specifications for the type. The same Dodge chassis had been under observation by the T.A.M.T. branch since it was taken on at Farnborough and trials had been eminently satisfactory. The only criticism was that a spacer had had to be added between front spring and axle to achieve frame level characteristics and this could cause high-speed steering problems save that Army vehicles were not driven at speed! Finally, the Committee recommended that the report be approved and forwarded to the DND for consideration in future provision of 6 x 4 vehicles. However, one Major F.A. Murphy added that the Ford 6 x 4 was not acceptable for R.C.O.C. machinery lorries. He also suggested that consideration be given to using the same engine in the Dodge [chassis] as was used in the Armoured Car, and this was discussed.[x] On 14 August 1941, Ford F.60H 6 x 4 production ended, albeit for Canadian contracts but continued as mentioned above for overseas orders. A heavier truck was required and London was notified by telegram on 25 August. [xi] The MGO, Mr. Victor Sifton, sent a Telegram on 25 August 1941 from NDHQ to C.M.H.Q. stating that the situation with regard to the 6 x 4 chassis had been thoroughly reviewed. 1,058 chassis had been ordered to cover home and overseas requirements but in view of the results to date it had been decided to cancel 55 and divert 362 to India leaving a balance of 641 available of which approximately 534 had been or were to be shipped to the UK The ‘Summary of Establishments and Requirements of Vehicles in the UK’ as at Midnight 24 July 1941 showed total establishment 6 x 4 of 754. Some of these establishments were still provisional and no purchases had been made against them however using those figures as a basis it was suggested that London allocate the 524 to best advantage and purchase other requirements from ‘TROOPERS’ [R.A.O.C.]. If required Ottawa could ship most of the 117 remaining in Canada. It was believed that the 6 x 4 chassis was suitable for stores, workshop, S.B.G. special bodies, machinery except R.E., X-Ray, and bus if G.V.W. was scaled down to a maximum of 16,000 lbs. It was unsuitable for breakdown, derrick, F.B.E. machinery, R.E. photo, mechanical printing, recorders, plotters, pontoon, pontoon trestle, half pontoon bay. Unknown re trackways. Ottawa was then reviewing body provision and would advise how many were to be supplied from Canada and they were trying to obtain 6 x 4 chassis with rear bogie driven to have 25,000 lbs. 14-foot body with 300 to 350 cu. in. engine to replace the then present type.[xii] In response on 3 September C.M.H.Q. sent a Telegram stating that they were agreeable to using one type of chassis, all for A.F.W. Lorries. It was presumed that the 6 x 4 then used was intended to be used as per the MGO’s Telegram. There was then a discussion about machinery bodies, etc. and reference to drawings from Hilsea, Portsmouth sent by Ellis to Colonel Carr as he then was on 1 November 1939 under W.O. specifications 323 0r 275 relating to a lathe.[xiii]This seems to confirm that the reply was by Stan Ellis therefore. On 11 September 1941, an all-day test of the pilot GM C.60X was conducted and the Director of Mechanization and Director of the MGO Branch went on record that the vehicle was not satisfactory for capacities in excess of 18,000 lbs. G.V.W. Therefore action had to be taken for 4-ton class vehicles, and that led to orders from the U.S. During September reports arrived from London that the Ford 6 x 4 had insufficient performance.[xiv] Breaking away from the GM and Ford trucks for a moment, it seems that J.H. Berry, the Motor Vehicle Controller at the D.M.S. in Ottawa conversed with L.H. Martins, the President of The White Company Limited, of Montreal [?] the White truck subsidiary in Canada. A quotation was issued for 500 6 x 4 White truck chassis at C$6,006 each subject to the securing of suitable priorities that would permit them to obtain Timken axles which they were assured would be available in approximately eight weeks: this would enable delivery from the Montreal factory ten weeks from receipt of order at the rate of five units per day and if necessary without increasing plant facilities, could finish and deliver eight units per day. Optional equipment specified by Mr. McLaren was front mounted winch as furnished to the U.S. Army, $514.25 plus Tachometer @ $27.25 and Tyre Carrier @ $27.25. This was keenly priced he said and Canadian content would work out at slightly more than 32%.[xv] On 17 November 1941, J.H. Berry, Director General, Automotive Production Branch, D.M.S. wrote to Victor Sifton, the MGO and referred to his previous letter concerning the provision of heavy duty 6 x 6 or 6 x 4 vehicles for service. Studies had been completed and the results of these together with conversations that they had had with the U.S. authorities concerning availability were:
It appears that Contract Demand or C.D. LV 407 was issued for GM C.60X production trucks as follows in December 1941: LORRIES, 3-ton, 6 x 6 Stores 200 Machinery Type A 36 Machinery Type B 3 Machinery Type D 3 Machinery Type D 1 5 Machinery Type F 5 Machinery Type H 3 Machinery Type I 12 Machinery Type IL 6 Machinery Type I30 6 Machinery Type J 12 Machinery Type K 12 Machinery Type M 189 Machinery Type Z 8 TOTAL 500 The problem was that further experiments were being carried out to determine which chassis were to be used for which purposes as C.D.L.V. 405 and 406 had been issued for 600 4-ton 6 x 6 and 20 Breakdown Tractors respectively, and 351 for 50 Breakdown Tractors though Berry was notified on 5 December that an additional 400 4-ton 6 x 6 lorries were required. Colonel Macfarlane, D. of M. commented that they were unable to spread their C.D.s between the type to be supplied on GM 6 x 6 and the type to be supplied on 4-ton 6 x 6 similar to the White. [xvii] The first General Motors [not Chevrolet] C.60X was intended to be produced in April 1942, and Chrysler of Canada agreed that they would outfit the special chassis required to complete the pressing requirements.[xviii] There is no evidence that any C.60X chassis were supplied to the Ministry of Supply direct although S/M 2510 was for 60 C.60X chassis for Australia and these were delivered by 1 October 1942. In addition, S/M 2141 was for 126 units for India; S/M 2253 was 72 units for India and S/M 2254 was also 75 units for India: were these for Wrecker chassis? These may have all been # 13 Cab versions without fixed roof. There were it seems some Ford F.60H Wreckers that were used by Australian forces. [i] 31 December 1940: Report: DND file: HQS 8186-34-1, C.N.A., Ottawa. [ii] 16 October 1940: Report of meeting, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [iii] 19 October 1940: Letter: Simpson to Carr, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [iv] 30 December 1940: Letter: Lane to Millman, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [v] December 1941: Letter: Farwell, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [vi] 6 January 1941: Memorandum: Millman to Breindahl, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [vii] 10 May 1941: Telegram MECH 1826: Carr to CANMILTRY, London HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [viii] 21 May 1941: General Specification: S.C. MacLaren, for Director of Mechanization, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [ix] 3 July 1941: Memorandum: Colonel R.A Macfarlane, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [x] 6 August 1941: Report of Committee, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [xi] December 1941: Letter: Farwell, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [xii] 25 August 1941: Telegram: MGO to C.M.H.Q., HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [xiii] 3 September 1941: Telegram: C.M.H.Q. to MGO, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [xiv] December 1941: Letter: Farwell, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [xv] 23 September 1941: Letter: White Co. Ltd. to M.V.C., D.MS., HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [xvi] 17 November 1941: Letter: Berry to Sifton, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [xvii] 15 December 1941: Letter: Col. R.A. Macfarlane, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid. [xviii] 12 January 1941: Letter: J.H. Berry to V. Sifton, HQS 8186-34-1, ibid.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
