Australian CGT mystery

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Richard, the official WD rating for the MCC etc. 4 x 4 chassis that the GTs were based on was supposedly 15 cwt.* On the basis that 'capacity' was roughly doubled, e.g. with the 1 1/2-tonner Chevrolets and GMCs to 3-tonners, 30-cwt. capacity seems to fit in with your suggestion. I believe that the FATs did indeed have an official '30-cwt.' capacity, as stated for the 2-pdr. C-GT chassis Portees..some of these were of course converted in 1943 to GS trucks! The WD envisaged that the Portee was to be a 15-cwt. chassis pre-war, duly adapted and this fits in yet again with the British GT weights. That said the DND listed the CMP FATs in the 60-cwt. class and I believe I will make a case based on the research that it was the FATs that were the basis for the heavier trucks. I have had an independent opinion on this point and the consenus is that the all the evidence points to the FATs preceding the 30-cwt and 3-ton 4 x 4 chassis. If the FATs were '30-cwt'' capacity trucks, albeit in the 3-ton class officially, and the 30-cwt. F30S/C60S were adapted therefrom, what engineering work was required to create a 3-tonner therefrom? Is it possible to list apart from chassis length the components required, such as springs, extra cross-members, etc.? I have to consider whether this could be achieved by adapting the civilian 4 x 2 3-ton chassis or whether it was 'bespoke' using civilian components only.

My opinion at the moment is that the 15-cwt. 4 x 4 chassis were developed independently of any other chassis, as were the 8-cwt. chassis. In order to get to some idea of the truth, I have to ask the question as to what extent did the Ford 15-cwt. 4 x 4 pilot chassis [see BLUEPRINT FOR VICTORY] owe anything to the MCC and Guy 4 x 4 15-cwt. Quads? Apart from similarity in basic concept is there anything to suggest that Fords could have adapted the pre-war MCC CS.8T design for instance? According to WHEELS & TRACKS 29 & 30 there was nothing in common at all with the MCC Q/QW!


*May I explain here that the WD often confused chassis types and capacities in their documentation, and this is my literal translation of the 1936 WD vehicle Specifications that all 1938-40 military trucks and lorries supposedly adhered to.

[Tony Smith]

David, you keep coming back to the argument that the CGT chassied portees are 30cwts, they are not!, as the chassis (Identical to a CGT, minus winch) is coded as a 60441 or 8440, that is, a 60cwt!!! The 2pdr Portees built on F30 and C30 trucks are naturally 30cwts and this variant was more widely used than the CGT version. If you read a reference to a 2dr portee, first make sure which version it refers to, as it is likely referring to the more common F30 or C30 trucks. The 30cwt truck was utilised as the basis for these portees not because the CGT was over rated in capacity, but because the 30cwt had a 134" WB which enabled more space for stores and ammo than the 101" could offer.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Tony, excellent points, and this is where I apologise for my seeming confusion. Also correction about allowing the reference to 2-pdr. Portees being fudged with the F30/C30 30-cwt. 134" w.b. Portees. I am glad to be corrected but for consideration the evidence as regards the FAT 4 x 4 capacity rating I put forward is:

1. Richard has indicated:

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.

2. War Department Specification 36 of December 1935 as amended up to spring 1939 refers to 15-cwt. GS 4-wheel Trucks, conversions of Anti-tank Tractor bodies for these and also Cavalry Portee bodies. The British Gun Tractors built to Spec. 36 were either to be 15-cwt. chassis or 30-cwt. 6 x 4 although 3-ton 6 x 4 chassis are also covered, with GS etc. bodies. The 30-cwt. Ford-Scammell and Chevrolet-Scammell FATs of 1938 were never proceeded with into production, and the Canadian FATs were intended as a direct replacement thereof. It might be argued that the 4 x 4 FATs were also be intended to be '30-cwt.' capacity although there is no documentary evidence so far to confirm either way.
3. British contract S/M 2028 was a mixed one for Chevrolet Gun Tractors, and also 2-pounder Portees, equivalent of the MCC C8/MG Portees. British survivors were as you know converted to either 17-pdr. Tractors or GS Trucks. These were officially classed by the BRITISH as 'LORRY 30 CWT. 4 X 4 A/TK PORTEE'. These used the C-GT chassis of course and in theory were therefore on the face of it of 30-cwt. capacity and not 3-tons.

The above would seem to suggest that the F-GT and C-GT had a 30-cwt. capacity. However, I am going to go by new evidence I just found:

1. DND Specification No. O.A. 85 dated 26-11-41 refers to the :
'60441-M-POTE#1' body on 'Portee Anti-tank [on FAT Chassis with DND Chassis Winch]' as well as the previously mentioned:
2. DND Specification as before:
'60441-M...Field Artillery Tractor - 101" W.B.'.
3. As Bart Vanderveen confirmed in WHEELS & TRACKS # 33: 'Axles, drive line and engine were the same as on the 3-ton 4 x 4 CMP vehicles....'.

The DND therefore quote in two places the FAT chassis as having a 60-cwt. classification. Others may disagree, and the very welcome comments by Richard about double-skinned chassis rails are noted, but I now suggest that the DND rating is correct.

There is no confusion as regards the British order 'LORRY 3 TON 4 x 4 A/TK PORTEE' C60L 6-pdr. Portees to S/M 2613, which were rebuilt of course as 3-tonner GS trucks.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

May I ask how similar the early 1940-41 Chevrolet transfer cases produced by McKinnon Industries for parent GM of Canada were to the similar two types of Ford case please? Was say 'FORD' cast in the Ford early casing? I am still trying to work out whether Ford's US axle plant produced transfer cases or whether this was able to be carried on in Windsor.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by 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

Thanks for the pics, Simon!
So it has double chassis rails over the whole lenght of the vehicle? Interesting, as some CGT chassis apparently are double skinned in some sections only. The difference must be in the four types of frame side member listed in the Chevrolet CGT Spare Parts List (ref. Is the FAT a 60cwt or 15cwt truck?).

H.

[cliff]

Originally posted by Keith Webb
Here's a shot of the chassis of a No9 (Aust) FGT:



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.

Keith you would not happen to have details of these crossmembers do you so I can do a 1/35 #9 tractor accurately?

thanks Cliff

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

This is an extract from the War Department 1938 Report relating to GMC 4-wheeled 4 x 4 Artillery Tractor.

On completion of trials as a tractor the vehicle was resubmitted in the role of a 3-ton load carrier, but the frame proved insufficiently robust and the first severe application of the brakes caused a permanent set of 4 inches at the centre. No further action was taken with this vehoce as a load carrier.

I gather that the following year a similar GMC 4 x 4 truck was trialled by the WD in England and the front axle tie-rods [?] failed, which resulted in smashed transfer case gears when the front axle was shifted rearwards!

The WD seem to have had submitted various designs of 4 x 4 FATs starting with the Guy Quad-Ant and Karrier Spider. The implication is that these were meant to also be the basis of 3-tonner chassis. I am no expert but surely the manufacturers learned from these sort of lessons, and double-skinned the Chevrolet and Ford CMP FAT chassis if they were indeed rated in the 3-tonner class?

[Keith Webb]

Hi Cliff

I took this picture way back in 1974...
It shows the double chassis members and the fish plates.



Note the single chassis rails.


Hope it helps, Keith

[cliff]

thanks Keith that is exactly what I am after. I will start a #9 FGT shortly inbetween coats of paint on the Ford Semi.

cheers
Cliff

[Keith Webb]

Originally posted by cliff
thanks Keith that is exactly what I am after. I will start a #9 FGT shortly inbetween coats of paint on the Ford Semi.

cheers
Cliff

Great stuff, Cliff
May I suggest an ARN for it if you can paint that small?

134855 - that is of course the number painted diagonally on the front shell of my FGT No9. No idea what other markings might be on it yet. Often there was something on the doors.

Have you considered a colour scheme yet? War or post-war service?

[cliff]

Originally posted by Keith Webb
Great stuff, Cliff
May I suggest an ARN for it if you can paint that small?

134855 - that is of course the number painted diagonally on the front shell of my FGT No9. No idea what other markings might be on it yet. Often there was something on the doors.

Have you considered a colour scheme yet? War or post-war service?

Yes Keith I will use that ARN but will do it as a decal rather then hand paint it. It will also be done in two tone war cammo like this chev heavy recon wagon I just finished.

Cheers
Cliff

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by Tony Smith
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?

Pictured below is a Peters' Bros crane , originally from a W-9 International, fitted on a CMP. This appears to be slightly smaller than the Wodonga CGT crane, and of the same type as the "Yarra Junction" crane.

[Tony Smith]

The crane has it's data tag which describes it as a "G-Well" crane, which I'm told by the owner was a brand of Peters' Bros. The model no is given as W-9, which leads me to wonder what model no is given on the Wodonga CGT version. CGT perhaps?

[Tony Smith]

Keith, your pic of the Wodonga crane shows the Crane data plate still in place on the front face of the upper crossmember. Do you know where this crane went to it's new home? It would be interesting to see it's model number. Mission for Detective Keefy .

[Keith Webb]

I'll have a look at the other pictures I've taken of this vehicle, Tony, although I haven't specifically photographed the data plate.

I recall seeing G-Well brand on other cranes too.

Thanks for getting this thread back on track!

[Tony Smith]

This crane has a solid rear hub with "G-Well" on the hub cap, as opposed with the Yarra Junction crane which has detachable rims.

[Keith Webb]

Tony, the truck it's sitting on looks like a C30. Is it possible this may have once been an ambulance?

[Tony Smith]

The truck itself is missing it's data plates, and there's no out of the ordinary clues to give any hint as to it's original body type.

Sitting nearby was this C60X, which was definately NOT an ambulance .

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by Tony Smith
Sitting nearby was this C60X, which was definately NOT an ambulance .

Hey! It looks a lot like one of those Danish C60X GS's.

H.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally posted by Hanno Spoelstra
Hey! It looks a lot like one of those Danish C60X GS

or the body off a Studebaker US6

Richard

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by Richard Farrant
or the body off a Studebaker US6

Indeed. I did not mean to say it is a Danish C60X GS, but it shows how logical mating a US 2-1/2 ton cargo body to this chassis is.
The Danes did the same with CGT's, by the way.

H.

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by Tony Smith
Pictured below is a Peters' Bros crane , originally from a W-9 International, fitted on a CMP. This appears to be slightly smaller than the Wodonga CGT crane, and of the same type as the "Yarra Junction" crane.

There is currently one of these for sale (if I can find Gympie on a NSW map?):

[oztankboy]

Well as far as Aust gun tractors go I have 1 of the elusive No.9 CGT with the rag doors. Currently sitting on a C15a chassie but I have a CGT chassie waiting for a tidy up and transplant.

Then I also have a quite nice rear half of a No.8 FGT. It's waiting for the front half and complete chassie and mechanicle bits to come up from SA for a a mateing.

Phil...

[oztankboy]

BTW

As you can see it is shoe horned in my shed and the nose of the other vehicle is a 1952 FV1600 1 ton Humber cargo FFW

Phil...