GMC query

David_Hayward (RIP) · #1 20-10-07, 11:16

Are these ex-French ACKWX-353 or early CCKWX-353 please, as it dates to earlyish 1941?

jim sewell · #2 20-10-07, 17:03

David I would say these are CCKW 's

There appears to be a observation turrent on the roof of the cab in the back ground, have not seen any pic's of ACKWX's with this.

ACKWX had the petrol tank under the seat , thus an external filler tube on the right hand side of the cab , the cab in the back ground does not show this.

ACKWX had a 5 stud wheel where as the CCKW had the 6 stud wheel , this is difficult to see in the picture shown.
The CCKW started production for the US Army in January 1941 and the X was dropped after 13,187 were produced.

Regards
Jim S.

Richard Farrant · #3 20-10-07, 18:32

David,

The chassis right in the foreground with the engine fitted, they brake pedal is in position behind the engine so it has to be CCKW.

cliff · #4 20-10-07, 21:04

I agree...CCKW's

David_Hayward (RIP) · #5 20-10-07, 22:39

Does the right chassis took twisted to you please?

Richard Farrant · #6 20-10-07, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by David_Hayward
Does the right chassis took twisted to you please?

David,

The chassis is probably not blocked up true, they are never that rigid and have to flex. There is only the rearmost axle fitted.

Hendrik van Oorspronk · #7 20-10-07, 23:02

I don't think the chassis is twisted, but what is it? It is not a GMC, looks like a CMP or britisch.

Green Greetings Hendrik

cliff · #8 20-10-07, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Hendrik van Oorspronk
I don't think the chassis is twisted, but what is it? It is not a GMC, looks like a CMP or britisch.

Sorry Hendrik they are all GMC's

David_Hayward (RIP) · #9 20-10-07, 23:35

The front part of the right chassis appears to be tilting towards the left (in line with the cab).

Must be mistaken!

Hendrik van Oorspronk · #10 20-10-07, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by David_Hayward
The front part of the right chassis appears to be tilting towards the left (in line with the cab).

Must be mistaken!

I agree with that, but when you put a chassis on 4 studs and one is a but smaller it could twist like that, but who is the maker? of it.

Hendrik

jim sewell · #11 21-10-07, 11:55

I have my doubt's with the chassis in the centre , it appears to be different on the following points.

1. Has more than 6 wheel studs on the hub
2. The large V section at the rear is not GMC
3. The brake drum appears narrower than GMC
4. The rear chassis rails appear to lack the depth and a crossmember .
5. Appears to be a manual brake applying mechanism going into the RHRear hub assy (much like a Girlock assy )

Maybe it is a trailer chassis ?

Regards
Jim S

gordon · #12 21-10-07, 16:27

Right then...

I'm not seeing anothing in that shot that isn't standard CCKW, including the early-ish hard cab with hatch ring.

The confusion seems to be the chassis in front of the camera, which is in fact two chassis. The bottom chassis is facing the camera and has the engine in it with conventional pedal position as already noted, but lying on top of that is another chassis pointing away from the camera (and appearing to lie and an angle or twisted) If you look at the far right of the top chassis you can see the hydrovac mounting and lines.

Assembly of these trucks from new was never this confused, badly laid out, badly handled, and with all the different stages confused, so I reckon this is a small scale rebuild / salvage setup

Gordon

David_Hayward (RIP) · #13 21-10-07, 21:09

...yes it was actually! These photos are from the Pearson's collection and is actually in a fire-damaged building in Liverpool, in 1941. Not the most ideal of premises but that's what they acquired and that's where they assembled vehicles in ramshackle conditions.

I agree that they are definitely two chassis, but I still keep thinking that the middle chassis has twisted, but I leave it to others to make their own minds up.

I am just working on the final caption clarifications as the book has been drafed, laid out and is on the final hurdles.

Rolf S. Ask · #14 21-10-07, 23:30

It might well be in 1941 this photo was captured. But it must be after february.
The first GMC CCKW was manufactured this month. And take that it had to be transported over the atlantic give it another month or two at least.
The CCKWX was last manufactured on february 1. 1941 with the serialnumber 13188 and WD number W-428589. And this was one off prototype (L1) that was a tipper without winch (short wheelbase).
And on the photo it also clearly shows that the axles are of the GM Banjo type. This was never used on the CCKWX trucks, they all had the Timken split type (as did the ACKWX-353).
The cab in the background is of the Model 1609 since it has the hole in the roof. The type of cab used on the CCKWX was the Model 1574 superseeded by the Model 1608 (without the hole in the roof). This was done at the same time as the "configuration changed from CCKWX to CCKW and at this time they also started to use 352 and 353 differing the long wheelbased GMC and the short wheelbased. Before ferburay 1. 1941 when they used the suffix CCKWX all GMC was designated 353 (also the short wheelbased ones).
The cab Model 1574 and the following closed types (Model 1608 and 1609) are almost similary at the outside. They differed inside.
The Model 1574 had an ashtray as one feature that did dissapere. And as you konw, the Model 1574 was a militarised civilian cab as used on the ACKWX-353 (but on this model sporting the civilian front too, and the fueltank inside the cab).

Well this was just some quick words from my head just before I am off to get my beuty sleep.... and I need a lot

Rolf

PS: It will be a series of articles on the GMC in the english edition of Mud & Snow next Year...

David_Hayward (RIP) · #15 22-10-07, 09:07

...CCKW-353, 1941, 1609 cab? I should have this data in my GMC parts list.

David_Hayward (RIP) · #16 21-11-08, 20:34

I have a major headache with this photo! The questions are:
a) Are the GMC CCKW-353 lorries being assembled from new? Or
b) Are these lorries being refurbished post-war?

Here's a better view I hope!
http://www.gmhistorian.btinternet.co.uk/gmcs.jpg

cliff · #17 21-11-08, 21:07

I think they are being refurbished. Indicators are the pale colour between the tyre treads, Missing carby & manifold off the motors which, if new would be complete ready to go units plus what looks like dirt and oil staining on the rear axle and chassis side rails by the rear wheels.

David_Hayward (RIP) · #18 21-11-08, 23:14

That's what I thought. The photo is supposedly 1941..now I know GM Ltd were rebuilding war-weary ex-French diverted GMCs [ACK-353/AFWX-353]by late 1941, but these are supposedly CCKW-353s, which could not have arrived until early 1941.

gordon · #19 22-11-08, 10:07

Given the time, date, and place, these are probably brand new trucks that were shipped in one piece, but damaged in a raid, by fire, or whatever, and are being salvaged.

David_Hayward (RIP) · #20 22-11-08, 10:35

Helo Gordon..long time no hear! What a brilliant idea...this must have happened as there was bombing at the time and nearby buildings destroyed. One building used had been burned-out.

gordon · #21 22-11-08, 11:09

At this time twin unit packs and multiple knockdowns hadn't got going, and since these trucks must be almost brand new then damaged in raid / fire must just about be the only option?

I'll go back to sleep now.

David_Hayward (RIP) · #22 22-11-08, 11:21

Good points all, thanks! Been up at 5, taken daughter to work and back, 40 mile round trip then went back to bed then got up at 9.30!

Anthony Main · #23 24-11-08, 22:48

One of the chassis looks like an Austin K5,
My parts book for the ACKWX 353 list's the cab used as Model 984!

David_Hayward (RIP) · #24 25-11-08, 08:58

It turns out that these vehicles were war-weary and being rebuilt in 1944 under contract. They could be Free French according to someone who worked on them. Not very sulubrious surroundings or much space to work on them!

gordon · #25 25-11-08, 15:13

There you go, I've said it.

They aren't war weary anything, or cabovers. Note the tyres which are in brand new or delivery mileage condition, all the equipment (that is there) appears to be in perfect order, no damage to cab - I could go on.

Cabovers would have a noticeably different cab, inlet and exhaust manifold would be different, engine accessories different, transmission linkages different, etc, etc.

As of now I'd stake my non-existent reputation on them being nearly new GMC hard cab CCKW's from 1941 being rebuilt because of shipping, handling, fire, or raid damage.

David_Hayward (RIP) · #26 25-11-08, 15:28

Thanks for input. I think that we have a date code that has been worked out now. I'll check. I only have a crud version of the original (lo-res) but can see what has been suggested. They are NOT COE chassis. They may have new tyres as they are being fitted. I think that the original shows that that chassis is twisted. Without seeing the original I can't tell if the front chassis tyres are worn down or not...will see if I can get hold of a version.

Cheers!

gordon · #27 25-11-08, 16:00

Looks to me that they are building up the chassis furthest away from the camera, robbing parts from the others. Presumption would be that the one visible cab would go on that. Number of steering sheels on the wall roughly matches the number of chassis, almost suggesting we are not seeing part of a larger operation with more trucks scattered about.

Consider what we are NOT seeing; no body parts, running boards, fuel tanks that I can see, no obvious burning (as if the fuel tanks had gone up) so I'd think mechanical damage.

Notice that things like the bumperettes and tow hitch have been stripped from the left chassis, and you'd have to be really keen to do that, even on a new truck. Such parts would almost never get damaged in a purely mechanical incident such as a building collapse.