CCW Carrier transporter

[jeff davis]

I Have a CCW it is the 6x4 version of the CCKW.I found a meention that the commonwelth forces were using them for transporting U.C Carriers is this True.

[Lynn Eades]

Yes they did here in New Zealand. Rob Beale should be able to tell you more about it.

[jeff davis]

Thats Great anyone have photos .I currently haul the Carrier around with my M211 and am restoring the CCw

[David Hardway]

Hi there

Jeff Plowman covered these in an issue of Wheels and Tracks as well

Dave

[Rob Beale]

From memory Jeff Plowman had a single dark image in his first edition of AFV of NZ. Jeff would be the one to describe the conversions done.

A friend who served in Italy, then post war in the NZ regular army, described carrying carriers side ways on the deck of a GMC so they could carry more than one! That was in the days when the Army did its own thing.

I have a Bedford RL which is adapted for carrying a carrier. It has a D ring in each corner for chaining it down, and timber planking on the steel deck for the tracks to sit on. It was done in the 1990's and was certified by a Consulting Enginner for use on the road. It allows for the truck to be stripped down to a flat deck if preferred to reduce weight, but still be within the law.

Rob

[jeff davis]

In no hurry have a look around.
are there very many of these trucks in your part of the world?

[Rob Beale]

There seem to be more in NZ than elsewhere.

The NZ Army had a fair number in WW2 and afterwards into the 1950's.

Many 6x6 were imported from the pacific after the war, and it seems many 6x4 were converted to 6x6 as they were of more use to farmers and contractors.

There are a few in captivity, and one nice one has a dog clutch on the rear drive shaft so as to reduce tyre wear when travelling on sealed roads.

Decks are a problem, as we don't have access to the fleets demobbed in NW Europe. I've seen some with cut down RL Bedford decks (which were once plentiful) and with the GMC side frames and a canopy fitted few notice the difference.

Rob

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Rob Beale

There seem to be more in NZ than elsewhere.

Decks are a problem, ..... I've seen some with cut down RL Bedford decks (which were once plentiful) and with the GMC side frames and a canopy fitted few notice the difference.

Rob

A couple of pics of NZ 6x4 GMCs, first with a GMC deck, and second with another deck (Rob is that an RL deck, or Civvy job?):

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

I don't seem to have any British contract numbers for CCW-353 lorries. These are from my notes:

The 5-ton CCW-353 was a 1941 development of the CCKW-353 without the front-drive axle and transfer case partly emptied so that there was no front axle drive shaft and related components. First orders were in 1941 for the U.S.Q.M.C. for Defence Aid: DA-W-398-QM-62 for 2,000 trucks. QM-78 was for 2,100 trucks for British and/or Commonwealth forces in Middle and Far East, delivered 1942. QM-203 was for Lend-Lease [# 7001 to # 11440] during 1942; QM-11595 and W-398-ORD-2597 were for # 11705 to 26400 with bulk delivered 1942 and balance of 265 in January 1943.

CCW-353 5-TON 6 x 4 164 in. W.B. [REAR AXLES 44 in.] [SERIALLED # CCW-353-2003 to 4002; -353-4003 to 6102; 353-7001 to 353-1140; 353-11705 to 353-26400]

CCW-353: ENGINE: 270 CU. IN. [35.34 h.p.]; 5-SPEED CLARK GEARBOX; TRANSFER CASE: ONE-SPEED MODIFIED GMC 591321; I-BEAM FRONT AXLE: TIMKEN-DETROIT MODEL 31116-H-X4 AS USED ON AC-502 AND CC-351; REAR AXLES, BANJO, TANDEM BOGIE WITH TORQUE RODS CHEVROLET 3665609 & 3665610.

[Rob Beale]

The Kiwi made RL deck has a deep box section along the side of the deck, with pockets for the 4x2 box section posts that support the drop sides.

The stores deck has fixed bolted sides, but still on a deep box section.

The give away is the deck floor which has inverted 'V' ribs full length at about 6" centres

The photo shows a stores deck ( 4 hood bows vs 3 on the dropside deck)

Rob

[Rob Beale]

Dave

I have a list from around 1949 which includes over 578 CCW model GMC, but very few CCKW.

83 are listed as Carrier Transporter LP (ie Local Pattern)

There is no detail of chassis serials recorded.

The list was compiled from returns after the war, so many early vehicles must have been disposed of by then: nearly all the first 1800 NZ census numbers are missing.

Rob

ps there are also 491 C8AX listed including GS (393), Wireless (50), Ambulance 4Str (31), LP Water (13), LP Disinfector (2) and Compressor (2)
The last 3 are news to me. I want to see a photo of them now!

The LP water cart is described in another memo as 132 gal (the MW Bedford is 200 gal)

[Lynn Eades]

It was probably some abortion ,using 3 x 44 gal drums.

[motto]

I have a Kiwi friend who assures me that the CCW had a heavier chassis than the CCKW to upgrade the carrying capacity to five ton. I don't believe this to be the case but have no way of checking it out myself so can someone give a definite answer on this point?
Part of the reason for asking, apart from stumbling across this thread, is that there has been a bit of argument going on on another forum about load ratings for the CCKW as to whether they were rated for five ton on-road and two and a half ton off-road or just two and a half ton regardless.
I have the TM 10-1565 for the Studebaker US6 and 6x4 and it clearly states 6x6=2 1/2 Ton, 6x4=5 Ton but fails to give exact differences between the two trucks so still doesn't help define the philosophy.
David

[jeff davis]

I have had a look at several and do not find a diffrence between the CCW and the CCKW I believe it is only the difffrence between on road and off road(cross country)
The latter M135 and M211 also uses the same refrencee on road or off
Jeff

[cliff]

Originally Posted by motto

I have a Kiwi friend who assures me that the CCW had a heavier chassis than the CCKW to upgrade the carrying capacity to five ton. I don't believe this to be the case but have no way of checking it out myself so can someone give a definite answer on this point?
David

The only difference between the CCW 6X4 and CCKW 6X6 was a driven front axle on the 6X6. Other then the missing transfer case, front drive shaft and an 'I' beam front axle instead of a front driven axle all other features between them were the same. The CCKW 6X6 were rated as 2.5 ton only because of their off road capacity but on road could carry a 5 ton load the same as the 6X4 CCW.

[Ken Smith]

Good day fellas,
I own GMC 6x4 chassis No CCW 4355 and there is no difference between it and a normal 6x6 chassis.I also own the remains of a later truck and the cab on it has the sliding roof hatch that seems to be a New Zealand modification.In Australia the 6x4 type seem to be mostly for the RAAF,including for use as the prime mover on the huge airfield cranes seen elsewhere on the forum.
Cheers Ken

[motto]

Thanks fellas, this is exactly as I understood the situation to be but when I tried to find some documentation that actually states the 'on road' capacity of the CCKW as being 5 ton I can find nothing.
There is no doubt about the CCKW being able to do it without stress as the DUKW proves. It's 2 ton heavier than the CCKW to start with and still has the same placarded payload and towed load rating and I have literature that proves the Australian Army rated them up to 4 ton or 40 men, the DUKW that is. Curiously, the same document that rates them as 40 Australian men rates them at 25 American men. Plenty of room for jokes there but if you think about it, if an Australian operated duck sank with more than 25 Americans on board when they rated them at 25 it would be an international incident. If one sank with forty Australians, ho hum, get another lot.
David

[coachbuilder]

I am Daves kiwi mate who told him about the chassis thickness differences
I know this from personal experience.
In the late 1980s I bought an ex nz ccw that had been a drilling rig in civvy life
the rear 18 inches of the chassis had been removed so I decided to repair it using the rear section from a cckw 352 I was wrecking. To my surprise the rear section from the 352 was approx 2 gauges thinner.I welded it in regardless but the difference was definetely noticeable.
I sold this truck in the early to mid 1990s to a guy in Palmerston North who's name I think was Bevan Udy and I believe he still has it and is restoring it as a ccw. Maybe someone knows this guy and could possibly check the measurements. Even though it was a long time ago I still remember this clearly.Why would the NZ army go to the trouble of modifying CCWs when there were literally hundreds of CCKWs availble at the time.

[cliff]

Originally Posted by coachbuilder

I am Daves kiwi mate who told him about the chassis thickness differences
I know this from personal experience.
In the late 1980s I bought an ex nz ccw that had been a drilling rig in civvy life.

More likely to have been modified post army when the civy drilling rig was added and the rear 18inches of chassis was removed.

There is NO difference between the two chassis except for the front axle and lack of transfer case But I'll ask on another forum just to check.

[motto]

Just in case someone watching this is a little confused, the 6x4 does have a transfer case , it's required to send power to both rear diffs but it contains no front axle drive components and does not have low range. The high/low range sliding gear is secured in high with a circlip and there is no shifter fork.
David

[coachbuilder]

The Chassis was totally orginal with no strengthing added to it.

[cliff]

I have had a reply from a gentleman on the other forum who has years of experience working on these vehicles with the US military and in retirement restoring them and there is NO difference at all in chassis measurements or metal thickness between the CCKW 6X6 and the CCW 6X4 they were the same chassis.

While I am not doughting your finding Coachbuilder but from all the data there should be no difference.

Your first name added to your posts would be nice as well as we are all friends here