Sid Swallow Ford Prototype? Need help!!

[rob love]

Looks like you are right. Googled it and that does seem to fit their design.

[rob love]

Well, here is a bit of an update on the project. I had to remove one of the spring hangers, repair the missing portion of metal, and then re-rivet it to the frame. Tough job when you are working by yourself, but after having riveted upper armor on two different bren carriers, four rivets wasn't going to break me.

Anyway, the vehicle is now back on it's wheels, although I still have a problem with one of the links for the shock absorbers.

While working on it, I came across the serial number on the frame. The number is located between the steering box and the horn, on top of the left frame rail. This one is 1C5987*. Hopefully someone can later add the numbers from the similar trucks at the War museum and at Reynolds in Wetaskiwan. I believe there is also another on Vancouver Island or Victoria.

Anyway, here is a shot of the serial number and a shot of the truck as it sits. I still have to repair that steering box, and when it warms up the body will get a repaint to a more suitable color than the parade square green that it is currently in.

[Walde Libera]

Rob

FYI

Don Gordon owns the Vancouver Island one, he purchased it a few years ago from Gary Moonie. I took pics of this unit when Gary still owned it about 6 years ago; it was in pieces but in very good condition. Don is also a member of Western Command Club, we see him occassionally at events.

Walde

[45jim]

Normal vehicle development follows established engineering principles. Normally, this is: "design" (a small word for a lot of work), a "mock up and/or prototype", "pilot", "initial" production and finally "serial" production.

This vehicle is certainly not a "mock up" or "prototype" (which are usually one-off's) we have all seen photos of the earliest iterations of CMP's which were quickly made up from available parts to develop the actual requirements for the final design. This is not one of those trucks.

In my opinion, this vehicle is a pilot, one of a small test batch of vehicles built to the developed specification. 25 Ford and 25 Chevrolet vehicles is not a sufficient quantity to be considered initial production.

The cab 11 4x2 was the first CMP to reach "initial production" and then changes were made to result in the cab 12 which went into "serial production".

[servicepub (RIP)]

Rob,
What is the status of this truck now?
Clive

[rob love]

No progress from the photo above. Still have not positively ID'd a source for the steering box, but I think I may be able to repair it. The next step is going to be to take all the body portions and repaint them in a more fitting WW2 colour rather than the parade square gloss green it is currently sporting.

Unfortunately, I took on a job at a different portion of the base which has consumed all my time. Fortunately, cutbacks have resulted in that job ending Nov 1st, so I will be able to get some more time at the museum. However, by November, paint season is usually over in this god forsaken province.

[David Dunlop]

Don't they have a nice vintage Herman Nelson heater on base somewhere you could toasty up the paint shop with this Fall, Rob? Not that I want to see you overworked or anything…


David

[servicepub (RIP)]

Originally Posted by 45jim

Normal vehicle development follows established engineering principles. Normally, this is: "design" (a small word for a lot of work), a "mock up and/or prototype", "pilot", "initial" production and finally "serial" production.

This vehicle is certainly not a "mock up" or "prototype" (which are usually one-off's) we have all seen photos of the earliest iterations of CMP's which were quickly made up from available parts to develop the actual requirements for the final design. This is not one of those trucks.

In my opinion, this vehicle is a pilot, one of a small test batch of vehicles built to the developed specification. 25 Ford and 25 Chevrolet vehicles is not a sufficient quantity to be considered initial production.

The cab 11 4x2 was the first CMP to reach "initial production" and then changes were made to result in the cab 12 which went into "serial production".

From examining a fair number of DND documents ranging from 1930 to 1948, dealing with vehcile development, I think that I can state the following;

Design - purely a paper exercise that started with an identified need. Concepts were bandied about and specifications were agreed to.

Pilot - a one-off vehicle, assembled with all the bits and pieces to ensure fit and function. At times the pilot (machinery and signals 3-tonners) was disassembled and re-used as the basis for another project. At other times the pilot was accepted by DND and put into service. The pilot would have all aspects of the vehicle, and its equipment, tested. Pilots are prepared for the client (DND, ec..). If the client is satisfied with the pilot as-is, or will be satisfied following certain changes, then the specs are formally accepted.

Production - To DND, Depatrment of Munitions and Supply, and the auto-makers, anything produced to the approved specs is considered a 'production' vehicle - regardless of quantity.

There was no use of the terms 'prototype' or 'limited production' or 'serial production' in any of the thousands of documents I examined. In the case of the six Signals Lorries developped in late May 1945, the same chassis/body was used for each variant, although the interiors differed. Each variant was the pilot for that specific specification.

A review of the combined inventories taken in December 1939 and February 1940 show a number of pilots in service. However, no one type of vehicle had more than one pilot.

To use the 1938 Chev 15cwt GS or the 1940 Ford 15cwt GS as examples of 'pre-production', and then say that the "cab 11 4x2 was the first CMP to reach "initial production" and then changes were made to result in the cab 12 which went into "serial production" implies that the final CMP design was the goal all along. In fact, the 1938 Chev design was the then-current goal and DND identified a need for 51 vehicles - which they bought. The same applies to the Ford 1940 15cwt. As there was no intent (or money) to exceed these quantities at the time, it was immaterial to either DND or the manufacturers to concern themselves with the terms 'initial production' or 'serial production'.

Clive

[45jim]

Clive you are looking at these definitions from the wrong end. DND did not engineer or develop these vehicles and those definitions are engineering ones, looking for engineering terminology in non-engineering documentation is pointless; just like today, DND couldn't engineer a cam-stick. DND wrote a "Statement of Requirements" for the manufacturers to work from and then issued a "Request for Proposal". The manufacturers would take this away and develop and submit their proposal on how to meet that statement. From that, DND would issue a contract, within that contract there may be a deliverable such as a prototype vehicle. This vehicle is tested and rarely accepted "as is" and may be the first of several developmental vehicles built until a standardized vehicle is accepted for production. This continues today.

The first CMP (37 Ford) was built as an engineering exercise totally funded by Ford, and termed "Ford 15 cwt. 4x2 Prototype", followed by the "General Motors 15. cwt 4x2 Prototype". Neither of these were termed "pilot".

Flipping through Blueprint for Victory this is all covered by Syd Swallow as he talks about the prototypes that were built and tested. There is also a nice photo (on page 20) with a caption "This Ford 15 cwt. 4x2 is either a pilot model or a very early production model. It represents the earliest true Canadian Military Pattern design. The type 2A1 G.S. body is almost identical to that shown on the 1939 Prototype III Ford 15 cwt." Also on page 18, a caption describes the Ford 1939 Prototype III "The CMP design actually evolved over a three year period."

From this statement we can see that there were several prototypes built (at least three Ford variants), then a pilot conceivably with all the changes desired by DND was provided to be accepted before initial production began. This also shows that the 1937 and 1938 prototypes were part of a continuous development program that led to the cab 13 CMP produced later in the war. To suggest that these early vehicles were developed and procured in some sort of vacuum totally separate from later developments is unsupported by any factual data. In fact, the goal WAS the final CMP design.

The engineering designation of "prototype", "pilot", "initial production" (or very early production) and "serial production" are very important to understand how such vehicles are brought from the drawing board to reality. Even in wartime these engineering principles are followed. If you were a WWII Jeep guy you would be all over this.

[servicepub (RIP)]

My comments were made after plowing through six volumes of documents, dated betwen 1933 and 1940, dealing with the mechanization of the Canadian Army.

Syd Swallow was certainly involved but not at a senior level. His boss, Ellis, penned a number of letters and these, along with all of the DND correspondence are there.

When this started in 1937 there was a fear of war on the horizon (one of the reasons why industrial cooperation between Ford and GM was sought) but there was no preconception of ultimately developing the CMP. DND at the time was struggling to get 50-70 15cwt vehicles per year and only desired that WO specs be attained - as much as possible within the confines of DND's own instructions to use as many commercially used parts as possible. In hindsight, one could say that these early vehicles were part of a three year evolution - but in 1937 and 1938 that was not DND's concern.

Your statement "DND wrote a "Statement of Requirements" for the manufacturers to work from and then issued a "Request for Proposal". The manufacturers would take this away and develop and submit their proposal on how to meet that statement. From that, DND would issue a contract, within that contract there may be a deliverable such as a prototype vehicle. This vehicle is tested and rarely accepted "as is" and may be the first of several developmental vehicles built until a standardized vehicle is accepted for production." accurately describes what has happened since the 1950s but is not represenetative of the pre-war and wartime situation.

DND set specifications and then worked closely with both manufacturers concurrently in order to come up with a single design accepteable to DND. Indeed, the documents show that GM and Ford communicated with each other. While the pilots were being built DND modified the specs to adress the individual needs of the manufacturers, including slightly different body sizes.

A single pilot from each firm was tested at Petawawa and the contract was let on the basis of the pilots PLUS any suggested changes put forward by DND. In the case of the Ford it was sloppy steering and for the GM it was the leaf-springs. However, no additional vehicles were built to 'prove' these changes.

DND intended to split the contract for the 1938 purchase of 52 15cwt GS trucks into two equal purchases of 26 per vendor - even though the prices differed. In fact the price paid was the cost of parts and labour plus 10% as a fixed profit. Only Ford's surprising decision to not tender caused the entire contract to go to GM. To encourage Ford to get involved (read 'experienced') they directed the follow-on contract solely to Ford.

Insofar as the body is concerned, although the 1938 body is similar to the 2A1 it is only because they both come from the same British drawings. At the time the term 2A1 was unknown as the system of body identification was only developed with the establishment of the Steel Body Manufacturer's Assocation, a group established by DND to find efficiencies in body production and to relieve the auto manufacturers from this.

From David Hayward's research Sidney [S.E.] Swallow of Ford’s Service Department wrote to LaFleche in early April suggesting that the body for the pilot models from both sources should have a body made by the same source in view of the desired standardisation of bodies. Ford had been asked to withhold from ordering their body until they received the drawings from Ottawa and further instructions . This is a further example of the unique and unprecedented situation whereby two rival companies some distance apart, were requested to, and did, work in tandem. The standard G.S. [General Service] body design was approved on 9 April 1937, and Specification No. 352-C was allocated, whilst the Drawings were given the code D.D. (V) 352-C. Woodwork was to be of thoroughly seasoned ash and white oak, free from knots, saps, shakes, wavy edges and defects. Metal parts were to be of high quality forged steel, free from defects. All bolts and nuts were to be of steel. The body was to have side and tailboards, duly hinged. Carriage bolts were to be used when assembling wooden components, though screws could be used when it was wood-to-wood. Side and tailboards were to be of 1-in. planed white ash,-tongued and grooved where applicable and finished with a “V” joint outside. The floor was to be of 1¼ in. planed white oak with plain butt joints. The spacing of the longitudinal runners on the body was not specified but was to be in accordance with the width of the chassis frame for which the body was intended. The assembled body was to be painted throughout in Service Green No.22 “Dulux” including interior, under-surfaces and hardware. A plate with the name of the manufacturer, date of completion and reference number was to be engraved or stamped on it, and attached to the left lower corner of the body. After completion and inspection, the detailed drawings and specifications were to be sent to the D.N.D. in connection with any future production.

In fact, DND allowed a variation in that quality ash was unobtainable in Canada and they suggested that oak should be an acceptable substitute. DND agreed.

In any event, after studying thousands of pages, there is not one single hint that these contracts were part of an intentional "continuous development program".

Clive