MLU FORUM  

Go Back   MLU FORUM > MILITARY VEHICLES > The Softskin Forum

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-03-08, 16:26
sapper740's Avatar
sapper740 sapper740 is offline
Derek Heuring
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Corinth, Texas
Posts: 2,018
Default Early GMCs

Quote:
Originally Posted by gordon View Post
Interesting early truck with GMC sign, short wheelbase prime mover version too
Gordon, here's a pre-war (at least for the American's) picture of a GMC Field Artillery prime mover that is identified in the text as a 2 1/4 ton (mistake?). Not being an expert in this area, I don't know if the GMC badging was rare during the war or not, or if it was a case of changed priorities after Dec. 7, 1941 after which large contracts were let and Chevrolet took over? Derek.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg GMC 6X6 1940 pic.jpg (26.9 KB, 74 views)
File Type: jpg GMC 6X6 1940 text.jpg (11.5 KB, 21 views)
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-03-08, 16:43
gordon's Avatar
gordon gordon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 708
Default Nice image Derek

That's the 1940 version of the GMC 6 x 6, which is normally referred to as a 3 ton - no idea where they get 2 1/4 from but the rating for the later truck was 5 ton on road and 2.5 ton off road I believe.

They did use that truck to haul artillery, but it was the very length of it that made hauling such a pain, which is why the artillery prime mover version of the later production CCKW was the short wheelbase like the truck in the film - noticeably shorter than the long wheelbase truck in the image.

The badge thing was just metal utilisation. GMC badges were made of metal and secured with a couple of bolts, so they could be done away with to save metal. CHEVROLET stamped their name in the hood side panels, so no extra metal, nothing to save = the CHEVROLET name stayed on all the trucks after the revision.

I believe that early GMC had slightly different axle setups - not sure what, and also the engine displacement was lower than the 270 cu in i n the standardised truck.
__________________
Gordon, in Scotland
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 14:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Maple Leaf Up, 2003-2016