![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Gents,
Been offline for a month or so. Ron: the trials reports state that the vehicle was an 'M38A1', with 24 volt system which 'functioned satisfactorily throughout the trial'. It was also fitted with lifting sling fittings, described as 'towing loops', front and rear. The phase 2 trials report concludes with the statement 'The M38A1 at the time of original manufacture was probably in advance of anything else then made. By todays (ie Dec 1959) standards it begins to fall short in comfort, handling, and durability'. The trials had problems with spring settlement and breakages, among other defects. The vehicle pictured in the airdrop image posted earlier is ARN 107422. The other one purchased was ARN 107421, and was the main subject of the phase 2 trials mentioned above. It was described as 'Willys M38A1 Serial Number 357144:15719, engine no. 114632.' There are also several references to the equipment and fittings on the vehicle being of US Army standard, for example, under 'stowage', it states: 'Provision for shovel only - location under bonnet. Not satisfactory for Aust shovel, suitable for apopropriate US pattern shovel'. Under 'horn' it states 'presumably approved in US Army'. It would seem that, as far as the Australian testers were concerned, they were dealing with a 'standard' 1958 manufacture M38A1. Mike C |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for clearing that up Mike..thats some great information there..Gee they where hard in there assesment of it not sure what else at the time would of held up better after being dropped from a plane???...the lift rings are very rugged and so are the springs ...something else i notice with the M38A1 is its alot stronger frame than the cj5 and it has tie down points in several locations along the frame rails..will post some pics ... thanks again for the info thats hard to get stuff...
![]() |
![]() |
|
|