Another (suspected) F22 found

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Moderator's note: the next five postings were split off from F30 Illustrated Parts List:

Originally Posted by Lauren Child

I've also been told that some of the F22 parts are F30, hence it would be useful for my truck.

I'd be interested to hear which parts that would be? The F30 is basically a long wheelbase F15A, your F22 is basically an FGT without winch.

H.

[Lauren Child]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

I'd be interested to hear which parts that would be? The F30 is basically a long wheelbase F15A, your F22 is basically an FGT without winch.

If I remember right it's some suspension components. I'll have to look out the big book of her history.

[Tony Wheeler]

Lauren, the only suspension component which varies throughout the CMP 4x4 range is auxiliary springs. They're present on 60S/L and absent on 15A, 30, FAT. Everything else is standardized across the range.

Your vehicle has auxiliary springs but they may be retrofit. Are the spring bumpers riveted or bolted to the chassis rail?

[Lauren Child]

I'll take a look, though I'm hesitant to assume anything is retrofit unless I find evidence on the F22 to indicate it. It's a weird enough beast that anything could have been standard.

[Tony Wheeler]

You're dead right Lauren, it's dangerous to make assumptions about this vehicle! It was poor wording on my part, I've amended it accordingly. In my mind there are actually two possibilities for this vehicle, which could potentially relate to the auxiliary springs. Here's my thinking FWIW:

If we work on the basis that it was supplied to India as per contract, ie. standard FAT chassis less winch, that would mean the auxiliary springs are retrofit. I think that's the logical starting point for this vehicle, as a working hypothesis, until we can establish its provenance more definitely. It's well documented in civvy hands but that doesn't explain the non-standard features, notably the simplified transfer case shift pattern. That is, did it emerge from the factory that way in 1945, or was it a British Army mod performed subsequently?

Personally I find the latter far more likely, particularly in light of the stirrup step evidence, which appears to confirm Indian build. In other words, the chassis was built up by Ford India, with full cab and wooden GS body (just like the winch equipped example photographed during the Indo-Pakistan war), and subsequently brought back to the UK with its returning RA unit. Presumably quite a few CMPs arrived in the UK by that route, either immediately after WWII, or after Indian Independence in 1947, or conceivably some time later, if the unit served elsewhere post war, eg. Burma, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong. We're even finding what appear to be Indian assembled FATs in Australia lately, apparently GS configured originally, one of them with an original battery box located exactly like yours Lauren. Funnily enough this vehicle used to be Keith's daily drive!

Anyway to my mind that's the most likely scenario for your vehicle Lauren, given the evidence to date. I can find no other way to explain those stirrup steps. Logically therefore, the simplified transfer case shift must have been a British Army mod, perhaps for trialling in post war years, with a view to introduction on future vehicle types, eg. Landrovers. The alternative theory is that it was a 1945 Ford factory development, but that only makes sense on a pilot vehicle, not on a single chassis delivered to India.

By the same logic we could reasonably assume the auxiliary springs were also British Army installed, according their own particular needs at the time, rather than by Ford in 1945 on a single chassis delivered to India. However, of interest in this context is Brian Nunn's report: "The chassis is made up as the standard type for the F15 range but with a secondary chassis fitted to the inside of the standard one." That's an extraordinary mod, which if confirmed would appear to tie in with the auxiliary springs, indicating very heavy duty use, eg. water tanker perhaps. That seems to raise another possibility, in light of your contract card evidence Lauren: "The back of SM6337 notes that a small number of vehicles were used as either Truck 15cwt, 4x4 Water 200 gal, or Lorry 30cwt, 4x4, Water." (I believe you've got the cards mixed up Lauren, and it's actually SM6389). In other words, it's not inconceivable the vehicle started life as a Lorry 30cwt, 4x4, Water. That might explain the reinforced chassis (yet to be confirmed) and auxiliary springs, if indeed that's how these 30cwt SWB chassis were built, which seems not unlikely. Certainly you'd expect some such modification to warrant uprating from 15cwt to 30cwt.

Brian also reported: "I purchased the vehicle back in 1979/80 from a garage in Hampshire, where it had stood unwanted and unloved for about 15 years. The garage owner told me that he had bought two Ford V8 trucks at an auction, one was fitted with a GS steel body, and the other was a Water Bowser. Both bodies were removed by him, and the trucks were fitted out with a Harvey Frost crane and winch fitted to the back for use as a tow truck. One vehicle was disposed of during the late 60's whilst the other one continued to work till it was replaced with a Humber 1 ton GS truck in the mid 70's. The garage owner could not remember which vehicle was fitted with which body, but thought that it was fitted with the GS type body."

In other words Lauren, if the garage owner's recollection was astray, it's quite possible you own a former Lorry 30cwt, 4x4, Water! Of course, we'd then have to explain RA markings on a water tanker!

Whatever the case I agree we need to stick to the physical evidence, as found on the vehicle itself. If you can post a few pics of the chassis it may shed some light on these questions. I reckon it would be worth starting a new thread on this vehicle, to keep all the evidence and discussion in one place. If ever a CMP deserved a dedicated thread it's this one!

[Lauren Child]

I see your point, though I'm reasonably sure the flat back is correct as it ties in with the oddness - she's got an odd carrier underneath that's not a normal size for POL or jerry can, and the chances of the garage owner getting mixed up and having procured two odd vehicles seem pretty remote. I'm told that this was copied (and confirmed as being the right dimensions) from the wreck of the old back, and I suspect we'll have a cinderella "the shoe fits" moment when we find what goes into it.

It is true that the back of the card shows a subset of trucks were used for water though, and I'd imagine they'd be a good choice for it. Noting the 30cwt gives food for thought on the small chassis.

The stirrup steps I'm pretty certain are a UK thing, as she would never have got to India (she was made at the point where the orders were getting diverted, and the suspicion is that's where the names of the channel islands on the cards come from). She did go somewhere hot and dusty as she's got desert paint under the garage's yellow colour and on top of the SCC15. Maybe Palestine?

[Tony Wheeler]

Interesting about the odd carrier Lauren, maybe post some pics and someone may recognize it.

I don't quite follow you on a few points here:

1. "The stirrup steps I'm pretty certain are a UK thing"

The problem is we've only seen two RH stirrup steps on the entire planet. One of them is on a full cab FAT which was DEFINITELY built in India. The other is on a full cab FAT which was CONTRACTED for India, namely yours. There's just no getting around that kind of evidence - that RH stirrup step has "FORD INDIA" stamped all over it!

Likewise the battery box location - that's standard Indian Pattern FAT practice. They either moved the passenger seat forward, or dispensed with it completely on some versions. Once again, the only other CMP we've found with a battery box located like yours is a full cab FAT supplied to India.

1965 Indo-Pakistan War (British Pathe ref. 3138.05).jpg RH stirrup step detail 1965 Indo-Pakistan War (British Pathe ref. 3138.05).jpg RH stirrup step detail F22 Lauren Child UK.jpg

2. "she would never have got to India (she was made at the point where the orders were getting diverted, and the suspicion is that's where the names of the channel islands on the cards come from)."

It seems to me we've placed rather too much emphasis on the late '45 diversion theory. This vehicle has been the subject of investigation for decades, but most discussion seems to revolve around the idea it was built in the UK, as suggested by the late Peter Ford: "Given what I now know, I'm strongly of the opinion that Brian's truck was a British Army assembly modified for their own purposes......One must assume that it was assembled in the UK, from parts, on Nov. 12th." In light of recent evidence however, including the contract cards, the photo above, and mounting evidence of Indian built vehicles in Australia, I believe we need to focus on the possibility it was built in India as contracted, and subsequently brought back with the British Army. I imagine they brought scores of vehicles back from India after WWII, invariably the newest ones. The question remains open, as Hanno wrote many years ago:

The following questions regarding the "F22" remain:

Where were these trucks built?

Fact is that Great Britain, Australia and India did receive a number of CKD (Complete Knock Down) kits. These were not complete vehicles built up in Canada and then disassembled to some extent to facilitate shipping, but kits of parts that were to be built in overseas factories with a high degree of local content. Thus, a number of local versions existed which might not all be listed in Canadian manuals.

Where and when were they used?


It's also worth noting that SM6389 is not a particularly late contract. A little earlier we have SM6337 with one recorded build date of 26 May 45, and somewhat later we have SM6537 with a build date of 4 Sep 45. Evidently this SM6389 chassis sat around for several months before being built on 12 Nov 45. That's not unusual, esp. for an export chassis. Here in Australia we see plenty of Nov 45 build dates, and we've seen build dates as late as 1947.

3. "She did go somewhere hot and dusty as she's got desert paint under the garage's yellow colour and on top of the SCC15. Maybe Palestine?"

I don't see why not Lauren - maybe direct from from Ford Bombay up the Suez with a British Army unit posted from India to Palestine? I imagine that would have made sense at the time, what with excess units in India and trouble brewing in Palestine. BTW what's SSC15?

4. "the chances of the garage owner getting mixed up and having procured two odd vehicles seem pretty remote."

I completely agree Lauren, but therein lies the problem! If both vehicles were SWB as we assume, and only one of them was an oddity, then the other one must have been F15A. The question then becomes - which body did the F15A have? By far the most likely answer is the GS body, which means your vehicle was the tanker.

I believe the chassis rails may hold the answer. If they're double skinned as Brian reported, and the auxiliary spring stops are riveted, it's hard to imagine it being anything but a Lorry 30cwt, 4x4, Water. However I don't think we should speculate before seeing the evidence. Can you post some pics of the chassis at some stage Lauren?

Cheers,
Tony