Chevrolet MCP 3 Ton Lorries G.S. (Australian)

[Lionelgee]

Hello All,

I have a 1940 Australian - Holden manufactured cabin and tray Chevrolet 3 Ton "Lorry" (Truck). Were these trucks imported to Australia in a knock-down version of just the running gear, chassis and firewall? Once they arrived then Holden assembled them and added the cabin and tray.

According to the Australian War Memorial my truck is from the same stable as:
ID number 127795
Collection type Photograph
Object type Black & white
Physical description Black & white
Description AUSTRALIA. LORRIES, 3-TON G.S. (AUSTRALIAN). CHEVROLET. QUARTER FRONT VIEW, RIGHT SIDE. Accessed April 4th 2016 from, https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/127795

When I went to the General Motors Heritage website they have the Technical Specifications Manual (page 8) for the "1940" trucks it only shows that their "Heavy Duty" trucks go up to 1.5 Tons. Accessed April 4th 2016 from https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/doc...olet-Truck.pdf

Is there meant to be another type of truck that the GM Heritage site missed out on? Or are the 3 ton Lorries for the Australian Army a Canadian sourced cousin to the Chevrolet Maple Leaf trucks - if not the GMC trucks?

It just seems strange to me that the GM Heritage place has only one listing for Chevrolet Trucks 1940 and they finish at their "Heavy Duty" being half the capacity of the Australian Army General Service truck?

Looking closely at the photograph and back at my truck I think I might have the remnants of an original tray because the rope tie rails look very much the same. They still have green paint on them too - and that "green paint" must certainly mean that it is military

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Lionelgee]

Hello All,

In a photograph from the Australian War Memorial it shows a 1940 Chevrolet (Australian) 3 Ton Lorry with an Office Tent constructed across it.

Were these "Office" tents just used for clerical type work or were they also used as sleeping quarters?

Would there be any plans available to work off to make new one up of in the future?

Did these Office Tents use the same dimensions as the front headboard of the General Service canopy; or were they a different beast suited for just the Office tent? The General Service photograph in the earlier message is taken from a different angle and seems to have a more triangular apex than the Office tent. I am not sure if I can see a flap in the headboard end of the tarpaulin for the General Service truck either.

The details of the photograph were accessed on April 4th 2016 from, https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/127773


ID number 127773
Collection type Photograph
Object type Black & white
Physical description Black & white
Description AUSTRALIA. LORRIES, 3-TON OFFICE, (AUSTRALIAN). CHEVROLET. THREE-QUARTER FRONT VIEW, LEFT SIDE; SHOWING OFFICE TENT ERECTED ACROSS LORRY.

Kind Regards
Lionel

[cliff]

the rear tilt frames were different between the two trucks. I could not open the GM History site but I would say that there is a couple of types not listed there.

Vehicles were probably imported as components by GMH in those years for truck production.

[motto]

I know little of the pre 1942 Chevrolet trucks and am somewhat surprised that the army classed these vehicles as 3 ton.
The 42 model we know as the lend/lease Chev was basically the same truck with different sheet metal and was rated at 1-1/2 ton by the U.S. military and by Chevrolet themselves though in this country in civilian life at least they were generally considered to be 3 ton trucks.
I have a copy of TM 10-1677 for Chevrolet models 4403, 4408, 4409 and 4412 dated June 1, 1943. Stuck (glued) on the front cover is a strip of paper printed in red with the following information.
SPECIAL NOTICE The 160" Wheelbase CHEVROLET TRUCKS imported by the Commonwealth Government for essential civilian users are equipped with:-
HEAVY 10" x 5/16" FRAME REINFORCEMENTS,AUXILIARY SPRINGS, 7" WHEELS, 7-7.50 X 20 TYRES AND HAVE A GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT OF 14,300 lbs
TARE WEIGHTS ARE- CHASSIS AND CAB 4,368 lbs. TRUCK WITH PLATFORM BODY 5,068 lbs, TRUCK WITH DROPSIDE BODY 5,348 lbs, WITH STAKESIDES BODY 5,488 lbs.
Subtracting the dropside truck tare weight from the allowable gross vehicle weight gives 8952 lbs or just under four tons.
It seems the rating figures were a bit rubbery and depended on who you were dealing with. The different load ratings that have you puzzled Lionel could refer to the same vehicle.

David

[Mike K]

Lionel

I have the 1940 GMH NASCO parts book . The front cover of the book states "SPECIALLY COMPILED FOR THE AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH MILITARY FORCES" . The book is for sedans and trucks

The 1940 Chevrolet truck was series 13, 14, 15.

1940 Maple Leaf was series 16 - diff ratio was 7.16 to 1

1940 CHEVROLET

Basically, the model 14 had a 133" wheelbase

The model 15 was 158 1/2" wheelbase ( yours ? )

15-40 ES Chassis and cab with special 12 X 7 GS Wagon with canopy top - Standard truck chassis fitted single rear wheels 5.20 X 6 pierced disc wheels . rear axle ratio 6.166 to 1

15-40 E2 Chassis and cab with special 10ft. 6ins x 7ft GS Wagon with canopy top- Standard truck chassis Dual wheel with 7.20 X 6 pierced disc wheels rear axle ratio 6.166 to 1

Effective with overseas 18 x 8 wheels , the wheel equipment for these units will be changed to 5.18 X 8 3/4 offset

1940 MAPLE LEAF

The Maple leaf model 16-40/E12 Chassis cab 157 3/4" wheelbase with special Office Lorry body

..............................16-40/E8 ...............................................wit h special stores lorry body

..............................16-40 /E6 ................................................wi th special breakdown vehicle body

The AWM have that pic incorrectly captioned, its actually a Maple Leaf office lorry , not Chevrolet .

[Lionelgee]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

Lionel

I have the 1940 GMH NASCO parts book . The front cover of the book states "SPECIALLY COMPILED FOR THE AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH MILITARY FORCES" . The book is for sedans and trucks

The 1940 Chevrolet truck was series 13, 14, 15.

1940 Maple Leaf was series 16 - diff ratio was 7.16 to 1

1940 CHEVROLET

Basically, the model 14 had a 133" wheelbase

The model 15 was 158 1/2" wheelbase ( yours ? )

15-40 ES Chassis and cab with special 12 X 7 GS Wagon with canopy top - Standard truck chassis fitted single rear wheels 5.20 X 6 pierced disc wheels . rear axle ratio 6.166 to 1

15-40 E2 Chassis and cab with special 10ft. 6ins x 7ft GS Wagon with canopy top- Standard truck chassis Dual wheel with 7.20 X 6 pierced disc wheels rear axle ratio 6.166 to 1

Effective with overseas 18 x 8 wheels , the wheel equipment for these units will be changed to 5.18 X 8 3/4 offset

1940 MAPLE LEAF

The Maple leaf model 16-40/E12 Chassis cab 157 3/4" wheelbase with special Office Lorry body

..............................16-40/E8 ...............................................wit h special stores lorry body

..............................16-40 /E6 ................................................wi th special breakdown vehicle body

The AWM have that pic incorrectly captioned, its actually a Maple Leaf office lorry , not Chevrolet .

Hello Mike,

Thank you for the reply - going off the information that you sent ....

The model 15 was 158 1/2" wheelbase ( yours ? ) I would say "yes" and

15-40 E2 Chassis and cab with special 10ft. 6ins x 7ft GS Wagon with canopy top- Standard truck chassis Dual wheel with 7.20 X 6 pierced disc wheels rear axle ratio 6.166 to 1.

I was just directed towards another forum where a restorer suggests that "The military trucks had many heavier components, as compared to the civilian trucks. They had bigger axles, heavier wheel bearings, heavier brakes, heavier chassis with frame reinforcements, and heavier springing." Accessed April 4th 2016 from, http://www.hcvc.com.au/forum/restore...rucks?start=10 Posted on 12 Nov 2011.

Perhaps these upgraded specifications brought them up to 3 Ton Lorries?

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Lionelgee]

Originally Posted by motto

I know little of the pre 1942 Chevrolet trucks and am somewhat surprised that the army classed these vehicles as 3 ton.
The 42 model we know as the lend/lease Chev was basically the same truck with different sheet metal and was rated at 1-1/2 ton by the U.S. military and by Chevrolet themselves though in this country in civilian life at least they were generally considered to be 3 ton trucks.
I have a copy of TM 10-1677 for Chevrolet models 4403, 4408, 4409 and 4412 dated June 1, 1943. Stuck (glued) on the front cover is a strip of paper printed in red with the following information.
SPECIAL NOTICE The 160" Wheelbase CHEVROLET TRUCKS imported by the Commonwealth Government for essential civilian users are equipped with:-
HEAVY 10" x 5/16" FRAME REINFORCEMENTS,AUXILIARY SPRINGS, 7" WHEELS, 7-7.50 X 20 TYRES AND HAVE A GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT OF 14,300 lbs
TARE WEIGHTS ARE- CHASSIS AND CAB 4,368 lbs. TRUCK WITH PLATFORM BODY 5,068 lbs, TRUCK WITH DROPSIDE BODY 5,348 lbs, WITH STAKESIDES BODY 5,488 lbs.
Subtracting the dropside truck tare weight from the allowable gross vehicle weight gives 8952 lbs or just under four tons.
It seems the rating figures were a bit rubbery and depended on who you were dealing with. The different load ratings that have you puzzled Lionel could refer to the same vehicle.

It also raises another point - the Chevrolet truck in the photograph has a Commonwealth "C" plate. Did this number plate represent the ARN because a number of the Australian War Memorial photographs of the 1940 trucks do not show a ARN on the bonnet?

David

Hello David,

Thank you for the reply and for the information. Some of the details about the reinforced - extra strength parts were mentioned on another forum without providing a source.

The plate on my firewall says ... CHASSIS: 5200
MAXIMUM WEIGHT IN POUNDS: 3400 ??
GROSS WEIGHT: see note 11500
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS WEIGHT INCLUDES CHASSIS BODY AND ALL LOADS AND IS SUBJECT TO THE UNIT BEING EQUIPPED WITH WHEEL AND TYRE EQUIPMENT OF ADEQUATE CARRYING CAPACITY
GENERAL MOTORS – HOLDENS LTD.

The ID plate was loose in the truck's glove box and only an outline appeared on the firewall. I am presuming the ID plate was taken off and put in the glover box and not taken off one of the 100 plus trucks that were in the yard at Dalby in Queensland.

I never learnt Imperial measurements so I am not sure what they refer to weight wise.

If you click on this link to an article written by Laurie Wright and scroll down there is a reference to the trucks being a 30-cwt GS
Accessed April 4th 2016 from, http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/oth...siecamlw_1.htm. So how does 30 cwt get to be 3 tons?

Now apparently cwt stands for "Hundredweights" (?) and they can be long as; in from the United Kingdom, or Short - from the US of A. It being a Holden built Chevrolet would it be a long or a short Hundredweight - no wonder they turned to Metric!!!

Could someone from the AWM confuse 3 Tones with 30 cwt of either the long or short variety?

To me it still remains a wee bit confusing about what their capacity was.

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Mike K]

Originally Posted by Lionelgee

"The military trucks had many heavier components, as compared to the civilian trucks. They had bigger axles, heavier wheel bearings, heavier brakes, heavier chassis with frame reinforcements, and heavier springing."

Perhaps these upgraded specifications brought them up to 3 Ton Lorries?

Kind Regards
Lionel

No that's not correct . The 1940 models issued to the army were mechanically no different to the civilian specifications. Bigger axles , heavier brakes - makes no sense at all . We are talking about 1940, who was making special heavy axles or brakes ?

The standard series 14 models were 30 cwt and the series 15 was 3 Ton , there was no special " heavy duty " model in the Chevrolet range in 1940 . The Indian pattern Ambulances were built on the 30 cwt or series 14 chassis.

20 cwt = 1 long Ton

[Lionelgee]

Hello All,

If the truck is a 30 CWT or a 3 ton does this mean that it could be driven in Australia with just a car licence? Or would I have to go up to a MR licence?

Yes the restoration is some way off before my truck once more motors stately down the road. However, it would be nice to know the licence requirements in advance.

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Lionelgee]

Hello All,

I have dual tyres 7.20 X 6 pierced disc wheels . These wheel rims have suicide rings on them. Is there a modern version available that is more safe than the split rim? Some local tyre places will not handle the suicide rings. In the early 1980s I worked at Killarney Abattoirs with a bearded bloke whose previous job used to be as a truck tyre fitter. The beard covered most of the scars that occurred to him after a suicide ringed rim let go out in the field. The beard grew while he was recovering after an extended stay in hospital.

Mike's message has the tyres down as 7.20 X 6 tyres

The current outside rear dual tyre on my Chevrolet has the following written on it "Olympic Trojan Made in Australia SN 6026 7.00 - 20 with Ply rating 8".

Are these the same tyres as in Mike's earlier message except they just have two more layers of "ply" on the Olympic Trojans?

All my tyres are completly unserviceable and as they have cracked, disintegrated and they are rather square. Way beyond the idea of just whacking a new tube into them. Yes all 7 of them - well if I had a spare wheel that is I am also missing the suicide rings off the two inside dual rims.

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Grant Bowker]

One source described part of the design philosophy for CMP trucks as being "use one size heavier than normal practice". I.E. use higher capacity (but still off the shelf) parts than might be expected for the carrying capacity of the truck to allow for the "abusive" loading and operation the Army subjected their trucks to. Other sources have described the Maple Leaf trucks as being "Heavy Duty Chevrolets made in Canada". I'm not saying these statements are 100% accurate but they might explain the disagreement seen in the posts above concerning component sizing.

On the topic of split rims - they can be perfectly safe if in good shape and treated with respect. Worn, rusted, mismatched (rim to ring) or otherwise abused wheels won't properly engage and may separate as they are being inflated. So yes, a cage or other restraint is very strongly suggested for safety. The real nasty split rims are the Firestone (and others?) RH-5 rims produced long ago that separated near the center of the rim (as opposed to at one side), have less bearing area along the joint and can't be visually inspected for engagement. A group of reference charts on servicing one piece and multi-piece rims can be found at http://www.kentool.com/index.php/new...safety-posters The content originates in the USA but should be basically the same worldwide.
This link from a rim manufacturer describes safe tire mounting processes http://www.accuridecorp.com/files/20...4-06-22-12.pdf It specifically describes treatment of multi piece rims. If these rims had been banned for safety reasons I strongly doubt that a manufacturer would want to get into the liability arena of describing how to use an outlawed product. The document has a 2012 copyright so isn't badly outdated - nothing like our beloved MB-C2 or MB-F1 that were published 70+ years ago. The publication also refers to a multi piece rim for tubeless applications. I hadn't realized they existed, thinking the joint in the rim would let air escape. Apparently the inner edge of the bead seals on the main part of the rim and the side/lock rings are narrow enough they don't interfere with the seal.

[motto]

Lionel, if the wheels on your truck are the stock, standard Chev 20" type of that era with a lock ring that is full circle, (not split like a cir clip) and they are in good shape then they are quite safe to use.
As I posted on another forum recently, GM and Studebaker between them built around 800,000 6x6 trucks during WW2 (These used the same lock ring arrangement as the Chev 20" wheels we are discussing). This gives a total of 8,000,000 wheels. Add another 800,000 spares and those produced for other trucks such as the Yankee Joe and we must be up around 10,000,000. Yes that's 10 million 20" wheels.
I have yet to hear of one failing.That doesn't mean that it hasn't happened in the intervening 70 years but if so it would be an exceedingly rare event.
As regards the question of what license is needed to drive this class of truck it would quite likely vary from state to state. In Victoria you can drive a vehicle up to 4.5 ton Gross Vehicle Mass on a car license. Strangely enough you can also tow a trailer up to 9 ton GVM subject to the capacity of the tow vehicle.
I have a friend that was pulled over by an RTA official whilst driving his Studebaker 6x6 and asked for his license. The RTA bloke said that the truck could not be driven on a car licence as it exceeded 4.5 ton gross and the friend tried to tell him it was only a 2-1/2 ton truck and pointed out that it said so on the dash plate. The limb of the law didn't agree with that explanation.

David

[Lionelgee]

Hello Grant and David,

thank you both for your extensive information about my rims. I will take a couple of photographs - once the camera's batteries charge. Then I will post them up.

How readily available in Australia are the 7 x 20 tyres - 8 ply?

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Lionelgee]

Hello All,

I have just loaded up three photographs of the wheel rim - a couple of which are close-ups. It looks like the ring is in a single piece and it seems like an over-sized circlip.

The rims have a patina on them which will hopefully come good once they get sandblasted and painted again.

I circled the lock part of the rings - luckily it was at the top of the tyre so they were easy to photograph. BTW this tyre is one of the better ones I have .

Kind Regards
Lionel

[motto]

7.50 - 20 tyres are more common than 7.00 - 20 but they are still not common. If you started looking you would probably turn some up.
That type of wheel lock ring I am not familiar with and I have not seen them on a Chev. The L/L Chev lock ring was a complete circle. These wheels must pre date that style. As stated earlier, I am not familiar with what was around before the '42 model or after for that matter.

David

[Grant Bowker]

Sitting here in Canada, I have to admit ignorance of the Australian vintage tyre market.
Based on a quick search, there seem to be some sellers in Australia, see
http://www.hcvc.com.au/forum/salewan...es-or-7-00-x20
http://www.antiquetyres.com.au/20700-0
http://www.oldworldlamps.net/tyres_20_inch_16.html

They certainly exist in USA at Coker Tire among others
https://www.cokertire.com/tires/styl...m_diameter=120

Keep in mind that you may not need to limit your search to 8 ply or PR (ply rated as opposed to real plies) tyres, you might get away with 6PR provided they have enough weight capacity and you should be able to use 10PR (or more). If using 10 PR, see if you can get hold of load/inflation tables for the tires. You should be able to run a lower than "rated" pressure as you are also likely carrying a lower than rated load per tyre but without the manufacturer's tables it is hard to guess how much the pressure can be reduced safely. It would likely also work to go up to 750-20 size if that's more readily available. There is a chance the extra width might rub somewhere but my guess is that the chance is small and I doubt the extra 7% width would be obvious.

Looking at your photos, unless there is an illusion happening, I would want to check the condition of the ring in the photo with both red and white circles as it looks as if it might be bent enough to not seat as well as desired. But - if the tyre is just pushed away from the ring, all might be OK.

[Lionelgee]

Hello Grant and David,

Thank you for more information. Especially to the links to possible retailers, in Australia and abroad.

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by motto

The 42 model we know as the lend/lease Chev was basically the same truck with different sheet metal and was rated at 1-1/2 ton by the U.S. military and by Chevrolet themselves though in this country in civilian life at least they were generally considered to be 3 ton trucks.

David, I'm pretty sure 3-ton military spec in Australia included 2-speed diff and brake booster, which explains why trucks of similar appearance were rated differently:



AUSTRALIA. LORRIES, 30 CWT. BLOOD STORAGE (AUSTRALIAN).




AUSTRALIA. LORRIES, 3-TON STORES (AUSTRALIAN) NO.1.

[motto]

If only it were that simple Tony but unfortunately it isn't.
TM 10-1677, the maintenance manual I mentioned earlier, was published by General Motors Overseas Operations and is identified as being applicable to :-
CHEVROLET 1-1/2 TON (Right Drive) 4x2 TRUCK
This is the same manual that has the strip of paper on the cover that gives the payload as being over three ton. (GVM minus Tare) And also lists why, frame reinforcement, aux springs and tyre size. The frame reinforcement can be readily seen in both the photos you posted and tyres appear to be similar on both trucks.
You usually can't tell whether a vehicle has a two speed axle from a photograph and a brake booster could be inside the chassis but usually found on the outside. What can often be seen is whether the front axle is the light duty with bicycle type cup and cone wheel bearings (most of them) or the heavy duty type with barrel rollers. One of the things that has puzzled me over the years is that, by direct observation, the installation of light or heavy front axle appears to be completely indiscriminate and unrelated to differential or booster installation. There was a class of truck produced that was identical to the '42 vehicles being discussed but it was shorter with a nine foot instead of a twelve foot tray. These trucks were classed as being 30 CWT but all seem to have come with the heavy front axle. This was confirmed by a fellow that used to work for Regent Motors, a GM dealership. It just doesn't make sense.
Brake booster wise, I've only ever seen the diaphragm type PBR boosters on these trucks which I have always taken to be a post war or post service modification. The North Americans seem to have used piston type boosters on their trucks which is what I would expect to see if original equipment.
In summary, these are interesting vehicles produced at a time of duress and shortages using pretty much whatever was available with a lot of what went on not being very well documented. We all know parts of the story but are often left guessing.

David

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by motto

If only it were that simple Tony but unfortunately it isn't.

David, I don't profess to understand the load rating system completely, but I do find the load rating parameters perfectly simple and logical. They are FUNCTIONAL FEATURES relating DIRECTLY to load carrying capability. That includes gradeability and braking ability. Hence 30cwt truck uprated to 3-ton by fitting 2-speed diff and brake booster.

The real confusion arises when we attempt to correlate load ratings with parts and components, because these are ever changing. As I've tried to point out before, components do not determine load rating. They merely determine vehicle reliability. Components found wanting in service can be upgraded, both in production and in the field. This does not change the nominal load rating. Classic example is 3-ton Ford CMP steering box, upgraded TWICE before they got it right!

Originally Posted by motto

The North Americans seem to have used piston type boosters on their trucks which is what I would expect to see if original equipment.

Yes I believe you're right David. Here's the Dodge 3-ton set up:

[Lionelgee]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

David, I'm pretty sure 3-ton military spec in Australia included 2-speed diff and brake booster, which explains why trucks of similar appearance were rated differently:

Attachment 80891

AUSTRALIA. LORRIES, 30 CWT. BLOOD STORAGE (AUSTRALIAN).


Attachment 80892

AUSTRALIA. LORRIES, 3-TON STORES (AUSTRALIAN) NO.1.

G'day Tony,

Thank you for the photographs and for the detailed information. Another difference between these trucks and mine is they are both from 1941. This is the year after mine and they changed the style of the headlights - mounted on the mudguard, and front grille - elongated at the bottom with vertical bars.

Another difference between my truck (1940) and the two 1941 trucks is that I mine only has a single speed diff.

Not sure what else they changed in 1941 apart from the increase in pretty bits.

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Lionelgee]

G'day David and Tony,

Thank you for providing the information about the MCP Chevrolet trucks of the era.

Would the trucks of the day have a pull-push switch mounted on the gear stick to select which speed the differential operated at? I just have a plain gear stick with no sign of any brackets or mounting marks anywhere on it.

Apart from the handbrake cables there are no strands of wire leading into the differential to operate a two speed system. Presuming they were cable operated?

Kind Regards
Lionel

[hrpearce]

Originally Posted by Lionelgee

Would the trucks of the day have a pull-push switch mounted on the gear stick to select which speed the differential operated at?Kind Regards
Lionel

If the Chevs were the same as the Bedfords the two speed change would be like another choke cable on the dash. The diffs were changed with a vacuum chamber sucking the diff into high and a spring pulling it back into low, making it important to park in low in case of a vacuum leak.

[Private_collector]

Photos, Lionel, photos!!!!!

Show me what your truck looks like. Do you have sources/s for parts yet?

For that matter, do you have a manual or parts book for it? The snoz looks familiar. I may have a manual for your vehicle somewhere in my filing cabinet, out in the workshop. Too dark to look for it today, but can search tomorrow, if you need one. If I got one, you can have it!

[Lionelgee]

Originally Posted by Private_collector

Photos, Lionel, photos!!!!!

Show me what your truck looks like. Do you have sources/s for parts yet?

For that matter, do you have a manual or parts book for it? The snoz looks familiar. I may have a manual for your vehicle somewhere in my filing cabinet, out in the workshop. Too dark to look for it today, but can search tomorrow, if you need one. If I got one, you can have it!

Hello Tony,

I have posted photographs of the truck some time ago. Anyway here is another batch.

The previous owner replaced the under the seat petrol tank with an external tank. I will be keeping it there as it reflects the second chapter in the vehicle's life - contributing to Australian Primary Industries.

The last photographs show the remnants of the Australian Army Number

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Private_collector]

It's a very nice looking vehicle, you have there. Should restore nicely.

Interesting carrier frames on the front.

[Mike K]

I have never seen a 1940 Chevy cab with a hinged windscreen like that ! It is probably a later modification done by somebody ? Or the whole cab may be from a 1941 or 42 truck ? Are the HOLDEN build plates still on the firewall ?

[Lionelgee]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

I have never seen a 1940 Chevy cab with a hinged windscreen like that ! It is probably a later modification done by somebody ? Or the whole cab may be from a 1941 or 42 truck ? Are the HOLDEN build plates still on the firewall ?

Hello Mike,

No it is an Army modification that also appeared on the 1941 - 42 Australian Holden constructed cabin Chevrolets. The only modification the vehicle has had is the relocation of the petrol tank.

The first photograph of the tray back truck is described as:

ID number : 024625
Collection type Photograph
Object type Black & white
Physical description Black & white
Description WESTERN DESERT, EGYPT. 1942-07-22. AUSTRALIAN ARMY CANTEEN SERVICE MOBILE CANTEEN. THESE 3-TON TRUCKS STACKED WITH GOODS PLY UP AND DOWN THE REAR OF THE BATTLE AREA SUPPLYING THE WANTS OF THOSE WHO HAVE MONEY. NOTE THE NAME "GLORIA" ON THE FRONT OF THE TRUCK. THIS IDEA OF INSCRIBING A GIRL'S NAME ON A 3 TON TRUCK IS, IN A WAY, A DOUBTFUL COMPLIMENT TO HER MEMORY, BUT IS A WIDESPREAD PRACTICE AMONG BRITISH TROOPS IN EGYPT. Accessed April 7th 2016 from, https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/024625/

Here is a photograph from the Australian War Memorial. I previously found some more photographs from the same source. This has been discussed previously. The fact has not changed my truck is original!!!

Then there was a second one - well a slightly bent example.

Apparently, it had an argument with a Jeep - damn I would not like to have been in the Jeep!

I would suggest that my vehicle is a late 1940 product on the Holden assembly line when they transitioned to the 1941-42 models with the tilt up windscreen.

ID number - 059816
Collection type Photograph
Object type Black & white
Maker Halmarick, Colin Thomas
Physical description Black & white
Description PORT MORESBY, NEW GUINEA. 1943-11-11. A TRUCK OF HEADQUARTERS, NEW GUINEA FORCE WHICH WAS WRECKED IN A COLLISION WITH A JEEP. Accessed April 7th 2016 from, https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/059816.

Yes the Holden black and white Lion standing on a ball is still on the fire wall and the build plate that says 1940 and paint code Khaki.

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Mike K]

re: the opening screen, you may be right .

The wheels on your truck don't look right to me for a 1940 truck , they are strange . They maybe wheels from a 1930's Chev truck ?

[Lionelgee]

Hello Mike,

Slight amendment - my truck does not have the original horn. Here are three photographs of the Holden Build plates - the stamp for 1940 is very clear.

Mike, you were the one that recommended I should check to see if my truck was an Army one when I posted on another forum about my truck before I joined MLU. I was originally going to drop a nice big block Chevrolet into it and paint it red body with black mudguards. At the time I was in Bundaberg and the truck was still sitting in its yard at Dalby in Queensland - waiting to be transported here.

Here is the link to that message - God look at how long ago it was!!! http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/sh...10&postcount=5

The other truck in the shed in one of my first batch of photographs is a 1934-35 REO Speed Wagon with a wide body - the equivalent of a sleeper cabin back then. It is a long term project and I got the Chevrolet because it would be a mid-term project.

Here is a youtube video of the American version of my truck and close to how I imagined my first thoughts of a rebuild. Except for this one still has the 216 motor and they did not paint the mudguards black. Accessed April 8th 2016 from, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Refn9dMpyBk The restorer does not mention its wheelbase but he does say that it is a One and a half Ton truck.

Kind Regards
Lionel