15-cwt water tanker ID

Hanno Spoelstra · #1 07-09-06, 23:26

Chevrolet or Ford?

Source: http://www.hab3045.nl/

Howard · #2 08-09-06, 00:50

Ford.
Clearly there is too much weight for a Chev to move under it's own steam.
HH

Phil Waterman · #3 08-09-06, 01:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Howard
Ford.
Clearly there is too much weight for a Chev to move under it's own steam.
HH

I resemble that remark, I was going to say that it had to be a Chevy because the girl on the running board is clearly a bobby socker and they have to much to much class to ride on a Ford

Pete Ashby · #4 08-09-06, 08:33

I think it's a Ford, paste the image into your picture manager and lighten it up and you will see it has ford rear hubs, mind you not conclusive as my 12 cab has one of each !!

Pete
PS If it is a Ford then I can tell you something else, the water tank is full tot he brim..............how do I know that Mcspool ?

Max Hedges · #5 08-09-06, 10:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Pete Ashby
I think it's a Ford, paste the image into your picture manager and lighten it up and you will see it has ford rear hubs, mind you not conclusive as my 12 cab has one of each !!

Pete
PS If it is a Ford then I can tell you something else, the water tank is full tot he brim..............how do I know that Mcspool ?

Pete since you have lightend it up can you tell by the side step.
Max

Pete Ashby · #6 08-09-06, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Max Hedges
Pete since you have lightend it up can you tell by the side step.
Max

Max

here it is messed about with a bit, what do you think ?

#7 08-09-06, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Pete Ashby
PS If it is a Ford then I can tell you something else, the water tank is full to the brim..............how do I know that Mcspool ?

I'd take a guess. . . . . . . . . .

R.

Bruce Parker (RIP) · #8 08-09-06, 20:31

I think because:

There appears to be the remains of a mirror bracket attached to the upper door hinge. Ford would be between the hinges.

The 'profile' of the rear differential looks much to flat and broad to be a Ford.

Pete Ashby · #9 08-09-06, 21:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Notton
I'd take a guess. . . . . . . . . .

R.

AH Ha that well known officer and gentle man R joins the debate

..........Wot Ho old boy.........there's a vehicular pun hidden there..........and how the devil are you.

Do feel free to take a guess….. I trust it will be at our collective Dutch colleague's expense

PTO&G

#10 08-09-06, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Pete Ashby
AH Ha that well known officer and gentle man R joins the debate

To quote Bill Shatner, "Its me."

Quote:

..........Wot Ho old boy.........there's a vehicular pun hidden there..........and how the devil are you.

Indeed so, but I'm more of a master blaster type y'know.

We're doin' alright and thanks for asking, we trust all's well with the OCMPG and to give you heaps of warning, perhaps an appearance at Overlord next year? May 26/7/8

Quote:

Do feel free to take a guess….. I trust it will be at our collective Dutch colleague's expense

Well now, McSpool can be quite obtuse when the mood takes him, however, the relative clearance in the mudguards between the front and back wheels might suggest a substantial load don't you think?

R.

Rolf S. Ask · #11 09-09-06, 00:14

And I that never thought Ford did have any waterbowsers on 101 inch wheelbase.....
So would appreciate a photo of a F15A watertruck

Rolf

Pete Ashby · #12 09-09-06, 01:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Notton
We're doin' alright and thanks for asking, we trust all's well with the OCMPG and to give you heaps of warning, perhaps an appearance at Overlord next year? May 26/7/8

Ah yes indeed.......... well I may well be in Leek growing country by then it's all a bit exciting at the moment PM me for more info if you can be bothered

Quote:

Well now, McSpool can be quite obtuse when the mood takes him, however, the relative clearance in the mudguards between the front and back wheels might suggest a substantial load don't you think?

I say Old Chap, far too technical but I see what you mean, I was engaging in a far more common baiting of Ford owners............Hmm with due consideration R I feel your hypothesis may be flawed, you have failed to take into account the accumulated mass of the excited Netherlanders which may well account for your previous observation...........I now feel your offered solution may be erroneous

Pip Pip

PTO&G

Pete Ashby · #13 09-09-06, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Rolf S. Ask
And I that never thought Ford did have any waterbowsers on 101 inch wheelbase.....
So would appreciate a photo of a F15A watertruck

Hello Rolf

I agree with you I always thought that Chevrolet supplied all the bower chassis, lets see what the others think.........your keeping a very low profile Hanno are you there ?

Pete

Max Hedges · #14 09-09-06, 03:20

I reckon I can see the bottom of the shock absorber arm pertruding below the axel housing on the left side which would make it chev.
That would explain why they have so many passengers, a ford would be just to fast for anyone to hop on, he he
Here is a photo of a chev

Keith Webb · #15 09-09-06, 04:25

I enlarged and fiddled with the contrast a bit...

Hanno Spoelstra · #16 09-09-06, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Pete Ashby
Do feel free to take a guess….. I trust it will be at our collective Dutch colleague's expense

Go on then, take your best shot...I can take it!

McSpool (clueless about the finer points our distinguished Englishmen are making)

Rolf S. Ask · #17 11-09-06, 13:42

This photo has got me thinking...

There are some things that does not match up as I see it..

First, the rear fenders (wings??) does not look like any fenders used at any Canadian waterbowser I have seen before. They look more like fenders from a trailer.
The runningboard on the side looks like on a normal truck, and not as on waterbowser where they goes much further back.
And the arrangement on the back looks like it is to close to the cabinet (where the two blokes are standing).

So this might be some field modification where the tank is put on another truck than it originated from.

Any comments??

Rolf

Pete Ashby · #18 11-09-06, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Hanno Spoelstra
Go on then, take your best shot...I can take it!

McSpool

No couldn't possibly Old Boy... a standing target is not sport don't ya know

PTO&G

David_Hayward (RIP) · #19 11-09-06, 22:19

There were two batches to British order:

Z 4935501 to 4935609 SM 2566 TRUCK 15 CWT. 4 X 4 WATER 101 IN. WHEELBASE AS AT 1 OCTOBER 1942: 109 UNITS PRODUCED ARTICIZED E.g. 2844321008 August 6 1942 C-60448-M-GS-8

The only other British batch I know of is:
Z 5814837 to 5814850 SM 6053 TRUCK 15 CWT. 4 X 4 WATER

E.g.
C15441-M-WATR-3
GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA
CHASSIS MODEL C.15441-MT
CAB MODEL 13
CHASSIS SERIAL 3844422246
ENGINE SERIAL WR 3933269
ORDER SM 6053
DATE OF MFG SEPT 24 43

I don't know of any F15A Water tankers to British order.

This is the known (to me) Canadian C15A Water Tanker:

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA
CHASSIS MODEL C.HU-15441-M [WATR-3]
CAB MODEL 13
CHASSIS SERIAL 3844404278
ENGINE SERIAL WR3913219
ORDER LV1513
DATE OF MFG JUNE 9 43

David_Hayward (RIP) · #20 11-09-06, 22:21

Hope this helps: