Jump to content

Interesting Bedord TM 6x6 Conversion


N.O.S.

Recommended Posts

Here is a mighty strange beast - reckon it must have been a civvy adaptation. It was for sale some while back on a vehicle salvage website. 1st and 2nd are steer axles. Looks to have been very competently engineered, apart from the skimpy chassis at rear spring mounts!

 

Well the title says 6x6, but it could well have been a 4x4 with an extra non-driven steer axle tagged on maybe?

 

Doesn't it look so much smarter than a Stalwart? :cool2:

 

Does anyone know anything about this vehicle?

 

 

pencil.png

pencil.png

pencil.png

TM6x6.jpg

TM6x62.jpg

TM6x65.jpg

TM6x63.jpg

TM6x64.jpg

Edited by N.O.S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is genuine, I have photos of it from where it was sold. But I am away at the moment so cannot scan them. It was bought by a farmer to transport items on a farm, looks like it is in a farm shed in the photo.

 

It has a very complicated transfer/drop box arrangement. From what Irecall there was a standard transfer box driving the front and rear prop shafts as on a normal TM 4X4 but mounted to the front of the rear axle was another purpose made transfer box which took drive towards the front to the middle axle. It was also steered on the middle axle as well through a mechanical linkage. Would perhaps have been produced as a potential replacement for Stalwart but clearly without amphibious capability.

 

Will search for the pictures when back home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Difficult to tell from the photos, but it doesn't look long enough for a TM 6-6 - could it be a 4x4 conversion? Could it be something to do with the Multidrive stuff AWD were experimenting with?

 

I'm sure you're right about it starting out as a 4x4 chassis. I must say the conversion work looks good enough to be a factory experimental job - more info please anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..Interesting, different, curious, yes....but smarter than a Stolly?...never. H

 

I guess you're right - you can't really compare the two. It sort of shares the same 'different' appeal though doesn't it?

 

I wouldn't want to drive it into the Rhine either. But I'd sure love to haul carrot bulkers around muddy fields all day with it :cheesy: A big grower (Watton Produce) was using shortened Militants for this job at one time, still the odd one or two about I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...You can make out the 4-4 on the front of the cab...

 

 

I missed that, and I was looking for it as well! You can quite clearly see it says TM 4-4.

 

I suppose another possibility is that it was a DRA / DERA test mule, perhaps for the HMLC prototype we were discussing in the other thread (http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?21006-Otterburn-range-wrecks/page17).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I recall in the early eighties there was talk of Bedford trying to develop a 6x6 to replace the Stolly, as the amphibious requirement had gone and they wanted something easier to maintain and cheaper to run. As I recall, they couldn't get it to work as the chassis kept twisting when going over knife edges.

 

If this vehicle is based on that experiment, (if that experiment really happened even) then the 5th wheel could be a decoy to confuse people. The alternative being development of a heavy off road towing unit to replace the Scammell Crusader.

 

Bedford was of course killed off by Maggie Thatcher when she insisted on supporting Leyland because it had the word "British" in front of the Leyland - and we all know how that panned out with DAF and PACCAR :embarrassed:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right let's deal with Maggie and the Bedford first shall we? The reason that Bedford lost out to Leyland Daf in the 4t class was that the truck that was produced was hopeless in comparison to both the Leyland and the Volvo. It would probably have been inferior to the Iveco Ford too but they dropped out of the competition. I should stress at this point that the trial was run against a description of what the user was looking for in a modern military truck, and judged against that requirement none of the contenders was perfect - but the most worst was the Bedford (or rather that AWD). Political considerations were not an issue (in that they were all "british" enough - even the Volvo would have been built in Irvine.

 

Bedford had already produced the 8 and 14 tonne (interesting the latter was supposed to be an 8t with a driven trailer but they never really sorted the torque into the trailer so some bright spark realised that if the trailer was bolted to the back it would carry the weight (although it is important to remember that mobility is to do with manoeuvrability as well as driving in a straight line). These trucks filled a gap in the resupply business (8t replacing 4t and stalwart in RCT transport regiments and at 1st line with 14t going to other arms and services particularly the engineers and REME)

 

But the real challenge, as a result of the Battlefield Attrition and the Resupply of Ammunition Rates and Scales (collectively known as BAS/RARS) was to resupply artillery at a much increased rate - between 4 and 5 times as much/as fast as had been planned for and no-one was going to make the RCT and others 4 to 5 times as big. Hence DROPS. Bedford did not produce a DROPS proposal.

 

At first line though many saw the reduced mobility of the 8t (in relation to stalwart) as a bit of a retrograde step, particularly as by then both Warrior and Challenger were on the horizon. So work was undertaken to have a look at improved mobility 8t. There were two proposals, the one in the photo and what became known as the Big Wheeled 8t. Because it had huge wheels. Trials showed the 6 wheeler to be a complicated way of achieving little by the way of improved mobility whilst the big wheeler seemed to show more promise and was pursued further. I have a VHS video somewhere of a run-off between a stalwart and the big wheeler taken down at Hurn - on a big muddy swamp area the Bedford gets through whilst the stalwart fails. The big wheeler was surprisingly good to drive too, whilst the 6 wheeler was horrible.

 

Consideration was also given to central tyre inflation; this, like the 6 wheeler, was seen as too costly and only promised marginal improvement, although we did trial a clever tyre valve that if you twisted it let the tyres down to a pre-set cross country pressure. The trouble was the on-board compressor was pretty feeble and the only way to pump them back up was one at a time, slowly, at the side of the road. I seem to recall that this took about 45 minutes in all and would generally result in one very grumpy trials driver if it was raining.

 

Soon after the trials the folks at first line seemed to twig that 8tons was a decent payload, and what the heck, if the tanks had to detour a k or two to get at the combat supplies then so what? They also realised that a huge TTF with half a dozen filler nozzles was a lot more efficient that humping jerrycans off the back of endless streams of stalwarts. So the "we want a replacement stalwart" thing rather died a death. Then of course the IMMLC and to an extent MMLC were transforming logistic matters and before you know it the world changed: 3rd Shock Army went home and we all went to play in the sand.

 

I hope that provides a little more background!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
...

 

I have a VHS video somewhere of a run-off between a stalwart and the big wheeler taken down at Hurn - on a big muddy swamp area the Bedford gets through whilst the stalwart fails. The big wheeler was surprisingly good to drive too, whilst the 6 wheeler was horrible.

...

 

Just wondered if you've found that video yet, Paul? Would love to see it - and any photos you have of the mentioned trials.

 

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is genuine, I have photos of it from where it was sold. But I am away at the moment so cannot scan them. ...

 

It has a very complicated transfer/drop box arrangement. From what I recall there was a standard transfer box driving the front and rear prop shafts as on a normal TM 4X4 but mounted to the front of the rear axle was another purpose made transfer box which took drive towards the front to the middle axle. It was also steered on the middle axle as well through a mechanical linkage. Would perhaps have been produced as a potential replacement for Stalwart but clearly without amphibious capability.

 

Will search for the pictures when back home.

 

Just wondered if you've found those photos yet, antar? Many thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...