Richard Farrant Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Commander didn't need front wheel drive either. Neither did the Diamond T980/981 and they were used in N.Africa desert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Why do you need front wheel drive on an Antar? If it gets bogged at the back end ain't no front axle gonna drag that thing out!! It must be heavy enough not to need front wheel drive just to get about on a greasy surface. And cost. And complexity. Commander didn't need front wheel drive either. Why then, did the Constructor have front wheel drive ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) All the Militant based Coles cranes I worked on were 6x6 and yes they would have to get up the front at times as their main role was bridging and it would be impossible to avoid soft ground if that was where the bridge was to be built. I am aware that the Cranes were 6x6, the main point I was trying to make is that the Militants weren't "All Gun Tractors" as Simon said. Edited January 12, 2009 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 and for heavier going the Foden 8x8 Improved Medium Mobility. I thought Foden was also 8x6:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Yes, had forgotten the old timers! I guess Antar and DT 980s were heavier at the back end than Militant, thet would simply push the front axle through soft stuff - whereas Militant would be inclined to loose traction (if the front dug in) more readily than the bigger ones (maybe). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I thought Foden was also 8x6:confused: Beg your pardon, quite right......it is some years ago since being involved with DROPS, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.O.S. Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Why then, did the Constructor have front wheel drive ? Can I borrow your Weejee board for a moment please, Tom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 And am I not right in thinking that most if not all Militant tippers were 6x4 - if any vehicle was going to operate in soft ground it could well be the tipper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 the main point I was trying to make is that the Militants weren't "All Gun Trctors" as Simon said. Sorry, I must have missed that. In which post did Simon make this outrageous statement ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I think the answer to all this lies in the War Office thinking at that time. The Rolls Royce B range of engines was to have been the standardised power unit, with front line vehicles being petrol presumably. The Martian fitted this of course as did the Scammell Explorer, being petrol, no Martian recoveries at this time. The AEC, Thonycroft, Albion 10 ton ranges may have been intended as support vehicles........ Which is what I was trying to say.. ... part of the Militant fleet that was intended to be used as transport away from the battle area, were they would remain on metalled roads and 6x6 would have been un-necessary and would have remained unused. Oh and the Antar doesn't push the front axle through mud, Believe me it just sinks, at both ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Sorry, I must have missed that. In which post did Simon make this outrageous statement ?He doesn't I misread what he posted, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 And am I not right in thinking that most if not all Militant tippers were 6x4 - if any vehicle was going to operate in soft ground it could well be the tipper. And the early 6 X 4 gun tractor....another role where one might reasonably expect less than ideal terrain to be encountered. All of these early 6 X 4 were a disappointment which is why ALL of the later Militants were 6 X 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gritineye Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 There does appear to be an 'X' factor that makes everything gell and work really well in some vehicles and not others.. Scammell Pioneer + walking beams + pivoted front axle + overall chains = X factor. :coffee: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julezee001 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I have to say that my Mk1 with the Atlas crane behind the cab is a poor performer off road without the front axle engaged. I haven't tried it fully laden off road to see if the weight over the rear axles would help, but I would suspect it would just help the front bog quicker? With the front axle engaged it makes a huge difference, and even gives a slight chance of turning a corner! Whilst on excercise in 1989 the 6 x 6 plain cargos seemed to cope far better in the sandy conditions of Halten training area (in Germany)than Bedford Mk/Mj's 4x4s. The only kit better on the excercise were the Warrior APCs, which being tracked was no surprise! Jules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degsy Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Scammell Pioneer + walking beams + pivoted front axle + overall chains = X factor. :coffee: The so called X factor can be summed up in one word.......balance. This is a combination of a host of different factors and I am not going into all of them, it would take all night. Apart from all the technical factors there is also the added factor of the driver and his experience/understanding of ground pressure,steering input, throttle opening on different surfaces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gritineye Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The so called X factor can be summed up in one word.......balance. This is a combination of a host of different factors and I am not going into all of them, it would take all night. Apart from all the technical factors there is also the added factor of the drive rand his experience/understanding of ground pressure,steering input, throttle opening on different surfaces. Quite so Degsy well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The so called X factor can be summed up in one word.......balance. This is a combination of a host of different factors and I am not going into all of them, it would take all night. Apart from all the technical factors there is also the added factor of the driver and his experience/understanding of ground pressure,steering input, throttle opening on different surfaces. I'll second Gritineye....Degsy you have very succinctly summed it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 why did they make a 6x4 militant? Surely a 6x6 is better? Here are the first two pages of a list of chassis numbers I was given by John Harrington of the AEC Society some years ago. I'll try to get in touch with John to ask if there is an updated list and whether he would mind if the entire list was posted on this forum. Looking at this list it would appear that the first 6 X 4 (0859) Militants were produced between Dec 1952 and March 1953. The earliest 6 X 6 (0860) Militants are listed as being built between Dec 1953 and Feb 1954. That both 6 X 4 and 6 X 6 chassis were manufactured concurrently for a number of years suggests that some were intended for certain roles while others were not. Probably, for the reasons outlined by Antarmike in post 13 on this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degsy Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 In 1944 AEC produced 2 prototype heavy artillery tractors which were tested by WVEE, one had an armoured cab but the normal cab version bears a remarkable resemblance to the Militant. Perhaps the Militant was based on this design, does anybody know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 In 1944 AEC produced 2 prototype heavy artillery tractors which were tested by WVEE, one had an armoured cab but the normal cab version bears a remarkable resemblance to the Militant. Perhaps the Militant was based on this design, does anybody know? I do recollect from my years of working on them whilst in service, that a lot of their parts were marked with Maudsley inspectors stamp. The fact that Maudsley built a lorry named Militant, for the army during WW2 and were part of AEC, think the group was called ACV......could it be that they were a combined effort between AEC and Maudsley? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I do recollect from my years of working on them whilst in service, that a lot of their parts were marked with Maudsley inspectors stamp. The fact that Maudsley built a lorry named Militant, for the army during WW2 and were part of AEC, think the group was called ACV......could it be that they were a combined effort between AEC and Maudsley? Correct, ACV was the holding company resulting from the 1948 takeover of Maudsley and Crossley by AEC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 (edited) I do recollect from my years of working on them whilst in service, that a lot of their parts were marked with Maudsley inspectors stamp. The fact that Maudsley built a lorry named Militant, for the army during WW2 and were part of AEC, think the group was called ACV......could it be that they were a combined effort between AEC and Maudsley? I seem to remember once hearing that the Militant was based, in part, on the Maudsley Mogal. As you will know, AEC acquired the Maudsley Motor Company in 1948. Radiomike7, you beat me to it with your post 333. What about the Mogal connection ? Does that sound right to you ? Edited January 15, 2009 by 6 X 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degsy Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 (edited) I do recollect from my years of working on them whilst in service, that a lot of their parts were marked with Maudsley inspectors stamp. The fact that Maudsley built a lorry named Militant, for the army during WW2 and were part of AEC, think the group was called ACV......could it be that they were a combined effort between AEC and Maudsley? Yes, ACV was formed when AEC took over Crossley and Maudsley in 1948. Perhaps as well as reusing the Militant name they built the trucks in the old Maudsley factory which might account for the Inspectors stamps although I think the design owes a lot more to the prototype AEC I mentioned . Needless to say I hadn't seen the posts from Radiomike7 and 6x6 when I posted. Edited January 15, 2009 by Degsy Addition to post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 X 6 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 although I think the design owes a lot more to the prototype AEC I mentioned . Based on what information ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degsy Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Guesswork:-D, prototype photo and technical spec. I remember the Mogul but haven't got any photos or spec for it but it could be as Richard suggests that there was input from both companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.