Gordon_M

Well it's only a heavy wrecker in relative terms - quite light, really.

The way the image is shot I'd go for a Ben Hur one ton trailer behind the crane. If it is another vehicle parked one space further on, it's even easier to identify - half ton Dodge WC pickup, which is the only other thing that would look like that from the same distance.

So, either;

jeep, jeep, jeep, GMC with crane and Ben Hur, then GMC with full canvas

or

jeep, jeep, jeep, GMC with crane, Dodge 1/2 ton WC pickup, GMC with full canvas.

If you look at the relative size of the No 7 set and the truck it is mounted on you see it has to be a GMC CCKW, as any other bigger truck would make the crane look much smaller.

While we are covering the odds, someone is sure to point out that the No 7 set COULD be mounted on a Studebaker US6 or even an International, but given the numbers in service in the Uk at the time it is 90% + likely to be the humble GMC CCKW

OK, from the right

Three generic jeeps

a GMC CCKW with a No 7 set in the back and a one ton Ben Hur type trailer

another CCKW ( probably ) with the hood up extreme left but not really enough to identify

Google "No 7 set" or "Number seven 7 set" images

I've been looking at that split in the chassis, and it is very atypical of a defect in that sort of item - I'd normally expect a laminar defect given the cutting, rolling, and pressing processes.

If I had to propose an alternative it would be ordnance damage - a sudden large lump of something heavy applied at great speed ..... Given the history of the chassis it has to be a possibility.

Gordon

More interesting bits, as usual.

The chassis end mounts that take the front spring ends - forged, rather than cast, I assume? The shape looks wrong for a casting to take those loads in that configuration.

Looks to me that if you had to, you could knock out the rivets and pull the drums off those rear wheels, and make up brand new drums from some forged bar if the originals are too thin.

Not wrong, absolutely not wrong :red:

The better dealers, if you are looking for a common part, will often have a choice or original or repro at two different prices.

I do tend to shell out the extra for original parts, but some things like water temperature gauges seem to be fine as repro.

I've seen images of a DUKW shipped, on its side, in a container, a 40 foot hi-cube I think to accommodate the DUKW width ( in this case height ) of just over 8 foot.

The problem with Ro-Ro shipping is that they do expect the vehicle to be able to drive. If it won't drive, just strap it to a container base and be prepared to pay extra for the over-width.

I only have experience with one of those suppliers, but it agrees with the above.

I've pretty much given up ordering more than the occasional hose over the phone or by e-mail though. It is worth the trip to visit in person, cash in paw, and inspect at time of purchase - plus you will often find that other essential item while you are there.

Don't know how good all four are at accommodating 'drop-in' visits though - comments? :angel:

Build Card should be fine, MVT can authenticate it to the stamping on the chassis if required.

Original Build Cards don't exist of course, you are just getting a print of a microfiche anyway.

An image of the Build Card to;

commander@command-car.com

please, and then you can view the Build Card listing at;

http://www.command-car.com/technik/technikbuildcards.html

Ah well. wrong again

Any idea what the load was?

Well for once I can't just say Dodge.

The back body on the top two is the 1937 pattern, which was found on Dodge and Chevrolet, but I think the top two shots might be Indiana, basically the previous incarnation of Whites.

I've seen the truck in the bottom image before, but don't remember the make.

Economy version of a bridge plate.

49 ton total weight, of which 41 ton can be the trailer plus load, suggesting the tractor has a net weight of 8 tons

The technique of moulding something like that is called an odd side or odd side, and is described quite well above, in that you make up a dummy section under the wheel, ram up a top half, invert it, remove the odd side, tart it up a bit, then make the proper 'other' half ( could be either top or bottom )

Bigger production quantities would get a false pattern plate under the wheel, and do away with the need for the odd side, but that is a lot of extra pattern work if you are only doing a few.

( If we get to the point where I have to start explaining the drawback technique we will really be getting down to it )

I remember the use of 'cricket' clickers and being mistaken for German rifle bolt actions!

 

Now that bit was from The Longest Day, I remember that.

Thinking about it, I can't see a better way of doing this than just strapping the poor thing to an Ifor Williams - job done

Not sure.

I'm aware of the 750Kg limit for an unbraked trailer, and I suspect this might be relevant. Of most cars would exceed this but a T may well be on the right side of it.

Something new every day - thanks Nick

I wonder what engine was used as the original petrol lump wouldn't be amenable to conversion

No

The US used multi fuel but went back to straight diesel. UK vehicles were fuel tolerant as regards octane and the like but truck engines weren't multi fuel, unless you count paraffin or LPG

Painted, I'm sure. If not off the line, then certainly at the first repaint.

I'm sure you have already joined the excellent Maple Leaf Up forum where all this is gone over in great detail ? Lots of people on there and here, but it is particularly good for anything of Canadian original such as this.

LeTourneau. They made variations on this, including a huge self-propelled unit that was four times that size.

Left one looks like a T214 or T223 Command Car or Weapon Carrier board. Not sure about the right one

Latest suggestion from the JOT Forum is a GMC Model 41

http://cranknhope.com/id12.html

At the risk of upsetting later enthusiasts I wouldn't cross the street to see anything with M series in front of it ( sorry Simon ...) with the notable exception of the M123, which is why it jumped out at me on the original posting.

Legend has it that the Cummins version is powerful, economical, and reliable.

The petrol-engined LeRoi version, on the other hand, was noisy, temperamental, and capable of tow-starting a small country :laugh:

You don't even have to watch, just listen, around the 1:30 mark should do it ...

It's impossible to be certain, but it looks like the ten ton M123 tractor unit, normally made by Mack. Slightly lighter built than something like a Dragon Wagon but pretty much the same size.

If original it will have the huge LeRoi V8 engine which is something to behold and even better to listen to. Here is one towing a Dragon Wagon trailer, just for scale.