6 X 6

but knowing LR they probably got their sums wrong:)

I would be careful what you say Mike, just in case LR are a member of the forum.

I had one prob during my ownership of martian , D

It's great to hear of these first hand experiences.

Many years ago I saw a number of in service Martians, beside the road, at intervals, along the A303 all appeared to be suffering from overheating with clouds of steam coming from the front end. It was a hot summers day but it wasn't that hot.

Heres two photos i took back in the 1970s at the HCV run, this one was captured and i hope still around in as good condition now

cheers

Les

Cor ! that does look nice. Am I the only one to think old lorries look better in black and white. Two more brilliant photographs, thanks Les.

and there she is at war and peace

Pete, thanks very much. Yes, I do know of this one but didn't make the connection with you. What a beauty ! One of the best ones out there. Thanks for posting these wonderful 'photos. (Got any more pix that could be posted ? Cheers)

I will have to get it fixed won't I?

We've no doubt you will anyway but you're right.... that's a very inspirational photograph.

For those that may not know, Stan passed away on the 2nd of November 2008. Rather fittingly the order of service had a picture of Stan in front of the restored Constructor.

Sad news. I only had a very brief contact with Stan many years ago. He was charming to chat to and full of amusing stories of his days in heavy haulage.

there all mk1s first one is a gs cargo 27cl51 as seen on some early picks second one is a mk1 with a mk3 atlas and the other one is a short wheel base bridging lorry but its just a chassis cab at the moment

Thank you for your reply.

What a nice collection ! It sounds as though the gs cargo has fixed, and not drop, sides. Is it 6 X 4 like the one below ?

The SWB chassis cab is a bridging truck ? That's interesting. I didn't know they produced a SWB bridging truck. Most SWB lorries with a winch were gun tractors. You can't beat a MK 1 Militant. Best drive there is out on the road. A really nice lorry in every way.

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.

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.

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 ?

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 ?

And it wouldn't surprise me if it was more successful than the 6x4 Militant gun tractor due to less weight on the front axle and a shorter wheelbase and more appropriate gearing (maybe).

People do tell me....and I'm sure it's true... that the Matador had some special qualities that couldn't be defined in cold engineering terms that made it such a successful design. There does appear to be an 'X' factor that makes everything gell and work really well in some vehicles and not others..

I think the highly successfull Pioneer was 6x4 Tom ! :cool2:

Thanks for pointing that out.

That information came from a book I bought, but it isn't substantiated by any reference to a contract number, chassis number, Registration, date or any other corroberating evidence so it may not actually have been built.

I bought a book like that once. Even the photographs had been cropped.:-(

if the chassis number is anything to go by.. 0859 067 ? BTW, does anyone know how many mk1 militants were built?

Over the entire span of production, of all types, I have heard a figure of roughly 2,500 in total. Gun tractors I have heard of a total of around 350. That's what I've heard. John Harrington, Military Vehicle Officer, of the AEC Society may have a better idea than me.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Austin-Champ-Daimler-Ferret-432-Speedo-Instruments-FV_W0QQitemZ160309398947QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Cars_Parts_Vehicles_Other_Vehicle_Parts_Accessories_ET?hash=item160309398947&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A10%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

Well spotted sirhc.

. What was the problem with them?

Quite a lot apparently. I think someone like radiomike7 may be able to answer your question in some detail if he sees your post. I think he once owned one.

I'm waiting for someone to point out to me that the highly successful Pioneer gun tractor was 6 X 4.

for that 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.

 

Is everybody happy now?

What about the 6 X 4 Gun Tractor ? Would that have been intended for use away from the battle area ?

After about 1958 all Militants were 6 X 6 whatever role they were intended for.

the reason I asked, is that having driven my 6x4 militant in the snow, on any more than a slight lock and the steering was gone, which resulted in the miltant going where it wanted. To be clearer with the original question... was the 6x4 planned originally but replaced by the 6x6? - or did they start off with both variants from the word go? (I'm sure I posted this originally in 'I may be stupid but', but perhaps I'm mistaken, or was it moved to a more appropriate section?) Either way, I'd be interested to read your views.

All of the early examples of militants that I'm aware of were 6 X 4. I've been told many times at shows by ex servicemen that the 6 X 4 performed very poorly off road. Loosing the steering on slippery roads was one of the faults I've been told about. I'm not sure if the 6 X 6 was available at the very beginning of production....I have got a list of all chassis numbers somewhere that would give us some idea. I'll see if I can find this list.

no holes under the bumper, good at least that's not something else missing to add to the wish/to do list!

That's good news. I think your lorry must be one of the earliest, if not the earliest, example around.

Why did they only make one 6x6 Antar?

Why was that Mike ? Hardly an off road vehicle but one might have thought it would assist traction and be useful in some situations.

why did they make a 6x4 militant? Surely a 6x6 is better?

A big mistake. They were always getting bogged down and then had to be recovered by their older sister Matty. Anyway, that's what I've been told by ex service men who were around at the time. Why ? because the people who take these decisions live in offices and know the least about what is required by the blokes who have to actually operate this stuff.

just looking at the militant photo's again... should mine have headlight protectors (or are they steps?)

I've seen pictures of very early Militants that didn't have any. They're headlight protectors not steps. If you can see two holes, about 1/2" dia, for bolts on the lower front bumper, inline with the headlights, then maybe your lorry once had them. They'd be very easy to make if you had a pattern.