British lorries in World War 2

[alejandro_]

I will get the ball rolling with these comments from another thread and some questions:

- How did the British lorries compare to German types?
- How many lorries were captured by the Germans in 1940? How many did they use in other campaigns (Greece, USSR)?

@Stuart Galbraith
The problem with the Nazi's was that they didnt have good trucks. There was, in my mind at least, little wrong with the Opel Blitz. But rather than do what the Americans did, standardize on one, maybe 2 different designs, they had about 3 or 4 different designs for a single role, all with different engines, drivetrains, probably even tyres knowing the silly buggers. For short wars there was no problem with. For trying to defeat the Soviet Union, it clearly was.

I submit, rather than seeing this as an advantage, it gave them lots of trucks, wholly dissimilar with anything else they operated. They might pat themselves ont he back about that. I doubt they were doing it in 1942 when they suddenly found the nearest Halfords was well over a thousand miles away.

@mkenny
In the desert British trucks  outperformed their German counterparts. The entire Lorry fleet of the BEF was captured in 1940 and along with Greece and desert captures provided a vast increase in German wheeled vehicle stocks, second only to the French trucks ( the entire French Army 1940 truck fleet) and  some of those trucks were still in use in 1945. Without French and British truck and tank captures the Germany army would have been buggered in 1941.  The increase in German Panzer Divisions was only accomplished by reducing the establishment of current division (to form new ones) and providing them with captured transport. If you check German wheeled vehicle losses in 1941-42 you will see how badly it went for them.

@Stuart Galbraith
'The entire lorry fleet of the BEF' was captured yes. How much was that actually operable? Not much. Not when you consider how much of it was parked in the sea as a jetty, and there were standing orders to drop the coolant and oil and destroy the engines. Yes, I dont doubt being creative people the Germans were able to fix some. But I would argue that it was French lorries, which were able to be adapted to carry twice their designed cargo, that were the real price, and seem to have been far more used when looking at photos than anything the British left them with.

And some of it was not of great value. I remember reading that in 1939 the British Army were so desperate for trucks, they bought up a job lot of Bedford trucks that were designed for local councils. Had a tipper body for dumping tarmac or salt. Not much cargo space in them either.

As for outperformed, If you have sources im happy to be convinced. You have have your work cut out however.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I'll ask this question, what was wrong with the Opel Blitz? It struck me as a most adaptable machine.

[Sardaukar]

Didn't Brits have ridiculous amount of different models in service in 1944?

Plus lot had to be recalled because of piston problems.  IIRC, I did read that from Max Hasting's book, so might not be 100% accurate. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, quite a few. Quite a lot of Canadian Chevrolets which werent too bad IIRC.

The thing everyone forgets, Britain had the only fully mechanized Army in Europe in 1940. But to do that, quite a lot of it from what ive read was not very good. Lots of strange things like buying up Bedford tipper lorries, built for council fleets. Ideal for carrying ammunition!

 

[R011]

There weer three different major Canadian military truck makers.  Ford and GM used common cab-over engine bodies and some other parts while Dodge were cab behind engine.  There wer also several manufacturers and designs of US trucks. Ford, GM, Dodge, International and a fewothers.  They did try to standardize types within theatres, though.

[Rick]

27 minutes ago, R011 said:

There weer three different major Canadian military truck makers.  Ford and GM used common cab-over engine bodies and some other parts while Dodge were cab behind engine.  There wer also several manufacturers and designs of US trucks. Ford, GM, Dodge, International and a fewothers.  They did try to standardize types within theatres, though.

Always wondered the advantages and disadvantages of the cab over the engine vs the cab behind the engine.

Thanks.

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, quite a few. Quite a lot of Canadian Chevrolets which werent too bad IIRC.

Canadian Ford and Chevy/GM all as CMPs. Canadian Military Pattern. Those ranged from  8cwt 4x2s (C or F8s) to 3 ton 6x6 C60Xs. There were also Armored versions the C15TA in several configurations, and a few Armored cars. The Fox was patterned after the Humber and the Otter was sorta kind patterened after the Humber LRC but on a much taller chassis.

The CMPs had 3 cab patterns. Cabs 11, 12 and 13. The 13s had the most foot room which was why there were changes. 

Cab 11 C30 (image over from MLU, Hattip to GWB!)


Cab 12


Cab 13



C60X Workshop truck
http://www.maquetland.com/upload/phototeque/images/3704/chevrolet_c60_x_overloon_avant_gauche.jpg

There was also a CMP FAT. 

[rmgill]

1 minute ago, Rick said:

Always wondered the advantages and disadvantages of the cab over the engine vs the cab behind the engine.

Thanks.

Shorter wheel base for same configuration of bed size. Better approach angle, depends on axle placement but the CMP's put it right out there with the bumper just above the front wheels. The driver has a better, direct view of what is directly in front of his truck, easier for driving off road. 

The negative is less foot/leg room, more cramped cab, the driver is RIGHT over the wheels so if there's a mine explosion he's getting much of the blast. Not that being 2-3 feet behind that location is that much better. 

[R011]

Just now, Rick said:

Always wondered the advantages and disadvantages of the cab over the engine vs the cab behind the engine.

Thanks.

The advantage for the British mandated specs for the CMP program was that it meant shorter trucks that would be easier to load on ships.  The disadvantage was that it made for cramped cabs.  There's a video of Nick Moran trying and mostly failing to fit in one.

The US decided to keep the familiar conventional layouts that American truck makers then preferred and seemed to be able to ship them everywhere.  YMMV?

[rmgill]

11 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

Didn't Brits have ridiculous amount of different models in service in 1944?

Plus lot had to be recalled because of piston problems.  IIRC, I did read that from Max Hasting's book, so might not be 100% accurate. 

The US was pretty prolific in makes and models too. 

AEC, Albion, Austin, Bantam, Bedford, Chevy, Commer, Diamond T (Purchased), Ford, Fordson, Leyland, Morris, Scammel and Hillman/Austin for those little Tilly PUs. 

The US had Dodge, Studebaker, Mack, Autocar, Diamond T, Pacific, Brockway, orb itt, Ward LaFrance, White and International Harvester and a few others I'm probably missing. I have a book around here for Signal Corps Trucks that are it's own study in patterns and truck configurations with lot of panel vans that could double as ice cream trucks. 

[RichTO90]

11 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

Plus lot had to be recalled because of piston problems.  IIRC, I did read that from Max Hasting's book, so might not be 100% accurate. 

The business of the "piston problems" is an anecdote, which of course meant that Hastings', as a good little reporter, had to repeat without analysis. It all comes from a single entry in the Administrative History of 21st Army Group, for the period 26 July - 26 Sep 44. It said,

"(c) vehicle maintenance:
During this intense period of activity the maintenance of vehicles inevitably had to be reduced, but partly due to the majority of vehicles being new no serious ill effects ensued. A major fault occurred in the engines of K-5 4x4, three-ton Austins, 1,400 of which, as well as all the replacement engines, were found to be defective and to have piston trouble."

Okay, sounds bad, except 21 Army Group as of 4 September had 1,700 reserve lorries, so losing 1,400 to bad pistons would not be the end of the world. It also begs the question if all 1,400 broke down at once? If so, there is no evidence of that, but instead, it appears about 150 in workshops for the week ending 28 September (out of 4,362 'B' Vehicles repaired that week, having pistons and rings replaced, and 80 more the following week. To put it all into perspective, 21 Army Group workshops repaired an average of 14,000 vehicles per month, so 1,400 of a single type was an inconvenience rather than a catastrophe.

[rmgill]

3 minutes ago, R011 said:

The US decided to keep the familiar conventional layouts that American truck makers then preferred and seemed to be able to ship them everywhere.  YMMV?

They had a number of cab over designs in fact. 

Mack MJU 5 ton 4x4 for hauling pontoons. 700 built, 119 sent to the British. 



Autocar version without the tool box. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Autocar_U7144-T_tractor_truck_from_TM9-2800_(1943).jpg

Signal Corps variant for hauling a van. 



The Pacific Car and Foundry M26 and M26 A1s were certainly cab over designs. With a crew cab configuration at that. 



The British Army had some long nose trucks. 

The Scammel Pioneer in wrecker and semi-tractor variants comes to mind. Very capable off road. 


Bedfords were conventional layouts. So were the Morris Commercials. 
Bedford MWD 15cwt 


Morris Commercial 8cwt iinm. 

[rmgill]

A Chevy CMP C8 or C15 is on my short list of things to buy. So is a Scammell, probably the post war incarnation, just dressed up to look Wartime. Pioneer vs Explorer. 

The Scammels were very capable set of trucks. 
 

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, of all our WW2 trucks, I would guess the Scammels were among the best. In fact they seem to have been remarkably reliable. Many of them were used by our fairground owners to haul the rides well into the 1980's. Sometimes reengined, sometimes with the original engines.

AEC seem to have built some good trucks took, the Matador series seem to have been in service with the RAF at least for 2 decades.

Its been often reported that it may have been as well that we left so much kit at Dunkirk, because so much of it was rubbish. Thats a little harsh, though I have to admit I was shocked in 2002 when I saw what was presumably the last surviving command vehicle from that era. It was an Austin 7 car, with the back seat taken out and a No 19 wireless set installed. Whilst one might question the need for so many different types, one can look at the Horch or the Steyr, and say that at least the Germans had command vehicles that were considerably better built (though admitted, probably nowhere near as light).

[rmgill]

Less complexity to make a humber heavy command than an Auto Union Horch. The Humber heavy is basically an estate wagon. 

The Aussie CMPS have been knocking around in Austrailia in re-powered forms for decades. 

[mkenny]

On 10/9/2023 at 12:03 PM, Sardaukar said:

 

Plus lot had to be recalled because of piston problems.  IIRC, I did read that from Max Hasting's book, so might not be 100% accurate. 

As already explained another of those fictional claims bandied about in the post-war period and used by those who routinely denigrate/downplay the Commonwealth  contribution to NWE 1944-45 to reinforce their fictions

It is mentioned thus in  Administrative History of 21st Army Group which was published in 1945/46

 

 The Administrative History of the Operations of 21 Army Group, '  pg 47

During this intense period of activity the maintenance of vehicles inevitably had to be reduced, but partly due to the majority of vehicles being new no serious ill effects ensued. A major fault occurred in the engines of K-5 4x4, three-ton Austins, 1,400 of which, as well as all the replacement engines, were found to be defective and to have piston trouble."

 

It was Wilmot who reworded it and gave it legs. 

Chester Wilmot  Struggle For Europe pg 472:

This gain, however, was almost offset by the alarming discovery that the engines of 1,400 British-built three-tonners (and all the replacement engines for this particular model) had faulty pistons which rendered them useless. 1    these trucks could have delivered to the Belgian border another 800 tons a day, sufficient to maintain two divisions. 

1  The Administrative History of the Operations of 21 Army Group, '  pg 47

 

Manna for the Monty Bashers!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2023 by mkenny

[Argus]

I believe the piston issue was down to dirty saucepans.... all that scrap aluminum collected during the BoB/Blitz had to go somewhere and B/C echelon vehicle engines was about the least worse use for what amounted to many hundreds of tons of mystery metal. Can't remember where I read it though...

AEC were awesome, stodgy coachwork but otherwise top notch.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im not entirely sure they ever used it. They had a look through  all the ironmongery, and just dumped it at sea. I had assumed they did the same to the Aluminium?

Yeah, Ive always liked AEC. They build this, among other things.