More pictures, less politics - 194x GMC & International 2 1-2 Ton Deuce- &-A-Half or 6 X 6 General Purpose Truck svr (2008 Summer Motor Fest) CKi.jpg 751.64 KBKB

Pictures shot during the Summer Motor Fest car show at Greenfield
Village in Dearborn, MI. There was little or no information available
on the many WWII and later military vehicles in the exhibit, so I'm
making a best guess as to the IDs. Corrections would be appreciated.


--
HP, aka Jerry

"That's all I have to say about that" - Forrest Gump

<HEMI-Powered > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Pictures shot during the Summer Motor Fest car show at Greenfield
> Village in Dearborn, MI. There was little or no information available
> on the many WWII and later military vehicles in the exhibit, so I'm
> making a best guess as to the IDs. Corrections would be appreciated.
>
>

I think it is a GMC CCKW
http://www.cckw.org/

Jonno

<HEMI-Powered > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Pictures shot during the Summer Motor Fest car show at Greenfield
> Village in Dearborn, MI. There was little or no information available
> on the many WWII and later military vehicles in the exhibit, so I'm
> making a best guess as to the IDs. Corrections would be appreciated.
>
>
Yep its a GMC CCKW 353
Here's the same truck on: http://www.cckw.org/cckw_353.htm owned by Greg
Bates, Blackwater, Missouri
Well it has the same number on the hood

Jonno

Jonno added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

>
> <HEMI-Powered > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Pictures shot during the Summer Motor Fest car show at
>> Greenfield Village in Dearborn, MI. There was little or no
>> information available on the many WWII and later military
>> vehicles in the exhibit, so I'm making a best guess as to the
>> IDs. Corrections would be appreciated.
>>
>>
>
> I think it is a GMC CCKW
> http://www.cckw.org/
>
Could well be, Jonno, thanks for the info and link. When I was
Googling and also trying to compare this truck with the only a
couple of photos of my father's Marine version 6x6, I noticed a
number of differences between GMC and International. Also, the
the model "CCKW" is somewhat standard for these trucks but also
varies according to manufacturer, date of build, the particular
service buying it, and it's intended purpose.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

Jonno added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> Yep its a GMC CCKW 353
> Here's the same truck on: http://www.cckw.org/cckw_353.htm
> owned by Greg Bates, Blackwater, Missouri
> Well it has the same number on the hood
>
Sure looks the same to me! Thanks, Jonno. Please see my other
comments to you and Doby. Also, take a look at the two attached
snapshots of my father's Marine trucks. They look different to me
both from each other and these Army trucks, and are clearly not the
same truck as they have different numbers on the front bumper. I do
vividly recall my father saying that all the trucks he drover were
Internationals, can't recall if he ever commented about GMC at all.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...
> Jonno added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> Yep its a GMC CCKW 353
>> Here's the same truck on: http://www.cckw.org/cckw_353.htm
>> owned by Greg Bates, Blackwater, Missouri
>> Well it has the same number on the hood
>>
> Sure looks the same to me! Thanks, Jonno. Please see my other
> comments to you and Doby. Also, take a look at the two attached
> snapshots of my father's Marine trucks. They look different to me
> both from each other and these Army trucks, and are clearly not the
> same truck as they have different numbers on the front bumper. I do
> vividly recall my father saying that all the trucks he drover were
> Internationals, can't recall if he ever commented about GMC at all.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry
>
> Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet
>

I was checking on the Greg Bates truck and it looks as though he may have
sold it in 2006, which of course may account for its slightly changed looks
in your latest photos. As for the year can't tell you but I would guess WW2
years. I checked Greg Bates out on Google and got this:
http://tinyurl.com/6oehts So I guess you could phone him and get the year
and who owns it now if you really want to know :-)

Now, as for the trucks that your Dad is in front of in your photos, They are
International M-5H-6, 2.5 ton soft top trucks. It appears they were made in
both cab and soft top varieties. From what I can determine from the
internet, the M-5H-6 was the was USN and USMC version of the M-5-6 and
apparently exclusively fabricated for them.
The following is from various web sites but slightly altered by me for
clarification.

The International Harvester MM-5H-6 was intended to be equivalent to the
CCKW and US6 2 1/2 ton, 6x6 trucks for military purposes. It was used almost
exclusively by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps during WW II. Although quite
similar in function and appearance, there are many small differences. To
distinguish the M-5H-6, the visual clues are a one piece windshield (on the
soft top version) and about two dozen louvered ventilation slits in the
engine compartment side panels (vs twelve on the CCKW and none on the
US6).( The headlight protective grilles are also distinctive when compared
to other makes and are squarer) More significant for military operations,
the M-5H-6 rear end had the Hendrickson walking beam suspension and Thornton
locking differentials making this truck a much better off-road performer
than its deuce cousins, vital for the Marines when they encountered beaches
and bogs all over the Pacific Theater in WW II.

Body variants included:

Cargo (long 169 in. and short 149 in. wheelbase)
Dump (short 149 in. wheelbase)
Tanker, fuel
Tractor
Wrecker

Years of production: 1941 - 1945
6x6 2,5-ton truck
Overall production: 40.000 units
Engine: 95hp/2600rpm, 6-cyl, 5220cc (318.5 cu in)
Bore/Stroke: 98,42/114,30 mm
Length: 6125mm, width: 2230mm, height: 2800mm (with canvas)
Road clearance: 245mm (front axle); wheelbase: 3790mm (1120mm between rear
axles)
Gearbox: 5x2 speeds
Weight: 5400 kg
Maximum speed: 73 km/h
Tyres: 7,50-20 inches
Fuel tank capacity: 61 gallon (150 Ltr.)
Fuel consumption: 43,0 Ltr./100km

Hope that helps
Jonno

Jonno added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> I was checking on the Greg Bates truck and it looks as though
> he may have sold it in 2006, which of course may account for
> its slightly changed looks in your latest photos. As for the
> year can't tell you but I would guess WW2 years. I checked
> Greg Bates out on Google and got this:
> http://tinyurl.com/6oehts So I guess you could phone him and
> get the year and who owns it now if you really want to know
> :-)
>
> Now, as for the trucks that your Dad is in front of in your
> photos, They are International M-5H-6, 2.5 ton soft top
> trucks. It appears they were made in both cab and soft top
> varieties. From what I can determine from the internet, the
> M-5H-6 was the was USN and USMC version of the M-5-6 and
> apparently exclusively fabricated for them. The following is
> from various web sites but slightly altered by me for
> clarification.

How do you know that stuff, Jonno?! Especially where you're from,
I am impressed!

> The International Harvester MM-5H-6 was intended to be
> equivalent to the CCKW and US6 2 1/2 ton, 6x6 trucks for
> military purposes. It was used almost exclusively by the U.S.
> Navy and Marine Corps during WW II. Although quite similar in
> function and appearance, there are many small differences. To
> distinguish the M-5H-6, the visual clues are a one piece
> windshield (on the soft top version) and about two dozen
> louvered ventilation slits in the engine compartment side
> panels (vs twelve on the CCKW and none on the US6).( The
> headlight protective grilles are also distinctive when
> compared to other makes and are squarer) More significant for
> military operations, the M-5H-6 rear end had the Hendrickson
> walking beam suspension and Thornton locking differentials
> making this truck a much better off-road performer than its
> deuce cousins, vital for the Marines when they encountered
> beaches and bogs all over the Pacific Theater in WW II.
>
> Body variants included:
>
> Cargo (long 169 in. and short 149 in. wheelbase)
> Dump (short 149 in. wheelbase)
> Tanker, fuel
> Tractor
> Wrecker
>
> Years of production: 1941 - 1945
> 6x6 2,5-ton truck
> Overall production: 40.000 units
> Engine: 95hp/2600rpm, 6-cyl, 5220cc (318.5 cu in)
> Bore/Stroke: 98,42/114,30 mm
> Length: 6125mm, width: 2230mm, height: 2800mm (with canvas)
> Road clearance: 245mm (front axle); wheelbase: 3790mm (1120mm
> between rear axles)
> Gearbox: 5x2 speeds
> Weight: 5400 kg
> Maximum speed: 73 km/h
> Tyres: 7,50-20 inches
> Fuel tank capacity: 61 gallon (150 Ltr.)
> Fuel consumption: 43,0 Ltr./100km
>
> Hope that helps
> Jonno

Fantastic narrative, Jonno, much appreciated! All I could see was
the really obvious stuff, but then, I've never made a effort to
learn about these trucks. Now that I look at the picture you
attached, it's much easier to see the difference. Again, thanks.
>
> begin 666 International M5-H-6.jpg
>
> Attachment decoded: International M5-H-6.jpg
> `
> end
>
> begin 666 International M5-H-6 FIRE TRUCK 6 CYL F52 FULLER 5
> SPEED MILITARY 2.5 TON.jpg
>
> Attachment decoded: International M5-H-6 FIRE TRUCK 6 CYL F52
> FULLER 5 SPEED MILITARY 2.5 TON.jpg `
> end
>
>



--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...
> Jonno added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
> How do you know that stuff, Jonno?! Especially where you're from,
> I am impressed!
><snipped>

Well I cheat. That is, I found this web site some time ago that deals with
WW2 Trucks.
http://www.o5m6.de/ForeignTrucks.html If you scroll down you will see the
US trucks.
Albeit it is strickly about Russia but it has one of the best sets of
drawings of WW2 vehicles that I have found. It also seems what was used
elsewhere was generally sent to Russia as well.
These days with computers, living 12,000 miles from the main part of the
world is no hinderance to finding info :-)
As far as the International trucks were concerned, once I had the model
number and confirmed that they were indeed the ones in your Father's
pictures it was fairly easy to Google information about them.

>> <snipped>
>> Hope that helps
>> Jonno
>
> Fantastic narrative, Jonno, much appreciated! All I could see was
> the really obvious stuff, but then, I've never made a effort to
> learn about these trucks. Now that I look at the picture you
> attached, it's much easier to see the difference. Again, thanks.
>>


As for additional information I found the following statement which seems to
clarify why they went with soft tops:
"In an attempt to save steel, space and weight, the U.S. military decided
the replacement of the common metal cabs with soft cabs from late 1942 on."
So its likely the trucks in your Father's photos are late 42 to 1945 when
production ceased. I have also read that in Russia they weren't very
impressed with the "tropical tops" and demanded full cab trucks, which
apparently were sent after their complaint. So it appears that even after
the 42 decision to make soft tops, full metal cabs were still being
produced.
I'm not really all that much into trucks either but I am into WW2 history
and I also have a friend who is heavily into WW2 models and war gaming. I
try to never cease in sucking up information but I have probably forgotten
far more than I have ever remembered

Cheers

Jonno

Jonno added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

>> How do you know that stuff, Jonno?! Especially where you're
>> from, I am impressed!
>><snipped>
>
> Well I cheat. That is, I found this web site some time ago
> that deals with WW2 Trucks.
> http://www.o5m6.de/ForeignTrucks.html If you scroll down
> you will see the US trucks.

Never mind, I'm still impressed for someone not living in the
U.S. that is this good with WWII trucks. Many thanks, again,
Jonno.

> Albeit it is strickly about Russia but it has one of the best
> sets of drawings of WW2 vehicles that I have found. It also
> seems what was used elsewhere was generally sent to Russia as
> well. These days with computers, living 12,000 miles from the
> main part of the world is no hinderance to finding info :-)
> As far as the International trucks were concerned, once I had
> the model number and confirmed that they were indeed the ones
> in your Father's pictures it was fairly easy to Google
> information about them.

I said I Googled some for this but gave up somewhat quickly when
it became apparent that the number of variations of these
vehicles varied by war, WWII vs. Korea, branch of service, Army
vs. Marines vs. Navy, theatre of operation, Pacific vs. Europe,
purpose, and battle or time within a war. I could easily see that
the GMC and Internationals were quite different and that there
were apparently large differences depending on WWII or later and
even within WWII plus the apparent differences between the
Marines and the Army. So, because of the Law of Dimishing Returns
kicking in, I just caved and double-named this "thing." But,
thanks to you and Doby, I'm much wiser now. Gott grab all these
great text posts for posterity. Thanks again.

>> Fantastic narrative, Jonno, much appreciated! All I could see
>> was the really obvious stuff, but then, I've never made a
>> effort to learn about these trucks. Now that I look at the
>> picture you attached, it's much easier to see the difference.
>
> As for additional information I found the following statement
> which seems to clarify why they went with soft tops:
> "In an attempt to save steel, space and weight, the U.S.
> military decided the replacement of the common metal cabs with
> soft cabs from late 1942 on." So its likely the trucks in your
> Father's photos are late 42 to 1945 when production ceased. I
> have also read that in Russia they weren't very impressed with
> the "tropical tops" and demanded full cab trucks, which
> apparently were sent after their complaint. So it appears that
> even after the 42 decision to make soft tops, full metal cabs
> were still being produced.

I suppose this also makes great sense since much of the Pacific
War was fought on tropical or near tropical islands. I believe
the two pictures I posted were taken in Hawaii where the Marines
were stationed between invasions and did all of their training.
It's hot there, too. Hand-written notes on many of my father's
snapshots that my mother kept in an album during the war that
survived until she passed away in 2002 indicate that the pics I
posted may have been taken just before my father shipped out for
Saipan and Tinian, which began in early June, 1944. He was still
there in late October, 1944 according to notes on many photos.
Now, Iwo Jima was much father north, only about 800 miles from
Japan, and was fought during late February and March of 1945. For
much of the battle the Marines wore field jackets. I only have a
few pics from Iwo because of the chaos of the almost 5-week
battle. Again, my father was there for a long time, not leaving
until (I think) May 21, 1945. So, I'm not sure if his Iwo truck
was an open cab or closed cab. All I know is that it had a
rotating mount .50 caliber on the truck bed behind the driver.

The soil of many of the Pacific islands was soft and coral based
but Iwo was almost entirely volcanic. Originally my father began
training as a tank driver but was pulled out and sent to truck
driver school when the Marines discovered that tanks and tropical
jungles don't mix, but many tanks were used on Iwo. Maybe that
was lucky for him as quite a few tank crews lost their lives very
quickly.

One of these days, certainly after I get my broken PC with my
scanner attached fixed, I need to scan the hundreds of non-
personal photos. I think there's more pictures of trucks the
Marines used as well as photos of the islands and even post-war
Japan.

> I'm not really all that much into trucks either but I am into
> WW2 history and I also have a friend who is heavily into WW2
> models and war gaming. I try to never cease in sucking up
> information but I have probably forgotten far more than I have
> ever remembered
>
I'm certainly interested in military history and especially WWII
for obvious reasons but I don't consider myself any sort of war
history buff no matter how many books or dramatized History
Channel episodes I've seen. WWII was just plain too large a
conflict when considered in its totality for anyone not really
into history to try to absorb. Even Korea is difficult to
understand even though it was shorter and fought on a much
smaller land mass.

Interesting discussion. Now I need to 'fess up a little. I didn't
really intend to post these truck pictures here as they really
don't fit this NG (but are allowed if kept to a minimum). As I
said, my PC is kaput and I mis-setup Rocketfuel trying to post
the a.p.b.military and instead posted here. That also explains
why the preamble to the pictures said "more pictures, less
politics" because the latter has been pretty divisive in
"military" in recent weeks.

Have a great week, Jonno!

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet