On 21, November 1950, the Ordnance Technical Committee met and discussed the requirements for a 1/4 ton truck to replace the M-38. In the OCM report (item 33521 T-1110) it was stated that the M-38 "proved to be unacceptable as a replacement for the old standard 1/4 ton, 4x4, truck, principally because the M-38 was inferior in performance to both the old model and the commercial jeep.". It was also stated that "technological developments have occurred which should permit the design of a much better vehicle." The committee then recommended "That Project No. TT3-732 (DA 546-09-020) for a Phase I study for the development of a vehicle design, be approved." This vehicle was designated "TRUCK , UTILITY, 1/4 TON, 4X4, T122"
Ford Motor Company was awarded contract No. DA-20-018-ORD-11283 in 1951 for the design of a new 1/4 truck. I have a original copy of "DESIGN STUDY 1/4 TON MILITARY VEHICLE , Ford Motor Company, Jan. 1952" which has a study of a new design 1/4 ton truck with conventional solid axles and a second one with independent wheel suspension. This design study ran for over a ten month period. It is interesting to note the following data listed under "Improved mobility at normal load..." (as compared to the M-38);
Design 1 (solid axles)..............."36 per cent increase in overturning resistance"
"30 per cent increase in body roll resistance"
Design 2 (independent axles)...."62 per cent increase in overturning resistance"
"94 per cent increase in body roll resistance"
The Ordnance Department chose the independent suspension design and Ford was given a contract to build prototypes for testing and development. This development would go on for almost eight years and would in the end produce the M-151 as we know it.
>
>Why did the military (if this can even be answered) give the "A1"
>designation to the new jeep follow-on to the M38? The M38 and the M38A1
>seem like totally different, although evolutionary, body designs.
In the same 1950 OCM report the committee stated "...the M-38 is considered to represent the optimum vehicle attainable without a major redesign of the basic chassis.". The M-38-A1 was a stopgap measure in 1/4 ton truck procurement as the Ord. Dept. really wanted an all new, state of the art, vehicle. Since (in the eyes of the Ord. Dept.) the same chassis was used, with only the body and motor updated, it was considered to be a progression of the original model and given the suffix -A1.
>Was the M38 the follow on to the MB and the GPW?
The M-38 was a "product improved" version of the MB
>What is the civilian/commercial equiv to the MB/GPW? M38?
CJ-2A
Can I presume the commercial equiv to the M38A1 is the CJ-5?
This is correct. The CJ-5 came on the civilian market circa 1954.
>Does anyone know why "they" quit making the CJ-5/CJ-7-style jeeps as they
>were the closest thing to the military jeeps; now they make whatever the
>one is they make which just doesn't seem right - an evolutionary experiment
>gone bad and it spawned all over the place....
The easy answer to this is that the car buying public likes heaters, doors, soft seats, radios, smooth ride, etc.,etc., unlike we military vehicle collectors. The civilian HUMMER is a good example of this.
--Jim
====================================
Jim Gilmore 2565 Wiethoff, Inkster, MI 48141
1-313-561-8826 <voice> * 1-313-730-1652 <fax>
====================================
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.