Chev 4WD

Here's a picture of an old Chev 4WD military vehicle we have. I have been told they were known as a 'Yankee Joe'.
No real reason for posting, just for interest:

I always thought that model was called a G.I. Joe I think Chev was the only company that made the 4x4 in this configuration

I think the exoression GI Joe refers to American soldiers though I have heard it used for the Chev. The more common description in my experience is Yankee Joe which of course would not likely be an American nickname but a British one for the truck.

A very common vehicle. You can still see hundreds around USA still being used as snow ploughs, bush firebrigade etc where only occasional use is required.

The entire US Army 4x4 fleet of this size 4x4 truck were Dodges in the late 30's. Ford made the GTB of the same size and capacity but in nowhere near the Chev numbers.

Here is the Diamond T

Hi Lang,
Thanks for your help with the trucks ID. I have changed the erroneous Studebaker label.

If you look for Kurt Johansens book, "Son of the red centre". there is some interesting reading on 2 Diamond T trucks he bought after WW2. What an amazing life, making vehicles, & just making do to survive.

These 6x6 military vehicles were built by both General Motors (GMC) and Studebaker. The only way I could tell the difference was to look at the engine. The initial contracts went to Studebaker but when they could not supply them in large enough numbers, the American Government gave contracts to General Motors.

I drove several of the 6x6 Studebakers in the early 1960's. There were also 6x4 versions (non-driven front axle) and some with single tyres on the rear bogie. Many examples are still in use in many countries around the world. Not a bad effort for a vehicle that was built in the 1940's with a design life of six months or one thousand miles, whichever came first.

Morris.

Morris

I think you will find the GMC and Studebaker are pretty easy to tell apart when side by side.

The GMC has an upright windscreen, round guards and round slope to the radiator while the Studebaker has a very sporty sloping windscreen, flat mudguards and flat on the radiator.

This is a short wheelbase GMC

This is a Studebaker - a really nice looking truck.

I think the 'throwaway" truck and jeep myth is just that. These trucks were the best that money could buy with the latest long lasting technology available. You only have to look at the quality of build beside civil vehicles at the time to see they were at the cutting edge. Modifications and new models came out every week to keep these vehicles the best they could be.

The manufacturers made a killing operating on a "cost plus usually 10%" basis. There is no public servant accountant smart enough to ever discover fault in what GM, Ford, Chrysler etc accounts department said in their bills what their cost of manufacture was.

No army could operate with cheap throwaway vehicles - just what you need is half your trucks fallen apart on the battlefield and half your supply line occupied bringing up replacements. They were the best, just ask the farmers, contractors, timber haulers etc who flogged these vehicles for twenty or more years after the war while going through two or three new models of civilian truck working beside them at the same time.

Lang

While the trucks weren't designed to be throw-a-way in design, there was some political connection.

Most of the US trucks that came here were under a "Lend - Lease" arrangement with the US Govt. It was intended they would be returned at the end of the war or scrapped. However, after the war a deal was brokered so that they could stay, as long as they remained under government (federal, state, or local) ownership for a certain time.

Beaver

The Lend Lease deals, particularly concerning Australia are more than a little complicated. I will have to really study it some day to get a full picture

The Lend Lease scheme came about because at the start of the war the Americans demanded full payment for everything the British bought. It was not too long until all the British gold in Fort Knox was shifted to the US side of the room (including most of the Australian stocks as well committed by a subservient dominion government). Britain was bankrupt!

Against all the wishes of the American politicians Churchill had his most important coup of the whole war - he convinced Roosevelt to go out on a limb and rent the stuff they needed on the never never plan (Lend Lease). It took Britain 50 years to finally clear the debt.

Australia was only partially caught up in the Lend Lease operation because a big proportion of our stuff was actually paid for because we had managed to hide a few sheckles from the Poms. Just because trucks were known as Lend Lease Chevs etc does not certainly mean they actually were such - they may have been delivered to an Australian cash order.

Once the Americans got here they started "Reverse Lend Lease" when stuff from Australia was supplied to the American forces balancing the account considerably.

As you say the politics, trade-offs and international wheeling and dealing is probably still not fully understood today.

As an aside, the Australian Studebakers were delivered to a proper Australian commercial order not a LL deal. They arrived too late for use and were mothballed, only being put into service 15 years later as the GMC and Blitz fleet were wearing out. The Internationals were coming on line at that time so a lot of almost new Studebakers were sold at auction through the 60's.

Lang

I think??? Fairymead Mill (Bundaberg) ran a fleet of these old Diamonds pulling ancient close bogey trailers in the 60's.
They looked a really BIG truck but on closer inspection they weren't.
Puny springs, prop shafts, chassis etc but then I doubt they were ever rated for the 34t GCW they pulled.
Rag top, LHD, painfully slow, freezing cold in Winter and so hot in Summer some drivers would remove the top and fold the screen down which looked pretty cool.
They had a mechanical hand poking out the right side and was operated from way over by the driver on the left.
I think?? they were supercharged Cummins powered and had a lot of very slow cogs.
The company ran them on 825 tyres which gave the extra traction required to pull up off the ferry at low tide after crossing the river.
In the 70's, Volvo's sales did a top job and sold them a fleet of G88's?
Not enough suspension travel on the drive plus gearing too tall at low tide to get up off the ferry, embarrassing.