Does Chieftain Fit Into.... A Ford CMP? 

then when i visit a war museum i will ask the staff "where's the smallest military vehicle you have and may i attempt to fit into it, i'll wave anything off that happens to me"

@@osmacar5331 Try Kubinka. They got Kugelpanzer next to Goliath monster.

@@tokul76 no not going to Russia

@@osmacar5331 why? he's been to Kubinka before, and is employed by a Russian company.

@@osmacar5331 Well, I don't expect you to. You just have to find what Kugelpanzer is and we can argue, if we can fit Chieftain in it or Goliath.

As someone who owns one im pissing myself laughing 🤣 It’s the same grunts & complaints out of anyone that tries to get in it

@@Trucksofwar Sir, you are a physical manifestation of evil!

@llib 🤣 They are horrible ugly little monsters but that’s why we love them

To make matters worse, this example has a battery disconnect switch under the driver's seat. You learn real quick to make sure it's on BEFORE climbing in. Even the small guys can't reach it while sitting in the seat.

@@tpmaybury bit like the battery trap door in the Holden built Chevs. I’m not sure how the hell you’re supposed to access that from inside the truck 🤣

The design team's codename was... The Lollipop Guild.

IMHO it was due to the COMMON malnutrition in those days. It was ca. 100 years ago. There were some rich ppl, but most of ppl was poor as hell.

Here I thought the Lollipop Guild made lollipops, not lorries.

@@bartosza.6187 In Russia? Absolutely. Especially in Soviet Russia. In the United States and the Commonwealth? Absolutely not.

@@The_Crimson_Fucker Well, I still suppose ppl even in USA in those times were smaller. Diet was not balanced with vitamins etc. There was once a matierial in TV about it. Not only in Soviet Russia, but also in many European countries, where ppl were still poor due to non-noble origins...

No not good not good at all considering the engine is 2” from your leg and it’s a bastard to get out of 🤣

in pure military humor i would replace the P with a B....and call it clamped my ba++s

LOL!!!

I’ve got size 11 hooves i have a 13 and drive with one foot slightly behind the other. It’s not so bad because you have to lift your foot to reach the clutch or brake so it’s not like the other foot is in the way

yea same mt grandfather did the same work diver in our dutch aftherwar army

I'm genuinely interested in the different cab designs now, having seen how this one tries (and only partly succeeds) to fit the engine in the cab with the driver.

My nation’s greatest contribution to Allied military vehicles, and it turns out that (the Ford version at least) is almost unusable? I’m just going to have to rethink a lot of core historical beliefs, I think.

@@djmit44 Naw Chieftain is still just a rather large guy

It's still a problem of just getting two feet together side by side. You even hear the museum staffer saying they get small footed folks to drive it.

They’re not so bad bit rough and ready but what do you expect out of a near 80 year old purpose built truck 🙂 I do very much enjoy driving my C60L

Suspicious going in, methinks

Reading the wiki page on them, they had strict dimensions to work within due to the need to send them by ship while the engines they had available were comparatively large US designs. I guess that this was the fundemental issue. It might be worth comparing this cab (Mk. 12?) with the later Mk.13 and see how they changed it.

Brits wanted a 3 ton truck that could be packed on to a ship like sardines that was gas resistant (whatever the hell that meant it’s got no side windows) and could be manufactured by the dominions

@@Trucksofwar Maybe "gas resistant" refers to fuel quality ? Or literal poison gas ? :)

@@gusty9053 literal poison gas. Something about the shape makes them easier to clean the residual poison off of or something along those lines.

Good to know ... i guess :))

And give it a feather throttle.

Kindoff strange because Afrikaners are big people

Most military vehicles are built for the average sized soldier - not for a sasquatch :)

I'm assuming the A38 is something but I don't know what it is 🧐

Oh don't tell me it's a silly English road never mind

Landmines.

There was a special Leprechaun Corps. There unit symbol was a Lucky Charms

Wrong war, but look up the WWI Bantam Division ;-)

Ireland and Nepal.

@@ericgrace9995 the "Ye old woodpeg battalion"

Not that I've got paper evidence but I'd imagine it's in part too that wartime manufacture from companies is more about selling anything and everything that they can and being something that works or is fit for a purpose second. Like that one story of the US buying a few 48 inch wrenches.

I think the issue is more about trying to use geometry to save material rather than the engines being a few tenths of a liter larger. Seems more like they wanted to narrow the cabin going towards the engine to reduce the amount of material needed to form the cab, so it is the lack of width that really is playing havoc more than the lack of depth to the footwell. A bigger engine would be eating into the depth of the well, not the width so much. I also am not sure if the engine being larger was really the issue because while CMP had a 3.9L engine option, just as many had the 3.5L Chevrolet engine, which was almost identical in size to the engines you would find on Austins, Bedfords, and Morris trucks.

@@warriorwolf77 That doesn't make a ton of sense as Ford and GM had plenty of truck designs that could be built with the North American standard engine forward designs, which would have resulted in basically US military trucks but right had drive. The cab forward truck, and still is, much more common in Europe than North America, in fact the original CMP cabs were closely modelled on the trucks already in British Army use.

Position of the engine is also different. European trucks are generally have the engine under the cabin, american trucks have it in front of the cabin. Not sure if it was different back then, but at least today, the actual size of the engine is not drastically different. A modern, average truck will have something like a 10 to 14l diesel engine, whether it's from europe or north america.

@@88porpoise I'm not entirely sure that was meant to be a reply to me but I'll reply anyway as a way to give some context to my original comment. If a company can find a need, want or put either in the mind of the person doing the buying they will. If they can get away with doing it cheaply all the better. If they can fulfill the order just enough for it to be accepted but get it wrong enough for it not to be worth it they will to create repeat business or because as long as they get their cut they don't care. True patriotic companies would sell at a loss or cost but very few if any did. The 48 inch wrenches in my comment were for a single thing, supposedly, bolts used somewhere in Niagara falls, some sort of turbine if I recall. Honestly not much use for them and definitely no need for more than 1. The story could be apocryphal I admit but it's from someone who knew what they were talking about when it comes to war more than you or I. Sorry for making that so long.

the lukewarm Tauntaun or the regular temp. verson?

Well, IIRC Baggins (not to mention Proudfoot) feet where rather fullsized, compared to the rest of the halfling

Even though both GM and Ford helped Germany make trucks as best they could. And successfully sued the US government for millions of dollars in reparations after the war for bombing their German Nazi truck factories.

They drive beautifully actually. Love mine dearly and I’m 6’2”

Because it is. The Canadian Military Pattern rates as one of the most produced trucks in history with over a half million built. They were also built in Australia and India (the Indian ones had wooden cabs).

That’s because it is. You’d be referring to the Cab 12 Quad.

there was a load of trucks that fit under the CMP tag, and they filled every role in the commonwealth armies during WWII and was the crown equivalent to the Dodge and GMC trucks, they were fitted with a variety of cabs over the length of production, always a COE because of tight space restrictions as the allies were sending ships jam packed full of them to North Africa, Burma, and West Europe, some cab designs were better than others, and i get that this very design was not the best for obvious reasons narrow nosed COE cabs will always be a space compromise, even more on CMPs due to using rather wide engines (when factoring the accessories)

@@quentintin1 Ford CMPs were worse because of the V8. Chevy's straight six allowed a bit more room. Of course, you'd only realize that after trying to drive a Ford.

@@tpmaybury the knuckles on my left hand much rather the Chevs engine cover 🤣 Actually the worst I’ve seen is someone bailing out of a Ford with 1st degree burns on his leg because of the bloody engine cover heating up

Exactly! And the 13 next to it to show how they improved over the duration of the war.

Yep that’s standard to allow cab ventilation, they get incredibly hot inside especially the Fords

CMP is Canadian Military Pattern, made by Ford Canada for mostly Commonwealth countries

@@darmun1134, I was making fun because it doesn't seem like they made it easy for the driver. Almost seems like sabatoge.

The Germans bloody adored them 🤣 look at all the Afrika Korp photos there’s bound to be one lurking in the background

Nah. Try a B-17/B-24 ball turret. I am 90% certain that even if you ran him through a blender first, it would be impossible for all of him to fit inside.

They’re British designed Canadian built for the Empire They are right hand drive

Nah they're not that bad, Ive definitely driven worse just don't go in to it expecting a modern car. They're brutish old pigs but they're a hell of a lot of fun

@@Trucksofwar Are you a professional contorsionist or were you driving a CMP with a bigger cab than the type 11?

@@alaingabriel1710 I own a Cab 13 type, they give you just a little bit more space to squeeze in to

The Ontario Regiment Museum has Fords in 11, 12 and 13 cab. All of our Chevys are 13 cab (including the one parked next to this truck that can be seen at the start of the video). As for how they drive - I'll say that they have character. Not really hard as long as you drive it the way it needs to be driven.

Toilet seat cover bruise, sorry.

@@TheChieftainsHatch better that than a garand

Pretty much how it worked in Australia too, Chassis arrived and Holden but bodies on them.

Quads seem a little roomier but the CMP had well and truly taken over by wars end

They’re designed to British specs. All CMP’s are right hand drive Passenger footwell is no better