Jim Gilmore

Could you post the motor number of the original motor of this Weasel? I would like to add it my Weasel data base. It would be great if you could also post a photo of the stenciling on the front of the bow tank. I checked my Archives data base of photos and documents but did not find anything in this vehicle. The fact that the differential is painted OD shows it was rebuilt at one time in the vehicles life. Jim

TT2: Your M-29C was built under US Contract T-12815. I checked my list of National Archives photos and documents but did not find this vehicle. A PM with further info was sent to you. Thank You for the info. Jim

Frank, I can't quite make out the motor number from the photo..... Is it 10150 ? This would be a replacement motor as all T-24/M-29/M-29C motor numbers start with T-24- The date is interesting and it may have been part of the Weasel rebuilding program done during WW II. Jim

Jim D wrote, DIYJ. Your weasel would be an M29. They made 1002 T24s. The actual production of the T-24 ( Weasels with main data plates marked "T 24" ) was 1,000 vehicles. There were 2 pilot vehicles hand assembled before production started. But factory kept the Hull # ust-24-0000. It was actually Hull # UST-24-0001 that the factory kept. I do not believe that T24 hull numbers started at UST-24-0000 but at 0001. Your Weasel is most likely the first production M29 This vehicle would not have been the first M-29. The first vehicle with a main data plate marked "M 29" would have been ORD/MFG # 1003. Jim

Nice job on the restoration of your generator........if your rear generator mount is worn out I have a few new ones for $20.00 USD + shipping........

John, Why did you have a problem finding those Weasel parts? The are clearly in the file drawer filed under "W" ....... 🙂 On the bogie wheel assemblies..for those that are following your excellent restoration.....there is a "nub" or projection near the grease fitting ( shown pointing left in your photo). This is on the later vehicles and not the very early ones . It is to indicate which way they go on the machine as they are offset. All of them on one side should point the same way.......on the drivers side they point to the front of the machine and on the other side ( motor side) they all point to the rear.

I have a WW II ORD document that goes over the interchange GPW transmission parts to Weasel. On of the things it covers is using a GPW cluster gear in the Weasel trans. Additional spaces/thrust washers were needed. I will see if I can find it in my computer and post it here.

John, I was sure you did but just wanted to point it out to anyone else that installs them... 🙂

Jim Wrote, "...All weasels prior to 3102 "did not" have the center floor inspection hole for the trans....." Well....yes and no......Weasels before that did not have the access hole when delivered.......however there was a MWO to add this hole on vehicles that did not have it. A hole was to be cut out and a cover fabricated. Many Weasels had this modification done. M29C3284.....the part number for the Pan ( 952391) is the same in all the ORD 9 part manuals I have including the late 1950's one.

John, You did put these seals in the right way ( which is the wrong way for most other applications ) right...? I can't tell from the photos ....the "lip" of the seal should point out of the hub towards the bogie wheel.......and the back part with the rubber/leather seal should be on the inside. This is backwards from the way most seals are installed. On most applications the seal keeps the grease/oil in and water/dirt out. On the Weasel the seal is supposed to let grease out when it is pumped into the bearings and housing. This is to allow the new grease to push water out of the housing/bearings when the vehicle is driven or swam in water. This was part of the after-swimming PM on the vehicle. See TM 9-1772, page 243 for an example. Jim

Aron, Thanks for the confirm.....the 7122 was a typo on my part. Your Weasel was built at the end of contract T-17532. This was the next to the last contract for M-29C units. I asked the confirm because your Hull number is out of sequence with other vehicles in the ORD number range. Jim

John posted: Hi Jim, You might have this weasel in your records. Located here in Australia........... ..........Here is some British weasel info kindly offered by Richard Farrant over on the HMVF forum; <<<All Weasels under Contract Supply Mech 6362 come in five batches of census numbers; X5853143 to 5853242 P5881878 to 5882381 P6160643 to 6160990 P6180709 to 6181208 P6225756 to 6226757 "P" is prefix for amphibs, why the first one is listed as "X" in the copy book of census numbers, I don't know, but it was a mistake somewhere in time as that letter denotes a Trailer. John, One advantage to all this COVID stuff is that the pubs in my town are closed so I have a lot of time to dig in the boxes of Weasel documents I have here...... Years ago I was researching Weasels ( and jeeps, GPA's and GP/BRC/MA) at the Bovington Tank Museum Archives and copied the WD Supply/Mechanical "assembly cards" . I just came across them and I can add more info on this. Richard has a mistake on the prefix for the first contract under S?/M 6362. The correct prefix is P and not X. P5853143 to P5853242 is what is actually listed on the original card for the first contract WD numbers. In addition to WD S/M 6362 there were two other S/M contracts for Weasels. WD S/M Contract 6027 for 1,098 ( originally 1,100) T-24/M-29 "Snow Vehicles" ....or "Truck 10 cwt tracked GS" with WD numbers Z5514686 to Z5515783. The Z is correct and not a typo. WD S/M Contract2944 for 4 Studebaker T-15 "..."Weasels" (amphibious)..." . No WD numbers are listed for these 4 vehicles. Now...a question for you....I have abbreviations for some of the destinations for these vehicles after acceptance in the UK. Most I know but one I do not....maybe you do? UK = United Kingdom ( England) UK adty = UK Admiralty ( British Navy ?) ME = Middle East India = India NA = ???? What would this be? Jim

Aron, Thank you for the info ....... Can you check the ORD/MFG number again? If your Hull number is correct ( M-29C-7122) your ORD number should be 115?? ....or if your ORD number is correct (10159) the hull number should be around 549? to 56??.... If you can confirm your ORD number I can give you the contract it was delivered under and the original USA number.

Brian, How do you know this is a Weasel transmission? This transmission was also used in other vehicles and cars. Might be for one of them?

Just for fun....here are two photos of my former T-15 ORD #414. It was VERY original and the one photo shows the motor compartment and the other shows what is probably the rarest item on a T-15....the canvas cover for the distributor. It is just under the spark plug wire conduit and you can see the snaps on it. Also...note that this motor is still painted in the original Studebaker grey paint which is a blue-grey and not the light gray that most restorations use.

A few comments on some of the postings....... "....Pat Tipton who is the originator of this forum and founder of Portrayal Press has them...." While Pat is the originator of this forum....he is not the founder of Portrayal Press. It was my good friend Dennis Spence that was the founder of Portrayal Press. Dennis was one of the founders of the Military Vehicle Collector's club ( now the MVPA) and is member # 1. "...Only a few were made in comparison to the T24 and M29 so parts are very hard to find if non existent...." While this is true for all of the major parts there are many of the smaller parts and fittings the also were used on the T-24/M-29. Parts that fit the M-29 that have a Ordnance part number prefix of "G-154-" are also used on the T-15. "......I understand that only 500 T15s were produced..." There were 766 T-15 vehicles built not counting the test vehicles. "......I am not sure why the designer decided to run these wheels on such an angle but I feel it was the wrong move. ..." "................ I also wonder who came up with the crazy design to angle the bogeys?..." Although it would seem looking back from 2020 to 1942 that this was a wrong design or there were problems with this design but the facts are very different. The T-15 was a design that was VERY thoroughly tested and there were many track/bogie wheel designs tested and discarded as not the best usable design in the snow and hard ground. There were track plates tested that were polished steel, pressed steel, rubber coated steel, screen, wood and other materials and designs. The bogie wheels and the suspension were also tested with various designs. Some bogie wheels were tested with vertical wheels like the later T-24 used but they were found to be problematic with snow and ice packing and were not flexible enough and led to track throwing. It is not well known that the T-15 track was designed to not only roll around the drive, return and rear roller/wheels but to flex not only up and down but sided to side as well. To allow this movement and keep the track on the vehicle it was necessary to cant the bogie wheels in a "V" design and use a narrow spaced track rubber belts. The "V" also allowed the flexibility of the bogies to cant left and right when running over rough ground and snow/ice and still guide the track. "...........and were short lived in field trials mainly because the track and bogey system was not adequate........I am sure it did not take long for The war department to see the problems...." Actually it was just the opposite.......the field trials were not short....in addition to the original development testing the production the vehicles were thoroughly tested by various Military Units in Colorado, Michigan and other areas. In the winter testing in Michigan and Wisconsin over 100 T-15's were used on winter maneuvers ( I have a list of all the ORD numbers of these vehicles) and their performance satisfied the Ordnance Department. It must be remembered the T-15 was a purpose built special vehicle and not one that was for general use like a CCKW or Jeep. The T-15 would have been produced in larger numbers if if were not for a "fortunate accident" discovered in the original development testing. It was found that a T-15 would run better in deep snow if it was running in reverse....ie. backing up. One of the test vehicles was fitted out with the controls/driveline reversed to allow the vehicle to run backwards as "forwards" Nicknamed the "Wrong Way Corrigan" it was tested and this led to the design of the "motor up front" T-24. The T-24 bogie and track design came about through testing and it was not so much as "better" than the T-15 track but due to the need to carry four men and/or cargo. The T-15 was designed to carry two men and their weapons only and not cargo...that's what the Studebaker made wooden sleds (T-15 trailers) were made for. With the added weight of the T-24 and it's cargo a less flexible track was needed and the vertical bogies with transverse springs was developed for this reason and not that the T-15 track/bogies were a defective design. I have been through hundreds of testing and development documents in the National Archives (and copied most) on the T-15, T-24, M-29 and M-29C and this information comes directly from them. Jim

There are very few photos that show this item........ Jim

I worked for 14 years restoring MV's for collectors as my main everyday job.... I would use blue paint masking tape on the glass, trimming it with an Xacto knife and then use duct tape over that and trim the same. The duct tape was tough enough to resist the sandblast and the blue tape under it made removal very easy. John's idea is a good one too.

Jonas, Jesse and John, Thank you for the numbers........ Jonas, Your T-24 with hull number UST-24-336 would have had a ORD/MFG number of 32? ( ? = unknown number)> On your other one ....look at the photos John just posted and you can see where the original USA number was painted. if you sand this area you should be able to find that number. If you find it let me know and I will check my photo/document database to see if I have anything on it. Jesse, Thank you for the motor number....these are a great help in determining ORD/MFG numbers for people that have no data plates on their vehicle. According to my records this is the original motor for that Weasel. John, You wrote: " UST-24-949 ORD 1002 (Last Hull designated as a T24 before switching to the M29 designation) USA 40122704" Just a nit-pik ....the ORD/MFG number is the vehicle serial number. The hull number is the serial number of the hull only. These do not run in numerical order. Examples are: T-24 ORD/MFG # 991 which has a hull number of UST-24-974 and USA #40122648 T-24 ORD/MFG # 955 which has a hull number of UST-24-961 and USA#40122652 The hull on the Weasel was still a T-24 after ORD/MFG # 1003 (and up) even though the designation for the vehicle (on the main data plate) was changed from T-24 to M-29. The change from T-24 hull to M-29 hull was around 2103. The highest T-24 hull number on my list is UST-24-2101. I'm sure you actually meant "vehicle" instead of hull but I thought I would clarify it for others reading these posts. Your T-24 was the highest ORD/MFG for the first Weasel contract and the second to the highest USA number. It is very historically significant because of it's historical documentation and most worthy of a restoration. "This weasel was one of two T24's shipped to Australia in August 1945 for user trials." Is this 1945 date correct? The in-service test photos show the vehicle to be brand new as the white painted tracks ( correct as delivered) look like they have been run very little and there is still overspray on the bogie wheel tires. In my photo collection I have some photos of M-29C's in service by the Australian Army prior to the end of the war in 1945 so it would seem to be prior to that when these vehicles were tested. Jim

Patrick, Thank you for the information. I have added this parts vehicle to my list. This M-29C would have a ORD/MFG number of 97?? ( ? = unknown number) Although the data plate is very rusted I believe I could use a special technique and find the numbers that were stamped into it. I have done this before on a plate that was worst then this one........

John, For some reason I do not have this Weasel on my list....... Is M29C 7333 the ORD/MFG number or the hull number? If you would be so kind...I would like to add your numbers on this vehicle to my list.

The top is actually a white w/black camo one that has been painted with a darker color ( probably Olive Drab). This repainting of the vehicles was done in the field. Also.....I checked with my copies of Signal Corps photos from the National Archives and the photo caption noted the photo was taken on Kiska Island.

John, Thanks for the info! The first group of WD Census numbers - X5853143 to 5853242 did not have the "P" as they were T-24/M-29 vehicles are were not considered amphibious. If I remember correctly from a discussion with the curator at Bovington these vehicle were given a X-prefix because there was no set prefix for vehicle of this specialized type. I don't remember if they actually had the "X" painted on the hull or not........and this was speculation at the time. Also.....I believe the census numbers were assigned in blocks that were larger than the actual number of vehicles delivered. When all this COV19 stuff is finally over and things get back to normal I will be going back to the US National Archives to look in the Lend Lease files for more info on the British contracts.

It is interesting to note that these T-15 units look to have been repainted OD from their original white w/black camo paint. Just as an aside.....if you read the text that Rob has linked...it says that "Pyke suggested that a tracked vehicle be developed ..." This is incorrect.....Pyke wanted a "Archimedes Screw" or air powered ( like a swamp boat) vehicle and fought the concept of using a tracked one. It was the NDRC ( National Defense Research Committee ) that decided that the vehicle was to be tracked as they were in charge of the development of it.

I believe these are water drain holes. They were added so that the condensation or water getting into the insides of the frame would drain out and not cause rusting or freezing inside the frames. Jim Gilmore Jim Thorpe, PA.