The Wooden Nutmeg

“Forestry” is probably the most commonly used term in this area for a wildland fire apparatus, especially on the radio. Brush truck is commonly used in ordinary speech. Some are called “Engine” or “Tanker” as well, and especially the tankers we’ll get back to later on. “Breakers” are their own beasts designed specifically for making their own path through the pitch pine and scrub oak barrens around Cape Cod — Brit Crosby has an excellent special section here covering them.

I started thinking about this post when reading recently this firehouse.com thread. That thread talked about anything from whether tires should be chosen to float over mud or cut through it to firm soil, to whether F-550s are really appropriate for brush trucks and, to paraphrase, “people are forgetting what brush trucks are for going that large!” Even the disadvantage of diesel engines — a lot heavier up front increasing the risk of sinking your front end when encountering soft terrain.

Two things I want to go over in this post:

1) Compare the specifications on the classic Dodge Power Wagon WM-300 to some modern day chassis;

2) To the comments about an F-550 being too large, to show even larger trucks that are used in very appropriate ways off-highway in Central Massachusetts…while they also use nice, compact forestries very effectively too.

The classic Dodge Power Wagon, a civilian descendant of the military WC series of trucks first fielded in 1941, is perhaps the most well regarded chassis for a basic forestry truck in my area. In today’s national ICS parlance, a “Type 6 Wildland Engine.”

Massachusetts’ Bureau of Forest Fire Control still has nearly a dozen, like the above, in their active inventory.

Some basic specs on the 1961 Power Wagon WM-300, a one-ton version (the full specs are here):
GVWR: 8,700#
Payload Capacity: 3,000#
Curb Weight: 5,700#
Front Axle Capacity: 3,750#
Rear Axle Capacity: 6,500#
(Optionally the GVWR could be increased to 9,500#)

Compare this to a 2011 F-250 with a gas engine:
GVWR: 10,000#
Payload Capacity: 2,940#
Curb: 7,060#
Front Axle: 6,000#
Rear Axle: 6,200#

Of course in all these debates about what is best for off-road and how modern 1 ton diesels just have too much weight up front, yadda yadda yadda…notice the old power wagons came from a popular option of a factory installed winch. People have always been getting stuck.

But I think it’s good to remember a well accepted classic for its off-road capability is more like a modern 3/4 ton then today’s one ton and heavier trucks.

But weight isn’t the only factor — each area has its own unique circumstances.

Central Massachusetts “Heavy Forestries”

(Photos below courtesy of massfiretrucks.com)

I call these trucks “Heavies” — most don’t even fit neatly into the Engine Typing scheme, being significantly larger then the minimum for a Wildland Type 3, but not seating enough to be considered a Structural Type 1 or 2 (but otherwise meeting the requirements). A number do double-duty as small tankers as well.

Usually these work together with much more modest smaller trucks:

While the thought of a forestry carrying a 1000 gallons or more probably would cause fits for those who think F-550s are too big, Alan Brackett has a nice photo essay on some recent fires in our area which includes this nice photo that shows the two above trucks operating at an incident together at http://www.pbase.com/abrackett/image/123871294. In the right area this is a very effective combination. You can even add a third component of ATVs / UTVs that handle the worse and muddiest terrain for relaying manpower, equipment, and even small amounts of water.

Dudley has a combination that uses a heavy engine along with two J series Jeep forestries:

Some other similar heavies:

The Upton Engine above is interesting if you read the lettering on the door — it reads, “Forest Fire Department.” Many communities in Massachusetts formerly operated two separate fire departments, one which handled forest fires and a second that handled structure fires. This came out of the system of Town Forest Fire Wardens. Most have now consolidated fully, but I believe there are handful that remain separate organizations, and some number more that are essentially one department but with two separate budget allocations from the town.

Massachusetts, at least over the last 25 years, has a history of using a lot of military surplus trucks as “tankers” — this isn’t something I’ve personally seen that much of in Connecticut or Rhode Island; maybe in the past but certainly not in recent decades. But they remain common in Massachusetts. While some serve rural communities, many serve towns where most of the population lives and tanker operations are only needed in small sections of their communities.

There are lot more examples if you poke around on www.massfiretrucks.com