Talk:DUKW/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Duck Boats"

Postwar Use section notes "The Boston Red Sox celebrated their 2004 World Series victory with a parade of 17 DUKWs carrying members of the team over land and across the Charles River while broadcasters erroneously referred to the vehicles as duck boats." "Duck Boat" is the local term for the tour vehicles. While technically erroneous, it is correct local usage. However, I just live here -- I don't have a citation, so I'm not editing the article yet. Comments, please? --Bratling 20:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. To me, the original wording sort of read to me as being condescending or snarky (e.g. "Those silly broadcasters couldn't get the name right!"), but people (lots of them!) really do (erroneously) call them duck boats so it doesn't hurt to make mention of it in a more neutral way. Jzerocsk 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Viking Tours"

The passage on 'Viking Splash Tours', while I do not doubt it's veracity, sounds to me very much like an advertisement. The fact that it explores "Inland Waterways as opposed to...Rivers and Bays" does not seem to me to make it unique enough to deserve special mention on this page, especially since the terms 'inland waterway' and 'river' are not mutually exclusive. And, the tone of the paragraph seems distinctly non-POV to me.

I removed that paragraph altogether as I do not see why any one company should be featured here and others should not. Furthermore the tone was very much like that of an advertisment and therefore should not be in Wikipedia. --Hydraton31 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to GMC DUKW

I suggest that the article is moved to GMC DUCKW since it is the vehicle's proper name. --KRISTAGA^α-ω 14:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean GMC DUKW ? --GeeTeeBee 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of article Ride the ducks

I believe that the article is correctly tagged as a tourism-related stub, so I would be in favor of doing quite the opposite: make the "DUKW#Post-War use" section a bit more concise on the duck tours stuff, and use that to expand the Ride the ducks article. --GeeTeeBee 16:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The duck is red

As I understand it, the DUKW also inspired the GAZ46 and BAV485. Worth a mention? Trekphiler 06:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Last Viking

Is that novel mentioned in the trivia notable enough for inclusion? --OGoncho 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainly made by women

Considered to be one of the most successful amphibious vehicles ever made, there were ultimately over 21,000 produced by a work force consisting mainly of women working in the war effort. (http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jrcoles/DUKW_1.HTM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.57.155 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Supplies

I removed a statement that 'DUKWs carried 18 million tons of supplies ashore in the 90 days after D-Day'. That would be virtually all the supplies landed in that period and is obviously wrong. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How does it work ?

There needs to be more explanation here from a knowledgable person about how this actually works. Is the engine inside or outside the "hull" ? If the engine is inside, how do the drive shafts penetrate the hull ? Is there one drive shaft through the hull with differentials outside, or six drive shafts through the hull ? How would this be sealed off from water ? Eregli bob (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ride The Ducks

According to the article, the DUKW vehicles used by the company Ride the Ducks are not surplus DUKUs, but vehicles built specifically for the tour company. Though this may be true for some of the vehicles, it is not for all. The vehilces used by Ride the Ducks in Branson, MO are original DUKUs which have been modified, making the body longer, adding seats, and a roof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.34.137 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"DUKW 353 Amphibian Truck"

Is "DUKW 353 Amphibian Truck" simply the same as "DUKW" (in which case we should certainly put that term in the article)? Or is there a distinction? - Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

British involvement?

Co-designer Puleston was born in the UK, but the DUKW was an American effort. By the time Puleston was helping, he had not returned to Britain in years, and at some point in his life, he began calling himself American. The British government did not take an official part in the DUKW specifications—Puleston did not represent them. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Duck Boat accident in Philadelphia

Is there a way to incorporate this tragedy into the current article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourdainiac (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be better placed in Duck tours. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of "duck" nickname

I have long been under the impression that the DUKW earned the name duck because it's official name could be pronounced that way (especially by those willing to overlook the W at the end.) The article mentions something about sitting ducks. Anybody know the real story? --Badger151 23:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The origin which I had heard, which was the "Sitting Duck" story, came from a Boston Duck Tour driver, who says he'd heard it from a WWII Vet. Given the nature of the job--Tour Guide--I was inclined to believe that he'd at least heard the story from a somewhat reliable source. The story he'd heard was that DUKW passengers in a war situation felt like sitting ducks, seems reasonable enough. --Epynephrin (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the average GI's willingness to turn any abbreviation into a word (viz HMMWV), I'm inclined to think the first is the correct explanation. Trekphiler (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

58.173.248.140 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)I thought that I read on a forum about commercial 4 and 6 Wheel drive vehicles here in Australia that DUKW stood for: Detroit United Keith Works.Does this have any truth.Ta cam 03:00 15/01/11.58.173.248.140 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing precisely who first called the DUKW a duck, the name was used by the folks at Yellow Truck and Coach where it was built. My grandfather was one of the GM engineers on the team, and the name is virually as old as the vehicle. I would say this supports the theory that it began as the best option for saying DUKW as a word.--Rwberndt (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To clear this up authoritatively, the DUKW designation was derived at the start of the 1940s from military nomenclature of that period It is an acronym signifying D (model year 1942), U (amphibian), K (all wheel drive), W (dual rear axles), and is pronounced, as much for convenience as appropriateness, "duck." Dean Speir (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Speir Device

There's a link for the term "Speir Device" that goes to a non-existent article. I don't have enough information to start the new article yet, but wanted to drop this link for future reference (my own or someone else's). This is a page by someone who claims his father, Frank W. Speir, worked on the DUKW, and the tire inflation device specifically: http://www.thegunzone.com/pwp/dukws.html.

To wit: "Perhaps my father's greatest contribution to the DUKW (and its successors, the Super Duck, the Drake and the BARC¹) was the tire inflation system with a two cylinder air compressor and air storage tank which permitted the driver to inflate or deflate all six tires simultaneously or individually from within the vehicle."

Also here: http://www.galvestonducks.com/history.asp , though I probably need more official sources - Rapscallion (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That "someone" is me, and all that I have "claimed" is verifiable. My father, Frank W. Speir (1910-1956), when he switched over to the regulars in 1946 after returning from the ETO, became Project Engineer for the Army's Amphibious Warfare Program. The rest is as I have already stated. Dean Speir (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ducks in Germany"

Some Duck was used in the German Civil protection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THW details: http://www.thw-ludwigshafen.de/?gallery_id=104&lang=de&page=news_archive2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.36.238 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Duwk usage in flooded polder landscape

During World War 2 DUWKS where not only used during invasions as landingcrafts. They were also used, especially by the Canadian 3rd Division (nicknamed the Waterrats) to patrol or attack through inundated polder landscape. By example during Operation Veritable where the Canadian 3rd division, operating on the left flank, assaulted through the flooded landscape south of the Rhine River. During the winter of 1944-45 DUWKS where used in the so named "the Island", the largly flooded no man's land between Nijmegen and Arnhem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.144.81 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

references

If the manuals are used as a reference, they need to be properly referenced, and that doesn't mean just stating the model number. for a guide please look at WP:Citing sources. Cheers FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Indiana Jones reference

Perhaps a mention of its appearance in Indiana Jones Kingdom of the Crystal Skull would be higher profile trivia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.100.14 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the vehicle wasn't a DUKW, the answer is: No. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Dates

There are no dates in this article . . . when was the prototype designed, when were contracts let, etc. 2605:6000:E949:D200:699E:25F4:9DC3:E4A (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Dimensions

Should an article written in US English about a vehicle designed in the US primarially for the US Army have mixed units in the infobox contrary to ENGVAR? Neither "short ton" nor "tonne" are used in the US. Should an inch be shown to three decimals in a measurement just over 7 feet (Height)? Should an inch be shown as "7/8" (used in source) or rounded to the next inch (Width)? Should feet and inches be used decimally instead of "feet/inch/fraction (if not rounded to the nearest inch) in large numbers? Should an amphibious vehicle based on a land vehicle measure water speed in knots when the source uses "mph"? Should there be multiple refs in the infobox? Thank you. 15:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)~

• Yes, the article should be in US English.
• The US units should be shown with metric conversions in brackets. The distinction between short and long tons should be shown where necessary/appropriate.
• Units should be shown exactly as in primary sources. Secondary sources should be used with extreme care as these often use multiple conversions from imperial to metric and back again.
• Feet and inches should never be shown in decimals.
• Use of knots is appropriate for any water craft. Knots, mph and kmh should be used when referring to water-speed.
• As per WP:INFOBOXREF references are not needed in infoboxes if the information is also referenced elsewhere in the article.

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have come across this many times in US military trucks, your answer is excellent and I can/will use it. I hope it is polite to press you for more (and use these dots).

• "Ton" is a problem I haven’t beat. It doesn’t convert with that name. In "designed to transport a 5-ton (10,000 lb (4,500 kg))..." the "ton" is the correct unit (when it gets to the real world pounds are used). I have manually converted to (kg) or to this (convert) thing, which looks awkward to me. And I don’t know about "5-ton" (which is the name), "5 ton", "five ton", or "tons". I think the word "ton" is important in the design, but just going to "lb" is easier, and converts. This happens in most US military truck articles. Thoughts?

I agree that using "pounds" is easier and clearer than tons. "2-ton capacity" in the first line does not need converting, but "weighed 6.5 tons" empty is better in pounds (all thee info I have seen says 14880 pounds), with the metric weight in kilograms after it in parentheses.

• Since 1943 or so dimensions have been in inches, but someone in several places has made a pretty good case that inches are just too small for the average reader. I have changed to foot/inch most places (wheelbases only make sense in inches). Sound reasonable?

Yes. And the fractions are incorrect/unnecessary. The dimensions should be length 31 feet, width 8 feet 3 inches, height, excluding ring mount, 8 feet 10 with top up, 8 feet 2 with top down. I don't know where the 7 feet height comes from, the citation is the Friedman book which I don't have access to, but it must have been incorrectly copied.

• In water (very rare) all three units should be used? One will have to be manually converted. Speaking of converts, what is wrong with manually doing them in single places?

I am almost certain the the original given speed was 6 mph, which has later been converted to 5.5 knots and 10.3 kmh. I would use {{convert|6|mph|kn km/h|abbr=on|0}} which gives "6 mph (5 kn; 10 km/h)". This is not very accurate for knots, but it is probably better to avoid all decimals as I doubt the water speed was ever accurately measured anyway. THe same goes for the range which would have originally been given as 60 miles.

• In infoboxes I have been doing one specific vehicle, not ranges, and have put the ref once behind “Specifications”. That covers everything, in the text or not. This person has done a specific vehicle, they have just used the same ref over and over.

Yes, one reference at the top would be better, with the one different reference left in place.

To fix any of these numbers I will have to change sources, I don't want to, but probably will. Again, thank you very much for solid answers. Sammy D III (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Have replied each point above. Thanks for all the work. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed the infobox "Specs" to a solid ref of the first Yellows. I changed dimention formats in "Descriptions" but used the numbers there, Friedman source looks really good to me. I moved a couple of pics, added a couple of lines, and added refs. I put GM's designation in History, I didn't think it needed the whole section "Designation" and didn't know where else to put it. I changed how refs are shown, it looked all mixed up to me. TM 9-182xs are parts. 26 is carbs, A=Carter, B=Stromberg, C=Zenith. 27 is brakes, B=Bendix, C=Warner-Lockheed. 28 is fuel pump, 29 is dashboard gauges. Sammy D III (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DUKW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201193633/http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/nov06/rw.cfm to http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/nov06/rw.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)