Talk:M123 and M125 10-ton 6x6 trucks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Text should look like what?

Just now I have left engine stuff out of the infobox, just name and hp, so there would be extra info for the text. I put sort of a standard engine and chassis section in a lot of places, it seemed to me a standard look for different trucks made sense. Should every truck look different, like stories, or should they all look the same?

I am not much of a writer. Do you want to try? Your English seems to be getting better pretty fast. Or. I don’t know copyright, can you steal a TM word for word? It is government, not private, right? Example, in 2320-206-12 on PDF page 2 there is a description of the truck, and on PDF 15 there is a description of the engine. Could those be edited way down and used? For all trucks with TMs?

In the infobox I try to use the original equipment numbers, different engines could all get details in the text. All the variations, A1, A2, which engine goes where, what other changes.

The TMs have nothing on history, how many were built where when stuff. That has to come from private sources, Crismon, Doyle, etc.

Military Macks. I have good infoboxes on Mack EE, EH, NJU, NM, NO, NR, and M123. AC is very lame. I could line a lot of small ones together, like I did here [1]. Then there could be a section on each model, with some Crismon history, stuff on the engine, and variations, what bodies, stuff like that. There we could footnote TMs to that truck section, you would have a foot of references which were TMs.

We don't use truck after tractor, and M123 truck isn't quite right, either. Semi-tractor and cargo truck? Just tractor? Prime mover (which it was built as) name was obsolete? TM names are often out of order, with commas. Truck tractor: and Truck cargo:?

Bedtime. Later. Sammy D III (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, here Holland or more correct Zeeland (is our province, Middelburg where we (as I also have a love of my life)live is the capital).

I think that standard infoboxes make more sense. Again thank you for this excellent infobox.

You inspire me to write a good article as I found out that I also have the Jane's of 1984, so there are at least four (book-) sources now besides the manuals that are in my opinion the most reliable.

I have already used the text of the TM for the M425/6 as it is in the public domain and can be used freely. For me (and also to avoid mistakes in English) it is the safest way to edit the text. History can be added from the other sources with citations. I agree that the variants can be dealt with in the text with the changes in engines, winches, fifth wheel height etc. The official (I presume English) designation in Jane's (is very English indeed!) is tractor truck and cargo truck for the M125. Vanderveen says Truck, 10-Ton, 6 x6, Tractor. In the TM it is truck, tractor, so that must be real american? I don't know how to change a title? There are enough other Macks we could make. The most important one is perhaps not a model you think of in the first place.... the M54 etc. as Mack had a big stake in the production of this standardized truck. Would be great to make a box of this and a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig heap of manuals, almost too much to mention! But we are not obliged to stick with Mack, what do you think of Oshkosh e.g. the M911, a wonderful machine. I have a beautiful model of it! I am now going to the supermarket (do you know Albert Heijn in the US?) to get my dosis of Cola and than I am going to write the article Corjan de Wit (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dropping Mack sounds good to me. They haven't really been common, or even very sucessful. Most other trucks sort of mix up, the same parts are used elsewhere, different companies build the same stuff, etc.

The M54, which is part of the M39 series, is sort of important to me. All 5 tons. They are comparable to common commercial vehicles I drove, same size, engines, transmissions, etc. If you look at the M54 history, it's all me playing around. I just cut it in half, on a different idea. My interest in the M123 is just it's huge size. The Oshkosh stuff works. There is just one type, though. You have so much on the big 8x8 Oshkoshs, that might be a huge article. I sort of like the mid sized ones, but I don't know anything about them. Or how modern you want to be. I think that other people might care, I sort of avoid that.

I don't know how to change the name, either. Sometimes some believer blows by and does it. They change categories all the time. That doesn't matter, but when these guys come in and start making noise, I may run like a thief. I have never had any luck with them, but then, I am not a soliciter.

I don't know exactly what makes those grey boxes. They sometimes drive me crazy. I think you have some problem with markup. I tried to fix it once, maybe I will try again. For me it is just pure luck, I keep trying, something works eventually. I'm sure you could use some "help" link somewhere.

The official names are what is on the TMs, but they have big problems. The M number is in the back, you want it up front? They are all capital letters, that is ugly, sort of like shouting. And they are just too long. I change them, but try to keep close. I have been doing M number, load rating, drive, and then an official looking name. I also say "and others", that isn't right, but I don't know what is. And that is just me. You do whatever order you want. I do see in leads where they say "The official designation is...There is plenty of room in the text to do all that stuff.

I wondered how your English got so good so fast. You have the right words, the order is just wrong at times. I think I will go to my Studebaker test sight and try using the edited manual stuff, that sounds like a good idea. I didn't really like using my own words in so many places.

Can I follow you around converting numbers and stuff? Is it all right if I change the style and words of some references, little things like that? There is an incredible irony here.

I have to go. Later. Sammy D III (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm back! Was a little stuck after seeking for a new article. A m54-article is already there and has good references to manuals on Jatoms.. site. The M911 is dealt with in an article about US Army tank transporters. A pitty, because this is a big mess with M1070, M26 and M911 after each other! Than I got manuals on the Mechanical Mule, but this article exists also! So perhaps better ameliorate the existing articles. I remembered that I have downloaded manuals on bridges where old Mack NJU can be seen. So we have enough photographic evidence, but -a shame- no manual to sustain an article. But there is alway Bart Vanderveen, who had written an separate paragraph on this vehicle. So perhaps we should try...

Feel free to correct everything You want. After all it is your language and I am just trying. If the word order is not correct, please tell me. I am always ready to learn.

The grey boxes are like black holes to me too! The appear when I move the text to the right, but until now I haven't found the secret. Perhaps only the Wiki-police knows the answer. Here it is now 21.30 and in Chicago 14.30? So good afternoon, if this is not too English! Corjan de Wit (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It was the tabs, I think. You can’t type it like it looks, there are all of these markups. You know the “bold” trick, there are lots of them. To move to the right you use these ( : ) colons, like here. I usually cut and paste into Word. If a trick works, I save it.

I think you may enjoy footnotes. I did Vanderveen. I didn’t like it as a $ link, it may be caught, so I did it as a book. You put that ref sign where you want the number. Then type anything you want. Finish with the end ( / ) ref sign and it will show up on the bottom. If you want to use the same footnotes more than once, you can use the ref name. Make an easy name. The next place you want the footnote you put the ref name, then an end ( / ) ref mark. You can use shortcuts, I did. You need that reflist thing down where you want the notes.

Anything between 2 curley brackets ( { ) is a blank form that does something, you just fill in the blanks. If there is nothing in the blank, it will not show. I used a book blank for Vanderveen, and a web one for Cummins, you see how they look in References. Your links look good, too, you could use either.

I don't know how much you know about engines, and had fun writing this:

US Army truck engines 1940-1970

Most are gasoline, diesels were rare before 1960. Multifuel engines are diesels which can use other fuels in an emergency. Most are inline six cylinders (I6), but there are some I4s and V8s. All are water-cooled, have cast iron heads and blocks, and rotate clockwise when facing the “front” end of the engine. All except automatics have a flywheel on the “rear” (output) end of the engine, a friction clutch on the flywheel, driving to a transmission solidly mounted to the engine.

All gasoline engines are naturally aspired 4 strokes. None are mechanically or turbo supercharged and all have carburetors, none have fuel injection. I believe that all have a single head per bank and that none have cylinder liners.

Gasoline engines can have either overhead valve (ohv/valve in head) or side valve (L head/valve in block). This is a notable design difference, and makes a difference in power output. Example: the ohv GMC 270 used in the CCKW makes 91 hp (68 kW) while the L head Hercules JXD used in the US6 is larger (330 cu in (5.4 L)}) and makes less power (86 hp (64 kW)). An L head engine is easier to build and maintain. A few “jeeps” may have a F head, with intake valves in the head and exhaust valves in the block.

All diesels are compression ignition valve in head, that is the basic design. Most are naturally aspired 4 strokes, Continentals LDT465s are turbo supercharged, as are many later engines. Diesels often have wet cylinder liners and more than one head in a bank, with one head for 2 or 3 cylinders.

GM Detroit Diesels are mechanically supercharged 2 strokes, with intake ports in the cylinder wall and exhaust valves in the head. They have a noticeably higher power output per displacement. Not used in WWII trucks, they were used in many other places. The first number in the model name is the number of cylinders, the second number the displacement (in cubic inches) of one cylinder. The -71 series was available during it’s life as 3, 4, 6, 6v, 8v, and 12v. There was a smaller -53 series, and later the -92 series. -92 series are often turbo supercharged.

I have been wrong before, something here must be wrong too.

I am not good at counting hours, but now you are zzz and I soon will be. Later. Sammy D III (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The difference in time was not that big, as I was editing at around 06.00 this morning! Thank you for the many useful hints. I'll study them. I was this morning ameliorating a draft for the NJU-1 truck tractor I started yesterday. I don't know that much about engines, but it is very interesting also for modeling, as we want to make models of engines with their crates. They make a good diorama! Corjan de Wit (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am starting back up. Sammy D III (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1