Talk:M54 5-ton 6x6 truck/Archive 1

Untitled

Just created page to fill a pretty yawning gap in the history of US Army trucks on Wikipedia. People who served with this vehicle are invited to boost the page a bit. I'll be tinkering with it over the next few days. Thanks. Larry Dunn (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename

parenthesses, really arnt needed on the title, see M-list for nominclature titles.Brian in denver (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text moved from article

This was added to the article by 70.17.146.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but belongs here:

NOTE: The above image in South Vietnam is incorrect... image is a M35A1 2-1/2T cargo. Quick spotting features are the typical deuce swept-back grille at headlights, small tires, small axles. The M54 5T and its entire family has flat grille across entire headlight plane and much larger axles/tires. Somebody needs to add to the manufacturer list... IHC was the principle builder from 1951 to at least 1963. Mack and Diamond-T each had lesser contracts during the 1950s. These trucks were all powered by the Continental R6602 I6 gasoline engine, 602ci, rated 240HP and 4mpg. The A1 Mack-powered diesels and A2 Continental-powered multifuels were built by Kaiser and AM-General. No idea where Wikipedia got the GM idea. I'm a vet that worked on and drove them for over 30 years and currently own five deuces [M49C, M108, M109A3, M35A2(x2)] and four 5-Ton's [M51(x2), M818 x2)] What more reference/experience does Wikipedia want than someone having the actual subject matter in his yard every day?

-- John of Reading (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia flag

I turned both into web refs, I don't see that anyone else refs any of these flags. I don't see how the embassy stuff relates, but won't cut it. They are pretty long, especially the MAP one, maybe they should be shortened. Sammy D III (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox numbers

These are solid numbers, not variable. The article, but especially the infobox, is about the M54 model, not the M39 series. The weight is further footnoted to a specific model, engine and w/o winch. The length is common to all M54s, and footnotes to w/o winch.Sammy D III (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are solid numbers...but not every M54 was exactly the same weight, height, and length. Out of the numerous variants produced, they were all the same in these categories? I think not. Width may be a different story. The main infobox should cover all models, not just a certain spec.

The footnotes are doing their job, referencing the dimensions for a certain specification. But it should be noted that they vary widely between different models. Cheers, Stratocaster27^t@lk 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get this “cover all models” regularly, and get it. But I think there may be a misunderstanding. A M54 is a cargo truck with a 14 foot bed and dual rear tires. The only change in length is with or without winch. The only change in weight is which engine and with or without winch.

Dump trucks, semi-tractors, wreckers, ARE NOT M54s. They are all in the M39 series, the article says that in all the text. But the infobox specifically says M54.

I have tons of numbers, but how many do you want? Maybe size of expansibles? Where do you want to put the rest? You don’t really want weights of everything, do you? Length and weight of bare chassis? There is a lot there now, isn’t there?

If you want some numbers, ask. Otherwise, enjoy. Sammy D III (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see what you are getting at. I'll remove the "varies." So what we need now is an M39/G-744 series page, such as the M35 page (covering all models within that series). Though this is a good article, maybe its a bit too specific? Just throwing that out there. The only military vehicles I have personal experience with are CUCV trucks, so I wasn't 100% clear on the M54 specific model designations. The variants section is the misleading bit... Cheers Stratocaster27^t@lk 02:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, do whatever you want. I’ve had fun, your turn. There are a few other 5-ton articles around, too.

I believe the M54 is the best known of the series, few know what a M39 is. US vets (the biggest reader group?) will think M54, they rode in them. If you change it to a series, you may want some M54 stuff near the top, maybe in the intro.

I like specific infoboxs personally. I can use the base (most common?) model as a benchmark, compare others with it. I can also use a lot of good numbers making them. Others often object. I have been trying some ranges, but you need both ends to be right.

The article body is all M39 series, with a touch of M809 and M939. I sort of hijacked the article and jammed it full of general 5-ton stuff. The “Variants” was stolen from M35, it’s meant as variants of the M39 series. Maybe you should change that somehow?

I have always been “machines”, and drove a 6x6 Mack for years. I get much of this. Sammy D III (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Truck vs Series pt II

Heads up, the 2 1/2 ton and 5 ton articles use the numbers differently. The M35 is the standard cargo truck with dual tires, just like the M54. They are naming the series after the most common version, in 5 ton it would be the M54 series, just like you thought. I couldn’t find a “M” type number for the 2 ½ chassis/series like M39 is for the 5 tons. G numbers are 742 (2 1/2t) and 744 (5t).

I couldn’t find a separate article on the M35 specifically, so why should there be one for the M54? If you change the intro you could be very similar to M35 article. Note, though, a few other 5 tons have their own articles, making M54 a series means it can’t have it’s own article. Maybe it should be two articles, but the M35 isn't. A thought, someone may care, not me.

The infobox for the M35 is for a specific vehicle, too, and I don’t think it’s mine. It could be, though, I’m impaired and only have months of memory. What do you think, both specific trucks, or both series ranges? (I might be able to do ranges).

You could really push this, if you wanted. Sammy D III (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Well, it seems like both the M35 and M54 pages could be changed. I'm in favour of one broad article covering all variants of M35s and another covering all M39s, without placing emphasis on any specific model. Maybe we could pattern it off of the Olive Drab M39 page? (as a side note it seems that the M35 series actually started with the M34, a SRW M35)

What do you think? Cheers Stratocaster27^t@lk 00:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the M35, maybe except maybe the infobox, already was. I tried to make M54 into M39, but I didn’t want to mess with someone else’s intro. I’m sure that I did try to copy OD.

How if you take everything south of the intro and turn it into a strong M39 series, then link to the various small truck articles? That’s what you are thinking? Then you could change M54 back to what it was, and make it one more small link. With everything linked, it would be easy to work on the small ones. They may all end up looking the same, though.

I’m about at my limits here, you should take over. For US army vehicles (inc tanks, GMCs, and APCs), if you have a library or care $35 you should look at Doyle, best book ever. I’ve been at G numbers today. Sammy D III (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M939_Truck is final evolution, M915_(truck) is lame, I played with it earlier, making a M809 series. I think there are others. Sammy D III (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC) M816_Wrecker Sammy D III (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'v been lax getting back to this page. I noticed your recent edits on the infobox, I think they're good. I also think we need to cleanup all of the M-series truck pages with master pages and pages for individual models if they warrant it. (like the M915 page is not really needed, in my opinion.) I'm of the "communist" One Big Factory Wiki philosophy: One Big Article is better than many small articles.

I might move this discussion over to the Wikiproject Military History page for more input when I get the chance. Stratocaster27^t@lk 17:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I like the other infobox myself. I have those 4 trucks easy. The M139 bridge and missile truck numbers are obscene. You can move or change anything anywhere. I do machines, not Wikipedia. I’m hanging around M numbers. Sammy D III (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inches to feet

I have been told that feet are easier than inches for many people. Sammy D III (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name 21 Nov 2016

I am thinking of changing the name to "M54 5-ton 6x6 truck". Sammy D III (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 4 months without comment, so I am going to move it. Sammy D III (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Some similar articles have this format. Anything can go into "References" but will not have a footnote. Any inline cites (<ref> xxx </ref>) will come out in "Notes". To make those short ones use " {{sfnp | author or title | 1999 | p=}} " , when the info matches on two or more they will combine below. Sammy D III (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]