Talk:GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6×6 truck

criteria missing
How many men could be seated in the back? 12, 14 or 20? 68.7.39.127 (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

5 Jun 14 infobox
A US built truck, infobox had different units first, now all SAE (that's what my sources use anyway). I don't know how to convert $2 1/2$ TONS into (kgs). Long;short tons mean nothing here, we only use TON for SHORT tons, no longs used. Sammy D III (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Different trucks
I have been playing with some similar trucks, the Chevy G506, GMC CCKW & DUKW, Stude US6, ZiS-151 (USSR), and Jiefang CA-30 (China). Sammy D III (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Info sources
Two seemingly reliable sources of info on the CCKW are:


 * GMC CCKW-353
 * GM Heritage Center THE FIRST CENTURY OF GMC TRUCK HISTORY

Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to find out if my military truck has ever seen combat or where if it did Richard schlappi (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Built where
They were also built by Chevrolet in St. Louis. If you want to link a specific plant, you would need to link that one, too. Sammy D III (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Name
I have been moving trucks to a common format which includes weight class and drive, GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6x6 truck. Sammy D III (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC) The funny part in this is that a few months ago you changed the info-box title of the Chevrolet G506 from 1 1⁄2-ton 4x4 Truck (Chevrolet) to Chevrolet G506 (the "truck" info you added later is redundant for whoever can see the picture of the vehicle, IMHO), apparently considering that you made a mistake by giving the first one (Oops, as you indicate ): why should the GMC cousin 'benefit' from the opposite treatment? For the record, I read the title of the official technical manuals as Type / Make / Model name. A Truck 2&frac12;-ton, 6x6, GMC CCKW-352 & 353 means then logically "just" a GMC CCKW-352 & 353, for me Regards, BarnCas (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * it sounds more like a fan identification than like a factory one, for me. These details (already given from the very first line of both the page and the info-box) shouldn't be used in the name, as they are just technical details. Or the WP pages of other military trucks should be changed for consistency: should we really rename the Willys MB as Willys MB &frac14;-ton 4x4 truck or change the Kaiser Jeep M715 to Kaiser Jeep M715 1&frac14;ton / Five-quarter-ton 4x4 truck?
 * Are we talking about the title only? I did not try to make it exactly official, I tried to make it clear what the truck was, and that it was a truck. In the infobox I have no opinion, other than all articles should be the same.

BarnCas (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "fan identification" is sort of correct. I thought that most people with any military interest would immediatly know the type of truck by "ton x wheel". It's a standard measurement, widely used. And I thought that amatuers might know "$2 1/2$-ton" more than "GMC CCKW". 352 and 353 are just the two different wheelbases, I thought that was too detailed.
 * GMC CCKW and Kaiser-Jeep M715 is comparing apples to oranges. They have two different naming systems. "Kaiser-Jeep" is a cool name, though. I have left M715 alone.
 * During WWII manufacturers generally built their own design with their own model name. Others might build copies. The truck was a "GMC CCKW" even when built by Chevrolet (who actually made more, I think). Of course there are always exceptions. Any "M" number, like "M1", is for the body, not the truck..
 * After WW II "M" numbers relate to the entire truck. A M35 (sucessor to the CCKW) is the basic cargo version, M36 a long cargo version, and M47 a dump truck. Each truck with each body has it's own number.
 * I worked off Category:Military trucks of the United States. You can probably recognise some of my titles. Post war are under "M" numbers. I changed these names on my own. I asked for comments in a few places but didn't get any. You can certainly do whatever you want.
 * Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a fan page. Fan identifications shouldn't then been used as page titles, IMHO...

6x6
I would like to know if my military truck ever seen service and where if it did Richard schlappi (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6x6 truck. 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/20081028220440/http://www.transchool.eustis.army.mil/Museum/ExhibitsIndex.htm to http://www.transchool.eustis.army.mil/Museum/ExhibitsIndex.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Top photo
The main photo has a weird aspect ratio, it looks like it's stretched a little bit vertically, it makes it look slightly taller and narrower than it actually is. Idumea47b (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

CCKW-353
"a near identical version of the CCKW-353, that lacked its front-wheel drive, resulting in an officially purely on-road, and therefore 5-ton rated, 6×4 version of the same truck. A beam front axle was used, with the transfer case locked in high range."

If it doesn't have a front drive axle or use the low range at all, why would it even have a transfer case? That's just a waste of a perfectly useful transfer case. They built plenty of 6x4 civilian trucks with the normal transmission-to-final drive driveshaft connection, why would they not use the same layout for this truck? Like those are the two reasons the transfer case is there, and they are both eliminated in this design. Unless there is some gearing down involved in the high range that is necessary and easier than changing the final drive or transmission ratios, or they just felt that keeping absolute parts commonality was more important than changing the design just because the transfer case was absolutely pointless in every other regard. Idumea47b (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Never mind, didn't the CCKW use some weird setup with twin driveshafts from the transfer case to the rear axles instead of a series design? So I guess that makes sense. I forgot about that. Idumea47b (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)