Talk:List of United States Army tactical truck models

Start
Written in US English with dd Mmm yyyy dates. Tons have fractions, not decimals. (EDIT 5 October 2021) Lines in tables started as; "| name # (space) ton (space) wheels x wheels || start year end year || total built || notes" Sammy D III (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Article title
This article is a list article, and its title needs to reflect that. However, I am unsure if it should be moved to "List of United States Army tactical trucks" or "List of United States Army tactical truck models", as I'm unsure if there's a notable difference in meaning between the two. If the consensus is that those titles are interchangeable, then the shorter one would probably be better. If they're not, which should it be? Thanks, RadiculousJ (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think changing "engines" to a list title was a good move, and I agree here, too. I just noticed this post, I was wondering why you hadn't already changed this already. I think I may have used "models" because it matched "engines" in length when they were together. I personally would like you to decide, outside eyes.
 * (EDIT): I am not sure that "engines" is of any use at all, and would not object to it being deleted. Again, outside eyes. I do think that this has potential. I am thinking of posting clearer help in adding trucks. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

5 Oct 2021
Comparing this list with List of utility vehicles of the United States Armed Forces shows that breaking this table down by years looks bad. I think I was thinking mechanical eras, pre-WWII, WWII, Cold War, post-Cold War, but gave up before I could figure out how.

The PDF links' titles are obscene and need a chainsaw.

The word "tactical" in the titles is used to separate all-wheel-drive vehicles that drive through mud from every other run-of-the-mill commercial truck the military has owned, and they've owned them all.

I don't think that ordering by manufacturer's names works very well. Many of these vehicles may not use it in their common-names. The link to the article has the manufacturer in the first line. The name's not really in any mechanical order. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

10 Oct 2021 possible improvement
I believe that this list may be replaced with a military niche one which may mean less to the average reader than this one. This is military and will have specific terms, but it's not necessary to over-complicate it for a specific audience.

What is wrong with the word "truck" The majority of these are "Truck" as their proper name, and they certainly are commonname. I think this sounds US-centric, but these are "trucks" designed and built in the US for US military customers. The article is written in US English and I'm having problems understanding why a basically straight-forward theme should be complicated. Although they may use other names, I think virtually every English speaker of whatever variety will recognize the work "truck".

"Soft-skinned" is a military-specific term. Everyone I asked said "canvass". Who other than a military buff is going to call a dump truck "soft-sided?

"Tactical" is also a military-specific term, and means even less to those I asked. It has to be replaced. My intent has been military design trucks that drive to the mud or sand and then keep going. The US military also uses every commercial truck available for admin work, I am trying to exclude them. Heavily modified pick-ups from Chevy and Dodge have been used as sort of half-tactical. Currently International may be selling heavily modified commercial HD trucks. I think they should be included. They have modifications and parts options that are not available to anyone without an army.

"US Army" to "US armed forces" or whatever is a no brainer.

 The images have to go in the table, of course.

The order I used was by time and then by size. It doesn't work this way, but I think there is something to the idea.

I was looking for mechanical periods, lines of evolution.
 * Prior to WWII there was a mess of anything and vehicle development was crazy. There isn't a lot of clear information on this stuff other than one available book by Crismon. I was thinking "pre-WWII, WWII, Cold War, post-Cold War", or something better.
 * In 1940 there was a complete start-over with trucks built to military designs. This is the US buying the war, the trucks everyone recognizes from there. Every design was accepted so there are a bunch of designs, but they all have the same "feel". They also have the same naming style. Medium and heavy trucks developed the same layouts and ideas and could be compared. Flathead vs. OHV. Bolt-together or banjo axles. Brakes.
 * In the 1950 the WWII stuff evolved into the cold-war stuff, rationalized and standardized. This is when the "M" numbers started.
 * In the 1980 they pulled their heads out of their butts and designed specific vehicles. This is sort of when the letters, "HMMWV" stuff, took over. My guess is these are the most-viewed, but I'm not going to do my homework.

By breaking at 1940, 1950, and 1980ish you get the same naming style on similar looking and mechanical trucks that worked together. Any photo will have them together.

All the history has to go? as do the individual TM refs. I think some group TM may be useful. There are so many sources from 1940 to today, it doesn't really matter very much.

Speaking of sources, my primary source after 1940 was "cite book|last=Doyle|first=David|title=Standard catalog of U.S. Military Vehicles|year=2003|publisher=Krause Publications|isbn=0-87349-508-X". My primary source before 1940 is " cite book|last=Crismon|first=Fred W|title=US Military Wheeled Vehicles |edition=3|year=2001|publisher=Victory WWII Pub.|isbn=0-970056-71-0". I've confirmed all of it with other sources, but almost all of the info I have posted originally came from those two books.

Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

15 October 2021 reference history
This is being posted during a discussion but it is about references I used earlier, not the discussion.

Most vehicles up to 2000 have been sourced by or compared with. This is the primary source prior to 1940.

Most vehicles between 1940 and 2000 have been primarily sourced by.

Most vehicles have/can have a variety of other references, but Crismon (2001) and Doyle (2003) are the primary sources for most of the information I have posted. Sammy D III (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)