Talk:M19 tank transporter

Untitled
Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 15:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Best name for this article?
Fellow wikipedians, The US Army knew this vehicle/combo as the M19 tank transporter, would this name be more adequate for this article? If it's not worth renaming/moving, then maybe a redirect page woule be useful for the M19 denomination? (it has already been used in at least a couple of lists, with "red links"). Thanks & Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources...
I couldn't find "verifiable" online sources as recommended by Wikipedia, but this link to the "Revell" (ex-"Matchbox") 1/76 scale kit can provide some basic information about the real vehicle: In this page there is even a link to the kit's instruction sheet (http://www.revell.de/manual/03226.PDF in PDF format), which has side and front views of the vehicle. I've accessed the site today. Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Revell Germany Kit#03226 M19 Tank Transporter 1:76

Hall-Scott 440?
Where does that come from? I don't find it, Doyle(03) denies it on page 230 (first para second column). I do have the Britsh re-engining them in the 1950s with Rolls-Royce C6NFL 12.2L diesel I6 with 175hp at 2100rpm. Ware(10).

11 Sep 2015
No Hall-Scott engines please see above and:

Doyle (03) is 2nd edition of Berndt (93). I will probably replace all Berndts with Doyles. Doyle page 230 says "Despite a few reports to the contrary, no records exist that indicate that any engine other than the Hercules diesel was installed in these trucks as part of factory mass production".

I am using an engine blurb which has been used in 9 other articles so far. "OHV" is not a variable, all diesels have OHV. Aspiration is a variable, it can be "natural", as here, "supercharged", as in most Detroit Diesels, or "turbocharged", as in all modern diesels.

This is not vandalism, I am working here and have at least 5 references.

Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced changes
Why has the weight more than doubled to 45 tons? That's a bizarre number. Why "Truck-trailer" rather than "Tractor trailer"? Why remove correct redlinks to things like Hercules, but note things like it not being turbocharged (as if a 1930s truck design would be)? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Source:.
 * The name of the article is "M19 Tank Transporter". That is both M20 Tractor and M9 trailer combined. The title, on the cover of TM 9-768, is "45-ton Tank Transporter Truck-trailer. I used "45-ton", omitted "Tank Transporterr", and used "Truck-trailer", the proper name of the vehicle. The tractor, M20, is "12-ton", the combination, M19, is 45-ton.
 * I changed the engine blurb, and explained that "OHV" is not necessary, all diesels have OHVs. The aspiration of diesels is a variable, it can be natural, supercharged, or turbocharged. That is why I left out OHV and added naturally aspired.
 * I did not know that a link to something that does not exist should stay red. Why?
 * "I am working here and have at least 5 references." Neither of you seem to have gone to a good link to the official US Army Technical Manual, and looked at the cover, much less go inside. Thank you very much for giving me so much room. It's all yours. Sammy D III (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Yanks called it "Truck-trailer" because the military do always love to create their own sweet terminology. Yet if we're using that for categorization within other related articles, shouldn't we use consistent nomenclature, rather than the one-off term? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought, built in US, US English. Wrong, I guess. Here "tractors" are driven in fields by farmers, you don't flat tow anything on the road. Here "tractor" is sort of short for "semi-tractor", which this is not. I wanted to make it US clear that it was not a semi. There is nothing here that says US, though. Sammy D III (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's short for ballast tractor, which this is. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed "truck-tractor" to "tractor trailer" based on it being a semi-trailer tractor & trailer combo... If there's a cat for something milspec equivalent under another name, change it back.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Trek, not to argue, to be clear. The M20 is not a semi-tractor, it carries no load, and pulls a full trailer with a pintle hitch. In England/Europe it is called a "ballast tractor". Tractor-trailer would be right there. A "semi-tractor" carries a large portion of the load on its fifth wheel.
 * The "M19" is a combination which is rated as "45-ton". Only the "M20" truck itself is rated as "12-ton". | TM 9-768 page 3.
 * I do not think you are supposed to have a link (Hercules DFXE) in the infobox if it is in the text.
 * Thanks for the other note, I was only referring to this article. You have a nice day. Sammy D III (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Since it's the tractor & not the combo being described in the infobox, its weight (as opposed to its towing capacity) is the issue, isn't it? Towing is (or IMO should be) separate.
 * As to redlinks, I've seen bluelinks dupe'd, so why not? :)
 * On "semi" as opposed to anything else, I'll confess ignorance & let it lie.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  05:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Enjoy. Sammy D III (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

14 Sep 2015
Added sourced section "Specifications". The name stinks. This combined most mechanical text, most duplicate info in text was deleted.

Changed rating to 45-ton, the correct rating for the M19 combination, the subject and title of the article.

This truck's manufacturer's plate says "Prime mover", an obsolete term. "Truck" was used. "Ballast tractor' is British English, rarely used in the US. Truck is built in US, article appears written in US English. No US source calls this truck any kind of tractor.

More comming. Sammy D III (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

16 Sep 2015
Trekphiler is deliberately interfering with my edits. Read the three sections above. Look at what I have been doing. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

trailer
I have read online, but not yet sourced to anywhere, that the trailer's design origin is British. The story runs that a 40 (Long) ton capacity trailer was designed by Crane's of Dereham, and production was started there (Dysons is also mentioned as possible manufacturer). To expand production the trailer spec/design was passed to Rogers in the US who then built units (my guess is these may have differed in specific components, statements appear that only the Rogers-built trailers were used in North Africa). GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have "designed for use with either the British 40-ton multi-wheeled trailer, typified by the products of Cranes and British Trailers, or the 45-ton US Army equivalent..." in Ware(10), a British publisher. The truck was designed for the British, only makes sense the trailer was British. What did the Scammel Pioneer pull? The design doesn't seem US, who went almost immediately to the semi-tractor M26 (G160). Should "Cranes" be in the infobox? I don't know the company. It should be in the text for sure.
 * Does that trailer suspension stuff make any sense at all? I couldn't do better. The word "trunnion" is used in the TM 9-768, but I don't think it means much to anyone. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They were almost all British designed. Some of the early US trailers were re-worked in Kirby and Manchester with new leaf spring suspensions that could be towed safely under load - the original US designs hunted all over the place. My Dad (too young for the army) was one of several underage civilian drivers (the young sons of local haulage companies) hauling them off Liverpool docks and up the new concrete-surfaced East Lancs road. The road that led to Burtonwood airfield becoming such an important supply depot. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What did the British call these? If you changed the names to British the whole article could be written in British? They certainly cared more than the US. You would only lose the TM 9-768 trailer source, everything else would work. Is there a British source better than Ware(10)? Sammy D III (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ware(10) "Scammell Pioneer" pages 216-217 has some stuff on the trailers, with one picture. The rear tires come off to load on some models.
 * The British refitted these with Rolls-Royce C6NFL-143 engines. That should be in the "History" section? Sammy D III (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The British designation was AFAICT; Diamond T 30-ton Semi-Trailer Recovery Tank Transporter, the designation being the same for the Scammel vehicle only with the manufacturer's name changed to 'Scammel'.


 * Trailers used came from manufacturers such as Cranes, Rogers Brothers (US), and Shelvoke & Drewry and with some the standard ballast body was removed form the Diamond T and replaced with a turn-table for a semi-trailer . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

16 Sep 2015
I expanded ballast box. I have been using the "G" number link in not bold letters.

If this stays US, is section "US Nomen" necessary? The numbers are already in Intro, as is the "M26" link as "M25 Tank transporter". All you would lose is the "US Army Ordnance" link. If article is translated into British the section would probably stay.

The Army calls the Budd wheels "disK", but, with disc brakes, "disC" is modern term? I changed it.

The "Hercules DFXE" red link will never be made, there isn't even an article on the company. Should the link be cut back to just "Hercules", still saying "Her...DFXE"? Does it matter?

Should "Spec..(M9 trailer)" be cut back to "Trailers", then M9 and British trailers be sub-sections? Is there anything good on British trailers?

There is a dull army picture of the truck-trailer from the left side in the TM. Should this go in the infobox and the good picture (it's really good) go in the gallery? Maybe not.

Second paragraph in "Service" says 5,871 were built, I have 6,554.

In US we often measure RPM without a comma, 1600. Hp has a comma, torque doesn't. They should match either way?

The M9 trailer has 12 wheels with dual tires on each wheel, total 24 tires. A wheel can have either single or dual tires, it is still one wheel. Example: the M20 6x4 truck has 6 wheels, 4 driven, the driven wheels have dual tires, total 10 tires.

That is all I have. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ♠I'd leave the Herc DFXE (both parts) redlinked; it can take a long time to find sources, even for pages that deserve creation badly. (It took me over 5yr to get California Kid & Ala Kart up, frex, & Hirohata Merc had to be rescued from deletion...)
 * ♠As to comma use, I'm not clear on your meaning. I always say #hp, #ft-pd @#rpm.
 * ♠As to wheel/tire, I'd disagree. I've always seen Army trucks as "axle" & "wheel" combinations, so a 6x6 can be a 6whlr or a 10whlr (2 or 4 rear wheels). "Duallie" rears are (AFAIK) always "dual wheel" not "dual tire". Is this different in military usage? Judging by the pix, those aren't just 2 tires on a common rim.
 * ♠I'd keep the "U.S. nomenclature", given the page title, because the Brits also used it.
 * ♠I'd agree, split the Trailer section into "U.S." & "British" (if anything can be found); a passing mention of Brit usage of some trailer (even a vague one-liner) is enough for a start there IMO, given emphasis on the U.S. Same applies to "usage" IMO; break it out by country (or major user).
 * ♠Best, most informative pic in the infobox; don't let a less-interesting or -informative color one replace a better B&W, tho.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  03:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok with the redlinks, I mostly think the one in the infobox looks real bad. I have read somewhere that you should keep links out, put them in the text if possible. Flags aren't supposed to be in there, either, somebody has been removing them (per MOS). I have had a bunch of links taken out of text in different places (rm duplicate links). I think having repeated links is good, that way you can reuse the ones that are in the intro.


 * The comma is 1600 vs 1,600. The tm uses 1,600, but doyle (where I usually get power because he also has torque, the Army often doesn't) uses 1600, as do Mack operator books and Motor's repair manuals. I think you should have the one for hp and torque the same, whichever way.


 * The wheels is very confusing, it is a theory thing. One circle. Some trucks, like the US M939 series, have both single and dual tire models, all are 6x6. One wheel on each end of each axle.


 * On the Budd disc wheels, there are in fact two entire wheels with tires bolted next to each other, but they do not move in relation to each other. They act, and are counted, as one wheel. The trailer has only rims with the tires on them, two slide onto one big hub. Again, they work as one circle, wheel. This ALWAYS confuses people. Stupid US cowboy trucker movies talk about "eighteen wheelers", this is a long-distance trucker nickname for a 6x4 semi-tractor with a two axle (4 wheel) trailer. I was a truck driver, we say tires, but that could be an industry thing.


 * This trailer has two physical axles on the same centerline, one on each side, with a tire on both the inside and outside of the beam. Four wheels per axle centerline. No wonder Andy's dad said they "hunted" (didn't go very straight). I forgot Ross non-power steering. A kid driving the biggest truck on the planet, with no power-steering and a trailer that didn't want to follow the truck. How big and proud he must have felt, "mine's bigger than yours". And in a war, that is kid hero stuff.


 * Can/should you change the name to "Diamond T Model 980/981"? The British use US M numbers? Change it from M19 (the combination) to M20 (the truck)? That makes the trailer much less important. I do think it should be re-written into British, if that is possible. That is what most of the readers will use. This truck is a very unusual and rare fluke in the US, but well known (I think) in Britain and Europe.


 * Absolutely agree on picture, it is great. The dull manual picture sounds dumber by the minute.


 * I do still think you were messing with me, and am so glad we can talk now. I'm going to blank my page, can you put away that stuff on that military page? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ♠"I do still think you were messing with me" Nope, it looks like I trampled you entirely by accident. It happens. When you get two people editing the same page at the same time, one tries to save & can wipe out the other... So far, you've done nothing to remotely make me want to screw you over. :D Seems you just need to adjust to how things go here. It can be a bit of a steep learning curve.
 * Blanking? Not clear what you're after from me, there.
 * On redlinks in the infobox, you may be right. I do what feels right; if the MOS says not, I'll leave that for somebody better versed. If it's in the text, I'm fine with it being alone. (If the page{s} get created, linking from the infobox is no biggie.)
 * ♠I tend to take out duplicated links, unless there's good reason for leaving them. Having a lot of duplicates creates an unpleasant appearance & doesn't really accomplish anything. Ideally, link at first use & leave it. Lists, IDK; I've seen bare text sometimes & every instance linked sometimes, & AFAIK, there's no "rule".
 * ♠Gotcha on the comma. IDK if there's a "rule" on that, either; I use a comma when the convert is 10,000 or more (usually, but not always ;p ), not otherwise. I find using it in hp numbers is too fussy. Go look at the page history & use what it was on first use, I'd say; that's always a good way to go, because there could be an Engvar issue, & the page creator's usage tends to govern.
 * ♠Yeah, I think "tire" rather than "wheel" is an "insider" usage. That being true, I'd say better to avoid the confusion & use a more commonly-accepted term, i.e. wheel.
 * ♠Rewrite? Or pagemove? I'd say don't; again, the page creator's choice tends to govern. You can post a formal move proposal, from this page to Diamond T T981 or something, but that leaves the trailer "orphaned" & I doubt it merits a page of its own; as it stands, it has a place. (IDK if the Brits listed the truck & trailer as a "unit", the way the U.S. did; I doubt it.) I would also restore the T980/T981, unless you've got good sourcing saying that wasn't used, since that's how I found it; I presume that's a corporate model ID.
 * ♠Do the Brits use U.S. model numbers? Not at the time; AFAIK, never. Adding in the official Brit Army designation in the lead, & in a subsection "Brit usage", would be good, if you've got it. (When I said "also used it", I see I wasn't clear; I meant, "also used this truck". Doubt they used the same trailer with it, so a section on the Britspec trailer is warranted, too.)
 * ♠And a note on how WP works: unless you're making pretty major changes, like section deletes or page moves, you really don't need to "announce" day-to-day edits here; that's what edit summaries are for. :) This last exchange, yeah, when there's a series of things needing clearing up, or requests for something to be added, but otherwise...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  08:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * MOS:DIGITS is the style guide entry on using commas, or thin spaces (never liked the latter personally), to group digits. "Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped...provided that this is consistent within each article". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being an ass. I have been doing US trucks for years, I think there has only been one person who ever cared, and he’s gone. He took a lot of crap. Nobody ever reads the stuff I work on. When you showed up after years and removed my stuff, I was surprised. I have to cut and paste everything.


 * I did change by change because we were fighting, normally nobody cares. I usually spread this stuff out, but I felt I was “under the gun”.


 * I don’t know your abbreviations, and can’t understand those WP links. I think people use them for their own opinions.


 * I first used cm, then changed to m, then back to cm. I read somewhere you use the closest unit, cm works for me. Metric guys can move decimals easy. US Army changed from foot/inch to inch during WWII, has been used since. Other sources all use inch. Europe manufactures use mm, that is way below margin of error rounding inches. I use tons and feet on load size, that’s what the Army uses. Side note, US doesn’t do (short) or (long) tons, only 2,000 lbs "tons". I only translate to metric, I understand that.


 * I don’t do much text, I don’t like to change other people’s stuff. I don’t know (or want to) how to rename or move. I just do trucks mechanically.


 * Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ♠"Sorry for being an ass." You haven't been. A bit touchy, but so what? :D I've dealt with some genuine dicks. Take a look at the discussion about pictures here... (I still haven't figured out why he wanted the pix gone...)
 * ♠On measurements, I use ftin in the templates, because most of the sources I have do. Fixing it for mm to in is easy enough; there's a "rounding number" the template can use: 30 mm gets 30 mm, where 30 mm gets 30 mm & 30 mm gets 30 mm. (It's useful converting grains to grams & ounces.) I'll use mm for wheelbase on pages where the subject is British or European, per their convention. On tons, I leave it alone; I'm never sure if they're using short or long or what... (Metric is easier... :) )
 * ♠Yeah, people will link to guideline pages to bolster an argument, but it's easier to link to the page than repeat what it says... If you're here long enough, the shorthand gets familiar.
 * ♠And hey, I'm happy to co-operate.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)