Talk:Mack model EH trucks/Archive 1

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Corjan de Wit (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC) this deserves to be dealt with separately like there is a seperate entry for the Mack NO. In the entry Mack trucks there is insufficient room for these military subjects.

Mack military trucks article?
This article is pretty lame. Maybe “Mack military trucks” for an article? You could use WWI bulldogs, there must be info there, and they are certainly notable. You could also use other commercial trucks used by the military in small numbers.

Are you aware that the post-war M123/125 10 tons are sort of an evolution of the NO?

Doyle(2003) is great, you can find it in some libraries. Crismon(2001) has pictures with good, long captions, and will have many little-known models. Not much in the way of specs, though. TM-9-2800 has a 1953 version available. These 3 sources are listed at GMC CCKW. Sammy D III (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Separate Page for Military Macks
Dear GB fan and Sammy. I agree on making a separate page for Mack Military trucks. The Tm 9-2800 is put on my site scribd.com/advocaat and also the two earlier versions. I agree that Crimson has enough examples and let us not forget the book from Bart Vanderveen especially on military Macks. So there is enough to write also about the EH etc. types, but I have waited for now because of the possible deletion and also because I am a new Wikpedian and have only yesterday learned how to put pictures on the page. I think it would be marvellous to make such a page. Don't forget the NR. (On the dutch Wiki there is a separate page for that subject) and so many others like indeed the m123/125 of which I can contribute with a number of TMs. Have a nice day! Corjan de Wit (talk)
 * I have Crismon(2001) and Doyle(2003), I had not heard of Vanderveen, he's not in the library, and I'm not going to buy him just yet. If you can get it, you have much more than I do. And I don't know how much you know about trucks, I'm going to babble.


 * Crismon(2001) has: AC 3-7 ton 4x2, AP 8 ton 4x2 prime mover, EH 4x2 fuel truck, EHU 4x2 wrecker, water tank, stake body, semi-tractor, NB-1 (EEU) 2 ½-5 ton 6x4 searchlight, NM 6 ton 6x6 prime mover, NO 7 ½ ton 6x6, NR and LMSW 10 ton 6x4.


 * Doyle(2003) only has tactical vehicles: NJU 5 ton 4x4 pontoon tractors, NM 6 ton 6x6, NO 7 ½ ton 6x6 prime mover, M123/125 10 ton 6x6


 * TM-9-2800-43 has (orig #/PDF #): NO p 307/273, 10t 6x4 p 310/275


 * TM-9-2800-47 has: 2 ½ t 4x2 dump (looks like small E) p 262/265, 2 ½ t 4x2 fire truck p 329/333, 5 t 4x2 cargo p 302/305, 5 t 4x2 tractor p 341/344, NO 7 ½ prime mover 311/314


 * ACs were the original “Bulldogs”. They were commercial trucks. Technically a dead end, for the time and technology they were strong and reliable.


 * EHs were commercial 4x2 trucks bought and adapted to the Army. They started with commercial cabs, some later ones had military cabs. Looks like EH is the model, the second digit “H” was used on some models right to the end of letters. Maybe “Highway”? “HD”? U was the Cabover, and T was the semi-tractor?


 * Ns were designed as a tactical 6x6. Some had commercial cabs, later ones and all NOs had military cabs. TM 10-1679.


 * L was a newer model, somehow the NR became a LMSW?


 * M123/125 are just monsters. They are not in TM-9-2800-53.


 * You sound serious, I am here for fun and don't know many rules. You are lead. Do you know that you can steal anything here, and change it so it works for you? I can do infoboxes and simple tables. A thought is several short infoboxes, one on each series. I don't know if that is good form, just a thought. Sammy D III (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Sammy, I have the Bartvanderveen and there is a lot of information in it (six pages), so we have enough to make a good page. The EH had after the still civvy version in 1941 also a militarized version in 1942. Thnx for the research in the 9-2800-versions and in Crismon and Doyle. I could scan the Vanderveen pages with all the specs and then perhaps You could make the boxes as I don't yet know how. I put them in private on my scribd.com site. This weekend I am not home, but there is no hurry. For me it is also just fun in the first place as I am a modeller and the manuals serve to make resin models by KNIGA a firm of a good friend. Mostly modern US. I send You the link to the private page later. Are You a modeller too? Corjan de Wit (talk)

Link to pages EH etc. vanderVeen
As promised these are the pics taken from the mentioned book: https://www.scribd.com/doc/247930225/Mack-Eh-Etc-Bartvanderveen?secret_password=QXvbim6Y6SV7whv4GM4Y Interesting is the special trailer. Many were send to England. From the EH 1943 there is a special TM. The book of VanderVeen makes it also possible, I hope, to identify the types in the TM 9-2800's. Anyhow enough to write a special page! Corjan de Wit (talk)

P.S. Do You have this one?: https://www.scribd.com/doc/159434497/US-Military-Tracked-Vehicles


 * First, I tend to go long. That's just me.


 * I can’t read the specs on your pages, that’s sort of what I can do. I notice that all with commercial cabs have spoke wheels with hubcaps, all military cabs have disc wheels. Most commercial had hydraulic brakes, all military had air brakes?


 * I did the infobox with what I had, EH and EHT. You may want to replace the EHT tractor with the EHU COE cargo. Compare cargo with cargo? Same wheelbase and OAL length? Height and/or width may be the same for both? Just change the numbers and labels. I made that “Gallery” because I knew how, otherwise the pictures just go in a column below the infobox.


 * I have been to Chevy G506, GMC CCKW & DUKW, Stude US6, ZiS-151 (USSR), and Jiefang CA-30 (China). They are all pretty much the same. M54 is sort of diarrhea of the keyboard. Sometimes I combine articles, I haven’t been here in a while.


 * Something happened to me, now I’m pretty much an idiot, with almost no reliable memory. I have fun finding lame, abandoned articles, and punching them up. I can do whatever I want, nobody ever stops by. I just keep relearning the same stuff and going back. I don’t really try to relearn war itself, and sort of avoid tanks and guns. I enjoy models, but can’t do them myself. I still have my Roco Minitanks, but never painted or dioramaed them. I do like light rail. And did you know |The Blueprints.com?Sammy D III (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

In the first place thank You for the great infobox. I find the contents all right. The distinction between EH and EHT is the main distinction as EHU and EHUT are mainly COE. You are right that Vanderveen doesn't give many specs, but the stories are very interesting and I will abridge the text with them. I have seen the pages that You have done and must say that they are looking good. For the 1,5 Ton Chevrolet I have the TM 9-807 on my site, so I will make a link. Me I am not a fan of tanks and guns too, because they are modelled so often. Great that You also have ROCO minitanks. That was for us (see scalemodelteam.de) together with Trident (Villi) the basis for the HO military models. I also like to see railways but not as a modelling theme. I now have TM's of the H-542 models of IHC, Marmon Herrington and Kenworth. Perhaps we could make a page of that together? Greetings from the Netherlands and have a nice day Corjan de Wit (talk)

Merge proposal
I recommend a merge with Mack Trucks as the article in its present state may meet Wikipedia's Criteria for speedy deletion — BranStark (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * note: The article in its current state does not meet any speedy deletion criterion. -- GB fan 16:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - I honestly can't see any reason for a merge, let alone a deletion, but if the article should be merged with anything, it should be Mack Trucks in military service. ---User:DanTD (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this article is about a specific model of a Mack truck, different to other models, so if it is currently weak in structure or content it should be expanded rather than merged. Regards, DPdH (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Inches to feet
I have been told that feet are easier than inches for many people. Sammy D III (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)