This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Hello Holland! I have tried a different infobox here, "tractor" instead of "weapon". I will probably play with the two, see which I can make work better. I do not have much info on the TD-14 here, I do not even know if it is a M1 medium.
If you answer me, please do it here, on this talk page. Keep the talking in one place. Please DO NOT START A DIFFERENT SECTION to answer, use this one. Just move over one space, I will show you how. Look at this stuff in "Edit" so you can see what I am doing.
← If you use one of these ( : ), the paragraph moves over one space.
← If you use two of these ( :: ), the paragraph moves over two spaces.
You have to do this to each paragraph, otherwise it moves back to the left. You also have to put one blank line between each paragraph. Try to answer me here, moving over one space. If you do it wrong, I will fix it so you can see what I am doing. Doing it this way makes it easier to talk.
Hallo Sammy. Thanks again for your efforts. As you probably have seen, I have put the TM 5-3272 on my site, where You can find all the specs you need. Indeed did I also doubt about the designation as Crismon (Tracked Veh.) talks about the designation M3. But as far as I know that designation didn't exist. A medium tractor it is for sure and elsewhere I found that it was indeed called M1. Crismon must have meant (or mistaken himself by) the M3 TD-14 with crane, that he depicted somewhat further in the same book. But it would be nice to find proof of the Army itself!
PS I have looked to the FM 21-6, but found no proof of the M1 designation.
The ORD 3 SNL G-1 must give the ultimate answer. Do you know someone here with a copy (many pics of it are used in the G-numbers article, but I don't know the source). Have a nice day and remember questions are challenging, answers often b... Corjan de Wit (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning (goedenavond where you live) Corjan. We are doing better talking. Your English is pretty good, the things you are getting wrong are just practice. If you keep doing it, you will learn. I am very bad at English, but I will fix some small things when I can. You are close on capitalizing, but English has a lot of strange tricks. Things like it is "I", but "me", "we", "you", "he", "she", and "them" are not capitalized. It makes no sense to me, and you are used to capitalizing all nouns, like German, right? We also put the words in different order. That is hard to learn in in school. You will get it. Ask me if you want, I will try to answer.
In WWII (World War 2, II = 2) trucks do not usually have "M" numbers, they use names (GMC CCKW, Diamond T 980, things like that). Truck bodies can have M numbers, that is strange. CCKW is not "M1 truck", but there is a "M1 Chemical service truck". The "M1" is the body type, not the truck itself, which is still "CCKW". For some reason they called all tractors "M1", even when they are different. Strange. This all changed after the war, you see that the TM numbers changed, too.
Thank you (I learn!). In Dutch we don't capitalize the nouns like in German. But we have a polite form for you: U, other than jij, also you in English. I have placed the TM 9-1783A on my site and posted a link here.
I am going to start over here on the left again. You know how it works now, how to make it easy to read, I don't want to count all those little colons. You would use 1. I love capitalizing You as polite.
I got Crismon, now that I am an idiot that’s the kind of stuff I can read. It will take me some time, but I think I will like it. Are You, or do You know, Advocaat? I have a zillion TMs from him. I only pay for a month here and there. Do You know The Blueprints.com? They are drawings, few have dimensions, I don’t think they can be references. But they are cool.
I am not the best teacher. When you came here somebody sent you a “Welcome” form letter. That person may be able to send you to someone who can speak Dutch, and knows the rules and tricks. This should be easier than Family, Criminal, and Commercial (?) law. But you don’t have to.
I can help you with machines, I was a truck driver. My Mack DMM 600 6x6 ready-mix concrete truck was sort of like an M54 5 ton truck. And I used to load a Cat 955L loader onto a lowboy, and sometimes played around, loading my dump truck (tipper). I can not remember where I learned to operate farm tractors, but I can.
About the measurements. I am using inches, then converting to metric. Should I convert 100 inches to 250cm or 2.50m? Factories use mm, but they are too exact. What would You measure a truck as?
Hello Chicago! Indeed I am "advocaat" It's the Dutch word for solicitor and I have about 50K of manuals of the US Army.
Perhaps you knew my old site Camojoe with Webshots. Unluckily they changed in a dull sort of cloud. I lost all my albums online. I had so many pics that civil contractors who were working for LOGSA used them and asked for more pics to make digital TM's.
I believe you are a great teacher. A beautiful machine that Mack DMM 600. I have a couple of pics of it from Gov.Liquidation, a good source. With the help of them we already could make fine models.
In many modern manuals there is a conversion table for all the European measures to (old) American/English measures.
An inch is 2,54 cm. We don't use mm in to measure a vehicle. We say for example that it measures 5,54 meter.
Indeed we use mm for the bore of a cylinder liner and other more precise measures. I am currently doing a case for a big Chinese firm, where we use mm for that kind of stuff they deliver to a.o. the Netherlands (for Wärtsilä-engines)
50,000 manuals??? Did you buy a whole army? I hope you are saving them somewhere else for yourself, that is a lot of work to lose!
In newer US Army TMs the "Operators manuals" have -10 at the end of the numbers. I think they are better, you have basic specifications and directions. I suggest that You convert them first, then do the maintenance and parts lists for that vehicle. The newer TMs do translate to metric right in them.
I don't know if You know, but TMs are written very simply. I think they were for people who only had 8th grade (primary school?) education, high school at most. If you can understand the table of contents, they will tell you how to do anything.
Now to tractors. What a mess, they call anything an "M1", don't they? Maybe we should do something like Your "detailed information for A-C, Model WM" for all of them? I can do tables, but I have done a lot, I don't know if they are very good. They are all that ugly grey, too.
I have to go now, talk to you later. PS: I am retired and have nothing better to do than this. If You do have things to do, You can wait days to answer, I will not be insulted. Have a nice day. Sammy D III (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Sammy. As I could download directly from LOGSA it was easy to obtain a lot of them. We try to use them to build
models. They also have 1 for airforce, 5 for engineers, 9 for ordnance, 10 for ordnance, 11 for signals.
At the ending they have indeed -10 for operators manual, -20, -35 etc for higher echelons' maintenance. The latest are
more technical of course. If you need anything just ask me. I can always ask someone of the other modelers within the
army and especially national guard to get it. I can than put it on the private part of my site and send you the link to ::: to be able to download.
Indeed it is a good idea to make other ones like the detailed information etc. In the TB 5-9720-11 (can be downloaded in
scribd) I can copy the text (text-version of Archive.com) and paste it. Someone else has abridged it to normal
proportions.
No sometimes my work is very stressing as this afternoon as I just some minutes ago could prevent a little disaster to
happen, but I always find time to work on the hobby, because it is relaxing and fun! So don't hesitate to write.
I am now going to create a new article on the M425/426 tractor truck (IH, Kenworth and Marmon-Herrington). By the way I
.jpg)