This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6×6 truck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How many men could be seated in the back? 12, 14 or 20? 68.7.39.127 ( talk) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Two seemingly reliable sources of info on the CCKW are:
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)
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)
Some similar articles have this format. Anything can go into "References" but will not have a footnote. Any inline cites (<ref> xxx </ref>) will come out in "Notes". To make those short ones use " {{sfnp | author or title | 1999 | p=}} " , when the info matches on two or more they will combine below. Sammy D III ( talk) 17:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
"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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6×6 truck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How many men could be seated in the back? 12, 14 or 20? 68.7.39.127 ( talk) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Two seemingly reliable sources of info on the CCKW are:
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)
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)
Some similar articles have this format. Anything can go into "References" but will not have a footnote. Any inline cites (<ref> xxx </ref>) will come out in "Notes". To make those short ones use " {{sfnp | author or title | 1999 | p=}} " , when the info matches on two or more they will combine below. Sammy D III ( talk) 17:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
"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)