Jump to content

Talk:Canadian Military Pattern truck/Archives/2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Standardization

Edit: I should have have started here. Chev/Fords are not exact. Canada got Chevy and Ford, who hated each other, to build trucks that were only a couple of inches different from each other. This blog has some good info and sources. This blog is only GM and the sources are not clear to me, but it is worth a click.

Most trucks are pretty basic. Ladder frame with beam axles on leaf springs. In light trucks you bend the side rails up over the axles and down under the cab to lower ride height. The cab does not have to be as far above the axle lines. The frame is also narrower at the front for the steering clearance and wider at the rear for a wider cargo load. But the frame rail has to be stamped to the exact size. Just a different wheelbase probably needs different rails. And you need a big stamping plant to make them. Pain in the ass. Jeeps and PWs have this type of frame, so you make everything the same.

Larger trucks have straight frame rails, clearly easier. Once the rails are straight it is just measurements. How thick is the rail?. How long?. Where do you drill the holes? CMPs have straight rails behind the cab so you can make them any size you want (I was wrong, CMPs do have a little forming).

Cabs just sit on the frame. Commercial cabs are stamped out to whatever style you want that year. But they have to match the frame, a Chevy commercial cab will not fit on a Ford. CMPs all had the same basic cabs, they could even be switched during assembly. The US did not do this until the 2+1⁄2, 5, and 10-tons of 1950.

LHD and RHD are nothing. Mechanically you need a reverse (or maybe just up-side down) steering box. Move the wheel and pedals. In commercial trucks you already stamp out a reverse dashboard for Australia, no big deal.

Commercially each company wants to build most of it's own stuff, but in trucks you use more third-party "vendor" parts. Those PW axles could be Dodge, but they could be Rockwell, Spicer, or Timken. The Jeep has a Willys (Will-is) engine, Warner trans, Spicer trf case, and Spicer axles.

I don't think you would switch engines. They are very different sizes. The Chevy is a long, skinny I6 with overhead valves, the Ford is a short, wide flathead V8. If nothing else I don't think the engine mounts would be the same.

"An American-made 270 cid GMC straight-6 engine powered the C60X 3-ton truck." is the engine used in the GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6x6 truck.

There are two axle types (split and banjo) and probably different sizes/capacities. Chevy used banjo, they did build those in the US. Ford used split, Spicer made split in those sizes. Maybe?

I personally hate these trucks, but you just can not argue with how good they were. Sammy D III (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

OK – I think it's clear who the real educator here is !    
And it goes a long way answering my questions with regard to the level of standardization between the CMPs.
But what is your opinion now, on where to take this page ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
This is your world. I questioned Dodge being here, you cleaned that up with "Modified Conventional Pattern". If you do "Canadian Vehicles" would the MCP just be cut and go there? A lot of this history could be repeated there. You have already put the RHD PWs in WC or somewhere, correct?
In the infobox, should "Place of origin" be Canada? In "Designer" "Chevrolet Canada" is a red link but there is a General Motors Canada. Chevrolet Canada? Where were the Fords built?
The paragraph "In the list...truck", right before the lists, is not clear to me. "NxM" does not seem clear. Also, although there were not(?) dual tire version that is not why they are "4x4"s. There are always two wheels on an axle, single or dual tires. Think of a GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6x6 truck. It is a 6x6 but it has ten tires. Some trucks have both single and dual tire versions, US 1-ton PUs are an example. This confuses amateurs, then the "Big 18-Wheeler" over-the-road slang hit the movies.
What the hell is a "cwt"? It is explained, sort of, but the link is mush, too. It is an archaic unit for specialty use in the US and the UK? It looks like a rating so it has to be used, but how about "convert" into (metric)? Everyone but the US will understand, screw them.
I think that tables would work better than lists. It is easier (for me) to compare in a table.
A huge part of this deal was overseas assembly. Do you punch up "Outside Canada" enough to make England, Australia, and Indian sub-sections?
Or not. Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
My world ? — Thanks for the .. ehh .. compliment ? — But don't you be ownership–trippin' me now !    
And: no – I haven't even gotten around to putting the Canadian built APTs in the WC-series article.
But you hate these trucks ? — so why did you engage on the talk page here in the 1st place ?
I'm still not done with Crosley. Then I've realised I want to revisit the Dodge T, V, and W civilian trucks. And by that time I hope the book that I ordered will have arrived in the mail: "Summary Report of Acceptances Tank-Automotive Materiel 1940-1945, December 1945." to get a more definitive source on the real production numbers of the WC-series, and probably jeeps, seeps etc. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Is that everything the Army bought during the war? As you finish small stuff you could slowly get bigger. The Chevrolet G506 is one step up from PWs. The army bought every type of every commercial vehicle, too, you could go almost anywhere.
I probably stalked you from PW and wondered about Dodge. Then I started rambling. I never gave these trucks much thought, I don't care for English designs. But for Canada, hardly an industrial giant, to be able to put this program together is extremely cool. Excellent is excellent in any field, correct? Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there a place on WP where I can report stalkers ? — No, but seriously, I'm glad you're warming up to those CMPs a bit. I will take the rest of my answer to my own talk page, because it's not relevant to this one. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dodge?

Should Dodges be in CMP? Sammy D III (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they were part if the same project, but use of the standardised cab types didnt extend beyond prototype. The vehicles are still CMP, but the cabs are an oddity.Lkchild (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have a US POV, but I try to do machines objectively. As I read the lead this is about the actual trucks, not the design program? I am talking about the trucks themself.
You know everything. My main CMP source is Ware (2010) from the article bottom. It is written in UK English. It is a shallow "Guide" book but I know its US stuff is good. There is a lot (for a guide) about CMPs. I have Dodge stuff.
The D-15 picture in the article may be wrong. It is an adapted commercial truck, you can see that the chrome trim has been painted green. Look at the Dodge in the grill. It does not have a driven front axle.
The D-15 probably looks the same, but with front wheel drive. NOTE: 4X4 have load ratings for "off-road", 4x2 are rated for "on road", usually twice the load.(not in Canada, sorry)
This link [1] from Dodge T-, V-, W-Series shows that the D-60s are 4x2 and not any kind of "Military". "The only CMP vehicles in this were the Ford F602S (swb) and F602L (lwb). They were similar to the F60S and F60L (4x4) except...axle." That excludes the D-60s.
In Ware (2010) 2 CMP, Chev C8A, CGT, C/F30, C/F15A, F60L, and C30 all have the same front axle hubs. They do not look like any US hub I have seen. It is clearly different from the Power Wagon's front axle.
The Dodge 3⁄4-ton is a Power Wagon being designed for the US Army at that time. They made a bunch of bodies. RHD and a different box are no designing at all.
The Dodge is an entirely different vehicle than the Chev/Fords and they probably share few if any components. There is no standardization at all.
Maybe it was bought or inspected or something as CMP but the Dodge is mechanically not a CMP. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The article states: "Canadian military truck production included both modified civilian designs (known as Modified Conventional Pattern, MCP) as well as purely military designs based on the CMP specification", and the naming pattern of the D15 and D60(S/L) follows the naming of the Chevy and Ford trucks in the program, like C60(L) and F60(L), so I think the Dodges should be included in this article. Unless you'd like to create a separate article on the modified civilian designs: "Modified Conventional Pattern" ?
At the moment I can live with the current inclusion of the MCP trucks in this CMP page, because it allows for an integral covering of the Canadian wartime truck production, adapted to British specifications. Though making a redirect page for Modified Conventional Pattern to here might be called for, for starters. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The 3/4 APT is indeed an odd duck to include here, but I found a plausible explanation on a forum discussing this: "in july 1944 the ministry of supply raised concerns because of a shortage of 15cwt, 4x4 trucks.....forecast at 10,000 units. a short fact finding mission ensued where the production capabilities of Canada's four truck producers was examined. Chrysler of Canada was in the best position to produce this new truck as the other three were at full production already. it was decided that rather than tool Chrysler up for CMP production (of which at lease one cab13 prototype existed), it would be easier to build a Canadianized version of the U.S. Dodge WC-51—52 3/4 ton truck." See more here --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The article says whatever you edit it to say. I thought it was an article about easily the most successful standardized design of anything in WWII. By scraping everything off the shelf the standardization is wiped out. These Dodges were in no way designed for Canada, they were bought out of desperation to get anything that could meet any specification. They related to the Chev/Fords in no way whatsoever. You are wasting a magnificent engineering program by throwing politics at it. Sammy D III (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
This might interest you: Military history of Canada during World War II#Miscellaneous vehicles. There is not a lot of room, but you could get some stuff in. Sammy D III (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
First off — I'm not the one who edited the page to say it should include MCP trucks — That was already there. Also I'm not the one who listed the Dodges on the page, although I did expand the descriptions of the Dodges already listed. I have now edited the page to clearly distinguish the Dodges as MCP, not CMP.
But now to address your more central point — ".. the most successful standardized design of anything in WWII'' ? — With just over 500,000 CMP's built, I would say that honour should go to the highly standardized jeep (~650,000), highly versatile, but all one wheelbase, one and the same engine, and same number of (driven) wheels.
Currently listed on this page I counted Ten Ford models, with five different wheelbases, three wheel-&-drive configurations – one of which armored; Twelve Chevy & GM models, with four different wheelbases, three wheel-&-drive configurations, two of which Armored, and Both marques in four different payload ratings, and three different engines used ... Granatstein writes CMPs: "..came in a bewildering variety. There were three types of wireless trucks, four of ambulances, thirteen of field workshop vehicles, and 90 types of army vehicles on twelve different chassis." See report here, page 12, and lots more info on this MLU forum thread, with contributions by David Hayward
So what is the actual criterium, what falls within the CMP fleet, and that separates them from the rest ?? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I know you did not put them in. I linked to it, the Commonwealth person did. I sort of mean "you two".
Wow. It looks like you have moved to Canada. It doesn't take you long. International Harvester had a plant at Chatham-Kent and Studebaker had one at Hamilton, farther east, between Niagara Falls and Toronto.
Different POV of "successful". The jeep is one model for one job. The CMP was an entire range of different sized trucks that could be used for everything. Twenty different trucks with one of two engines and many (most?) common components. You think most of the same design, I think the widest and most useful of the same design. I can source that view, but it is just an opinion either way. I just think Canada really got these trucks right. Have a good day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe we disagree on "successful" — on the contrary. Again, I'll just refer here to what the article currently says: The official British History of World War II calls the production of soft-skinned trucks, CMP-class and other, as Canada's most important contribution to the Allied victory. Furthermore, I SHARE your enthousiasm for a diverse and highly versatile truck range, that could be maintained in theatre thanks to the wisdom of engineering them with a high level of parts standardization — that's why I've been editing Dodge's WC series page so eagerly recently (as you know ;-).
But going back to the beginning of this thread, where you questioned the ligitimacy (or prudence) of including the Dodges in this page, the POV I want to question is not the level of success, but the level of standardization ? — Could you swap a Ford engine into a Chevy (or v.v.) in the field ? — Were Ford & Chevy axles of the same tonnage interchangeable ? — Were Ford & Chevy frames of the same wheelbase and tonnage interchangeable ? — going by the current info on the page, some frames differed a quarter inch in wheelbase... — And what parts were perhaps shared with the Dodges, in spite of the fact that they didn't have CMP cabs ?
How notable was the demarcation between the CMP and non-CMP trucks Canada produced for the war ? — Is there a sufficient case to split this page in two ? A (new) page on total Canadian (unarmored) WW II truck production (possibly including I.H. & Studebaker, and whatnot), AND a separate page (this one) focusing as purely as possible on what it says on the tin ? — If we're going to go that way, we REALLY have to be able to make a clear demarcation, and be able to back it up properly ! What's your view ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I have to be fast. I think you are already thinking "Canadian Vehicles in WWII'. I will get back to you on machines, I don't have much (yet maybe). I haven't even had a chance to get to the (excellent) history PDF. Later. Sammy D III (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Relax — I'm not in a hurry at all. You invited me to join this discussion, and I thought I'd apply a simple fix to tell the readers that the Dodges are MCP, not CMP. I'm currently still working on 'Crosley'. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you are getting mixed up. MCP trucks are different to CMP. The Dodge CMP trucks started with a standardised CMP cab, but went into production with normal commercial cabs. The D15 and D60 are both CMP build but with a commercial cab for ease of manufacture. The MCP trucks are normal non-CMP types that have been stripped of superfluous items and (in places) uprated for harsher use. Lkchild (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
To jump back earlier in the discussion, the demarcation between CMP and MCP is actually quite simple. CMP vehicles were specified and designed out of the Army Engineering Design Board (AEDB). Modified Commercial Pattern vehicles were existing vehicle types pressed into military use with some modifications, so not designed by the AEDB. The AEDB were standardising based on common specifications. Hope that helps. Lkchild (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
All D-15s I could find look like commercial designs with CMP type bodies (check the hubs and wheels, including rear duals). This may be mis-labeled. But this certainly looks like a CMP chassis, and I saw more (these are all 4x2). I stand corrected and apologize. Sammy D III (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No worries - well done for taking an interest. I really should get around to adding some more references. If you’re interested in CMPs you should get more involved in the MLU forum that was linked in one of the comments above - it’s a good crowd. Lkchild (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I have hooked you. You will be back to Canada. Facts. Information. Knowledge. References. They are coursing through your veins like heroin! You are addicted beyond any rehab! The readers have to know! You have the knowledge! You can tell them! They will know more after they read you! You are dooooomed to educate... Inform... Knowledge... Literacy... Abandon all hope, you are dooooommmed'.

Later. Sammy D III (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Commonwealths and Empires

The transition may seem simple from outside but I think it was very deliberately very fuzzy from inside. An approach to a constitutional historian might provide explanations to satisfy GeeTeeBee. Eddaido (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to make things fuzzy in this article. The "simple" vs. "fuzzy" topic can be addressed in the Commonwealth article, if necessary. Encyclopaedia Britannica lists Commonwealth as: "Commonwealth, also called Commonwealth of Nations, formerly (1931–49) British Commonwealth of Nations" and "By 1931 they [member states possessing large measures of sovereignty] were recognized as having special status within the empire by the Statute of Westminster, which referred specifically to a “British Commonwealth of Nations.”
Moreover, Brittanica lists the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa — big users of the CMP trucks — all as Commonwealth members from 1931. And though the term may not have been used much in the early days of the union, by the 1940s, 'Commonwealth' had become the better term when speaking of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, versus the 'British Empire', which referred more to the other remaining crown colonies, protectorates and India. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
You seem to have missed (see your quotes above) "were recognized as having special status within the empire".
And where did you find "And though the term may not have been used much in the early days of the union, by the 1940s, 'Commonwealth' had become the better term when speaking of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, versus the 'British Empire', which referred more to the other remaining crown colonies, protectorates and India"  ?
Eddaido (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
And a bit more for your consideration: 1950 British Empire Games and then (in Vancouver) 1954 British Empire and Commonwealth Games. How do they fit with your Original Research timeline? Eddaido (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The Commonwealth is inside the Empire, part of it? If it is inside did any Empire unit outside the Commonwealth use the trucks? (I am ignorant of GB politics or military). Sammy D III (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, that's exactly the point. The CMP trucks were primarily built for the countries, that had been become members of the Commonwealth at that point. If you insist on using the term Empire to indicate Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, instead of the rest of the empire, in that time frame, you might want to provide some contemporaneous sourcing. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you source "primarily built for the countries" or is that an opinion that we all share here? If you can source it should "primarily" be in the text?
It was built/assembled (where is the line?) in India and Egypt. Who used those? Indian troops (not Commonwealth at the time?), maybe Australians (Commonwealth). Are English troops (Egypt?) in the Commonwealth?
If they were used by Empire troops who were not in the Commonwealth then should "Commonwealth" in the text be qualified with some "wiggle-words" like "primarily used by" or something? Sammy D III (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Assembled in India and Egypt — significant numbers, or just exceptions that prove the rule ? This article on WW II database mentions them only as part of a relatively small batch of under 10,000 cab and chassis units, that were dispersed over several countries, to be completed there. And by the way, the article speaks of Commonwealth rather than the British Empire.
And yes, the CMPs were used in (almost) every theater of the war, but predominantly as a mechanised part of the armed forces of Commonwealth nations. So, yes — if you ask me, English troops fighting in Egypt, are still Commonwealth troops. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Moreover, Granatstein's paper "Arming The Nation – Canada's Industrial War Effort, 1939-1945" refers to the Commonwealth five times, and the British Empire zero. So I'm only getting more convinced Commonwealth remains the more appropriate terminology in this context.
So @ Eddaido — I'm still waiting for you to provide any sources to substantiate your edit intentions .. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You have provided the sources, above. Read them again! You just choose to ignore them! Extraordinary. Eddaido (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Not ignore, but I completely disagree with how you choose to read them. For some years, the Chrysler corporation was owned by Daimler-Benz. Would you call Ram trucks built during those years "Mecedes-Benzes" for that reason ?? — Sure, the commonwealth was within the Empire, but the two sources I have provided just previously, make it crystal clear, that the CMP trucks were created with the Commonwealth armies firstly and firmly in mind !
So on the contrary — I feel that you are ignoring the sources that I have provided, and you consistently fail to address the distinction between Commonwealth to indicate Canada, Australia, etc., versus the remaining dominions etc. in the empire, on the other hand ... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I recon I will throw in with Eddaido here. As I understand it, everything, including India and Hong Kong, are in the "Empire". The "set"(?). The Commonwealth is Aus/NZ, Canada, South Africa. A "subset"(?). Everything in Commonwealth is in Empire, but not everything in Empire (India, Hong Kong) is in Commonwealth. Saying only Commonwealth excludes India and Hong Kong.
What is "Britain"? I have "British Army and Commonwealth forces" and "shipped to Britain". Granatstein says "Canadian and British Commonwealth armies" but in the next line has "Britain’s Eighth Army". Is the Eighth Army a Commonwealth force?
If "Britian" = "Empire" I suggest Britain. Sammy D III (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Eddaido's original edit, on 8 March, removed EVERY mention of "Commonwealth" – systematically replacing them ALL with the "British Empire" — and in his edit summary stating: "Fixed mistaken mentions of British Commonwealth which did not exist at that time (WP says formed 1949)" (exact quote). I opposed this because it is simply factually wrong. Completely. The British Commonwealth was adopted in 1926, and formalized in 1931. In 1949 it was reformed into today's Commonwealth of Nations.
I never objected to mentioning the British empire in the article — but completely throwing out the Commonwealth, because it is thought to be nothing but "mistaken mentions" is utterly in contradiction with the facts. The first mention should probably best be expanded to "British Commonwealth", and further mentions can be abbreviated to Commonwealth.
The general idea here on WP, is to use secondary sources as much as possible, with preference over primary or tertiary ones. And I think I already answered the question about sets and subsets with my Dodge versus Daimler-Benz analogy. I sofar mentioned that This article on WW II database, as well as the Granatstein paper speak consistently of CMPs having been conceived and built for Commonwealth armies — without a single mention of the British Empire.
The same is true of the parlance on MapleLeafUp's page on the CMPs. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that, apparently also foxed by the detail, many of GeeTeeBee's cited references are confused and/or confusing. They presume a black/white simplicity that isn't there. Eddaido (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow, finally, — You made me wait a long time, and work hard for it, but thank you for spelling out your thoughts for me this way !
Nevertheless, following WP:NOR / PSTS policy, the consistent use of Commonwealth, without a single mention of British empire, in all three secondary sources that I cited, takes preference over the two primary sources you have cited (passport and Statute of Westminster).
Furthermore: I suspect that a bunch of WP articles use "Commonwealth" to refer to Aus/NZ, Canada, South Africa in the context of World War II — do you intend to replace that with the Empire throughout Wikipedia ? — Or just all articles to do with military vehicles ? — If you'd do it only here, I'm concerned it would make this article inconsistent, when compared with other articles using Commonwealth in that context ... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What is a CMP?

What sources are there describing CMPs?

I have one source (Ware 2010) for C/F-8, C/F-15, C/F-30, C/F-60, F-60H (6x4 w/tag rear axle, what a POS), and C-60X (6x6). All except the last two are available with 4x2 or 4x4 (4x4 = suffix "A"). The number unit matches cwt. (100lbs?). Prefix C-Chevy, F=Ford. In Australia Holden built their own cabs. (Dashes in numbers for clarity, not actual names).

The C8 has "Although not strictly forming a part of the Canadian Military Patern (CMP) programme..." in one place, whatever that means.

Those are identified as CMP. All have single large tires on British type wheels in the rear and the same size/type on the front. All British medium trucks also have them. I suggest that all CMP models have large tires.

We have Chevy and Ford chassis pretty much locked up. Different cabs and bodies. We know engines and trans, but some have 2-speed rear axles (only possible on 4x2).

I have Dodge T212/D-8A. It has single rear wheels/tires (a truck that size would anyway) and has a British body. It was developed by Dodge for the US and evolved into the successful 3/4-ton 4x4. The older (1/2-ton) RHD version was built in Canada. This truck is adapted for, but not designed by, Canada.

I have D-15s with dual rear wheels/tires on the back and the same size on the front. It has a British body. This is a commercial model with RHD. This truck is adapted for, but not designed by, Canada.

I know that 180,000 D-60 Dodges were built and that they have large front tires. They have British bodies. They are the same commercial range as the D-8. This truck is adapted for, but not designed by, Canada.

The picture titled "normal (left) and Dodge (right) CMP trucks side by side, 1942." is probably incorrect. The truck on the right is a Chevrolet. It has big front tires and could be a CMP with a commercial cab.

My opinion, mechanically: The square Chevys and Fords are clear (except maybe -8). The mis-labeled Chevy could be a CMP with a commercial cab.

The Dodge D-8A may have met some standard but it has nothing mechanically to do with the CMP other than possibly wheels/tires. This is an old version of a truck developed for the US Army.

The Dodge D-15 is a commercial truck with it's chrome trim painted. It doesn't even have single rear wheels/tires.

The Dodge D-60 is clearly in the same commercial line as the D-15 (on blogs they are sometimes considered the same, although they aren't). The D-60 does have big tires, so it could meet some standard. I don't have any good specs on the D-60 to compare it with anything.

The Chevys and Fords were designed that way, the D-15 and D-60 Dodges may have met some standard, the D-15 is "whatever we can get". None of Dodges were in any way designed for Canada, they all were adapted from US designs.

Nurs and bolts, not paperwork. Sammy D III (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this really ties in with the "Standardization", as well as the "a new place to start" discussion threads above ?
I do get the feeling, that the CMP criteria were significantly watered down, later in the war, out of necessity. It would be helpful to have better sourcing.
I have a little bit of that about the Dodge D-60s: Forum page with D60S specs (archived), and Article with D60S specs (archived). The D-60s were built with smaller wheels and dual rear wheels at first, and larger wheels and rear singles later. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
On the list of "types": should the armored cars be "General Motors Canada"? (They seem to be built under the manufacturer's name instead of the brand.)
Should the "Chevrolet, General Motors:" section be "Chevrolet, General Motors Canada"? Should Chevrolet be aphetically before Ford?
The Chevrolet plant is at Oshawa, Ontario, east of Toronto, and not in the Detroit/Windsor area (Dodge and Ford are at Detroit). Sammy D III (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

I may have done this infobox in the past and think that it has problems.

I think you may be stuck with "Weapon", "Automobile" didn't work well for me. If you do change there are a ton of others you could change.

The title is "Ford F15", should it be "CMP?

"Type" is wrong for many. We know that there were 4x2, 6x4, and 6x6 models in different weight ratings.

If "Place of origin" has General Motors of Canada Limited should Ford and Chry. be "Limited" also? Did they all originate in "Canada"? If "Manufacturer" is "Chevrolet in Oshawa" then should Ford be "in Windsor"?

On "No. built" what is "Service Flag 3298 for Employees of Canada's Armed Forces" and should it be in the infobox? It sounds like some sort of plant incentive (the US had "E" awards) for the text?.

In "Specifications" there are numbers for an individual truck, not the range. Later I think I would have identified the specific model directly behind "Specifications" (often with a footnote to source) or use ranges.

In "Engine" should Chevrolet GM be just brand and model (cid here) to match Ford?

Is "Suspension: Wheel 4x4" correct? I think I have later used "Live beam axles on leaf springs" (personal and subjective), and with un-driven front axles being just "Beam..." "Suspension" on weapons could be tracked, but trucks are not, so is "Wheel" necessary?

Stalking, not editing. Sammy D III (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

a new place to start

Lkchild, you clearly have better sources. I took your page at face value to start with but I thought you might not be mechanically inclined. I have only been here a couple of weeks(?) but I have seen no "popular source" which even mentions Dodges. They were in business by 1944, maybe earlier?

Are you sure that D-15s are CMP and not MCP? I noticed that 3/4 APT did not come back. Those "CMP type" wheels look like a generic UK style?

I just read that Ford and Willys jeeps both used the same frame rails from the same sub-contractor. That might relate to these?

Although commonly known as "Dodges", are these (and the PWs) actually "Fargos"? I just noticed the (probable?) Canadian-Australian commercial truck connection.

Other than the wheels and track (which clearly are CMP) these look like any other Dodge (you can mix-and-match bodies so they don't count?). These are really hidden, is the variant commonly known in the UK? And I still think the D-15s look commercial.

I probably should have stuck with HD, my turf, but I have had fun. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries Sammy, it’s great to see more folks involved. I do need to find some good sources, but I’m reasonably certain on the Dodges being CMP. I’m actually more up on the Ford CMPs as I have an unusual model of FGT, hence reading a lot around the subject, but a lot of my books are tidied at the moment. The Dodge D15/D60 maintenance manual fits the standard presentation for CMP and was prepared by the AEDB, while the MCP manuals explicitly state Modified Commercial Pattern. That supports my understanding, but I could really do with finding an explicit reference. Clive Law’s last book would be a good option, but I can’t find it at the moment. I have found one older reference to Dodges in an MCP context, but I strongly suspect it’s wrong. Lkchild (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Having found my copy of Drive to Victory by Clive Law, it confirms that the Dodges, APT, the conventional cab FC/CC trucks, and a couple of conventional looking FWD vehicles are CMP (but using conventional components where they met the required AEDB specification). Conventional cabs were designated cab 21. Lkchild (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe that this is a US commercial design 1940 (style) D-15 built in Canada (RHD and body) and adapted for military use. Look at the wheels and tires. Of course that does not exclude D-15 CMP chassis, it just shows that this truck doesn't look like it has one to me. I think that this (and almost certainly all D-60s) is a CMP chassis. That's about all I have, I know almost nothing about Canadian or UK military trucks and commercial Dodges that I have not learned here. I am not going to edit anything anyway.
Your FGT looks like the heaviest chassis with the shortest wheelbase. Today you could call it a Monster SUV and crush cars with it. Please have a good day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Quite possibly - some of the CMP designs used commercial components, downrated to cope with the additional strain (e.g. suspension from a 3tonner being used on a 30cwt 4x4). They didn't redesign everything from scratch. Lkchild (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Lkchild – Excuse me, but did you acknowledge on 16 March, that the Dodges APT are CMP in your view ?
If you're going to base listing the Dodges as CMPs in this article on that one book (which by the way, you didn't even bother to cite), I think you should be consistent, and list all the models which that source counts as CMPs. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if I’ve upset you in some way, but I’m doing the best I can? As far as I’m aware I am being consistent though. I do a lot with CMPs as I own one, and stopped by the article to add to it when it was very early (and very confused) though I fully admit I’ve not been great at the referencing. The one book is just a handy go-to - the author is well known in the CMP community, or was until he passed away. He kept a large archive, very close with the Canadian War Museum. If you take a look at the manuals and original docs, I think you’ll find there’s a clear distinction between CMP and MCP, though you’re right there are some odd ones in the CMP category along with the Dodge APT. If you want to add them, go ahead, the article would be better for it. The more people interested, the better this could be. Similarly if you want to find wider references. Lkchild (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
No, not upset — I'm sure All of us are doing the best we can — but I do have to admit, a little bit puzzled. Your 1st edit on 15 March removed the Dodge APT from the chapter on Canada-built types. Now having read the above discussion, you are fully aware that calling the Dodge models CMPs – point blank, without any moderating qualification – is highly debatable, and really begs and screams for a good source to be included.
I would therefore greatly appreciate it, if you would take the trouble to insert that Clive Law book – ideally using a cite book template, including all the relevant data, as well as a quote from the book. Especially considering it's the only secondary source any of us have at this moment, that considers the Dodges as CMPs instead of MCPs — all the other sources (manuals and such) are primary sources ... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I don’t have the references to hand at the moment (or the time to go back through), but removing APT was caught up in the removal of the MCP section. It definitely needs to go back in, but could do with some words around it. Obviously the APT is about as far from MCP as you can get (it’s a specifically military development) but it needs some explanation around it tied in with the Dodge Weapons Carrier programmes. Lkchild (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The UK ordered quantities of RHD trucks from the US in 1940 after Dunkirk, and these IIRC mostly went to the Middle East, hence not all North American-produced RHD vehicles are necessarily of the CMP type, some may be examples of those ordered from the US in 1940.
The BEF had had to leave most of its motor transport behind in France when it left in 1940, hence a dire need for replacement vehicles in that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.50 (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_Military_Pattern_truck/Archives/2018&oldid=1050625475"