Another post of TM10 vs TM9 and which is better

[pfarber]

I posted this on http://www.hmvf.co.uk and though it was rather good so I'm going to continue here an not take the other forum OT any more than I already did

The early TM10's are fantastic sources of information and guidance. The later TM9s are not that great...unless you get the complete works (and for the CCKW thats about 5-6 different books). And those separate books are so specific that you cannot get the big picture because each book is only geared to that ONE relevant area.

Using the TM10's you need 2 books, the maintenance and parts books.

For example TM10-1563 20 March 1943 uses 18 pages to describe the entire fuel system to include carb rebuild, governor rebuild, fuel pump rebuild, operation, removal, installation and maintenance.

Under the echelon system (or the TM-9 books) you need
TM-801 (installation, removal, maint)
TM9-1828A (fuel pump rebuild)
SNL-G-508 (order parts)
TM9-1826C (carb rebuild)
I'm not sure where the governor rebuild went maybe (TM9-1802A?)

That's why its so hard to 'figure out' whats going on mechanically using later books. Unless you have the complete CCKW encyclopedia you have to fall back on mechanical knowledge... and most people today don't have any idea how to deal with a carb, governor, or the difference between a parts diagram and an assembly diagram.

To be fair, the TM10s did stop in early 1943 (March 20th to be exact) and the very first TM9-801 came out shortly thereafter. So if you have a 44/45 truck with a cast iron carb the TM10 isn't going to be an option... but most of the parts (electrical, transmission, transfer, axles) did not change significantly. Another ding is that TM9's were just to generic. The AC fuel pump rebuild TM (TM9-1828A) does not show a fuel pump with a priming lever.. AT ALL. The bendix hydrovac TM is just about the 'vac.. its generic and does not go into anything specific that a CCKW would have that a Staghound would not.

I would like to know what exactly these folks are saying 'is not in the TM's that makes them so irrelevant? Other than having a specific method an person may have to do something (for example they have devised a way that they like to adjust the points on a dist that differs from the TM) but that's just preference. And there ARE much better tools available now... so maybe there is a better gear puller than the special tool used in the TMs... that's not a TM fault, the Army had its accepted ways and approved tools... that's true in any large organization.