Date   

Re: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Bruce Smith
 

I'm not sure that there was any "pucker" factor involved. The T43 at full up combat weight was 60 tons. The load limit of the PRR F30A was around 158,000 lbs, so plenty of room there.

BTW, this is T34 pilot #3. It appears to have been assembled by Chrysler at their Newark Delaware tank plant. Since that plant was served by the PRR the choice of a PRR 70 ton F30A seems pretty appropriate 😉

Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of spsalso via groups.io <Edwardsutorik@...>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 5:38 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
 
CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn.
Here's an interesting picture for at least two of us.  Maybe more.

That's a T43 being delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground for testing.  Date appears to be March 25, 1952.

The big flats weren't available yet.  So they chose this 70T PRR flat.

Note the sturdy square steel tubing that is supporting the tank and spreading the load evenly.  I imagine there were a few puckers on that one.


Ed

Edward Sutorik


Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

spsalso
 

Richard's comment about the tubing/timbers had me look again.

I can definitely see some wedge shaped pieces of steel under the rising track.  And I can see what look like welds at the base of the steel.  Thus I suspect there is some sort of horizontal steel member there.  Outside of that, I DO see what looks like a piece of wood, what with the knots and such.

I do agree it could have been for clearance reasons, though it doesn't look that it is overhanging all that much.  Extreme width for the car is 10' - 2".  If we take the common extreme width of 10' - 8", there's 3" overhang per side, which is pretty close to what I believe I am seeing.

I surely wish I could see THAT photo BIG!


Ed

Edward Sutorik


Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Richard Townsend
 

I wonder if the reason for the the reason for the "tubing" (timbers?) was to raise the load enough to clear obstructions such as station platforms.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@...>
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Oct 18, 2021 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Yep, Ed, more than one!
 
They may have chosen this flat not only because it was a 70-ton car, but also a sturdy cast flat with integral pockets.  PRR may have had no role in this, but maybe they did.
 
Puckering would definitely been evident, as the tank’s entire weight is not on the floor, but spread out over floor and stake pocket lips (!).
 
The “High & Wides” guys must’ve had a blast measuring this guy to make sure it fit within clearances!
 
Thanks for sharing!
 
Elden Gatwood
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of spsalso via groups.io
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 6:39 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
 
Here's an interesting picture for at least two of us.  Maybe more.

That's a T43 being delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground for testing.  Date appears to be March 25, 1952.

The big flats weren't available yet.  So they chose this 70T PRR flat.

Note the sturdy square steel tubing that is supporting the tank and spreading the load evenly.  I imagine there were a few puckers on that one.


Ed

Edward Sutorik


Photo: HBAX Pickle Car #105 (Undated)

Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: HBAX Pickle Car #105 (Undated)

Photo courtesy of the New York Central Historical Society:

https://nycshs.omeka.net/items/show/133835

Taken at Elkhart, IN.

HBAX reporting mark assigned to Hirsch Brothers & Company, Louisville, KY.

This is the plant with PRR boxcars on the spur:

https://digital.library.louisville.edu/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/cs/id/3590/rv/singleitem

Inside the plant:

https://www.kyhistory.com/digital/collection/Morgan/id/4502/

Their products were trademarked Paramount Fine Foods.

Lionel made a Hirsch Brothers pickle car.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Yep, Ed, more than one!

 

They may have chosen this flat not only because it was a 70-ton car, but also a sturdy cast flat with integral pockets.  PRR may have had no role in this, but maybe they did.

 

Puckering would definitely been evident, as the tank’s entire weight is not on the floor, but spread out over floor and stake pocket lips (!).

 

The “High & Wides” guys must’ve had a blast measuring this guy to make sure it fit within clearances!

 

Thanks for sharing!

 

Elden Gatwood

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of spsalso via groups.io
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 6:39 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

 

Here's an interesting picture for at least two of us.  Maybe more.

That's a T43 being delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground for testing.  Date appears to be March 25, 1952.

The big flats weren't available yet.  So they chose this 70T PRR flat.

Note the sturdy square steel tubing that is supporting the tank and spreading the load evenly.  I imagine there were a few puckers on that one.


Ed

Edward Sutorik


Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

spsalso
 

Here's an interesting picture for at least two of us.  Maybe more.

That's a T43 being delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground for testing.  Date appears to be March 25, 1952.

The big flats weren't available yet.  So they chose this 70T PRR flat.

Note the sturdy square steel tubing that is supporting the tank and spreading the load evenly.  I imagine there were a few puckers on that one.


Ed

Edward Sutorik


Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Charlie Vlk
 

Nice model Dan!

Didn’t Roco make two versions of USATC Flats….the one pictured and another with straight sides?  AMTRAK got a bunch of them and likely used them to move locomotive and passenger car trucks around.

Charlie Vlk

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:47 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

 

The M-103 was a most impressive vehicle. The first pilot model was completed in 1949, but the productionmachines didn’t appear until 1953, so it’s right at the end off the steam-era.

 

For more info on the M-103 and my scratchbuilt 1/35 model of it, see <. http://missing-lynx.com/gallery/modern/dmm103.htm. >.

 

Roco made a very poor HO model of it, one of their earlier efforts. The hull is oversimplified, and the turret is almost all wrong.

 

Roco also had a very poor model of the early M-48.

 

For a far nicer HO model of a “just barely” steam-era tank consider the Artitec M48 (1952). Unfortunately it’s a later version (ca. 1960), but the differences are minor aside from the engine deck (Diesel vs. gasoline). Here’s my ca. 1960 version, on the ROCO flatcar. It puts the Roco model to shame.

 

 

To backdate the model you’d need to scratchbuild a new flatter engine deck (perhaps salvage one from the old Roco model??), remove the vision-spacer ring beneath the commander’s cupola, and replace the gun barrel with a slightly thinner one (90mm instead of 105mm), and have just three track return rollers. Only the engine-deck conversion would be a considerable job.

 

Dan Mitchell

==========

 

 



On Oct 18, 2021, at 4:13 PM, spsalso via groups.io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:

 

In 1949, the T43 heavy tank was approved for development.  It eventually became the M103 heavy tank, of which 300 were built.

They weighed about 65 tons.  One fits nicely on the 100 ton flats that are being discussed.

I am sure the Army included the possibility of having to transport heavy tanks like these when they commissioned the flat cars.


Ed

Edward Sutorik

 


Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

 

While in the future of this list, I photographed several M103s on flat cars in Anniston, GA during a Southern Steam Excursion from Columbus, GA in about 1975.

 

 

Thanks!

Brian Ehni

signature_1680424082

 

From: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of "spsalso via groups.io" <Edwardsutorik@...>
Reply-To: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Date: Monday, October 18, 2021 at 3:13 PM
To: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

 

In 1949, the T43 heavy tank was approved for development.  It eventually became the M103 heavy tank, of which 300 were built.

They weighed about 65 tons.  One fits nicely on the 100 ton flats that are being discussed.

I am sure the Army included the possibility of having to transport heavy tanks like these when they commissioned the flat cars.


Ed

Edward Sutorik


Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

The M-103 was a most impressive vehicle. The first pilot model was completed in 1949, but the productionmachines didn’t appear until 1953, so it’s right at the end off the steam-era.

For more info on the M-103 and my scratchbuilt 1/35 model of it, see <. http://missing-lynx.com/gallery/modern/dmm103.htm. >.

Roco made a very poor HO model of it, one of their earlier efforts. The hull is oversimplified, and the turret is almost all wrong.

Roco also had a very poor model of the early M-48.

For a far nicer HO model of a “just barely” steam-era tank consider the Artitec M48 (1952). Unfortunately it’s a later version (ca. 1960), but the differences are minor aside from the engine deck (Diesel vs. gasoline). Here’s my ca. 1960 version, on the ROCO flatcar. It puts the Roco model to shame.


To backdate the model you’d need to scratchbuild a new flatter engine deck (perhaps salvage one from the old Roco model??), remove the vision-spacer ring beneath the commander’s cupola, and replace the gun barrel with a slightly thinner one (90mm instead of 105mm), and have just three track return rollers. Only the engine-deck conversion would be a considerable job.

Dan Mitchell
==========



On Oct 18, 2021, at 4:13 PM, spsalso via groups.io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:

In 1949, the T43 heavy tank was approved for development.  It eventually became the M103 heavy tank, of which 300 were built.

They weighed about 65 tons.  One fits nicely on the 100 ton flats that are being discussed.

I am sure the Army included the possibility of having to transport heavy tanks like these when they commissioned the flat cars.


Ed

Edward Sutorik


Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

spsalso
 

In 1949, the T43 heavy tank was approved for development.  It eventually became the M103 heavy tank, of which 300 were built.

They weighed about 65 tons.  One fits nicely on the 100 ton flats that are being discussed.

I am sure the Army included the possibility of having to transport heavy tanks like these when they commissioned the flat cars.


Ed

Edward Sutorik


I received my Rapido X31s today

Jeffrey White
 

And they are up to their usual standard, they all came with two brake types so you can put the right one for your era on the car.


Jeff White

Alma IL


Re: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Guys;

 

Interesting topic.

 

I read much correspondence, also on how many M-4’s you could fit in a cargo ship, vs. larger tanks.

 

Bruce is correct, and I’d also add that until Leslie McNair was killed, his philosophy was exactly that, and not until the tests of the Panther following D-Day, did the U.S.Army (even the “upgraded M4/76) figure out that the M-4 was extremely vulnerable to almost everything, and started the crash program for the M4A3E2 “Jumbo” for the “point”.

 

PRR had very few flat cars for use in heavy tank shipments, and certainly more than most, but I have not yet found the correspondence giving the PRR’s perspective.

 

Elden Gatwood

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bruce Smith
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:30 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

 

Hudson,

 

While size may have played a role (in addition to offloading capabilities, there were concerns about mobility, infrastructure strength, etc… with heavier tanks), probably the biggest reason that the US focused on medium tanks was the WWII era doctrine of US Armored forces, which was, in part, that tanks were for infantry support and were not supposed to engage in tank on tank duels. That was left to the tank destroyer branch. Heavy tanks were specifically envisioned in a headquarters defense role and thus were not typically thought of as an “action force”.  Post WWII, armored doctrine changed, with the elimination of the tank destroyer and a more multi-role approach to tanks. It was in recognition of these changing roles that the M26 Pershing was reclassified as a medium tank, although its mobility was impaired compared to a typical medium tank of the time. Ultimately, the derivative of the M26, the M46 and then the M48 were the genesis of the classification of “main battle tank”. As these tanks came on board, their proportion of the tank force increased and the need for enhanced rail transport also increased. Obviously, the ability to load/unload and for the tanks to negotiate infrastructure on their own tracks was also impacted.

 

Regards,

Bruce Smith

Auburn, Al

 

From: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Hudson Leighton <hudsonl@...>
Reply-To: "main@RealSTMFC.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Date: Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:31 AM
To: "main@RealSTMFC.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

 

CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn.

The M4 tank was a Medium tank and one of the reasons that the US did not field a Heavy tank was that the M4's
weight was just about the maximum capacity of the onboard ship cranes of the era.

-Hudso


Re: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Bruce Smith
 

Hudson,

 

While size may have played a role (in addition to offloading capabilities, there were concerns about mobility, infrastructure strength, etc… with heavier tanks), probably the biggest reason that the US focused on medium tanks was the WWII era doctrine of US Armored forces, which was, in part, that tanks were for infantry support and were not supposed to engage in tank on tank duels. That was left to the tank destroyer branch. Heavy tanks were specifically envisioned in a headquarters defense role and thus were not typically thought of as an “action force”.  Post WWII, armored doctrine changed, with the elimination of the tank destroyer and a more multi-role approach to tanks. It was in recognition of these changing roles that the M26 Pershing was reclassified as a medium tank, although its mobility was impaired compared to a typical medium tank of the time. Ultimately, the derivative of the M26, the M46 and then the M48 were the genesis of the classification of “main battle tank”. As these tanks came on board, their proportion of the tank force increased and the need for enhanced rail transport also increased. Obviously, the ability to load/unload and for the tanks to negotiate infrastructure on their own tracks was also impacted.

 

Regards,

Bruce Smith

Auburn, Al

 

From: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Hudson Leighton <hudsonl@...>
Reply-To: "main@RealSTMFC.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Date: Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:31 AM
To: "main@RealSTMFC.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

 

CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn.

The M4 tank was a Medium tank and one of the reasons that the US did not field a Heavy tank was that the M4's
weight was just about the maximum capacity of the onboard ship cranes of the era.

-Hudso


Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Hudson Leighton
 

The M4 tank was a Medium tank and one of the reasons that the US did not field a Heavy tank was that the M4's
weight was just about the maximum capacity of the onboard ship cranes of the era.

-Hudso


Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

There’s some confusion in the statement "DODX six-axle flat cars were manufactured in 1953 to handle the Patton family of tanks, which were considerably heavier than their predecessors”. Tanks indeed were getting heavier, and a 6-axle car was in order to better transport them. But that wasn’t exclusively because of the “Patton” tanks. The progression of tanks from WWII was … 1) M-4 Sherman family, about 35-38 tons; 2) M-26 Pershing, about 45 tons; 3) M-46 Patton (an upgraded Pershing), about 45 tons; 4) M-47 Patton (an upgraded M-46 with an all new turret), about 45 tons, 5) M-48 Patton (an all new tank in 1952), about 47 tons.

Thus the substantial increase in weight occurred with the M-26 Pershing, which didn’t go into widespread use until 1946, after WWII. So, it was the M-26 Pershing tanks that "were considerably heavier than their predecessors”. The follow-on M-46, M-47, and M-48 Pattons were not significantly heavier than the Pershings.

The M-26 Pershing was not widely used until the Korean conflict in the early 1950s and this was when the substantial need for a higher capacity flatcar would have been felt, and later met, with the 6-axle cars. So it was the M-26 Pershing tank in 1946, followed in 1949 by the similar M-46 Patton tanks, that led to the 6-axle cars in 1953.

Dan Mitchell
==========

On Oct 17, 2021, at 6:31 PM, Richard Townsend via groups.io <richtownsend@...> wrote:

Pure speculation on my part: the war was over and the army did not need the cars. But the pent up consumer demand had been released and the railroads had beaten many cars to death during the war, so they needed cars. The government got a little cash (likely "little" given how cheaply they disposed of war surplus) and the railroad got some cars at a bargain rent.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Rupert Gamlen <gamlenz@...>
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Sun, Oct 17, 2021 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

The 1947 and 1948 CB&Q ORER’s listed 40 U.S. Army boxcars (24167, 24169-24182, 24184-24186, 24190-29195, 24197-24210) as operated under lease by the CB&Q. They were 37’ 9” outside length, inside height 7’ 10”, 80,000 lb capacity with 6’ x 7’ 6” doors and steel center sills. I wondered if this lease/listing was a way to facilitate interchange as opposed to resolving a shortage of cars.

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ
 
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dave Owens
Sent: Monday, 18 October 2021 9:52 am
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
 
Bruce Smith is spot on about USAX (later DODX six-axle flat cars). They were manufactured in 1953 to handle the Patton family of tanks, which were considerably heavier than their predecessors.
 
Prior to that, general service railroad flats would have been used to transport tanks and other vehicles. Gondolas were also used if a vehicle would fit in the gon.
There were DF boxcars owned by the Navy that arrived in the 1950s for hauling munitions.
Most military freight cars from World War I through World War II were tank cars for hauling fuel and other chemicals.
Dave Owens
West Hartford, Connecticut
 
 


New RPM Announced: Batavia New York, April 3 2022

G.J. Irwin
 

I'm helping to spread the word about a new Railroad Prototype Modeler's Meet scheduled for April 3, 2022 at Batavia, New York (about halfway between Buffalo and Rochester).  It will be held in conjunction with the Great Batavia Train Show at the Genesee Community College's Richard C. Call Arena.  It's being sponsored by the Lakeshores Division of the NMRA and the Genesee Society of Model Engineers, a club located near Batavia.  They had a table at today's train show to publicize the coming event.

Attached (I hope!) is a PDF with more information.  If you're an RPM in the area, I'm sure they'd be happy to have you aboard!

Cheers,
George Irwin


Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Richard Townsend
 

Pure speculation on my part: the war was over and the army did not need the cars. But the pent up consumer demand had been released and the railroads had beaten many cars to death during the war, so they needed cars. The government got a little cash (likely "little" given how cheaply they disposed of war surplus) and the railroad got some cars at a bargain rent.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Rupert Gamlen <gamlenz@...>
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Sun, Oct 17, 2021 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

The 1947 and 1948 CB&Q ORER’s listed 40 U.S. Army boxcars (24167, 24169-24182, 24184-24186, 24190-29195, 24197-24210) as operated under lease by the CB&Q. They were 37’ 9” outside length, inside height 7’ 10”, 80,000 lb capacity with 6’ x 7’ 6” doors and steel center sills. I wondered if this lease/listing was a way to facilitate interchange as opposed to resolving a shortage of cars.

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ
 
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dave Owens
Sent: Monday, 18 October 2021 9:52 am
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
 
Bruce Smith is spot on about USAX (later DODX six-axle flat cars). They were manufactured in 1953 to handle the Patton family of tanks, which were considerably heavier than their predecessors.
 
Prior to that, general service railroad flats would have been used to transport tanks and other vehicles. Gondolas were also used if a vehicle would fit in the gon.
There were DF boxcars owned by the Navy that arrived in the 1950s for hauling munitions.
Most military freight cars from World War I through World War II were tank cars for hauling fuel and other chemicals.
Dave Owens
West Hartford, Connecticut
 
 


Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Rupert Gamlen
 

The 1947 and 1948 CB&Q ORER’s listed 40 U.S. Army boxcars (24167, 24169-24182, 24184-24186, 24190-29195, 24197-24210) as operated under lease by the CB&Q. They were 37’ 9” outside length, inside height 7’ 10”, 80,000 lb capacity with 6’ x 7’ 6” doors and steel center sills. I wondered if this lease/listing was a way to facilitate interchange as opposed to resolving a shortage of cars.

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dave Owens
Sent: Monday, 18 October 2021 9:52 am
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

 

Bruce Smith is spot on about USAX (later DODX six-axle flat cars). They were manufactured in 1953 to handle the Patton family of tanks, which were considerably heavier than their predecessors.

 

Prior to that, general service railroad flats would have been used to transport tanks and other vehicles. Gondolas were also used if a vehicle would fit in the gon.

There were DF boxcars owned by the Navy that arrived in the 1950s for hauling munitions.

Most military freight cars from World War I through World War II were tank cars for hauling fuel and other chemicals.

Dave Owens

West Hartford, Connecticut

 

 


Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Dave Owens
 

Bruce Smith is spot on about USAX (later DODX six-axle flat cars). They were manufactured in 1953 to handle the Patton family of tanks, which were considerably heavier than their predecessors.

Prior to that, general service railroad flats would have been used to transport tanks and other vehicles. Gondolas were also used if a vehicle would fit in the gon.

There were DF boxcars owned by the Navy that arrived in the 1950s for hauling munitions.

Most military freight cars from World War I through World War II were tank cars for hauling fuel and other chemicals.

Dave Owens
West Hartford, Connecticut



On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 4:18 PM Jeffrey White <jrwhite@...> wrote:

The Army bought 6300 M59 APCs between 1954 and 1959, they would appear in our time frame.  The only model of them I am aware of is a 3d printed one at $18.00 each IIRC. 

One of my modeling goals is to model the movement of an Armor Battalion. I've been buying up M47s, trucks and Roco flats for several years as it's a pretty expensive proposition.  All of the Roco flats need to be repainted OD and relettered with the Mt Vernon decals.

Jeff White

Alma IL   (US Army Infantry Dec 1974-Nov 2003)

On 10/17/2021 3:01 PM, Daniel A. Mitchell wrote:
No M-47 tanks in Korea. The M-47 was a crash program to put a better turret on the M46 Patton tanks following obvious shortcommings found in the Korean conflict.  The M-47 was strictly post-war.

Korea was fought initially with WWII tanks, the M-4 Sherman and M-26 Pershing. Later the M-46 Patton (an improved M-26) came on the scene. They also used M-36 and M-18 Hellcat tank destroyers, and all the artillery pieces we’ve been discussing. For transport thay had most of the WWII trucks and tractors and a couple newer models.

Anything much beyond these is NOT “steam era”.

Dan Mitchell
==========


On Oct 17, 2021, at 1:25 PM, Ken Adams <smadanek44g@...> wrote:

Just remember that M-60 tanks and M-113 Armored Personnel Carriers are post steam era 1960's and later stuff. They don't belong on this steam era group. 

Before the 1960's the US infantry traveled in 2-1/2 or 5 ton trucks or walked after Half Tracks were phased out. Korea was fought with trucks and M-46,M-47 tanks. WW2 era Jeeps were everywhere for officers and senior NCO's. Tracked vehicles were expensive to build and difficult maintain, they were for combat or combat training only. If a rubber tired vehicle was available the Army and Marines used it for everything else except parades.
--
Ken Adams (ex 3d Battalion 33rd Regiment 3rd Armored Division) 
Still in splendid Shelter In Place solitude, about half way up Walnut Creek
Owner PlasticFreightCarBuilders@groups.io



Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

I now believe you are correct. Early howitzers were often smooth bore, and fell somewhere between “guns” (rifled) and mortars (smoothbore). By WWII even the howitzers were rifled.

Dan Mitchell
==========


On Oct 17, 2021, at 4:17 PM, spsalso via groups.io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:

It is my impression that the barrel of the M115 (8" howitzer) is not a smooth bore, but rifled.

From TM 9-1300-203, page 2-143:

"The projectile [8-Inch: HE, M106] consists of...and a gilding metal rotating band."

If there is a rotating band on the ammunition, I think a rifled bore is implied.

Mortars are often smooth bore.


Ed

Edward Sutorik


4861 - 4880 of 192670