Date   

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



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

Jeffrey White
 

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

spsalso
 

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


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

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

The M75 was not an artillery tractor or truck, as we’ve been discussing. It was an armored personnel carrier, and it was developed very late in the Korean war. Only a small number saw service in the last year of that conflict. As such it is only “just”  a “steam era” vehicle.

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

On Oct 17, 2021, at 2:44 PM, BRIAN PAUL EHNI <bpehni@...> wrote:

You forget the M75 APC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M75_armored_personnel_carrier

Thanks!
Brian Ehni 
(Sent from my iPhone)

On Oct 17, 2021, at 12:25 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
 

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

 

You forget the M75 APC.

On Oct 17, 2021, at 12:25 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

Ken Adams
 

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: QUESTION ON FRISCO BOX CART BRAKES

Guy Wilber
 

Clark Propst wrote:

“I'm about finished building that old kit. PIA! According to the instruction history and the RP Cyc on rebuilt DS cars all were equipped with AB brakes and Ajax hand brakes when rebuilt.”

All cars “Rebuilt” on and after August 1, 1937 were required to be equipped with “AB” brakes and geared handbrakes. That is if the car was truly rebuilt under the accounting guidelines of the ICC and the mechanical requirements of the AAR.

Details of both aspects are within the list’s archives.

Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada


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

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

The gun shown is the M1 (later M2) “Long Tom”. It was the largest of three variants of the 155mm gun, having a tandem-axle, 8 tire main chassis, and (usually) a 2-wheeled limber for the gun trails (early versions hooked the trails directly to the towing Mack NO  truck). This is a true “rifle” with a 22 ft. long rifled barrel. For its size it was quite mobile, and widely used in both the WWII European and Pacific theaters. It was also used in Korea. Much the same gun also appeared in self-propelled chassis as the M-40 (and earlier as the M-12 with a shorter barrel).

There was also the 8” (203mm) howitzer version with the same chassis, but a shorter, "fatter” smooth-bore barrel. The two barrels were interchangeable on the chassis.

Then there was the version we have been discussing, the M-114 howitzer, with a short (11 ft.) 155mm barrel and a single axle (2-wheeled) carriage. It was much lighter and more mobile, but had less range.

All these could be towed behind heavy trucks (7-ton or more, Mack, Diamond-T, Brockway, White, and Corbitt), or the so called “high speed tractors”: the 8-ton M5, the 18-ton M4, and the much larger 38-ton M6 (used mainly for the huge 240mm gun).

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

On Oct 17, 2021, at 4:44 AM, passcars via groups.io <PASSCARS@...> wrote:

155 mm Long Tom      Steve Peery
<_FF_ 155mm Long-Tom.jpg>


Re: Pacific Coast ds trussrod boxcars

Brian Termunde
 

Jeff,
Thank you VERY much for this info!

Take Care,

Brian Termunde
Murray, UT

Re: Pacific Coast ds trussrod boxcars
From: Jeff Helm
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 19:54:53 PDT

 

Brian

There is an excellent book out in the Pacific Coast Railroad, (the one that operated in Washington).  It is called Seattle’s Own Railroad, and was recently available to purchase from several sources, including the Great Northern Railroad Historical Society at www.gnrhs.org . 

--
Cheers

Jeff Helm
The Olympic Peninsula Branch
https://olympicpeninsulabranch.blogspot.com/


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

passcars
 

155 mm Long Tom      Steve Peery


Re: Pacific Coast ds trussrod boxcars

Jeff Helm
 

Brian

There is an excellent book out in the Pacific Coast Railroad, (the one that operated in Washington).  It is called Seattle’s Own Railroad, and was recently available to purchase from several sources, including the Great Northern Railroad Historical Society at www.gnrhs.org . 

--
Cheers

Jeff Helm
The Olympic Peninsula Branch
https://olympicpeninsulabranch.blogspot.com/


Re: NP 21666 ds trusrod box circa 1930 Seattle WA with Pacific Coast loco 10

Brian Termunde
 

I missed this, and I guess that this answers my question! Thank you both Claus and Eric!

Brian R. Termunde
Murray, UT


Re: Pacific Coast ds trussrod boxcars

Brian Termunde
 

Were these Washington State cars or California ones? TIA

I wish I had more info on the Washington operations . . .

Brian R. Termunde
Murray, UT


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

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

Quite possible. While most everyone is familiar with the famous GMC CCKW “deuce-And-a-half” 2.5-ton trucks, there were MANY other WWII trucks larger and more powerful. Thes included Diamond-T 4-tons; Mack NO 7.5-tons; White, Corbitt and Brockway 10-tons (virtually identical); and a few even larger (the big Diamond-Ts, the Ward LaFrance, and Pacific’s "Dragon Wagon”). Most all were 6X6, and ALL were often used to pull trailers and towed artillery. So were many variations of the half-track vehicles.

Roco made HO models of the WWII CCKW 2.5-ton, and the Corbitt 10-ton (rare HO model), and also the M4 high speed tractor and the Pacific “Dragon Wagon”.

Artitec offers WWII HO CCKW trucks (nicer than the Roco version).

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

On Oct 16, 2021, at 7:31 PM, Jeffrey Gray <bigsix@...> wrote:

Gentlemen,  I am in agreement on the 155 Howitzer (tires and the barrel snoot under the canvas). My father, WW2, 8” Howitzers, his outfit used M4 tractors. He told me some outfits had “big” trucks, which he referred to as “Brockway’s”. 10 ton?  Also, on the gun on the flatcar notice both the large timber runners under the gun carriage and also the wood wheel chocks. Also, the timbers on outside of M5 tracks. Hi, Hi, Hee!
 
Sent from Mail for Windows
 
From: Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 6:41 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
 
155mm guns are possible … they do look too heavy for the 75mm guns. As for tractors, they used most anything that would pull them. That depended on the country to be crossed. The original tractor for the 155mm guns were 7.5-ton Mack NO 6X6 trucks. .The ubiquitous 2.5-ton CCKW 6X6s were too light for the heavier guns (except on decent roads). The M4 and M5 “high-speed” tracked tractors were a better solution with far better cross-country performance. The M4s seemed to be used mostly for the 155mm guns, 8” howitzers, and 120mm AA guns. The smaller M5 tractors were mostly used for 105mm and 90mm AA guns. The larger M6 tractors were for the 120mm AA and 240mm guns. All this was HIGHLY variable. You used what you had, or tried to. Such tractors also pulled ammo and utility trailers of every description. Also present were all manner of de-turreted older tanks used as tractors.
 
Dan Mitchell
==========


On Oct 16, 2021, at 6:17 PM, BRIAN PAUL EHNI <bpehni@...> wrote:
 
I’d be more inclined towards 155mm guns. 105/75mm would not likely have artillery tractors. 
 
 
 
Thanks!
Brian Ehni
<image001.png>
 
From: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of "Daniel A. Mitchell" <danmitch@...>
Reply-To: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 5:13 PM
To: "main@realstmfc.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
 
The first photo is of M5 artillery tractors with towed field-pieces (probably 105mm, possibly 75mm).
 
The second photo shows a GMC CCKW “deuce-and-a-half” 6X6 and a Dodge weapons-carrier on the same flat.
 
Dan Mitchell
==========



On Oct 16, 2021, at 5:43 PM, james murrie via groups.io <bi291@...> wrote:
 
This one appears to be a 6x6 on an EJ&E flat.
https://digital.lib.ecu.edu/4303

Jim Murrie 
 
<image001.png>
 

 
<8F5438820FF64FAABCEA43789BFF4BAA.png>

5681 - 5700 of 193476