On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Scott <repairman87@...> wrote:

I am building the Funaro 8 hatch reefer (slowly).  It is going to be a 6-series with car numbers 210300-210599.  Does anybody know what kind of stirrup should be under the ladder on the car sides?  The drawing in the instructions looks like a straight stirrup with the top spread a little more.  I found a picture of a 5 series and it looks like a double angled stirrup but not 100% because of poor picture quality.  It appears to mount to the bottom of the car.  Does anybody have a definite answer?

Thanks
Scott McDonald

Double checking Al, is the attached your new page? It is not as you describe.

Bill Welch

I am building the Funaro 8 hatch reefer (slowly).  It is going to be a 6-series with car numbers 210300-210599.  Does anybody know what kind of stirrup should be under the ladder on the car sides?  The drawing in the instructions looks like a straight stirrup with the top spread a little more.  I found a picture of a 5 series and it looks like a double angled stirrup but not 100% because of poor picture quality.  It appears to mount to the bottom of the car.  Does anybody have a definite answer?

Thanks
Scott McDonald

One thing to keep in mind in this regard is how military units were organized. While there may have been many more trucks than tanks, trucks tended to be concentrated in logistics units rather than combat units, so there weren't many trucks in a tank company. I am modeling a tank company (using Roco M-47 tanks) loaded on 11 Roco flatcars, plus additional railroad owned flatcars, using the following, which is from a 1953 table of organization and equipment I found on-line:

Headquarters Section: two tanks, one jeep

Admin, Mess, & Supply Section: two 6x6 trucks with trailers, one jeep

Maintenance Section: one M-32 tank recovery vehicle, one M-3 half-track with trailer, one jeep with trailer

4 tank platoons, each with: five tanks, one jeep

That's 22 tanks, seven jeeps, two 6x6's, one half-track, and one tank recovery vehicle.

Richard Townsend

Lincoln City, OR

-----Original Message-----
From: devansprr <devans1@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 8:12 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.

If your era and/or location "justifies" military loads, one thing to be careful of is the"distribution" of military equipment. During WWII, for every Sherman tank manufactured, ten "Deuce and a Half" 6x6 (type CCKW) trucks were manufactured. In today's army, I believe the ratio of "Tactical" vehicles (generally vehicles with tires) to "Combat" vehicles (generally vehicles with tracks), is over ten to one, and that was also true in WWII. I have not investigated other periods, but I suspect the ratio was about the same.

Unfortunately I determine this after accumulating a bunch of Roco Sherman tanks and tank destroyers for use as WWII loads. Roco did offer the CCKW trucks in several styles. But there are big model gaps - for every Sherman built, three 1.5 ton 4X4 type G506 trucks were built (looks like a '41 Chevy bed truck), and four higher capacity 6x6 trucks were built for every Sherman (Corbitt/Brockway/Reo up to 6 tons - Roco made one of these, but they are rare.)

This highlights the folly of modeling WWII traffic from pictures - pictures exist of strings of Sherman and Lee tanks, Higgins boats, half-tracks, etc. but the US was producing 500 2.5 ton 6x6 trucks and 150 1.5 ton 4x4 trucks - every day - They weren't driven to the ports - why no photos of strings of those loads? Probably because they were too common (and they didn't look military enough?)...

Dave Evans

On Feb 5, 2019, at 1:06 PM, Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...> wrote:

Dan Mitchell wrote:

<tank_t43_zd_418.jpg>

"The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol."

Not the greatest photo, but that's not the bursting bomb and crossed cannons of the Ordnance Corps (no "i" - you're blowing things up, not writing tickets), but the winged foot on ship's wheel of the Transportation Corps.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/USA_-_Transportation_Corps_Branch_Insignia.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Ordnance_Corps_Regimental_Insignia.gif

Ben Hom

<tank_t43_zd_418.jpg>

On Feb 5, 2019, at 12:43 PM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:

I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.

<tank_t43_zd_418.jpg>

Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.

In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.

Anyone have a better photo of this?

Dan MItchell

==========

On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:

Your position is reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center 6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.

I too have photos of the M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat. The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …

1) the M-103 Heavy Tank was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48 Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height … in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have required the lower overall height offered with transport on a depressed-center car.

2) For whatever reason the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the length of the vehicle's track, between the track and flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s 6-axle “Roco” flat.

3) With the depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a “neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar, and also tear-up the wooden deck.

In all cases, the tank is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s Technical Manual clearly states.

Tie-down of such a vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like 12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.  Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially crated.

Nowadays they seem to use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.

Dan Mitchell

========== 

On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21 PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:

I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Ed

Edward Sutorik