CCB photo


rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

Bruce Smith, What flat car model did you use for your 2 Sherman tank
load? Looks like a PRR car.
Thanks,
Clark Propst


Bruce Smith
 

On Fri, April 11, 2008 12:07 pm, rockroll50401 wrote:
Bruce Smith, What flat car model did you use for your 2 Sherman tank
load? Looks like a PRR car.
Thanks,
Clark Propst
Clark,

I used the Bowser F30A model with modifications. The tanks are Heiser
models M4A3 with minor modifications. The tie-downs are threaded rods
with turnbuckles attached to plates, which were in turn bolted to the
wooden floor.

We've come to the conclusion that 2 Shermans, fitted out, would have
required a 70 ton capacity flat car, so when the Virtual Modelers group
gets started on their AAR 70 ton cars, my plan is to do another Sherman
load, this time perhaps with an M4A1 and an M4A3, rather than the two
M4A3s on the F30A.

Regards,
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


water.kresse@...
 

Bruce,

I have a picture from Mike Davis' Detroit the Arsenal of America book showing two "riveted construction" Shermans being onto 40 ft NYC flat cars (can't read the CAPY). Yes, the later cast construction Shermans were heavier. Also, they would not have their full combat load during rail shipping. Now a single M-1 Abrahams weights over 70-tons, combat loaded.

I have always wondered why the C&O was only authorized to purchase 50-ton flats and 125-ton flats up until 1944 or so when ordered 70-ton flats.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...>
On Fri, April 11, 2008 12:07 pm, rockroll50401 wrote:
Bruce Smith, What flat car model did you use for your 2 Sherman tank
load? Looks like a PRR car.
Thanks,
Clark Propst
Clark,

I used the Bowser F30A model with modifications. The tanks are Heiser
models M4A3 with minor modifications. The tie-downs are threaded rods
with turnbuckles attached to plates, which were in turn bolted to the
wooden floor.

We've come to the conclusion that 2 Shermans, fitted out, would have
required a 70 ton capacity flat car, so when the Virtual Modelers group
gets started on their AAR 70 ton cars, my plan is to do another Sherman
load, this time perhaps with an M4A1 and an M4A3, rather than the two
M4A3s on the F30A.

Regards,
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


golden1014
 

Bruce,

I have a question. Since the tanks are in transit, shouldn't the
gun/turret be secured in the barrel lock? Did you research show
otherwise?

John

John Golden
Bloomington, IN



--- In STMFC@..., "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:

On Fri, April 11, 2008 12:07 pm, rockroll50401 wrote:
Bruce Smith, What flat car model did you use for your 2 Sherman
tank
load? Looks like a PRR car.
Thanks,
Clark Propst
Clark,

I used the Bowser F30A model with modifications. The tanks are
Heiser
models M4A3 with minor modifications. The tie-downs are threaded
rods
with turnbuckles attached to plates, which were in turn bolted to
the
wooden floor.

We've come to the conclusion that 2 Shermans, fitted out, would have
required a 70 ton capacity flat car, so when the Virtual Modelers
group
gets started on their AAR 70 ton cars, my plan is to do another
Sherman
load, this time perhaps with an M4A1 and an M4A3, rather than the
two
M4A3s on the F30A.

Regards,
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Bruce Smith
 

On Sun, April 13, 2008 8:27 pm, John Golden wrote:
Bruce,

I have a question. Since the tanks are in transit, shouldn't the
gun/turret be secured in the barrel lock? Did you research show
otherwise?

John
John,

I'm not sure. There is a clear photo of M4A3 tanks loaded onto a SOUTHERN
flat and there are no barrel locks visible. OTOH, there are many shots of
Shermans with barrel locks, and few loaded on flat cars with barrel locks
on. I'll likely model the rest of the fleet with locks ;^)

regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Bruce Smith
 

On Sun, April 13, 2008 8:41 am, water.kresse@... wrote:
Bruce,

I have a picture from Mike Davis' Detroit the Arsenal of America book
showing two "riveted construction" Shermans being onto 40 ft NYC flat
cars (can't read the CAPY). Yes, the later cast construction Shermans
were heavier. Also, they would not have their full combat load during
rail shipping. Now a single M-1 Abrahams weights over 70-tons, combat
loaded.

I have always wondered why the C&O was only authorized to purchase 50-ton
flats and 125-ton flats up until 1944 or so when ordered 70-ton flats.

Al Kresse
Al,

It is possible, but unlikely. That is, I'm not saying it never happened
<G>, but it would not have been the rule. As you note, shipping weight
would have been less than combat weight. OTOH, the practice during WWII
of shipping a crate of spares with each tank would have meant that the
true shipping weight was closer to the combat weight than the "empty"
weight. For the M4A3 these were:

"empty weight" - 27.8 tons or 55,600 lbs making 111,200 lbs for two
"combat weight" - 29.7 tons, or 59,400 lbs, making 118,800 lbs for two.

A 50 ton car had "D" bearings with a total weight on the rails of 169,000
lbs. So, technically, you would think that if the Lt Wt of the car was
around 55,000 lbs or less, 2 Shermans could be loaded on a 50 ton car.
However, many flat cars could not actually carry their load limit if the
load was distributed over the entire deck. The catch 22 is that the
heavier the car, the more likely it could withstand a heavier load, but
the lower its stenciled weight limit! Were cars ever overloaded? Its
possible <G> but there certainly would have been a risk of bending the car
in half too!

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


golden1014
 

Bruce,

They look more like tanks without the guns in the barrel locks, so
we've got that going for us. The jeep loads and tractor loads look
absolutely terrific, by the way.

What models are you using for the tractors?

John

John Golden
Bloomington, IN


--- In STMFC@..., "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:

On Sun, April 13, 2008 8:27 pm, John Golden wrote:
Bruce,

I have a question. Since the tanks are in transit, shouldn't the
gun/turret be secured in the barrel lock? Did you research show
otherwise?

John
John,

I'm not sure. There is a clear photo of M4A3 tanks loaded onto a
SOUTHERN
flat and there are no barrel locks visible. OTOH, there are many
shots of
Shermans with barrel locks, and few loaded on flat cars with
barrel locks
on. I'll likely model the rest of the fleet with locks ;^)

regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Bruce Smith
 

On Apr 14, 2008, at 9:01 AM, John Golden wrote:
Bruce,

They look more like tanks without the guns in the barrel locks, so
we've got that going for us. The jeep loads and tractor loads look
absolutely terrific, by the way.

What models are you using for the tractors?
John,

The M4 18 ton tractors are Roco models, and they are on the NorthernSpecific NP flat car. The annoying thing about the Roco models is that the doors are molded open and for transit, they would likely have been closed. The tie-downs are different from those I used on the Shermans, consisting of bent pieces of threaded rod, secured by bolts below the stake pockets. I didn't actually add the bolts so that the load can be removed and the flat operated as "empty with dunnage". I have a couple of Roco 155 mm "Long Toms" that will go another a flat car so the tractors will have something to pull when they arrive...

BTW, the jeeps are from Heiser... 16 Roco jeeps would have cost about $150.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

External gun travel locks were not common on the M4 series until 1944. Prior to that lumber was wedged between the tube and the hull with strapping run from the front lift lugs over the tube. The exact configuration varied but here are some examples:

Left background, two supports
http://lvaimage.lib.va.us/VTLS/SC/02/055.jpg Image

Strapping over gun tube is visible
http://lvaimage.lib.va.us/VTLS/SC/02/074.jpg Image

Single support
http://lvaimage.lib.va.us/VTLS/SC/07/049.jpg Image

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Smith

Bruce,

I have a question. Since the tanks are in transit, shouldn't the
gun/turret be secured in the barrel lock? Did you research show
otherwise?
I'm not sure. There is a clear photo of M4A3 tanks loaded onto a SOUTHERN
flat and there are no barrel locks visible. OTOH, there are many shots of
Shermans with barrel locks, and few loaded on flat cars with barrel locks
on. I'll likely model the rest of the fleet with locks ;^)


gn3397 <heninger@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:

BTW, the jeeps are from Heiser... 16 Roco jeeps would have cost
about
$150.

Regards
Bruce
Bruce,
Beautiful models. Your military equipment loads are very interesting
and would make a good subject for a TKM article. Just be thankful you
aren't a Proto:48 modeler: the Hasegawa and Tamiya 1/48 scale jeeps are
about $20 a pop!

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger
Stanley, ND


Gatwood, Elden J SAD <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
 

Guys;



The old military guys I know told me that the M4 did not come with a
dedicated lock as-built, but there were problems with damage to the elevating
gears in shipment, so they made crude locks out of wood for shipment
overseas. Then they found there was a need for locks when they were
traveling long distances in-country, so they mounted a dedicated lock on the
back deck (sometime after the Normandy invasion). This was quickly found to
be a problem when a few tanks got shot at and didn't have the time to move
the turret 180 degrees to return fire, so was quickly re-mounted on the front
glacis. When they were close to the front they could leave the top
unfastened, so the gun could be quickly moved up and the lock drop out of
engagement. The final series of M4 were furnished from the factory, with the
lock mounted on the glacis. The last part looks to be true in photo
evidence. They were all supplied from the factory with covers over the
turret mantlet and openings. The MGs were stowed. The bow MG had a canvas
cover. M4 generally came from the factory with stenciling and numbering.



BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat. Sorry for all the minutiae, but I
got an earful yesterday, and thought someone (well OK, maybe no one) might
find it interesting.



One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most, but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.



Elden Gatwood



________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bruce
Smith
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:03 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: CCB photo



On Sun, April 13, 2008 8:27 pm, John Golden wrote:
Bruce,

I have a question. Since the tanks are in transit, shouldn't the
gun/turret be secured in the barrel lock? Did you research show
otherwise?

John
John,

I'm not sure. There is a clear photo of M4A3 tanks loaded onto a SOUTHERN
flat and there are no barrel locks visible. OTOH, there are many shots of
Shermans with barrel locks, and few loaded on flat cars with barrel locks
on. I'll likely model the rest of the fleet with locks ;^)

regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


water.kresse@...
 

Elden,

Thanks for your good information. It all makes sense. Do we have any good SHIPPING weight numbers for these tanks . . . vs. combat loaded weights?

Al Kresse
Romeo, MI

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Gatwood, Elden J SAD " <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
Guys;

The old military guys I know told me that the M4 did not come with a
dedicated lock as-built, but there were problems with damage to the elevating
gears in shipment, so they made crude locks out of wood for shipment
overseas. Then they found there was a need for locks when they were
traveling long distances in-country, so they mounted a dedicated lock on the
back deck (sometime after the Normandy invasion). This was quickly found to
be a problem when a few tanks got shot at and didn't have the time to move
the turret 180 degrees to return fire, so was quickly re-mounted on the front
glacis. When they were close to the front they could leave the top
unfastened, so the gun could be quickly moved up and the lock drop out of
engagement. The final series of M4 were furnished from the factory, with the
lock mounted on the glacis. The last part looks to be true in photo
evidence. They were all supplied from the factory with covers over the
turret mantlet and openings. The MGs were stowed. The bow MG had a canvas
cover. M4 generally came from the factory with stenciling and numbering.

BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat. Sorry for all the minutiae, but I
got an earful yesterday, and thought someone (well OK, maybe no one) might
find it interesting.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most, but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.

Elden Gatwood

________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bruce
Smith
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:03 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: CCB photo

On Sun, April 13, 2008 8:27 pm, John Golden wrote:
Bruce,

I have a question. Since the tanks are in transit, shouldn't the
gun/turret be secured in the barrel lock? Did you research show
otherwise?

John
John,

I'm not sure. There is a clear photo of M4A3 tanks loaded onto a SOUTHERN
flat and there are no barrel locks visible. OTOH, there are many shots of
Shermans with barrel locks, and few loaded on flat cars with barrel locks
on. I'll likely model the rest of the fleet with locks ;^)

regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Bruce Smith
 

On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:
BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat.
Elden,

Thanks! I would differ on this point. I think that saying an M4A1 and M4A3 loaded together would be unlikely might be too strong, and the reason used to support the statement is not exactly correct. The important thing to realize is that domestic shipping of M4 tanks was NOT to units, but to depots. There was a huge backlog of tanks at arsenals mid war, waiting for flats. Thus, for example, it is my understanding that Detroit Tank Arsenal had something like 6 different M4 models on site at one time! In clearing that backlog, a variety of tanks would have been loaded for depots around the country. Depots as well would have had mixed M4 models. When tanks were shipped from depots to embarkation depots and ports, it would still be possible for dissimilar tanks to be co-shipped because distribution to units occurred overseas, although it is certainly more likely to see more segregation. Note that the Signal Corps Archive photos appear to show segregation of types, but these tanks are being loaded for the invasion of North Africa, and there would not be an opportunity to further sort them upon arrival. By my 1944 date, these tanks are being sent to depots in England.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most, but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.
With a shipping weight of 28-30 tons depending on the spares tied to the rear deck, two Shermans comes very close to or exceeded the load limit of most 50 ton flats and as I noted previosuly, there is also an issue of weight distribution which would reduce the load limit of the flat even more. It may be that cars were loaded with 2 Shermans if the load limit was ~120,000 lbs or more, and only one was loaded for cars with lower load limits.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Cyril Durrenberger
 

Are there any photos of only one tank to a flat car?

Cyril Durrenberger

Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:

On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:
BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact
that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one
type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the
same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different
parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be
unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat.
Elden,

Thanks! I would differ on this point. I think that saying an M4A1
and M4A3 loaded together would be unlikely might be too strong, and
the reason used to support the statement is not exactly correct. The
important thing to realize is that domestic shipping of M4 tanks was
NOT to units, but to depots. There was a huge backlog of tanks at
arsenals mid war, waiting for flats. Thus, for example, it is my
understanding that Detroit Tank Arsenal had something like 6
different M4 models on site at one time! In clearing that backlog,
a variety of tanks would have been loaded for depots around the
country. Depots as well would have had mixed M4 models. When tanks
were shipped from depots to embarkation depots and ports, it would
still be possible for dissimilar tanks to be co-shipped because
distribution to units occurred overseas, although it is certainly
more likely to see more segregation. Note that the Signal Corps
Archive photos appear to show segregation of types, but these tanks
are being loaded for the invasion of North Africa, and there would
not be an opportunity to further sort them upon arrival. By my 1944
date, these tanks are being sent to depots in England.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most,
but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on
anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of
them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.
With a shipping weight of 28-30 tons depending on the spares tied to
the rear deck, two Shermans comes very close to or exceeded the load
limit of most 50 ton flats and as I noted previosuly, there is also
an issue of weight distribution which would reduce the load limit of
the flat even more. It may be that cars were loaded with 2 Shermans
if the load limit was ~120,000 lbs or more, and only one was loaded
for cars with lower load limits.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Gatwood, Elden J SAD <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
 

Thanks, Bruce! I had never heard that info on the arsenal & depot!



See ya soon.



Elden







________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bruce
Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:43 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: CCB photo




On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:
BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact
that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one
type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the
same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different
parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be
unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat.
Elden,

Thanks! I would differ on this point. I think that saying an M4A1
and M4A3 loaded together would be unlikely might be too strong, and
the reason used to support the statement is not exactly correct. The
important thing to realize is that domestic shipping of M4 tanks was
NOT to units, but to depots. There was a huge backlog of tanks at
arsenals mid war, waiting for flats. Thus, for example, it is my
understanding that Detroit Tank Arsenal had something like 6
different M4 models on site at one time! In clearing that backlog,
a variety of tanks would have been loaded for depots around the
country. Depots as well would have had mixed M4 models. When tanks
were shipped from depots to embarkation depots and ports, it would
still be possible for dissimilar tanks to be co-shipped because
distribution to units occurred overseas, although it is certainly
more likely to see more segregation. Note that the Signal Corps
Archive photos appear to show segregation of types, but these tanks
are being loaded for the invasion of North Africa, and there would
not be an opportunity to further sort them upon arrival. By my 1944
date, these tanks are being sent to depots in England.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most,
but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on
anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of
them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.
With a shipping weight of 28-30 tons depending on the spares tied to
the rear deck, two Shermans comes very close to or exceeded the load
limit of most 50 ton flats and as I noted previosuly, there is also
an issue of weight distribution which would reduce the load limit of
the flat even more. It may be that cars were loaded with 2 Shermans
if the load limit was ~120,000 lbs or more, and only one was loaded
for cars with lower load limits.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2
<http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2>

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


water.kresse@...
 

Folks,

Where is this CCB photo of a flat car with two Sherman tanks on it posted? Also, what is CCB? I've heard of CBC's (Car Builders Cyclopedias).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Gatwood, Elden J SAD " <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
Thanks, Bruce! I had never heard that info on the arsenal & depot!

See ya soon.

Elden

________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bruce
Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:43 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: CCB photo

On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:
BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact
that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one
type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the
same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different
parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be
unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat.
Elden,

Thanks! I would differ on this point. I think that saying an M4A1
and M4A3 loaded together would be unlikely might be too strong, and
the reason used to support the statement is not exactly correct. The
important thing to realize is that domestic shipping of M4 tanks was
NOT to units, but to depots. There was a huge backlog of tanks at
arsenals mid war, waiting for flats. Thus, for example, it is my
understanding that Detroit Tank Arsenal had something like 6
different M4 models on site at one time! In clearing that backlog,
a variety of tanks would have been loaded for depots around the
country. Depots as well would have had mixed M4 models. When tanks
were shipped from depots to embarkation depots and ports, it would
still be possible for dissimilar tanks to be co-shipped because
distribution to units occurred overseas, although it is certainly
more likely to see more segregation. Note that the Signal Corps
Archive photos appear to show segregation of types, but these tanks
are being loaded for the invasion of North Africa, and there would
not be an opportunity to further sort them upon arrival. By my 1944
date, these tanks are being sent to depots in England.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most,
but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on
anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of
them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.
With a shipping weight of 28-30 tons depending on the spares tied to
the rear deck, two Shermans comes very close to or exceeded the load
limit of most 50 ton flats and as I noted previosuly, there is also
an issue of weight distribution which would reduce the load limit of
the flat even more. It may be that cars were loaded with 2 Shermans
if the load limit was ~120,000 lbs or more, and only one was loaded
for cars with lower load limits.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2
<http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2>

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

As a one-time tanker (but from a much later era), I can tell you that "CCB" in World War II army lingo means "Combat Command B." Most U.S. armored divisions of that time were divided into three maneuver units roughly equivalent to modern brigades, with a CCA, CCB, and a CCR ("R" for "Reserve.") I haven't seen the photo either.

So long,

Andy

Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
Model Railroader magazine
asperandeo@...
262-796-8776, ext. 461
FAX 262-796-1142


water.kresse@...
 

Andy,

I was an Armored Cavalry officer in the late-60s. Ended up with a Pathfinder Detachment in VN. I was familar with Regiments, Brigades and Divisions . . . and Corps. February 1943 Signal Corps images of M4 tanks being unloaded at Newport News refer to BLOT operations. Any idea what BLOT meant? Vague references were made to "civilian direct supplied war materials" to the Hampton Roads Ports.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
As a one-time tanker (but from a much later era), I can tell you that "CCB" in World War II army lingo means "Combat Command B." Most U.S. armored divisions of that time were divided into three maneuver units roughly equivalent to modern brigades, with a CCA, CCB, and a CCR ("R" for "Reserve.") I haven't seen the photo either.

So long,

Andy

Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
Model Railroader magazine
asperandeo@...
262-796-8776, ext. 461
FAX 262-796-1142


Bruce Smith
 

On Apr 15, 2008, at 12:54 PM, CYRIL DURRENBERGER wrote:
Are there any photos of only one tank to a flat car?

Cyril Durrenberger
Cyril,

Absolutely! Look at the photo link posted by Kurt Laughlin
http://lvaimage.lib.va.us/VTLS/SC/07/049.jpg

The 1st-4th cars all appear to have single Sherman loads. The 5th and perhaps 6th appear to have 2 Shermans each. The first car is a 40 tonner (80,000 lbs CAPY) but the second appears to be a 50 tonner.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Bruce Smith
 

On Apr 15, 2008, at 1:37 PM, water.kresse@... wrote:
Folks,

Where is this CCB photo of a flat car with two Sherman tanks on it posted? Also, what is CCB? I've heard of CBC's (Car Builders Cyclopedias).

Al Kresse
Al,

I have no idea what "CCB" is, but since the original question from Clark was talking about my model, I can just give you a link to my photos <G>.

Two Heiser M4A3s on a Bowser F30A
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/Models/ F30ABowserSherman.jpg

In addition, the M4 18 ton artillery tractors can be seen on the NorthernSpecific resin NP flat at:
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/Models/M4-tractors1.jpg
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/Models/M4-tractors2.jpg
And of course, 2 of them are fine on a 50 ton flat <G>.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0