|
Post by privatepaddy on Feb 25, 2013 15:09:28 GMT
In the photo above, I dont see signs of "Scrap" vehicles being used... I do see signs of vehicles that can "Bug out" at a moments notice... therefore, much MORE useful, as it shows a bridge that can be self-dismantled and used elsewhere when needed?... I actually like that as an idea. Perhaps because the photos appear to be part of the US Marines Guadalcanal campaign in the Solomon Islands not The US Armies 32nd Infantry Division actions in New Guinea. The actions were in a large part concurrent, the Japanese withdrawing assets from New Guinea to attempt to dislodge the marines from Guadalcanal.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 27, 2013 5:22:01 GMT
Phwatttt?...... Do you mean they blew bridges and other sh-1-t up to stop roads being used?....
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Feb 27, 2013 11:55:17 GMT
Phwatttt?...... Do you mean they blew bridges and other sh-1-t up to stop roads being used?.... Roads interesting concept. As far as the story I was told I have not found evidence as I previously stated. www.32nd-division.org/history/ww2/32ww2-1.htmlAny one interested in the US 32nd Infantry Division (Red Arrows) WW2 record. I have a suspicion it is overshadowed by other actions at the time. from Wiki about Buna-Guna " General Eichelberger later compared the casualty ratio to the American Civil War. As a percentage of casualties, killed or wounded in action at Buna exceeded the better known Battle of Guadalcanal by a margin of three to one." Further in the same article "The beginning of the campaign revealed that the American troops were unprepared for jungle warfare. The 2nd Battalion of the 126th Infantry Regiment was called on to trek 210 km (130 mi) from 14 October – 12 November across the extremely rugged Kapa Kapa Trail. They did not encounter a single enemy soldier, but more than ⅔ of their men became casualties, sick with malaria, dengue fever, bush typhus, amoebic dysentery, bacillary, along with jungle rot, dobie itch, trench foot, athlete's foot and ringworm." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Buna-Gona
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 27, 2013 15:42:13 GMT
Phwatttt?...... Do you mean they blew bridges and other sh-1-t up to stop roads being used?.... Roads interesting concept. As far as the story I was told I have not found evidence as I previously stated. www.32nd-division.org/history/ww2/32ww2-1.htmlAny one interested in the US 32nd Infantry Division (Red Arrows) WW2 record. I have a suspicion it is overshadowed by other actions at the time. from Wiki about Buna-Guna " General Eichelberger later compared the casualty ratio to the American Civil War. As a percentage of casualties, killed or wounded in action at Buna exceeded the better known Battle of Guadalcanal by a margin of three to one." Further in the same article "The beginning of the campaign revealed that the American troops were unprepared for jungle warfare. The 2nd Battalion of the 126th Infantry Regiment was called on to trek 210 km (130 mi) from 14 October – 12 November across the extremely rugged Kapa Kapa Trail. They did not encounter a single enemy soldier, but more than ⅔ of their men became casualties, sick with malaria, dengue fever, bush typhus, amoebic dysentery, bacillary, along with jungle rot, dobie itch, trench foot, athlete's foot and ringworm." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Buna-GonaThat figure seems consistent with other military operations where troops were deployed to tropical locations from more temperate ones. I know that several attempts by the English to capture Caribbean islands in the 1600's saw a similar reduction in combat strength - although in the earlier periods the number of fatalities was considerably higher - over the same amount of time.
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Feb 28, 2013 21:47:06 GMT
True it doesn't to be completed, but does appear to be under construction. The truck may been driven on early for the photo opportunity, or to check things out size wise.
Though the other photo I posted and the explanation of its use at Guadalcanal, leave no doubt that Amphibious Tractors were used as bridge supports on occasion.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 28, 2013 22:03:01 GMT
I would guess that they would make a good short-term bridge, while the engineers work on something more permanent. I'm guessing (and it is just a guess) that it would be the sort of thing that could be put together very quickly with limited supplies - Which is exactly what you need when the infantry is engaged and needs supplies quickly.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Mar 1, 2013 2:26:01 GMT
True it doesn't to be completed, but does appear to be under construction. The truck may been driven on early for the photo opportunity, or to check things out size wise. Though the other photo I posted and the explanation of its use at Guadalcanal, leave no doubt that Amphibious Tractors were used as bridge supports on occasion. There is no doubt that this type of vehicle was used to support a bridge, the first photo if blown up (size wise ) clearly shows them and a marine crossing the bridge. The second photo had me intrigued because a case could be made that the truck was being transported via the river up/downstream, as part of a test for their use as makeshift pontoons or as you say an incomplete bridge. I would cite the configuration and tension on the ropes in the photograph, the soldiers clothing and what appear to be buildings at the extreme background of the photo, as reasons for my curiosity. Having photos of that era which are roughly 2' x 1 1/4" it would be easy to not to notice some of the detail in the photograph especially if the original owner had passed away.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Mar 1, 2013 4:40:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 1, 2013 13:36:49 GMT
That is well outside the scope of what MB could or could afford to do. It would be more practical for them to use vehicles from the local scrapyard.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Mar 1, 2013 14:04:44 GMT
That is well outside the scope of what MB could or could afford to do. It would be more practical for them to use vehicles from the local scrapyard. Well for advice they could call the museum www.amtrac.org/2atmc/Museum/Gatorgalley.aspI did read somewhere that the "alligator" had a 2000 kg cargo capacity.
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Mar 3, 2013 21:33:13 GMT
True it doesn't to be completed, but does appear to be under construction. The truck may been driven on early for the photo opportunity, or to check things out size wise. Though the other photo I posted and the explanation of its use at Guadalcanal, leave no doubt that Amphibious Tractors were used as bridge supports on occasion. There is no doubt that this type of vehicle was used to support a bridge, the first photo if blown up (size wise ) clearly shows them and a marine crossing the bridge. The second photo had me intrigued because a case could be made that the truck was being transported via the river up/downstream, as part of a test for their use as makeshift pontoons or as you say an incomplete bridge. I would cite the configuration and tension on the ropes in the photograph, the soldiers clothing and what appear to be buildings at the extreme background of the photo, as reasons for my curiosity. Having photos of that era which are roughly 2' x 1 1/4" it would be easy to not to notice some of the detail in the photograph especially if the original owner had passed away. I had actually thought of the possibility of the being a "pontoon type raft" floating that truck along the stream, but the load (the truck) is way off center and there does seem to be some supporting poles in the water on the left. It could very well be a training area photo, say for combat engineers/Seabee training, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 3, 2013 22:26:28 GMT
That is well outside the scope of what MB could or could afford to do. It would be more practical for them to use vehicles from the local scrapyard. Well for advice they could call the museum www.amtrac.org/2atmc/Museum/Gatorgalley.aspI did read somewhere that the "alligator" had a 2000 kg cargo capacity. Calling a museum is probably step one, if only to see if they can dredge up any additional information about the OP from there. However, the chances of them being able to use a real WW2 vintage vehicle (or vehicles, since they would need to use more than one) is effectively zero. No one who owns such a craft is going to let MB drive a truck over them - let alone something that weighs 35 tons. And if they couldn't afford to spend $10,000 to transport wrecking balls halfway across the US they certainly couldn't afford the cost of transporting recovered vehicles halfway across the globe...let alone cover the costs of finding, recovering and repairing them. (Even selling the vehicles afterwards would not offset the costs). What they would need is a viable stand in, something that they can locate locally and which no one is going to shed a tear over if it gets wrecked. I'm wondering if the US military used any vehicles that are/were similar in general design and which they might have in storage - the sort of vehicles they use for live-fire training. I'm wondering if something like the M113 would be a suitable stand in?
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 4, 2013 9:08:20 GMT
Whats left of that Bus they had?.....
Plus, I know a few lads who own Military type vehicles, I used to deliver paint to one place that restores them... I still got there now and again with various deliveries.... Restoration is "Frequent", as they tend to WANT to use them for what they were designed for, and beyond?....
If the MB team could find a group willing enough with the right kit, a little TV time and the chance to play with their toys?... I cant think of one of the lads I know this side of the pond who would even think twice about jumping at the chance to play with the toys...........
What I am saying, is it would be worth the ask... In all possibility, having a 35 ton truck balanced on your bonnet is a no no, but if they came up with the right safe method to do this, I am sure asking those who may have had experience would get a few answers....
Its worth the ask, se what they can get from there.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Mar 5, 2013 7:25:27 GMT
There is no doubt that this type of vehicle was used to support a bridge, the first photo if blown up (size wise ) clearly shows them and a marine crossing the bridge. The second photo had me intrigued because a case could be made that the truck was being transported via the river up/downstream, as part of a test for their use as makeshift pontoons or as you say an incomplete bridge. I would cite the configuration and tension on the ropes in the photograph, the soldiers clothing and what appear to be buildings at the extreme background of the photo, as reasons for my curiosity. Having photos of that era which are roughly 2' x 1 1/4" it would be easy to not to notice some of the detail in the photograph especially if the original owner had passed away. I had actually thought of the possibility of the being a "pontoon type raft" floating that truck along the stream, but the load (the truck) is way off center and there does seem to be some supporting poles in the water on the left. It could very well be a training area photo, say for combat engineers/Seabee training, etc. According to the History of the LVT-1 by Major USMC) RICHARD W. ROAN. (Link included because I've never met a marine yet that wasn't interested in Marine Corps history ) www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/RRW.htmThe pictures of LVT-1 vehicles could have been from the initial order of 200 vehicles around Dunedin (Florida) or may have been part of the pre order testing around the Patomac River or Chopawamsic Creek. The origin of the aluminium "Alligator" lays with the 1928 hurricane to hit Florida which caused the deaths of around 1,800+ people, many dying after because rescue vehicles couldn't get to them. Reading the linked article shows a convergence of the Marine Corps need for a versatile landing vehicle the advent of the "Alligator" a popular mechanics article and a cocktail party chance meeting giving the Marines the vehicle they needed at the time they needed it. The LVT-1 supplied to the marines weighed 17,500 pounds/ 8 tonnes, had a cargo capacity of 4000 ponds/ 2 tonnes and was constructed of 12 gauge steel. @cyber and SD 35 tons, I am not sure where this figure came from perhaps a misplaced decimal point, certainly not from the vehicles used in theatre at the time being talked about. The trucks including cargo would have been around 5 tons gross During the Guadalcanal campaign. Any thing heavier would almost certainly overload the floatation characteristics and a flat bed frame designed capacity of 2 tonnes. Re an APC stand in, being a different class of vehicle I am not sure. The original "alligator" was largly made from off the shelf items with the suspension and propulsion paddles on the track being the specialised section. Any test will rig will not have to travel anywhere, it is simply a floating platform to support framework suitable for a bridge pylon.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 5, 2013 8:33:57 GMT
Paddy, Vehicle maybe 5 ton, but what about Bridge weight as well?.... I am not so sure on the 35 ton figure, I know I do drive vehicles about that weight, so whatever bridge you build, I would have to suggest better be up to scratch to support that weight, 'cos if you need to get the combined weight of say a tank on a transporter across that bridge?....
Yes thats all down to Axle weight as to how heavy the bridge needs to be, but that weight has to go somewhere..... I aint no engineer, I just drive the damn things?....
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Mar 5, 2013 10:07:23 GMT
Paddy, Vehicle maybe 5 ton, but what about Bridge weight as well?.... I am not so sure on the 35 ton figure, I know I do drive vehicles about that weight, so whatever bridge you build, I would have to suggest better be up to scratch to support that weight, 'cos if you need to get the combined weight of say a tank on a transporter across that bridge?.... Yes thats all down to Axle weight as to how heavy the bridge needs to be, but that weight has to go somewhere..... I aint no engineer, I just drive the damn things?.... The war in the Pacific was different to that in Europe, even though I do not know of any Tank transporters used does not mean that they weren't in theatre. I think that the heaviest vehicle that could have been at Guadalcanal was the M4 Sherman tank of some 30.3 Tonnes, while in New Guinea it was the M3 Stuart 14.7 tonnes.Both vehicles may have been able to ford the rivers/streams or tidal areas without bridges. I see the bridge formed by the photo provided by FM used for supply transport, artillery movement, ambulance and Jeeps. It should be remembered that the LVT-1 had no practical use after the initial phase of the campaign that after the supplies had been landed the invasion fleet withdrew out of the range of the Japanese fleet. A Cruiser covering screen was left behind but it was surprised by a IJN cruiser force on the night of 8th-9th August 1942 at Savo Island.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 5, 2013 15:07:56 GMT
Clarification; The 35 ton figure was the 'top of my head' figure for the Sherman, and as noted is slightly too high - even if you added the weight of any additional equipment or personal that a Sherman may have been carrying on its hull. (Although saying that I'm wondering if any of the Sherman variants weighed this much). Ironically WW2 tanks seem to have fitted into the 28-30 ton or 40-50 ton ranges - the Tiger being the exception at some 60+ tons - with none I can find being 35 tons.
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Mar 5, 2013 19:25:39 GMT
In the pics I provided, the flotation characteristics were not really important as the water was shallow and tractors were not floating, but were setting firmly on the bottom of the stream bed.
As near as I can determine, these "bridging" methods were not so much because of the water being an obstacle, but because the steep banks on both or one side of the stream, presented an obstacle that slowed or impeded progress or follow up supply and troop movement.
The M113 "may" be suitable as a stand in for the old Amphibious Tractor for testing the building of makeshift bridges, though not sure what there is to test, as we have written history and photographic evidence that proves that this part is no "myth".
Note that the M113 is only "moderately" amphibious. Meaning it is suitable for calm water and fairly shallow stream crossings. It can float without attaching floatations bladders and uses its tracks for propulsion in water, but the tracks are not specifically designed for this purpose and it moves slowly. It's hull shape is not optimized for floatation stability and is not suitable for amphibious operations in sea and surf.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Mar 5, 2013 23:55:02 GMT
FormerMarine0341 said "though not sure what there is to test, as we have written history and photographic evidence that proves that this part is no "myth"." I would respectfully point out that the op is about New Guinea not Guadalcanal.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Mar 6, 2013 2:37:17 GMT
Clarification; The 35 ton figure was the 'top of my head' figure for the Sherman, and as noted is slightly too high - even if you added the weight of any additional equipment or personal that a Sherman may have been carrying on its hull. (Although saying that I'm wondering if any of the Sherman variants weighed this much). Ironically WW2 tanks seem to have fitted into the 28-30 ton or 40-50 ton ranges - the Tiger being the exception at some 60+ tons - with none I can find being 35 tons. Thank you for the clarification, perhaps one of the "Funnies" bridge layer, mine clearer tanks used at Normandy.
|
|