WW2 Landing Craft on trains

Guessing, would landing craft be a bit too wide for trains? Some tanks were designed to be able to travel by train, which was quite a restriction for tanks which needed to be moved around Britain.

In early May the French magazine "La Vie Du Rail" had amn article on railways and the invasion of Normandy, with pictures of Allied rolling stock being unloaded from ships on arrival in France, and photos showing Sherman tanks and various supplies loaded on railway wagons (taken on the continent?). Motor Books might have a copy.

(FWIW, the May issue of "Rail Passion" had an article on the current state of Iraqi Republic Railways, including a photo of a T55 tank loaded on a flat wagon and abandoned in a siding.)

I have a vague memory of seeing a row of flatbed waggons (warflats?) with landing craft on them, way over loading gauge. I've just no idea where I originally saw it.

There's an old war department instructional film called "Tanks on Trains" showing how they got the tanks themselves within loading gauge (by unbolting bits :-)

R.

I've got a vague recollection of a photo of a row of amphibious vehicles (DUWKs?) on flat bogie wagons.

All the German WWII tanks were built to fit the European loading gauge. I think only the last bigger Tiger tanks needed the tracks removed.

Regards, Greg.P.

Infantry landing craft like the British LCI and the American LCVP would fit onto flats as they were quite small. Airfix have just released the LVCP in

1/72nd scale as part of the D-Day commemoration.

Gregory Procter writes

Not quite totally correct in a nit picky sense the tiger 1 had its battlefield tracks removed and replaced by 'movement' tracks of a lesser width. See photos page 55 tiger 1 on western front by jean restayn

Please do be nit-picky - we learn where we're wrong that way!

Greg.P.

I doubt the "Maus" prototype would even fit on Berne guage...

Jim'll

Or any/many road bridge cum to that. Even Tigers (1 and 2) were rather limited by weight restrictions.

But it is interesting to see Tiger1 on flatbed rail trucks with side panel 'flaps' removed and movement track in place. The width of said item just corresponds to flatbed width.

There's always an exception!

Well, if we're going down that route, not only did it have narrow tracks from train transportation it also had it's outer set of wheels removed at the same time. ;-)

Chris Wilson writes

I was going to mention this before BUT i couldn't discern such looking at the pics in my technical tomes. One has to remember that the Tiger had overlapping idler wheels. Why they went for that formation i don't know as it causes a lot of hassle to replace an idler wheel at the back (nearest the tank body), think about it the number that have to be removed to get at a damaged one.

Suspension, until the Panther and Tiger II it was the heaviest armoured vehicle in regular service but when developed they hadn't worked out how to keep it moving without snapping the torsion beams.

... and all on top of removing the track, as I understand it though, under battle conditions the crews were quite happy to loose a wheel or two (providing that the track stayed on).

In uk.railway Chris Wilson twisted the electrons to say:

The inter-leaved suspension was also used on the late production Panzer II 'Luchs' (Lynx) varient and on the German half-tracks ...

But how about the super-broad gauge line that was supported by some Austrian chap who was big in German politics back then :)

Somewhere round here I've got a photo I found on a website showing a Churchill tank with bits removed for UK rail transport. I'll see if I can find it.

The railway gun mailing list might be able to help the original poster:

As for "Rail Passion", I can't read it, as I can't read French. I just look at the pictures!

I believe that they had to remove as many as 5 wheels to get to just one rear one to repair/replace it.

Only thing I can find is a shot of railway wagons being loaded on an LCT, the reverse of what you were after!

Might be worth contacting Southampton City Museums, they have a large collection of pre-D-Day photos.

Eastleigh and Swindon constructed a number of LCAs and I assume they were shifted by rail to Southampton.

I shall insert a digression ito the thread, I can't help with the answer you seek but I can point out there is a very very strong liunk with British landing craft and HSTs.

Paxman developed high speed 7 inch bore vee engine for marine and industrial use. In particular, the TP model was developed as a short life power unit for tank landing craft. Entering production in 1942,

2227 engines built at Colchester and 1306 at the London Renault factory. In 1947 a commercial version - RPH - appeared, as in 10800, 11001, and others, evolving with bore and stroke changes over time through YH (e.g. D8200 BTH, B8400 NBL, and in ZH form D8500) to YJ (74s, 14s, D830, rebuilt D6100). HST 'Valenta' initially designated Y3J later RP200; then VP185.

-- Nick