Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by POTRZBE:
It's been written that the army did not use the Transportation Corps logo til well after WWII.
Agreed.
I have to disagree. While the transportation logo was very uncommon during WW2, there's plenty of evidence that it was indeed used. Army RRs were often split between the Transportation and Quartermaster branches (with some being used by Ordnance, in places where heavy maintenance or munitions storage required railroad tracks). The Trans insignia is quite complex, so if you didn't have the stencils, it didn't get painted. But yeah, there are several photos of the Transport insignia painted on rolling stock.
That said, I will agree it was FAR more common into the 1950s and 60s to see it on rolling stock.
And yeah, very little rolling stock was painted OD green. All steam locos were black, diesels were usually yellow, grey or black and cars were usually grey or black as well.
The problem with Army RR equipment is that many reference books have shots of equipment taken in the 60s, when the railfan community discovered Ft Eustis and their steam locomotives. The writers, I can only assume, never check on if those 1950s-60s paint and marking jobs were actually being used during WW2, which was very rarely the case. If you're like me and know old uniforms really well (even more than any train subject, as that's my primary hobby, something I've written about in magazines and helped out with book, TV and Movie projects), it's obvious to tell a photo from the 60s as opposed to one from the 40s as the uniforms look totally different. But most train buffs probably would never know the differences.
Originally Posted by T4TT:
I did not use the term fantasy to be derogatory or insulting. I am sorry if you took it that way Steve. I just wanted to know if the army every painted cabooses like the two pics of the toys I posted.
Nope, not until way after WW2 was over and even then, not very often.
This forum has become quite maddening to me in this regard, in that people will either ask if something is right, or declare it is, to have paint and markings on military WW2-era cars and loads which never happened, then when myself (or anyone else) points out the inaccuracy, it never fails that someone will throw down the tired old, "It's supposed to be fun" phrase, which I feel is incomplete as they really should be honest and add, "-so why bother trying to get anything right?" as that's what they really mean.
So, why does anyone bother to ask, or make the declaration that it's 'accurate' when it clearly isn't? Obviously some people want it to look as correct as they can, and they should be able to make an informed decision on how to go with it, either way (accurate or toy-like) they want to go. I'm getting quite sick of those here who really don't want that info to get out there and want everything to look as toy-like as humanly possible and get really offended somehow when anyone dares to point out what is historically correct.