This arrived today. Cool Box. Excellent graphics and Made in the USA! Lionel changed the inventory numbering scheme. It does not follow the 6-XXXXX format, rather only numbers 1938220. She'll be rolling on Veteran's Day 2019!! (Maybe sooner...
)
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Hmm...I recently saw a documentary about the Sherman tank; apparently it was not well liked by our GIs: under-armored and under-gunned. Some said it took 4 Shermans to knock out a Panzer: three to get destroyed and the fourth to get behind and put a shell into the engine compartment. Based on that this seems like an odd choice...
Mark in Oregon
Mark in Oregon, probably true, but without it we probably couldn't have won the war....we built and shipped a bizillion of them.... By the way, if you like Brad Pitt, his movie "Fury" (a real tank in WWII) is amazing and based on true stories of brave men that crewed them. In my humble opinion, commemorating the Sherman tank and the men that crewed and died in them is more than an appropriate choice. Oh, one more comment, a recently released book "Spearhead" also covers the tank crews in the war. A most excellent book.
Nice commemorative car but the Sherman was not a great tank. Took 8 to knock out a Tiger tank. The crews didn't like them but did their best. Read the book "Death Traps".
Nice box car, I am a big fan of the Sherman tank. I would venture that the two top WW II Tanks were the Russian T34 and the American Sherman. Yes I know that the German Tiger 1 tank was a match for 5 Shermans but the Germans only built 1349 Tiger Tanks vs Sherman production was 49,200. Panther production was around 6000 tanks. In a nut shell it was much more likely that the Americans would show up with 5 Shermans vs the Germans showing up with one Tiger or even one Panther.
As Odd Job in Kelly’s Hero’s said a Sherman can give you a nice edge. Oh by the way the 1349 Tigers had to be split between the Eastern and Western fronts.
Lionel did a great job on the boxcar. Another thing to consider is the death rate of the US armored forces during WW II was around 5-7%. Compared to German Uboat loses of 95%. Now those subs were death traps
JohnB
Nice graphics on your boxcar, she will certainly run and display well on any layout, enjoy your purchase.
The Sherman had many initial faults as noted above, but with continual modifications and mass production, the Sherman did become a capable tank for the European battlefield. She was utilized in Korea and even employed during the 1967 Middle Eastern conflict.
I do remember while on active service that Cooper's "Death Traps" stirred strong differences of opinion at the War College.
Talking quality, not numbers, the Sherman was second rate, used in Korea because it was lighter on their bridges and by Israel(after being upgunned) because it was cheap & available. The M1 Garand was outclassed too. WW II US propaganda.
jim pastorius posted:Talking quality, not numbers, the Sherman was second rate, used in Korea because it was lighter on their bridges and by Israel(after being upgunned) because it was cheap & available. The M1 Garand was outclassed too. WW II US propaganda.
Jim,
The Shermans were a well designed tank and extremely dependable. An example if a Sherman needed a new transmission it could be changed in a field repair center in about 4 hours. When the Germans introduced the Panther just about everyone of them broke down on route the the Battle of Kursk in Russia. The German’s were forced to destroy them as repairs were intensive the turret had to be removed and could not be done without going to a major repair facility.
Don’t get me wrong the Tiger and Panther were excellent tanks well armored, well gunned hard to knock out. They were highly engineered maybe overly engineered. Think how long it would take to change a wheel out if damaged by a mine. Those inter messed wheel on Tigers and Panthers were a nightmare.
If you want to learn more about the Sherman Tank do a search on You Tube for a guy called the “Chieftain” he did a video called “Why The Sherman was what it was”. He gives a unique insight to the development of the Sherman.
The Sherman was the tank that won WW II.
JohnB
I have a unique perspective on this, in that my dad was part of a tank unit under Patton's third army, and the Sherman was one of the things he actually talked about (and also the unique unit he was in).
The Sherman compared to the Panzer or the Tiger had less armor and was comparatively undergunned compared to them, the Sherman used a 75mm gun, the Panzer and Tiger used an 88mm that was basically an anti aircraft gun mounted on the tank.
One thing you have to keep in mind is what the Sherman was developed for, it was not primarily designed to get into battles with other tanks (doesn't mean they didn't, obviously), it was designed more to be mobile artillery, something the Tiger and Panzer were not, could not be. It wasn't like someone cheapened up on the armor and the gun or the US didn't know how to make a high powered gun for it, it simply was not primarily designed to go against another tank (the Russian T34, on the other hand, was designed to do that). It did mean that the Sherman was at a disadvantage against those tanks, of course, but it also compared to them was highly mobile, both the Tiger and Panzer were open field tanks, they did poorly in close quarter fighting and weren't very good as mobile artillery support. One of the big issues was weight, the Sherman was deliberately made lighter in armor to cut down on weight. A Sherman was something like 39 tons (roughly the weight of a modern Semi fully loaded), The Panzer and Tiger were significantly more than that (the tiger was close to twice the weight, it was well over 70 tons I recall, the Panzer was about 10 tons less give or take). 39 tons you could put up temporary bridging that could let it, for example, cross a river (ever see the pontoon bridges they used, with pictures of tanks going over them?), it is very, very difficult to do so with a tank like the Panzer and Tiger.
As others have pointed out, the Sherman was easy to repair, it was like comparing repairing an old VW Bug to repairing an exotic car, things like repairing a track, fixing the engine, etc, was relatively easy, could be done by the guys who manned the tanks, the Panzer and especially the Tiger required skilled technicians to fix them, they weren't designed to be easily repaired.The Panzer was easier, but it still was complex, which also meant building them in numbers was difficult, when US production heated up we were producing more tanks per month supposedly then the Germans did the whole of WWII.
Having those kind of numbers also meant we didn't really have to repair them, lose a tank and you had a lot more of them available (obviously, this depends on when you are talking about, would be a lot different in 1942 where the US was still suffering a huge shortage of everything, to 1943 and beyond). Having those kinds of numbers meant tanks could be used as mobile artillery, it meant they were not stretched thin and those numbers mattered.
The other thing to keep in mind, something few have really written about, is that in terms of killing tanks the US military did something different, they had dedicated tank killer battalions who were the primary units designed to take out enemy tanks. Originally they were towed units, but later on they had modified Shermans, the M10 and the later M36 that went into operation fall, 1944, that were pretty effective in knocking out enemy tanks. They were even lighter in armor than a Sherman, but they also had a higher powered gun (they used a 90mm cannon that could knock out a tank at several thousand yards, something the 75 on the Sherman couldn't do), and the tank due to gearing and also lighter armor could maneuver quickly, it could move a lot faster than a standard Sherman. That was the kind of unit my dad was in, now I know why he laughed so hard when Oddball in "Kelly's Heroes" described their tanks, with the piece of pipe to make it look like it had a 90, and also that it was modified to get into and out of battle faster than any tank out there..... I read one guy's rant how this tactically was a mistake and how they "quickly got rid of these units", only thing is these units existed until the mid 1950's, so there must of been some value to them
If you want more info on the tank killer battalions, there are some pretty good websites up there, and there is a video up on you tube (sponsored by the Santa Fe, so it is rail related *lol*) about tank killer battalion training (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veKXd35dInM at 11:45 in there is an unintentionally hysterical section on small arms training), there are also websites about these units if you do a web search.
JOHNB, Thanks for your perspective on this incredible weapon . I am glad you were able to counter some of BS.
POTRZBE posted:JOHNB, Thanks for your perspective on this incredible weapon . I am glad you were able to counter some of BS.
"BS"? Is that what you call historical perspective?
I get it that Patton pushed for the Sherman, based on his background with the cavalry: lightweight (less armor) and maneuverable. And being able to do field repairs and being able to produce huge numbers of them was not a bad thing, but I think it shows that more thought was given to the machine and not the souls who had to inhabit those machines...
I did not intend for my initial post to be viewed as "BS": I was merely sharing some of the information I have gleaned on the subject.
Mark in Oregon
I dont really like themed items all that much. As a history buff however, this strikes my fancy. Having just seen both Kelly's Heroes AND Fury (both good films, inaccurate at a lot of parts but good films) this is starting to speak to me. The Sherman was indeed one of the most produced tanks of WWII, only to be beaten out by the Russian T-34 but as many of ya'll stated above, the crews found them to be death traps once they encountered the fearful Tiger and/or Panther, even if it was in limited numbers. I personally have never seen a Sherman Tank (or any tanks really) up close but it is on my to-do list. I have heard of this place out in Uvalde, Texas not far from where I live that has a Sherman than can be ran and fired but I imagine the prices are gonna be as high as the Vision Line Big Boy.
I kinda want to see more Flatcars with Shermans (I have three more ideas, even if this is the wrong thread for it) now because of this boxcar.
Our best weapon above all others was the rifleman, no one suffered like they did. The numbers tell the story-a cotton shirt for protection. They deserrve a big boxcar.
Not all things in wartime work well, given the pace of production a lot of people fighting were killed by equipment that malfunctioned, the liberty ships Kaiser produced in volume often ended up either breaking down or worse, aircraft had problems related to defects at the factory, guns malfunctioned, you name it. Some designs were **** poor to start with or ill thought out, the P40 comes to mind *shrug*. The amazing thing to me besides the people who fought the war was not how badly things worked, but how well they worked given the circumstances, they turned out ridiculous number of weapons, ships, planes (take a look sometime at Aircraft carriers, within a couple of years of Pearl Harbor the US had several hundred of them from a handful), tanks, you name, many with people who had never been near a factory or machine tools, that is the really amazing part to me. With the Sherman my take on it was the real stupidity of those who used it as a tank to tank fighting weapon when it wasn't designed for that, I think that is more the failure of the military brass and planners who couldn't figure out what they were designing for and put it into a role it shouldn't have been, but then again, that is a fact of war, too, bad planning, poor execution and downright stupidity happen.
Strummer posted:POTRZBE posted:JOHNB, Thanks for your perspective on this incredible weapon . I am glad you were able to counter some of BS.
"BS"? Is that what you call historical perspective?
I get it that Patton pushed for the Sherman, based on his background with the cavalry: lightweight (less armor) and maneuverable. And being able to do field repairs and being able to produce huge numbers of them was not a bad thing, but I think it shows that more thought was given to the machine and not the souls who had to inhabit those machines...
I did not intend for my initial post to be viewed as "BS": I was merely sharing some of the information I have gleaned on the subject.
Mark in Oregon
I dunno Mark in Oregon, I think it represents all the souls who ever had anything to do with the machine, from requisition to design & development to manufacturing to operating & fighting and living & dying with it. But then again, I can usually see the forest beyond all the trees.
If you want to glean more information on the subject instead of just "some", you might try what JohnB suggests and do a search on You Tube for a guy called the “Chieftain” he did a video called “Why The Sherman was what it was”. It helps explain a lot. Perhaps you then wouldn't have quite as much a myopic view of Lionel's choice of a commemorative box car subject.
Although WWII has been over for close to 75 years now, when it comes to discussing the virtues of army tanks, the heated battles rage on forever. With that in mind, let's just agree to disagree and go back to running trains. With or without a commemorative train car as you see fit.
The new numbering scheme for Lionel appears to be:
1938220
where the first 2 digits are the production (catalog?) year and next 5 are the item number. I've noticed a couple of the items I've received with the new numbering scheme only have the last 5 numbers on the item so that's my guess.
das boot posted:Nice graphics on your boxcar, she will certainly run and display well on any layout, enjoy your purchase.
The Sherman had many initial faults as noted above, but with continual modifications and mass production, the Sherman did become a capable tank for the European battlefield. She was utilized in Korea and even employed during the 1967 Middle Eastern conflict.
I do remember while on active service that Cooper's "Death Traps" stirred strong differences of opinion at the War College.
DAS BOOT...great book and great movie!!!
ToledoEd posted:Mark in Oregon, probably true, but without it we probably couldn't have won the war....we built and shipped a bizillion of them.... By the way, if you like Brad Pitt, his movie "Fury" (a real tank in WWII) is amazing and based on true stories of brave men that crewed them. In my humble opinion, commemorating the Sherman tank and the men that crewed and died in them is more than an appropriate choice. Oh, one more comment, a recently released book "Spearhead" also covers the tank crews in the war. A most excellent book.
Yes, indeed. I just happen to be reading "Spearhead" right now. Author is Adam Makos.
Highly recommended.
And my copy of "Spearhead" is signed by the gunner (Clarance Smoyer). I saw him at the WWII Weekend in Reading in the beginning of June. What a story, and one darned lucky gunner!
Chris
LVHR
lehighline posted:
And my copy of "Spearhead" is signed by the gunner (Clarance Smoyer). I saw him at the WWII Weekend in Reading in the beginning of June. What a story, and one darned lucky gunner!
Chris
LVHR
Wow, very cool!
ToledoEd posted:das boot posted:Nice graphics on your boxcar, she will certainly run and display well on any layout, enjoy your purchase.
The Sherman had many initial faults as noted above, but with continual modifications and mass production, the Sherman did become a capable tank for the European battlefield. She was utilized in Korea and even employed during the 1967 Middle Eastern conflict.
I do remember while on active service that Cooper's "Death Traps" stirred strong differences of opinion at the War College.
DAS BOOT...great book and great movie!!!
Ed,
L.G. Buchheim was considered quite a character. I would have enjoyed meeting him but never got the chance. The 1981 movie version has become my favorite war cinema, probably have watched it over fifty times, again, enjoy your Lionel Sherman boxcar.
DB
Gents, earlier I said I'd probably run and video the boxcar on Veterans' Day. Well, I couldn't wait to include it in my commemorative boxcar consist. 
if you're interested:
Thanks.
das boot posted:I do remember while on active service that Cooper's "Death Traps" stirred strong differences of opinion at the War College.
I had a discussion about this with the folks at the Army Ordnance museum when I was going through my officer branch course. Cooper's book is predicated only on his personal experience as an Ordnance shop officer for a combat command in (if memory serves) for the 3rd Armored Division. He saw a lot of capped Shermans.
As it's already been pointed out, tanks in WW2 were never intended to square off against other tanks, guys. They had specialized vehicles called, "tank destroyers" on both sides of the war. Ours were open-turret ones which were to move quickly (and some were faster than the current M1 series of tanks), the Germans mostly had fixed-gun versions with low profiles.
Tanks in WW2 were to support infantry and soft-skinned vehicles for rapid movement. Mobile direct-fire artillery, if you will.
The Sherman had it's issues, it had weaknesses and often caught fire when hit. But so did the German Panther (their best tank, mobile and with a good gun, and better designed than the larger Tiger series). But for what it was actually built for. it was a darned good vehicle. Like all things in the Army, it got used in ways it wasn't intended.
As for "Fury," I liked how the movie looked, but the plot was downright comical. I think they got a copy of a "GI Combat" comic book and wrote a screenplay off it. Several WW2 tanker vets I've talked to were offended by the depiction of the GIs, as well. And for a movie that strove for accuracy, Brad Pitt's character was a joke. He's wearing pre-war boots and trousers, an early winter combat jacket that would have long worn out by then, and Russian goggles on his helmet?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?
I know of two people who worked on the film. One is a great guy, one I am proud to call a friend. He made all the crates and the ammunition used. The other was a costume guy, an utter tool who wanted every odd thing he could think of in the film.
Glad to hear Clarance Smoyer is still around. I talked with him once. He was very nice to talk to and had excellent recollection at the time.
I knew a guy who owned a couple of WW2 tanks, so I was able to drive his Sherman and later, a Stuart. When I learned to drive an Abrams (I was the Master Driver officer for my Battalion along with many extra duties) on active duty, I couldn't get over how much easier they were to drive. Actually, the M88 tank retriever was the most fun I ever had driving a tracked vehicle, though keeping it stopped on an incline was a pain.
ToledoEd posted:Gents, earlier I said I'd probably run and video the boxcar on Veterans' Day. Well, I couldn't wait to include it in my commemorative boxcar consist.
Thanks.
Very nice video and layout. The cars behind the cab forward will look great honoring our military.
Dave
@p51-
Thanks for chiming in. The tank destroyer battalions originally were towed guns,prob by half track or 6x6 truck I would guess,they switched to the M10 and then M36 tank destroyer (basically a modified Sherman), my dad's outfit was the first to get the m36 in September 1944. The Germans as far as I know had tank killer towed guns (not sure if they used the 88 or a 110mm gun, someone mentioned on a forum about a 110,but that could be crap too). However the Tiger and Panzer were designed to fight as well as act as infantry support, the amount of armor testifies to that. Tank killer weapons,towed or motorized, tended to have longer range guns (the m36 could hit a panzer or tiger at a range outside the range of their 88) and the motorized units were maneuverable,something the stsndard panzer or tiger would not be described as (this comes both from books but also from what my dad saw of them in field conditions).
I think movies have clouded the picture somewhat in that they show shermans in epic tank battles akin to Kirsk (which was a true tank battle,10 mile battle line of T34s against Panzers and (a relative few) Tigers. Shermans did face enemy tanks,of course, but from what I know of they did so in the course of their primary mission of infantry support/mobile artllery (i know for a fact that the tank killer battalions would operate to draw enemy tanks off of our infantry and tanks, trying to knock them out or get them to move out of range). Put it tgis way, the 75 was an artllery shell,designed to explode and kill enemy soldiers w shrapnel,it was not an armor piercing round for good reason,they are two different things,armor piercing rounds are designed to stay in one piece going through armor, artillery shell is designed to fragment easily. It tells what the sherman was designed for, they could have mounted the 90, but the 75 was a design decision, not stupidity. The real stupidity was something guys in my dad's unit cursed, idiot commanders putting their Shermans into tank to tank combat they were designed for.
I disagree with several of your statement regarding tank combat. You have read different books than I have. Out range an 88 ?? I don't think so. The Germans had the sturmgeschutzes mounting an excellent 75MM antitank gun which there was a towed version, too. Shermans were notorious for their narrow tracks and bogging down in soft ground. Not mentioned were the much superior German optics and sights. There were a lot more issues too not the least was the insane high profile of the Sherman. The American tankers did a good job with inferior equipment.
This thread has turned into something way off the topic subject and I am getting alerts. Rather than closing the topic, lets get back to Ed's boxcar. If you want to discuss history of weapons and World War II, then check out the hundreds of blogs online that are set up to do so....this is not one of them!
I think going into the historical weeds was inevitable, but as for the car itself:
I find it... unimpressive, even for a commemorative car. I'd have gone with maybe a blueprint design on one side of the sliding door, some nomenclature of the vehicle type, as opposed to just random photos.
david1 posted:ToledoEd posted:Gents, earlier I said I'd probably run and video the boxcar on Veterans' Day. Well, I couldn't wait to include it in my commemorative boxcar consist.
Thanks.
Very nice video and layout. The cars behind the cab forward will look great honoring our military.
Dave
Thanks, Dave.
Here are a couple of videos of my military train running at our 2018/2019 open houses (Black Diamond Society of Model Engineers Bethlehem Pa). The train has Sherman tanks, one Pershing Tank, M10 Tank Destroyers, Priests, Gorillas a few 2 1/2 ton trucks. One is pulled by my TMCC M1a modified by Alex M and the other by my PRR CC TMCC Sharks, both a units are powered so they pull like heck. Good thing the military train with all those die cast tanks weighs a ton.
JohnB
I bought one of these and I am happy with it, the graphics aren't the sharpest IMO, but I think it is a neat thing to own.
BIGKID. My sentiments exactly.
JOHNB, that is an impressive military consist and the layout is terrific.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
