Verlinden Sunken LCM

  From this:        http://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/7/p/1636459/reply.aspx?tsid=8518b6d4-cd4f-4375-af55-a51d5b328642

ARMY LIGHT TANK is unloaded from its landing craft during joint Army-Marine amphibious exercises at New River, N.C. in August 1941. (SC 125129)

Before the reports of the New River exercises had been received by the Navy Department, a contract had been let for 131 additional tank lighters. These were of a 47-foot Bureau design, a prototype of which had never been built. As a result of the good showing of the Higgins tank lighter at New River, this contract was later reduced to ten. Higgins was the low bidder, and built one craft to Bureau specifications, although he was convinced that the design was unseaworthy. His fears proved to be well founded when the tests were carried out. By this time, however, the tank lighter program had again changed direction.

On October 1941, the Auxiliary Vessels Board of the Navy had reported that there was no lighter capable of landing the newly developed Army 30-ton medium tank. The Secretary of the Navy directed the Bureau of Ships to remedy this deficiency. Accordingly, in December existing tank lighter contracts were changed to provide 50-footers in lieu of the 45-foot Higgins and 47-foot Bureau types still to be built. Both Higgins and the Bureau produced designs of 50-foot craft. Before any deliveries could be made, President Roosevelt, at a White House Conference on 4 April 1942, directed the procurement of 600 additional 50-foot tank lighters by 1 September for the North African operation. The Bureau of Ships, to meet this commitment, ordered 1,100 of it own design.

Since this order was earmarked for service in a projected Army operation, the Army showed keen interest in a test of the two types held near Norfolk on 25 April 1942. Each carried a 30-ton tank, elaborately lashed down in the Bureau lighter, merely blocked in place in the Higgins. Wind velocity ran 18 to 23 miles per hour, with wave heights estimated between 1 1/2 and 2 feet. Both lighters showed a speed of 10 miles an hour over a measured 1 1/2-mile course. What happened after that is described by the Army observer who made the trip in the Higgins type:

As we neared the [antisubmarine] net it became apparent that the Navy Bureau-type tank lighter was in trouble. She appeared to have a tendency to dive when headed into the seas and was taking considerable water aboard. She stopped several times and members of the crew could be seen manning hand pumps and attempting to better secure the tank in the lighter. Once when under way and making a wide turn, it appeared that the lighter was going to overturn. Some of the crew was seen straddling the higher bulwark and the coxswain had left the pilot house and was steering the vessel from the rail.

While this was going on, our [Higgins] lighter was standing by, as was a picket boat and two

Higgins 30-foot boats. None of these vessels was experiencing and difficulty. The Higgins tank lighter was maneuvering around in sharp turns into the sea, through the wave troughs.

We then [after Bureau lighter turned back] opened the engines up to 1,900 r.p.m. and proceeded past Little Creek to Fort Storey. The lighter took no water except a little spray. Performance was excellent in all respects. The lighter was beached in the surf and the tank ran off onto the beach despite poor handling by the coxswain who finally allowed the lighter to broach to. In spite of this the vessel had such power and retraction qualities [as] to get back into deep water.

As far as comparison of characteristics of the types of tank lighters are concerned, it may be stated that in the May 25 test there was no comparison.

As a result of these tests, the Bureau hastily notified all yards to shift to the Higgins type. Thus the Higgins 50-footer became the standard tank lighter of the Navy, the prototype of the LCM (Landing Craft, Mechanized) as the Marines knew it in World War II, and as they know it today in enlarged form.

ONI-226 Allied Landing Craft and Ships Lists both the LCM3 and LCM6 as having a cargo capacity of one 30-ton tank or 60,000 lbs of cargo. But the chart then goes on to say "Bureau Type carries 120,000 lbs of cargo" Don't know what that means but possibly either LCM could have accommodated a combat loaded Sherman tank.

Hi ;

 Mikeboats did sink like that , but ,yes , the "duckboards "should continue under the water unless blasted away by gunfire . My mikeboat sank stern down in 160 feet of water and hit the bottom , definitely stern first  , is what the salvage guys said . HMMMMM , guess I'll have to buy a new boat .

 I have often wondered ,if there was foam in all those empty spaces a mike boat has ,  would the thing stay afloat ? Mine was an LCM 6 . Now that probably could've carried that tank , but it would've been riding VERY low in the water .

A mike boat could sink like that, if it were grounded on a sandbar about where the skegs start, and with the bow in the trough of the landward side of the bar.

An M-5 tank would be suitable cargo.  A  6-8" 175-200mm AP round would go through the rear deck of the M-5 and probably break the back of the Mike boat.  But it would make a mess.

Procedurally, the MGs would only be fitted in single-boat operations, like beachead-to-beachhead runs, where bypassed enemy forces might harass the boat.

Might be cool to use this with an LCVP or the LCP(R) from the UDT Boat kit to show them salvaging stuff off the mike boat.   Could use some flotsam and debris to cover up where the well deck sides do not go under water as they ought.

Also why is the tank in the cargo bay rear down but the landing craft nose down?  Not to mention the cargo bay isn't deep enough for the M-4 to be that deeply submerged.

EdGrune

Point of order - the cargo capacity of an LCM-3 was 30 tons.   This would be barely enough to carry a bare M-4 Sherman.    A combat-loaded one -- no way.

I also don't get the duckboards ending above the water in a square end? Shouldn't they continue forward into the water?

But I know little to nothing about those boats.

It seems as tho the conning armor wouldn't be hard to improve on.

I think, in this case, the cargo is holding the bow down.

Most of the landing craft that you see sunk were bow high, not stern. Since there was so much more weight aft with the engines and all....

The conning station is in that awful copper PE that Verlinden uses, not white metal.

Googled & found links back to the Sprue Brothers website

Contents shown include an aft portion with separate (white metal?) conning station armor,  couple of .50 cals,  bases, sheilds, ald lifting plates.

Point of order - the cargo capacity of an LCM-3 was 30 tons.   This would be barely enough to carry a bare M-4 Sherman.    A combat-loaded one -- no way.    The image of the LCM landing a Sherman through the surf, based on the old Airfix box art - is a false one.