question WW2 U.S. Shipping Volumes/Weights

[N.O.S.]

Here is the stencilled GMC CCKW353 non-winch Shipping Data, showing shipping weight in pounds and volume in cubic feet.

 

The weight represents the max. permitted gross weight (so assumes shipping laden) but the volume is much greater than the sum of the length x width x height - 125 cu.ft., compared to an actual truck volume of approx. 965 cu. ft.

 

The shipping data plate for the Autocar U7144T shows a similar difference.

 

Can anyone explain this?

 

The image is from the Axholme Designs website - hope you don't mind the publicity, I'll order one soon!!).

[Richard Farrant]

Tony,

 

I cannot find the details of how it is worked out now, but have seen it somewhere in the past. There was a predetermined formula for shipping, and the weight appearing to be much higher than you would expect, is due to the volume. To put it another way, going from memory, this is how I remember it, a given volume has a standard weight to it, so if your packing crate or vehicle is x amount of volume, then that is how the shipping weight is arrived at, this is why it very often appears to be higher than actual. This way the shippers only need volume to arrive at a ballpark weight.

[N.O.S.]

That's interesting, Richard. But it is strange that the GMC Shipping Weight is exactly the same as the permitted gross weight given in the manual.

 

Another odd thing - the Autocar U-8144T Pontoon Tractor has a shipping weight of 44,100 lbs, or 22 U.S. short tons (at least that's what we think the "44.1" means) - about the gross weight of the tractor plus pontoon trailer. And the Shipping Volume is dramatically more than the tractor itself, suggesting possibly a trailer too?

 

I agree it is reasonable to expect a proportional increase in shipping volume to accomodate a crated vehicle for example.

 

All very confusing! We are trying to guesstimate the shipping volume and weights for a vehicle for which no data exists.

[antarmike]

The shipping tonnage for an AEC Matador is 40 tons according to the manual, and the maximum laden weight is 10 tons 17 Cwt.

 

Explain that one!

 

Cargo Tonnage: is either "weight" or "measurement." The weight ton in the United States and in British countries is the English long or gross ton of 2,240 pounds. In France and other countries having the metric system a weight ton is 2,204.6 pounds. A "measurement" ton is usually 40 cubic feet, but in some instances a larger number of cubic feet is taken for a ton. Most ocean package freight is taken at weight or measurement (W/M) ship's option.

Edited March 6, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

Shipping tonnage for Antar mk2

 

Artic tractor 73 tons 25 Cu ft

Ballast tractor 74 tons 15 Cu ft

 

Max unladen weight Artic 19 Tons 6 Cwt

Ballast Tractor 19 Tons 15 Cwt.

 

That makes no sense to me whatsoever, but that is what the manual says.

[N.O.S.]

The weight ton in the United States and in British countries is the English long or gross ton of 2,240 pounds. In France and other countries having the metric system a weight ton is 2,204.6 pounds. A "measurement" ton is usually 40 cubic feet, but in some instances a larger number of cubic feet is taken for a ton. Most ocean package freight is taken at weight or measurement (W/M) ship's option.

 

 

I think you'll find that the U.S. Ton is a "Short Ton" because it refers to 2,000 pounds. Very rarely do tons mean long tons (2240lbs) or tonnes (1,000 kg) in the U.S.A. I stated "short" to indicate a 2,000 lb ton which would definitely have been the case during WW2.

 

Using your guide for volume per given weight doesn't seem to work out anywhere near right for the GMC figures.

 

But I think my use of the Shipping Stencil for the GMC is confusing the issue: the max. gross weight used for GMC could be explained by it being stencilled on the outside of the truck, so this presumably is intended to be used for loading purposes in combat, like loading landing craft, where they would be more interested in the actual weight of truck plus load rather than a nominal shipping formula.

 

Take the Autocar U-7144T. Here the volume on the dash data plate is 1281 cubic feet, with shipping weight of 32. If this is 32 tons, then that is 40 cubic feet per ton, so your suggestion is spot on Mike.

 

You might have solved the weight problem, Mike - thanks. But what about the methiod of calculating Volume?

Edited March 6, 2010 by N.O.S.

[N.O.S.]

Shipping tonnage for Antar mk2

 

Artic tractor 73 tons 25 Cu ft

Ballast tractor 74 tons 15 Cu ft

 

Max unladen weight Artic 19 Tons 6 Cwt

Ballast Tractor 19 Tons 15 Cwt.

 

That makes no sense to me whatsoever, but that is what the manual says.

 

Try comparing shipping weights and shipping volumes - your 40 cubic feet per ton might work out. But why is the shipping volume so different to the vehicle dimensons?

[Richard Farrant]

Tony,

 

Looking at the stencil headed "US Port " and "NY", I assumed this was from a packing crate as most trucks shipped from New York ports would have been crated, in order to get the maximum number on board by stacking. But it still raises the question of what the ratio of volume to weight was, when shipping. As Mike says, a lot of British manuals show shipping weight as vastly over actual weight. I have seen it before, think it was in a TM, but cannot find it yet.

[N.O.S.]

It would be great if you could find that reference, Richard. Does seem very odd that in wartime, when there was so much pressure on shipping, they would not be more concerned with simply adding up the actual weight of the cargo than working to some some nominal volumetric formula - presumably used when weights of bits of cargo were not always known...

[radiomike7]

Here is the stencilled GMC CCKW353 non-winch Shipping Data, showing shipping weight in pounds and volume in cubic feet.

 

The weight represents the max. permitted gross weight (so assumes shipping laden) but the volume is much greater than the sum of the length x width x height - 125 cu.ft., compared to an actual truck volume of approx. 965 cu. ft.

 

The shipping data plate for the Autocar U7144T shows a similar difference.

 

Can anyone explain this?

 

The image is from the Axholme Designs website - hope you don't mind the publicity, I'll order one soon!!).

 

 

Where did you get the 125 cu ft from, using the data I made it 990?

[N.O.S.]

Exactly, Mike - try any of the known shipping volumes and they don't seem to tie up with the vehicle dimensions. This is what we're trying to get a handle on. Looks like it is the same for British vehicles.

[Richard Farrant]

Tony,

 

Not what I was looking for, but the following is from a reprint of a Canadian Army data book, from WW2 period.

 

"Shipping space ( deck area ):

Is the maimum square feet of ground area which would be enclosed by a fence completely surrounding the vehicle when standing in normal trim."

 

"Shipping space ( standing) :

Is the volume in cubic feet which would be contained in a rectangular case completely enclosing the vehicle.

In many vehicles the standing shipping volume can be reduced by lowering superstructure thus cutting down overall height, or by removing same and repostioning moving parts such as rear view mirrors."

 

" 1 shipping ton ( cargo measure ) = 40 cubic feet"

[abn deuce]

Werent some vehicles shipped in two packs ? And as mentioned above that bodies etc. were un-bolted and broken down and parts mingled so there would be differences of marked weights and volumes? compared to a single vehicles stats.

Edited March 6, 2010 by abn deuce
add to text

[Tony B]

Yes, There are some photos about. Vehicles were also shipped on small tyres and with no spare wheel. Both to save space and rubber in short supply. One reason the WC54 was superseded by the KD64 was shipping space. There is a tale told of Admiral Rickover (Nautilus) When he was a junior officer in the Pacific WW2, he came across two enlisted men who had started a fire with some 2x4 beams. He ripped into them explaining the cost of manufacture , shipping and the men's lives it had cost to get the beams to the theatre of war.

[antarmike]

Shipping tonnage for Antar mk2

 

Artic tractor 73 tons 25 Cu ft

Ballast tractor 74 tons 15 Cu ft

 

Max unladen weight Artic 19 Tons 6 Cwt

Ballast Tractor 19 Tons 15 Cwt.

 

That makes no sense to me whatsoever, but that is what the manual says.

 

So why is the Artic Antar so much bigger volume than the Ballast tractor version, when the Ballast tractoir is in reality the bigger of the two?

[Tony B]

Are you allowing for bits sticking out? It would be the 'box 'dimensions of the vehcile that counts. Does the ballast body collapse to allow something else to be put on top when shipping?

[antarmike]

Are you allowing for bits sticking out? It would be the 'box 'dimensions of the vehcile that counts. Does the ballast body collapse to allow something else to be put on top when shipping?

 

No the box sits on top of an otherwise almost identical chassis. The Ballast tractor is pysically the same length, width and height as the Artic tractor. The cab, not the ballast body being the lighest point. The ballast body fills on the big void behind the cab, but the Artic version with the free space is 10 cu ft BIGGER than the (one ton lighter) ballast tractor.

[Tony B]

Your right dosen't make sense.

[antarmike]

The Mark 1/2 Antar Artic tractor is actually 8.15 m long, and 3.12 m wide , the Ballast tractor is 8.44 m long and 3.20 wide but the but the artic version is 25 Cu ft and the Ballast tractor is 15 cu ft. Both being 3.05 over cab.

 

The Mark 3 is 8.7m long and 3.2m wide and 3.1m over cab but it is 22 Cu Ft shipping tonnage (and 78 tons) for both the artic and ballast tractor version.

 

So the Mk3 is bigger in every direction than the Mark2 ballast tractor but 3 Cu Ft smaller volume!!!

Edited March 6, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

I have got it ,Think of a number, double it, take away 15, divide by two and add your current age, this gives the cu ft of an Antar for shipping purposes.

 

Oh and the number you first thought of, that determines whether the answer you get is for the artic or the ballast tractor...

Edited March 6, 2010 by antarmike

[Tony B]

You are forgetting the big BUT factor in all this. It's the MOD!!

[Gordon_M]

We all love stencilling vehicles - some people seem to do it all day every day in between painting the wheelnuts red ( here he goes again .... )

 

Shipping stencils do appear in a lot of WW2 photos, positioned whever is convenient. Of course if you are going to ship a complete vehicle ( as opposed to a jeep in a crate, twin unit pack, multi-unit pack ) you would probably stencil it - would you only do it once though?

 

I'm wondering if vehicles got the shipping stencil on one side, or both sides. I know once would be enough, and would conserve time and paint, but just wondering ? Anybody seen any regulations or guidance?

[abn deuce]

I had forgotten I had a site someone had posted about saved on my coumpter that has some of this data , I did'nt think of it until now , sorry :red: this site has information on American Vehicles weights and demensionial data and anything else to do with amphibious operations . I know there is site with the stencil marking information I ll keep looking.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/ref/Amphibious/Amphibious-4.html#weights

Edited March 7, 2010 by abn deuce
correct text

[abn deuce]

This is what your looking for , I m sure a reproduction would be available through Portrayal Press.I found this original manuel being sold on fleabay currently . 2 days 15 hours left currently bid at $19.95

http://cgi.ebay.com/WW2-US-Military-Vehicle-&-GI-Equip-Markings-Tech-Manual_W0QQitemZ120538434904QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ2010030

 

Edited March 7, 2010 by abn deuce
add link

[N.O.S.]

Big thanks for that, abn.:captain: It does raise more questions though :cheesy:

 

Look at the Willys Jeep data below - why would anyone want to log it as 9 tons of shipping, and what the deuce is 'broken shipping' at a total of 12 tons? :???

 

The only reason I can think of is that there is/was some general rule that cargo ships were designed with a hold capacity of 40 cu.ft. per ton of carrying capacity, and that for loading purposes, cargo ship capacity is always worked out as weight.

 

So if you fill a hold with a load of light vehicles they are given an unnaturally high 'shipping weight' equivalent to the ship's carrying capacity in tons divided by hold volume in cubic feet (say, 40) multiplied by actual volume of the vehicle plus a small bit extra to allow for access around it .

 

So that when you've loaded the maximum permitted 'shipping weight' of jeeps the hold will be full, even if the ship is only loaded to say 30% of its carrying capacity in tons.

 

Makes perfect sense now :cry:

 

 

VEHICLES TYPE Truck1/4-ton Willys (Top Up)

 

LENGTH 11'

 

WIDTH 5'2"

 

HEIGHT 5'10"

 

ACTUAL SQ.FT. 57

 

ACTUAL CU.FT. 330

 

Net WEIGHT 2324

 

ACTUAL SHIP TONS 8

 

SQ.FT. PLUS 25% 71

 

CU.FT. PLUS 50% 495

 

BROKEN STOWAGE SHIP TONS 12

Edited March 7, 2010 by N.O.S.