Jump to content

Stowage - When and when not to carry it.


APA

Recommended Posts

We all like a bit of stowage on the back of our AFV's. We often see them piled high with all the crews worldly goods. After all it was their house (After a fashion) as well as their weapon. Most period pictures are of AFV's on the march so I would expect them to be carrying everything including literally the kitchen sink but any pics of them in battle show little on the rear. Makes sense.

 

So the question is did they carry everything while on the move then leave the majority behind the lines before moving forward into battle and then go back to get it or wait for it all to be brought forward? Did they take anything specific into battle in terms of stowage other than amo? Hanging stuff on the outside of your tank is really asking for trouble as your personal kit bags etc could easily be destroyed, damaged, lost etc. You don't want that to happen surly? I'm sure it is different depending whether your in advance or retreat. I am asking specifically about British logistics but anything will be informative.

 

Cheers

 

Andrew

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

British crews generally only kept stuff they would need in the short term on (or in) their tanks - rations, personal weapons and ammo, some spare clothing, blankets, water and essential tools and components for immediate vehicle maintenance. The bulky stuff like kitbags was retained within the logistics chain (the 'B' vehicles to use the British term) that followed the AFVs around. That said, it was up to the individual crew what they considered essential to their well-being. British tanks generally had a large stowage bin fitted on the back of the turret (often referred to as a 'blanket box') and it wasn't unknown for a re-purposed metal ammo box or two to be welded somewhere convenient on the hull.

 

There are many recorded instances in personal memoirs of crew members losing treasured items as the result of enemy fire or encounters with the local terrain so it's a risk you had to balance.

 

Fundamentally, no matter what stowage was carried, it was essential that it didn't impair the fighting capability of the vehicle.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at a lot of people's models, if they are supposed to be a representation of the real thing, then it's no wonder that kit got lost. They don't depict any form of securing, ie; the stowage isn't tied down. A tank, by it's very nature, is meant to be able to go just about anywhere, so if something such a Cromwell, which was supposed to be one of the fastest allied tanks, is crossing uneven ground at speed, anything on the deck which isn't tied down, is going to come adrift.

I have a few photos of Czech Cromwells, moving up to the front, and most of them have stowage fixed in various places, but it is all tied down. Secure it, or lose it!

 

John.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second what Bullbasket says.  Even stowage set manufacturers like Black Dog, Legend etc often pay scant attention to what items were actually stowed and how items were secured, and modellers frequently show models festooned with stowage with no visible means of support and where there is nowhere even to attach it.  Example:  the UK added "footman loops" to the left side of the Sherman turret for rolled stowage.  US Shermans did not have these yet stowage is often shown here with nothing to hang it on.

 

 As I often seem to say, there is no substitute for spending an hour in front of Mr Google looking for examples.  There is no shortage of images of British tanks with stowage that you might use for ideas, even if you don't copy them exactly.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really a very interesting topic, and I would also like to know an opinion from someone who has knowledge on the subject. If the British used to attach the accessories to the tanks, the Germans often did not, because as you can see in countless photos, there is a little bit of everything about the tanks without being attached to it. I even saw a Tiger with two high drums on each side of the turret without being attached.
Could it have something to do with the shape of German tanks being smoother than the British ones?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/15/b3/2b/15b32b8fbce9a9ff598212fc168f7941.jpg
Cheers
LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read years ago that, during the Second Gulf War, American M-1A1 Abrams crews went into battle with large amounts of personal gear stowed outside their vehicles. Once they'd been in combat for some time and they'd seen the stowage catch fire from RPG strikes and other weapons, they quickly reduced the amount of stowage they carried. 

 

Of course, in WW2, tank-crews on both sides would attempt to "up-armour" their AFV's with spare track-lengths, iron-girders, sand-bags, logs and anything else immediately available. The Germans fitted many of their tanks with side-skirts ("Schurzen") of sheet-metal, to "slow-down" incoming, enemy rounds. 

 

I remember seeing a photo of a Sherman with every square inch of the tank's front covered in spare track-links. Apparently, on the Russian front, Tiger 1 crews often used lengths of barbed-wire on the upper-hull, to help prevent Russian infantry from climbing up on to their tanks and using Molotov Cocktails on the engine-bays. 

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

Apparently, on the Russian front, Tiger 1 crews often used lengths of barbed-wire on the upper-hull, to help prevent Russian infantry from climbing up on to their tanks and using Molotov Cocktails on the engine-bays. 

The Americans did something similar in the Pacific to stop the Japanese planting their "sticky bombs".

 

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BATUS in Canada is one of those nice big training areas where Live fire is carried out, Tanks and infantry 

using the huge areas to practice together with live ammo so you can see where this might be going now.... one of the common things that some of the infantry units used to do 

was to  "brass up" the tankies personal kit stowed in the chieftain baskets, apparently is quite funny to see the feathers being shot out 

of 58 pattern sleeping bags that were stowed in the tanks baskets :frantic:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bullbasket said:

The Americans did something similar in the Pacific to stop the Japanese planting their "sticky bombs".

 

Very true, John. I've seen a few photos of Shermans with loads of metal spikes welded on to their hulls and turrets. I guess when you are facing an enemy as fanatical as either the Soviets or Japanese troops, you would do anything to give yourself an advantage (I'm not being Xenophobic here - just relating an historical fact).

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

I read years ago that, during the Second Gulf War, American M-1A1 Abrams crews went into battle with large amounts of personal gear stowed outside their vehicles. Once they'd been in combat for some time and they'd seen the stowage catch fire from RPG strikes and other weapons, they quickly reduced the amount of stowage they carried. 

 

 

 

You mean like this?

The Abrams is often festooned with extra kit on exercise and sometimes on active deployments - it's the law :)

 

However, in the case of OIF, the American units needed to advance as quickly and as far as possible in a very unforgiving environment (geographically), so the logistics 'train' would have prioritised water, fuel and ammunition at the expense of most other things.  That meant crews might have been encouraged (or required) to carry even more than usual on their vehicles. Once the initial invasion was completed in 2003, photos tend to show a definite reduction in the amount of personal kit being carried, not least I suspect because tanks would typically be undertaking much shorter patrols or missions from an established base where all that kit could be kept.

 

I think it's a bit simplistic to assume they were carrying extra kit just from lack of experience and learnt the hard way not to do so. It's possible, but I'm not convinced it's the only explanation for the reduction in stowage volumes as time went on.

 

1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dads203 said:

BATUS in Canada is one of those nice big training areas where Live fire is carried out, Tanks and infantry 

using the huge areas to practice together with live ammo so you can see where this might be going now.... one of the common things that some of the infantry units used to do 

was to  "brass up" the tankies personal kit stowed in the chieftain baskets, apparently is quite funny to see the feathers being shot out 

of 58 pattern sleeping bags that were stowed in the tanks baskets :frantic:

I don't believe this for one second. I simply can't believe that nice kind infantrymen would chain gun the rear stowage of our tankie friends 😜

 

Besides, doesn't have the same effect without the feathered doss bags.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bish said:

I don't believe this for one second. I simply can't believe that nice kind infantrymen would chain gun the rear stowage of our tankie friends 😜

 

Besides, doesn't have the same effect without the feathered doss bags.

 

 

I did hear that those gentleman tankers would pop a shed load of compo boiled sweets in the breach of the 120mm Chiefy gun and pop a charge in behind, fire it over the heads of the supporting infantry gentry - just for :poop:& giggles,  Sugary Napalm pain for brassing up their sleeping bags ! I'm not sure that i believe this as I don't think the gunnery gods would be too pleased that tank gun had been fired without a projectile? It to me sounds a little like a myth passed down to many squaddies that go through Exercise Medman? 

 

Any tankies out there that could back up this old Army Myth or did it actually happen ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all for your input and memoirs 😁

 

Makes sense to take as little as possible in to battle. Just a 24hr pack I suppose and tucked away safe. This is of use for my builds which have mostly been 'at rest' or of non combat subjects so plenty of room for stuff however I'm planning an in action build possibly next so wanted to know how much stuff to stick on the back etc. I'll keep it minimalist 

 

Tah

 

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A commander with the 2nd Northants Yeomanry told me they welded or tied a multitude of things to their turrets to break up the silhouette of the tank, and that they never carried fuel because of the fire risk. Besides, their fuel trucks were never too far away.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is confusion by modellers mixing up what the see in the western desert to the scene in NWE and Italy.    In the desert a lot of stuff was stowed along the sides on tanks since there was nothing high enough to damage it.  When they moved to Sicily and Italy the crews soon discovered that the practice was no longer a good idea since walls and trees soon wiped it off.  This practice was only done in transit as stated by others.  Another point worth a mention is the auxiliary fuel tank carried on Matilda, Crusader and Valentine tanks of 8th Army.  These are not carried when in action, they are ferry fuel tanks only.   A desert veteran of 10 Hussars told me that if you fired your main armament past the 3 or 9 o'clock positions the muzzle blast could burst the container which could even catch fire too.  Apart from which a projectile of almost any size would rupture it.     

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike's comments circle back to something I said earlier about the realism of a lot of after-market stowage sets.  Many contain completely unrealistic items, noting the difference between "action" stowage and "march" stowage.  I was looking at the Value Gear range of Sherman stowage sets a while ago and rejected almost all of them as they had oil drums, main gun ammuition boxes and other things I considered improbable.  Legend's stowage sets contain some very odd loose items, as did Verlinden's.  Panzer Art and Black Dog are generally better.  Red Zebra isn't bad.  Finding myself unable to sculpt my own stowage I rely heavily on after-market sets.  Individual plastic and resin items never nestle together, sit or sag right if you try to assemble them into a pile/blob/bundle.

 

In the desert most if not all tanks were fitted with side rails to mount the truck disguise screens.  Tanks that moved on into Sicily and Italy from Tunisia may still have carried these, but as Mike says crews rapidly learned that they would find their gear stuffed in a hedge some miles behind.  But at some time after Alamein these rails were no longer fitted to newly-arriving tanks so stowing gear there was no longer possible.

 

In Italy and NWE it was not unusual to see front or rear (usually) sections of the sandshields welded to the upper hull either side of the engine deck as improvised stowage bins.  Value Gear actually do some sets like this, but the sandshields are very thick: they might have been better off making plugs to fit kit or brass parts.  Turret rear bins were almost universal and bolted or welded-on empty artillery ammunition boxes were commonplace.  I've seen Shermans in Italy with planks bolted across the rear upper hull to stop stowed gear on the rear deck falling off the back and the plank across the glacis between the fender braces was very common.  Rectangular funnels were surprisingly common on Shermans to aid refuelling without spillage, and all the engines drank oil at a decent rate, especially the Continental radial and GM6046 2-stroke diesel, which is why 5-gallon round oil cans are commonly seen stowed.  As an aside, no-one does these very useful items in resin any more since the demise of Tank Workshop.  There are some in the Miniart can sets but 2-piece plastic.  The Accurate Armour ones are modern and different.  Hopefully Panzer Art will do some soon.

 

But the one thing that people and manufacturers forget is that loose gear has to be secured somehow and that small items like waterbottles etc would not be stowed loose as they would be shaken off in a few minutes.  They would be stowed in something.  However, at rest and parked-up the situation would be different.  Gear would be broken out and opened if stopped for any period, mindful of the need to pack up and bug out at a moment's notice if close to the action.

Edited by Das Abteilung
Bad spelling!
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some excellent points there @Mike Starmer and @Das Abteilung Particularly about not hanging stowage on the sides of vehicles in NWE while it was ok in NA. Funny how when you hear real accounts the logic really hits you. It's blummin obvious when you think about it. That does, however, make things a little awkward with my current build of the Riich models Universal Carrier as there will be a lot hanging from the sides. I did wonder why I never saw a pic of one with stowage on the sides. Now I know. Bit late to change all the bits on the build now but oh well 🙄

 

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't mean it wasn't done - just that your crew have yet to gain the wisdom of experience!  Carriers are most usually seen heavily stowed at the rear.  Even for a 4-man crew they had relatively generous stowage space inside the rear compartments.

 

Diorama idea with 2 figures having a "do you think that's a good idea?" conversation........

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This image has just popped up on Missing Lynx and is an excellent rear view of stowage on an M4A2 Sherman III that has not long come ashore on Sicily.  Note the sand shield stowage bins and the large pile of gear on the rear deck, which I suspect might have been redistributed now on dry land with the wading trunk removed.  Not a fuel can or 75mm ammo box in sight.....  And no side rails.  The boxy object on the right is the dismounted intake trunk.

spacer.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing to take into consideration is what was the tactical situation at the time. Many veterans mention in their books pulling back at night in the Normendy bocage to a regimental laarger , where the vehicles were serviced and the men fed and slept. These areas were serviced by the B echelon vehicles which also carried most of the crews personnel equipment and gear. The crews in action usually only carried " bail out Bags "in case they had to abandon the vehicle. 

However when they broke out of the bocage and in pursuit , they were on their own and could not depend on the B echelon's support except for fuel, so they carried more kit and comforts. 

North Africa  and Italy was not all movement forwards or backward and there were periods where crews were in static positions which enabled B echelon support. My father was in North Africa and Italy and crewed armoured cars. Their space was even more limited so they relied on the support echelon more. Dad always mentioned he lost most of his souvenirs and photos towards the end of the Italian campaign when the squadrons lorry drove over a mine carrying all their kit.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

Doesn't mean it wasn't done - just that your crew have yet to gain the wisdom of experience!  Carriers are most usually seen heavily stowed at the rear.  Even for a 4-man crew they had relatively generous stowage space inside the rear compartments.

 

Diorama idea with 2 figures having a "do you think that's a good idea?" conversation........

You read my mind 😁 that exactly what my excuse will be 👍

 

Andrew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hallo

 

I am confronted with my next tank project, the M3 Grant from MiniArt.

Here I have the option of a lot of bags around the tank.

I think that looks funny.

Cannot imagine that such a vehicle showed up at the fire line at all.

The danger of fire and of suffocation by toxic smoke must have been high.

Just for a desert rally or desert trip by fun, I can understand.

 

By the way: The tools all around.

Where they really all on all the time?

And in which condition?

All painted in camo color like the deck or all with wood shaft, blank steel axe, steel cable?

 Or all full of the main deck camo? Like on board of a ship?

 

Had never anything to do with tanks.

Saw them just twice in friendly action.

From the Austrian army at the crisis on the Yugoslavian border and in Israel the IAF in the Lebanese war.

 

Happy modelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In answer to question on carriage of tools from my experience yes carried all the time as they are required for vehicle maintenance/repair or to help if bogged our you picked up metres of barbed/D10 wire rapped in your tracks.

 

Tools were not painted to match cam as they were always removed when painting occurred and if someone was close enough to spot an unpainted shovel they already knew it was strapped on a vehicle.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...