Hi All,
Was just wondering why I don’t see stowage on German armor the way I do on Allied equipment.
Was it because the Germans had their supplies close at hand and the Allies needed to carry their’s because they were constntly trying to advance?
Would like to hear opinions / facts on why this seemed to be the case.
Thanks,
Joe [:D]
that’s a good question…
maybe 'cause the germans ran out of supplies and had nothing to store… [(-D]
I do know some placements of pioneer tools were changed to withstand the rigors of combat. Tools that were mounted on the sides of a hull were often moved to the rear of the hull. That way less likely to be hit by rounds of various caliber and also less likely to scraped off by trees, etc…
Glenn
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of camo nets, rations, packs (personal equipment) water, fuel, tarps, etc…
When the Germans were in areas where resupply was infrequent or advances were rapid you will see a great deal of extra equipment lashed onto veheicles, particularly the earlier ones that had less in the way of stowage boxes. If you check out photos of tanks in North Africa or advancing through Russia in 1941 and 1942, particularly Panzer III’s and IV’s you’ll see what I mean. The other thought, which is quite valid, is that the British and even more particularly the Americans simply had a lot more in the way of supplies to lash to their vehicles.
I recall George Bradford asking Armin Sohn something about that. Armin said other than immediate needs all personal gear was carried by HQ vehicles. Also, he mentioned attached flamables, be it clothing or othe “essentials” , simply were not carried into combat situations on armoured vehicles. A common sense issue according to him.
Zouave146,
First welcome.
Zouave146 / 28juni14,
Thanks for the insight. Seems I just never see hardly any German armor with much in the way of supplies being carried. Will have to take notice of photographs and watch for these things.
Joe
I remember in 1945 when russia attack east prussia and cut of a german unit .There panzer have a lot of spare and supplies due to they only can be resupply by a port in east prussia which still under their control .
In Europe, as they land in France, the ‘allies’ are the invading force as they pour across towards Germany. Does an invading force have to bring his supplies with him?
The ‘axis’ forces were generally already in place. Does a force which has occupied Europe for almost 3-4 years have an indigenous supply stream already working? Would this general thought explain differences in how AFV’s carried/stored/placed stuff?
Now my thought doesn’t include the early period, 1939 -1943, from the invasion of Poland, France, and in particular Russia, and I guess North Africa. In these places the german forces were the ‘invaders’. Maybe my argument doesn’t hold up now that I think of it a bit more.
Maybe the differences are because of different countries and cultures?
Glenn
StuG III’s often carried an immense amount of stowage on their rear decks, the crews kept it secure by a unit made rack round the equipment, it ranged from ammo crates ropes, and chains, to jerry cans, spare tracks, and spare roadwheels
I think a lot depended on the configuration of the vehicle also. The Panzer IV had all sorts of engine vents and cooling access on it’s rear deck that couldn’t very well be covered up while the Panzer III had venting that was not so easily covered over. This made it easier to fill the back of a Panzer III or StuG III. The key to the whole thing is to study as many period photos as you can get your hands on. The various Concord books are great for this as well as many other books that are readily available. To me, all that extra stowage really personalizes a model, as long as it’s well done, well painted and placed, and looks like it would have actually stayed in place as the tank jolted along. Chuck