Has anyone added stowage to their tank?

[michaelwhittmann]

Bought some stowage from VALUE GEAR on eBay.
Nice vendor; sent me some extra pieces.

Any ideas on colors for bed rolls, packs, ammo cans etc.
I figure beiges, drab greens, earthy colors.

Any advice or pictures would be appreciated.

Thx.

[HERMAN BIX]

Which set ?
What tank ?

[michaelwhittmann]

German backpacks and breadbags 16-GTB-06

Panzer 3 Africka Corp
T1 Snow camo
KT Bocage camo
Panther Bocage camo

[HERMAN BIX]

Going to take a punt here, but KT and Panther in those timeframes your looking at didnt manifest much in the way of that kind of stowage that Ive seen.
T1 however may have out East , but pics are rare of any German MBT's(as we would call them now) then that had that kind of external stowage on them in most Western theatres.
I say MBT as thats what we would call those weapons platforms now.
StuG III and IV seem to demonstrate that kind of haphazard/Soviet crew stowage in those periods and TO's but that set is more like a dumping ground in a barracks !!

The set you have is more infantry focused.
Stuff I would have in a half track.

[STHV]

I say MBT as thats what we would call those weapons platforms now.

I wouldn't consider any WW2 vehicle to be an MBT. It's best to just use their original classifications.

The original definition of MBT is rather specific and no WW2 vehicle can qualify as per the Tripartite conference which was when the term MBT was first set out.

For example in order for Panther to be an MBT it would have to:

• Be significantly more reliable

• Have a much larger operational range

• Have full NBC protection

• And finally have actually useable night vision equipment as standard

Interestingly the first vehicle to be named as an MBT is not Centurion, it was the then in development Cheiftain.
Centurion was specifically classed as a medium and only became an MBT towards the end of its life after it was fitted with the 105mm, night vision and additional fuel tanks and even then it was not technically correct as it still lacked NBC protection but was being used just like the other MBTs.

This is also true with non British vehicles, T-54 was a medium as it lacked NBC but T-55 was an MBT because it gained it.

These days just about any current generation tank is an MBT as they all meet the requirements.

[HERMAN BIX]

Primary Military Tank? (PMT) no
Significant AFV that is/was the best that the nation could produce at the time under the conditions ?.........Yes.
MAIN battle Tank.
The MAIN one(s)

What we now would consider any nations Main (capability) Battle Tank at the time.................

Sherman?
T34/(pick a version) ?
JS2 ?
Tiger 2 ?
Panther G ?

Its a relative term

[STHV]

What you are describing is medium tank doctrine.

Tiger II and IS-2 are both far too specialised and too few in number to be considered the main force.
And the main German AFV was Stug by raw production numbers. This is why you can't apply modern doctrine to past armies.

The MBT was the next generation of tank doctrine and a massive step up in capability, the classification was created to separate the two due to how big the jump was.
A medium had to be supported by heavy tanks and tank destroyers, the MBT could do it all in one vehicle and then some.

[Meter rat]

From what I have been reading. Tanks very rarely went into combat with stowage on them. There are pictures of British Shermans with stowage, when moving between areas of fighting. They would move to the area where they were required, set up a camp, some distance from the camp, and in a safer location where they could be refuelled and rearmed, and where the crews could eat and rest. Tanks couldn’t fight in the dark, so they returned to a forward base most evenings. Stowage on a tank is/was a fire hazard. There are instances where tanks have been ambushed on route, and the stowage has caught fire, damaging the tank, and leaving the crew without shelter or bedding. I have it in my mind that the Germans actively discouraged it due to it causing overheating on some tanks. The baggage train that followed up was for carrying everything. It’s one thing that gets up my goat is seeing tanks with stowage. The exception seems to be Abrams, in the Gulf War, every photo I have seen has them loaded up, for extended patrols. Somebody clever than I will prove me wrong. . And it is YOUR model, so you are at liberty to ignore me and do what makes you happy.

[MrChef]

With relation to stowage on German Heavy tanks as was previously eluded to by Mr Bix and Mr. Rat. Specifically the Tiger I and King Tiger did not carry much if any stowage and there is limited photo evidence showing any stowage at all. The biggest reason I have learned is that both of these heavy tanks were part of units that had significant logistics and support crews. This was the case for early to mid war for the Tiger I, although I have dug up some pics of them with stowage when travelling in the Eastern parts. I have also seen and likely others have as well large fuel drums chained on skids to the rear engine deck of Tiger I. There is an example done by a member here somewhere IIRC.







As I understand. Invading forces, more commonly allied, carried all sorts of stowage especially on the move.

So specifically Tiger I and King Tiger had support crews for their junk.

You will definitely see stuff on other German tanks and halftracks though most notably the Stugiii and Pziii.

[Panzermechaniker]

I think you are right with the invading forces comment. Since for the most part the Germans were in retreat on all fronts after Stalingrad and El Alamein they didn't need to carry the supplies on their tanks whereas the Soviets and Western Allies were moving forward and the crews were carrying supplies with them. Obviously there are exceptions with that one image of a KT with a bathtub strapped to the back but the funniest image I saw was a British or Canadian Sherman just after D-Day driving along with a chicken hanging off the rear deck that had obviously been liberated from a farm for the evening crew dinner