I have seen a lot of pictures featuring GI and Commonwealth armor in all theaters of war. Question: Comparing German photos with the above, there appears, to me, to be a sparcity of field gear, boxes and other impedimentia on the German ones as compared to the Allies. Is this my imagination, or was this policy during WWII in regards to carrying extra gear? Thanks for your comments. Dr B
I had a similar thought a while back. There were some responses on this thread before it turned to extra armour, I now think the difference does essentially boil down to a cultural one. You do see some heavily laden vehicles on the axis side in Africa but they never seem to quite reach the stowage levels of the British ones. I do think the fact so many shots used as an example are from the desert, where carrying more stuff is sensible; or Normandy, with the propitious speed of advance after the breakout, plays a part too. Had a lot of new members since that old thread, be interesting to hear more opinions.
I have seen a lot of pictures featuring GI and Commonwealth armor in all theaters of war. Question: Comparing German photos with the above, there appears, to me, to be a sparcity of field gear, boxes and other impedimentia on the German ones as compared to the Allies. Is this my imagination, or was this policy during WWII in regards to carrying extra gear? Thanks for your comments. Dr B the answer to this is not always as simple as it first appears. If you look at the early stages of operation barborossa you will be able to see that the germans had a huge amount of stowage, as they did in the desert! they had very little in western europe though.
A lot is down to the supply lines. When the supply line is short there is no problem and supplies are plentiful. When you compare long supply lines in Russia it is hardly a surprise that as much as possible was taken and stored inside and outside. Also storing spare road wheels and track around certain areas also helped with protection to a degree, something not lost on many Sherman tank views after D-Day. Regards Tom
Lack of support vehicles, either in quantity or in capability of keeping up with the armored spearhead? That would certainly explain the Barbarossa and Western Desert examples (I think )
Lack of support vehicles, either in quantity or in capability of keeping up with the armored spearhead? That would certainly explain the Barbarossa and Western Desert examples One known issue was that the (7,000?) French trucks taken on charge between June 1940 and June 1941 proved to be VERY tempremental during Barbarossa as they were wholly unsuitable for Russian terrain and "roads". They suffered from suspension issues, and electrical problems due to the rough going. This meant a cumulative set of problems... 1/ less carrying capacity for supporting the front-line elements; 2/ less capacity on top of THAT....because of what there was - a certain percentage was being used for carrying TRUCK spares forward!
One known issue was that the (7,000?) French trucks taken on charge between June 1940 and June 1941 proved to be VERY tempremental during Barbarossa as they were wholly unsuitable for Russian terrain and "roads". They suffered from suspension issues, and electrical problems due to the rough going. This meant a cumulative set of problems... Thinking about this, was it a matter of quality or the highways and byways of Mother Russia were THAT bad? They certainly didn´t have a good reputation...
