To arm or not to arm? That is the question.

[JasonW]

I often see a lot of tanks and other APC's just crammed with all sorts of extra gear all over the tops of them. But I tend to feel this ruins the appearence of a model as you can't see the vehicle itself.

Those people are going for a look of a vehcile in the field on operations or exercise. Speaking as someone who actually rode around on tanks for a living, what I can tell you is that they are traveling gypsy wagons carrying anything and everything crammed into every nook and cranny. We carried a little propane grill on one of the tanks I was on! Basically in the field we lived on the tank. We slept on the tank, we ate on the tank. It was our home in the field. The people who model the vehicles that way are going for realistic field conditions and more often than not aren't that far off. That said, in the motor pool we did not have much gear on the vehicle. Certainly none stowed on the exterior, especially during inspection. So either way is just as fine. Guess it all depends on your perspective. I think if doing a diorama of a vehicle in the field then a certain amount of stowage lends a real feel to it.

[Weaver]

I often see a lot of tanks and other APC's just crammed with all sorts of extra gear all over the tops of them. But I tend to feel this ruins the appearence of a model as you can't see the vehicle itself.

Those people are going for a look of a vehcile in the field on operations or exercise. Speaking as someone who actually rode around on tanks for a living, what I can tell you is that they are traveling gypsy wagons carrying anything and everything crammed into every nook and cranny. We carried a little propane grill on one of the tanks I was on! Basically in the field we lived on the tank. We slept on the tank, we ate on the tank. It was our home in the field. The people who model the vehicles that way are going for realistic field conditions and more often than not aren't that far off. That said, in the motor pool we did not have much gear on the vehicle. Certainly none stowed on the exterior, especially during inspection. So either way is just as fine. Guess it all depends on your perspective. I think if doing a diorama of a vehicle in the field then a certain amount of stowage lends a real feel to it.

Depends on the nature of the stowage systems too doesn't it? Some tanks have solid bins that can hide all sorts of crimes, while others have open cages that are just begging to have ever more stuff strapped to the outside of them when the inside's full.

[Weaver]

Re warload on planes, I tend to think in terms of 'horses for courses',that is, I have an idea of the story behind the model before I build it, so the loadout has to be credible for that story. If it's a prototype that never got into production, chances are it will little have little ordnance, and that may be inert dummys just for show. On the other hand, something like a Skyraider would look positively naked without bombs and rockets from root to tip. Some aircraft are rarely seen without drop tanks: Harriers and Jaguars for example.

Sometimes the weapons can help make a point too. For instance, my Fleet Air Arm Panther has British 3" rather than American 5" rockets while the FAA Skyhawk has a British Red Beard tac nuke. Both loadouts serve to emphasise that the plane has been 'Britishised'. If you did a Marineflieger Buccaneer, it would look more 'German' carrying four Kormorans than if it was clean.

[ChernayaAkula]

<...> We carried a little propane grill on one of the tanks I was on! <...>

Armoured burrito wagon on tracks! 

<...>
Sometimes the weapons can help make a point too. For instance, my Fleet Air Arm Panther has British 3" rather than American 5" rockets while the FAA Skyhawk has a British Red Beard tac nuke. Both loadouts serve to emphasise that the plane has been 'Britishised'. If you did a Marineflieger Buccaneer, it would look more 'German' carrying four Kormorans than if it was clean.

Good point! 

[Nick]

You're giving me thoughts over my Phantoms now. They do look odd when bare but getting the right ordnance can make all the difference.

[JasonW]

Depends on the nature of the stowage systems too doesn't it? Some tanks have solid bins that can hide all sorts of crimes, while others have open cages that are just begging to have ever more stuff strapped to the outside of them when the inside's full.

Completely forgot to respond to this topic.

Depends on the nature of the stowage system indeed. The Abrams and many western tanks tend to have a combination of enclosed and bustle rack (open basket/cage around turret) stowage. The Abrams has sponson box (enclosed) stowage on either side of the turret. The sponson boxes had a lots of tools and other tank related items with minimal storage for crew gear. We wrapped our ruck sacks and duffel bags with personal gear in them in what we termed a "burrito" in the back bustle rack hanging off of the rear of the turret. We would take a tarp and line the bottom of the bustle with it, place our bags in and then wrap the ends up over the top of the bags to create a weather proof place to keep our gear dry. This was for field exercise etc. In a combat environment (especially during initial movements) you would have to find room to store additional canisters of .50 cal and 7.62mm ammo. This often ate into the space where the personal gear would be, so you would often see ruck sacks strapped to the exterior of the bustle cage, often next to the sponson boxes on either side of the turret. In a combat environment operating out of a local base camp you might not see as much in the way of personal gear as some of this can be kept at the camp while you do a shorter patrol type movement that wouldn't require you to spend days or weeks on the tank (in effect living on the tank). You also tend to see spare roadwheels and track segments strapped to the sides of Abrams turrets.

Russian tanks are an altogether different beast. I've had the opportunity to climb into a T-55, a T-62 and a T-72. They all have very little stowage space compared to most western tanks as the Russians put little little provision for crew comfort into their designs typically. They are also much more cramped inside (lower silhouette, much smaller vehicle profile overall - weigh 45-50+ tons compared with 70+ tons M1 Abrams at combat load). Most Russian tanks have several little, smaller stowage bins on the turret. Next to nothing aside from ammo storage/sight systems/crew positions inside the vehicle. During WWII Russian tanks would often be seen draped with all sorts of exterior stowage (including the kitchen sink, bathtub, toilets and all sorts of stuff looted from the German countyside - you can let your imagination run wild with WWII Russian armor in terms of stowage). The Finn's solved some of the lack of stowage issue with their T-72's as they introduced a locally fabricated large stowage boxes on one side of the turret to make up for the lack of stowage. Several other armies operating T-72's have similar indigenous solutions. 

[Weaver]

Depends on the nature of the stowage systems too doesn't it? Some tanks have solid bins that can hide all sorts of crimes, while others have open cages that are just begging to have ever more stuff strapped to the outside of them when the inside's full.

Completely forgot to respond to this topic.

Depends on the nature of the stowage system indeed. The Abrams and many western tanks tend to have a combination of enclosed and bustle rack (open basket/cage around turret) stowage. The Abrams has sponson box (enclosed) stowage on either side of the turret. The sponson boxes had a lots of tools and other tank related items with minimal storage for crew gear. We wrapped our ruck sacks and duffel bags with personal gear in them in what we termed a "burrito" in the back bustle rack hanging off of the rear of the turret. We would take a tarp and line the bottom of the bustle with it, place our bags in and then wrap the ends up over the top of the bags to create a weather proof place to keep our gear dry. This was for field exercise etc. In a combat environment (especially during initial movements) you would have to find room to store additional canisters of .50 cal and 7.62mm ammo. This often ate into the space where the personal gear would be, so you would often see ruck sacks strapped to the exterior of the bustle cage, often next to the sponson boxes on either side of the turret. In a combat environment operating out of a local base camp you might not see as much in the way of personal gear as some of this can be kept at the camp while you do a shorter patrol type movement that wouldn't require you to spend days or weeks on the tank (in effect living on the tank). You also tend to see spare roadwheels and track segments strapped to the sides of Abrams turrets.

Russian tanks are an altogether different beast. I've had the opportunity to climb into a T-55, a T-62 and a T-72. They all have very little stowage space compared to most western tanks as the Russians put little little provision for crew comfort into their designs typically. They are also much more cramped inside (lower silhouette, much smaller vehicle profile overall - weigh 45-50+ tons compared with 70+ tons M1 Abrams at combat load). Most Russian tanks have several little, smaller stowage bins on the turret. Next to nothing aside from ammo storage/sight systems/crew positions inside the vehicle. During WWII Russian tanks would often be seen draped with all sorts of exterior stowage (including the kitchen sink, bathtub, toilets and all sorts of stuff looted from the German countyside - you can let your imagination run wild with WWII Russian armor in terms of stowage). The Finn's solved some of the lack of stowage issue with their T-72's as they introduced a locally fabricated large stowage boxes on one side of the turret to make up for the lack of stowage. Several other armies operating T-72's have similar indigenous solutions. 

Thanks for the perspective.

One nice thing to detail up British post-GWI armour is Chieftain stowage bins. When the Chieftains were being taken out of serivce, some enterprising soul(/s) decided to take all the stowage bins off and keep them. You often see them recycled onto other British armour, particularly the long, triangular cross-section bins that fitted on the sides of the engine bay. I have the other bins used too, but not so often. There's a constant depth triangular plan bin that goes on the forward track guard, and a square plan but tapered depth one that goes in front of it.

Having spent hours of my life trying to get camping kit into 'contoured' (i.e. oddly-shaped) motorcycle panniers, I can well imagine how frustrating the odd dimensions of these bins must be...