L3 / 35 towed trailers?

[witchbottles]

The Documentary " battlefield, S5/E3 " el Alamain" shows unmistakeable period footage in 2 separate locations of Italian L3 / 35 towed equipment trailers.

further documentary research found that the on display surviving L3/ 35 of the 15o Regimento Cavaleria Mecanizada based in Rio de Janiero, has a supply trailer on the pedestal with the vehicle.

I might assume this was a "field expedient modification" of the Lanciaflamme trailer, being used to carry something other than the flame fuels.

But I began to wonder if perhaps it was more widespread.

there is some referential commentary in a few period manuals on operation of L3 series tankettes to "petrol fuel " trailers. Nothing very clear I could locate.

Perhaps Paul Weir might expand, or Kevin, or Paolo C, or someone with a bit more useful referential information on the L3 series in action?

Finally, I pondered if these were british army issued trailers, the footage is recorded in view of the spring 1941 collapse and surrender to the Afrika Korps of Benghazi. ( general commentary guides one to that locale.) It is widely known and accepted and documented that the AK units, German and Italian , made extensive use of captured equipment and supplies.

Thoughts anyone?

KRL, Jon H

 

[von Marwitz]

During the Spanish Civil War, L3 tankettes of the Corpo Truppe Volontarie were used to pull 47mm ATGs to deal with the Russian delivered T-26s.

The L3/35 (flamethrower-version) either had its FT-liquid in a tank above the engine or in a trailer.
The L3/33 (bridgelaying-version) pulled a trailer with the bridge-elements and construction equipment (around 600 kg of load altogether).

Then you have the different tankette type L6/40 (for ammo transport) that pulled a trailer.

Consider, that the L3 series had a fuel tank holding around 65 litres which gave it a range of around 130 to 150km.

(Source for the above: Typenkompass - Italienische KFZ und Panzer 1916 - 1945 by Gabriele Faggioni, pages 52-59, 69)

The tankettes themselves are very small with not much space to load stores, extra fuel and supplies for the crew.

IMHO all these indicators make the use of trailers probable in certain situations for the L3 series. And thus I would not view the usage of trailers by the L3 series as exceptional. Especially not when redeploying in terrain that was unsuited to trucks that might have otherwise supported the unit.

von Marwitz

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Sorry, but I cannot add much to von Marwitz's post. In general, with rare exceptions, tanks and the like were not issued with specially designed trailers. However nearly all were capable of towing trailers as well as each other.

There were some use of trailers by the Germans at the start of Barbarossa. They were used to carry large fuel drums. I think similar may have been done in Fall Blau.

The British did a few odd things, mainly in the run up to D-Day. There was a 2 wheeled trailer/contraption that held fuel in the wheels and other cargo in the body!! They also had a (floating?) sledge that was towed behind tanks to get stuff over the beachhead. Post war they had a mono-wheel fuel trailer designed for towing behind Centurions that looked like a mutated Crocodile trailer. The British were very fond of Heath-Robinson devices, some of which worked very well like the AVREs, others like the above three, not so well.

The Soviets designed and produced small armoured sledges that could carry prone infantry towed behind tanks as a result of their Winter War experience. I doubt that they saw much combat use.

Some Elephants were supposed to have had wooden platforms attached on their rear to carry a handful of infantry, again not too successful, I imagine.

All the above is from memory.

Nearly all tanks could tow artillery pieces, though I would guess that 122mm or the German 150mm infantry gun would be about the practical limit. I have seen enough photos of T-60/T-70 tanks towing the ZiS-3 (Soviet 76L ART) to believe it to be moderately common. These were unmodified tanks and ammo was carried on the engine deck and gun trails. Of course many tanks like Pz I & II, T-26 and T-60/T-70 series had their turrets removed and fittings gutted to convert to artillery tractors and ammunition carriers. That type of conversion could also tow a ammo limber which in turn towed the gun. Versions of the Wesp and Hummel were built without guns as ammo vehicles but could be later fitted with guns to make up for breakdowns.

 

[Psycho]

You forgot to mention the Canadian vehicles with trailers full of babies. :angry:

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

You forgot to mention the Canadian vehicles with trailers full of babies. :angry:

Those are listed as "Top Secret" and not available for normal ASL play......

But Paul and Von Marwitz have answered this question very well Jon. The vehicle can have SSRs about towing equipment or for Flame throwers.....

 

[Paul M. Weir]

You forgot to mention the Canadian vehicles with trailers full of babies. :angry:

Raw or cooked?

 

[Psycho]

Raw or cooked?

Depends on which they want at the moment. :angry:

 

[witchbottles]

my thoughts were along the lines given the campaign footage, North Africa, that it was trailers full of fuel, most likely, similar to what German forces were doing in 1941, a la the fuel trailers that accompanied Barbarossa panzer units 4 month later into russia.

I would assume that the existing ASL rules for AFV towed trailers could be easily modified for covering a fuel / water / ammo trailer. Given the campaign, the vehicles, and the time frame, I would find it would not be unheard of to see a scen in the desert with some towed trailers behind the Ariete armored units. Say 2 of 10 light AFVs, etc. I would likely think they would have been in use through the 1940 retreat and before, in the Somaliland and Ethiopia. Maybe Albania / Greek frontier as well?

I like the italians in ASL, a very under represented nationality. mostly just random thought organization at this time for future scen ideas....



KRL, Jon H

 

[Paul M. Weir]

The big question that I would put is how often would a tank enter combat with a fuel loaded trailer? If a unit was ambushed, then the trailer might be present, but if given even a few minutes warning I would imagine that they would be unhitched tout suite. I know I would not like to tow a trailer that contained fuel that could be ignited by any stray round. I know the Romans were supposed to have used flaming pigs to spook Hannibal's elephants, but not a suitable 20th Century tactic.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig

 

[von Marwitz]

The big question that I would put is how often would a tank enter combat with a fuel loaded trailer? If a unit was ambushed, then the trailer might be present, but if given even a few minutes warning I would imagine that they would be unhitched tout suite. I know I would not like to tow a trailer that contained fuel that could be ignited by any stray round.

I convene with Paul's assessment. I could well imagine this in DTO. As previously posted above, the range with one 65 litres fuel tank for a L3 was about 130 to 150 kilometres. I can't say if this is for road movement or offroad movement. I would guess that it is not for offroad. So in North Africa, there weren't many roads around. Depending where you were, even trucks could reasonably well operate offroad, though.

But let us assume that the fuel consumption for offroad movement for the tankette was more than abovementioned, then extra fuel might be required pretty quickly. I agree that it would be unlikely to drive tankettes with fuel-laden trailers into battle. But let us assume that one forward unit spots the enemy, I would have probably taken not much more than a minute or two, to get out of the tankette, unhook the trailer and to move on. Likely less time than it would have taken to remove extra fuel canisters that would otherwise need to be stored above the engine deck of the L3. Probably, you would not like to drive into battle with an engine deck loaded with fuel-canisters vulnerable to ignite due to small arms or MG-fire. Might be worse than a fuel-laden trailer going up.

von Marwitz

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Petrol containers (like the "Jerry Can") above the engine would be possibly the worst idea even well outside a combat zone except in quite cold weather. Engine and solar heat would give extra fumes which then spill into the engine compartment and the hot exhausts. Obviously different engine deck (with possible grilles) and exhaust arrangements would vary wildly the fire risk. Many solutions had racks that overhung the tracks or the rear to avoid flaming fuel entering into the vehicle's interior (crew or engine compartments). Be a little wary of photographs as many of the Jerry Cans stowed externally were water containers (in German practice they were usually marked with a painted white cross).

 

[witchbottles]

Petrol containers (like the "Jerry Can") above the engine would be possibly the worst idea even well outside a combat zone except in quite cold weather. Engine and solar heat would give extra fumes which then spill into the engine compartment and the hot exhausts. Obviously different engine deck (with possible grilles) and exhaust arrangements would vary wildly the fire risk. Many solutions had racks that overhung the tracks or the rear to avoid flaming fuel entering into the vehicle's interior (crew or engine compartments). Be a little wary of photographs as many of the Jerry Cans stowed externally were water containers (in German practice they were usually marked with a painted white cross).

I've seen those jerry cans many times, and similar markings on cylindrical drums as well.

I was not aware that attaching / disconnecting such towed trailers for equipment was so simple a procedure that one could detach rapidly if required. although it makes perfect sense when examining the use of towed trailer fuel vehicular flamethrowers, once the fuel is gone, or if it catches fire, simply detach quickly and be gone with it.

Given human ingenuity, it would stand to reason the AFV crews would have rigged up ecen faster ways to dump the beast of burden behind the tank when needed.

KRL, Jon H

 

[Paul M. Weir]

The FT fuel trailer for the Crocodile could be detached from within the vehicle, as far as I can remember. I think it had a cable mediated release system. The Centurion mono-wheel axillary fuel trailer also had a quick release system, might have been some sort of explosive bolt system. In either case the crew did not have to expose themselves.

Non specialist trailers would require a crew member or adjacent grunt to pull the shackling pin to break the connection.

I don't know about the L3 Lf system, but from what I have read the trailer version was the first, replaced by the the rear tank system. I believe the switch was because the trailer reduced mobility. The speed drop was only a minor part, the main problems were the chances of the trailer bogging and reversing with a trailer is an art requiring much practice. The towing link also looks much flimsier than the Croc's which had a two axis double coupling giving a lot of play vertically and horizontally.

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

Depends on which they want at the moment. :angry:

Canadians are not "finicky"......