Author: Vollketten Another quite interesting article from Vollketten, enjoy :) I was browsing through some of the excellent archive of the British Medical Journal for another project I am working on and as a result came across some articles relating to tanks I thought I would share here as matter of general interest. Regarding WW1 tanks There was discussion (post war) about the use of tanks to carry or move wounded from the front and as dressing stations protected from enemy fire and shells. Notably one suggestion was that certain types of larger tanks could be “adapted for medical purposes with a dressing table in the centre of the hold behind the engine with electric light provided, stretchers and hammocks arranged in tiers capable of holding half a dozen lying cases or twenty sitting.” Citing as an example of when this had already taken place another contributor stated that during the actions of the Australian Corps at Hamel about 150 wounded were brought back in by the tanks and that during the Battle of Cambrai one tank brought back 16 wounded at one time. To anyone who has seen the size of the interior of a WW1 British tank the idea of shoving twenty men seated or otherwise inside one of them sounds somewhat cramped and unpleasant at best. The greatest hazard posed by these WW1 tanks should come as no surprise to most is one of ventilation. “It has been found by experience that tanks with a full crew on board and closed up for action the presence of carbon dioxide in the air and a high wet bulb temperature* the crew develop headaches, giddiness, breathlessness, mental confusion, collapse and unconsciousness. Some of these symptoms arise from the motion of the tanks causing sea-sickness aggravated by the firing of the Hotchkiss and 6 pounders.” (*Wet bulb temperature means the lowest temperature that can be reached under current ambient conditions by the evaporation of water only in moving air) These early vehicles often had the engine directly in the crew area and with no adequate means of ventilation being inside what amounts to a metal box was detrimental to crew health. “one of the most serious disabilities encountered amongst tank crews was dependent on the design and mode of employment of the tank itself, and was in no way determined by enemy action. Whole crews developed symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning from the exhaust fumes, even to the extent of becoming unconscious or occasionally demented.” The interior of a Mk.V British tank on display at the Imperial War Museum, London, UK: The solution was as obvious to the users and medical professionals at the time just as it is to us now as that of providing sufficient fresh air for the crew. “The extent of symptoms depends very largely on the mechanical efficiency of the tanks, and especially on the provision of good and efficient ventilation” Due to the design and pressures of production though such ventilation was not apparent of WW1 tanks. By WW2 such discussions as to hygiene and physical welfare amongst tank crews had again become worthy of study. On the general issue of hygiene one report particular report regarding action at El. Alamein lays the groundwork for why later British tanks ended up being fitted with a kettle, a water tank and even a small latrine. It starts on the topic of discussing hygiene stating “It has, however been heartening to observe the difference between the enemy sanitation and dysentery/diarrhoea rate and our own. The enemy appears to have no conception of the most elementary measures, and has a dysentery/diarrhoea rate so very much higher than ours that it is believed that the poor physical condition of his troops played a great part in the recent victory at El. Alamein.” The problem of waste was to be solved with the use of incineration and the expedient of use cutting seats into used petrol boxes. (The British at the time had a small rectangular shaped fuel can although the German ‘Jerrycan’ was much prized in preference and later adopted in place of the rectangular can) The reason that this expedient was made was because the field service portable latrine weighed in at 27.2kg (60lbs) and though easily described as being ‘easily portable’ the reports notes that “…units would not carry even the simplest latrine structure” already overburdened as they were with other accoutrements of the job. British standard fuel can: Providing nutrition to the crews of tanks and AFV’s who were often deployed and isolated having to stay inside their vehicles for long period of time was also troublesome “A corollary to this problem (the scattering of food waste from tins etc. following company eating) arose in the case of A.F.Vs. Fighting all day, leaguered in strict black out conditions at night too tired to look after themselves, the crews of tanks and armoured cars were too often unable to get more than an occasional bite of a biscuit.” In order to counter this problem which was detrimental to the effectiveness of the crews a special ration pack was provided (slightly smaller than the US contemporary ration pack) which was self-contained and most AFV’s were supplied with a special half-gallon (1 UK Gallon = 1.2 US Gallons) vacuum flasks for hot drinks. On this issue of the climate and the debilitating effects of the desert heat and sun: “…even in tanks and armoured cars the desert heat led to no disastrous incapacitation. The high evaporative power of the desert air saved the heat-regulating mechanism of the body from any undue strain, so that as long as the tank engine, and hence the engine ventilating system was pumping air through the vehicles conditions were not dangerous. In the desert therefore there was no call for special air-conditioning devices for AFV’s.” I’m not sure many modern tankers would agree with that statement but it raises question over the vents module in the game. On the subject of accidents: “It was noteworthy that over the whole period accidental burns usually outnumbered those due to enemy action e.g. setting tanks etc. on fire. Petrol of course was the origin of most of the accidental burns seen in the Eight Army.” Mainly it appears that the injuries associated with petrol were from the use of petrol by troops as a cooking fuel in the absence of any alternative and its use as an insecticide in trenches combined with smoking habits rather than anything to do with tanks catching fire. On this topic there was no discussion of petrol fires in vehicles being a major hazard to crews save to mention and recommend the Continue reading →

More...