I had several butt packs during my time in service, cotton canvas and nylon. They were all pretty much identical in size. Tamiya made their new ones in the accessories set way too large. But the Tamiya ones will work ok for the lower pack of the M1945 field packs with some minor changes.
6 Likes
The Tamiya one are indeed far too big. Those lines on your cutting mat are 1 cm apart, so those packs are, what, 11–12 mm wide? That would make them about 40 cm IRL. The real thing is more like 20–25 cm wide when it has things in it, and about the same tall, depending on how full it is. It’s also not nearly as nicely rectangular as the model parts but quickly gets rather shapeless if you stuff soft things in it. Here’s an ALICE buttpack I had to dig up from the bottom of a chest full of semi-random kit 
3 Likes
Thanks all; it may be of course, that I’m over-egging the pudding here by adding kit bags and Butt-Packs; I took inspiration form a Berlin 1961 pic which certainly shows butt-packs but not necessarily kit bags, more like a large valise/tarp combo:
and of course, this particular crew’s efforts may have been due to the sheer haste required of the event.
I don’t mind having to make my own, but perhaps once I’ve added straps etc to the kitbags it will look sufficiently “stowed”; I’m not sure(!)
What I had forgotten was the presence of bed-rolls/sleeping bags attached to the turret hand rails; I will probably make some of those.
6 Likes
While I’m still mulling over whether or not to tackle packs, a bit more work on the figures; heads now secured though a little Mr Dissolved Putty required to touch up a bit, and the Commander figure has acquired another arm:
8 Likes
There are different sizes of the Alice pack. The large size is quite bigger than what is typically issued to a soldier. I have no idea on the size of the Tamiya piece.
1 Like
Somehow his arms seems a bit long…
2 Likes
Alice packs, aka rucksacks were issued in two sizes, medium and large. Mediums to soldiers in mech/armored units, large to those in airborne/air assault/light divisions. It all depended upon your unit as to what type was issued. As a mech grunt, I had the medium issued to me. Later when I served in SF and LRS, I was issued a large ruck.
@BootsDMS, those packs on the bustle rack of the M48 in the photo are the bottom pack from the M1945 field pack.
3 Likes
I had a medium as well but bought a large size as I could put it in the bustle rack of my tank and didn’t have to carry it very far!
2 Likes
There are, but neither of those are what I photographed The large pack is basically the medium one but a little bigger overall and a fair deal taller, plus with three smaller pockets near the top, above the central one. Oh, and it can only be carried on a pack frame, as there’s no way to attach straps to the pack itself. The one in my photo is a buttpack with two slide keepers on it, for attaching to a web belt. Oddly, unlike the M1956 pattern, there are no rings at the top to hook suspenders to it, though (I’m not sure if the nylon M1967 buttpack did have those, though).
1 Like
So, the question comes down to this really: do I need to add packs of any sort - but conceivably the “Butt” type - to the stowage? Perhaps for instance, in 1962 such and such a unit decided that kit-bags were sufficient. Just because in the Berlin Crisis the previous year, and the armoured unit deployed with such stowage doesn’t mean that would, necessarily be an SOP for others. If I do, what type - in 1962 - should they be? One would assume that USAREUR was still fairly high up on the list regarding the issue for the most up to date kit.
Responses graciously appreciated. Whilst I like the “busy” look, I’d like it all to be as authentic/logical as possible.
I am still planning on hanging what appear to be bedding rolls on the turret sides.
1 Like
I was mech infantry, and I always had a butt pack in the field. I kept my rain gear and some small personal items in it. In the duffel bag (kit bag) it’s difficult to find specific items in that large space without dumping out the whole thing. Not convenient when it’s starting to pour rain. I would add them.
2 Likes
Ah, the joys of being strategic level MI. My Alice pack and the rest of my TA-50 spent my two years in West Germany sitting on top of my wall locker. Every now and then I’d get back to the barracks at 0700 after an 8 or 12 hour Midz shift and a daybeggar would call an alert. My fellow trick members and myself would haul our gear into the hall and doze on it until the alert was called off. Then we would drink, go to bed, or some combination thereof.
3 Likes
I was a tanker in the ‘80’s and we were not issued butt packs.
2 Likes
No doubt you have researched upon this before. There are a number of YT videos addressing the US armored response to the Checkpoint Charlie episode that show the apparent lack of, or minimal amount of stowage on the responding M48s. Especially a couple of high angle shots of the responding vehicles.
2 Likes
Well, yes Jim, but there are also pics like the one above which showed a fair amount of kit stowed.
2 Likes
Well, not according to my scientific and meticulous research! I just held the figure up to the image (below) and enlarged the screen image until the sizes matched:
If the head was the same size I reckoned I was “on” and took it from there(!)
What I think I do need to do is to slightly re-contour the arm a bit:
and sand under the armpit a little more.
4 Likes
Thanks for the input all, re stowage; I think what I’ll do is make a prototype Butt-pack - what type I haven’t decided - and see how it looks.
1 Like
Brian the arm may be the right length, but the elbow is in the wrong place! From my lifelong study of human anatomy the elbow is usually halfway between shoulder and hand… 
4 Likes
I think that’s what makes it look a bit long…
1 Like
Well that’s quite some feat as I didn’t consciously factor in an elbow at all.
Clearly, more sanding required.
2 Likes