Hello all, I want to start by saying this is a great forum, and excellent site, there is a tremendous wealth of knowledge to be found here, thank you all for your contributions!
I am currently working on a Pz. IV F2, to be finished in DAK scheme. It is my understanding that the F2’s had their cleaning rods stowed in two sets of two, one set on the left side upper hull, near the middle od the vehicle, and one set on the left side upper hull towards the rear. Ausf. G’s it seems, have all four rods stowed in the aft position. My question is this, would it be incorrect to locate the rods in the “G” position, primarily to make room for a jerry can rack in place of the two forward rods on the F2? It seems that almost all DAK vehicles had mounting provisions for fuel and water cans somewhere, and there isn’t much room left over after the tools, spare track links, and smoke candles are all installed. I suppose its not out of the question for an F2 to be modified in this way to accommodate a jerry can rack, or spare roadwheel rack. The secondary purpose for mounting them in the aft position is that I mangled the F2 cleaning rod brackets (griffon photo etch) but the kit comes with G brackets also. I ordered a replacement set of F2 brackets, in case I still want to go that route, but that still leaves me with no place for jerry cans. Thanks for making it this far through my ramblings, and I appreciate any input!

Phillip,

Welcome to this great site!

Here is a picture of a knocked out Pz.IV in Benghazi from a book I own(Pz.IV to the Front-Update No3-Factory Production Guide(G) by Craig Ellis-p.9):


The text bellow this picture reads:
"...
Gun cleaning rods in pairs(welds still evident on superstructure side-moved by unit to fit jerrycans)
..."

So the Germans did-on the field-exactly what you intend to do...
I guess you have a go

Picture is for discussion purposes only.

Awesome, what number is that, 843? Thank you for the excellent response! I am also hunting for a specific vehicle, or unit to model. Do you, or anyone else know what color the rods would be? I have read that early ones could have been aluminum painted black, or that they could have been wood. It seems there is much debate on this topic.

You're welcome, Phillip!

Yes, it is #843.

It is Fgst No 83013(written on driver's visor), production of VOMAG-end of June 1942.

As to the color of cleaning rods, check out these pictures(from the same book):


They look pretty dark to me

Not debate so much as more than one type? So the cleaning rods could be aluminum painted black, or wood. Even if wood it would be a good idea to paint them black. There is a lot of grease, oil and soot involved in cleaning the bore and anything would get soiled quickly. Wiped down and used again but it soaks in.

Having just spun thru about 500 wartime Pz. III and IV, I would suggest the following:

1) Most, if not "all", of those sectional cleaning rods were wooden shafts with metal end-fittings (either cast aluminum or steel). Aluminum was expensive and generally reserved for aircraft and for stuff where steel would be excess weight. Wood is an ideal material for these rods.

2) Probably, when initially issued to the tank, they were likely varnished - a very common treatment for German wooden tool handles and such. These cleaning rods were probably made by small garden-implement companies and followed the construction / manufacturing processes used for shovels, rakes, picks, axes, etc. They could be stained to a rather dark color... And they could darken with age.

3) Many of these rods show up on tanks in period pics as being fairly light in color. Often rather lighter then the base vehicle color. And few show any real evidence of heavy soot, dirt, grease, etc. in period photos. So the wood shafts were not likely painted black at any time, although those end fittings may have been...

4) Because German tank crew were generally responsible for repainting their vehicles (and for adding any desired camo color(s) to base grey or later base dunkelgelb vehicles), many tool handles and cleaning rods did actually get some camo painting - because they apparently often were not removed when crew or shop folks sprayed on or broomed on camo paint or white-wash (on winter vehicles). There are some rather neat pics showing camo'd tools and stuff on Pz. IV in France in 1944, for instance! So rods on desert vehicles, much like those seen on dunkelgelb tanks in Russia, could likely be painted their vehicle color - specially if one is depicting a repainted vehicle...

5) As aluminum does not hold most paints very well, many of those end-fittings probably lost their paint with use and handling - many look like they are virtually un-painted aluminum color in pics. IF the rod shafts were made of aluminum, you would soon find that they too would be badly scraped and lose a lot of paint when being used. (So, IF you wish to paint up rods as being aluminum (whether they ever were or not is a separate detail question), it could look very cool to have them scraped bare.) (PS: I've not found any pics showing this effect, but this would happen if the rod was made of aluminum and run into a steel gun barrel).

Just some thoughts for consideration! Painting cleaning rods as wood is a fairly common convention among German armor modelers. Doesn't mean that this is always historically correct, but it is a common convention, and probably conforms reasonably to what the rods were made of.

Cheers! Bob

You might want to bear in mind that the F2 and G were the same - the former was just renamed so there is no difference between ‘F2’ and ‘G’ components. All F2s became Gs, I think during 1943 (on train so no books with me).

Real rammer staffs as used on real tanks get oily and sooty after use.

They get wiped down but the wood would darken as opposed to bleach. Varnished wood does bleach when left out for long periods though. So don't leave them out. When you're done raking, put it back in the shed.

A crew usually struggles to get the brush down a long bore. It's really hard work. Wooden staff could break. Aluminum could bend for a long barrel. And sometimes you gotta scrub. But stout wooden staff could also last.

Historical staffs have been wood as long as there's been cannon barrels. Often painted the same color as the gun carriage. But they go in a lot easier in a smooth bore than rifled. Had a chance to swob and fire couple of different cannon in addition to 105 mm tank cannon.

Hey guys, I was swamped at work for a couple days, so I didn’t have the time to read and respond. Fantastic info, and thanks for the pics. I was under the impression there were subtle differences between the F2 and G, like the rammer staff mounting arrangement, and the ball muzzle brake, as well as a few other odds and ends. I beleve the relocation of the rammer staffs was to facilitate the addition of a spare roadwheel rack also on the G, is that stuff incorrect?

Spare roadwheel stowage not in the usual location (left side, centre) would be a unit mod. Not a diagnostic feature of a G.

Interesting discussion.
I'm close to starting painting a PzII G in Afrika Korps colours, so would it be realistic that the pioneer tools would be sprayed in the base Gelbbraun? Or left unpainted?
My thinking is that a coat of paint would add some protection against sand and dust, especially the jack which is the one item a crew wouldn't want getting clogged up!