# The best truck of WWII?



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

Which would be the best truck of WWII? GMC's CCKW, the Deuce and half has to be in the top 5, right?


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Opel Blitz maybe. Or that British one, can't remember its name..


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Anyway here's an Opel Blitz:


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

GMC 2½
definitely
I have read German descriptions from Winter 43/44, full of complains how Soviet troops pushed through mud in LL trucks while their own trucks, Opels etc, got struckt even on the roads, not that there was much difference between cross-country and road in Ukraina in that time during thaw season. Have not time to check the British vehicles but generally US trucks tended to have more powerful engines than European trucks.

Again
a very nice photo, Soren

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 29, 2009)

What's there to like about Opel Blitz??
It' a civilian truck designed to quality roads, so inherently not suited for the Russian terrain (mud, rasputitza, snow etc.),

US truck of just about any kind is way superior to what other countries produced.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

Well, then you had those Opel Maultier etc.


----------



## davebender (Apr 29, 2009)

It's my understanding that Opel had a 4 wheel drive version for military use. However the Heer mostly used the less expensive 2 wheel drive version.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

What Russian trucks do we have?


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 29, 2009)

Soren said:


> Opel Blitz maybe.



For hauling hay to market down a nicely kept dirt road, sure!

You would seriously choose the Opel over this?

Not all things Tutonic are superior!

.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

Isn't that a postwar M35 something-something?


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 29, 2009)

damn.. ur right. 

But still!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

I wouldn't say no, they saw action Korea didn't they?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 29, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> What Russian trucks do we have?



Gaz AAA (not the 'anti aircraft artillery', but the Russian designation) 4x6 and ZiS-5 2x4 were the most common. Decent trucks, but US stuff is better.


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

According to what I've read the Opel Blitz was very popular with the Germans, and it did well. Sure it didn't have as many horsepower, but it was a lighter truck as-well. The German heavy trucks were everybit as good as those the US built.

Btw, didn't the German use a Ford truck as-well ?


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

> Not all things Tutonic are superior!



Teutonic mate  

Now lets leave out the accusations, I didn't claim anything, I came with a suggestion. So cool it.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

True Soren. Seen Ford Maultier trucks....wonder what they were like, with those narrow tracks!


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 29, 2009)

The GMC 2 1/2 ton wins hands down.

Far better payload than the Opel, not to mention a lot more varients due to its well designed and sturdy frame and power train.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

The Opel did get tracks though...wasn't that an improvement?


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

The Ford V 3000S used by the Germans actually has 5 more horsepower than the GMC CCKW, lol


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Btw, lets not forget the Skoda H 6ST6-T used by the Wehrmacht, it was a 4 ton truck, a real hauler.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

Didn't Tatra do trucks as well or was it just cars?


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

The Opel Blitz could take 3 tons btw.


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Didn't Tatra do trucks as well or was it just cars?



They did make trucks, yes.

Offtopic alert (I just think you guys need to see this beauty): Fil:Tatra T 77a.jpg - Wikipedia, den frie encyklopÃ¦di


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

How many of those 4.5 ton Mercedes-Benz was built with tracks, if any, any ideas?


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

As for Tatra trucks, the T111 was designed built specifically for the Wehrmacht and used by the Heer as a heavy truck from 1942 and throughout the war.

This beast boasted 210 hp and could carry up to *10.3 tons* and tow up to *22 tons*!


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

Soren
my sources gave V3000 95bhp at 3500rpm (as 3000 shows, it was 3 tons not 2½ tons truck). SourceB. Quarrie's Encyclopedia of the German Army in the 20th Century

U.S Army Military Vehicles WW2 says that 
GMC's Truck, Cargo, , 2½-Ton 6x6 had 104bhp engine. 
GMC's, IHC's and Studebaker's Truck, Cargo, 2½-Ton 6x4 had 87 bhp engine.

Next in size was 4 tons truck.

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

I thought that GMC's would be alot more powerful than that!


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Juha,

You seem to be believing that a 2½ ton truck means it's 2½ tons heavy, well it isn't, it's much heavier. The GMC CCKW weighes 5 tons and has 91.5 hp. The GMC CCKW can carry 2½ tons, as it says.


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

US had Diamont T 40 ton Transporter Tractor Model 980 designed to tow 40 ton trailer, which in fact could also handle war booty Panthers and there were lot of those Diamond Ts. It had 201 bhp at 1600rpm engine. And then there was M26 IIRC, designed to tow 45 tons semi-trailer.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

Soren
heh heh, I know that 2½, 3 tons etc means carrying capacity, 

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Hey hey Juha, now we're talking tractors, the Germans had those as-well, like the 230 hp Sd.Kfz.9:







This beast was used to tow Tigers KingTigers when they got stuck or broke down.


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

Soren 
Your source to your claim that V3000 had more powerful engine than GMC 2½ ton?

Juha


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

Those US tractors were wheeled ones.

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

What about those SdKfz 7, 8 and 9? Must have been in the same range then?


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Sd.Kfz.9 towing a Pzkpfw.III (Guess how much this trailer weighs  ):


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Juha said:


> Soren
> Your source to your claim that V3000 had more powerful engine than GMC 2½ ton?
> 
> Juha



Juha you just wrote it yourself, the V3000 has 95 hp, the GMC 2½ ton truck only has 91.5 hp.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

My guess, 40+ ton.


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

Soren
why it is always so difficult with You? Your source, please.
I have gave my sources, for ex that 104 bhp for both GMC, Truck, Cargo, L.W.B. and S.W.B., 2½-ton, 6x6 comes from "U.S. Army Military Vehicles WW2" which happened to be reprint from wartime Technical Manual No. 9-2800, and 104 bhp is 9 bhp MORE than 95 bhp, at least here in Finland.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

There abouts probably. The Trailer probably weighes ~17 tons and the tank 23 tons.


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Here Juha, hope that it isn't too difficult for you to click the link:
270 to 302

From the site (Which is dedicated to the vehicle btw):
_The original 270 series engine was first produced in a smaller displacement in 1939. The original engines series introduced over a couple years were 228 cid, 248 cid and 256 cid. The 270 engine was first produced at the request of the government. They liked the earlier versions of the deuces (ACKWX-353) but wanted more power for the later, large production orders. In 19 days, GMC modified the 256 engine and created the 270. This was not all that easy. They had to modify the water jackets to allow for the larger stroke along with creating different connecting rods. The original 270 engine had all of *91.5 horsepower *and it was governed at 2750 RPMs. Always remember that all WW2 engines, GMC’s included are long stroke engines that do not like or tolerate high RPMs for long. The 302 increased the bore over the 270 and changed the engine piston wise quite dramatically. They went from domes pistons in WW2 to flat pistons in the later engines. This also necessitated a different head design. Always remember too that the pedals are attached to the bell housing, so if you do not utilize the Chevy or GMC bell housing from the WW2 era, you have some serious issues to resolve_


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 29, 2009)

You never over rev a truck most trucks are redlined at 3000rpm its all in the gears
How come no mention of the CMP like the Chev C15a or of the Ford 15CWT


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

True pbfoot, its the same for every truck.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 29, 2009)

I am going to have to go with the US Deuce and Half. Sturdy well built and could go just about anywhere. There is a reason that it has been modernized and still being used today.


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

Thanks Soren
very interesting link but xx bhp engine is not necessary as powerful as xx hp engine.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Juha said:


> Thanks Soren
> very interesting link but xx bhp engine is not necessary as powerful as xx hp engine.
> 
> Juha



Juha are you going to argue over a possible 1.5 to 2 hp increase in power just because it might be BHP or PS ? Since it's an American site I'm pretty sure they are talking about BHP.


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

Hello Soren
IMHO the difference is bigger and US auto industry dropped bhp in 1972!
As my source, wartime technical manual put the engine power of GMC 2½-ton as 104 bhp and my other source gives V3000 95 bhp, I doubt that V3000 had more powerful engine.

On Sd.Kfz.9, it really stuggled with Pz V and VI, one main reason for introduction of BergePanther. There were many complains that up to 3 Sd.Kfz.9s were needed to tow one Pz VI.
BTW we had one here in Finland and as a child I have sit behind its wheel, quite a big vehicle.

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

True Juha. They always hooked up TWO Sd.Kfz.9's to tow a Tiger....


----------



## davebender (Apr 29, 2009)

That's not surprising. The King Tiger weighed as much as the modern day M1A2 tank. What were they thinking when trying to power such a heavy beast with 1940s automotive technology?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 29, 2009)

I would also consider the GM truck to be superior as it was a simple design that made it easily mass produced. And it was also easy to tear down, pack into ships and then reassembled within an hour or so.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 29, 2009)

I am shocked that none of you have spoken up for the Studebaker deuce-and- a-half. Watch 'em:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64NxXb_4Omk_

As tough a truck as the GMC and International Harvester deuce-and-a-half trucks - Studis were also THE platform for the awesome Soviet Katusha rocket launchers.

The Studis (as with the P-39 Bell Aircobras) were THE number one LL truck delivered to the Russians. There are great pictures of Studis with dual front wheels to provide floatation in the mud.

My vote is for Studebaker, with honorary mention to the Ford and GMC Canadian Military Pattern trucks that Canada delivered around the world.

Service Publications - Weapons of War

Chairs


----------



## Juha (Apr 30, 2009)

First
One clarification, in my message #29 Diamont T 40 ton Transporter Tractor Model 980 is British type for Truck-trailer, 45-ton, Tank Transporter, M19 Truck, 12-ton, 6x4, M20. I used the British term because my US Manual does not give its engine power and I so looked its specs from reprint of wartime British Army “Data Book of Wheeled Vehicles” 

Now to GMC 2½-ton vs German Ford V3000. I have known since childhood that horsepower rating for cars/trucks is far from unambiguous, because here in Finland at least in 60s some carmakers gave engine power of their car according to DIN and some according to SAE, IIRC for same power SAE gave a bit higher hp rating. 

I checked British Army “Data Book of Wheeled Vehicles”, and it gave to GMC CCKW, GMC 270 engine Max bhp 95 @ 3000rpm Max torgue 2580 lbs.ins @ 1000 rpm.
Now Britain and Canada also had Ford manufacturing, both produced Ford 4x2 and 4x4 lorries/trucks, Canada with Ford Mercury V-8 engine which produced 95 bhp @ 3600 rpm Max torgue 2112 lbs. ins @ 1800 rpm. Maybe German Ford used the same engine, maybe not.

British produced numerous lorries, not 2½ ton but 3 ton: 4x2 Austin 60 bhp, Bedford OT 72 bhp, Commer 81 bhp, Dennis 75 bhp, Leyland Lynx 76.6 bhp etc
And 4x4: Albion 96 bhp, Austin 85 bhp, Bedford QL 72 bhp, Ford W.O.T.6. 85 bhp, Karrier K.6 80 bhp, Thornycroft TF/AC4/1 85 BHP @ 2500 rpm but it had good torque 2650 lbs./ins. @ 1200 rpm.
Maybe Bedford was the most famous. IMHO most famous wheeled unarmoured British vehicles, excluding motocycles, were gun tractors like 4X4 AEC Matador and Morris C.8 4 Wheel F.A.T. and smaller trucks like Morris C.S.8. 15-CWT and Bedford OX 30 CWT.

But IMHO US 2½ ton truck was the best, as I wrote earlier.

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

The BHP is the horse power at the driving wheels, and the SAE is just the engine itself if I remember correctly....


----------



## Juha (Apr 30, 2009)

Hello Lucky
From Wiki, I know but it's fastest way, "Brake horsepower (abbreviated bhp) is the measure of an engine's horsepower without the loss in power caused by the gearbox, generator, differential, water pump, and other auxiliary components such as alternator, power steering pump, muffled exhaust system, etc. "Brake" refers to a device which was used to load an engine and hold it at a desired RPM. During testing, the output torque and rotational speed were measured to determine the "brake horsepower". 

SAE is one protocol for measurement, SAE gross hp is about bhp, SAE net hp, again from WIKI: "in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net hp testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. The change to net hp effectively deflated power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies."

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)




----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

Juha,

I can assure you that the Sdfkz.9 could pull heavier loads than the Diamond. It's got 20 more horsepower (230 hp) and is tracked. 

It is true that *two* Sdfkz.9's were needed to tow a bugged down Tiger, but that was without any trailer and from muddy soil, up steep hills and inclines. They'd probably need 4 Diamond T trucks to pull that off.

Here a Tiger being pulled up a steep muddy hill on its own tracks by two Sdfkz.9's, this is as tough as it gets for a recovery vehicle:










Towing a tank on a trailer down a nice paved road is a lot easier and another deal entirely!


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

Two FAMO's towing a Tiger through muddy soil in Africa:





I've never heard or seen a picture which shows that it took 3 to tow a Tiger, where do you have have this from Juha ?


----------



## Juha (Apr 30, 2009)

Hello Soren
Allied had ARVs for heavy duty, mostly US made. And You have not seen really muddy terrain if you call the terrain in the first picture muddy, even the tarrain in the last picture isn't even moderately muddy.

Quote:"I've never heard or seen a picture which shows that it took 3 to tow a Tiger, where do you have have this from Juha ?"
__________________

Heh, from numerous sources over the years. You really should read Jentz Panzertruppen, both volumes. You might even get more realistic picture on reliability oflate war Panthers.

But from page 101 in Vol. 2 Germans needed 3 Sdfkz.9s to tow each Panther they evacuated from Kursk salient because of heavy rains.

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

Must have taken more than that then Juha for the Allied, towing the same weight as a Tiger and only having wheels instead for tracks, right?
And for them to do the same again in thick mud, not having anything firm to attached the heavy wire....heavy dirty work! Ouch!


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

Quite true Lucky, but Juha seems reluctant to say it.


Juha,

As for my picture on the Panther's reliability, it's as real as it gets, the later versions of the Panther were very reliable, ESP. when they got proper maintenance, the lack of which was the main cause for most of the reliability issues suffered by some German tanks. If you read Jentz books you'll realize this as-well.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

How about this way Soren? Towing a tank on its tracks compared to heavy duty trailer, is like when you push or pull a car and a railroad freight car on the rails? Push or pull a car d*mn heavy, but you can move a freight car on rail by yourself and it weighs a h*ll lot more than a car. Just thinking this with different surfaces etc...


----------



## fly boy (Apr 30, 2009)

i'd go with the deuce and a half


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> How about this way Soren? Towing a tank on its tracks compared to heavy duty trailer, is like when you push or pull a car and a railroad freight car on the rails? Push or pull a car d*mn heavy, but you can move a freight car on rail by yourself and it weighs a h*ll lot more than a car. Just thinking this with different surfaces etc...



Yeah thats pretty much true actually.


----------



## Juha (May 2, 2009)

Hello Lucky
As I wrote Allies had more ARVs, they were recovery tanks, ie fully tracked armoured vehicles, made on chassis of Grant, Sherman, Churchill, Crusader etc. Germans had also them but clearly fewer, ie Bergepanzer III and BergePanther. They relied much on Sd Kfz 9, which was adequate for up to Pz IV but struggled with the newer Vs and VIs and of course unarmoured. Many of Allied ARVs were fully armoured but German ARVs were open topped designs which was liability during late war (Allied air superiority and from Dec 44 onwards air bursting arty shells). Otherwise BergePanther was excellent ARV.

And Allied vehicles were designed to handle their own tanks, that’s the function of maintenance/recovery organization. But they were able also to recover German tanks for tests when needed. That Germans went to so heavy tanks and then began wonder the problems of recover, it was partly self-made problem.


----------



## Juha (May 2, 2009)

Soren
Quote:” If you read Jentz books you'll realize this as-well.”

So You have read Jentz’ Panzertruppen. How you have missed the info in Vol 2 on p. 101 or the photo and caption on p.40, 3 SdKfz 9s towing a Tiger on a road.

Have You ever read Spielberger’s Der Panzerkampfwagen Panther und seine abarten? At the beginning of its Bergepanther section one can read “Zugkraftwagen 18 t [ie Sd Kfz 9, my explanation] konnten Tiger und Panther lediglich im Zweier- bzw. DREIER [my emphasis]tandemzug schleppen.”

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 2, 2009)

Hey Juha, how about you stop picking phrases out of context ?? 

Take yourself back to my post and ask yourself; what was he telling me to realize? Hint: Something about the Panther.

As for the Sdfkz.9, again it only required TWO to tow a Tiger. If three were used then I'm quite sure it was because of serious damage to the transmission or bearbox of the Tiger, making the task of moving it extremely strainious.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 2, 2009)

Just for the record, SAE stands for "Society of Automotive Engineers" and was established to create a standard for the automotive industry. SAE measures and standards are applied to a broad range of material as well, like hardware for example.

As far as horsepower goes, an engine will create torque and horsepower as it functions. However, you will have a gross rating and a net rating. 

The gross rating is what the engine developes unloaded, meaning no water pump, no alternator/generator, nothing connected to the end of the crankshaft. The net rating is what the engine produces loaded, meaning everything attached to it such as driveline transmission, water pump, alternator/generator, etc...

To create braking horsepower, the engine has the equivellent of a brake drum attached to the crankshaft while it's mounted on a dynometer. It looks much like a parking brake from an American truck from the 40's and 50's. The brake is applied during the dyno test to simulate the loading of the engine and the horsepower registered is noted as "braking HorsePower" or BHP, as noted earlier in this discussion.


----------



## Soren (May 2, 2009)

Also guys lets stick with actual trucks, not tractors halftrcks. The most useful trucks were no doubt not always the heaviest most powerful either, the Opel Blitz, 3000V GMC CCKW certainly proving that by doing well nearly where'ever they went. (Safe perhaps from the Russian winter were every gas powered vehicle ground to a halt)


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 2, 2009)

I think most if not all of those used gasoline.


----------



## glennasher (May 2, 2009)

Wouldn't the gearbox in the transmission trump horsepower, SAE or BHP? It seems to me that without the right rear end in it, all the horsepower in the world isn't much count...............


----------



## syscom3 (May 2, 2009)

The GMC and Studebaker 6x6's were similar enough to be the same type of truck.

The simplicity of the design lent it well to being mass produced by the 100's of thousands.

And its basic chassis was adaptable for any climate and many different varieties.

Therefore, it is the best truck in WW2, by huge margins.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 2, 2009)

glennasher said:


> Wouldn't the gearbox in the transmission trump horsepower, SAE or BHP? It seems to me that without the right rear end in it, all the horsepower in the world isn't much count...............


You definately want to use the torque over horsepower.

You can have an engine producing over 300 horses and without "bottom end" torque, it can't beat it's way out of a wet paper bag.

GM and thier inline 6 engines were great torquers without much in the way of horsepower.

If you have a gearbox with compound lower gears with an engine producing good torque, you have a beast that will get you dang-near anywhere...as long as you have decent traction...

The GM "deuce and a half" ran "stovebolt" inline 6 engines that had low compression ratios so they could operate on just about any type of fuel, produced great torque and had brutal gear ratios that would allow them to operate in just about any climate conditions on the planet.

Don't rule out the line of vehicles Dodge built for the war effort, either...the Weapons carrier Carry-All were the most used.

Willys made utility trucks and ambulances that were exceptionally tough. So were the trucks made by Studebaker, Ford and Kenworth.

* oops...didn't see your post, syscom...and I agree, thier similarity and simplicity made them one of the best vehicles of the war, hands-down *


----------



## syscom3 (May 2, 2009)

Soren, I just don't see the "Blitz" being successfull in something like the "Red Ball Express".

No doubt its a fine truck, but it was the US 6x6s that did perform marvelously in many a situation that the Blitz never did or have a chance todo so.

The US trucks were solid and reliable, and were a key reason why the allies won. We could supply our forces with a minimum of hassle.


----------



## Venganza (May 3, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> I am shocked that none of you have spoken up for the Studebaker deuce-and- a-half. Watch 'em:
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64NxXb_4Omk_
> ...




I'm glad somebody mentioned the Studebakers supplied to the Soviets under Lend-Lease. From what I've read about Soviet operations during WWII, perhaps the single greatest Lend-Lease gift to the Soviets were these trucks. Reading about them churning through the Belorussian swamps during Operation Bagration in 1944, where the Germans didn't expect the Soviets to be able to operate, gave the Soviets a huge advantage in terms of mobility and surprise. In spite of its reputation for modernity, to the end of the war the Wermacht still relied heavily on horse-drawn supplies, whereas by 1944, thanks to the thousands of U.S. four-wheeled trucks and Jeeps delivered to the Soviets, including huge quantities of the Studebakers, they were much more motorized and mobile. I don't think they were essential for the Soviets defeating the Germans, but they helped tremendously. The Studebaker truck is a bit of an unsung hero, really.

Learstang


----------



## Juha (May 3, 2009)

Soren,
I’m not picking phrases out of content
Your message #56 
Quote: “I've never heard or seen a picture which shows that it took 3 to tow a Tiger, where do you have have this from Juha ?”

My message #57
Quote: “Jentz Panzertruppen…But from page 101 in Vol. 2 Germans needed 3 Sdfkz.9s to tow each Panther they evacuated from Kursk salient because of heavy rains.”

Point a) Info relates on Panthers
b) the only reason given to the need for 3 Sdfkz.9s per damaged Panther, and there tens of them, to tow them away is heavy rainfall on one summer day (18 July 43). Not a thaw period but mid-summer. 

I agree that 2 Sd Kfz 9s were normally enough to tow a Tiger on hard surface but on muddy track, and I mean muddy as in Ukraina, 2 was not always enough.

Your message #59
Quote:” As for my picture on the Panther's reliability, it's as real as it gets, the later versions of the Panther were very reliable, ESP. when they got proper maintenance, the lack of which was the main cause for most of the reliability issues suffered by some German tanks. If you read Jentz books you'll realize this as-well.”

It would be nice to know the sources you based your opinion “as real as it gets”? 

Clearly Jentz’ Panzertruppen Vol 2 and Spielberger’s Der Panzerkampfwagen Panther und seine abarten are not among the books you have read. And Spielberger’s book is very good, a must if one wants to create “as real as it gets” opinion on Panther. Or you have very selectively memory, which filtered away all that doesn't fit your German superquality mindframe.

On trucks, I agree with Venganza, as I wrote in my message #4, even Germans notices that LL Studebakers ploughed trough mud when German trucks got struck into mud during winter 43/44.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 3, 2009)

Juha said:


> Or you have very selectively memory, which filtered away all that doesn't fit your German superquality mindframe.



Do you really expect me to respond when you say stuff like that Juha ?

And yes you DO pull phrases out of context, you can moan cry all you want about it but every idiot can see that you did it a few post ago.


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2009)

Independent of the other candidates, the Duece and a half contributed to Allied victory as much as the C-47.

It was the only truck I know of that served superbly in every theatre and every climate in the world in WWII.

I don't have enough knowledge of the Opel or the Sdfkz.9s to offer a comparison.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

The problem is that the GMC CCKW never got the chance to try an environment as tough as that of the Russian winter, where every gas powered vehicle ground to a halt.


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> The problem is that the GMC CCKW never got the chance to try an environment as tough as that of the Russian winter, where every gas powered vehicle ground to a halt.



The GMC's handled the mud issues of the jungles of the SW Pacific. And that mud was just as bad as the Russian mud.


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> The problem is that the GMC CCKW never got the chance to try an environment as tough as that of the Russian winter, where every gas powered vehicle ground to a halt.



True - but Aleutians and northwest Alaska approached the harsh conditions, but clearly not Leningrad in winter of 1941


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

drgondog said:


> True - but Aleutians and northwest Alaska approached the harsh conditions, but clearly not Leningrad in winter of 1941



The upper Midwestern states have the same brutal winter weather conditions as Russia.

If the Studebaker and GMC trucks didnt have issues there, then they wouldnt in Russia.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

I disagree, nothing in the United States could comapre to the Russian winter. It was so cold that all gas powered vehicles ground to a halt.

The point here is that the Opel Blitz did just as well as the GMC, and was by the Germans considered just as vital to their victories as the GMC C-47 Dakota was to the Allies.


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> I disagree, nothing in the United States could comapre to the Russian winter. It was so cold that all gas powered vehicles ground to a halt.
> 
> The point here is that the Opel Blitz did just as well as the GMC, and was by the Germans considered just as vital to their victories as the GMC C-47 Dakota was to the Allies.


Have you ever been north of 60 ? Alaska in the interior gets very very cold , NDakota Minnesota also get pretty nippy I've seen it as -40c without wind


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Oki pbfoot, lets see you claim that the GMC will perform better than the Opel Blitz at -40 degree Celcius and beyond. It will amuse me for sure.


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> ....NDakota Minnesota also get pretty nippy I've seen it as -40c without wind



"You Betchya ...."

 

Soren, the upper midwest states and the southern parts of the central Canadian states have winters that are nearly identical to the winters in the western parts of Russia.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

I still fail to see how the GMC handles such an inviroment better. I bet that if the GMC had worked under such conditions then it would've done miserably, just as every other gas powered vehicle would.


----------



## renrich (May 4, 2009)

The Soviets got thousands of deuce and a halfs and used them in all kinds of weather. That truck was the best and no one else had anything close to it. By 1945, nearly two thirds of all Russian trucks, according to Wiki, were US made. Also, the Soviets manufactured only 92 locomotives during WW2 and the US supplied them with 1981 locomotives. I lived for ten years in Crested Butte, Colorado where the temps regularly get to 35 below and sometimes to 50 below. Gasoline engines work much better in those temps than diesel.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Hmm.. so that's why the Russians prefered Diesel trucks ? 

Nah, didnt think so.


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> I still fail to see how the GMC handles such an inviroment better. I bet that if the GMC had worked under such conditions then it would've done miserably, just as every other gas powered vehicle would.



The US auto makers back then made their vehicals to work in all the states of the union (and Canada too). We have a varied climate and it isnt economical to make cars and trucks that dont work in frigid tempertures that are prevailent in the plains states and the mountainous area's.

Germany didnt have this issue.

And Soren ..... they worked fine in these frigid temps. Just because its cold doesnt mean they will stop working.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> I disagree, nothing in the United States could comapre to the Russian winter. It was so cold that all gas powered vehicles ground to a halt.



That is not true. Alaska and Canada experience the same conditions.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Germany made trucks for use all over the world syscom, so you claim just doesn't hold any water.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

The winter of 1941 on the Eastern front the temperature was measured at -55 degrees celcius at one point.


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Oki pbfoot, lets see you claim that the GMC will perform better than the Opel Blitz at -40 degree Celcius and beyond. It will amuse me for sure.


God I've never seen any one know so little about so much .
My proof is in my age in the 50's and 60's and 70's for certain vehicles Euro autos were nice in the summer but park them in the winter so you could drive something reliable


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> The winter of 1941 on the Eastern front the temperature was measured at -55 degrees celcius at one point.



It does that regularly in Alaska as well. In the winter time the interior of Alaska regularly reaches below −60 °F (-52 °C). For crying out loud, there are parts of Alaska that average a low temp of 34 °F (1 °C) in July!

In 1971 temps were measured in the interior at −80 °F (-64 °C).

To say that parts of N. America are not as extreme as Russia is a very false statement.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> God I've never seen any one know so little about so much .
> My proof is in my age in the 50's and 60's and 70's for certain vehicles Euro autos were nice in the summer but park them in the winter so you could drive something reliable



Right back at ya.

Now lets see the proof that the GMC does better at freezing temperatures than the Opel Blitz. I'd certainly like to see it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Now lets see the proof that the GMC does better at freezing temperatures than the Opel Blitz. I'd certainly like to see it.



Is there actual 100% proof for vice versa? Have there been tests that will prove either one?

If not then any and all of this is nothing more than opinion or speculation. We know what your opinion of opinions is, based off of your post in the Best Jet of the 50s thread.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It does that regularly in Alaska as well. In the winter time the interior of Alaska regularly reaches below −60 °F (-52 °C). For crying out loud, there are parts of Alaska that average a low temp of 34 °F (1 °C) in July!
> 
> In 1971 temps were measured in the interior at −80 °F (-64 °C).
> 
> To say that parts of N. America are not as extreme as Russia is a very false statement.



Adler, I will concede that Alaska perhaps has a roughly similar winter climate, but that's not the point, the point is that the GMC wasn't anymore reliable than the Opel Blitz in such an environment. Why would it be ? Was it a Diesel ? No.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Is there actual 100% proof for vice versa? Have there been tests that will prove either one?
> 
> If not then any and all of this is nothing more than opinion or speculation. We know what your opinion of opinions is, based off of your post in the Best Jet of the 50s thread.




Is there any proof that the GMC is more reliable Adler ? No. So why then start bashing at me ? I'm not the one claiming one truck to be better than the other, remember! 

If you have an axe to grind with me then tell me.


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Right back at ya
> Now lets see the proof that the GMC does better at freezing temperatures than the Opel Blitz. I'd certainly like to see it.


 to paraphrase Mr Rogers "Can you say *Alaska Highway*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Adler, I will concede that Alaska perhaps has a roughly similar winter climate, but that's not the point, the point is that the GMC wasn't anymore reliable than the Opel Blitz in such an environment. Why would it be ? Was it a Diesel ? No.



Where is your documented proof that the GMC was unreliable in that kind of environment. I don't care if it is a diesel or not. If it were unreliable then GMC would have made it a diesel.

Without documented proof that compares the two vehicles, you are speculating and giving opinion. Am I right or wrong?


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> to paraphrase Mr Rogers "Can you say *Alaska Highway*?"



LoL, can you say Russia, winter, 1941/42/43 ??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Is there any proof that the GMC is more reliable Adler ? No. So why then start bashing at me ? I'm not the one claiming one truck to be better than the other, remember!
> 
> If you have an axe to grind with me then tell me.



I am not bashing you Soren. Just because someone asks your for fact and not opinion or speculation, does not mean they are bashing you.

You are claiming that one truck is better. You are saying that the Opel is more reliable. I will be honest, I do not know which one is more reliable. 

I do however want you to show me how it is more reliable. In order to do that, you need to show documented proof that compares the two trucks. Why, because you are the one that is claiming that one is better than the other. I am not the one trying to prove anything.

So again I ask you this? Is it fact that the Opel is better, or is it just your opinion, or are you speculating? Simple question...


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Where is your documented proof that the GMC was unreliable in that kind of environment. I don't care if it is a diesel or not. If it were unreliable then GMC would have made it a diesel.
> 
> Without documented proof that compares the two vehicles, you are speculating and giving opinion. Am I right or wrong?



Again, I am not the one in here saying one truck is better than the other, so why ask such a question Adler ? Why is it you love taking sides against me ?


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not bashing you Soren.
> 
> You are claiming that one truck is better. You are saying that the Opel is more reliable. I will be honest, I do not know which one is more reliable.
> 
> I do however want you to show me how it is more reliable. In order to do that, you need to show documented proof that compares the two trucks. Why, because you are the one that is claiming that one is better than the other. I am not the one trying to prove anything.



No no no, I have NEVER said that the Opel is more reliable EVER. I have compared it to the GMC, that is all. 

So again, I am not the one saying one is better than the other, so I have nothing to prove here. Can't say the same about pbfoot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Again, I am not the one in here saying one truck is better than the other, so why ask such a question Adler ? Why is it you love taking sides against me ?



Again Soren, I am not picking on you. All I am asking you, is how you can conclude that that Opel was 100% better than the GMC in an environment like Russia. The GMC was used in Alaska, where it worked just fine.

I am not saying that one is better than the other. I have already stated that I do not know (nor do I really care which is better), I just want to know where are the conclusive facts. Without them, this is all just speculation or opinion (not just by you...). True or false?


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

It truly is speculation Adler, I agree. That is why I have NEVER claimed the Opel Blitz to be better than the GMC anywhere, but I have also made it clear that there is no proof that the GMC is better than the Opel Blitz anywhere. That is all.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Now I asked pbfoot to supply proof that the GMC was better than the Opel Blitz at freezing temperatures, to which he responded:
_"to paraphrase Mr Rogers "Can you say Alaska Highway?""_

So he obviously seems to say that the GMC is better than the Opel Blitz. He however felt the need to then send me a PM calling me a "Pinhead" and claiming he never said one was better than the other.

Now if you felt the need to PM me that message because you were provoked by me saying: _"Can't say the same about pbfoot"_ , then remember pbfoot that you started by saying: _"God I've never seen any one know so little about so much "_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2009)

Lets play nice people...


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

Soren, this belongs in a thread for "most coldest winters" .... 

But the north central part of North America hits the -30/-40F range every winter, and thats exclusive of wind chill, which can bring the temp down to the -60/-70 range.

The Canadian provinces get a tad cooler than the US states, (exclusive of Alaska) and I see they hit the -40F/-50F range on occasion.

That part of North America has a contiental climate, and as expected, has cold brutal winters. Just like Siberia. In fact, the cold polar airmasses that orgionate in Siberia migrate over to North America and give us blasts of cold arctic air. And if theres a good wind associated with it, the folks in the midwest call it an "Alberta Clipper".

Thats your meteorology lesson for the day.

BTW, the US auto and truck makers produce their vehicals to work in that weather with reliability. Its just a fact of life.

BTW, how did your "Blitz" do in the jungles and mud of the Solomons and New Guuinea? How did it handle the salt and coral dust of the atolls of the Pacific?


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2009)

OK I'm sorry I slandered the pinhead but I haven't even mentioned GMC in this thread ,alls I said was weather in eastern europe and asia was no different then weather in places with similar latitudes . So i suggest that Soren RTFQ


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Syscom,

There is still no proof what'so'ever provided that the GMC is better in those climates than the Opel Blitz. Also why would it be ?

And forget about the "The US built trucks to work in those environments" explanation, cause so did the Germans. The German car industry was world renowned and built cars trucks for every theater. You don't think that the Saharan desert was abit harder on a trucks' engine than the humid Jungles ?

Come on syscom, use your logic and sense of realism here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2009)

Again everyone, play nice!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Syscom,
> 
> There is still no proof what'so'ever provided that the GMC is better in those climates than the Opel Blitz. Also why would it be ?



Nor is there proof for the Opel...


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Syscom,
> 
> There is still no proof what'so'ever provided that the GMC is better in those climates than the Opel Blitz. Also why would it be ?
> 
> ...



Everyone discovered that the jungles of the SW Pacific were a unique envoirnment that few were prepared for. The constant humdity and rain, the mold, mildew, and other things just wore machinery out. The desert is the desert. The jungles are jungles. 

The GMC and Studebaker 6x6's worked fine although their life span was considerably shorter than planned due to the brutal conditions. In fact, the nicest thing about them were their ability to be used with minimal logistical support. And thats important when youre 30 days away from any type of supply depot.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Nor is there proof for the Opel...



Exactly


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Nor is there proof for the Opel...




But we know the US trucks operated in those climes, and the opels didnt.

Ones fact, the others comjecture.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Everyone discovered that the jungles of the SW Pacific were a unique envoirnment that few were prepared for. The constant humdity and rain, the mold, mildew, and other things just wore machinery out. The desert is the desert. The jungles are jungles.
> 
> The GMC and Studebaker 6x6's worked fine although their life span was considerably shorter than planned due to the brutal conditions. In fact, the nicest thing about them were their ability to be used with minimal logistical support. And thats important when youre 30 days away from any type of supply depot.



No doubt Syscom, but the same can be said about the Opel Blitz, the Germans praised it for its performance in all theaters, from the desert landscape of the Sahara to the extreme climates of Russia. That's the prime reason it remained their prime truck throughout the war.

So the point here is that we can't really say one was better than the other.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> But we know the US trucks operated in those climes, and the opels didnt.
> 
> Ones fact, the others comjecture.



What ? Opels didn't operate in Jungles ? You seem to be missing out on the fact that a lot of Opels were exported.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> But we know the US trucks operated in those climes, and the opels didnt.
> 
> Ones fact, the others comjecture.



Which climate is more harsh is up for debate. A debate that I do not think anyone can prove. I would wager that the Eastern Front was harsher though.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

We forgot the British Leyland Hippo btw:


----------



## renrich (May 4, 2009)

We do know that much of the transport of the Wehrmacht, I have heard more than half, was horses. They work pretty well in all sorts of weather, if they are fed, watered and rested. I read somewhere that 2.7M horses were used by the German Army in WW2.


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

renrich said:


> We do know that much of the transport of the Wehrmacht, I have heard more than half, was horses. They work pretty well in all sorts of weather, if they are fed, watered and rested. I read somewhere that 2.7M horses were used by the German Army in WW2.



And used as food if the situation requires it.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 4, 2009)

I'm now where my parents stay in Sweden, called Östersund, which is higher on this pea that we call earth than Anchorage in Alaska. When I still lived here, I was used to work outside in way below -30C and our construction workers are still working at -20C and only stop working when it falls below -25C...
Not far from where I stay it every so often falls below -40C and -50C....
Now that I've rubbed shoulders with everybody about where it's cold and snowy etc....   

I think that everybody here's correct about the GMC and Opel. First with the US, its mountain states and having close to Canada with the cold and snow, I'm sure that it could handle that just as well as the Opel. Then you have the interests that US had in Asia, must have been a few GMC there too, just as well as Opel, with the Dutch East Indies, thinking that Holland must have bought a few Opels from Germany before the war. I mean, didn't Germany export WAY more than they imported in the 30's and isn't trucks usually a big part of a countrys export, must have been a few Opels in there, right?  
Another thing, with all the cold in Russia, there's one thing missing that you saw in Norway and Austria-Italy.....high mountains! Did the Allied ever cross over the border between Italy and Austria to try their GMC's etc. on harsh slippery winter mountain roads?  
Btw, how many tracked trucks, Maultiers, did the Wermacht have compared to the Allied? Must have been a few half track Opel, Steyr, Mercedes and Ford...


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Another thing, with all the cold in Russia, there's one thing missing that you saw in Norway and Austria-Italy.....high mountains! Did the Allied ever cross over the border between Italy and Austria to try their GMC's etc. on harsh slippery winter mountain roads?


Rockies, Coastals, Cascades and all were crossed with construction of the Alaska Highway which BTW was the second costliest project of WW2 right behind the Manhattan project


----------



## Lucky13 (May 4, 2009)

True uncle PB...but, it's nice and quiet there! No planes throwing nasty small and large metal objects at you, or grumpy men with big guns around a corner...not a single tin can in the road that says *BOOM* when you step or run over it.


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> True uncle PB...but, it's nice and quiet there! No planes throwing nasty small and large metal objects at you, or grumpy men with big guns around a corner...not a single tin can in the road that says *BOOM* when you step or run over it.


Yes your correct but how could there be when they were the first, they didn't have Hannibal to blaze the trails


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2009)

I will say in fairness that coastal Alaska Highway was not as cold as central and NW Russia. IMO, you still need to warm the block to crank a gas/petrol engine in either location in deep winter most of the time


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Yeah I was researching abit about the weather and the places where the Alaskan Highway runs through aren't as cold as it got in Russia. Furthermore the trucks running through the Alaskan highway atleast had some fairly good road surfaces to run on, something which wasn't really the case for the Germans in mid Russia. So I don't believe that the Alaskan highway was one of the worst places the GMC had to work in.

Even France was sometimes a very hard environment for any truck:


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Yeah I was researching abit about the weather and the places where the Alaskan Highway runs through aren't as cold as it got in Russia. Furthermore the trucks running through the Alaskan highway atleast had some fairly good road surfaces to run on, something which wasn't really the case for the Germans in mid Russia. So I don't believe that the Alaskan highway was one of the worst places the GMC had to work in.
> 
> Even France was sometimes a very hard environment for any truck:


Research more


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

pbfoot,

I can't use comments like that for much. I researched where the highway runs and while it got extremely cold in some places Russia actually got abit colder. But thats not the important part really, the important part is the roads, and the Alaskan Highway atleast had some reasonable road surfaces to offer.


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> and the Alaskan Highway atleast had some reasonable road surfaces to offer.




Not while it was under construction.


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> pbfoot,
> 
> I can't use comments like that for much. I researched where the highway runs and while it got extremely cold in some places Russia actually got abit colder. But thats not the important part really, the important part is the roads, and the Alaskan Highway atleast had some reasonable road surfaces to offer.



Where is the reasonable surface? 
it was a highway where no other road existed for 100's of kilometres in cold weather for weather look up Watson Lake where the mean temp in Jan is -24c

BTW I for simple nationalistic reasons opt for the CMP trucks of which approx 800k were built


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 4, 2009)

According to "The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II" the standard Opel Blitz used an Opel 6 Cylinder gasoline engine.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Sure did, just like the GMC truck, they were both gasoline powered.

Another truck we forgot is the German Enheits Diesel truck, a 80 hp Diesel truck which did marvelously on the Eastern front, esp. during the winter months where it was one of the few machines running around reliably.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Einheit Diesels Opel Blitz's together. (4 Diesels front, 2 Opels back)


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

There's also the 105 hp Diesel Büssing NAG 500 A-1 4x4 truck of which more than 14,800 were built:


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 4, 2009)

At least 75% of Opel Blitz's were 4x2, versus the almost 100% of the GMC 6x6. Just thinking out loud, but would that not indicate better traction?

There is a reason why the Germans had to use so many half tracks.


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Research more



This pic looked at lot like ALCAN highway in late Spring. Well prepared surfaces were not 'contiguous' for a long time after WWII.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2009)

Wasn't Alaskan Highway gravel while the Russian roads were nothing more than dirt?


----------



## pbfoot (May 5, 2009)

drgondog said:


> This pic looked at lot like ALCAN highway in late Spring. Well prepared surfaces were not 'contiguous' for a long time after WWII.


I see deciduous trees as opposed to coniferous and the they would be the latter in the Yukon Alaska area I think


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2009)

That's crazy talk PB! Anyone can see that it's just around the corner from where my parents stay here in Sweden.....get a grip on yourself will ya...geeessh!


----------



## Juha (May 5, 2009)

As I already wrote in my message #4, German themselves noted that LL Studebakers plough on through mud when German trucks got struck into it during winter 1943/44 in Ukraina. Probably most German trucks in question were 4x2 trucks, as most of them were anyway but units in question 3., 13., etc PzDivs were first class units and probably had best available equipment.

Soren
Quote:” Safe perhaps from the Russian winter were every gas powered vehicle ground to a halt.”

Where you got that idea? I have driven gasoline run cars here in Finland on winters 35 years, and winters are or at least were very harsh here, only once I had a problem because of cold, when I parked a car, a French made, in a very windy place over a very cold weekend. That was in 70s and the car was rather old. I know that batteries , engine oils and lubricants were then better than in 40s but still. And during Winter War (winter 39-40 which was exceptional cold) Finnish could use their lorries/trucks and cars without unduly difficulties over the front from 25 km NW of Leningrad to over 1000 km North of Leningrad. One must only know a few tricks, which were same to diesel and gasoline engine vehicles, how to act during very cold periods.

Quote:” The problem is that the GMC CCKW never got the chance to try an environment as tough as that of the Russian winter, where every gas powered vehicle ground to a halt.”

But Studebaker made 2½ ton trucks were there, very many of them, just across frontline, so wholly meaningless argument.

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2009)

Talking about the Finska Vinterkriget, have you any idea what trucks the Swedes used on the Petsamo Trafiken? Was it Volvos...

Hang on, found my dads book about it, after he told me where it was...

Here it says that the Swedish Airforce had studied the traffic and concluded in secret document that THE best trucks for the summer and winter traffic was either the Volvo L90 or L94 and Scania-Vabis.
The Volvos having a straight Volvo or Hesselman six on 90hp.
Ford and Chevrolet were NOT recommended!


----------



## renrich (May 5, 2009)

I had a turbo charged diesel, a Mercedes, that I used in Crested Butte for a while, in the winter. The low temp record for the continental US used to be from near there, minus 64 degrees, and 35 to 40 degrees below is normal. I found that operation of the diesel was not nearly as trouble free as a gasoline engine. Hard to start, very low power until up to operating temp and the engine needed to be left running as much as possible rather than cut off when not being used. It was kept in a garage at night and I had a long, perhaps quarter mile, driveway with a steep grade up to the highway. This was at about 8000 feet above SL. Once the engine was warmed up, perhaps three minutes, where there was enough power to back out of the garage, I proceeded up the driveway which was relatively flat until approaching the highway where the grade was about ten per cent. Attacking that ten per cent grade onto a highway where cars were moving at 55 mph, I had to make sure there was no traffic in sight either way, because I could not get but about 1000 RPM out of that diesel and getting up the grade was a slow proposition. Once I reached the highway which was flat, I poured on the coal and we gradually edged up to 2000 RPM, where the turbo charger cut in and then, relatively speaking, I had power and away we would go. It was really humorous. To me, diesels, high altitudes and sub zero temps don't mix well. Of course, this was in the early 80s and improvements must have been made.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2009)

Juha said:


> As I already wrote in my message #4, German themselves noted that LL Studebakers plough on through mud when German trucks got struck into it during winter 1943/44 in Ukraina. Probably most German trucks in question were 4x2 trucks, as most of them were anyway but units in question 3., 13., etc PzDivs were first class units and probably had best available equipment.



A 6x6 truck will do better in mud than a 4x2, there's no doubt about that, it's a matter of traction. But the Germans employed 4x4 6x6 trucks as-well. So you most have a selective memory Juha, cause if a Studebaker could get through then I know a lot of German trucks could too. So lets cut the bias Juha.



> Soren
> Quote:” Safe perhaps from the Russian winter were every gas powered vehicle ground to a halt.”
> 
> Where you got that idea? I have driven gasoline run cars here in Finland on winters 35 years, and winters are or at least were very harsh here, only once I had a problem because of cold, when I parked a car, a French made, in a very windy place over a very cold weekend. That was in 70s and the car was rather old. I know that batteries , engine oils and lubricants were then better than in 40s but still. And during Winter War (winter 39-40 which was exceptional cold) Finnish could use their lorries/trucks and cars without unduly difficulties over the front from 25 km NW of Leningrad to over 1000 km North of Leningrad. One must only know a few tricks, which were same to diesel and gasoline engine vehicles, how to act during very cold periods.



Juha read about it, the German vehicles froze down, only the Russian tanks could move around reliable because of their diesel engines. The Germans had to keep their engines running, cause if they turned them off they might not get them started again. A diesel doesn't have that problem, it features reheating glow pipes.



> Quote:” The problem is that the GMC CCKW never got the chance to try an environment as tough as that of the Russian winter, where every gas powered vehicle ground to a halt.”
> 
> But Studebaker made 2½ ton trucks were there, very many of them, just across frontline, so wholly meaningless argument.
> 
> Juha



I'd really like to see any German claiming that the Studebaker ploughed through where German trucks couldn't, and I'd like to see how anyone could ever backup such a statement.

If its a matter of the guy in question was talking about 4x2 trucks vs a 6x6 truck, well then that explains it, otherwise it's quite simply hogwash.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> At least 75% of Opel Blitz's were 4x2, versus the almost 100% of the GMC 6x6. Just thinking out loud, but would that not indicate better traction?



Problem with that theory is that the Germans had plenty of 4x4 6x6 trucks as-well.



> There is a reason why the Germans had to use so many half tracks.



And what reason would that be ? 

The reason that the Germans used so many halftracks is simply because they are way superior to ANY truck when it comes to negotiating through any form of landscape.


----------



## Juha (May 5, 2009)

Soren
Quote:” But the Germans employed 4x4 6x6 trucks as-well. So you most have a selective memory Juha, cause if a Studebaker could get through then I know a lot of German trucks could too. So lets cut the bias Juha.”

First of all, it is You who is extraordinary biased. And once again, Germany’s problem was that vast bulk of its trucks used in first line combat formations were 4x2 and so didn’t cope with muddy enviroments. There were lots more Studebakers than those German trucks which could cope thaw period in Ukraina.

On winter use of gasoline engined trucks, Finns managed use them OK, vast majority of them were US made civil trucks and if you bothered to look from a map where Finland and think, You should understand that gasoline engined trucks could work well in very could climate. If German trucks froze down, the problem was with those trucks and/or with their drivers. Low temperature is very hard to batteries, with flat battery how you use reheating glow pipes. And definitely you seemed to know nothing on real winter vehicle maintenance.

Quote:” I'd really like to see any German claiming that the Studebaker ploughed through where German trucks couldn't, and I'd like to see how anyone could ever backup such a statement.”

Again, Heer’s problem was that so few of its trucks were 4x4 or 6x6, and its mobility on thaw periods suffered massively on that, on the other hand US automobile industry turned out hundred of thousands 2½ ton trucks which could cope in those environments. They designed a truck which had good cross-country capabilities and which was also possible to really mass-produce.

I didn’t find the source but E. Ziemke in his Stalingrad to Berlin on pp 241-42 say the same on LL trucks vs German trucks in more general way.

So I bothered to dig out a source, would you give your source, if you have any, to your strange claim on Zitadelle losses which you gave in “Tank commanders, who was best?” –tread in your message #21, I mean exact source(s) not like Kirosheev others. And of course the source(s) to your claim that “the Russian winter were every gas powered vehicle ground to a halt.” 

Juha


----------



## pbfoot (May 5, 2009)

If you ever visit an extremely cold place one of the things you'll notice is that people will not shut down diesels and let them get cold because they are harder to start in cold . Now realize it probably takes a few hours for the engine to cool after being warm but if a diesel gets really cold it might need ether to start


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 5, 2009)

Soren said:


> Problem with that theory is that the Germans had plenty of 4x4 6x6 trucks as-well.



The arguement I believe you were making was that the Opel Blitz was just as good as the Duece and a Half. The Opel Blitz was not 6x6, the Duece was.

The only 6x6 I know of that the Germans used were the Czech Tatras - where there others?



Soren said:


> And what reason would that be ?
> 
> The reason that the Germans used so many halftracks is simply because they are way superior to ANY truck when it comes to negotiating through any form of landscape.



I can quote "The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II", page 75:

"The frist winter of the war in the USSR (1941-2) demonstrated to the German army that most of its wheeled transport was completely unable to deal with the dreadful muddy conditions..."

The Russian in their Dueces did not appear to have this problem.

Diesel also gels in extreme cold, so I'm not sure of the advantage they would have over petrol in the extreme cold.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 5, 2009)

Soren said:


> Juha read about it, the German vehicles froze down, only the Russian tanks could move around reliable because of their diesel engines. The Germans had to keep their engines running, cause if they turned them off they might not get them started again. A diesel doesn't have that problem, it features reheating glow pipes.



In post #133 you stated:

"Another truck we forgot is the German Enheits Diesel truck, a 80 hp Diesel truck which did marvelously on the Eastern front, esp. during the winter months where it was one of the few machines running around reliably."


Huh?


----------



## syscom3 (May 5, 2009)

Soren, half tracks while superior for cross country travel, have distinct disadvantages for road travel.

The GMC and Studebaker 6x6's worked very well on road (and unimproved roads) which gave the allies a tremendous logistical capability.

They were also "good enough" off road to be extremely usefull.


----------



## Juha (May 6, 2009)

Very true Pbfoot.
I haven’t personally drive a diesel vehicle, at least I don’t recall. But during my military service during one winter manoeuvres a diesel 4x4 agricultural tractor with trailer and its driver were attached into my squad. The weather happened to be very cold for SE Finland c. -30deg C at coldest and the driver had to be awakened at least a couple times during a night to run the diesel 20-30min so that the engine would not got too cold.

While gasoline engine cars use same gasoline around year here at least for a couple last decades they have sold special winter-grade diesel oil during winters because the regular diesel oil tended to congeal, if that is the right term, in winter temperatures and so makes life difficult to diesel engines. Because the winter-grade diesel oil might begin evaporate, again maybe not the right term, at summer temperatures they sell it only during winters.

Juha


----------



## renrich (May 6, 2009)

Juha, good points and the same as I have tried to make. Diesels are a lot of trouble in cold temps and I speak from personal experience.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 6, 2009)

A-Fricken-Men!!!


----------



## Soren (May 6, 2009)

Funny how the Russians kept their Diesel engined tanks running while the German gasoline engined tanks froze down. Answer is the reheaters used in Soviet tanks, and the lack of fuel addictives given to the German army as they thought the war would be over before winter.

Onwards;

The Einheits Diesel is a 80 hp 6x6 Diesel truck, widely used by the Wehrmacht during WW2, so it should do better in muddy terrain than the Deuce a half. 

But this was far from the only truck that the Germans used on large scale, there were also for example the following:

Mercedes Benz L4500A, 112 hp, 4x4, Diesel. (?) 
Büssing NAG 500A, 105 hp, 4x4, Diesel. (14,813 built)
Klücker Deutz A330, 80 hp, 4x4, Diesel. (~5,900 built)
Opel Blitz 6700A, 78 hp, 4x4, Gasoline. (24,981 built)

As for the Opel Blitz, the majority were 4x2's, however one third were 4x4's. So the traction of the Opel Blitz was, while maybe very slightly less than the GMC CCKW, still very good. But to make amends for that the Opel Blitz has a higher carrying capabillity than the GMC CCKW.

That is why I say one can't be said to be better than the other.


----------



## Soren (May 6, 2009)

This is a pretty good picture of a Klücker Deutz A330 truck displaying its' excellent off-road capabilities:


----------



## drgondog (May 6, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I see deciduous trees as opposed to coniferous and the they would be the latter in the Yukon Alaska area I think



Pb - I was waxing a little poetic on the mud. Of course you are right on the differences!


----------



## syscom3 (May 6, 2009)

Soren said:


> This is a pretty good picture of a Klücker Deutz A330 truck displaying its' excellent off-road capabilities:



Do all the hoods on the German trucks pop open when the going gets rough?


----------



## Soren (May 6, 2009)

Syscom, are you serious ? Have you nothing else to say ? Something intelligent perhaps ?

The hood is left open, it hasn't popped open, you can even see the rod hinge it is resting on.


----------



## syscom3 (May 6, 2009)

So the engine has failed?


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

Christ syscom 

But no, I don't think that's likly since it's hurling itself over obstacles on the picture


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> As for the Opel Blitz, the majority were 4x2's, however one third were 4x4's. So the traction of the Opel Blitz was, while maybe very slightly less than the GMC CCKW, still very good. But to make amends for that the Opel Blitz has a higher carrying capabillity than the GMC CCKW.
> 
> That is why I say one can't be said to be better than the other.



A 4x4 has very slighly less traction then a 6x6? What is your backup for that statement?

and just to point out, that the Blitz is carrying more load over one axle with 4 tires while the GMC carries less over two axels with 8 tires. Which vehicle will sink into the mud first?


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> A 4x4 has very slighly less traction then a 6x6? What is your backup for that statement?



What my backup is ? Well I've driven all kinds of offroad vehicles, and the difference between a 6x6 4x4 is really minimal. In rocky terrain a 4x4 is sometimes even better. As for in mud, 6x6 for sure, but that's a given.



> and just to point out, that the Blitz is carrying more load over one axle with 4 tires while the GMC carries less over two axels with 8 tires. Which vehicle will sink into the mud first?



In very muddy soil a 6 wheeled truck will naturally sink in slower than a 4 wheeled truck, no doubt about it. But on a icy road a 6 wheeler will skid around more than a 4 wheeler, so it adds up. 

I really don't think either truck is better than the other.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 7, 2009)

When going got tough, the Opel, Ford and Mercedes Maultiers must have beaten any truck, or?

Opel Maultier: 1.741 
Mercedes Maultier: 1.400
Steyr, Klockner-Deutz-Magirus, Wanderer RSO: 28.000


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

Ofcourse, but they were also halftracks. 

The Wanderer RSO was an excellent vehicle btw, great as an all terrain vehicle, no wonder so many were produced:


----------



## Lucky13 (May 7, 2009)

Didn't MAN make trucks during WWII?


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

Yeah they did, but they were merged with Büssing NAG IIRC.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 7, 2009)

Oh riiight.... So that's when they're called Man-Büssing then?


----------



## Juha (May 7, 2009)

Hello Soren
Quote:” The Einheits Diesel is a 80 hp 6x6 Diesel truck, widely used by the Wehrmacht during WW2, so it should do better in muddy terrain than the Deuce a half.”

Einheit Diesels were heavier than Douce halfs, 7,3 – 7,5 tons vs. c. 6850 kg max weights. But have you info on torque of Einheit’s engine and on its wheel size? Those would give some indications to how well a vehicle manages over soft terrain. of course one ought to also know gear rations and how much power gets to wheels.

According to the reprint of wartime British Army “Data Book of Wheeled Vehicles” GMC CCKW, GMC 270 engine Max bhp 95 @ 3000rpm Max torque 2580 lbs.ins @ 1000 rpm tyre size 7.5 x 20. The book and also "U.S. Army Military Vehicles WW2" reprint of wartime Technical Manual No. 9-2800, which gives the engine power of GMC CCKW as 104bhp, give also info on gear rations etc. 
 
One other question, what is your source to info that Opel Blitz had 78bhp engine? Quarrie's Encyclopedia of the German Army in the 20th Century gives to it engine power as 68bhp at 3000rpm, and same info is on my second source, not itself a best one but anyway they are usually reliable, namely, uh, the instruction sheet of ESCI’s Opel Blitz scale model. Max weight of Blitz was 6100 kg. Havy you info on torque of the Blitz engine and tyre size of the lorry?

Other point
Quote:” Funny how the Russians kept their Diesel engined tanks running while the German gasoline engined tanks froze down.”
Key words are Russians and German, not diesel and gasoline engines. Russians knew the tricks of winter maintenance and Germans were novices on how to cope in winter environment, at least during winter 41/42. 

Ps again, nice pictures

Juha


----------



## pbfoot (May 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> In very muddy soil a 6 wheeled truck will naturally sink in slower than a 4 wheeled truck, no doubt about it. But on a icy road a 6 wheeler will skid around more than a 4 wheeler, so it adds up.
> 
> .


and a 2 wheel drive truck will slide less on ice then a 4 wheel drive truck


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

Juha,

As far as I know the Einheits Diesel wasn't heavier than the GMC CCKW, it was infact lighter according to my sources weighing in at 5,000 kg compared to the 5,420 kg of the GMC CCKW. With max load of 2.5 tons it weighed 7,500 kg. 

As for torque, well it's a diesel so naturally it should have loads more torque. 

As for tires and such, I have the info but I hardly have the time to write it down right now. I'll get to it later today, cause I have the figures for all the trucks here.


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> and a 2 wheel drive truck will slide less on ice then a 4 wheel drive truck



Huh ? And exactly why would it do that ? You got the same load distribution, which is what matters on ice, the smaller a area you can focus your weight the better.


----------



## pbfoot (May 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> Huh ? And exactly why would it do that ? You got the same load distribution, which is what matters on ice, the smaller a area you can focus your weight the better.



I wouldn't use 4x4 on ice it makes the vehicle harder to control


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

Juha,

On the Opel Blitz, the power of the engine was 78 hp up until around 1943 where a limiter was put on the engine limiting it too 68 hp. This was to increase the engine lifespan while still keeping the same amount of torque.


----------



## Juha (May 7, 2009)

Hello Soren
my weights are max loaded weights.

Yes, I know that in principle Diesels usually has more torque than same power gasoline engine, but it also depended on engines we are comparing and GMC 270 engine had 15bhp more power.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

Well I did double checks and the Einheits Diesel is lighter than the GMC CCKW, it weighes 5,000 kg with fuel and equipment, while the GMC weighes 5,420 kg. Both can handle 2.5 tons cargo. (Maybe the GMC can only handle short tonnes?)

As for the GMC 270 engine, I believe the 104 hp rating was achieved after WW2, and even later 148 hp was achieved. But during WW2 the power rating of the engine was 91.5 hp according to all my sources.


----------



## Juha (May 7, 2009)

According to this site that gives a bit higher weights than my wartime manuals
http://www.gmccckw.nl/tekstpagina's/textpages_ENG/maten_en_gewichten_ENG.htm
even with a winch, which would have been a great help in difficult terrain, the empty weight is clearly lower. And IMHO the winchless weights are what we should use. BTW what are your sources?

On 104bhp, it is highly unlikely that in wartime manual they would gave post-war figures. But hps are not unambiguous so it is difficult to say anything sure on that. The British manuals 95 bhp may well be same as 91,5 hps, it just depends according to which standard the hp is measured.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

Juha,

I now know what the difference is. The Germans always list empty weight as the vehicle with full fuel equipment, while the US list actual empty weight with no fuel equipment, that seems to be the trend. 

So the GMC CCKW is infact heavier than the Einheits Diesel, by some 420 kg when fully fueled and equipped. I suspect the extra weight is from the double rear wheels of GMC truck.

The actual empty weight of the Einheits Diesel is 4,600 kg according to my sources. And amusingly enough it is actually written on the truck itself, so I can't believe I missed it:





My primary source on the German trucks is Frank Reinhard btw, which lists all empty weights as with full fuel equipment.


----------



## Juha (May 7, 2009)

Soren
Nice and informative picture, thanks for that.
Still, can you tell me your source to your GMC CCKW weight?

Yes, the way how different nations definite things might vary but I don’t buy your explanation. The British book is, as I have told, a wartime handbook for British Army transport officers, they ought to know how much vehicles weight, how much load they could carry etc. And it says that unladen weight was 4 tons 13½ cwt and laden(5,000lbs) weight 6 tons 18 1/4 cwt for Deuce half and plus how the weight was distributed onto different axels. The US Army manual says that GMC CCKW weighted net 10,050 or 10,100 lbs depended on wheelbase payload was 5,000lb and gross was 15,050 or 15,100 lbs. Explanations say in the US manual Net weight = Weight of vehicle in operating condition without crew or payload.

On the other hand British defination of unladen weight for their own vehicles but tank transporters was for the complete vehicle (chassis, cab and body) EXCLUDING all following items: weight of fuel in tanks and spare petrol carriers, weight of spare wheel and tyre, weight of vehicle tools and chains, weight of W.D. vehicle equipment (picks, showels etc.), weight of driver and mate. Tank Transporter unladen weights INCLUDE all those items. 
So bit complicated and one might easily get confused.

And once again those figures are from wartime manuals and handbooks, so they should be reliable.

Juha


----------



## renrich (May 7, 2009)

I am not an expert, of course. Only owned four wheel drives since 1980 and have two now but a little personal experience from earlier days. In 61-62, I was on active duty in the 49th AD in central Louisiana, training in case we had to kick the ass of the Warsaw Pact countries after the Soviets built the Berlin wall. I pity those poor bastards if we had unleashed the 49th on them. LOL Anyway that winter we were on a three week excercise called Iron Dragoon, I think. I was in the head quarters company of the division and was part of the medical support for the Alternate CP. They divided the headquarters in two and kept us miles apart in case the bad guys nuked one of the CPs of the division. We had the Asst, Div. Cmdr. with us and we were moving the CP so the bad guys couldn't pin point us and it was raining like a tall cow peeing on a flat rock. We got to this place where we were supposed to bivouack and this Colonel said pull off this road and set up for the night out in this field. Some EM said, "Err,****, Sir, it looks pretty soupy out there." The Colonel says," This is where the map say we are supposed to be, get out there." "But, Sir, we probably might get stuck out there." "Get your ass out there." "Yes Sir." So we began to pull our vehicles out there. I am the driver of a 3/4 ton Box Ambulance, about the equivalent of a Dodge Power Wagon with four wheel drive, for those old enough to remember them. Pretty soon vehicles start going down in the ooze. The officers say, " Break out the axes and saws and build a corduroy road out of the local pine trees." Next thing you know we have a casualty, fellow tries to cut off his leg with an axe and damn near succeeds. "Medic, where the hell are the medics?" Here I come, Sir, as fast as I can drive my ambulance. I get to where the casualty is, stop, and my ambulance sinks into the muck, listing to the port side so the running board is submerged on my side. They load our patient inside. I am already in four wheel drive and I launch my self toward pavement. No dice, could not move an inch. Finally a few dozen men push and shove and I get some traction and spin out of there throwing mud everywhere to get to pavement and to the hospital at Fort Polk. Naturally, once I get the casualty to the hospital, I sneak into my barracks and take a hot shower. By the time I get back to the bivouack area, it is dark and quite a scene. Lanterns, flashlights and headlights shining. Engines revving, tires spinning, men cursing and almost everyone stuck, except for the 6x6 deuce and a halfs. Jeeps stuck, 3/4 tons stuck. I don't remember if our faithful security platoon with the M41 was there but he might have been stuck too. The next morning, the 6x6s had to be hitched up to all the other vehicles to pull them to pavement. I spent the night sleeping on one of the benchs in my ambulance listing about 15 degrees to the side. 6x6 2 1/2 ton trucks have the best traction in mud of all the wheeled vehicles in my experience in my army.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> What my backup is ? Well I've driven all kinds of offroad vehicles, and the difference between a 6x6 4x4 is really minimal. In rocky terrain a 4x4 is sometimes even better. As for in mud, 6x6 for sure, but that's a given.



The reason why a tank or a half track is so much better then a standard 4 wheeled vehicle is due to the amount of surface contact the vhicle has with the ground. More surface contact typically means more traction. The Duece and a half has 40% more surface contact then an Opel Blitz. If there truly is minimal difference, why would Germany devote precious resources building 6x6 if it did not truly make a difference?



Soren said:


> In very muddy soil a 6 wheeled truck will naturally sink in slower than a 4 wheeled truck, no doubt about it. But on a icy road a 6 wheeler will skid around more than a 4 wheeler, so it adds up.



English Russia » Russian North Truckers

I guess the Russian Ice Road truckers dispagree with you.


----------



## pbfoot (May 7, 2009)

guys 4x4 or 6x6 have zero advantage when driving on ice over 2 wheel drive in fact they are more hazardous. The last thing when driving on ice that I want are more wheels spinning. The only time I would use 4x4 in snow is if its deep or you are on the verge of getting stuck 
qoute from 4 wheeler magazine
"Don't think you're invincible just because you drive a truck or a big sports utility vehicle. While 4-wheel drive vehicles are great for driving in* heavy *snow, you're on your own when it comes to driving on ice. In fact, 4-wheel drive vehicles have no advantage over regular cars when it comes to driving on ice, so be sure to take the necessary safety precautions no matter what type of vehicle you are driving"


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> The reason why a tank or a half track is so much better then a standard 4 wheeled vehicle is due to the amount of surface contact the vhicle has with the ground. More surface contact typically means more traction. The Duece and a half has 40% more surface contact then an Opel Blitz. If there truly is minimal difference, why would Germany devote precious resources building 6x6 if it did not truly make a difference?



It truly doesn't make much difference, and that is why Germany DIDN'T continue building 6x6 trucks, it was a waste of time and money, hence why all future trucks were 4x4's or 6x4's.

Fact of the matter is that in really muddy conditions it doesn't matter wether you got a 4x4 or 6x6 truck, they're both gonna get stuck, esp. during convoy driving. Hence why the Germans built so many haltracks, more than any other nation in the world, cause they just ploughed through in such conditions without any difficulty. 

The advantage was so great that the Germans shifted their attention from trucks, which work great on paved roads, over to halftracks fully tracked movers because of heir infinitely superior performance in rough, hilly, icy muddy terrain, which is what 90% of the battlefield consisted of.


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> guys 4x4 or 6x6 have zero advantage when driving on ice over 2 wheel drive in fact they are more hazardous. The last thing when driving on ice that I want are more wheels spinning. The only time I would use 4x4 in snow is if its deep or you are on the verge of getting stuck
> qoute from 4 wheeler magazine
> "Don't think you're invincible just because you drive a truck or a big sports utility vehicle. While 4-wheel drive vehicles are great for driving in* heavy *snow, you're on your own when it comes to driving on ice. In fact, 4-wheel drive vehicles have no advantage over regular cars when it comes to driving on ice, so be sure to take the necessary safety precautions no matter what type of vehicle you are driving"



When driving on ice you want as much weight divided over as few wheels as possible. So a 4x4 isn't at a disadvantage over a 4x2, its' the same. But a 6x6 is gonna have more problems as its' ground pressure is lower, generally atleast.


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

As for the Einheits Diesel, empty weight is 4,600 kg and max weight is therefore 7,100 kg. So it's very similar to the GMC CCKW which is anywhere from 95 kg to 503 kg heavier.


----------



## Juha (May 8, 2009)

Soren
Quote:” As for the Einheits Diesel, empty weight is 4,600 kg and max weight is therefore 7,100 kg. So it's very similar to the GMC CCKW which is anywhere from 95 kg to 503 kg heavier.”

Now that’s your math but if you calculated from the wartime figures I gave, 2½ ton truck, loaded, weighted 6830 kg (US figure) or 7023kg (British figure) those are without winch but so was also Einheits Diesel.

Quote:”It truly doesn't make much difference, and that is why Germany DIDN'T continue building 6x6 trucks, it was a waste of time and money, hence why all future trucks were 4x4's or 6x4's.

Fact of the matter is that in really muddy conditions it doesn't matter wether you got a 4x4 or 6x6 truck, they're both gonna get stuck, esp. during convoy driving.”

You really should read on combats in southern Ukraina early 44. At least twice Germans who still had the best road in area had to blow up their heavy equipment because they vehicles got struck into heavy mud but Russians with their tanks and LL Studebakers could slowly turn their flanks and treathened to encircle them. So only solution to Germans was walk out and leave the heavy equipments behind. At least men survived but to the nation outproduced by its enemies not a good solution.

On German half-tracks, they were good but almost as complicated to build as a fully tracked vehicles, so sometimes I wonder what was the logic behind that German trend, RSO was much better solution, but US had almost identical M29 light tracked vehicle.
On the other end Maultiers were IMHO better solution than the original German half-tracks, not so formitable but much simpler, so one could made much more of them and in total war numbers were very important. Of course heaviest h-ts were useful for towing heavy guns or as recovery vehicles and lightest as A/T gun tractors but the middle range might be uneconomical to produce after all.

US built over 500 000 6x6 2½t, plus all the 4x4 and 6x6 1½ ton trucks, 6x6 4 ton trucks etc, add the British allwheel drive trucks and you see that German production numbers were rather pathetic.
And then there were high speed tracked tractors etc.

Juha


----------



## Juha (May 8, 2009)

Renrich
thanks for your memories, very interesting.

After all it is the real world which is what matters. Of course it would have been nice if there had been in 40s an independent institute, which would have been testing all WWII vehicles in all kinds of terrains and environments and would have written exhaustive reports on all the tests from which we would be able to look reliable opinion on cross-country capabilities of all vehicles.

Juha


----------



## renrich (May 8, 2009)

Thanks, Juha, I am high on real life experience.


----------



## renrich (May 8, 2009)

I have a hard time believing that 4 wheel drive vehicles are not superior to 2 wheel drives in icy conditions. I have driven a lot in icy conditons in 2 wheel rear drive vehicles, 2 wheel front drive vehicles, all wheel drive vehicles and 4 wheel drive vehicles. I would rank the 2 wheel rear drive as worst. I would rank 2 wheel front drive as pretty good and all wheel or 4 wheel drive as best. I think the reason that 4 wheel drive drivers get in trouble is that they don't realise that 4 wheel drive does not help you stop any faster than with 2 wheel drive. I have driven a lot of Saabs with snow tires and front drive and they do pretty well in icy conditions, especially if the snow tires are studded. The best I have driven for icy conditions was my Audi A6 Quattro with Bridgestone Blizzaks. It also had ESC and it did very well with ice. I am susceptible to learning why 2 wheel drive is better on ice than 4 wheel drive, though.


----------



## Juha (May 8, 2009)

Hello Renrich
Here in Finland snow tires/winter tires are mandatory during the wintertime and most of us like myself used the studded ones. IMHO here the general opinion is that 4 wheel drive is a bit better than front wheel drive but the problem is that if 4 wheel drive car began slide there is not much one can do, on the other hand with 2 wheel drive cars there are techniques by which one can regain control if executed promptly and correctly and there is enough room. These techniques are teach in driving schools and nowadays also tried by pupil drivers on special slippery surface driving sites. In my youth we, who were risktakers and drove often too fast learned them in practise, some in hard way and some died before they learned them. 

Wife of one of my neighbours bought a 4 wheel drive and was very proud of it and told to me how handy it was during winters but she ended up wheels up few yards outside a road and her new car is front wheel drive type.

Juha


----------



## pbfoot (May 8, 2009)

On ice (not snow) I find that I'd much rather have less drive wheels as steering and turning are much easier and if your know your vehicle more predictable .
I realize that as soon as the wheel senses it loose's traction it does not drive but that split second might it takes to disengage might be all it takes to put you into unusual attitudes. Driving on ice is like flying a light aircraft your always looking for a place to let down in case of a forced landing. 
I have no problem saying that 85%of the people driving in ice or heavy snow should be barred


----------



## Soren (May 8, 2009)

Juha said:


> You really should read on combats in southern Ukraina early 44. At least twice Germans who still had the best road in area had to blow up their heavy equipment because they vehicles got struck into heavy mud but Russians with their tanks and LL Studebakers could slowly turn their flanks and treathened to encircle them.



I have read about it thank you, and I don't buy your theory at all. The Soviets were encircling the Germans with *tanks*, which they had an overflow of. The Germans on the other hand were low on fuel, and their horse drawn artillery plowed up the roads to the point where only tracked vehicles could pass. 

Also I think you need to take note that the Russians used tanks tractors mostly to tow their guns, another reason they were able to catch up with the Germans.

As for the Studebakers, they are never mentioned as superior trucks, and why would they be, you need only use your sense of logic here. 

But I'd like to see the docs on the GMC cause apparently you like fleeing from one source to another, and I'd really like to see where the German trucks failed compared to the Allied trucks, cause they didn't.


----------



## Juha (May 8, 2009)

Dear Soren
I have given my sources and the main ones are , as I have wrote already many times, reprints of US and British wartime manuals. You, on the contrary, usally not reveal your sources, even if constantly asked, and I have drawn my conclusion on that and on your past track record, so keep your dreams on German superiority on all fields but do not except that I'll take you seriously if you don't can back up your claims with good, checkable sources.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 8, 2009)

lol Juha, I have presented plenty of sources, both from the internet and books (Remember Frank Reinhards book?). You on the other hand just flee from one source to the other. What is your source on the Einheits Diesel for one ?

And as for you claiming me to be biased, sorry but again you're just pouring out untruths. Remember I am NOT the one saying one truck is better than the other here, YOU are! So keep your unfounded childish accusations to yourself or be ignored for good!


----------



## Juha (May 8, 2009)

My source to Enheits Diesel was the same as to other German trucks, I have already mentioned it already twice, I think. It is Bruce Quarrie’s Encyclopaedia of the German Army in the 20th Century.

And as I wrote that I’ll not take you seriously because of overmentioned reasons, so ignore me if you will, that really doesn’t bother me.

Juha


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> It truly doesn't make much difference, and that is why Germany DIDN'T continue building 6x6 trucks, it was a waste of time and money, hence why all future trucks were 4x4's or 6x4's.



Do you realize this defies the laws of physics about friction (ie traction)?

Please show you source about why Germany stopped producing 6x6 trucks.

The Einhelt (which is the only 6x6 I have seen you mentioned so far) production stopped in 1940 [a year before the invasion of Russia] and production was halted in favor of cheaper two-axle models.
87060 Einheits-Diesel Truck

Not due to the 4x4 having just as good traction as you have stated. 

****

The Road to Victory - The Untold Story of WWII's Red Ball Express
by David P. Colley p171

"To the Americans the Jimmy was the best truck of WWII, as well as the mainstay of the Red Ball Express. Accolades came, and still come, from all quarters. The Jimmy was said to be durable; it was said to outperform it's enemy counterparts and get the job done. Certainly without the Jimmy, it would have taken many more months to subdue Nazi Germany.

According to Thompson and Mayo, "The two-and-a-half-ton truck, a military adaptation of a commercial model, was an immediate success and remained unsurpassed as a general purpose vehicle throughout the war." 'I have seen nothing belonging to our enemies or our Allies that can compare with it,' wrote one combat observer.

Was the Jimmy the best truck of the war? It undoubtedly was"


----------



## Soren (May 8, 2009)

Viking,

Are you seriously basing your belief on some info from a model website ? But even if you are you must be able to realize that nowhere does it contradict what I said. Yes the 4x4 are cheaper, and they were therefore chosen because the 6x6s were a waste of money.

And as for physics, well if you really grasp this well then you'll soon find out that having a 4x4 or 6x6 vehicle makes practically no difference in knee deeb mud, they're both gonna get stuck. That's when the guys in the halftrack come driving past you with a big grin on their face.


----------



## Soren (May 8, 2009)

Oh btw, here's the Studebaker Weasel somebody was talking about earlier:







Not really something I'd call identical to a Steyr RSO.


----------



## Juha (May 9, 2009)

RSO being also rather small, according to Quarrie L: 4,425m W: 1,99m Max weight 5,2 tonnes for the 70bhp gasoline engined /01 or 5,5 tonnes for 66bhp diesel engined /03. Max road speeds 17,2km/h and 14 km/h respectively. Able to tow 2 tonne gun or trailer.

According to US Manual later M29 with 20in tracks Weight 5277lb L: 125 3/4in W:71in 65bhp gasoline engine, max speed allowed 36mph, max allowable towed load 3800 lbs, so its towing capacity was rather close of that of RSO.

Other US high speed tractors, they were tracked vehicles, were clearly bigger and more powerful, take your pick from at least those:
Vehicle, Armoured, Utility, M39 Weight 35,500 lbs, 400bhp engine Max speed 60mph
Tractor, High Speed, 18-ton, M4, Weight 31,400lbs, 210 hp, power from Wiki, max speed allowed 35mph
Tractor, High Speed, 13-ton, M5, Weight 28,000lbs, 235 bhp, max speed allowed 35mph.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> Viking,
> 
> Are you seriously basing your belief on some info from a model website ? But even if you are you must be able to realize that nowhere does it contradict what I said. Yes the 4x4 are cheaper, and they were therefore chosen because the 6x6s were a waste of money.



You mean like this website? I can give you more sources if you like. Actually it does contradict, you stated the reason why Germany stopped producing 6x6 was because there as not much difference in traction between it and the 4x4x.




Soren said:


> And as for physics, well if you really grasp this well then you'll soon find out that having a 4x4 or 6x6 vehicle makes practically no difference in knee deep mud, they're both gonna get stuck. That's when the guys in the halftrack come driving past you with a big grin on their face.



Knee deep mud? I believe we were talking about traction, not knee deep mud. But let's go with your new angle and ignore what we had been talking about. 

So it's only the number of wheels that make a vehicle stuck in mud and nothing to do with weight on the tire footprint????????????


I'm still waiting on those sources of yours.


----------



## syscom3 (May 9, 2009)

I seem to recall that final gear ratio's have a lot to do on the load carrying capabilities and the ability to drive through mud and sand. That "super-low" lever on the transmission is there for a reason!

How did that factor into the performance of the GMC/Studebaker and German models?

Soren, also consider the design simplicity of the US trucks. They had to be transported across the ocean to the theaters of the world. As such, they were designed at the factory to be shipped in several separate sub-assemblies and reassembled on the beach by a few mechanics. And that reassembly was done in an hour or less, using just a simple unpowered knock-down crane and hand tools.

Did your German trucks have this capability?


----------



## pbfoot (May 9, 2009)

Another fact to consider is that Germany was not a large producer of trucks even us northern folks outproduced Germany , Japan and Italy combined by a huge number


----------



## Soren (May 9, 2009)

The official numbers for the RSO are:

Weight with fuel and equipment: 3,500 kg to 3,700 kg 
Maximum loaded weight: 5,200 / 5,500 kg 
Engine: 85 hp Gasoline / 66 hp Diesel
Tope speed: 30 km/h / 17.5 km/h
Towing load: 3+ tons
Carrying load: 1.5 tons

Source: Frank Reinhard

The thing that was great about the RSO was not only its excellent towing capability, but also its carrying capability and space. 

For towing loads heavier than 3 tons the Germans had a vast variety of other tactors, like for example the 90 hp Landsverk 132 which towed 5.5 ton loads in general.


----------



## renrich (May 10, 2009)

On the subject of driving in icy conditions, I have an Infiniti FX45 which has a four wheel drive system that is automatic. Many Nissan vehicles have the same system. The way it works is that starting from a dead stop(regardless of traction conditions) the vehicle is in all wheel drive. As soon as the vehicle is rolling, if no slippage is detected, it goes into rear wheel drive and stays in that mode until(or if) any slippage is sensed. If slippage is detected it goes into all wheel with the amount of traction allocated to front or rear monitered and all of this in conjunction with the anti skid brakes and the electronic stability program. There are similar systems on other manufacturer's models. The issue that occurs to me is if four wheel drive because of steering is deficient in icy conditions, why would Mfgrs. use these systems? Sounds like it could be fertile ground for a law suit.


----------



## Soren (May 10, 2009)

Very true Renrich.


----------



## pbfoot (May 10, 2009)

renrich said:


> On the subject of driving in icy conditions, I have an Infiniti FX45 which has a four wheel drive system that is automatic. Many Nissan vehicles have the same system. The way it works is that starting from a dead stop(regardless of traction conditions) the vehicle is in all wheel drive. As soon as the vehicle is rolling, if no slippage is detected, it goes into rear wheel drive and stays in that mode until(or if) any slippage is sensed. If slippage is detected it goes into all wheel with the amount of traction allocated to front or rear monitered and all of this in conjunction with the anti skid brakes and the electronic stability program. There are similar systems on other manufacturer's models. The issue that occurs to me is if four wheel drive because of steering is deficient in icy conditions, why would Mfgrs. use these systems? Sounds like it could be fertile ground for a law suit.


The only thing that bugs me is the microsecond the wheel takes to go from a drive position to free wheeling is enough to make your day very interesting, as for the lawsuits what does the manual say. If one drives where there is icing conditions pay attention to which vehicles are in the ditch the proportion of people using 4wd seems higher. I live in Niagara falls and in winter depending on the wind the mist from the falls can drift for several km and freezes on the roads quickly they do a great job with the salt but they can't be perfect


----------



## renrich (May 11, 2009)

There is a snow mode switch which can be used in very slick conditions which "softens" the shifts of the trnsmission(5 speeds) I got into a situation about 1.5 years ago which was comical re the snow mode. In February was driving from Gunnison to Montrose which is about 65 miles over two small passes and it was snowing lightly after a fresh snow of about 8-12 inches but it was an absolute white out. The road had been plowed but there was about 2-3 inches on the pavement. The altitude here varies from about 7700 to 5700 feet with the passes about 8500. The game were all along the road as that region had gotten about 250 inches that year. The visibility was about 50 t0 75 feet and I was trying to stay in some faint tracks of a car in front because the boundaries of the road were hard to see. My car had M&S tires and I got into this mess suddenly, had never used the snow mode and did not know how it reacted and was afraid to look down to where the switch was. I kept chugging along at around 25 to 30 mph, straining to see the tracks, with elk and deer periodically looming out of the white along the road shoulders. Anyway finally got home to Montrose where there was 4-5 inches of fresh snow where the roads were not plowed, turned on my snow mode and went around the neighborhood trying it out. Worked fine. The Audi Quattro system is all wheel drive all the time with varying amonts of power shifted front and back and I have a Honda Ridgeline which is also all wheel drive full time. Earlier remarks about legal liability would apply to Audi and Honda also if steering in four wheel drive is deficient on ice, not to mention Subaru!


----------



## Amsel (May 11, 2009)

Living in the central and northern Rockies for half of my life I can speak first hand about the difference between 2 wheel drive and four wheel drive. If you have a rear wheel two wheel drive in the snow and ice you are eventually going to lose control alot easier then with a front wheel or a four wheel drive. I commuted sometimes daily between Kalispell and Missoula when I lived in Montana and truly believe that I would have been in big trouble without 4x4 High. My buddy was miserable with his two wheel drive pick-up ( he let his wife use his new 4x4 in the winter), always chaining up or getting stuck. The stutter when switching into 4x4 can cause you to lose control on some trucks so even though I could switch to 4x4 High going 60 mph I wouldn't do it if I was on snow pack without slowing down. 

On a different note when hauling logs out of the Rockies on those infamous Montana log roads, which are 8ft. wide and full of switchbacks and kelly humps thank goodness, I was in a Kw hauling 80,000 to 100,000 lbs no problem due to the weight of the truck and logs. It even got to a point where you would not have to chain up your tandems and steering because the sheer weight will help you stick to the ground, as long as you never, ever, ever touched the brakes. Jake brake only please.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2009)

In the end it does not matter if you have 4 wheel drive. Ice can make a very bad day for any vehicle. I drive a Jeep and I hit black ice about 2 months ago in an S Turn coming down a hill. I lost total control of my Jeep. Fortunately nothing was hit before I was able to regain control.


----------



## renrich (May 11, 2009)

There has been an article published the last few years in one of the car magazines comparing two sedans driving on ice and their performance. One is the Subaru WRX? and the other is a Mitsubishi Raillart? I think. Both are 4 wheel drive hot rods but I have not paid too much attention to the write ups. I agree with Chris that driving on ice is bad luck. The best tactic I know is to keep all four wheels rolling. Once a wheel or wheels starts skidding there is little control. Came over a hill once on ice at about 50 mph in an Audi Quattro with Blizzaks to see a long line of cars stopped. When I tried to steer into the open lane even that car began to slide but straightened itself out as I lost speed. Whew!


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2009)

Have not read the full extent of this thread, but the bits I have are interesting. In my opinion when looking for the best, one has to equate best, with most cost effective. The ability of trucks to do their job was all about numbers. If you have trucks that are qualitatively the best, but cost three times as much as they should, you have a failure on your hands. Conversely, if you build a cheapie, which is going to fall apart three times more quickly than its competitiors, or not do the job that you need to get done (in terms of cross country capability), you also have a failure on your hands.

Its hard to know if the Germans produced the right types of vehicles for their situation. The Opels were cheap enough but were lightly built, which led to a lot of attrition on the east front. In the mud they had great difficulties, but then so too did the US trucks that equipped the Russian army. Four and six wheel drive vehicles would have improved mobility, but were costly to build (relatively) and therefore availability would haver dropped if that policy had been adopted. Even halftracks proved incapable of satisfactorily coping with the East Front conditions (a big reason why half tracks quickly fell out of favour after the war, as expensive as a proper fully tracked APC, they were only a fraction as good in terms of mobility) e 

I am inclined to think that the germans settled on the best solution that they could, given their very limited vehicle production capabilities. My only real criticism is the multiplicity of types that they used. Pre-war they had recognized the need for standardization, and had partially implemented a rationalization plan that reduced to the number different types in the fleet by about 50%, but this was not a complete solution. And because of the vehicle shortages in the German motor vehicle industry, the Germans were forced to use infereior civilain vehicles, particulalry from France, which almost completely ruined their logistic support network on the east front, since these types were very fragile, and very lacking in off road capability


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 12, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> You mean like this website? I can give you more sources if you like. Actually it does contradict, you stated the reason why Germany stopped producing 6x6 was because there as not much difference in traction between it and the 4x4x.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still waiting Soren


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

Sources for what viking ? 

If you wanna know why the Germans didn't care about manufacturing 6x6's because it was useless, then read Frank Reinhard's series of books. That is my source.

Now what is your sources ? And yes I'd certainly like some from you, cause so far you have presented ZERO, safe ocfourse from a description from a modelling website, which btw doesn't in any way contradict what I said.

So bring your sources which you claim contradict mine or shut up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

renrich said:


> There has been an article published the last few years in one of the car magazines comparing two sedans driving on ice and their performance. One is the Subaru WRX? and the other is a Mitsubishi Raillart? I think. Both are 4 wheel drive hot rods but I have not paid too much attention to the write ups. I agree with Chris that driving on ice is bad luck. The best tactic I know is to keep all four wheels rolling. Once a wheel or wheels starts skidding there is little control. Came over a hill once on ice at about 50 mph in an Audi Quattro with Blizzaks to see a long line of cars stopped. When I tried to steer into the open lane even that car began to slide but straightened itself out as I lost speed. Whew!



Absolutely correct. I actually had to go through the German driving school to get my license when I younger. We had to do winter driving courses. Key is to not panic and apply the break.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> So bring your sources which you claim contradict mine or shut up.



Hey knock it out!

Both of you!


----------



## toadrobot (Jun 9, 2010)

Lucky13 said:


> I'm now where my parents stay in Sweden, called Östersund, which is higher on this pea that we call earth than Anchorage in Alaska. When I still lived here, I was used to work outside in way below -30C and our construction workers are still working at -20C and only stop working when it falls below -25C...
> Not far from where I stay it every so often falls below -40C and -50C....
> Now that I've rubbed shoulders with everybody about where it's cold and snowy etc....
> 
> ...



Wow, I sure wish we shut er down here in the oilpatch in western Canada at minus 25! Ive worked as cold as - 44 and regularly in the minus 30s, and we work with cold (!) steel.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 11, 2010)

US made International Harvester 2.5 ton M5H-6. 6 wheel drive, 111 hp, 5 speed main transmission, 2 speed transfer case, lockers in both rear axles.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 12, 2010)

The *C*anadian *M*ilitary *P*attern trucks built by Ford and Chevrolet. Approximately half a million CMP trucks and over 800,000 trucks overall were built in Canada during the war. A massive effort, more trucks than were built for the German armed forces in the same period a real war winning effort by Canada


----------

