# Raupenschlepper, Ost Artillery tractor.



## davebender (May 22, 2012)

Germany produced this inexpensive artillery tractor like hot rolls. About 25,000 total during 1942 to 1945. During the same time frame Germany produced 16,733 10.5cm artillery pieces. Each light howitzer should have had a prime mover with thousands remaining for AT guns, Nebelwerfer etc. Why isn't the Steyr RSO mentioned in popular histories of the war?

Some nice pictures of a restored Steyr RSO.
Restored Steyr RSO - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 22, 2012)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLh4V_d5n7c_

DAVE, _you_ can drive to Kursk. I prefer to walk and _*keep my hearing*_. Sweet Jeezuz.

Steyr is an Austrian company ... part of the industrial booty the Nazis picked up with their early war effort .... same as Skoda in Czech ... making Panzers.

In contrast, a better yet different vehicle: 57,000 built by war's end, 29,000 of which were built by Ford Canada in Windsor, ON. Your neighbors, , remember.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISQa-Ok6FdM_

MM


----------



## fastmongrel (May 22, 2012)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mgU9apMuFQ_

Want one really really want one. This is proper muddy fun none of that 4x4 rubbish


----------



## davebender (May 22, 2012)

If you are assigned to a WWII era artillery battery then your hearing is probably already gone. 

Morris C8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Looks like the wheeled Morris C8 was Britains equivalent to the Steyr RSO. About 10,000 produced. I'm surprised they didn't use a variant of the tracked Bren carrier as a tow tractor. That wheeled vehicle must have gotten stuck a lot in the mud/snow/soft sand.


----------



## A4K (May 23, 2012)

This is the Steyr RSO in the Heeresgeschichtliches Museum, Vienna:

Picasa Web Albums - Jesús López


----------



## Lucky13 (May 23, 2012)

Always had a soft spot for these RSO's! 8)


----------



## davebender (May 23, 2012)

Reasonably effective and inexpensive to mass produce. Just like the 10.5 cm leFH 18/40 howitzer it towed. That's what it takes to equip over 200 combat divisions.

I'm surprised Germany didn't adopt this solution during the late 1930s rather then marching into Poland and France with horse drawn artillery.


----------



## model299 (May 23, 2012)

I'm thinking that the enclosed cabin and heater (I'm assuming it had one) were VERY much appreciated by the operators during winter months on the Eastern Front.


----------



## A4K (May 24, 2012)

davebender said:


> I'm surprised Germany didn't adopt this solution during the late 1930s rather then marching into Poland and France with horse drawn artillery.



I'm guessing because horses don't drink gasoline...


----------



## Shortround6 (May 24, 2012)

They may have been just a little busy trying to make regular trucks. The road networks in Poland and France don't require fully tracked vehicles for the majority of the year. 

While horse don't drink any gasoline a tracked vehicle will drink _TWICE_ the gasoline a wheel vehicle will. Mr. Bender wants to stretch German gas supplies. Using tracked supply vehicles/tractors on good roads in good weather does the opposite.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 24, 2012)

Influenced by the British Morris gun prime mover, about 800,000 (all versions) of these CMP's were built by GMC Canada and Ford Canada. Not all of those were short wheelbase quads, but all were 4x4. After the war many quads were used in the bush as log-skidders until parts were no longer available. Powered by Ford flat head v8 or GM straight 6. I've seen 'em in Madagascar fitted with Massey Ferguson diesel engines and in the Ottawa Valley, cut in half and articulated with hydraulic steering pistons like a front end loader -- used as snow plow.

At the end of WW2 the Canadian Army was the most mechanized army in Europe, IIRC 

Better prime mover than the Styer - but still noisey 


CMP Field Artillery Tractor

http://www.mapleleafup.net/vehicles/cmparmour/c15ta.html


----------



## davebender (May 24, 2012)

Austria and Germany had similiar vehicles going all the way back to 1905. So did most other nations. The Soviet Union and France mass produced simple tracked artillery tractors during the 1930s. 1942 Germany made a similiar decision. 

Why did WWII Britain swim against contemporary opinion by adopting a wheeled artillery tractor?


*Artilleriezugauto M 17*
Artilleriezugauto M 17





*Radschlepper Ost*
Radschlepper Ost


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 24, 2012)

"... a tracked vehicle will drink TWICE the gasoline a wheel vehicle will. Mr. Bender ...."

Wheeled may have issues in mud, but my Grand Dad and Uncle were artillerymen at Paschendale .... the horses needed help ... no different in WW2

MM


----------



## davebender (May 24, 2012)

Actually there is. WWII era artillery pieces typically had longer range and better suspension that allowed towing at higher speed. There's no such thing as a free lunch. WWII artillery pieces typically also weighed more.

German example.
10.5cm leFH 16. 
1,525 kg. 9,225 meters max range. Horse towed.

10.5 cm leFH 18/40. 
1,955 kg. 12,325 meters max range. Torsion bar suspension to allow towing by motor vehicles.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2012)

It is not only the suspension but the wheels and brakes. 

It might also help comparisons if Mr. Bender actually compared Like to Like. The split trail carriage of the 10.5 cm leFH 18 added several hundred Kg over the box trail carriage of the 10.5cm leFH 16 even if both were horse drawn. The Split trail carriage did offer much wider traverse though. 

The British didn't "swim against contemporary opinion by adopting a wheeled artillery tractor" as few other countries actually had any real number of those specialized wheeled tractors or tracked tractors. The vast majority of artillery that was pulled by motor vehicles in ALL armies was pulled by trucks. 
The British had also built and tested a number of tracked artillery tractors and actually built about 26,000 of the Loyd carrier. 






Despite appearances it was NOT armored and was a transport vehicle. 

For an earlier item along these lines see:






In 1933.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 17, 2012)

The Ost was also terribly slow, having a top speed of about 10 mph. As a cargo carrier, it would take a LONG time to cover any substantial amount of distance at 10 mph.


----------



## davebender (Nov 24, 2012)

RSO Ost was an inexpensive replacement for horse teams. It was not a replacement for proper artillery tractors such as the Sd.Kfz.11.


----------



## model299 (Nov 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> RSO Ost was an inexpensive replacement for horse teams. It was not a replacement for proper artillery tractors such as the Sd.Kfz.11.



You know though, it still has a cool, utilitarian look to it. Like I said before, I'm betting that enclosed cab with a heater was a favorite location for troops during the winter months.


----------



## davebender (Nov 27, 2012)

1918 Germany made plans to produce an inexpensive tractor to replace artillery horse teams. I would have expected Germany to order such a vehicle into production as part of the March 1935 rearmament plan.

Apparently OHL forget this WWI lesson and had to learn anew after invading Russia.


----------



## model299 (Nov 28, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> DAVE, _you_ can drive to Kursk. I prefer to walk and _*keep my hearing*_. *Sweet Jeezuz*.
> 
> Steyr is an Austrian company ... part of the industrial booty the Nazis picked up with their early war effort .... same as Skoda in Czech ... making Panzers.
> 
> MM



Indeed. Man!

Looks like there was only room for 2 in the cab.

Barely.

Keyed ignition as well. Wonder if that's stock or added by the owner to prevent drive off theft?


----------



## dobbie (Nov 28, 2012)

The US M-3 half track always impressed me, especially the track, which was not conventional in that it was more like a rubber band. They seem to last a long time. Nice not having to get out the sledge and drive pins.....


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> Morris C8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Looks like the wheeled Morris C8 was Britains equivalent to the Steyr RSO. About 10,000 produced. I'm surprised they didn't use a variant of the tracked Bren carrier as a tow tractor. That wheeled vehicle must have gotten stuck a lot in the mud/snow/soft sand.



Totally unrelated, but I had this Corgi 3 piece set as a kid (car, limber and cannon). You just brought back many happy memories playing with this, my King Tiger, Challenger and nebelwerfer half-track. Thanks!


----------



## davebender (Nov 29, 2012)

> US M-3 half track always impressed me, especially the track, which was not conventional in that it was more like a rubber band.


Maultier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maultier was the German equivalent of the U.S. M-3 half track. Essentially just a 3 ton truck modified with a simple band track suspension ILO the rear wheels. Some of them had light armor but Germany still considered it to be a truck.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 3, 2012)

davebender said:


> Maultier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Maultier was the German equivalent of the U.S. M-3 half track. Essentially just a 3 ton truck modified with a simple band track suspension ILO the rear wheels. Some of them had light armor but Germany still considered it to be a truck.
> View attachment 217393



They were still using those very expensive all steel tracks(they needed to save that steel for other projects) and no driven front axle. Of course when one thinks about it, Germany was short of everything except invading Russians and American bombers.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 3, 2012)

Maultier was a good effort. 
Germany was far more deficient in fuel, rubber, copper, nickel, chromium, than it was in steel.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 3, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Maultier was a good effort.
> Germany was far more deficient in fuel, rubber, copper, nickel, chromium, than it was in steel.



They were deficient in the type of steel required to make the pins in the track, not the entire track itself. Lets face it, when your country is half the size of Texas and you declare war on everyone, your probably going to be short of everything.


----------



## davebender (Dec 3, 2012)

What makes you think German Maultier tracks were expensive? The entire truck was pretty cheap. In fact even Sd.Kfz.251 APCs were a bit less expensive then American made M3 half tracks.


----------



## Denniss (Dec 4, 2012)

And why do you need a driven front axle?
Just because the M3 required this to overcome shortcomings of it's tracked part does not mean other half-tracks need this as well.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 4, 2012)

needing a powered front axle depends on the _total_ design of the vehicle. The _regular_ German _half-tracks_ were more like 3/4 tracks, a much longer ground run on the tracks and needed a tracked steering system for sharp turns, front wheels were for shallow turns. More of their weight was on the tracks. The American half-tracks-and Maultier's used the front axle for steering and carried more weight on it. It could become 'bogged' easier and a powered axle could help with turning in poor conditions. 

Cost is hard to figure because the "official" exchange is near useless.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 5, 2012)

Denniss said:


> And why do you need a driven front axle?
> Just because the M3 required this to overcome shortcomings of it's tracked part does not mean other half-tracks need this as well.



Anything pushed or pulled on the ground that isn't powered is a liability off road. Whether your in deep mud, snow, or crossing ditches, if you have a non powered steering axle, it will eventually hang you up and get you stuck. If your going to have a vehicle with track along 80% of its length and steering clutches in the driveline to help it steer, then ditch the steering axle and go full tracked like an M4 or M5 high speed tractor. German 3/4 tracks already had everything they needed to be full tracked, if you are going to incorporate all the expensive stuff necessary to help it turn, ditch the steering axle.


----------



## davebender (Dec 6, 2012)

That's fine for off road travel. I suspect Germany opted for 3/4 track rather then full track because these vehicles spent a lot of time traveling on roads.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 6, 2012)

davebender said:


> That's fine for off road travel. I suspect Germany opted for 3/4 track rather then full track because these vehicles spent a lot of time traveling on roads.



If you spend most of your time on the road you need wheels. If you want better off road performance than wheels but still be as cheap as a truck, the US M3 option was perfect: road friendly, cheap, easy to operate and better off road performance than a truck. The Germans essentially built a light tank, with the expensive, difficult to produce all steel tracks, stearing brakes, etc. and then compromised the whole thing by hanging a non-powered front axle on it. As far as driving down a road, a US M4 or M5 high speed tractor will outperform the German halftracks in every way, offroad or on road. They had more power and were full tracked. And the M4 and M5 were the vehicles that the German prime movers should be compared to, not the US halftrack.


----------

