The best truck of WWII?

[pbfoot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[renrich]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Juha]

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]

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.

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]

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?