pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
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
How come no mention of the CMP like the Chev C15a or of the Ford 15CWT
The best truck of WWII?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 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.
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
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
- Thread starter
- #47
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
True Juha. They always hooked up TWO Sd.Kfz.9's to tow a Tiger....
davebender
1st Lieutenant
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
Pacific Historian
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
Colonel
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
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
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
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
- Thread starter
- #52
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
The BHP is the horse power at the driving wheels, and the SAE is just the engine itself if I remember correctly....
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
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
- Thread starter
- #54
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
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!
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!
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
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
- Thread starter
- #58
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
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!
And for them to do the same again in thick mud, not having anything firm to attached the heavy wire....heavy dirty work! Ouch!
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #60
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
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...
