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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
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.
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
Lieutenant General
I think most if not all of those used gasoline.
glennasher
Senior Airman
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
Pacific Historian
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.
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
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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
Pacific Historian
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.
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.
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
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
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
drgondog
Major
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.
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.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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
Major
True - but Aleutians and northwest Alaska approached the harsh conditions, but clearly not Leningrad in winter of 1941
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
