The best truck of WWII?

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.

Click to expand...

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?

vikingBerserker said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

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:

Didn't MAN make trucks during WWII?

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

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

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

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.

.

Click to expand...

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

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.

pbfoot said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

English Russia » Russian North Truckers

I guess the Russian Ice Road truckers dispagree with you.