Sdkfz 234/1 And M8 Greyhound ?

[Rick]

From my limited understanding, the Sdkfz 234/1 was more mobile on off-road terrain than the M8. By how much and how one measures "how much" I don't know. From what I can find on the Internet, the German vehicle had independent turning for each wheel? My questions for those of you with experience in such things is this added complexity for the 234/1 "worth it" as far as reconnaissance vs the M8? It appears to me that except for roads, a half-track could do the same job and possibly be better in the off-road mobility department.

[CaptLuke]

Ref M8 vs. Sdkfz 234/1 cross country mobility:

 

There's a lot of work showing that, on soft ground, for wheeled vehicles, it's good to have bigger tires, more axles, and independent suspension. I believe the Sdkfz 234/1 comes out ahead on all 3 (not positive about the suspension), so expect it to perform substantially better there.

On hard ground, they're probably both limited by the quality of the suspension including, again, independent suspension. I'm not sure there's any hard data available, but, again, expect the Sdkfz 234/1 to have the edge there too.

Finally, US WWII armored car development culminated in the M38 Wolfhound, which shows that what the US wanted in an armored car was closer to the Sdkfz 234/1 than the M8. It is also worth noting that the design which lost a close competition with the M38 was the Studebaker T27, which looked even more like a Sdkfz 234/1. All in all, US thinking seemed to become more aligned with that the Germans on what an armored car should look and act like, so the US probably thought the advantages of the Sdkfz 234/1 were worthwhile.

It is, however, worth remembering that the M8 was a light armored car, in US terminology, so its cross country performance was measured against a previous generation of 4x4 armored cars. In this comparison, the M8 did quite well: it was another example of the US playing catch up, but still coming up with a very workable design that could be produced rapidly and in large numbers.

 

Ref half tracks vs. armored cars, this is a whole different issue, complicated by the US and Germans having different design approaches for half tracks.

 

Again, there's no neat metric for comparison, but in the sloppy terrain in the USSR, the Germans made a lot of use of reconnaissance half tracks, IIRC the the Sd.Kfz. 250/9 half track replaced the Sd.Kfz. 222, 4x4. armoured car.

On bad terrain, half tracks would probably do better than armored cars, but for long range recon over road networks, wheels were a clear winner, so it depends on where you want your recon vehicle to go and what you want it to do. The UK, US, and Germans all seemed to prefer wheels in general, during WWII, though after the war thinking diverged and everyone took a different path.

For the allies at the time, the comparison was between an armored car, purpose built for reconnaissance, with a half track design built as a troop carrier, so not a fair comparison and one which will favor the M8. As far as I know, no US recon troops tried to trade their M8's in for half tracks and the M8 was, overall, a reasonably well liked vehicle, despite the limitations of its cross country mobility and very light armor.

[Panzermann]

I would like to add to CaptLuke's vwry good points that wheels are quieter and faster than tracks. Not unimportant for reconnaissance.

[rmgill]

For absolute examples of mobility, compare 6x6 tactical trucks with 8x8 of the same sort and weight class. A single front axle, usually has more weight on it that a dual front axle configuration. I'm unsure off hand how the greyhound's weight balance is, what with the rear engine,mbut the turret and front armor would bring the CG forwards. Soft ground is less ideal for the 6x6 configurations. Witness how the germans moved from the 232 6 rads to the 8-rads after early experience in the ost front.

[rmgill]

I would like to add to CaptLuke's vwry good points that wheels are quieter and faster than tracks. Not unimportant for reconnaissance.

Its not only quieter for noise emissions, but the crew, especially the commander can hear other vehicles. In reenactments, weve snuck up on the 'german' armor because I can hear the SD/kfz251s through woods and brush while they cannot similarly hear us in our wheeled armored car. Meaning I can localize them and we can move to attack from cover at the right time. Wheeled armor can also engage a higher range and carefully and very quietly creep if the ground is moderately firm and without running two loud an engine rpm range.

Edited February 14, 2016 by rmgill

[Simon Tan]

M8 GMC. Tank Destroyer.

[Chris Werb]

 

I would like to add to CaptLuke's vwry good points that wheels are quieter and faster than tracks. Not unimportant for reconnaissance.

Wheeled armor can also engage a higher range and carefully and very quietly creep if the ground is moderately firm and without running two loud an engine rpm range.

 

 

Modern hybrid propulsion makes them even quieter, although I'd be interested to know what the difference would be between a wheeled vehicle and one with band tracks given identical hybrid propulsion.

[CaptLuke]

M8 GMC. Tank Destroyer.

 

As unbelievable as it seems now, the original M8 spec was for a tank destroyer. You can see the same 'high speed, light armor, minimal acceptable gun' philosophy that later manifested the M18.

 

For a wheeled TD, from the US, the interesting 'what if' was the T55 Cook Interceptor

Edited February 14, 2016 by CaptLuke

[bojan]

8x8 enabled running with two wheels missing. Soviets were quite impressed by 231/241 series.

[Mike Steele]

And The Germans still use the 8 wheel configuration to this day.

[BansheeOne]

Well, in Boxer. Luchs is sadly gone.

[Panzermann]

Well, in Boxer. Luchs is sadly gone.

Boxer is not used by recce. It is Fennek and Fuchs.

 

 

Heck they lost the "Panzer-" prefix a few years ago, because the heavy platoons with MBT were disbanded and the Luchs' time has had the writing on the wall.

[Colin]

the M8 was basically the 6x6 truck with an armoured body as I recall, fairly cheap and easy to make, maintain.

[CaptLuke]

the M8 was basically the 6x6 truck with an armoured body as I recall, fairly cheap and easy to make, maintain.

 

"Easy to mass produce" was part of the original requirement; it wasn't literally an armored version of an existing truck, but given that requirement, plus it's layout/design, it's reasonable to assume it had a lot in common with existing truck production at the time.

 

Chrysler and Studebaker submitted designs with remarkably similar layouts to Ford's winning proposal. Chrysler also built a 4x4 prototype and Ford did design work for a 4x4 version as well, though I'm not sure it ever made it into metal. But, to your point, all the 6x6 versions had drivelines that looked like that of existing 6x6 trucks.

[rmgill]

 

Modern hybrid propulsion makes them even quieter, although I'd be interested to know what the difference would be between a wheeled vehicle and one with band tracks given identical hybrid propulsion.

 

Band tracks aren't as good at coasting so you need a bit more power to creep along. You also get a characteristic rubber gear on gear sound in some designs. That's distinctive. Wheeled vehicles AFVs just sound like a truck.

[DougRichards]

Didn't it also depend on where each country planned to fight? Germany was always looking east, to bad roads, possible snow and mud and long distances, requiring large and very capable armoured cars.

 

The USA on the other hand was thinking more temperate western Europe, if it had to fight overseas at all. Western Europe had better roads and other infrastructure. Shipping was also a prime concern. More smaller cars could be shipped than larger ones, similar reason why the Sherman stayed in production and not replaced by something bigger.

 

The only time that the USA could have ever needed German style armoured cars was if it decided to invade Canada.

 

American recon was often done by M3 M5 lights, where the Brits used armoured cars and even the US Staghound. Different philosophies.

 

The heaviest US armoured car, never used by the USA but produced in small numbers for the Brits, was the T18 Boarhound, which the Brits saw as more of a wheeled cruiser tank (it weighed 26 tons) for use in the desert (where it would have performed quite well) but the desert campaign was over by the time that production was really kicking in.

[rmgill]

[rmgill]

CCKW's apparently had two types of diffs but were laid out in a very similar way...

Edited February 14, 2016 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Doug, I think it comes down to philosophies. The British invented the armored car before they invented the tank. They were both useful in British terms for a variety of reasons, with armored cars more useful for colonial service in addition to in full up warfare.

Their speed advantage means a lot where you have long distances to cover and fight.

[DougRichards]

Actually it was the French in 1901 with the Charron Girardedot et Voight of 1901, then Austrians (well Austro-Hungarians) who preceeeded the Brits the modern concept of the armoured car, with the Austro-Dailmer armoured car of 1903 -1905, but who didn't use it.

 

The Belgians came next, even before the Brits with the Miverva and the SAVA of 1914.

 

Brits came on the scene in 1915.

[bojan]

There was also this Russian AC from 1912:

[rmgill]

Hmm, I guess I've been conflating their profligate use by the British in WWI with the British having invented them.

[DKTanker]

Hmm, I guess I've been conflating their profligate use by the British in WWI with the British having invented them.

Don't sell yourself short, the first British motorized armored wheeled vehicle was the Motor Scout built by F.R. Simms in 1898. It was a buggy with a machine gun firing through a shield. Not really an armored car though. However, 1899 Simms then went on to develop the Simms Motor War Car, and that vehicle was indeed an armored car, the first prototype being completed in 1902.

Edited February 15, 2016 by DKTanker

[Mikel2]

There was also this Russian AC from 1912:

Very sdkfz 251ish Edited February 15, 2016 by Mikel2

[rmgill]

Excepting for a very high ground pressure....