Rick Posted January 18 Posted January 18 Any realistic field use differences between these two vehicles? Could Germany and the U.S. substituted one for other and still get the same results?
Ssnake Posted January 18 Posted January 18 The Willys Jeep always struck me as more of a light utility vehicle while the Kübelwagen was more of a staff/courier car.
shep854 Posted January 18 Posted January 18 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ssnake said: The Willys Jeep always struck me as more of a light utility vehicle while the Küberlwagen was more of a staff/courier car. I think you got it. The Jeep was officially a 1/4 ton truck, for doing truck stuff, that was also a pretty good small passenger car. I haven't heard of the Kubel doing much utility work. Edited January 18 by shep854
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 18 Posted January 18 There was a program on discovery, combat dealers I think, where they did a retail between a Jeep and a Kubelwagen, and as far as off road mobility, there didn't seem to be a lot in it. On the other hand, they weren't trying it in Ukrainian mud.
alejandro_ Posted January 18 Posted January 18 (edited) A while ago I did a comparison (ando also included Japanese Kurogane). The Jeep engine has more than twice the power. See table below second row. Rows 7-9 show length, width and height. 10th shows maximum load. Suspension is also different, being leaf spring vs torsion in Kubelwagen. The German engine is air cooled which is an advantage in certain climates/situations. Edited January 18 by alejandro_
Olof Larsson Posted January 18 Posted January 18 4 hours ago, seahawk said: Not at all VW Typ 82 is RWD, the Jeep is 4WD. On the other hand the Kübelwagen was lighter, had a flat underside, greater ground clearence and independent suspension all round.
shep854 Posted January 18 Posted January 18 44 minutes ago, Olof Larsson said: On the other hand the Kübelwagen was lighter, had a flat underside, greater ground clearence and independent suspension all round. Yep. If it gets stuck the riders can get out, pick it up and carry it to solid ground. 😛
Dawes Posted January 18 Posted January 18 The Kubelwagen made an appearance on the US civilian market in the late 1960's/early 1970's as the VW "Thing".
futon Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Jeep was best for sure. It's versitility was very high that the others couldn't match. Germany tried a 4WD vehicles program in a light, medium, heavy class: Einheits-PKW. The Kurogane was a good vehicle for what it was. As a 4WD vehicle it was a 1935 design. Performance/reliability was good. With Japan's car industry/culture still young, the Kurogane was an achievement. It was made for light reconnaissance.
Ol Paint Posted January 19 Posted January 19 (edited) Kubelwagen - 50,435 built. Willys MB/Ford GPW/et al - 647,925 built. What's that line about quantity? Kidding aside, as a military vehicle, the Jeep appears to have better towing capacity and a higher load capacity than the Kubelwagen, along with more horsepower to make that practical. As far as I can tell, the Kubelwagen wasn't really intended to be used as a prime mover, but it does give the Jeep a versatility edge in any service comparison. One of the keys to the Jeep's success was its adaptability to all kinds of different roles, although the quantity built also factors into that simply because the vehicles were available enough to be adapted. Given how small the vehicles are, I'd opt for the jeep and a 1/4-ton trailer if given the choice between the two for an extended camping trip out west. (I've never driven either. I've put a couple hundred thousand miles on TJs and learned to drive stick in a '74 Beetle, so my perspective is somewhat removed.) For moving a few people around, it seems like the two vehicles were fairly interchangeable. But it seems like the Jeep's utility functions couldn't really be replicated by the Kubelwagen. From that aspect, Rick's question about whether the US and Germany could've swapped vehicles seems to be "no." Substituting the Kubelwagen for the Jeep would have required something else to fill the light utility role--possibly additional WC series trucks? (The US built 82,390 1/2-ton WC trucks and another 255,195 3/4-ton models.) Doug Edited January 19 by Ol Paint Added last paragraph to tie back to Rick's OP
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Im amazed at this point nobody has mentioned 'Schwimmwagen'. Which could not only swim better than a GPA, it had 4x4 in first gear.
Ol Paint Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Maybe because the Schwimmwagen didn't swim better than a GPA? Quote https://www.motortrend.com/features/1308-august-2013-backward-glances/ Seep or Schwimm So which was better? The GPA is the winner in ergonomics, if one dares use that term with a military vehicle. It’s far more comfortable than the Schwimm. Climbing into the tall GPA requires some agility, but once inside, it’s far more roomy than the Schwimm, especially for the backseaters. The Schwimm driving position is nice, but getting there requires some contortions. The seats of both deliver military numbutt, but the GPA has lots more padding on the seats. The GPA is at its worst on land. The 134ci, 60hp (gross, 54hp net) flathead-four is overwhelmed by the 3,500-pound curb weight, not to mention the 4,300-pound gross weight, as are the brakes. You can get to about 50 mph with a third of a mile to accelerate and it takes just about as long to stop. Maneuvering is akin to driving a motorhome without power steering. The GPA was rated to tow 1,000 pounds from its military pintle, enough for the American 37mm anti-tank gun. The GPA could also mount a light machine gun on the M31 pedestal mount, but this was almost never seen in American service. Off-highway, the GPA is an overweight hippo. Rated gradeability was only 45 percent versus 60 percent for the land jeep, and it had worse approach and ramp breakover angles than the land jeep, plus about an inch less minimum ground clearance. It wasn’t economical. The 15-gallon tank could take you about 200 miles on good roads for about 13 mpg. The GPA has a 3,500-pound PTO capstan winch, which was very useful for helping it waddle out of the water. In terms of land performance, the Schwimm is the winner by leaps and bounds. At a 2,006-pound curb weight, and with a gear ratio of 6.2:1, even the Schwimm’s tiny 1131cc, 25hp powerplant has the oomph for brisk acceleration. Top speed is only 50 mph, but light weight, wide tires, locking diffs in both axles, and good clearance gave the Schwimm excellent cross-country ability. Better, in fact, than the non-amphibious American jeep. Fuel economy is great as well, and on a good day, the twin 6.5 gallon fuel tanks can take it 275-300 miles. In many other military land duties, the Type 166 is inferior to the jeep. Cargo capacity is minimal, though more limited by volume than weight. Towing capacity is non-existent since the Type 166 has no hitch. The Schwimm can mount 7.92mm MG34 or MG42 machine guns on a dash mount with a tripod on the rear deck for dismounted use. The shoreline is where the fun begins and the tables turn. Like a hippo, the ungainly GPA changes personality in the water. It isn’t a great boat but it will outrun, outmaneuver and outfloat the Schwimm. You have 25-35 miles of cruising fun ahead of you before the tank is dry and a rated max speed of about 5.5 mph. The GPA has a reversible propeller and a rudder, as well as manual and PTO-driven bilge pumps. The Schwimm’s water performance is less than stellar. You soon learn why the paddle is included because there is no reverse in the water. The manually lowered propeller is driven by the engine and rotates in only one direction. There is no rudder; the front wheels do the steering. There is no factory fitted bilge pump either, so water playtime is limited by how much water leaks in—and they all leak. Perhaps this is why we could find no listed water range, since it wasn’t designed for long-term immersion. Top speed in the water was listed at 6 mph in still water, but a water drag race between the two amphibs showed the GPA is faster. So, how does the owner evaluate his two floaters? Richard Saft sums it up brilliantly, “The Schwimwagen is a car that goes in the water, while the GPA is a boat that goes on land.” How many Schwimmwagens circumnavigated the globe? Doug
old_goat Posted January 19 Posted January 19 One iconic vehicle is still missing from these comparisons: GAZ-67. How does that compare to the others?
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 19 Posted January 19 1 hour ago, Ol Paint said: Maybe because the Schwimmwagen didn't swim better than a GPA? How many Schwimmwagens circumnavigated the globe? Doug Heavily modified though. I recall an article in wheels and tracks that said the US Army regarded the German vehicle as better. You only have to look at it to see the entry and exit angle on rivers is better.
Markus Becker Posted January 19 Posted January 19 5 hours ago, Ol Paint said: Maybe because the Schwimmwagen didn't swim better than a GPA? How many Schwimmwagens circumnavigated the globe? Doug A lot, if you have a Siebel ferry too.
Ol Paint Posted January 20 Posted January 20 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Heavily modified though. Better for what? As a personnel transport, a scout vehicle, and/or a utility vehicle? For crossing a creek, or for use in anything larger than a puddle? If you're going to rely on the personnel paddling the vehicle, just get a regular jeep with a tarp. http://www.ewillys.com/wp-content/uploads2/2017/08/1941-07-15-floating-jeep1-515x650.jpg Markus - That's actual circumnavigation, not theoretical. (Even if it did take 10 years.) https://www.messynessychic.com/2018/05/03/honeymooning-around-the-earth-in-an-amphibious-jeep/ Doug
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 20 Posted January 20 It was an impressive feat to be sure, and I love GPA's as much as the next man. But a Schwimmwagen is a much better vehicle, whether its crossing a river, or a general utility vehicle. You only have to see how many made it into allied hands to recognise this was not an isolated conclusion.
Ol Paint Posted January 20 Posted January 20 (edited) 9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: It was an impressive feat to be sure, and I love GPA's as much as the next man. But a Schwimmwagen is a much better vehicle, whether its crossing a river, or a general utility vehicle. You only have to see how many made it into allied hands to recognise this was not an isolated conclusion. When you can show Kubelwagens and Schwimmwagens routinely towing trailers, being utilized for casualty evacuation, hauling anti-tank guns, or any of the other myriad of uses for a light truck, then we can have a discussion about them being utility vehicles. Until then, they are specialized personnel carriers and scout vehicles similar to sidecar motorcycles. For that reason, the Jeep and GPA are more effective as part of a military system. Show me Schwimmwagens or Kubelwagens performing similar tasks: http://www.ewillys.com/wp-content/uploads2/2015/06/1944-12-21-jeep-train-burma-bridge1-1024x802.jpg If you're claiming the German vehicle is better, it has to be better across a significant portion of the roles filled by the Jeep. And we haven't even gotten into the Jeep derivatives. Is the Schwimmwagen acknowledged as being better at getting itself and a couple occupants across a sand dune better than a Jeep? Sure. Did any Scwimmwagens tow a 37mm across the desert? The opening question Rick posed was: Quote Any realistic field use differences between these two vehicles? Could Germany and the U.S. substituted one for other and still get the same results? The answer is, yes, there is significant field use differences between the two vehicles, and no, the US could not have substituted Jeeps for Kubel/Schwimmwagens on a 1:1 basis. At a minimum, the US would've had to swap 647,925 Jeeps for 294,278 Kubelwagen + 83,233 Schwimmwagen + 105,026 Zundapp KS750 + 116,696 BMW R75 + 48,691 SdKfz2 Kettenkrads, with the logistics tail that involves, just to get the same number of motor vehicles in the field. Arguably, the Germans would've been better served substituting 111,045 Jeeps for the mix of halftracks, Kubels, Schwimms, and motorcycles they actually used. Not to mention the horses. Doug (Yes, I am aware the US built just over 100,000 Harley-Davidson WLA and Indian 741 motorcycles for military use, too.) Edited January 20 by Ol Paint Changed "until" to "when."
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 20 Posted January 20 The Germans preferred to use specialised vehicles like the RSO, Trump Protze or Kettenkraftkrad for such roles. One can argue whether that was an intelligent use of resources, but Britain did much the same. So did America, when their guns got heavier, they hauled them behind Dodges. As far as a GPA, I don't knock it. I'm just suggesting for the role, I've never seen it doing this.
seahawk Posted January 20 Posted January 20 The Kübelwagen was not as common in the German Army as the Jeep in the US army. It had larger sibblings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einheits-PKW_der_Wehrmacht
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 20 Posted January 20 That's right, they had more specialisation. So did we, look at the Austin Tilly. The Universal carrier also seemed to pick up a lot of recce roles the Americans used jeeps for. Of course, there were always exceptions...
rmgill Posted January 21 Posted January 21 On 1/18/2025 at 9:03 AM, Ssnake said: The Willys Jeep always struck me as more of a light utility vehicle while the Kübelwagen was more of a staff/courier car. 1/4 ton truck was the official British designation. Very different than the humber 4x4 utility or other staff cars. The Jeep was designed to fill the role that had cropped up around the side car hacks that were able to be manhandled over obstacles by it's 2 or 3 man crew. The same could be said for a jeep, that, 3-4 fit men could man handle over a lot or ditch it could not otherwise negotiate on it's own. That's why it had handles on various points on the side of the body.
rmgill Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) The Jeep was a utility vehicle that sometimes did duty as a staff car where other civilian or militarized staff cars might have worked. The British had Humber FWD heavy utilities for some roles of staff car. This was the driveline basis of the Humber LRCs as well. So a slightly heavier chassis than a Jeep. You also had Austin and Hillman Tilly's as small light PU's more in line with what the Jeep was used for. They were more of an early war thing and more in the UK, but I think they were used in '44-45 in Europe if available. 2WD and very light, only good for light loads. Not a good tractor. But as a subaltern's runabout or running kit around or running dixies/marmite cans of food out to the company/troop, quite excellent. Edited January 21 by rmgill
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now