Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Trilisser
Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: 31 Jan 2008, 08:25
Location: Finland

Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#1

Post by Trilisser » 18 May 2008, 17:00

I´ve heard that despite being only 4 x 2, the Kübel has at least equal off-road performance thanks to lockable differential and higher ground clearance. Anyone with driving experiences with both?

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Kübelwagen Versus Jeep Offroad Mobility.

#2

Post by Robert Rojas » 18 May 2008, 17:53

Greetings to both citizen Trilisser and the community as a whole. Well sir, in reference to your introductory posting of Sunday - May 18, 2008 - 4:00pm, old Uncle Bob was wondering if you were specifically inquiring about THE original Second World War era equipment OR are generally inquiring about the post Second World War commercial knockoffs that have appeared under various sports utility vehicle guises? I, for one, have never personally known anyone who has ever owned an original Second World War era Kubelwagen. However, I have known a few people over the years who have owned the Volkswagen Corporation's resurrected "version" of Kubelwagen which was commercially rechristened as THE THING. I have also known a few people over the years who actually owned THE original Second World War era Jeep which was produced by the Willy's Corporation. Needless to say, the very same people that I have known over the years who were Willy's Jeep owners were also the proud owners of today's commercially evolved incarnation of the ubiquitous Jeep. With all that said, it might not be a terribly bad idea if you clarified which technical era you are inquiring about. It's just a friendly suggestion. Well, that's my initial two Yankee cents worth on this wonderful trip down memory lane - for now anyway. In anycase, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your beautiful land of lakes and forests.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :) :wink: 8-)


Trilisser
Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: 31 Jan 2008, 08:25
Location: Finland

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#3

Post by Trilisser » 19 May 2008, 01:34

Senõr Rojas, I refer to original wartime vehicles. I still wonder why lockable differentials weren´t fitted to the 1/4-ton truck!

mikel
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: 06 Dec 2003, 07:52
Location: USA

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#4

Post by mikel » 19 May 2008, 03:32

In general, the jeep would run circles around the VW all day long.

Lockouts or no, you got a whole extra set of wheels churning.
The jeep is far more robustly built and much easier to maintain.

Many had a winch on the front to assist pulling itself out of holes.

A drawback to the jeep was that the short wheelbase made them easy to flip over.

Many GIs died as a result of this during the jeep's long career.

I drove the similar short M5s in the 60s.

They were rugged as hell and could climb all sorts of terrain.

I know of several deaths and injuries from them.

This topic has been addressed a few times.

Trilisser
Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: 31 Jan 2008, 08:25
Location: Finland

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#5

Post by Trilisser » 19 May 2008, 12:41

Do you have any proof for your claims (=you seem to have driven only the Jeep, not the Kübel)? Don´t forget that in certain conditions the mighty Jeep (and all similarly configured 4 x 4s) will waste all of its motive power through one single wheel due to the lack of lockable differentials!

User avatar
Michael Emrys
Member
Posts: 6002
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
Location: USA

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#6

Post by Michael Emrys » 19 May 2008, 13:02

mikel wrote:A drawback to the jeep was that the short wheelbase made them easy to flip over.
A short wheelbase would not cause that, but a narrow track width combined with a high center of gravity would.

Michael
Incoming fire has the right of way.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#7

Post by LWD » 19 May 2008, 14:43

Trilisser wrote:Do you have any proof for your claims (=you seem to have driven only the Jeep, not the Kübel)? Don´t forget that in certain conditions the mighty Jeep (and all similarly configured 4 x 4s) will waste all of its motive power through one single wheel due to the lack of lockable differentials!
I think you may have just answered your own question. In general 4 wheel drive will provide better cross country mobility. However in some circumstances higher ground clearance or a lockable differential may be more useful.

I'm not an expert in this by anymeans what sort of circumstances could lead to "wasting all its motive power through one single wheel"?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#8

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 May 2008, 14:58

Indeed. In such a "circumstance" I'd think the driver's LEAST concern would be lack of traction, and more in....jumping...

Trilisser
Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: 31 Jan 2008, 08:25
Location: Finland

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#9

Post by Trilisser » 19 May 2008, 17:10

The case need not be nearly that dramatic. For example, the traditional unsurmountable object for a non-locking differential 4 x 4 is the trench crossing. As you have to cross it diagonally, a situation will arise when e.g. the left front wheel supports the weight on the front while the right rear wheel supports the back end ("cross suspension"). In this case the power selects the easiest route and will spin only the right front and left rear wheels and the vehicle is stuck. Similarly, if going in snow or mud and one wheel suddenly crosses a spot with lesser friction, all power will go to spinning that one wheel and again the vehicle is hopelessly stuck. That is why I am completely pissed off by current ads of 4 x 4 cars as they don´t even dare to mention that their off road capabilities have been considerably reduced by lack of lockable differentials. Currently only the G-series Mercedes has optional 100% locks on both axles.

User avatar
sallyg
Member
Posts: 615
Joined: 11 Jan 2006, 20:27
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#10

Post by sallyg » 19 May 2008, 17:19

LWD wrote:
Trilisser wrote:Do you have any proof for your claims (=you seem to have driven only the Jeep, not the Kübel)? Don´t forget that in certain conditions the mighty Jeep (and all similarly configured 4 x 4s) will waste all of its motive power through one single wheel due to the lack of lockable differentials!
I think you may have just answered your own question. In general 4 wheel drive will provide better cross country mobility. However in some circumstances higher ground clearance or a lockable differential may be more useful.

I'm not an expert in this by any means what sort of circumstances could lead to "wasting all its motive power through one single wheel"?
The differential is a wheely thing that directs power to whichever of a pair of wheels (starboard or port) is doing the most work. It makes turns easier as the outside wheel has further to travel than the inside wheel.

If one is driving in muddy conditions and a wheel drops into a particularly muddy hole or rut that will be the wheel that "thinks" it needs to do all the work. It does this by spinning, digging the hole deeper. The opposite wheel will stand still. This is where the differential lock, which prevents the vehicle's thought process, redirects power equally to both wheels, hopefully working you out of the hole.

If not, use a winch or jack up and lay brush under the slipping wheel for increased traction or call for a tow. :D

User avatar
Michael Emrys
Member
Posts: 6002
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
Location: USA

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#11

Post by Michael Emrys » 19 May 2008, 17:47

A limited-slip differential would also cure the spinning wheel problem, but I haven't heard that any were ever installed on army issued vehicles.

Michael
Incoming fire has the right of way.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#12

Post by LWD » 19 May 2008, 18:00

Trilisser wrote:The case need not be nearly that dramatic. For example, the traditional unsurmountable object for a non-locking differential 4 x 4 is the trench crossing. As you have to cross it diagonally, a situation will arise when e.g. the left front wheel supports the weight on the front while the right rear wheel supports the back end ("cross suspension"). ....
This seams rather contrived. First of all how often would you be crossing trenches of any magnintude in either of these vehicles. If it's not a big trench then you should be able to maneuver such that only one wheel is unsuported at any time.


In the ice/mud situations mentioned is it truly all the power that's going to the slipping wheel or just most of it? In the case of a jeep is it all the power or just the power to one axle? I've seen cases of vehicles on ice where an extremly minimal amount of push was the difference between moving and not.

Another question did the Kubelwagen have the differential locked at all times or did you have to stop and get out and lock it?

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#13

Post by Tim Smith » 20 May 2008, 00:21

For clarification, erase the word 'trench' from the above posts, and replace it with 'ditch'.

No 4-wheeled car can cross a full-size trench.

User avatar
mike peters
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: 02 Feb 2005, 08:21
Location: NY

Re: Kübelwagen vs Jeep offroad mobility

#14

Post by mike peters » 20 May 2008, 04:08

Gents …I own an M38A1 and a 1944 GPW (Ford) …I’ve owned the ’44 since 1979. I’ve driven that Jeep everywhere from desert in Nevada, all over the Colorado Rockies (for 2 years) to Massachusetts and all over New England. The places I’ve taken it , No 2 wheel drive would go or survive ..it would still be there if it tried.
Once I even spun a rear axle and had to rely on only the front axle to get me home. The Jeep has a 60HP Go Devil Engine ..what’s the Horse Power of a Kubel …20+ HP ?
One more thing I’d like to correct …there’s a myth that ALL Jeep Models ever produced are prone to tipping .I believe that picked up steam because of the Independent Suspension used on ONLY the M151 (Vietnam era) …that Jeep was so bad that the Army came out with a ROPS system (Roll Cage) that was retro fitted to all M151’s .
In the 29 years I’ve owned and driven mine …I’ve never, ever had mine up on 2 wheels.
The vehicle shouldn't be blaimed if the Driver doesn't know what he's doing.
Attachments
DSC00124.JPG
My M38A1
DSC00124.JPG (157.33 KiB) Viewed 10439 times
DSC00379.JPG
Here's my '44 Ford with my 1942 A/T Gun 2Pdr
DSC00379.JPG (145.55 KiB) Viewed 10445 times

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 22:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

Jeep rugged as hell. Climb all sorts of terrain.

#15

Post by Dave Bender » 04 Jun 2008, 18:48

I have driven plenty of older model US Army Jeeps as well as the newer HMMWV. I have not driven any WWII era VWs but I have driven plenty of 1960s era bugs and VW dune buggy conversions. My 2 cents worth, for what it's worth.

The Jeep is very rugged. It is better suited to military operations then the lightly built VW. But don't cut the VW short. I believe that inexpensive VW will go through more soft terrain (snow, mud, sand) then a Jeep provided that is has decent off road tires. I have seen lots of stuck jeeps. I once had a jeep tip over when I was trying to creep past some muddy tire tracks at a couple MPH. I have gotten VWs stuck also but they are relatively easy to recover as they tend to float over soft terrain.

Unlike the jeep and VW, the newer and larger HMMWV really will go through almost any terrain. It was my vehicle of choice for pulling out jeeps that were stuck in the mud.

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”