► Soft Skinned Vehicles

[arminfreitag]

Hi everybody
some more recent E-bay pictures.

Regards
Armin

[Maxschnauzer]

Motorschlitten in Russia. Need help with the Type. NKL-6??

[SIS 5]

Hi Max,

the exact designation is NKL 16 - 37. Here a pic of this Motorschlitten.

Best regards

Bert

[Maxschnauzer]

Thank you, Bert. Nice pic also.
What about this Type?

[SIS 5]

Hi Max,

that´s the German Motorschlitten "Max Henschel", made by the company Henschel, but with some copied fundamental parts of the Russian NKL 16 - 37. Here a pic of such a Motorschlitten captured by the Russians in the battle for Charkov and then presented in Moscow on the exhibition of captured German technology.

Best regards

Bert

[Maxschnauzer]

Thanks a lot, Bert. That's very helpful and interesting.

[Maxschnauzer]

Büssing-NAG Type VI GL and extended family.

[Maxschnauzer]

These photos are very interesting. They show Mercedes-Benz's first Kübelwagen which was based on the 8/38 PS. We are lucky the photo is dated 1928 so we know it is not the later Stuttgart 200 or Stuttgart 260 which outwardly look the same but were not introduced until 1929. Even more interesting is that it is wearing competition kit for a rallye or something. Very rare pics indeed.

ebay.de

Below, I've cleaned them up a little for clarity:

[SIS 5]

Hi Max,

thank You very much for this very interesting contribution and the excellent pics of the Mercedes-Benz Kübelwagen. So You discovered a mistake in both books "Die Motorisierung der Deutschen Reichswehr 1920 - 1935" and "Fahrzeuge der Reichswehr - Radfahrzeuge 1920 - 1935" by Walter J. Spielberger. We wrote that the tests with Kübelwagen already startet in 1927 with the type Adler "Favorit" and Daimler-Benz type "Stuttgart 200". But it cannot be the type Stutt6gart 200", because this type was produced only from 1929 as You correctly said.
Here the pic of the first Kübelwagen of Daimler-Benz out of Spielberger´s book.
The other interesting thing is the competition kit for a rallye. I was searching in the internet and could find the rallye "Autorennen rund um den Hermann", the correct name was Autorennen "Rund um das Hermannsdenkmal" (motor race around the monument of Hermann) in the Teutoburg Forest. Start and finish was in Detmold. It was a reliability drive, where also vehicles of the Reichswehr participated. So the Reichswehr tested in this way the suitability of vehicles. Here a pic of such a motor race with an Opel Kübelwagen (source: "Opel Militärfahrzeuge 1906 - 1945" yb Eckhart Bartels).

Best regards

Bert

[Maxschnauzer]

Hi Bert,
I really appreciate your feedback on those rather rare photos. The discrepancy in Spielberg is interesting. Below are the photo you posted from Spielberg and the one under it from Oswald's Deutsche Militärlastwagen Bis 1945.

Obviously they look identical but the lower photo is captioned as a 2,6 liter Stuttgart. Since the only differences are in the motor we have to rely on the provenance of the photos to tell which was the 1926-29 8/58 PS or the 1929 and later 200 or 260.

Many thanks for the info on the Autorennen "Rund um das Hermannsdenkmal". I have recently found these photos of a Mercedes Kübel which may have fallen victim to these trials, again I can't be sure which type it is:

[Maxschnauzer]

Stoewer M12 RW

[SIS 5]

Hi Max,

thank You very much for Your competent reply and the excellent pics.
I have found an interesting article about the early "Kübelwagen" of the Reichswehr and Wehrmacht with some good pics of our Mercedes-Benz Kübelwagen in Tankograd - Wehrmacht Special № 4002 "German Military Vehicle Rarities (2)" by Henry Hoppe.
I think like You that the first Mercedes-Benz Kübelwagen type 8/38 PS and the second one type 8/38 PS "Stuttgart 200" (W 02) look identical and the only differences are in the motors (first with the Daimler-Benz M 6506 and the second with the Daimler-Benz M 02), but both with 38 hp.
The lower photo You posted is captioned as a 2,6 liter Stuttgart. But that could be a mistake, because the type "Stuttgart 260" obviously did not look totally identical to the other two Kübelwagens. Hoppe included a pic with one of the first vehicles of the Kübelwagen type Stuttgart 260 with the same superstructure and two spare wheels in the back, but already with the other, later typical rims for this type. What do You think?

Best regards

Bert

[SIS 5]

Here the other three pics.

Best regards

Bert

[Maxschnauzer]

Hi Bert,
First, thanks for posting all those wonderful photos. To the discussion, most of the 10/50 PS Stuttgart 260 pics I have are indeed the later versions with disc wheels and different appearance, but the Oswald photo I posted and the one Holger posts here from Hoppes collection apparently show the early 1929 version which to me looks just like the 8/58 PS based ones.

Mercedes_260_Kubel_10-50_PS__Kf5__6-11-1932__Kalbitz_via_Hoppe_-2-.jpg (69.01 KiB) Viewed 709 times

According to the specs table in Oswald's books the chassis dimensions are identical down to the mm, so it doesn't surprise me if the early ones possibly used the same bodywork then after 1930 or so becoming more like this.

Please continue to inform me of your thoughts on these, I'm eager to learn and thoroughly enjoy this discussion

[SIS 5]

Hi Max,

thank You very much for Your informative reply and the invitation to a very interesting discussion.
I agree with You, that the Oswald photo You posted and the pic from Hoppes collection look just like the 8/58 PS based ones.
But now I´m totally confused after looking in the book "Fahrzeuge der Reichswehr - Radfahrzeuge 1920 - 1935" by Walter J. Spielberger.
Here his details about the Mercedes-Benz Kübelwagen :
Typ 8/38 built from 1928 - 1932
Typ 10/50 built from 1928 - 1933
Typ 200 built from 1933 - 1935
Typ 260 built from 1934 - 1935
Typ 290 built from 1934 - 1935
For me a surprise: there are four pics of the type 200. Here they are (year of production: 1932). I could find another pic of the type 200 in the book "Mercedes PKW und LKW 1935 - 1945" by Dr. Hans-Georg Meyer-Stein (year of production: 1934).
Now I don´t know what is right and what is wrong. What do You think?

Best regards

Bert