(first posted 12/1/2011) That Ferdinand Porsche’s Volkswagen Beetle would permute into a highly successful off road capable troop transport vehicle in a matter of one month was one of the more remarkable and successful adaptations in automotive history. And that the first mass-produced light amphibious vehicle was the second adaptation added to the growing reputation of the VW and the Porsches. In almost every way the opposite of the specifically-designed American military Jeep, the battle of the two has never quite ended, and their respective fans still argue as to which was the better vehicle. It’s a bit like comparing a tractor and a sports car: it depends on the job at hand.
While the KdF wagen (Volkswagen Beetle) was not designed specifically from the outset to have military application, it was clear to the military planners that it had the potential. Already in January 1938, prior to the completion of the VW factory, an order to develop a military version was given. The first version, the Type 62 (prototype above), cobbled up by Ferry Porsche in a month, was essentially a Type 1 (Beetle) with a primitive body and 19″ tires to give it added ground clearance. It was pressed into service for the 1939 Polish invasion, and although it acquitted itself well enough, certain shortcomings in that first outing needed to be addressed.
The Type 62 lacked gearing low enough to allow it to crawl along at 2.5 mph, the speed of walking troops. And sitting on the Type I chassis, its ground clearance and off road capability were modest. Ferry Porsche headed up a complete redesign, commonly known as the Type 82, but actually the Type 2 in VWs internal numbering system.
A sturdier platform frame, and the use of reduction gears on the ends of the rear axle shafts were the most significant and critical changes. The reduction gears not only brought the gearing down for the walking tempo, but was more favorable in war terrain overall. And they had the benefit of increasing ground clearance, along with corresponding change in the front suspension mounting location. And it received a more substantial body, which was built by Ambi-Budd, an American-owned company.
One of the Kübelwagen’s most remarkable features was its use of a limited slip differential, the first application ever outside of the legendary thirties Audi GP cars, for which purpose it was first invented. It was the key ingredient (along with the rear engine and light weight) that allowed the VW to be effective off-road without having four wheel drive. In fact, under certain situations, like crossing a trench on the diagonal, a four wheel drive vehicle like the Jeep could potentially get hung up if one wheel on each axle was briefly suspended in the air.
The Type 82 Kübelwagen was about as different from the Jeep as possible, and as alluded to at the top, they both had respective strengths and weaknesses. Clearly, the 1100 cc 25 hp VW lacked the grunt power of the 2.2L 60hp Jeep, which made it much more suitable for towing. But the Jeep rode on a precariously short and narrow wheelbase, with a tall body sitting high above the frame and running gear, and stiff leaf springs.
The number of deaths from Jeep rollovers was insignificant in the big picture, but alarmingly high nevertheless. And the Jeep rode roughly, especially for anyone who had the misfortune to have to ride on the rear seat directly over the axle. And with a party of four aboard, the Jeep had no extra carrying space, unless in a trailer. The high metal doors and bodywork of the VW also provided a bit more protection from the elements and might even slow down a bullet. And there was room for luggage behind the back seat.
The VW was certainly the more comfortable of the two for its passengers, with its four bucket seats (that gave their name to the vehicle; a shortened version of Kübelsitzwagen) well within the axle lines. Its center of gravity was lower, and the long-stroke fully independent suspension gave a vastly superior ride and handling. The Jeep, whose origins reflected the deep mud conditions of the American Midwest, made a great tractor; the Kübelwagen, which was a product of more densely built up Europe, was a comfortable transport.
Even in the Sahara, Rommel’s troops were well served in their Type 82s equipped with 690×200 airplane tires. Air cooling had its obvious benefits wherever stray bullets fly. And the Kübelwagen’s flat smooth belly allowed it to slide over sand, snow or mud.
There are conflicting stories about what the Americans thought of the VW. According to wiki: “In November 1943, the U.S. military conducted a series of tests as well on several Type 82s they had captured in North Africa; they concluded that the vehicle was simpler, easier to manufacture and maintain, faster, and more comfortable for four passengers than the U.S. Jeeps”. This statement is at odds with U.S. War Department Technical Manual TM-E 30-451, Handbook on German Military Forces, dated 15 March 1945. In this manual (p. 416), it states “The Volkswagen, the German equivalent of the U.S. “Jeep”, is inferior in every way except in the comfort of its seating accommodations.”
Not really surprising, given the nature of military politics; even the German High Command had conflicting opinions about the Type 82. They initially resisted the Kübelwagen until Hitler himself forced the issue.
As an interesting aside, captured Kübelwagen gladly were put to use by the Americans, and resulted in the first comprehensive English-language Technical Manual for the operation and service of the Volkswagen in 1944. Regardless of what the US high command thought of the VW, plenty of GIs came home with positive memories or at least grudging respect, helping the Volkswagen became a popular import in the early fifties based on its rep for toughness.
The VW’s basic drive train configuration made it eminently suitable to convert to four wheel drive, by extending the output shaft through the front of the transmission through the central tunnel. The Porsches obviously saw it too, and developed it, and a limited number of Kübelwagen were built with it. But the extra expense and weight didn’t justify themselves with enough added capability to make it worthwhile. The lack of four wheel drive on the Kübelwagen was a pragmatic and conscious decision, not for lack of the technology.
The Type 82 was essentially resurrected after in the sixties as the Type 181 “Thing” (CC here).
Ironically, it was a Beetle-bodied vehicle, the Type 87 Kommandeurwagen that was given four wheel drive, in order to assure that its high ranking officers could get through (or away) even in the most extreme conditions.
Although the Kübelwagen acquitted itself very well, there was a perceived need for a more extreme-conditions vehicle, combining four wheel drive and amphibious capability. The Type 166 Schwimmwagen was a superb accomplishment, making it the most numerous mass-produced amphibious car in history.
Porsche chief designer Erwin Komenda had to design a completely new structure, as early tests with converting a Kübelwagen showed its smooth underbody to be totally unsuitable to moving through water. So a shorter, more boat-like unitized structure was designed, and it used the four wheel drive system from the Type 87 Kommandeurwagen.
The propeller was ingenious, as it was simple was flipped down in water, which caused it to engage in an extension from the VW engine out the rear. There was no reversing it, of course; that’s why paddles were standard equipment. Steering was via the front wheels. The Schwimmwagen was given a larger 1100cc engine with 25hp, which soon also became standard on the Kübelwagen too.
Watching a Schwimmwagen drive right into the Inn River and cross it as a very young child left a deep impression, reenacting something I’d only experienced in dreams. Now if VW had built a Flugwagen, my even more common dream of cars taking to the air would have been realized too. Given the VW’s remarkable adaptability, it’s almost surprising they didn’t.
Ich würde ein Schwimmwagen für Weihnachten, bitte.
I’m still waiting for the PV544 CC, but this has been a good one, and the VW vs. Jeep argument continues. I like them both, as I was a fan of the Thing in 1973.
Kinda makes a guy wonder: if these simple, rugged, inexpensive vehicles were so useful in 1940s wartime, why is there no modern equivilent? The Humvee is more like an armored passenger verion of the heavy duty Dodge and Stude trucks of WWII. Maybe the modern version of these (everywhere but here) is the Toyota HiLux.
Safety standards, and rising expectations (on the part of most buyers) about what even a basic vehicle is supposed to be/provide. Can you even buy a car without A/C anymore? (Maybe a few stripper trucks.)
Nothing simple will pass increasingly stringent air pollution standards. I think vintage vehicles and the freedom to drive them satisfies the tiny population of simple car enthusiasts. When I want to drive something primitive I get out my 60s Beetle and take a ride. I could even daily drive it if I wanted to in my part of the world. Repair parts are easy to find.
The other problem is that an aircooled Beetle vs a modern car or pickup truck offers approximately the same safety as a motorcycle. At least on a motorcycle you don’t need to worry about being trapped inside.
I’m trying to imagine some scenario in the modern world in which it would be useful to own a Schwimmwagen. There are many sandbars/islands in the Mississippi River near where I grew up in Minnesota, so plausibly a Schwimmwagen would allow you to live on on any one of these and do your entire commute in one vehicle. Maybe there is an untapped market
The Amphicar was marketed under the same presumptions.
The Amphicar makers anticipated sales of 20,000 a year. Instead, they sold about 2500 – between 1960 and 1966. They only had a two-year run; and most of that run was done to use up parts.
Amphicars were in the pipeline or on dealers’ lots for four years; and in those days, vehicles were titled by year SOLD, not made.
President LBJ owned an Amphicar. It was on display at his ranch when I toured in the mid-90s.
Apparently he liked to drive people around his ranch in it and, not telling them it was amphibious, drive straight into the river to enjoy their panicked expressions and eventual relief when they realized it would float.
First time I saw an Amphicar the family was eating dinner at the River Queen ferry boat, in Portland Oregon around 1964. It was moored on the other side of the river directly across from the boat launching ramp. We saw some crazy people in a little convertible sport car speed down the ramp and splash into the river. I was 8 years old and shouted someone drove their car into the river. It bobbed in the water for a minute, sitting really low like it was sinking. Then a wave started churning out the back, the car turned to the side and started moving down the river. That was a amazing sight to see.
I remember seeing a couple of them in Portland around the same time frame, but never saw one in the water. I was 13 in 1964 so I was a car fanatic in the day.
I remember seeing one when I was really little too at the local lake. It really fried my four year old brain to imagine a car driving across the lake.
Watching them on YouTube today I can’t imagine what it would be like in a sudden summer rain storm with wind whipped waves. Maybe if it had emergency air bladders that would provide extra buoyancy.
A stalled engine during a weather event on the water might be really dangerous…
I was lucky enough to see one of those Amphicars in habitat. When I was a child, one of my aunts lived on an island in Wisconsin. Her conveyance was an aluminum fishing boat with a small outboard.
Her neighbors did island living right. They had a garage and a two-track driveway that went under a lattice gate and right into the lake. I’ll never forget the Amphicar driving out of the lake and into the garage, it blew my young mind.
In my mind, I’d IDed the car as a Mercedes. It was only much later when I googled to figure out what it really was.
Growing up in my town along the Columbia river, I remember a family across the river that had two Amphicars and regularly used them to cross the river to commute to work, saving about 25 miles of driving each way. This was two decades before the interstate bridge was completed which pretty much eliminated the benefit of the water crossing.
It would be so cool to have one, just to be able to visit some of my friends who live on lakes in the Puget Sound area, pulling up to their dock in my CAR!
Since the Amphicar was neither a very-good car, or a truly shipshape watercraft; and since inevitable rust would compromise hull integrity…maybe the answer to families like yours on the river, would have been to park on the other side of the river, and have a little fishing boat or skiff with an outboard to cross the river with.
The trouble is, military leadership – and logistical planners – seem to confuse the function of a recon car, like the Jeep or HumVee, with armored personnel carriers, like the Dodges or Studes you mention.
The HumVee offered much more safety than the Jeep; but neither was worth a prayer when under fire or in a land-mine situation. They simply were not designed for it.
Apparently, current expectation is that soldiers in transit should be shielded at all times from flack or mines. Hey, if they can pull it off, more power to them…but there’s no room in that expectation for a Jeep, 181-type or HumVee.
Well spoken. The need for the old Jeep was apparent in Mogadishu when the HMMMVs couldn’t get through the narrow alleys and streets to rescue the Rangers and Delta. In Afghanistan SOCOM uses ATVs and horses for the purpose the Jeep once served.
Sorry to nitpick, but Dodges & Studebakers (+ CCKWs) were military trucks, not APCs. White/International M2 & M3 halftracks & the German Hanomags were the WW2 equivalents of APCs. Brits had the much smaller, but fully-tracked Bren Carriers as well.
G.I.s complained about halftrack armor (good for stopping shrapnel & small-arms at best), & since then, APCs have been blamed for not having tank armor, esp. by the media. Critics forget that armored vehicles are always a compromise; more armor means more H.P. which means less space for the crew. There’s also cost & ferry weight to consider.
Even though Volkswagen never built the flügwagen, its aircooled engine has long been a favorite powerplant for light (usually home-built) aircraft. While I haven’t worked on it in years (family priorities), my 7/8 scale Nieuport 11 replica project (WWI fighter) is designed around the dual-port engine… (photo not of my airplane!)
EDIT – should have looked at the photo more closely – that’s not a VW engine in that one… this one is, though.
I hear the Corvair engine is a popular engine choice too.
Soldiers were only cannon fodder in WW2 their safety was not a concern and like the equipment used were considered expendable
Now personel are considered a valueable resource and have to be cossetted and protected to reap the investment of training
The Humvee while quite handy in open desert country has proved a liability in mountainous terrain in Afganistan the sheer bulk is so restrictive this is where vehicles like the Jeep VW Landrover and others excell. THe NZ SAS have abandonned their US sourced Humvees and now use locally sourced Toyota Hiluxes.
The Nazis didn’t have cheap cellphone-triggered IEDs, thank heavens, or suicide bombers either.
Not to flame…but actually, you’re wrong.
The Japanese had kamikaze pilots…who could take out as many men and more on installations and airstrips and ships. It was a little easier to spot them; but the sheer numbers meant some would get through and did.
The Nazis didn’t have IEDs tripped with cell-phones; neither do the Islamic radicals right now. Our people have found ways to jam radio signals on those frequencies.
Right now IEDs are being tripped in more primitive ways – strings or fuzes. Not unlike the deadfalls or covered pits that have always been used…admittedly, IEDs have a little more kill power.
No flame taken, it’s an interesting discussion. Right, not a good example, the cellphone IEDs are easy to jam. All the IEDs and other threats did make the Army up-armor all the vehicles, which would have to be heavy enough to bear the extra weight.
Kamikazes took out ships and buildings like you said, so it’s not about vehicles, but who cares, it’s a good point. Reading about kamikaze, they point out infantry “banzai charges” were practically suicide attacks as well.
North Korean communists used a racheting device made from wood and string to trigger mines vehicles driving over them gradually tightened the trigger then boom a vehicle in the middle of a convoy explodes blocking the road ingenious and undetectable.
Just like most of the rest of the world.
…similar approach prevails in Israel, where the IDF uses Humvees for certain missions, SAS-style Land Rovers and locally produced Sufas (Jeeps) for others.
Wasn’t the Gryo Captain’s (Mad Max II/The Road Warrior) aircraft powered by a VW?
Yes
Great article…
If you wish to talk about Kamakazi’s read “Flag of Our Father’s” about the defense of Iwo Jima.
Each Japanese was not to dye until he killed 10 Americans. We lost 7000 Marines KIA taking Iwo from the 20,000 Japenese killed
The Japanese didn’t come close to meeting their goal.
Getting OT, but the prohibition on surrender among the Japanese was so strict that only a couple dozen were captured, most because they were unconscious from injuries.
Others hid out in the many caves and tunnels on the island, and would raid the US camps for food. Two were not found until 1947. There is an unconfirmed story that one Japanese soldier hid out deep in Mt Suribachi until discovered in 1953.
To continue off track, the best book about the Pacific naval war I’ve ever read is “Shattered Sword”.
It tells in great detail how the Japanese navy was defeated at Midway. No kamikazes yet, just brave naval aviators on both sides.
The explanations of how carrier-based air war was conducted by the Imperial and US navies is told in minute, and thrilling, detail.
http://www.shatteredswordbook.com
Something about the Kommandeurwagen just speaks to me.
Oh, I remember now. I live in Western Michigan. I’ll be doing the same thing that old Beetle is doing, only with a 16 year-old Pontiac in mounds of snow instead of mounds of sand…
That’s why it speaks to me…
All the air cooled rear engined vw models speak to me for much the same reason. When my 66 was new I found that it would high center on snow banks but two guys could pull it off again. Sometimes just one.
Would love to try to get stuck in one of the olds ones with reduction gears and high centers. I would think your pontiac would be tough to get loose again.
Speaking of cool vehicles developed by Germans….yesterday’s XKCD:
http://xkcd.com/984/
PS: Hold your cursor over the comic for another little joke.
Which of the vehicles would have benefited Ted Kennedy most?
The Jeep does have the nifty star applique.
Maybe one of each and invite a pal to drive one in the Vet’s Day parade while a dozen babes toss candy to the crowd from your vehicle.
Giving me another excuse to show the infamous and classic National Lampoon ‘ad”.
Wars are won by logistics just as much as fighting men, as the Axis countries found out to their sorrow. Both vehicles were heavily influenced by the manufacturing plant available for their production, since in a global war that absolutely devoured resources, there was no extra time, money, or material (even in the US) to dedicate manufacturing plant for an ideal light scout vehicle. There’s no doubt that the Kubelwagen had many fine attributes, but by 1943 every assembly plant in the US was already committed to building something, even if we would have interested in copycatting it (and yes we did copy many good foreign ideas, and even some enemy ones, notably the Mark 18 electric submarine torpedo).
Quite right; there would’ve had to be a very good reason to replace the Jeep, & the War Production Board was zealous about preventing production disruption by dodgy new projects or even upgrades (e.g., the vetoed P-38K). Recall that the US was not merely supplying its own forces, but the Commonwealth & Soviets as well.
If the Germans had more discipline over weapons development & stopped more of their fascinating but wasteful Mad Scientist projects, the War might’ve been prolonged at least. The Maus tank is one example.
They also vetoed the up-gunning and up-amrouring of the Sherman tank. British reports from Africa immediately showed the 75 mm gun was outclassed by the long 75 mm of the Pzkw IV, and that ammunition storage needed more protection. These upgrades were vetoed by the War Production Office. The British then adapted their superb 17 lb antitank gun for the Sherman Firefly. It was the only tank in Western Europe that could take on a Panther. The Brits also welded on extra side plates over the ammunition stowage. The US forces had to wait until 1945 to get the 76 mm gun.
Quite right; along with the Mk14 Torpedo, that was one of America’s major fails. But it was more about doctrine than technology or production (Evidence: they accepted the new light M24 w/o much fuss). Gen. Leslie McNair opposed an improved anti-tank gun for the Sherman, saying that was the job of Tank Destroyers. This was the Army’s initial response to Panzer victories of 1940, but it was obsolete by the time the US was involved; by then, the Germans were largely on the defensive. And in offensive war, who can say what sort of opponent a tank will encounter anyhow? The UK stumbled into a good compromise by D-Day: a mix of Fireflys & std. Shermans to cover all target types. Fireflys had poor HE ammunition & low rate of fire, but they could kill a Tiger I at combat ranges.
Besides, TDs were weakly armored & I say could’ve been replaced in production by up-gunned Shermans. The Soviets had the most rational tank evolution IMHO, with competitive yet producible T34s and heavy KVs & ISs, with assault-gun derivatives much better protected than TDs. They couldn’t understand why the Germans had so many different heavy tank models. Some Russian tankers liked their Shermans.
US armoured military doctrine was a real shmozzle through much of the war. The tank destroyer idea didn’t work since regular tanks are always going to be on the point and will have to engage the enemy first. At any kind of combat range a Sherman could kill a German tank, the German could have opened up on it long before, often as much as 400 m. The US units took big casualties and were difficult to control in battle. Lessons learned in Normandy had the US Army screaming for something that could kill a Panther or Tiger. The combat power of these units in Normandy depleted them so quickly they soon became easier to control and much more effective. A brutal irony.
The Russians indeed had some excellent designs and concentrated on them. In fact the 500 hp diesel was designed by BMW before 1933 when they were cooperating with the Soviets and had weapons factories in the Soviet Union, which were all closed down when Hitler took over. The T-34 is an awesome design. Is was recently at the War Museum in Ottawa, which have a Panther and a T-34/85 sitting next to each other and the Panther dwarfs it. The T-34 is obviously the better example of engineering, since it does the same thing with much less materials.
Of course the advantage of the American tanks was their reliability, which is why the Russians used their Lend-Lease Shermans for this duty, but the T-34 and KV always led the attacks.
Good day.Canuck,the T34 was not a good design,and many were poorly made,which I dare say is typical of Russian products.Take a look at the article “Myth of the T34”,and at the American appraisal of T34 steering,suspension,and firepower.Sorry to bust your rosy bubble of this tank,but the truth is the Germans destroyed about 80% of them.So how could this be the best tank of the war,as is often said?The sheer numbers of this,and other Soviet tanks,overwhelmed the Wehrmacht.And don’t forget the enormous amount of LendLease materiel.Without that, the Germans would have kicked the God-damned Judeo-Bolshevik Beast beyond the Urals.
Sie wollen eine Flugwagens? Hier ist Ihre Flugwagens
That looks a little on the heavy side…
War time VW Jeep is the best light off road machine.if you go to http://www.tankmodel.com you can see each VW model such as VW82,82e,166 and very rare VW87 and also US willys MB Jeep.
I have a 1/16 model kit of a Schwimmwagen and at model-club meetings I keep threatening to build it in L51C Miami Blue with white vinyl seats, “elephant-foot” taillights and a late model dash complete with fake wood inserts.
Very interesting read.
I visited the DAF-museum last week and learned about their MC 139 prototype from the late thirties. It was an amphibious 4 seater with 4WD and 4 wheel steering. The prototype was destroyed in 1940 to prevent it from falling in enemy hands.
More info here:
http://www.amphibiousvehicle.net/amphi/D/dafspecial/daf-139.html
Wow, a 4×4 split window! I’ve seen some of these pictures before, but not that one!
Interesting read. The 73 and 74 VW Things were actually slow sellers when they came out. The 73 had a gas heater, that was eliminated for 74. I recall the 73 had a weird dual muffler system with lots of crossover pipes and was really expensive, hundreds of dollars even at that time. They were quickly rusting out, soon they were replaced with modified standard VW exhaust or aftermarket header units. They had no roll bars, lap belts only and thin removable doors. Also had irs suspension without reduction gears. They were gone by 75, they were built in Mexico and they would have needed fuel injection and cat convertors, and there was some bad media addressing the safety issues. They are very collectable now, and really were cool little vehicles.
A friend has one and I’ve worked on it a few times. I’ve also driven it a few times. It is terrifying to drive very fast. Excellent at low speeds but 50 mph is an adventure. One mistake and you’re in trouble, perhaps mortal trouble.
Finally got to see a Kubelwagen up close at Military Thru the Ages in Jamestown, VA last year. The event is a very popular weekend (second weekend of March) and opening of the re-enactment season for all periods. It’s a series of displays starting (usually) with Roman Empire and winding thru the property ending up with Vietnam, plus a modern National Guard display.
Last year’s WWII Germans were in two groups – a regular German infantry unit, France 1944, which had the Kubelwagen, and a tie-in group of Volksturm doing Berlin 1945. That group was exact to the point of creepiness. To do the unit, you had to be either be between the ages of 12-15, or older than 60. It’s interesting listening to a 13 year old doing a very expert demonstration on a Panzerfaust.
Pretty amazing that the Kubel was as competitive as it was, even though on paper it looks FAR inferior. I think at the end, the Jeep wins (Im pretty biased of course) but not by much. Its pretty amazing that the Germans were literally able to make something out of nothing with the VW platform. Not unlike how far Lido was able to stretch the K platform.
The things I like most about the Kubelwagen are its lightness and compact size. Interesting that American Bantam, builder of Austin Seven-based vehicles in the 1930’s, came up with the original Jeep concept.
There are two schools of thought here. One concept is four wheels and an engine, the other is basically an armored personnel carrier with a little extra mobility. Conditions in Iraq warranted the latter, Afghanistan appears friendlier to the former.
Though I do wonder what the point is nowadays of designing a vehicle from the ground up when the Toyota Hilux has proven more than up to the task in various war zones.
*cough* militaryindustrialcomplex *cough*
Humvees look like a great brotractor but in serious conditions their size is against them either end of the scale really the Jeep was too small the Humvee too large and cumbersome. Have a look at the newer IVECO military truck its everything a Humvee could have been with a little brain thrown into the design team
I have the “rare” Kubelcorgiwagen.
“bucket seats (that gave their name to the vehicle; a shortened version of Kübelsitzwagen)”
Nonsense. Bucket car referred to the car itself. A car you could carry things in.
Nothing to do with the seats.
I’ve seen the same fabrication elsewhere on the internet. All written by the same American Kubelwagen owner!
I beg to differ.The term ‘kubelsitzwagen” (bucket seat car) had been used before, for a crude vehicle with no or a minimalist body wherein the bucket seats were designed to help keep the occupants from falling out. The term was shortened to kubelwagen.
The amphibians are particularly interesting since between them the Axis and Allies had one good amphibious vehicle each, the VW Schwimmwagen being far superior to the “Seep”, while the Germans never came up with a big schwimmer as successful and effective as the GMC DUKW.
From what I have read about the war on the Eastern front, the Germans would always try to capture as many jeeps and Studebaker trucks as they could. Four wheel drive was a feature the Kubelsitzwagen lacked and was appreciated by the Germans.
Damn Paul,
You remind me of Brittany Spears “Oops I did it again” Brilliant.
Really? I didn’t think I’d ever be compared to BS. I’m not familiar with that song, so I don’t really know what the point of comparison actually is.
Not mentioned yet is that the Meyers Manx style dune buggy and the old Baja Bug (where you raised the ride height of a Beetle with oversized wheels and tires, and either stripped off the fenders and lids, and/or substituted fiberglass pieces more adapted to the situation), were more or less variations on the Kubelwagen theme, and worked quite well. People who have driven both a Thing and an early Jeep will tell you that you sit “in” the VW and “on” the Jeep. The Jeep is essentially a two-place side-by-side mechanical horse. Two different ways of going about the same function. Jeeps, VW based dune buggies, and Baja Bugs all met up again in off-road competition in the late ’60s and in the ’70’s, and the results depended on the driver and the preparation, more than the starting point.
Thanks for the feature.
I appreciate the simple engineering that made these little machines so good on the battlefield then of benefit later in peacetime. Seeing a picture of one reminds me of a story my father told me once about being wounded from shrapnel in the latter part of WWII. Stumbling out of the bush, he came to a road and was soon met by a couple of German officers driving by. For no particular reason I envision them in a Kublewagon. Fortunately, they put Dad in the back seat and dropped him off at nearby hospital.
He was forced to join the German army at age 18 when troops swept through his village in SE Poland. After recovering, word came the Soviet army was advancing so he high-tailed it west to the American lines. I’m glad he did as in a couple of years he immigrated to Canada.
The Sherman was a poor tank, too high, gun not powerful enough, insufficient armour and ran on petrol. The Germans called them Ronsons or Tommy cookers. The T34 also had its faults. However both were produced cheaply in massive numbers thus overwhelming the opposition.
The state of US armed forces and their equipment prior to the war was lamentable. Obsolete aircraft, defective torpedoes etc, it would have been impossible for them to join at the start, besides being politically unacceptable. Given the limited time frame, they had to take advantage of the only things they had, manpower, plentiful oil, and production capability, however the equipment was often crude but good enough. No jets, no cruise missiles, no ICBMs, unlike the Germans.
In most battles the casualties are roughly 50/50, regardless of who wins. A suicide bomber or Kamikazee is a much more effective way of waging war, the hit rate hugely better. My father was in the British Pacific fleet on a carrier as the Japanese islands were attacked. They were hit 3 times by Kamikazees, welded a new plate on the deck and carried on. He saw several US wooden-decked carriers hit and sunk, so rapid cheap construction isn’t always a good idea.
Good post. The USA historical promotional department needs to be re-calibrated. I’ve heard this all my life that we are the best at everything when it is clear we’ve had some bright ideas and a bunch of half-baked ideas as well. Apparently it is hard for our history books to be objective. I think we’d benefit from being more objective about our nation and our history.