My father was in WWII and when he was in Normandy, his Jeep ran out of fuel. He said that he was too far away from a fuel source because he was on some farm. A farmer brought him some Calvados (distilled apples) which he made him understand was almost pure alcohol. So "any port in a storm" and 4 liter bottle's worth of Calvados later poured into the Jeep an Brrroommm off it went. He said that when he told everyone back at the camp what had happened, the others tried it too.
My grandfather fought in ww2 but after the war in I believe 1955 he was on the highway from daegu to soul in South Korea when his jeep broke down. Luckily a Korean kid helped and fixed up his Jeep so now he is my great uncle
@David Kopp It's okay David, I've received "flak" as well, truth isn't a quality no longer appreciated in the western world. I too have spoken to German veterans as well, I'm ashamed as an Australian what was done in our name.
@David Kopp If things get tough for your country while fighting for one side, it is an act of loyalty to your country to switch sides. Knowingly fighting for the loosing side is not in the interest of any country,. The definition of loyalty to one’s country surely includes fighting for the very best interests of that country, even if it mean betraying former allies. Loyalty to one’s country is a value more related to self-interest than it is to honor.
@@ayebee1207 Many decades ago when I was young and foolish I thought it was great. I would love to have a 50cal armed jeep but I wouldn't operate it in sand dunes except in an emergency but still better than a kubelwagon for the job.
The $50 jeep is (was) a popular myth. The average selling price for a surplus jeep in 1946 was $975.00. There has been a long standing reward of $25,000 for a jeep in a crate. Still hasn't found one.
@@MrBill42mb hows that? Ive seen plenty in a crate.. still new. They sell for more than that now though. Think the ford built jeep in a crate went for 46k.
I think the most important quality to take into consideration is fuel consumption. Running fuel trucks to the troops was a challenge and the Kubelwagen consumed far less than the Jeep did.
@@oliviersavard8676 The Jeep probably had an edge in traction, but it was not as big of an edge as one might think. The light weight Kubelwagen with it's motor mounted behind the rear drive wheels made for an excellent traction set up. Where do you think dune buggies evolved from?
@@frankhoward7645 Buggies are horrible for offroad, their only real use is for wheelies. They lose in mud to front engined mud trucks, lose in rock crawling to front engined rock crawlers, lose in desert races to front engined trophy trucks. There's a reason why legendary offroaders like the Toyota FJ, Suzuki Jimny, UAZ, etc. trace their heritage from the Jeep. Especially their first generations, which are literally jeeps.
@@johncarl5505 You won't find me arguing that a rear engine RWD vehicle will out perform a front engine 4WD, because it can't, however it will keep up 90% of the time and while it's keeping up, it's consuming half the fuel. Mechanically, it has half the complications as well. This is a good compromise in times of war.
Really hard to take them serious when one guy complains they where 'death traps' always tipping over... No.. WWII Jeeps where not prone to tipping over. That comes well after both WWII and the Korean war with M151 and M151A that had a new fully independent suspension that was prone to 'tucking under' when unloaded. These didn't see service until Vietnam. The M151A2 redesigned the rear suspension and fixed this issue.
Not sure that's entirely accurate. Years ago, I was looking to buy a Jeep CJ7. My Dad, a WW2 Army Soldier, told me about several buddies that were killed when their Jeeps rolled over. I've also seen WW2 films about development of the Jeep that shows a Jeep going airborne over obstacles where it clearly shows the wheels toeing in.
@@patrickppronovost7914 WWII Jeeps had a front Dana 25 live axle on leaf springs and a Dana 27 live axle on leaf springs in the rear image.fourwheeler.com/f/131340650+w660+h440+q80+re0+cr1+ar0/1946-willys-cj-2a-dana-25-front-axle.jpg Whatever video you watched was the development towards the M151 Production started in 1959 which had a swing axle in the rear also it would be cambering in not toeing in. Any vehicle can roll over in the right terrain and misuse which the Jeep could find itself in much more readily as the Jeep was 4WD while the Kubelwagen was only 2WD something completely overlooked in this show.
when I was 6 years old back in the 1970s my step dad took a jeep home while he was in the US National Guard. no seat belts, no doors and going down the highway at 50 something m.p.h. scared the living hell out of me! I had him pull over so I could ride with my mom in a car with doors,ironically, I'm pretty sure that car was a 1960s volkswagon! lol! thanks guys, love the show! cheers!☆☆☆
Don't know about Jeeps but I live a couple hours from Hanford. It's the Allied factory that made Plutonium for the bomb dropped on Japan. Now that's the "better stuff."
There is a basic idea in engineering that reliability is a key factor in quality assessment. Part of reliability is ease of repair or being built well enough not to need repairs as often. German engineering often fails on both counts. For instance, the German tanks were often lost not to combat but by being abandoned by their crews when they broke down. Armor and fire power were superior but overall reliability was terrible. It’s interesting to note how many American built tanks were knocked out but redeployed after field repairs while the German tanks often required repairs at the factory if they could get them there. Think about how many Sherman tanks got knocked out with the entire crew killed but the tank itself was returned to service within six weeks. Better engineering because of better overall reliability. Science not speculation. There are several good books on the subject of the qualities of reliability.
@@duybear4023 did you know that they also used quite a lot of captured uranoxide from germany to make the wapon grade Uran for those 2 bombs that where dropped ?
You're forgetting something. The jeep was also engineered so you could take the tires off and run it on train tracks, it could haul up to 9 tons on rail.
I recently got a ‘56 Unimog 404s What a machine! Thank you for taking so much time to put together a detailed video. Very well done gentleman. Warm regards from Canada
Anybody else notice at 0.18 it shows a pile of track links and one of the pin holes has a very bad crack followed by the dude marveling over German engineering 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@davewalkerden still, they didn't necessarily fit the same expectations. For example, the MG42 is a very different beast than the Bren gun. Both were carried by squads in similar fashion, but the tactics were different.
I’ve driven both. I learned stick on a stock 1945 Jeep and drove it in the Cali hills in 4 wheel drive. I’ve driven a 1943 Kubelwagen at a reenactment (harder than the owner knows). The Kubel simply drives better and surprisingly chews its way through sandy roads with no problems. It’s a bit of a tough call. I think overall the Jeep is more rugged but the Kubel is more stable and being air cooled, is more reliable cold climates. They really are very close. If you put a gun to my head I might go with the Jeep for reliability but even that could be debated.
There was ALSO a Swimming version of the Jeep - The Ford GPA - Not particularly successful, they ONLY built 12,700 of them.... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GPA
The jeep has 4wd so of course it won't have as good a turning circle as what is essentially a VW beetle which is rear wheel drive only. The jeep also had high and low range, really comparing apples and oranges here.
Broad smile, Gentlemen :) My Grandpa drove the Kübel to the Ostfront. When I got my driving license, he gave me an advice for slippy conditions in wintertimes: `Always take 4 Bolts and Nuts with you... and four chains, being long enough, to reach around your winter-tyres...` I will never forget that, because I could imagine, under which conditions this simple `innovation` was born... Maybe this solution belongs to this video... Thank you with a broad smile, ...also because I never thought about a Biathlon Race like this. Your wonderful humour is at least the other half :) Good Luck !
The Kuebelwagen is not really an example of overengineering. It´s really simple and realiable. PS: it was used up to the 1960ies. i learned to drive on it in 1988 during my time in the Bundeswehr.
@@christhevancura9113 the ' thing' was originally developed for Bundeswher in 1968.I don't think it was officially adopted and later on VW made civilian version known as the Thing.
the kubel was a runabout and light patrol car, not meant to tow anything (or very light something). where the jeep was meant to be a runabout, patrol car, and tow light artillery and other such items. both are designed to do the task set before them, but because the kubel had less items it was trying to do, it could do them better. German precision and over-engineering helped, but i would bet that if the allies did not have to design it to tow something the jeep would have been closer in design to the kubel.
Willys MB weight 1100KG while Kubel weighted 700KG, which means Kubel cost less material, Kubel also has a weaker engine, more powerful engine means higher cost. For WW2 utility vehicles, half of their coast are coming from the engine for the engine is the single most complex part of the vehicle. There is a myth say the WW2 germans produce expensive equipment so they produce in lower numbers, this is only true for a small number of their production. The low number is mainly a result of lack of resources, and a lack of factory
+Fan Yechao No, I'm talking about the actual cost per unit.This is where the US outperformed any nation in the world at the time. Willys outbid both Ford and Bantam and delivered their model MB @ $748.74 per unit. I'm willing to bet that the Kubelwagen cost double that to produce.
Why? Total war is not market economy. Hitler was convinced to produce stg44 only after he knows that stg44 cost less material than K98 (8-9 KG vs. 12 KG). Also, it is very difficult to explore the real cost between different country since the price of a single good can vary
This is dumb. the jeep was 4wd could cross sand mud and drive in a forest. It could tow a 75mm anti tank gun or mount a heavy machine gun. Ask the SAS 'Desert rats' what you can do with a Jeep.
Natural Selection German tanks were all under powered but were very low geared! They weren't powerful and certainly not very reliable the Sherman and the T34 were much more reliable than any German tank the T34 were even captured and used by Gemany while German Panzers were used by Russia but not trusted to stay in the battle! Look it up!
It has been a couple years since this video was posted and I was hoping for a part 2. Which would include how these two vehicles were actually used and handled in the field of combat: driving thru deep mud, up steep hills, driving thru streams, towing a loaded trailer, mounting weapons, surviving small arms fire. I hope to see that one soon. This video was entertaining but didn't settle the score as to which one was better in the field. Keep up the good work.
Trust me, as the owner and daily driver of a WIllys CJ-3a for the past 11 years, it takes a 3 lane road to make a U turn without backing up, the reason for this is the limitation of the Universal joints in the front axle. That being said, everything else about a flatfender Jeep is far superior to any scout car the Germans used in WW2.
The turning radius as stated in the specs from WIllys is 18.5'. Not sure how you got yours to turn tighter unless you've removed the U-joints all-together.
@@bliesberg the jeep would have no trouble getting around that corner even if it was twice as tight you can then use throttle induced oversteer and slide around the corner. the jeep was two seconds slower and they backed up on a corner they could've driven around to get the results they wanted. and the turning radius is not wide due to the uni joints it's wide because it's a closed knuckle diff newer jeeps with open knuckles have unis and steer much tighter while new landcruiser 79 series toyotas and the last of the land rover defenders still suffer a poor turning radius due to close knuckles even though they have cv's. oh and btw ww2 jeeps used uni's, cv's (rzeppa joints) or bendix joints on the front axles. the uni was proven most durable and serviceable.
The point was that it's turning radius isn't good, I'm sure the Kubel could have drifted around the corner as well. I'm not sure why you brought up closed vs open knuckle steering, I don't think anyone is arguing that open knuckle can corner much better than closed... if anything that was the whole point of my original reply.
My cousin once had a Kubelwagen. After a stretch of bumpy road his seat was on fire. The battery sat underneath it and the springs of the seat shorted the battery at every bump, throwing sparks into the hay filled upholstering. Otherwise: great design. And when comparing quantities produced, you wonder what then took the Allies so long, or: The Germans fought a good deal more economically.
What took so long was for a god portion of the war they had better equipment and tactics. Allies learned a lot from there defeats early in the war they jus Thad to get there technology and information up to snuff.
Look at all the right and left, forward and back pieces of a panzer mk3, mk4, and Panther that non interchange between variants before you use "economicly". I'd love to see towing capacity of two vehicles compared as well as mud and fording depths.
The Jeep won the speed race by a mile and only lost the obstacle course by 2 seconds (56 to 54 sec.) because the driver screwed up the first turn terribly. The Jeep, with 3X the horsepower could tow much more as well.
That wasn't a good test because it never used the jeep's greatest strength, its 4x4. I would love to see the kubelwagon traverse the Rubicon or logging trails of washington state. The limited slip diff in the kubelwagon would help but not enough for really treacherous terrain which the jeep thrives in. You still see MB's and CJ2's on trails...never saw a KW or Thing.
This is like all bad tests of the old Jeep. It was never designed to be a sports car. It was a 1/4 ton truck. It also had to be light enough without cargo for 4 men to pick up. It shined in the desert and just plain off road. Ask the Long Range Desert Patrol if they wanted the Kubelwagen. Also look at the original US army tests of the Jeep and think hard of what you see and the Kubelwagen. It would not have survived. As to it's engineering the original design was not a slap dash design. It was fast as far as time but used off the shelf parts and it was improved by 1943.
Let me clarify my position, the kubelwagon was lightweight, the underbody was a skidplate with an engine mounted on top of the drivetrain and limited slip differential. As a 2wheel drive vehicle it was fantastic in bad driving conditions. The jeep on the other hand was a 4x4 designed specically for off roading capabilities and if the 2 vehicles went head to head on a proper off road course the jeep would reign supreme...a yugo would not have had any trouble on the course they showed. I do admit I was surprised that the KW had a tighter turning radius because anyone who has ever driven the old willys could tell you they can turn on a dollar and give 75 cents change.
@@korbell1089 I don't think they were using as others would. The Kubelwagen would be as good on dirt roads and some rougher roads the same as the VW Beetle. Most modern front wheel drive will do the same. Weight over the axle makes the difference over regular of the period rear wheel drive. Although the Chord had front wheel drive in 1929 it was was not a proper weight over the axle design. The Bantam that became the Jeep was not a new idea as the FWD company had built an all wheel drive in 1908 called the Battleship. The Jeep was a very light weight 1/4 ton recconisance vehicle with four wheel drive per military specifications.
@Kekistan Shitlord Many have both. I have a 47 CJ 2, a 1951 M38A1 and a 1957 CJ 5. They are not my daily drive vehicles. They are a great vehicle of the era for outdoors people. They were using them for that not long after WWII. The trails he is speaking about are an interesting trip in an older low modified Jeep. If you look at old maps of western states they are marked as Jeep trails. Many were traveled before in Model T trucks. Have you ever run a rocky switch back trail in a Volkswagen? Ones that are just big enough for the CJ to travel with a turn that only a short narrow wheel based vehicle can travel? The only thing comparable would be the Suzuki Samurai. Except the Samaria can't plow a field with a 2 bottom plow. The Jeep could and did. It was also put on narrow gauge railway lines for various duties.
Let me explain something about engineering. if a simple, cheap reliable device can get the job done that is the best-engineered solution. Any hack can come up with a complex, unreliable, and expensive solution.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - E. F. Schumacher British economist
So the jeep, in spite of going into the turn to fast, having to stop, back up, and continue through, was only 2 seconds behind the kubalwagon, but it beat it in a flat out speed run, by almost 7 seconds, and the kubalwagon, was better?
Not much of an obstacle course -- no mud, no steep hills, nothing technical at all really except for a couple tight turns. Plus they really should have done multiple runs and taken the average time. But this wasn't really about a fair, full comparison, it was about having fun with a couple old WW2 vehicles...
The Kubelwagen is a glorified Volkswagen that has been later revived after the War as the Volkswagen Type 181, marketed as the “Thing” in 1968-1983. 🇩🇪
this was not a test, compare man hours and material to build, ship them across an ocean, let them sit in the rain for a week or two, then put them in field conditions for a month or two, compare maintenance needs,
@@mrserious444 From concept to distribution in the field, the German Utility Vehicle fulfilled it's objective in every way and as mentioned by US veterans, they would ditch their "Jeeps" for the Wagon for the reasons documented in diaries and historical writings. It's all there for you to lookup.
@@davidvaughn7752 the jeep was faster, had a more powerful and reliable engine, had 4x4. I'm mean come on you can't deny the jeep runs circles around the kubelwagon performance wise maybe you should pick another category because to say the kubelwagon is better is just downright false news.
I could have swore that the Army did a trial at Aberdeen and found the Kubelwagon was better. Benefits were the smooth bottom for clearing obstacles, no radiator (air cooled engine) so it could take shots and still function, and the suspension was similar to tanks making it nearly invulnerable. However, they just said the Jeep was better because you don't tell your troops the enemy has better anything. Plus I love how you can see a jeep break in 2 at the 3:43 mark, its quick but you can see it.
The smooth bottom is about the only thing that was found about the _Kubelwagen_ having an advantage. The lack of a radiator did not make it more survivable nor was its suspension any better. The 3/4 ton "Jeep" was arguably more versatile with its cargo capacity.
Both important and looking them today - charming old vehicles. The Jeep is the more iconic one overall. But my spine would certainly prefer the Kubel, looking at those pictures. And the Jeep being super iconic and much more often produced makes it just that little bit less desirable to me.
@ dont talk about my freedom like that! Contraty to your belief in most countries everyone and their grandma wants one of these all terrain kings of the road. THATS WHY THEY ARE SO EXPENSIVE!
So, they picked the German engineering because it has a tighter turning radius and has a softer ride? We are talking 4x4’s. At what point in history are either of those a consideration when going off-road? This text, while deficient clearly shows the Jeep the winner.
The Kübelwagen was engeniered realy simple. The goal was to produce a vehicle both simple to build and repair, but still fullfil its function at its best. And they achieved it. Mud and Snow performance is outstanding. Low fuel burn, etc... They dropped this wagon in boxes with parachutes out of planes and the soldiers were building them together like Lego.
My Dad was in a Jeep durring WWII that tipped over going too fast around a corner. They got a bit banged up but ripped it back in its wheels let it sit a few minutes and went home in it. Great old machines.
Their jeep obviously had the steering limitation that was put on the later jeeps to keep them from flipping over so easily. The world war two era jeep could easily have made that turn
I was licensed by the Army to drive the Jeep in the Republic of Vietnam in 1968. I never got the Jeep up to full speed. I was very cautious. I loved driving that thing. Eaglegards 🦅...
It is so cool these guys are willing to put 80-90 year old stuff that can’t be replaced to the test. I enjoy looking at those vehicles in museums, I have never seen the German one in person, living in the south here in the States there are a number of guys I grew up around that had WW2 and Korean era jeeps that still ran but were not restored
Turning radius or speed have nothing to do with engineering quality. Those are performance characteristics. Failure of a show, since this is all bluster and screaming.
The Jeep had Superior off-road performance, cargo capacity was easier to maintain and had greater mechanical reliability. In a real-world situation the Jeep wins
To be fair, the Jeep was made to order while the Kubel was just a car that the military changed. Made to order military weapons are almost always better: plus, the Willis Jeep was a completely unique, once-in-a-nations-lifetime design that did EVERYTHING better than it was designed and asked to do. It towed more, it went farther, it had better off-road performance, it lasted longer, it did everything better. Basically the Jeep was a unique performance design: this is why it took sooooo long to get another "ho hum" design to supplant it: it was the MG-42 of combat cars, all they did was keep updating it for a bit more performance. It was so good that Eisenhower said it "won the war". The Kubelwagen, by contrast, was simply a civilian car with decent performance that the military could use. It's a bit of apples and oranges.
Wrong. Just allied propaganda. Don't be jealous ;) Germans invented the first peoples car, first mega highways, and first rocket science. Pretty obvious.
I am an Indian these jeeps were in India till mid 90's probably the Indian versions. I must say these jeeps can be equaled only with russian mig's and ak47 in reliability and toughness. You just leave a jeep outside your house in open air for year's with just a plastic poly cover and after year's you take out and start your ignition it will start immediately just it will need basic oil refilling, engine oil, bit cleaning and checking before you can go on a ride and it can go over any kind of terrain like a war chariot.
Out produced yes. Outnumbered, surrounded, overwhelmed and cut off yes. Outfought HA! No Way! Not even close! Great fun video though! I would have a hard time picking which I’d prefer. Both are off the chart for Way Cool Factor! Thanks for posting.
That was Jochim Peiper in the Ardennes at 4:24. The Kubel on the show also has Leibstandarte markings, Peiper's division. Although i suspect they had to cover the first part of the license plate showing the SS runes for the tv show.
I have experience with the jeep and the Kubel. The jeep has a good tough engine but it's not that easy to work on. Most of them were used as throwaway cars in WWII. It has decent performance but many design issues with accessibility of components, the result of a cobbled together drivetrain from a civilian vehicle. Valve adjustment is a nightmare, so many of the engines failed due to burned valves. The Kubel is a more mature and refined design with good access for maintenance and it has a ton of space inside but has much less power. Just the same, many Kubels survived WWII and I still saw some in Munich well into the late sixties with the original engine, which was easy to pick out because they had a very noisy cooling fan like a tiny siren. The original Kubel was thoroughly tested and during the testing, the 4wd was discarded. My preference as a long time mechanic is for the Kubel or the late version, the thing. Just remember that the gearing on all of these is very short. They're not meant for speed. Kubels have good off-road ability because of their light weight.
How many liters of gas in the horse? One bullet anywhere in the horse. How long to repair a horese. How many hundreds hours continuous operation before the horse fails?
@@SeattlePioneer That is one massive advantage the horse had over the jeep. You can't eat a jeep. I have actually driven a WW2 jeep, and unless you have, you don't have the concept of how shitty they are.
Having driven both I'd rather have a Jeep (In combat that is). Collector wise I'd rather have a Kubel, since it's worth way more. The Kubelwagen felt incredibly under powered. I did like the fact that it had doors though.
I own a CJ-5 now for 45 years. I Bought it new. It still runs great, has high mileage, burns some oil but now only gets used to plow snow out of the driveway. The VW put out a Kubelwagen under the name of "the Thing" about the same time (early to mid '70's). Today, I can still see CJ-5's rolling on back roads, in backwoods, on beaches or in rocky areas. I haven't seen a "Thing" since 2010 and that was in a car meet!
The Army did a comparison with the Jeep and a Kubel at Aberdeen Proving Ground during the war and found lost of things about the VW vehicle that were lacking, such as the lack of 4WD and the tires not made for sand.
Jeeps are more versatile though. They can act as ambulances when needed and they can haul/ Tow heavy equipment. Essentially they're the swiss army knife of vehicles.
It was a 100 kg lighter than the jeep and a foot longer. From what i have read it could go anywhere the jeep could. In africa it saved rommels life once when he transfered from his half track to a kubel and unknowengly drove through a mine field. He drove through fine but grieth blew up . Cheers
Top speed for a light utility truck is not an issue, because you should be concentrating on staying in one peice and getting to your destination safely, especially off road. The Kubelvagen aces the Jeep in sooo many areas, for stowage and suchlike, and then there is the easy access to the rear seats too. Then there is the width of the track to make it more stable and less prone to tipping over.
One important note is that Germany could never outproduce the allies in vehicles. Because they wouldn't have the fuel to run a mass of tanks, transports, and planes. Thus why they produced a smaller quantity of higher quality.
My father was in WWII and when he was in Normandy, his Jeep ran out of fuel. He said that he was too far away from a fuel source because he was on some farm. A farmer brought him some Calvados (distilled apples) which he made him understand was almost pure alcohol. So "any port in a storm" and 4 liter bottle's worth of Calvados later poured into the Jeep an Brrroommm off it went. He said that when he told everyone back at the camp what had happened, the others tried it too.
Thanks for sharing!
That's actually a very cool moment
That is compliments of the 7:1 compression ratio that makes that fuel an option.
People don’t realize that a car can run on vodka if it has to, I mean it’s really not great for the engine but it’ll run
My grandfather fought in ww2 but after the war in I believe 1955 he was on the highway from daegu to soul in South Korea when his jeep broke down. Luckily a Korean kid helped and fixed up his Jeep so now he is my great uncle
Eisenhower said of the KW, "It does everything ours does, but on half the gas."
But in the end, we had more jeeps and gas.
@David Kopp Couldn't agree more what was done to German POW's, an absolute disgrace as was the high lynching trial Nuremberg.
@David Kopp It's okay David, I've received "flak" as well, truth isn't a quality no longer appreciated in the western world. I too have spoken to German veterans as well, I'm ashamed as an Australian what was done in our name.
Except it was half the engine power, and half the off-road capability in quite a lot of terrain.
@David Kopp The Japanese where the ones who would not surrender, Until we dropped the big ones on them of course.
@David Kopp If things get tough for your country while fighting for one side, it is an act of loyalty to your country to switch sides. Knowingly fighting for the loosing side is not in the interest of any country,. The definition of loyalty to one’s country surely includes fighting for the very best interests of that country, even if it mean betraying former allies. Loyalty to one’s country is a value more related to self-interest than it is to honor.
I noticed that they didn't compare fording depth, mud traversing, weapon mounting, and towing capacity.
calvingreene90 yeah it was a bit of a joke really
calvingreene90,
Oi, can you watch silly American Tv programe, "Rat Patrol?" You might enjoy a bit of North Africa fun. Now, time for tea and biscuit!
@@ayebee1207
Many decades ago when I was young and foolish I thought it was great.
I would love to have a 50cal armed jeep but I wouldn't operate it in sand dunes except in an emergency but still better than a kubelwagon for the job.
Yes and how about payload, mileage and cost/unit? All big concerns when fighting a war.
Bruce is full of it, as usual.
"If we survive we're gonna win"
- Murica...
After WWII, farmers bought and worked the jeep on their farms. they were sold for $50 brand new.
The $50 jeep is (was) a popular myth. The average selling price for a surplus jeep in 1946 was $975.00. There has been a long standing reward of $25,000 for a jeep in a crate. Still hasn't found one.
ok, thanks !
@@MrBill42mb hows that? Ive seen plenty in a crate.. still new. They sell for more than that now though. Think the ford built jeep in a crate went for 46k.
@@Colt45hatchback Any Jeep in a crate you see today is a new, made in the Philippines Jeep from MD Juan or the like, not an original...
@@AndrewAMartin oh right, damn scammer
I think the most important quality to take into consideration is fuel consumption. Running fuel trucks to the troops was a challenge and the Kubelwagen consumed far less than the Jeep did.
or, y'know, being able to be driven without getting stuck every three feet, which the jeep was better at
@@oliviersavard8676 The Jeep probably had an edge in traction, but it was not as big of an edge as one might think. The light weight Kubelwagen with it's motor mounted behind the rear drive wheels made for an excellent traction set up. Where do you think dune buggies evolved from?
@@frankhoward7645 Buggies are horrible for offroad, their only real use is for wheelies. They lose in mud to front engined mud trucks, lose in rock crawling to front engined rock crawlers, lose in desert races to front engined trophy trucks. There's a reason why legendary offroaders like the Toyota FJ, Suzuki Jimny, UAZ, etc. trace their heritage from the Jeep. Especially their first generations, which are literally jeeps.
@@frankhoward7645 Buggies only exist because of a guy who took his Beetle offroad, but there are better vehicles.
@@johncarl5505 You won't find me arguing that a rear engine RWD vehicle will out perform a front engine 4WD, because it can't, however it will keep up 90% of the time and while it's keeping up, it's consuming half the fuel. Mechanically, it has half the complications as well. This is a good compromise in times of war.
basically it’s no contest. Somehow, in the back of our minds, we want both. Especially the “Schwimm” version that had a propeller on the back.
And 4 wheel drive
Ford GPA
They made a ww2 helicopter jeep. Seriously, look it up.
Really hard to take them serious when one guy complains they where 'death traps' always tipping over... No.. WWII Jeeps where not prone to tipping over. That comes well after both WWII and the Korean war with M151 and M151A that had a new fully independent suspension that was prone to 'tucking under' when unloaded. These didn't see service until Vietnam. The M151A2 redesigned the rear suspension and fixed this issue.
Cragified but that wouldn’t make suspenseful reality tv! Facts aren’t any fun...
You have to admit the are fun though!!
You have to admit the mutts are fun though!!!
Not sure that's entirely accurate. Years ago, I was looking to buy a Jeep CJ7. My Dad, a WW2 Army Soldier, told me about several buddies that were killed when their Jeeps rolled over. I've also seen WW2 films about development of the Jeep that shows a Jeep going airborne over obstacles where it clearly shows the wheels toeing in.
@@patrickppronovost7914 WWII Jeeps had a front Dana 25 live axle on leaf springs and a Dana 27 live axle on leaf springs in the rear image.fourwheeler.com/f/131340650+w660+h440+q80+re0+cr1+ar0/1946-willys-cj-2a-dana-25-front-axle.jpg Whatever video you watched was the development towards the M151 Production started in 1959 which had a swing axle in the rear also it would be cambering in not toeing in. Any vehicle can roll over in the right terrain and misuse which the Jeep could find itself in much more readily as the Jeep was 4WD while the Kubelwagen was only 2WD something completely overlooked in this show.
i just saw a video of a wwii jeep being assembled in 5 minutes by germans lol
Yeah me too
mackk123 me too right now lol
Are u sure it wasn’t 4 minutes 😅
Same
True
when I was 6 years old back in the 1970s my step dad took a jeep home while he was in the US National Guard. no seat belts, no doors and going down the highway at 50 something m.p.h. scared the living hell out of me! I had him pull over so I could ride with my mom in a car with doors,ironically, I'm pretty sure that car was a 1960s volkswagon! lol! thanks guys, love the show! cheers!☆☆☆
“If the Jeep wins, it proves the Allied factories made better stuff”
What?
Don't know about Jeeps but I live a couple hours from Hanford. It's the Allied factory that made Plutonium for the bomb dropped on Japan. Now that's the "better stuff."
There is a basic idea in engineering that reliability is a key factor in quality assessment. Part of reliability is ease of repair or being built well enough not to need repairs as often. German engineering often fails on both counts. For instance, the German tanks were often lost not to combat but by being abandoned by their crews when they broke down. Armor and fire power were superior but overall reliability was terrible. It’s interesting to note how many American built tanks were knocked out but redeployed after field repairs while the German tanks often required repairs at the factory if they could get them there.
Think about how many Sherman tanks got knocked out with the entire crew killed but the tank itself was returned to service within six weeks. Better engineering because of better overall reliability. Science not speculation.
There are several good books on the subject of the qualities of reliability.
The keep is better than the German car
@@duybear4023 did you know that they also used quite a lot of captured uranoxide from germany to make the wapon grade Uran for those 2 bombs that where dropped ?
@@ryandavis7593 That same German engineering tradition lived on in the BMW I used to have
You're forgetting something. The jeep was also engineered so you could take the tires off and run it on train tracks, it could haul up to 9 tons on rail.
Kubelwagen can also do this
@TDI for Life Do you have some material showing this?
kubelwagen rail variant @@sigmawarrior.fokeryou
Cool. I'll take my VW Caddy. Track width looks the same.
And the Jeep could be taken apart and rebuilt by a couple dudes in minutes.
I recently got a ‘56 Unimog 404s
What a machine! Thank you for taking so much time to put together a detailed video. Very well done gentleman.
Warm regards from Canada
Anybody else notice at 0.18 it shows a pile of track links and one of the pin holes has a very bad crack followed by the dude marveling over German engineering 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yes
Totally different vehicles . Not a fair comparison . The kubel was a 2wd passenger vehicle and the jeep was a four wheel drive 1/4 ton truck.
Also, mud and steep inclines were totally missing.
Both vehicles were designed for the same purpose, in the same battlefield and at the same time. It's probably the most fair comparison imaginable
@@davewalkerden still, they didn't necessarily fit the same expectations. For example, the MG42 is a very different beast than the Bren gun. Both were carried by squads in similar fashion, but the tactics were different.
@@edi9892 its okay, they were late to the war and beat to winning by the Russians.. let the Yanks have this, they need it.
thanks for the laugh, jeep is not a quarter ton truck. Dork.
I’ve driven both.
I learned stick on a stock 1945 Jeep and drove it in the Cali hills in 4 wheel drive. I’ve driven a 1943 Kubelwagen at a reenactment (harder than the owner knows). The Kubel simply drives better and surprisingly chews its way through sandy roads with no problems.
It’s a bit of a tough call. I think overall the Jeep is more rugged but the Kubel is more stable and being air cooled, is more reliable cold climates.
They really are very close. If you put a gun to my head I might go with the Jeep for reliability but even that could be debated.
What if we make it 4WD and amphibious? Does Schwimmwagen sound catchy?
4:21 - schwimmwagen (swim car with 4X4 transmission and propeler too).
There was ALSO a Swimming version of the Jeep - The Ford GPA - Not particularly successful, they ONLY built 12,700 of them.... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GPA
The jeep has 4wd so of course it won't have as good a turning circle as what is essentially a VW beetle which is rear wheel drive only. The jeep also had high and low range, really comparing apples and oranges here.
The actual contest was pretty fakey, it was just an excuse for car enthusiasts to drive old military vehicles!
Davey Bernard they aren’t car enthusiasts. They are history enthusiasts
Matthew Moses I thought the Kubelwagen was 4wd? Isn’t it not how Audi got the Quattro system?
@@guyzomzgaming5515 LOL
Some had 4x4 and floatation with props.
Broad smile, Gentlemen :)
My Grandpa drove the Kübel to the Ostfront. When I got my driving license, he gave me an advice for slippy conditions in wintertimes: `Always take 4 Bolts and Nuts with you... and four chains, being long enough, to reach around your winter-tyres...` I will never forget that, because I could imagine, under which conditions this simple `innovation` was born... Maybe this solution belongs to this video...
Thank you with a broad smile, ...also because I never thought about a Biathlon Race like this. Your wonderful humour is at least the other half :) Good Luck !
Deutschland Über Alles, as always, mein freund!
Jawohl, jawohl! At times ALL!
🇩🇪🔥🙌💪🏻👌
@@SHAHROOKHSHROFF-uk7ub Drugs do no good братишка.
Masel tov 🙂
The Kuebelwagen is not really an example of overengineering. It´s really simple and realiable. PS: it was used up to the 1960ies. i learned to drive on it in 1988 during my time in the Bundeswehr.
Didn't they build a civilian version called the "Thing"?
@@christhevancura9113 the build a civilian version called "Käfer" a.k.a. Beetle which was until 2002 the most sold car ever built ...
@@christhevancura9113 the ' thing' was originally developed for Bundeswher in 1968.I don't think it was officially adopted and later on VW made civilian version known as the Thing.
old Jeeps are still being driven on off road in Moab today.
Lol on voit nettement l'enthousiasme des pilotes du kubel dont on entend même pas le moteur rugir !!! C'est vraiment n'importe quoi!
the kubel was a runabout and light patrol car, not meant to tow anything (or very light something). where the jeep was meant to be a runabout, patrol car, and tow light artillery and other such items. both are designed to do the task set before them, but because the kubel had less items it was trying to do, it could do them better. German precision and over-engineering helped, but i would bet that if the allies did not have to design it to tow something the jeep would have been closer in design to the kubel.
kubel is cheaper to produce, the only reason germany cant produce as many of them as the jeep is because US have more factories
+Fan Yechao What is your source of information for saying the Kubel was cheaper to produce?
Willys MB weight 1100KG while Kubel weighted 700KG, which means Kubel cost less material, Kubel also has a weaker engine, more powerful engine means higher cost. For WW2 utility vehicles, half of their coast are coming from the engine for the engine is the single most complex part of the vehicle.
There is a myth say the WW2 germans produce expensive equipment so they produce in lower numbers, this is only true for a small number of their production. The low number is mainly a result of lack of resources, and a lack of factory
+Fan Yechao No, I'm talking about the actual cost per unit.This is where the US outperformed any nation in the world at the time. Willys outbid both Ford and Bantam and delivered their model MB @ $748.74 per unit. I'm willing to bet that the Kubelwagen cost double that to produce.
Why? Total war is not market economy. Hitler was convinced to produce stg44 only after he knows that stg44 cost less material than K98 (8-9 KG vs. 12 KG).
Also, it is very difficult to explore the real cost between different country since the price of a single good can vary
can't this guy speak normally without accentuating his ridiculous carney accent
Gave up after three minutes. Vaginaspeak with no subtitles
Randy Welsh Achtung!
@Randy Welsh jawol!
It's because of the "tea bag between the cheeks"!!! lol
@Randy Welsh There is a big difference between English and Brit! lol
This is dumb. the jeep was 4wd could cross sand mud and drive in a forest. It could tow a 75mm anti tank gun or mount a heavy machine gun. Ask the SAS 'Desert rats' what you can do with a Jeep.
And snow.
Natural Selection weaker? It had 3 times the horse power and reliability and plenty of parts to boot.
@@onememory9302 But we aren't talking about armored cars and panzers. We are comparing jeeps vs kubelwagens.
Natural Selection German tanks were all under powered but were very low geared! They weren't powerful and certainly not very reliable the Sherman and the T34 were much more reliable than any German tank the T34 were even captured and used by Gemany while German Panzers were used by Russia but not trusted to stay in the battle! Look it up!
Germans- Protection
- Good handling
Americans-Fast
No protection
In war time, protection and good handling and experienced crews matters the most.
It has been a couple years since this video was posted and I was hoping for a part 2. Which would include how these two vehicles were actually used and handled in the field of combat: driving thru deep mud, up steep hills, driving thru streams, towing a loaded trailer, mounting weapons, surviving small arms fire. I hope to see that one soon. This video was entertaining but didn't settle the score as to which one was better in the field. Keep up the good work.
And if the Jeep rolled over it was light enough to be put back on its wheels by 2 soldiers.
I was grown up with that old jeep in Burma. Its steering wheel helped me to grow up my arm muscles.
The only reason the Jeep failed the turning course is on account of poor driving skill. You could've taken a turn like that in a limousine.
Trust me, as the owner and daily driver of a WIllys CJ-3a for the past 11 years, it takes a 3 lane road to make a U turn without backing up, the reason for this is the limitation of the Universal joints in the front axle. That being said, everything else about a flatfender Jeep is far superior to any scout car the Germans used in WW2.
jeep owner and yep could have done a donut on that corner and still did it quicker.i bet these idiots had it in 4wd.
The turning radius as stated in the specs from WIllys is 18.5'. Not sure how you got yours to turn tighter unless you've removed the U-joints all-together.
@@bliesberg the jeep would have no trouble getting around that corner even if it was twice as tight you can then use throttle induced oversteer and slide around the corner. the jeep was two seconds slower and they backed up on a corner they could've driven around to get the results they wanted. and the turning radius is not wide due to the uni joints it's wide because it's a closed knuckle diff newer jeeps with open knuckles have unis and steer much tighter while new landcruiser 79 series toyotas and the last of the land rover defenders still suffer a poor turning radius due to close knuckles even though they have cv's. oh and btw ww2 jeeps used uni's, cv's (rzeppa joints) or bendix joints on the front axles. the uni was proven most durable and serviceable.
The point was that it's turning radius isn't good, I'm sure the Kubel could have drifted around the corner as well. I'm not sure why you brought up closed vs open knuckle steering, I don't think anyone is arguing that open knuckle can corner much better than closed... if anything that was the whole point of my original reply.
A Jeeps leaf springs were for preventing the axles from damaging the frame. Comfort was a distant after thought, if that.
And for making semi decent knives after they broke down beyond repair .
just get there
@@clothar23 yeah leaf springs are awesone for that
My cousin once had a Kubelwagen. After a stretch of bumpy road his seat was on fire. The battery sat underneath it and the springs of the seat shorted the battery at every bump, throwing sparks into the hay filled upholstering. Otherwise: great design. And when comparing quantities produced, you wonder what then took the Allies so long, or: The Germans fought a good deal more economically.
What took so long was for a god portion of the war they had better equipment and tactics. Allies learned a lot from there defeats early in the war they jus Thad to get there technology and information up to snuff.
Look at all the right and left, forward and back pieces of a panzer mk3, mk4, and Panther that non interchange between variants before you use "economicly".
I'd love to see towing capacity of two vehicles compared as well as mud and fording depths.
The Jeep won the speed race by a mile and only lost the obstacle course by 2 seconds (56 to 54 sec.) because the driver screwed up the first turn terribly. The Jeep, with 3X the horsepower could tow much more as well.
Thanks Guys for the video, I enjoyed watching it and was smiling all the time.
That wasn't a good test because it never used the jeep's greatest strength, its 4x4. I would love to see the kubelwagon traverse the Rubicon or logging trails of washington state. The limited slip diff in the kubelwagon would help but not enough for really treacherous terrain which the jeep thrives in. You still see MB's and CJ2's on trails...never saw a KW or Thing.
korbell also they said the ke is lifted... that piece of shit ain’t lifted at all XD
This is like all bad tests of the old Jeep. It was never designed to be a sports car. It was a 1/4 ton truck. It also had to be light enough without cargo for 4 men to pick up. It shined in the desert and just plain off road. Ask the Long Range Desert Patrol if they wanted the Kubelwagen. Also look at the original US army tests of the Jeep and think hard of what you see and the Kubelwagen. It would not have survived. As to it's engineering the original design was not a slap dash design. It was fast as far as time but used off the shelf parts and it was improved by 1943.
Let me clarify my position, the kubelwagon was lightweight, the underbody was a skidplate with an engine mounted on top of the drivetrain and limited slip differential. As a 2wheel drive vehicle it was fantastic in bad driving conditions. The jeep on the other hand was a 4x4 designed specically for off roading capabilities and if the 2 vehicles went head to head on a proper off road course the jeep would reign supreme...a yugo would not have had any trouble on the course they showed. I do admit I was surprised that the KW had a tighter turning radius because anyone who has ever driven the old willys could tell you they can turn on a dollar and give 75 cents change.
@@korbell1089 I don't think they were using as others would. The Kubelwagen would be as good on dirt roads and some rougher roads the same as the VW Beetle. Most modern front wheel drive will do the same. Weight over the axle makes the difference over regular of the period rear wheel drive. Although the Chord had front wheel drive in 1929 it was was not a proper weight over the axle design. The Bantam that became the Jeep was not a new idea as the FWD company had built an all wheel drive in 1908 called the Battleship. The Jeep was a very light weight 1/4 ton recconisance vehicle with four wheel drive per military specifications.
@Kekistan Shitlord Many have both. I have a 47 CJ 2, a 1951 M38A1 and a 1957 CJ 5. They are not my daily drive vehicles. They are a great vehicle of the era for outdoors people. They were using them for that not long after WWII. The trails he is speaking about are an interesting trip in an older low modified Jeep. If you look at old maps of western states they are marked as Jeep trails. Many were traveled before in Model T trucks. Have you ever run a rocky switch back trail in a Volkswagen? Ones that are just big enough for the CJ to travel with a turn that only a short narrow wheel based vehicle can travel? The only thing comparable would be the Suzuki Samurai. Except the Samaria can't plow a field with a 2 bottom plow. The Jeep could and did. It was also put on narrow gauge railway lines for various duties.
Let me explain something about engineering. if a simple, cheap reliable device can get the job done that is the best-engineered solution. Any hack can come up with a complex, unreliable, and expensive solution.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - E. F. Schumacher British economist
The wehraboos aren’t gonna like this one
So the jeep, in spite of going into the turn to fast, having to stop, back up, and continue through, was only 2 seconds behind the kubalwagon, but it beat it in a flat out speed run, by almost 7 seconds, and the kubalwagon, was better?
If I had to spend a week in both cars, I wouldn't take the jeep.
Not much of an obstacle course -- no mud, no steep hills, nothing technical at all really except for a couple tight turns. Plus they really should have done multiple runs and taken the average time. But this wasn't really about a fair, full comparison, it was about having fun with a couple old WW2 vehicles...
Sounds like you’re salty
The Kubelwagen is a glorified Volkswagen that has been later revived after the War as the Volkswagen Type 181, marketed as the “Thing” in 1968-1983. 🇩🇪
"These trucks look, Brilliant!" 0:15 That's my favorite part!
this was not a test, compare man hours and material to build, ship them across an ocean, let them sit in the rain for a week or two, then put them in field conditions for a month or two, compare maintenance needs,
Both would be fine since sitting outdoors under those conditions isn't stressful or damaging.
@ radio boys: You're absolutely right! Kubelwagen wins hands-down!
@@davidvaughn7752 in what way?
@@mrserious444 From concept to distribution in the field, the German Utility Vehicle fulfilled it's objective in every way and as mentioned by US veterans, they would ditch their "Jeeps" for the Wagon for the reasons documented in diaries and historical writings. It's all there for you to lookup.
@@davidvaughn7752 the jeep was faster, had a more powerful and reliable engine, had 4x4. I'm mean come on you can't deny the jeep runs circles around the kubelwagon performance wise maybe you should pick another category because to say the kubelwagon is better is just downright false news.
i like how they used schwimmwagen footage for the kubel 😹
Comparing apples and oranges, rarely works.
But in this case it's apples to apples. They were both designed to perform the same mission.
@@scootergeorge9576
Both were cars tho.
At least they're not comparing APC with IFV.
“Woooahhh bloody hell!”
That got me😂
I could have swore that the Army did a trial at Aberdeen and found the Kubelwagon was better. Benefits were the smooth bottom for clearing obstacles, no radiator (air cooled engine) so it could take shots and still function, and the suspension was similar to tanks making it nearly invulnerable. However, they just said the Jeep was better because you don't tell your troops the enemy has better anything. Plus I love how you can see a jeep break in 2 at the 3:43 mark, its quick but you can see it.
The smooth bottom is about the only thing that was found about the _Kubelwagen_ having an advantage. The lack of a radiator did not make it more survivable nor was its suspension any better. The 3/4 ton "Jeep" was arguably more versatile with its cargo capacity.
It ain't just a race, it's a shouting match!
America: Jeep
Germany: Kubelwagen
China: *Joop*
I mean, the chinese barely had tanks at that time
Joop is a Chinese off brand toy inspired by Jeep
@@brunsmip lmao
Russia: Kalashnikov car
Jopa
“The kind of handling in a Porsche!”
*Paul Walker intensifies*
Excellent video!
Both important and looking them today - charming old vehicles. The Jeep is the more iconic one overall. But my spine would certainly prefer the Kubel, looking at those pictures. And the Jeep being super iconic and much more often produced makes it just that little bit less desirable to me.
I’m not letting a Brit tell me what’s wrong with my great Jeep.
Especially not that Britt😁
Chill, the arch British Land Rover was based on it
@ dont talk about my freedom like that! Contraty to your belief in most countries everyone and their grandma wants one of these all terrain kings of the road. THATS WHY THEY ARE SO EXPENSIVE!
You basically are British, you damn colonial.
So, they picked the German engineering because it has a tighter turning radius and has a softer ride? We are talking 4x4’s. At what point in history are either of those a consideration when going off-road? This text, while deficient clearly shows the Jeep the winner.
Didn't even waste time on towing power, or hill climbing, or forging water and mud...
I'd have also thrown in seating capacity, load capacity, adaptability, maintenance.
Quit whining. It was superior in all qualities. Muh WW2 mega super soldiers and jeeps
Pathetic.
@@theodorechill muh broken transmission.
They needed a real country boy Slangin that jeep
Its not everyday you see 80 year old cars have a face off like this. Fantastic video and well done.
The Kübelwagen was engeniered realy simple. The goal was to produce a vehicle both simple to build and repair, but still fullfil its function at its best. And they achieved it.
Mud and Snow performance is outstanding.
Low fuel burn, etc...
They dropped this wagon in boxes with parachutes out of planes and the soldiers were building them together like Lego.
Germany also had the VW Schwimmwagen and the Americans had the Ford GPA. I would love to see an amphibious challenge between the two !
I feel like he's two feet away from me, yelling as loud as he can
The fake reality TV stuff isn’t entertaining.
Is not*
@@choubert007 I don't think you know what the meaning of propaganda is.
My Dad was in a Jeep durring WWII that tipped over going too fast around a corner. They got a bit banged up but ripped it back in its wheels let it sit a few minutes and went home in it. Great old machines.
great show thank you
Yeah well, 24 seconds in, you see 2 tracks with 2 cracks...hmmm. Won't go too far, I'll tell ya.
Their jeep obviously had the steering limitation that was put on the later jeeps to keep them from flipping over so easily. The world war two era jeep could easily have made that turn
I was licensed by the Army to drive the Jeep in the Republic of Vietnam in 1968. I never got the Jeep up to full speed. I was very cautious. I loved driving that thing. Eaglegards 🦅...
It is so cool these guys are willing to put 80-90 year old stuff that can’t be replaced to the test. I enjoy looking at those vehicles in museums, I have never seen the German one in person, living in the south here in the States there are a number of guys I grew up around that had WW2 and Korean era jeeps that still ran but were not restored
Very interesting presentation of two legends of world war two, loved it.....
Really amazed with the VW's suspension technology 80 years ago, which resulted in better ride comfortable for the passengers on uneven roads.
Turning radius or speed have nothing to do with engineering quality. Those are performance characteristics. Failure of a show, since this is all bluster and screaming.
Should have let you drive! 😂
The Jeep had Superior off-road performance, cargo capacity was easier to maintain and had greater mechanical reliability. In a real-world situation the Jeep wins
who cares??????? Im not planning on driving either of them :-D :-D :-D
Jeeps tend to sink, unlike a kubelwagen
*triggered freedumb screeching*
To be fair, the Jeep was made to order while the Kubel was just a car that the military changed.
Made to order military weapons are almost always better: plus, the Willis Jeep was a completely unique, once-in-a-nations-lifetime design that did EVERYTHING better than it was designed and asked to do.
It towed more, it went farther, it had better off-road performance, it lasted longer, it did everything better. Basically the Jeep was a unique performance design: this is why it took sooooo long to get another "ho hum" design to supplant it: it was the MG-42 of combat cars, all they did was keep updating it for a bit more performance. It was so good that Eisenhower said it "won the war".
The Kubelwagen, by contrast, was simply a civilian car with decent performance that the military could use. It's a bit of apples and oranges.
Wrong. Just allied propaganda. Don't be jealous ;)
Germans invented the first peoples car, first mega highways, and first rocket science.
Pretty obvious.
Bravo! Well presented and your pointing out logistics is very proper.
I am an Indian these jeeps were in India till mid 90's probably the Indian versions. I must say these jeeps can be equaled only with russian mig's and ak47 in reliability and toughness. You just leave a jeep outside your house in open air for year's with just a plastic poly cover and after year's you take out and start your ignition it will start immediately just it will need basic oil refilling, engine oil, bit cleaning and checking before you can go on a ride and it can go over any kind of terrain like a war chariot.
I like old land rover they were in india too.
The jeep can be used as a farm tractor as well.
And as a public transport bus. See: The Philippines.
The only reason they tipped over was that the operators would over push the jeeps limits.
thats the excuse they used to stop selling them they used to have to warn peaple that bought them that it wasnt a car and would tip very easily
Remember when Volkswagen came out The Thing? The Thing looked like a newer version...
DoNot Need it was. Officially it was the civilian successor to the Kubelwagen
VW thing, Mini Moke, Citroen Mehari... those were a bunch of really fun cars for the time. A different market, a different time. ;-)
The post war German army used the Thing, and called it Kubelwagen.
AWESOME - AMAZING , THANKS .
Out produced yes. Outnumbered, surrounded, overwhelmed and cut off yes. Outfought HA! No Way! Not even close! Great fun video though! I would have a hard time picking which I’d prefer. Both are off the chart for Way Cool Factor! Thanks for posting.
Test them both over the Rubicon Trail
The KW was suprisingly capable off road and was easly adapted for rail travel . Its horses for courses
*All I know is our troops loved the Jeeps because in 4WD low they can go almost anywhere. That's enough evidence for me.*
Wonderful content. Thank you!
There was also a 4wd version of the Kubelwagen, and a 4wd version with a Beetle body for selected officers.
Now, do it again while towing a 75mm field howitzer
Why.the kubelwagon wasn't designed for towing.
That was Jochim Peiper in the Ardennes at 4:24. The Kubel on the show also has Leibstandarte markings, Peiper's division. Although i suspect they had to cover the first part of the license plate showing the SS runes for the tv show.
2 seconds on the track .... if he would have took that turn on the out side in it would have been the Jeep won
everyone else: talking normally
bruce: THESE TRACKS LOOK BRILLIAN' !!!!!!!!!!! IM ACTUALLY AMAZED!!!!!!!!!!!
After driving both I like a Willis 4x4 and the fact it don't get stuck however a Thing is a very underestimated car.
Who needs torsion bars when you have good old leaf springs
Wow, what a rare Kuebelwagen. It has the logo of the LSSAH
Heroes and generals anybody?
Its Just an Apple - They are forgetting the h3s carried by the soldiers and the Panzerfaust crate on the back
Nope cuz ma computer sucks
And the poor Russians don't even get an mg mounted on their jeep..
Yeah.
Not anymore since that BS armor update
That was one hell of a video!!
I have a 1943 Willys MB but would love to have a Kübelwagen in my fleet as well. Both are really iconic
cars.
I have experience with the jeep and the Kubel. The jeep has a good tough engine but it's not that easy to work on. Most of them were used as throwaway cars in WWII. It has decent performance but many design issues with accessibility of components, the result of a cobbled together drivetrain from a civilian vehicle. Valve adjustment is a nightmare, so many of the engines failed due to burned valves. The Kubel is a more mature and refined design with good access for maintenance and it has a ton of space inside but has much less power. Just the same, many Kubels survived WWII and I still saw some in Munich well into the late sixties with the original engine, which was easy to pick out because they had a very noisy cooling fan like a tiny siren. The original Kubel was thoroughly tested and during the testing, the 4wd was discarded. My preference as a long time mechanic is for the Kubel or the late version, the thing. Just remember that the gearing on all of these is very short. They're not meant for speed. Kubels have good off-road ability because of their light weight.
Large majority of the German Army was horse drawn in WW2. Kubelwagens were rare compared to Jeeps. Legit comparison would have been a horse vs. Jeep.
And than the jeep still loose xD
About 50K KW's vs. 600K Jeeps
How many liters of gas in the horse? One bullet anywhere in the horse. How long to repair a horese. How many hundreds hours continuous operation before the horse fails?
@@robertkubrick3738 Heh, heh! You forgot that the Germans wound up eating their horses often enough!
@@SeattlePioneer That is one massive advantage the horse had over the jeep. You can't eat a jeep. I have actually driven a WW2 jeep, and unless you have, you don't have the concept of how shitty they are.
Having driven both I'd rather have a Jeep (In combat that is). Collector wise I'd rather have a Kubel, since it's worth way more. The Kubelwagen felt incredibly under powered. I did like the fact that it had doors though.
I own a CJ-5 now for 45 years. I Bought it new. It still runs great, has high mileage, burns some oil but now only gets used to plow snow out of the driveway. The VW put out a Kubelwagen under the name of "the Thing" about the same time (early to mid '70's). Today, I can still see CJ-5's rolling on back roads, in backwoods, on beaches or in rocky areas. I haven't seen a "Thing" since 2010 and that was in a car meet!
brilliant cars, and brilliant accents. i love this channel
The Army did a comparison with the Jeep and a Kubel at Aberdeen Proving Ground during the war and found lost of things about the VW vehicle that were lacking, such as the lack of 4WD and the tires not made for sand.
Jeeps are more versatile though. They can act as ambulances when needed and they can haul/ Tow heavy equipment. Essentially they're the swiss army knife of vehicles.
The kubel even though it was only 2w was suprisingly good in mud and snow because of its flat underside it worked like a sled
It was a 100 kg lighter than the jeep and a foot longer. From what i have read it could go anywhere the jeep could. In africa it saved rommels life once when he transfered from his half track to a kubel and unknowengly drove through a mine field. He drove through fine but grieth blew up . Cheers
How he says it: bloody hell
How it sounds: bläädy häll
Top speed for a light utility truck is not an issue, because you should be concentrating on staying in one peice and getting to your destination safely, especially off road. The Kubelvagen aces the Jeep in sooo many areas, for stowage and suchlike, and then there is the easy access to the rear seats too. Then there is the width of the track to make it more stable and less prone to tipping over.
German engineering, milord!
I dont see an FCA vehicle called the “Kugelwagen”. Jeep is the stuff of legends
Kübelwagen
OK, next competition cross country and the mud hole course.
2:22 The allied factory make better stuff
Steudegger : Laugh In Germany
Germans don't laugh
@@Hemi_the_BlackSheep the people is laughing
50,000 Kubelwagen vs. 600,000 Jeeps! Dude, that is insane!
One important note is that Germany could never outproduce the allies in vehicles. Because they wouldn't have the fuel to run a mass of tanks, transports, and planes. Thus why they produced a smaller quantity of higher quality.