VW Kbelwagen and Schwimmwagen: Germany's WW2 Jeeps

Paul Niedermeyer
by Paul Niedermeyer

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 miltary 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 know 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 985 cc 22.5 hp VW lacked the grunt power of the 60hp Jeep, which made it much more suitable for towing. But the Jeep rode on a precariously short and and narrow wheelbase, with a tall body sitting high above the frame and and running gear. 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.

Americans learning the VW valve adjustment ritual (1944)

As an interesting aside, captured Kübelwagen 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 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.

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 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 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.

Paul Niedermeyer
Paul Niedermeyer

More by Paul Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 28 comments
  • Bill mcgee Bill mcgee on Apr 22, 2013

    I seem to remember reading somewhere that , for trading purposes in the U.S. Army during WW2, a Kubelwagen was worth 2 Jeeps . Don't remember who was trading the Kubelwagens , the Germans or the U.S Army .

  • Derregor Derregor on Jul 06, 2013

    Anyone know whether the Kubelwagen was in general use in the German air force and the German navy in WWII?

  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
Next