Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

1940 - 1941 BRC, MA, GP, Preproduction Prototypes. Knowledge Base NO EBAY or COMMERCIAL SALES.

Moderator: DavidA

Post Reply
ArmySailor
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:15 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by ArmySailor » Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:48 pm

Joe Friday wrote:Y
I hesitate to post editorial on the Probst contribution because as you know my position may be a bit controversial. (I believe Probst's contributions were... a bit overstated). A friend of mine published a Jeep book and immediately got a call from a Probst family member harping that they didn't give him enough credit. Of course, they had no 'original' documents or evidence to substantiate their claim. Same old gossip.

I've seen documents and pictures regarding the 1937 Bantam participation at Benning but I only recall sedans. Maybe we should look closer to see if they were 4WD???
RE: Probst... I agree. His work was important, and certainly vital to the completed 49 day deadline, but I think the design was largely in the bag before he came on scene. He put it on paper and worked out the small bugs. Perhaps his most important contribution was the connection to Spicer and that got the ball rolling for all the players in the jeep story because the transfer case and front axle were vital parts of the equation. No, Probst's contributions were far from "insignificant" but have been overstated by the rah-rah boys trying to make the story more exciting. I think there was a bit of understandable Probst self promotion in it as well.

Frankly, the whole jeep development process is overstated, IMO. The engineering itself was child'splay to an experienced automotive engineer. There was nothing cutting edge in the design and it was all just a variation on a previously developed theme. Only one thing was difficult... making a design that could be built cheaply enough to win the bidding war. It all came down to who could build the mostest for the leastest. I know that affronts the sensibilities of those on one "team" or another. I see things as a little more black and white from the engineering POV.

It would be utterly fascinating to discover there was a 1937 4x4 Bantam but it may be one of those Don Quixote quests. I rather doubt it myself, as a compact transfer case like the later Spicer 18 did not exist then, nor a front axle. They could have been fabricated from scratch, of course, but the financial investment in that would have been immense and resulted in a paper trail. Look at how much the Miller car cost. Bantam didn't have those kinds of resources. Anything's possible but I don't see it as very likely.

Hogan's storys certainly aren't the pinnacle of accuracy, but I don't believe he pulled the "Model 60" reference out of his heinie. Did he misinterpret something he read or was told? Perhaps. We have not yet found any Bantam references that proves "BRC 60" came from them, but that doesn't mean we won't. Fortunately, the "1940 BRC" and "1941 BRC' terminology are accurate, whether or not BRC 60 or BRC 40 are ever proven to be blessed by Bantam history.
Jim Allen

Keeping the Good 'Ol Days of Four Wheeling Alive


George Hollins
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:48 am
Location: Palos Park, IL

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by George Hollins » Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:21 pm

Below is a 1948 letter from American Bantam to the Smithsonian regarding BRC1007. This letter was previously posted here on the G503. The interesting thing in the letter is the absence of any reference to BRC-60 or BRC-40. If these were Bantam or Military model designations it seems they might have appeared in this letter but did not.
George
Attachments
1940 BRC1007 Bantam 1948 letter to Smithsonian from G503 forum.jpg
1940 BRC1007 Bantam 1948 letter to Smithsonian from G503 forum.jpg (47.74 KiB) Viewed 3298 times

User avatar
Joe Friday
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:28 am
Location:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Joe Friday » Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:22 pm

I don't want to stray too far from the original topic, but... I will mention that I am not aware of concrete proof of who/when the model 18 transfer case was designed.

I AM aware that Willys was able to get front and rear axles made basically by using existing materials and tooling reserved for their sedans, and that was a handicap for Bantam.

I found the artillery drawing interesting... 84" wheelbase.

I'll admit I'm not digging thru old material I already have. Instead I am still collecting new (old) material.

I have yet to see documents to convince we have the whole 60 vs 40 story.
2018 MVPA PIONEER AWARD - MVPA #419

ArmySailor
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:15 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by ArmySailor » Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:30 pm

The front axle and transfer case predated Willys' involvement, as evidenced by their appearance in the BRC Pilot and the 1940 Bantams. The units for the Bantam and Ford was essentially the same as the one used for the Willys, albeit the clocking was mirrored and the axle offsets reversed. Willys made a separate deal to purchase units from Spicer (as did Ford) but the base engineering work at Spicer was instigated by Bantam/Probst.

The only serious engineering to make the front axle was the ends, but even that was based on existing work done by others. In those days, there were only a few routes to that destination. The Rzeppa CV joint was outside sourced, as was the Bendix and they could be manufactured in many sizes and capacities by their respective manufacturers. Spicer did originate the single Cardan design but I don't believe that came until later. The center section (housing, differential, ring & pinion) already existed. From there, it was easy for Spicer to built axles according to what was ordered, left drop or right, it was simply a matter of cutting and welding the various components together in the required positions according to the order from the vehicle manufacturer.

Switching the transfer case drop was similarly easy once the original design was done and Spicer made improvements in the unit regularly in those early days as design shortcomings were uncovered. I've done a fair bit of research on the Spicer part of the story but have turned up little documentation. I interviewed some old guys (now deceased) who knew some of the principal engineers involved in that, most notably Bob Wallace, late of Marmon-Herrington. All I got was reminiscences and vague memories of what was said. Dana-Spicer apparently has kept nothing, or is unwilling to look for it. I tried very hard in the late '90s and early 2000s because I had some good contacts at Dana. There were glimmers of hope of discovering something but soon into the 2000's Dana went into a slump and dealing with pesky researchers wasn't on the priority list. If anything exists on paper that details the Spicer part of the story, and I believe there to be a LOT of important stuff in that story, it's either lost or inaccessible. In 2003, I sat down with two Dana engineers and asked them to go back in time and describe the engineering involved with the axle and t-case in 1940 terms. Basically, it was a piece of cake, even then. It was simply a case of nobody having been asked to develop those items on as small a scale as the 1/4-ton required. As you know, the same technology was being used for trucks for half-ton on up. That basic front axle configuration dated back to 1906 in the USA, when Otto Zachow patented his first steerable axle design. In reality, he "borrowed" the basics from the Dutch Spyker 4x4 car of 1903, having seen an article on it in "Scientific American."
Jim Allen

Keeping the Good 'Ol Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Michael Browne
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1964
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:30 pm
Location: Yackandandah, NE Victoria..greatest part of Australia, always 26 deg and sunny

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Michael Browne » Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:39 pm

Fred wrote
However, the only rather poor photocopy I have of the Bantam Parts Book for the later BRCs calls them the 1941 Series model BRC, thus lending manufacturer support to the under-discussion name of 1941 BRC. I think I'll just sit here and spin my wheels for a while
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Michael Browne
Heron Hill Motorpool

REAL jeeps have BAR GRILLES and FLAT FENDERS. The rest are imitations.

Michael Browne
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1964
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:30 pm
Location: Yackandandah, NE Victoria..greatest part of Australia, always 26 deg and sunny

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Michael Browne » Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:07 pm

Tom wrote.
Looking at the short and long hood photos from the side the gap between the steering column and the dash and the flat of the door opening is what was shortened. The front seat and steering column seems to be the same in both photos.
I wouldn't be too sure about the door openings and cowl distances being different. :|

In my opinion the bodies are the same both in the door openings and the cowl distances and what you are seeing is the illusion created by the different photographs. :shock:

The one with the machine gun mounted is taken from a position of about 10-12 feet off the ground and slightly rearward of the door opening.The vehicle looks to moving slowly.
The next one with the BRC in front of the Dodge is taken about 4-5 feet from the ground and about mid way to slightly forward in the door opening. The vehicle is stationary.

All these things can and will cause an illusion and can really do your head in :? . I spent months drawing up and building a 1913 monoplane aircraft from 3 photos and none of them were absolutely square to the object. You can only compare measurements of things on a photograph when they are all on the same plane and any position forward or backwards from the said plane will cause major discrepancies in the measurements.

On another tack, Does anyone know the original army number for 1007 in the Smithsonian? The last 2 digits are not on the handwritten list by Bantam guy Chester Hempling's list. maybe an original photo of it showing hood number.

Also on another tack again regarding the use of a bigger engine...
The capacity of the Spicer (or Brown & Lippe) transfer case to handle the extra power would be a big consideration in adopting a bigger power plant. Experience has shown that the use of this transfer case and transmission behind the W-O jeep with 134 cubic inch engine greatly shortens the service life of the drive train. Even the QMC guys questioned the capacity of the transfercase being employed in the first 70 cars. The lightweight Bantam with the Continental engine is a good combination until you try to load it up with a trailer and heaps of gear, but when running along with just a couple of people it performs very well.

Regards
Michael Browne
Heron Hill Motorpool

REAL jeeps have BAR GRILLES and FLAT FENDERS. The rest are imitations.

ArmySailor
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:15 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by ArmySailor » Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:51 pm

Michael Browne wrote: Also on another tack again regarding the use of a bigger engine...
The capacity of the Spicer (or Brown & Lippe) transfer case to handle the extra power would be a big consideration in adopting a bigger power plant. Experience has shown that the use of this transfer case and transmission behind the W-O jeep with 134 cubic inch engine greatly shortens the service life of the drive train. Even the QMC guys questioned the capacity of the transfercase being employed in the first 70 cars. The lightweight Bantam with the Continental engine is a good combination until you try to load it up with a trailer and heaps of gear, but when running along with just a couple of people it performs very well.

The transfer case was in a constant state of evolution in this time while being on experimental, pre-production vehicles and was little more than a pre-production unit itself in those 1940 BRCs. All the "bugs" would have been, and were, worked out of the final model. I don't think anyone then was thinking the 1940 BRC, or its transfer case, were going to be the final production evolution.

The last sentence above strikes me as being influenced by the false notion that there was some sort of a performance competition to "win" the contract. The first marker to pass a basic suitability test in order for the manufacturer to be allowed to bid. All three companies passed that mark, though Willys just barely (and only with intervention) due to weight issues. Ultimately, it came down to the lowest bid. Willys won that bidding process with the lowest bid but look at how much their last prestandardized model changed and how many of the other two jeeps design features went into the final production model.

I think if you factor in what the production jeep became and the multiple roles it fulfilled, the march to the bigger engine was justified (and inevitable) because loading it up with a trailer and heaps of gear was what the jeep was about. The production jeep was the Three Bears "just right" model. I'll give Bantam and Ford plenty of credit for their contributions, but if either the 1941 BRC or the GP had become the final production model, the jeep legend would not have been so strong. And don't get me wrong, I'm NOT giving Willys the all the credit. What they built was an evolution and a lot of it was handed to them by Bantam and Ford but by government edict. Plus, many of the final design features were ordered and did not originate with Willys. The engine was really their biggest contribution and it proved to be "just right" for the role... but any engine of a similar output could have done as well. I also think that had Bantam or Ford, especially Ford, won the contract, it's highly likely things would have gone largely the same way or perhaps better. Maybe we would be extoling the virtues of some Continental engine or a Herc or some new Ford engine, but the 54 net hp of the Go Devil is what allowed the production Willys jeep to do what it did and a powerplant of that package size and power was the right choice.
Jim Allen

Keeping the Good 'Ol Days of Four Wheeling Alive

User avatar
Joe Friday
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:28 am
Location:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Joe Friday » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:41 pm

Well if we ever find the Spicer data, and it shows a a driver side drop transfer case in 1937...
2018 MVPA PIONEER AWARD - MVPA #419

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:35 pm

Well, I have had a pretty provocative section up on my web page for about 12 years demonstrating pretty conclusively that Probst could not have "invented the jeep" as is so often claimed. In his own words he notes that he did not even hear of the project until July 17 by which time a months' very important work had been done, including the outline drawing in the specs which is, as I show, identical to the jeep delivered. Crist had already lined up most of the parts, including the engine and had it laid out in the shop. The axles had been under development at Spicer a full month before Probsts' entry.Yes, Probst did yeoman service in DRAFTING up formal drawings for purposes of the bid, and no doubt he made some substantive additions to the basic layout, but, basically both Engler at Holabird, and Probst at Bantam, and indeed Beasley at Butler on the 19th are all reflections of what the engineers and designers, and customers asked them to put in. Indeed I think I have a note to the effect that Probst asks Crist, showing him a sketch, ..now it this what you had in mind?

You have to consider WHY was Probst called in. Bantam had been operating (without QMC bothering to tell them any differently) as if they had a negotiated contract. All the while that Fenn and Crist are busting their picks to get the specs down, little did they now that QMC was going to go out to competitive bid, without even telling Bantam. You don't do a 135 piece mailing that complex in mimeograph days without a lot of forethought. Bantam got the July 11 (a thursday) bids on the following week, the same as everyone else which demanded a response by the 25th! Although Crist may have anticipated it, they find out only at this juncture for sure that the weight allotment has been changed only 75 pounds to 1275 and they will need 40HP, also requiring a bigger axle. (BTW Fenn says he had already called Spicer to move up to the Sutudebaker axle before Probst was signed on. Think about it…How could Probst know ANYTHING technical about what axle to use never even having seen the spec drawings!? HIs stop at Spicer is on the way to Butler ). The worst part is that to respond to their own bid, they will have to submit formal drawings, and, they don't have any formal engineers, the company being almost out of the active car building business. It is Crist and Fenn who begin a frantic search for a "drawer" and we know the rest about Probst. Bantam did not need a design of the car, they needed drawings of what was very nearly; as nearly as a traditional layout can be, of an existing design.

Don't get me wrong.."KK" did his thing admirably, and certainly Bantam would not have gotten the contract (as I am sure the QMC expected they wouldn't) without his drawings. But design? Hmmm. It is interesting tha Probst is the President of the Leaf Spring group whatever they called it, and one of the first things to fail on the pilot were the springs! I attribute this, and the smaller radiator and some other things to trying to make the weigh in as close as possible. They had springs and radiator already made up to replace in the tests which tells me something too.

When I was the Editor of Rooster Tails (ABS Newsletter) some one here provided me a copy of Probsts ACTUAL notes, not the interpretation of them by first John Underwood, and later in Automobile Quarterly by Charles Probst the son. These had not been in circulation at all prior to this publication. (you can buy a back issue of RT) As I understand it these notes were made near the end of Probsts' life, 20 years after the fact at the urging of his family. When you read them in the original you get an entirely different feel than what we have seen in the press. I also have very strong evidence that Probst actually asked Crist if he could take credit for the jeep project because he needed the publicity for his business, and Crist being younger could surely make a name for himself on something else. Crist agreed to this not knowing it was going to be made into a cottage industry after Karls death. Also, even in Probsts' own account he is an absolute traitor to the Bantam cause in the Checker matter by giving unauthorized build plans to Checker against Fenns direct orders not to. (And I would really like to know where the three 'Checker' Bantams came from!) It is easy to overlook the Checker bid as being a co-operative "overflow" sort of thing…but in fact they are bidding directly against Bantam (and under bid everyone) with their own car! (Probst would get a royalty no matter who built the car because Bantam had no money to pay him in the beginning, so, they gave him a title, some PR duties and a place to sit).

Chuck Probst was very kind to me and pointed me in a lot off good directions and gave me then novel avenues to explore and even gave me copies of a lot of the material he had collected, and for that I am very grateful; plus, he was a great guy. But, we all have our blind sides in this complex story and no one can blame him for building up his dad and emphasizing that part of it, but, if he had just looked at a 1940 calendar he could have seen what I saw..there isn't a fit. I am less forgiving of the automotive press immediately following Probsts death in creating the Probst myth.

ArmySailor
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:15 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by ArmySailor » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:25 pm

Polar Roller wrote: The axles had been under development at Spicer a full month before Probsts' entry.
This is interesting. Is this in the materials you mentioned? And if so, how may I see it? I have some vague nagging in my mind that you may have related that fact to me before.
Jim Allen

Keeping the Good 'Ol Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:24 pm

No, nothing beyond the fact that the Spicer guy was called into Butler on June 19th and was there that day or on the 20th and went home with marching orders to get to work on the small Bantam axle. So I am calling that the beginning of the development of the axles in the timeline just to compare with Probsts' visit to Spicer on his way to Butler on the 17th July a month later. They obviously weren't doing nothing at Spicer because Fenn, or Probst says Probst, told them to move up to the next larger size (Studebaker as I remember?)…Yes, we have discussed this in another thread a while back and I am still, I guess like you, looking for some facts about Spicers part.

What you have to remember is that the Ordnance Committee left Butler, and immediately wrote up a report deep sixing the Howie carrier, but at the same time describing something like a four wheel drive carrier, but with three or four upright seats and machine gun and ammo and crew gear that can do this and that including keep up at convoy speed. Basically a stripped down Bantam Speedster with a more military body (cf you article on Kurogane) oh, and by the way, weighed 1200 pounds. Not only was this description not a jeep, it was an impossible car to build, I wonder even if today. Theses guys could not free themselves from thinking of the Flopper.

I just cannot believe that Bob Brown (QMC) did not know that this car was impossible to build, and I suspect the front office at QMC knew it too. A Bantam failure would have been a great relief to the Ford loving and Payne hating QMC. They already had the Bantam "small car expertise" folded into the cake for free, why not let Ford build it? When Crist begs them to up the weight (his visit to Holabird July 1 or so), they apparently did not…who knows if to his face, or just when the specs come out. Whatever, when they come out the specs still do NOTdescribe the car we call the jeep…1275# (about half the weight of a MB/GPW?) but, now 40HP with all that implies not only for the power plant, but as is pointed out here the transfer case and everything else from the frame on…This I suppose is what in the "literature" has Fenn hopping up and down on the 14th or 15th when he gets his bid request, about a "surprise". QMC did not take Crists advice, and followed Infantry's insistence on 1000 pounds (Infantry, those upstarts, would be another group needing a lesson from QMC).

Bantam had to be very conflicted about the axles, and everything else. If they stayed with the little ones used in the civilian cars, and found maybe a 30hp engine, a small hercules or conti, maybe they could come close to something in that class of weight. But, when they see the bid, it is clear the little ones won't do for the knod of performance they want, so Fenn says he called Spicer and told them to move up. Spicer I think somewhere said they were having trouble dealing with the smaller ones anyway. In the FTC hearing, the Respondents try to make a big deal of this..Bantam using the smaller axle…but, the fact is, Bantam made what I would characterize as a courageous corporate decision which was to ignore the physical specs and shoot for the performance specs. (Remember the Payne hotel room scene the night before the bids changing the bid from 1800 to 1200..Had they gone in with 1800 Payne was sure the bid would be rejected and unresponsive..another QMC (DC) hope dashed. Bantam had "done the impossible" and gotten bid in in five days where no one else even came close, even with the spec work done.

As far as I am concerned, and of course change my opinion all the time :D the actual car we call the jeep was not known..OR CALLED FOR...by anyone but Bantam until it rolled out of the factory on September 21, 1940 at 1850 # or whatever it was. Even the Suzuki LJ10 weighs 1250 with an aluminum, 360cc two stroke pop corn popper for an engine. Remember too that Infantry was STILL bitching about the weight at Holabird when the car is delivered! Never mind that they had been handed the best weapon of the war on a silver platter and still couldn't see it. At this point QMC definitely does take an interest, and immediately turns itself inside out to steal the design away (the tri partite contract for 1500 with no other pilots).
S

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:36 am

Well, there is a lot of speculation about what might have happened and how popular or changed the Bantam or Ford would have been, which is fine as long as it comes under that heading. The Fords v Chevy, Pentax v. Nikon arguments will go on tip the end of time. But some interesting things to think about for sure. And some random notes here suggested by this wide ranging thread that might add to somebody's list…and some questions of my own.

1) Bantam and Ford crews were pretty tight at Holabird and very friendly and co-operative with each other. Ford recognized that they couldn't have done theirs anywhere near as fast without the Bantam drawings,and Crist is advising them on doe steering or suspension problems at Holabird. I really get the impression, and Fenn says as much in Truman hearings, that Bantam thought it was going to be co-producing a standardized jeep of some kind with Ford, and although I am sure they were lying through their teeth, QMC lead Fenn to believe that was a possibility at least. (Interesting to consider what the engine would have been). However, when the I.F. Stone articles hit the papers, Ford made the assumption that it was Bantam feeding the Stone, and things went immediately cold. That was it. I have a letter from Stone to Payne giving him hell for criticizing the articles which as always sort of puzzled me…why would Payne bitch at articles which were making them look like the forgotten heroes? One possibility is that the articles were screwing up the Bantam Ford relations, maybe Payne wanted to have a letter to show "it wasn't us" sort of thing. My personal nominee as Stones deep throat (and Stone was found to actually be an official Soviet spy when the KGB records came out during Peristrioka) is Sidney Hillman at OPM.

2) I am not well informed on the transfer case issue. I thought that his part was not a development part but had been on the shelf…If it wasn't then this would explain why Turner was trying to build one…if it didn't show sup with the diffs etc at least they would have something.

3) A central difficulty here is that there were a mere handful of engines that could be even considered for this job. The Bantam was out at the get go, there were the contis and herds, Ford tried to get Crist to try a 9N and he specifically rejected it as not being appropriate to the balance of the car or specs. As noted, he had originally settled on a Willys sized engine, but had to back off because, being first, he did not have the advantage of the extra weight the others were allowed. Moreover, the Quad performance did not create any threat I wouldn't think. In fact, I cannot really see where the Willys engine EVER becomes a deciding feature until they win the bid and QMC is stuck with it. Yes, the GIs may have LATER like the power..what 18 year old doesn't?…but it was not key in the decision obviously because QMC fought like hell for Ford. Ford and Willys were basically stuck with their proprietary engines which were really not appropriate for the car the Infantry said it wanted.

4) If QMC had taken Bantam or Willys it is doubtful to me that the contract would have ever ton competitive. I wonder how much longer QMC would have diddled along in this procurement without the OPM intervention? Too many fingers in the Bantam pie as Herr said.

5) Just for fun I will disagree with Jim about the "lovableness" of the Bantam or the Willys. The Russians loved their Bantams and so did the British. And, so did the US infantry for a good while...All weapons or designs of anything have to balance and weigh the elements. The Willys as a weapon would never have been considered (of the three) by any of the Axis, or even the Allied Powers. They didn't have the gasoline to throw away. Compare a Zero with a Hellcat. The Bantam was a relative sipper with (I think?) a pretty close power to weight ratio to the other cars? and very nice handling. And I agree with those here who say driving one around with a couple of people is far different from the workhorse towing and hauling duties where Bantam may or may not have done as well. The Bantam generally gets better marks from the people who have actually driven all three (like you say with two up)…and I see no indication anywhere that the Bantm was considered in any way UNDER powered. but, yes, you would give up that element of 500 pounds more "robustness" which is great IF YOU HAVE TEXAS OILFIELDS. Hitler was running on synthetic gas half the time. And of course, had Bantam been given even half of the slack and advantages of the other two to redesign, why not a Bantam with a Willys or Bigger herc
engine?

6) My take on it is that Bantam came up with the jeep, and yes of course Bob Brown had something to do with the way it looked based on prior experience (particularly with the Austin Trucks), but, Crist had as much or more, and after the Bantam crew leaves the room where they won the contract, that was the last they saw of ANY Army personnel until Septemeber 21.And at that, the drawings they had won the bid with were solely Bantam product as well. …A possible exception of Brown to see how things were going maybe…and thats a guess…but, there he is in the passenger seat on roll out day…the jeep as a type of car came out of the Bantam factory and was built and designed by Bantam. If there were other variations of the jeep you liked better, go for it. However, I am convinced in my own mind that once Bantam got the contract QMC was convinced they would fail, even wished they would fail, and immediately began illegal or at least highly improper negotiations behind their contractors back to secure "courtesy" models from other Ford and Willys which I am 90% sure were actually arranged to be paid for "informally" by QMC in the form of a guaranteed contract.How else can you explain their behavior in the procurement? Had Bantam showed up with the 1275 pound car demanded by the contract, fill in that blank yourself. Your conclusion is we would have been driving some kind of Ford. How "lovable" would that have been?

ArmySailor
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:15 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by ArmySailor » Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:05 am

Want to revive this thread by posing a question.

I know little about how Bantam 1007 ended up being donated to the Smithsonian. Someone with a sense of history obviously spearheaded it and it would be interesting to know who. I'm finishing up a short piece on Bantam 1007 for my new "Jeep Encyclopedia" series in Jp Magazine right now and it occurs to me just now that I should have something in the story on that. It's short so there isn't room for chapter and verse but if I had a little more info on that aspect from a trusted source, I'd include it. Also, if there is late breaking info on the 75 Anniversary, I'd include that too. I intended to list at least a couple of sources (website & phone if applicable). I also will put the results of our Bantam terminology consensus into the story.
Jim Allen

Keeping the Good 'Ol Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
Contact:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Polar Roller » Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:30 pm

Here is some BRC 75 info…had to confer it to jpg to get it in see if it is readable.... Also have some information that the Pilot parts went into 1007..so, maybe it was made up specially for display..
Attachments
BRC75 Poop Sheet copy.jpg
(190.75 KiB) Downloaded 1355 times

User avatar
Joe Friday
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:28 am
Location:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Joe Friday » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:42 am

I think we can now reach the conclusion that at lest some govt documents referred to the BRC-40 name?
Bantam BRC40 Tentative.jpg
Bantam BRC40 Tentative.jpg (250.41 KiB) Viewed 3026 times
2018 MVPA PIONEER AWARD - MVPA #419


Post Reply

Return to “BRC MA GP Prototypes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests