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.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???
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.