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 » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:57 am

Good catch but, to be picky, it's not expressed as "BRC-40" but as "Bantam Model 40-(BRC)" So how does "Model 40" fit into scheme of things? Does that fit standard Bantam practice?
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 » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:28 am

Good find! Surely they had to distinguish between the two models somehow…
S

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 10:08 am

Yeah, I deserved that Jim. I should have paid more attention to the actual heading. "Bantam Model 40-(BRC)"
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 » Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:24 am

Joe... no Zing was intended!!! I was just pointing that out because we have been trying to pin down the exactly right terminology. A great original source!
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 » Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:19 am

Hello All,

The 75th event is happening this year (2015) so I thought I would resurrect this post on the terminology used to describe the different models of Bantam jeeps.

So far after a few pages and over 12 months we have only been able to pin down the reference to the Bantam model BRC 1941 series

What some call the BRC40. :roll:

Now it may be nitt picky but after 70+ years we really should get it right....... I mean does GP mean "general purpose"... not in my book :|

So has anyone found any hard evidence for use of the term BRC40 :?: or for BRC60 for that matter :?:
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 » Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:43 am

I don't disagree but unless we find more solid period references, we will be on a Quixotic quest without Rocinante.
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 Mar 03, 2015 8:20 am

Well, I call the two cars by years because there is no dispute about it. Well, see below...All of the round nosed cars were deliveed in 1940 and the rest in 1941. None of the testimony or memoirs of anyone at Bantam I have seen uses thes 40 and 60 designations..it is always something kind of awkward like " the first 70" or some such. It doesnt really sound like an Army designation, although someone here seems to have found a 1941 reference? The only fly in this ointment is that there seems to be a question in my mind as to when the Russian cars were built...

When Fenn testifies at Truman hearings, he is still working on a special order of 50 four steers and a hand full of make up parts cars for the US Army....and there is no mention of this Russian contract..so that is say mid-September. It seems unlikely that the Russian order could be made, processed and filled in the remainder of 1941? You could say it was a 1941 model, made in 1942, if that is when they were made...there is some indication that there were slight differences in the Russian cars..KPH speedos and perhaps a clock. That it seems would amount more to the "series" designations George Hollins has worked up.

I don't know much of anything about te Russian cars, except that we do know that they were built and that at least 600 got to Murmansk, and we have pictures of one such dirct from our spies in Moscow, so, Jim G's suspicion that they wer imaginary is at least put to rest :P at least two Bantam employees put the figure at 2000 cars for the Russians, but, I thinnk that is just a mistake. Does anyone have ANY information about these cars. A good number of stories about three Russian officers being in Butler during the build as "quality control"...

I just really think this GP "general purpose" thing is a red herring that sounds good to people looking for easy answers, but doesn't, can't really, hold water. We have solid, sworn testimony (weakly refuted on just the earliest instance) from several people that the bantam was called a jeep as early as October 4. Of course it was not universally applied to quarterton trucks for some time, but, last month ther was a picture on eBay..just as an example...showing one of the 1940 cars at Benning, and it was a press photo and the description specifically called the vehicle a jeep in early/mid february, well before the first GP was delivered. So..GP/jeep advocates I think have to show specifically where this cognomen applied first and to what..and how it happened that the Bantam was being called a jeep before the Ford people ever even laid eyes on the type?

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 » Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:26 pm

My recommendation (again):

1940 BRC PILOT
1940 BRC (formerly referred to as BRC-60, Mark-II)
1941 BRC (formerly referred to as BRC-40)

George

User avatar
Hartofoak
G-Major
G-Major
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:06 pm
Location: Berkshire England

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

Post by Hartofoak » Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:57 pm

I've just been re-reading this fascinating historical topic and it reminded me of this photo that I came across several years ago. Is it an authentic American Austin model? If so, does it have any relevance for BRC75?
EDIT: Just found this earlier post from Polar Roller so sort of answer my own question.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=169335&start=45#p986001
American Austin jeep 2.jpg
American Austin jeep 2.jpg (126.88 KiB) Viewed 2624 times
MB 298781 DoD: est. 01-19-44 (ex British Army 1958)
T1 Trailer: "Transportation Equipment Co."
MVMTS toolboxes & tools

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 Mar 03, 2015 7:25 pm

I generally make a lot of rude and inappropriate comments about auto-evolutionsists, :lol: especially where the absurd Howie carrier is sought to be pawned off as "the ancestor of the jeep". Cars don't go out at night and get it on and produce little cars with their DNA...whenever I see someone trying to minimize or denegrate the verY substantial Bantam achievements wrt the jeep, I can always count on the writer going back to the invention of the wheel to show how really unoriginal, or " easy" it was!

However there is a difference between is kind of alleged random ancestory (this came first therefore the later one is necessarily related) and the same people working on the same car and developing it, and in my opinion you have hit on a very salient example here. This is an opinion of my own, but it is my feeling that the jeep was ALWAYS going to start with an Austin/Bantam, and this little open pickup truck is where it started, in 1933, when after a major turf war the Army spent five hundred bucks on one. See the pictures below. Take off the doors and squint a little and it IS a jeep, alt least wrt the basic size and shape of the car. For those who still insist the Sardine can body covering the wheelhouses with room for three or four is an " Army design" please see the promotional piece showing an over head shot of the Open PU. It really gets too me that people can spend page after page trying to make the Howie carrier fit as an ancestor, but completely ignore this truck which basicall is a jeep without the 4x4 and the power to use it.

The Army experimented agains and again with Bantams and Austins, and yes, " found them lacking", and there is almost always a comment about, gee, if it was only 4 wheel drive we would go for it. However, neither the Army not Bantam, or much of anyone else except Ford and GM could afford to convert at that size. It would cost 25-35k...if it was a major issue to buy a 500 dollar truck, no one is goong to spring for a speculative car that no one even knows will be useful.

The essence of the jeep, and what makes it unique is SMALL size and a substantial power to weigh ratio. My argument is that Neither the Army nor any other car manufacturer would have started out with a car this small. Anything they tried was too big...too big a silhouette, too heavy. The jeep has a 75 inch wheelbase with four inches added for the transfercase. It has a wb only slighlty larger than a smart car!

So..the picture you post is NOT an original car, it is an attempt at making something like the Popular mechanics car...I have never seen it, I think it is back East somewhere. However there IS one rmaining orignal Austin open pick up i. los Angeles area..it used to be an RC Cola delivery truck and it is very neat. The jeep was a scratch built car, designed and built by people who had never seen the Howie carrier and in talking to Howie decided it was an "impractical buckboard" which was being kind.

So YES indeed,this truck is very significant in understanding the history of the jeep design! Thanks for giving me an opportunity to shoot my mouth off abiut it! :lol:
Attachments
image.jpg
image.jpg (133.69 KiB) Viewed 2596 times

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 Mar 03, 2015 7:27 pm

This one didnt come through

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 Mar 03, 2015 7:30 pm

Cant seem to get two pictures in one post
Attachments
image.jpg
image.jpg (121.01 KiB) Viewed 2597 times

User avatar
Hartofoak
G-Major
G-Major
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:06 pm
Location: Berkshire England

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

Post by Hartofoak » Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:26 pm

Many thanks Polar Roller for the very comprehensive reply! I'm conscious of going off-piste with this BRC60/40 topic, but can I asked another question which may have been asked before ... Were there designers at Bantam in 1933 (who were involved with the pick-up) who continued employment during the design & construction stages of the prototype/pilot BRC? Perhaps they may have been influential in the BRC project, even as a memory bank. Again giving added evidence for your comments about the importance of the pick-up truck in the genesis of the BRC.
MB 298781 DoD: est. 01-19-44 (ex British Army 1958)
T1 Trailer: "Transportation Equipment Co."
MVMTS toolboxes & tools

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 » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:12 pm

Joe Friday wrote:I think we can now reach the conclusion that at lest some govt documents referred to the BRC-40 name?
Bantam BRC40 Tentative.jpg
Image

Great early document, and thanks for sharing it Joe, but as Jim has pointed out it clearly states American Bantam Model 40-(BRC).... NOT BRC40

What is the date of that document, it mentions Willys model MA & MB? so late 41 or 42 perhaps??

I know we came to a standstill on this some time ago but who knows what documents are out there and possibly (hopefully) they will surface if we keep up the quest, maybe even the original Bantam factory build documents that are MIA

Maybe I'm being pedantic but how can we ever hope to educate the public (including other jeep enthusiasts) about the real origins of the jeep and how Bantam built the first vehicle if the main players in the Bantam camp can't even get the models right. :roll: :roll:

Here is the answer, capital J for jeep mob are right and they really did invented the jeep in 1941....... because even the Bantam guys can't agree :o :x :x
Michael Browne
Heron Hill Motorpool

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

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 » Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:32 pm

Hello Hartofoak...both the Austin and the Bantam tin were designed by Count Alexis de Sakhnoffsky, a well renowed designer of the era. In te specification drawing issued by the QMC put participated in by Harold Crist of Bantam, you can see the distintive, very " non -military" curved, art deco dashboard of the Bantam. (robert Brown, the QMC guy involved) left Butler with an armload of Bantam blueprints, and these were adapted to the specs drawing under the direction of a Captain Engler, although the actual drawing was made by an unnamed subaltern. A draft of this drawing was gone over on July 1st by Crist who had traveled to Holabird for the purpose of reviewing the draft specs. It is here, and also earlier on June 27 by Frank Fenn, that Brown was asked to increase the weight limit because the car they were intending to build (regardless of what the specs said) used a larger engine and would be heavier. the specs were sent to Washington from Holabird about July 2 or 3, but were not issued until the 11th. They included the 85 pound torque engine, but not the weight adjustment. moreover, it was clear from the specs that larger tires created flotation problems which required a substantial revision of the Bantam plan and necessitated (fortunately) the use of the Studebaker rather than the smaller Bantam axle.

Back to your question, Beyond the basic coupe and the Roadster in both "brands" the company made substantial number of variations, especially the Bantams. The Open pickup was an Austin innovation designed as an attention getting delivery truck. one of th big auto parts houses used these for deliveries ..I forget the name but you would recognize it...Novelty became something of a sales driver for Bantam and they had pickups, panels, a really neat Boulevard Delivery" and even made some articulated trucks for Coke and other trucking companies making mini versions in their livery. Bantam also made open front PU ice cream trucks ( a lot like another ice cream Army vehicle,mthe Harley and Indian tricycles).

All of these inovations were factory driven, and some rather clever. The principal people at Bantam responsible for the jeep project were the Prsident Frank Fenn who handled management and financing mostly. Crist served as the engineer and builder and he had two assistants, Turner and Hemfling. All had been there at the beginning of Bantam, but only Hemfling had been there since the opening of Austin in 1930...when the military went to Butler Crist( a race driver and buider) put on a demonstration in a geared down PU that had been specially prepared..he worried if he had over done it, but also felt it is what won Brown and some others over who had been sent there with orders to "just say no"...Another model, an even closer take off for the jeep (all of these are on the same frame and running gear btw)..was the Bantam Speedster and Riviera..these were four seat, open cars very similR to the 33 Austins at the bottom of it.i believe I have posted a comparison of the Speedster and Duncans pilot where even some of the same parts are used. So, yes, all of the guys working on the jeep were very familiar with all of these models, ( the Riviera is an Alex Tremulis treatment, turning the coupe into an open car).
Michael...Capital J "invented" the "Quad".. But at trial they said that name was all a big mistake, and it really was a "jeep"...uh huh...See they dont know their own names either!


Post Reply

Return to “BRC MA GP Prototypes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests