"The Army" had no idea of what a light reconnaissance car might look like until they went to the Bantam factory on June 19, 1940.

Naturally I take some criticism for my attention grabbing headline here, but the fact is we have very little actual evidence of what the Army's specific contributions to the conception and/or design of the jeep were. Clearly the Using Arms had 'wanted' something since the end of WWI, and just as clearly the Quartermasters Corps had ignored or was not funded to developanything. Roy Evans at Bantam had been beating the doors down to develop something, but the Army wasn't willing or able to part with any development money and insisted that Bantam develop the vehicle at it's own expense.

Much is made of the "characteristics" put forth on June 6th, 1940 in a letter to the Adjutant General from the office of General Lynch the Chief of Infantry's office which letter contained six or seven generalized characteristics they envisioned in a light reconnaissance car. In fact these characteristics were drawn up and the letter drafted by Bantam lobbyist Harry Payne, and Lynch's aide Lt. Col. William C. Lee (also fascinated with parachutes and who went on to become the commander of the first or second U.S. Army airborne divisions). And it is these characteristics which the FTC is referring to when it speaks of "certain Army Officers".

Bantam's lobbyist, Harry Payne (a retired Naval Commander and aviator who had built fat tired propeller driven rescue cars for his flying school in the mid 20's) had been working on the using arms staff for months trying to get them to be specific about what they wanted in an RC and to get the ball rolling for procurement. The QMC had been more or less ignoring Infantry requests for development of a light recon car for twenty years. I find the fact that the size and weight specified in these characteristics (75"wb, 1200 lbs) were identical to a civilian American Bantam Roadster to be a fact unexplained by mere coincidence. Niether was it coincidence that once the ball was rolling the first place the Army went to Butler PA to find out how small cars were built: that was pure Payne lobbying. General van Deusen states at the Truman hearings for instance that "As a result of his [Payne's] efforts there was developed in the using arms and services a requirement for a vehicle of light weight, with low silhouette, approaching that of the product offered by Bantam". (To add one more name to the list, Payne had a signed picture from the Secretary of War Henry Stimson inscribed to the "Father of the Jeep". By the time this story is over we will have to assume an historical gang rape took place somewhere.)

As late as May 20th, and just a month before Butler, the Quartermaster Corps Technical Sub-Committee on Motor Transport (in charge of developing Army vehicles) concluded after a three day meeting which included spirited demands for an RC by the (Payne fired up) Infantry, that yes the Army needed a light recon vehicle of some kind, but they did not discuss anything remotely resembling the jeep, talking instead about tricycles, motorcycle sidecars, a revamped, lighter version of the half ton or Marmon Harrington and other non starters. The matter was left in abeyance for further investigation (just as it had been for the preceding 20 years by the QMC) and no drawings or verbal descriptions of a jeep or jeep like vehicle were mentioned.

With the possible exception of an as yet unfound pencil drawing by Harry Payne in General Lynch's office in May, the first drawing of what is to become the jeep is drawn in Butler Pennsylvania on the desk of Frank Fenn, Bantam President. It is not clear who actually drew it although probably one of two civilian engineers attached to the QMC, Robert Brown or Floyd Beasely, and this after extensive discussions with Fenn and Bantam mechanic and engineer Harold Crist.

There is a period here between June 6 (the characteristics letter) and June 19 (the Butler meeting) when "certain Army Officers" could have done some design work, and I am more than open to the demonstration of such facts. As yet nothing I know of has surfaced, and in addition, the most technical of the Army representatives (not officers BTW or even non coms, but civilian contract employees) were Brown and Beasley and the drawing elsewhere here on the page is what they cane up with. Okay, okay. It is POSSIBLE that this drawing was just a crude drawing of completely detailed plans they had out in the car and were too busyt to go get or something, but, the preponserance of the evidence I see on the recors is that the Army, civilians and officers, came to Butler with very little in hand except a wishlist of things they would like this new vehicle, what ever it would be, to do.

Many jeep historians make the as yet unsupported claim that the QMC came up with the jeep idea itself, or had it before going to Butler. My response is that everyone loves a winner, and when the jeep became one the QMC was no less anxious than than Willys in trying to claim developmental credit from the defenseless Bantam, They quickly (1943, a crucial war effort no doubt) commissioned Herbert Rifkin to write an "Rifkin Report" soon thereafter setting forth the operational facts but never once asking any one at Bantam what had actually transpired. Outside his mandate not doubt. Thr Rifkin report is entirely written up out of Army file drawers, and that is not where the jeep was concieved or developed IMHO. I'll bet Ralph Turner would have given him an earful!

Other jeep history accounts imply or lead one to believe that QMC's Camp Holabird was overflowing with all sorts of precise drawings about the new RC and that, really, it was just a matter of deciding which one, or combination to have Bantam build. If you believe that, you must explain why the Army delegation, and the QMC representatives in particular could only show the attached drawing which might have been done by the average eight year old. Clearly they brought nothing with them, and even after full consultation at Bantam and full access to Bantams engineering and plans this is the extent of the Army's progress on a light RC.

Perhaps you have facts or information which bear on these events which would either support, or cause me to change the story? Let's hear from you!

Back to BRC page/ Back to Spear page