TANDEM HITCH KIT

1941 - 1945, MB, GPW Technical questions and discussions, regarding anything related to the WWII jeep.

Moderator: Moderator

TANDEM HITCH KIT

Postby lucakiki » Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:21 pm

The tandem hitch was developed by Willys (A 8500) and used in WWII,and also postwar on M38s. What I wonder about is how diffused this kit actually was on WWII jeeps.In jeep books it is not easy to find a picture:there is one in Farley's,page 210,and maybe some other that I missed to spot. The scarcity of pictures is possibly just a coincidence, but it might reflect an actually marginal employment of the kit.
I would think that the ones we occasionally see today on collector jeep have been found as N.O.S.left over rather than found on a vehicle talready equipped with such an item while in service. More of a conversation piece than an actual war time widespread accessory...The caption on a picture in "Jeeps over the Pacific",one of my favourite books, would confirm my arguable opinion. Quoted verbatim:<First two Jeeps have tandem tow bars fitted for decoration.> Page 149! Interesting,I would say! :wink:
Luca

WillysMB#344142 6-19-44 Navy N.S.Blue Grey
45 Bantam T-3 #57248 1-10-45
42 Willys MB-T #13560 11-42
43 Willys MB-T # 25417 4-43
Way too many WWII military tools,hopefully thinning down,and way too many posts...

__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________
User avatar
lucakiki
G-General
G-General
 
Posts: 16877
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 9:18 am
Location: Torino, ITALY

Postby Bob N » Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:43 pm

I don't have that book but the quote would be more telling if it was the "original" US Army or USMC/NAVY caption. If it is from the author of the book then it is meaningless.

Can't say how wide spread these were and doubtful anyone will be able to come forward with any figures. The one on my jeep was supposedly NOS WW2 but I can't be certain as no tags came with it.
Bob N.
Visit www.42FordGPW.com
42FordGPW Store
Sign up for my blog about WW2 jeeps and related information
User avatar
Bob N
Captain USAF (Ret)
Captain USAF (Ret)
 
Posts: 13206
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:27 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

A word of caution

Postby lucakiki » Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:34 am

Bob N wrote:I don't have that book but the quote would be more telling if it was the "original" US Army or USMC/NAVY caption. If it is from the author of the book then it is meaningless

The term <meaningless> is possibly a tad strong,wether refered to the respected author of the caption,wether refered to my quoting it.
In case it was not clear enough, I repeat that the point was,and is, that POSSIBLY the use of those kits was much less widespread than the Army forecasted when ordering them. Hence, they might POSSIBLY have been fitted as mere decoration,according to Ohtsuka's opinion: an opinion that good manners AND common sense should define "arguable" rather than "meaningless" * ...
Actually the fitting of the item on issue to a vehicle that never had one in service,nor even traces like the holes on the dashboard for the caution plate, is quite legitimate,when the aim is to portray something that was used in WWII: bearing in mind that it was not so widespread,is not only legitimate, but also historically correct.
Something like the winch: a much sought after accessory,that most collectors including me would like to own. Nevertheless its actual use was less than favoured,on jeeps, by the troops. Possibly that is why, after the war, there were so many N.O.S. available: not anymore,unfortunately.

*) In fact I wonder how anybody could disagree ,or even agree, on a meaningless issue. :roll:
Luca

WillysMB#344142 6-19-44 Navy N.S.Blue Grey
45 Bantam T-3 #57248 1-10-45
42 Willys MB-T #13560 11-42
43 Willys MB-T # 25417 4-43
Way too many WWII military tools,hopefully thinning down,and way too many posts...

__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________
User avatar
lucakiki
G-General
G-General
 
Posts: 16877
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 9:18 am
Location: Torino, ITALY

Postby Bob N » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:13 am

:roll: Okay, let me put it another way. It is highly unlikely that the tandem hitch was used as a decoration DURING the war. Items are issued under a Table of Organization and Equipment. It's not like it's a Sears & Roebuck catalog where they could just pick and chose what they wanted. Calling the item a decoration shows a serious misunderstanding of how the Army worked/works.

The word "meaningless"? I will stand by my original observation. A modern opinion of the value and use of an item without historical data to back it up is meaningless. The author has apparently, based on your post, delivered an opinion that these items were a decoration. Where is the beef? The very notion of these items being decorations is absurd. we are not talking about a hood ornament. These items were used to hook two jeeps together to tow a large field piece that was normally towed by a 2 1/2-ton or other prime mover. The tandem hitch also connected two jeeps together to be used to move aircraft around airfields.

Image

To go further with my comment on "meaningless", you see this in many of the books. The authors if using US Signal Corp pictures often do not include the ORIGINAL caption and thus we are left with an incomplete picture of what the photo represents inviting incorrect or even meaningless observations. Sort of like the WW2 picture of a Ford GPW with carpet installed in it. Why? The author that used this picture either didn't know why or didn't care to find out.

Considering your "point", one would have to know when the Army purchased the items. If it were late in the war, it coudl be that we overran Italy, Germany and Japan before all the items could be issued. Thus is born "surpplus". Something hopefully we are all aware of by now.

As to whether or not one can fit any item to their vehicle to "portray" is a matter for the owner to decide. I won't argue with that. But to say it is legitimate or historically correct is imprecise and faulty logic. It can only be considered legitimate and historically correct if it can be shown that vehicles assigned to the unit were likely to have this equipment attached during the war. Would jeeps assigned to a USAAF unit have 37mm anti-tank guns to tow around? Still it might be fun if not historically accurate to have something like that to tow around.

I leave you to ponder your wonder about how anyone could "disagree, or even agree, on a meaningless issue" with this thought--the argument as in this one could be over whether or not the item under discussion is meaningless or not. :P
Bob N.
Visit www.42FordGPW.com
42FordGPW Store
Sign up for my blog about WW2 jeeps and related information
User avatar
Bob N
Captain USAF (Ret)
Captain USAF (Ret)
 
Posts: 13206
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:27 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

MEANINGLESS?

Postby lucakiki » Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:32 pm

Bob N.,let me start from the bottom of your post.
Meaningless=going by the significance of the term I mantain that an issue without meaning cannot be understood; if you cannot understand you possibly can't disagree, unless you have a tendency to disagree regardless of your actual grab of the point. Is that clear?
Or by chance you actually meant irrelevant,insignificant...?
Regarding this other issue:. <It is highly unlikely that the tandem hitch was used as a decoration DURING the war.>Nobody ever said that it was.
If you just re-read my post you will see that I mentioned my having seen only one WWII field picture of a Jeep fitted with the item,plus my possible failure to spot others. Then I mentioned the picture on Ohtsuka's book. Did I contradict myself then? Not quite: I stated WWII pictures(with a reason),and the picture with the discussed caption is dated 49. The author did not state what you seem to have understood.He just stated that the item <on two of the jeeps pictured> were decorations.Possibly arguable,but by no mean... meaningless.
That any owner can do what he pleases him with his jeep is stating the obvious,and I am not even thinking to disagree. Just as with bridge plates,antidecapitation devices,upside down bumperettes...

You mentioned historical correctness,I just followed your path.
What you failed to debate is the difference between fitting an item,be it original or reproduced,to any vehicle and doing the same to a vehicle that actually had been fitted with it in its very own service history. In one case it is an historically correct representation of a documented practice: in the second case it is just as correct,historically speaking,and also a literal implementation of "restoration to a given moment status".
To those two commendable practices,one can always add the " It's my jeep and I stick on it whatever I happen to desire". Nothing against this concept,mind you.But why not apply it to bridge plates just as well? You know,those yellow things you seemed to ... (enter verb of your choice.)
Oh yes,all this keeps reminding me of the waterbucket saga:am I the only one?
Luca

WillysMB#344142 6-19-44 Navy N.S.Blue Grey
45 Bantam T-3 #57248 1-10-45
42 Willys MB-T #13560 11-42
43 Willys MB-T # 25417 4-43
Way too many WWII military tools,hopefully thinning down,and way too many posts...

__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________
User avatar
lucakiki
G-General
G-General
 
Posts: 16877
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 9:18 am
Location: Torino, ITALY

Postby Bob N » Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:09 pm

The difference Luca is research. My research proved that water buckets were issued to at least some units. I do not understand how you can compare this to a picture.

BTW, you didn't state that the picture was dated 1949 in your original post. I'm good but not a mind reader. :lol:

Meaningless as in having no value. The comment by the author refering to the tandem hitch as a decoration (or decorated) has no value....thus meaningless. I could have said invalid if I wanted to but I let it go.

Perhaps Mr. Ohtsuka has used English imprecisely in this instance?

I can't bring myself to re-read your post. I'm willing to let it go. :lol:

Again, it is up to the owner what they want to do. Portrayals are fine. As with many things it is important to do the RESEARCH. Don't take my word for it, do your own research and determine what is appropriate. I suggest that just because you find a part that IS historically accurate doesn't mean that it's use is accurate when you stick it on a jeep! I have already give at least one example of this.
Bob N.
Visit www.42FordGPW.com
42FordGPW Store
Sign up for my blog about WW2 jeeps and related information
User avatar
Bob N
Captain USAF (Ret)
Captain USAF (Ret)
 
Posts: 13206
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:27 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Bridge plates,tandem hitch,waterbuckets...

Postby lucakiki » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:38 am

o.k. Bob N.: you do not want to re read the posts, and then as usual you blame communication problems. Too bad. I will gladly try to make it clear,once more, even if a careful reading of the above posts, in connection with the bridge plate ones if you wish, would have made a clarification unnecessary.

POINT 1 . Guys put bridge plates on their restored jeeps,but this was not so widespread in WWII...This is, roughly ,what you posted when Carli asked about the item. Similarity with the bucket thread?
Roughly,the guy objected to waterbucket on collector jeeps,as being a monkey see fad,not reflecting an actual widespread practice in WWII.(See the analogy?)

As a confutation,I was not alone to point out the many pictures that show the item. Bob N.'s rebuttal:Those are mostly Commonwealth vehicles...
The bucket raider,once photographic evidence was pointed to him, tried to debate ETO versus PTO... (See the analogy?...)

Personally,I thought that the kind of doubts you expressed on the Bridge plates, could be expressed, just as well ,on other items we see on jeeps...
Possibly remembering your peculiar take on grease gun brackets and lever guns, I rather chose as an exemple the TANDEM HITCH. Is that clear?
POINT TWO
Just as you did, I purposedly followed your very approach, and I mentioned how this kit was "possibly" not so widespread if one has to judge by the available WWII field pictures. I duly mentioned the picture I saw, Book and page,and I acknowledged the possibility of my having missed others.

To further underline the concept that the item had a lesser momentum than one might be induced to acknowledge, I mentioned,quoting verbatim the caption, how in another picture (not mentioned among the WWII ones as per above) the Item was considered as decoration on two jeeps pictured. PERIOD.
The point was there, the necessary references were there as well (no need of a mind reader to UNDERSTAND that a picture not included among WWII ones could simply be ... post war. :idea:

What do we get from the above? A tirade on how a respected writer,author of world famous books* ,allegedly knows nothing about Army procurement, and how in WWII tandem hitches were supplied for towing and not as decorations... :shock:
Possibly to better clarify this difficult concept, you kindly posted a picture taken from the instructions. We ALL know what a tandem hitch was for,but thank you any way. That is research!
The point is that also this item, gracing among others your own pride and joy, was possibly not so widespread : exactly as you posted about the bridge plates...
You were kind enough to point out how one is entitled to do whatever he likes to with his property. Repetita juvant,but the concept is by now widely accepted in most countries.In the hope that this is not considered "politics", I even dare to take it for granted ,in countries worth living in.

So,to end it up,YOUR objection regarding bridge plates generated quite a few reactions,including my very post. Another analogy with the waterbucket saga.... can't you see it? :idea:

I would not be surprised if some guy adds to his bottom line "bridge plate type!".


*) for the actual meaning of the terms book,author, writer,please check any dictionary of your choice.
Luca

WillysMB#344142 6-19-44 Navy N.S.Blue Grey
45 Bantam T-3 #57248 1-10-45
42 Willys MB-T #13560 11-42
43 Willys MB-T # 25417 4-43
Way too many WWII military tools,hopefully thinning down,and way too many posts...

__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________
User avatar
lucakiki
G-General
G-General
 
Posts: 16877
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 9:18 am
Location: Torino, ITALY

Postby Bob N » Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:23 am

I hardly see my posting as tirade. It was meant mearly to point out that before someone rushs to add a new toy to their vehicle they should think about it.

To work hundreds of hours to bring a vehicle back and then to slap every toy on, just because you can...is that the thing to do?

In the past in this forum we have had those argue against jeeps that had everthing...including chickens! That's a bit much for me but to each his own...and besides it could be quite appropriate for someone portraying a jeep used during a particular theater. But would you "decorate" your jeep with bamboo if you were using the markings of a unit assigned to the ETO? One hopes not.

As far as the noted author. Authors can make mistakes. I used the words you attributed to him. I do not see military equipment as decorations but then I'm not a member of the artsy fartsy crowd.

I get the feeling you just want to split hairs like the old days. I don't mind playing along but is it really necessary?

You have new guys coming aboard all the time. To make blanket statements about how equipment was appropriate (or colors :lol: ) can only lead to confusion. Yes, bridge plates were used by some, so were machine gun mounts, etc. But a little research is in order. Did the unit your jeep portrays have these items? It might not be possible to determine this information but should be considered.

There's nothing wrong with portrayal a commonweatlth jeep with a bridgeplate but don't confuse the newer guys buy using those as proof postitive of use on "all" jeeps.

I have seen too many jeeps fully "decorated" including an I-beam for a bumper as being original to D-Day. The jeep also had a rear axle from a post war jeep, etc. The jeep looks nice but is in no way historically accurate.
Bob N.
Visit www.42FordGPW.com
42FordGPW Store
Sign up for my blog about WW2 jeeps and related information
User avatar
Bob N
Captain USAF (Ret)
Captain USAF (Ret)
 
Posts: 13206
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:27 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

YOU HAD IT COMING...

Postby lucakiki » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:29 am

Bob, it is not a matter of splitting hair. Thank heaven it is all printed both on this thread,and on the bridge plate thread,so if ever there was hair splitting ,and by whom,it is there for all to see. The mood of the commanding general,commonwealth vehicles,superseded TBs, all that jazz...

I hair split,Jon misunderstands "again", or goes "over the top as usual",the newbees might be misled... What about you?

That Carli guy asked information about bridge plates:nothing more. But as an extra he got ( all of us did actually) the wise remark that the item was not so widespread,historically speaking, so this and so that...
There were reactions, however polite. Possibly this very fact should have induced some thinking from your part. This very thread was triggered by your chastising the bridge plate: I just did the same,purposedly, with the hitch , because I knew it would itch. No way: poor Ohtsuka knows nothing about Military procurement, and his words(verbatim quoted, not "attributed" ,by the way) are MEANINGLESS,no less.A tirade...
To top it all, you go to extremes, as if anyone in the two threads had ever suggested to slap any conceivable goodie on any jeep.
I do not take it personal, also because my lousy jeep has none of those discussed items to argue about. I am just a tiny bit surprised by the source the warning comes from.You openly admitted on your jeep having a tandem hitch , a compressor , a grease gun bracket "slapped on"because you wanted them,and a jerrycan dispensed with ,so the script Ford would not be hidden... and you worry about the historical correctness of fitting a bridge plate. Well, in lack of a more suitable one, this emoticon will do -> :roll:
Last edited by lucakiki on Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Luca

WillysMB#344142 6-19-44 Navy N.S.Blue Grey
45 Bantam T-3 #57248 1-10-45
42 Willys MB-T #13560 11-42
43 Willys MB-T # 25417 4-43
Way too many WWII military tools,hopefully thinning down,and way too many posts...

__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________
User avatar
lucakiki
G-General
G-General
 
Posts: 16877
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 9:18 am
Location: Torino, ITALY

Postby SgtCox » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:07 am

Saucer of milk for table of two... :lol: :lol: MEOW... hissssssss... meow meow...

You two are corrupting us newbies! :lol:

Sorry, could not hold out any longer. :oops:
E. Cox
Parkville, MD
Mid-March '45 MB
M1 - SA s/n 3386893

Post and view images here!
User avatar
SgtCox
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:19 am
Location: Parkville, MD

Cathegoric

Postby lucakiki » Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:04 pm

You are right, Sgt. Cox!
Milk for two: I am the cat , he is the egoric... :D
Luca

WillysMB#344142 6-19-44 Navy N.S.Blue Grey
45 Bantam T-3 #57248 1-10-45
42 Willys MB-T #13560 11-42
43 Willys MB-T # 25417 4-43
Way too many WWII military tools,hopefully thinning down,and way too many posts...

__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________
User avatar
lucakiki
G-General
G-General
 
Posts: 16877
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 9:18 am
Location: Torino, ITALY

Postby Bob N » Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:48 pm

Pathetic. As usual Ron is correct. Obviously you are looking more to argue then to discuss ideas. You have failed to grasp the simpliest point. And yes I have many "toys" on my jeep that were originally added before the internet and my delving into research...more so then hyperbole. So if I can help someone to decide not to make the mistakes I made I will be doing good. Why not give an informed answer instead of guesses all the time that try to appear as if fact? Things like "from what I have observed in reviewing a number of WW2 pictures suggests that it would be reasonable to add such and such to a vehicle--but we cannot specifically say that such an item would be correct for both the vehicle and the unit you seek to portray."

Most of the time I have no idea WHAT you are talking about. You appear to know all so why should I be interested in correcting you? The original question about bridgeplates was fair enough and my comment harmless enough or at least that was the intention.

How appropriate that you would use the symbol :roll: as this seems to illustrate your total lack of understanding of communication. As has been said..."What we got hear is failure, failure to communicate." from Cool hand Luke. (appropriate?)

As far as milk, mouse and cats? What does that do to add to the discussion? If you know something about tandem hitchs then by all means spill it man! I am cornfused is SgtCox your cat, no you are both cats? It is beyond me, I want to communicate with people that have cognitive reckoning beyond the feline capacity to communicate.

I leave it to the cats and dog daze to continue...you waste too much of my valuable time. I should be writing a book about communication, buckets and tandem hitches. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Bob N.
Visit www.42FordGPW.com
42FordGPW Store
Sign up for my blog about WW2 jeeps and related information
User avatar
Bob N
Captain USAF (Ret)
Captain USAF (Ret)
 
Posts: 13206
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:27 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Communication(failure of)

Postby lucakiki » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:42 am

Hey Bob,Sgt Cox. tried to introduce a little joking atmosphere in this table tennis thread. At least, that is the way I took his harmless polite message.
Hence my little game.Period.
As for failing to grasp the simplest points,I leave to the others to judge wether this is more true for you or for me.
I don't like to argue just for the sake of it, but I am not (yet) wise enough to let it go when it is evident that the other party's supponence blurred his perspection of truth.Even when well meaning friendly private messages of gee members draw my attention on this aspect .

I however offer you my apologies for failing to understand how your post about the bridge plates,far from polemizing, was just a noble attempt to prevent the newbies from committing the same mistakes you made before ...delving in research.
Luca

WillysMB#344142 6-19-44 Navy N.S.Blue Grey
45 Bantam T-3 #57248 1-10-45
42 Willys MB-T #13560 11-42
43 Willys MB-T # 25417 4-43
Way too many WWII military tools,hopefully thinning down,and way too many posts...

__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________
User avatar
lucakiki
G-General
G-General
 
Posts: 16877
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 9:18 am
Location: Torino, ITALY

Postby Bob N » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:39 am

Appology accepted, hatchet buried. I am enjoying your plethora of "big" English words though.

My point exactly from the beginning of this thread and also in the plate thread--do the research, do the research and do the research. Those three things will help you develop an historically correct vehicle. Like I was saying, determine if the unit your vehicle is "attached" to could have had the equipment you want to affix to it. Go to just about any mv show and there will be someone there with a vehicle that they swear went UP and DOWN San Juan in the war of '98 (EIGHTEEN that is) and that it has all the correct accoutrements....same thing with jeeps. We see poorly done representations because the research hasn't been done. ALL grey US Navy jeeps? Really? Or would it be more realistic to paint it OD FIRST then overspray with grey? You get the idea. Same thing happens with variations of the jeep...sometimes it DOES boil down to a guess because the data is not yet available...other times it is available but the owner hasn't done his homework. single or tandem wipers...what about vacuum wipers on my 44 MB?

Bottom line? Don't rely on guesses or because someone told you so...ask for the source of the information.
Bob N.
Visit www.42FordGPW.com
42FordGPW Store
Sign up for my blog about WW2 jeeps and related information
User avatar
Bob N
Captain USAF (Ret)
Captain USAF (Ret)
 
Posts: 13206
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:27 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL


Return to MB GPW Technical Knowledge Base

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1943Willysgpw, irons43, Jean Georges, tango94 and 17 guests