Re: [MV] "jeep" describes only '40-'45 1/4-tons?

SBJohnston@aol.com
Sun, 11 Jan 1998 12:53:45 -0500 (EST)

Colin wrote:

>Nothing snobbish about defining between 'jeep', the slang
> term used by all the 'Allies', in WW2 ... And 'Jeep', a
>registered name used by US vehicle manufacturers after the
>war, hoping to obtain a sales advantage ...

I see now that this is what Cowderly was getting at in his book. The other
guys I talked to were making the point that the only vehicles worthy of the
proud jeep name were the '40-'45 models - similar to John Seidts recent post
to the list. When I read Cowderly's introduction it "seemed" to be making
the same point but I see now that was not the case.

I guess it is merely a matter of strong opinion as to what vehicles "deserve"
the jeep name. Everyone's entitled to judge -- good thing, too, as I catch
myself doing it too (well, once in awhile - smirk).

Thanks!

Steve Johnston

sbjohnston@aol.com

===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.