Talk:Jerrycan

Archived information

Hello found some pics and info that maybe of help, http://web.archive.org/web/20030625194512/http://www.jed.simonides.org/misc/jerrycans/jerrycans.html allanalessio@yahoo.com

Images

hi, plz added sample pictures.... thanx.

Pictures of vintage WWII jerrycan added via external link. Been trying in vain to find free stock photos. User:Ming2020

Deleted information

Hi User:Jooler, don't just delete information. If you've got issues with it, put it in the talk page, like so:

The British sent examples of the cans to United States and the Americans finally decided to use the jerrycan.
Previously, two American engineers, Daniel and Paul Pleiss, who had been working in Germany just before the war had seen the cans in use during an automobile tour in India. They'd gotten a sample can and manufacturing specs to Washington in 1940, but the homegrown American solution was used instead. (an account of this can be found in a 1987 article by Ramón Alonso in "Invention & Technology")

I don't know why you have problems with this information, the article in question exists, since I've seen indicies of Invention and Technology which list it, although I haven't yet been able to secure a copy of the article. Care to tell me why you find it unreliable?
~ender - 2005-05-02 18:23:MST

1st - The info was added by an anon IP, with no contribution history. 2nd I cannot find a single reference to this information anywhere else on the web. so I deleted it. It is better to leave out information than to add erroneous factoids. It was then re-added by another anon IP (you). Please get an account. Jooler 08:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ----> PWNED MUTHAFUCKA

Anonymous user != bad information.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~atdyw/itm405/i&t-toc-1986-1996.pdf

Really, not too hard, now is it?

I agree that anonymous unattributed factoids ought to be removed from articles - to the talk page. Instead of just deleted. Factoids that have indentifying information, which would allow you to track them down, ought not to be eliminiated on a whim.

~ender - 2005-05-06 11:24:MST

Contributions by anon IPs have a high tendency to be full of erroneuous information, whether by design or accident. I see nothing to confirm the information added to this article in the link you gave. I only see "Why a can for gasoline was a crucial weapon in World War II (The Jerry Can)". Please get an account. Jooler 07:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

An article by Ramón Alonso, in the 1987 issue of "Invention & Technology". Maybe, since the citation is correct, you might consider that the facts are too? And even if the facts are complete crap, that would be easy to prove or disprove, since there *is* a citation. Thank you.

As long as wikipedia is open to the public, I'm not going to get an account. So you can shutup about it.

~ender 2005-05-09 02:10:MST

Finally got around to reading that article in the Fall 1987 "Invention & Technology", page 62 & 64 (postfix). It's actually by Richard M. Daniel. Also of note, he says that the only mention in the official record says simply: "A sample of hte jerry can was brought to the office of the Quartermaster General in the summer of 1940". Richard was one of the two guys tasked with improving the gasoline stuff, and found out this the hard way.

~ender 2006-07-08 13:38:MST

German invention of the jerrycan

Hi there; as far as I know, the jerrycan has not been invented by the Italians but the Germans. See this link:

http://www.afrika-korps.de/forum/viewtopic.php?p=16560#16560

Cheers, Kuno

I've found the document on which the text I quoted is based: it is a report from the Commanding Officer of the 7th. M13 Tank Btn., addressed to the 32nd. Tank Regiment Command, dated 21 April 1941. The text reads:

"No other container exists than the 200 litres drum, cumbersome, unwieldy. In German units, instead, there exist 20 litres canisters, which refueling is made with, up to the single tank or car, and which every vehicle carries a suitable supply of, in special installations." (robc's translation)

This definitely means that at that date, after almost one year of war, still there were no jerrycans in Italian use, either of national production or borrowed from the Germans (possibly apart from small units interoperating directly with the Afrikakorps).

Ok; they would probably not have written this complain[sic: complaint] if they would have had something like a jerrycan already

I was mislead by your title, so I've re-written it for you :)

~ender, 2006-01-31 21:05:PM MST

And how much fuel does a Jerry can hold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.41.148 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 July 2006

Twenty liters, or five gallons. —wwoods 06:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

20 liters is 4.4 Imperial gallons or 5.3 U.S. gallons. —Quicksilver^{T @} 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This reference to the Third World is an anachronism: "The 4 gallon containers, which were mainly manufactured in the third world,..." —wwoods 06:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved "German Invention" info into the "History" section and out of the header. Seems like a better place and creates flow to the History section. Chasingmytail (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No German History

Its odd that this article is mostly from the UK/US perspective. This article needs history on the German development as well. —Cliffb 11:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The sacred vessel of the Marmon

In some parts of Europe these liquid containers are known as "Marmon cans", since originally these were factory accessories for the Ford Germany made heavy military trucks, fitted with the patented Marmon-Herrington 4x4 drive system. 195.70.48.242 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Found a page that maybe of interest to the authors here.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030625194512/http://www.jed.simonides.org/misc/jerrycans/jerrycans.html

When

In the summer of 1939 ...

This wording is ambiguous and can be misinterpreted. It would work better if it was replaced with an actual date, month name or range of months. --B.d.mills 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How is summer more ambiguous than a range of months? They're the same thing, summer being a range of months, June through September. 70.88.213.74 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Summer in the Northern or Southern hemisphere? Here in Australia June to September is WINTER. We have to figure out whether it is a northerner talking about their summer, a southerner who has merely copied a northerner (i.e. northern summer), a southerner who has translated the northern winter into a southern summer or a southerner talking about a southern summer. Much better to make it unambiguous with a date or range of months (or at least say "northern hemisphere summer"). Stepho-wrs (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I got around this by removing the whole summer thing.. it happened in 1939..

The whole section about American disinterest is really confusing. Who were the two engineers, why was the one German being treasonous by driving with an American through India (was he even treasonous at all? He merely "compounded his treason" by telling people about water cans?) Why did the Americans not care about it? Why was the original design more successful if it was never put into production because no one cared about it? What is the significance of using a funnel or needing a wrench? I don't know, I just came across this and reading through it was very confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.231.150 (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The significance of the funnel and the wrench is that the jerry can didn't need them so require less equipment to be carried and could be used quicker (Imagine if when you went to buy fuel you had to use a funnel and a wrench). the Treason thing is because the tanks were secret and shouldn't have been taken from the supplies at templehof.(82.3.45.36 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm inclined to agree with the one fellow above regarding the section on American "disinterest", especially since American made can were being manufactured prior to Pearl Harbor.--172.129.216.58 (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

'Robust'?

What exactly is so special about the jerrycan's manufacture that makes it robust and so much better than anything else at the time? There's virtually no information in here about why it was so great that it was reverse engineered -- just that it was. PolarisSLBM 17:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They were superior for a number of reasons:

• They were made from sheet steel of a reasonable gauge instead of fragile tin plate.
• The general shape is resistant to bending.
• The creases in the sides allow for expansion of the fuel when hot (doesn't split on hot days).
• Built-in handle.
• Built-in pouring spout.
• Does not need extra tools to use.
• Reasonable size for one man to handle.
• Reasonable size and shape for strapping to the side of a vehicle.
• Stackable.
• Reasonable cost to manufacture. Stepho-wrs (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• captive cap - not separable from can [from first hand observation of a can in my position stamped 1942]Pgrayson (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• cap locks in open position - out of way when pouring [from first hand observation of a can in my position stamped 1942]Pgrayson (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Civvie versions?

As a gas jockey at the sharp end of "customer" "service" (interpret quotes how you will), I'd appreciate information on civilian jerry cans and especially how to properly dispose of ones that are no longer fuelworthy... --66.183.197.66 (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC) are five three eight nine two two zero seven dot zero zero three three nine at hotmail dot com (are as in Romeo, all numbers as numerals)

Third Can

What did Pleiss do with his third stolen jerry can??? Lovefist233 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul

This article could use a fairly drastic overhaul. As it is, information pertaining to its design is shoved into the middle of a rundown of a small portion of its history, which seems to only extend as far as WWII, and only as far as the US and British responses to its design. Kouban (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Secret Project of Hitler? Pleiss?

I search quite a while on the web and books. However, I found no reference to the fact that this was a secret project. It was common knowledge that the cans from WWI were unreliable and therefore the development of a new can generation is more than obvious. Therefore the German army launches an invitation to tender for a new model of container in 1936. (Wow, that was secret!)

But of course, I know: "secret project of Hitler" sounds more fascinating and originates most likely from an American or perhaps English author.

I suggest to delete this information until someone has found some proof!

The above mentioned development was lead by Schwelmer Eisenwerk Müller & Co AG under Vinzenz Grünvogel. The production starts at the beginning of 1937 in co-operation with firm AMBI-BUDD Presswerk of Berlin which provides the machine tools.

It seems to me that everyone is cititing the same internet sources as they all have the same wording.

Fascinating, I thought this was Wikipedia, not CopyPastedia.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.4.51.16 (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

welcome to reality - manhood slightly forgets his ability to have own thoughts - wikipedia is part of the problem ;-) --93.221.241.251 (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what the writer meant was that there was tactical advantage to having the better fuel can. Anything falling into that category: things that give you an edge over the enemy, is usually closely held information (or objects) regardless of official classification. Proof of Jerry cans desirability is in the stories of troops abandoning their own fuel cans in favor of the German one when available. How to document that is an editorial challenge, but valuable to the story of the can. Pgrayson (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, look once over the British Channel too ...

Your discussions are interesting. I wrote the article for the German Jerrycan, exact designation: "Wehrmacht-Einheitskanister":
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht-Einheitskanister Arche-foto (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Information under wrong header

The way I am reading it, the next part goes for WW2 era jerrycans in general, yet it is only mentioned in the British necessity part:

"The sides of the can were marked with cross-like indentations that strengthened the can while allowing the contents to expand, as did an air pocket under the handles when the can was filled correctly. Rather than a screw cap, the containers used a cam lever release mechanism with a short spout secured with a snap closure and an air-pipe to the air pocket which enabled smooth pouring (which was omitted in some copies). The interior was also lined with an impervious plastic, first developed for steel beer barrels that would allow the can to be used for either water or gasoline. The can was welded, and had a gasket for a leak-proof mouth."

Should this be moved into the general description of the jerrycan? Or am I mistaking and is this description really something that sets the British version apart form the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.1.225 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing Table

Under the picture, it says "Different colours designate the contents - see table." But there is no table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.234.206.89 (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Per WP:SUBCAT, Category:German inventions should be removed because this article is already a member of child category Category:Inventions of the Third Reich. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jerrycan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090324102055/http://www.epa.gov:80/air/community/details/gascan.html to http://www.epa.gov/air/community/details/gascan.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1987/2/1987_2_62.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

US lack of interest?

I edited the section title "American lack of interest". With respect, that's a silly title for the section. Yes, the US initially had little interest in the jerrican - just like most other armies. But the US went on to produce and use literally millions of them during WW2. There are records of complaints in the ETO in 1944 of millions of them missing. If they were missing millions, imagine how many they had on hand. This indicates the opposite of "lack of interest". regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

May I just add that every US jeep carried a jerrican rack - all half-million or so of them. All US halftracks after 1942 had two racks for them - all 20,000 or so. Most US Army trucks had a rack for at least one.

Meanwhile the Red Army manufactured no jerricans and did not equip any of their vehicles with racks. Yet the Red Army section is called "...usage" while the US section is "...lack of interest". DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeeps don't have a jerrycan rack, they have a rack for a US pattern fuel can. If you put a jerrycan in it, you have to pack the width or it rattles around. Some US racks (the ones that clip on the lower rim) simply can't carry a jerrycan. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You make it impossible to discuss this when you are edit-warring to repeatedly push your unsourced viewpoint, contrary to WP:BRD.

The essential point here is that all mechanised armies had a "fuel container" at the outset. The German design was significantly better. When the British saw this, they used them, then they copied them. When the Soviets saw them, they used them, then they copied them. This design is still in production across both NATO and Warpac(sic) countries. When the US saw them, they ignored them, then they re-invented them as a poor design. The US design is not a "jerrycan" as is the scope of interest here. The US did not adopt the jerrycan, the German-designed NATO-standard jerrycan, as standard until the 1970s. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So your claim is that only an exact replica of the German design is a "jerrycan"? DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I ask because there is a photo in the article right now showing a US-type fuel can on the back of a 4X4, and it is captioned "jerrican". DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a need, for the purposes of this article and especially for the section on § US lack of interest, to distinguish between the German design and the US design. I don't particularly care what we call them, but we need to distinguish and we need to preserve the issue where the US ignored the German design that the other Allies adopted. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That is plain nonsense. The US design is so similar to the German design, it is obvious that it is a close copy. Everyone calls them jerricans. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It is nothing like the German design in construction. Have you ever seen a WWII one? It is made from three parts, with horizontal seams, and it has a screw cap with no inbuilt spout. The German design is two parts with a vertical seam, and a lever cap that needs no tool and has some use as a spout (although there's a clip-on spout too). This is what the article needs to explain.

The current NATO jerrycan is used by the US, but this is a later adoption by the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Please do not add statements like this "the Allies produced millions of them" (the US design can) and hide them between a deceptive edit summary of "Allies including US used *millions* of them". There is a difference between "used" and "produced". Only the US (and maybe the Canadians) produced the US pattern. There are records of UK tank units in Belgium being supplied with petrol in US cans and using such improvised tools to open them (not having been issued with a US wrench) that the cans were damaged beyond re-use. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

US fuel cans do not require any tool to open them, nor do US water cans. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever seen one? There is a large diameter screwed plug. If it's put in by hand, then you might get it open. If it's tightened with the wrench, then you need bigger hands than I have to get a grip on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I have. I've used them quite a lot. I served. Everyone I served with called them jerricans. No one had ever seen a tool to open them. This article is the first reference I've ever seen to them. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also appreciate it if you would assume good faith.

The article also calls the Finnish modification as a jerrican. So - what design changes result in a exclusion from the name "jerrican" ? DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you say that this photo is a collection of jerricans, or some jerricans and some other objects that are not jerricans? http://beachpackagingdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/JerryCan-collection.jpg DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This author http://philippeleger5.wix.com/jerrycan-#!publications/cu0v agrees the US design is indeed a jerrican. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't much care what we call them, but we need to distinguish the general and specific cases, and we need to preserve the fact that the US invented a new design in WWII, rather than adopting the superior German design. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. But I will edit to "US Adaptation" because the notion that the US had a "lack of interest" is simply absurd regardless. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The US Army official history uses the term jerrican also. Will be adding to article. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph, because there are a few issues with it.

• The first issue is easily fixed - it uses the same reference three times without using the <ref name="ref_name_here" /> tag, and the refs used are malformed containing a double Http.
• The ref doesn't support the claim that "The US jerrican was widely adopted" - it only states that the US used their "Jerrican", not that anybody else used it. In fact it specifically states that everybody else had found the original German version to be superior: "The lowly jerrican, so named by the British, who, followed by the Americans, had copied the German container after discovering its superior merits"
• The ref again states that as the US fell short they requested jerrycans from the UK government, which were manufactured in UK factories. Given that the UK was using the original German design it can't be assumed that those "millions" manufactured were of the American design, rather than the German design - which is what the UK armed forces were already using.
• As per WP:ENGVAR and a lesser extent WP:COMMONNAME even if they're called "jerricans" in the US, this article uses the spelling "jerrycan", so that's what should be used consistently.

User:DMorpheus2, I would hesitate to suggest that as you say you served and used jerrycans, you probably used those of the German design that had made their way into the US population - possibly as a result of the source above; German design jerrycans being manufactured for the US by European countries. Given the apparent strength of the German design versus the weakness of the US design it would seem reasonable that the US designed cans would be outlived by the German ones. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That's laughable. I used US cans like millions of others have done. And yes, I think the German fuel can is far better, but, that doesn't mean the US one isn't a jerrican.

I can't tell from my source which version the UK was producing for US usage.....which pretty much supports my argument that either way, they are jerricans. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No, they are jerrycans - at least in the context of this article. You may personally call - and spell - them however you want, but here on Wikipedia it's "jerrycan" Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the previously-cited content. I've updated the spelling; I agree it should be spelled consistently throughout the article. Both spellings are in common use but you are correct that there should be one way here.

I should think "widely adopted" means many *millions* used by US forces but I've clarified that too.

I gather we all agree the US can is a jerrycan now. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made a couple of changes - I don't think the term "adopted" is accurate when referring to a US design which was to be used by US forces - it implies that there was another choice they could have made, whereas I'm reasonably sure the US govt would mandate use of their design. Also changed the spacing between punc & ref.

I've never been against the term "jerrycan" being used to describe the US variants. Seems reasonable to me, and the only caveat I'd say would be to ensure that it's prefixed with "US designed" or similar to show that it is a variant with significant design changes. The design differences can be clearly seen in the "A quantity of US-style jerrycans at Savannah Quartermaster Depot, Savannah, Georgia, 1943." image in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Roosevelt quote

With regard to the removal of the Roosevelt quote:

"Without these cans it would have been impossible for our armies to cut their way across France at a lightning pace which exceeded the German Blitzkrieg of 1940."

It's reliably sourced that Roosevelt said it. Whether he was correct in what he said is not up for debate, but it's for sure that he believed the Jerrycan to be instrumental in the Allied victory - and that's the context that's important. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

See below, a source from 1944 proves he did not say it as much as there could be any proof for this at all. Also, the actual author of the source (blog) that's actually linked on the article admits that he doesn't remember where it came from, which cuts the chain of evidence from event to wikipedia through the stated source. If anything, a different source needs to be given.Lastdingo (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It is ahistorical disinformation by Roosevelt. If he believed the jerrycan to be that important based on the reasoning given (and politicians lie often, so it's naive to conclude any belief of his based on what he said) then he was badly misinformed about things that were even public knowledge and had serious memory issues. Besides, he sat almost all the time in Washington DC and had no first-hand knowledge about what happened at the front, much less about the obscure logistics details.

The German campaign in France 1940 lasted from 10 May to 25 June - about six weeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

The Allies anded at Normandy on June 6, the landings phase wasn't over until mid-July and they needed till August 25 to liberate Paris. They took till year's end to reach the German border. That's about a fourth the pace of the German advance.

Too add this lie or ignorant bollocks quote of Roosevelt says NOTHING about the importance of the jerrycan, but it deceives readers of Wikipedia into believing fictional history. So I go delete that crap, for there is no justification for it, it's lowest possible quality (disinformation) and it's irrelevant concerning the topic of the article. I will go for dispute resolution if you keep adding disinformation to this article. Lastdingo (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The quote is reliably sourced. It appears to be your opinion, not backed by reliable source, that he was misinformed. It adds a valuable bit of historical information if he believed it or even if it was misinformation. Either way it is on subject and involved a highly notable person. If you have a reliable source that disputed Roosevelt's statement, then that too would be a valuable addition to the article. Therefore, I'm restoring the quote. If you disagree we can take it to mediation.MartinezMD (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

And here is a better link to the quote, via Google Books, from the Report to Congress on lend-lease operations. [1]

There is also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth which although "only" an essay and not policy spells out the situation we have here - you may disagree with the content, but it's reliably sourced, unlike your own interpretation.

The content is also irrelevant and misleading. The sourcing is irrelevant in this case, especially since even my edit to clarify the disinformation and wrongness fo the quote was reverted. Besides, I did not provide an interpretation here. I am writing about historical fact.

Even if he was wrong, that's not important - what is important is that the President of the United States of America considered the contribution of the Jerrycan to be so great that without it, the war wouldn't have been won when it was. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with you adding that Roosevelt was wrong on the issue on the page about Roosevelt. In this place it's mere disinformation and misleads readers into believing clearly wrong fiction about historical events. Wikipedia is not meant to disinform people. Besides, as mentioned before, a statement by a politician doesn't even prove that he believes a certain thing. Furthermore, Roosevelt was simply no authority on details of logistics of military operations on other continents. His (proven wrong) opinion is of neither value nor interest to a FACTS-oriented website. Lastdingo (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Lastdingo (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not providing an interpretation here, but a sourced (internal links) clarification: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerrycan&type=revision&diff=750627581&oldid=750627346 Lastdingo (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Chaheel Riens is irrational and writes nonsense "important is that the President of the United States of America considered the contribution of the Jerrycan to be so great that without it, the war wouldn't have been won when it was" isn't an interpretation of anything Roosevelt ever said or wrote, but entirely made-up fiction. This disqualifies Chaheel Riens' opinion as relevant here, because of proven disinterest in facts and preference for some pleasant fantasy. Lastdingo (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The quote should stay. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was out for days due to an illness.Last I saw on the dispute page was a possibility to clear up the issue by writing a correction into the reference link, or footnotes or something. Can't access the dispute page any more since it's closed. Anyway, I realised I privately know the guy from whose page the quote is (the world is small!), AND he gave no source himself on his website, so I'll ask him about this. Lastdingo (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

We had said that regardless of the accuracy, the quote was relevant. The admin said we needed to discuss it more. IMO you would need a neutral source to refute it, or we can come up with some consensus about adding a very brief footnote pointing out the potential inaccuracy. MartinezMD (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@MartinezMD, it's impossible to prove that someone never said something specific. Meanwhile, it's proven that the quote makes an inaccurate claim and apparently even you guys don't know what the quote really means. So there's really no good reason to keep this misinformation in wikipedia. But I get that you would edit this misinformation in regardless, so let's at least clarify SOMEWHERE on that page that the quote is actually in conflict with undisputed historical reality.

and furthermore, did you not read the link I included previously? The quotation is direct from FDR's report on the Lend-Lease program to the US Congress. MartinezMD (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@MartinezMD: Now if we take that source as the original source than deletion of the quote is unavoidable because it's not even a Roosevelt quote AT ALL. Roosevelt's letter of transmittal ends at page 7 of that document, the rest of the document is a report by the president's office, not the president's own words. Hence the section up to page 7 was signed with Roosevelt's name and a date at page 7, whereas the counterfactual quote is on page 18! I am fine with accepting this as original source, since it makes deletion of that crap inevitable. That source marks the quote as not by an important person but by some bureaucracy and since the quote has counterfactual content it's not worthy of inclusion on a wikipedia page. Since wikipedia is not meant for disinformation.Lastdingo (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"Asking the guy about this" would count as original research, and not help your case at all I'm afraid. For the record, I see nothing wrong with the quote as is, and also am against expanding it with possible interpretations of whether FDR was correct, mislead, or wrong - as his quote itself seems open to interpretation (as has been commented upon) then we cannot say exactly what he was referring to - apart from the fact that he considered the Jerryan to have been instrumental in whatever he was talking about. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

He answered he didn't remember the source, and in reaction to my inquiry essentially googled for possibilities where he might have gotten it from. And I strongly doubt that checking a source qualifies as original research anyway.Lastdingo (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

OK; new attempt. We change the source to that report from 1944. We do not claim that Roosevelt said it, but that it's in that presidential report. Furthermore, we point out that this "lightning pace" only describes the first weeks after the breakout from Normandy:

Such was the importance of the cans in the war effort that a presidential report to Congress stated "Without these cans it would have been impossible for our armies to cut their way across France at a lightning pace which exceeded the German Blitzkrieg of 1940.", describing the pace of advance in the first weeks after the breakout from Normandy in mid-July 1944.[4]

and as source we offer:

"Report to Congress on lend-lease operations" Volumes 11-17, chapter 1, page 18, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1944

That's still slightly ambiguous, but regrettably the most I seem to be able to pull off here to turn wikipedia away from fantasy history. Lastdingo (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. The whole point of this section is to draw attention to the fact that the President of the United States (not Joe Grunt down in the trenches) considered the Jerrycan to have had a major impact on the outcome of the war - or at least a particular campaign. The quote - or rather its context - is important, and should stay, as should the attribution which - despite your observations - is still reliably sourced. We do attribute the quote to Roosevelt, because it's reliably sourced to him.

I've also taken the liberty of changing your quotes into blockquotes for clarity and readability. I've made no change to the text itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that source - http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/010/10-15/CMH_Pub_10-15.pdf - which has some excellent info I will be adding.

I remain convinced the FDR quote should stay. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're ignoring that the best source we have doesn't even claim that Roosevelt ever said or wrote such a thing. His administration did; only some other pages in that source are directly attributed to Roosevelt. You don't seem to pay attention to the source situation, preferring to simply BELIEVE that Roosevelt considered the jerrycan as important. In fact, you're talking about Roosevelt thinking of the jerrycan as important for the outcome of the war - but the primary source for the quote pre-dates the end of that war, which shows how little you pay attention. Now please, look at the source, at the arguments and do a diligent job at judging the issue instead of simply believing in what pleases you the most. Your claim that Roosevelt "considered the Jerrycan to have had a major impact on the outcome of the war" is unsourced. So if that part of the article is really meant to make that claim, it has to go since it's unsourced AND contains a counter-factual claim. Lastdingo (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The source we are currently using - http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/08/the-amazing-jerry-can/ - states:

Commenting on the Jerrycan, President Roosevelt said; "without these cans it would have been impossible for our armies to cut their way across France at a lightning pace which exceeded the German Blitz of 1940."

In what way do you dispute this as being attributed to Roosevelt?

There is also:

• [2] The little can that could
• [3] The Jerrycan (PDF)
• [4] Black Country made Jerry cans

And as a comment & reply to one of your own points - I am not "talking about Roosevelt thinking of the jerrycan as important for the outcome of the war", rather I am talking about how Roosevelt seemed convinced of the importance of the jerrycan because it allowed armies to cut their way across France at a lightning pace which exceeded the German Blitzkrieg of 1940. That's what the quote says - and without delving into tit-for-tat personal insults I could say that you are paying even less attention, when it's been clear all along that my only angle to do with the quote is not content but context, the fact that a major historical figure said it. I reiterate - for at least the third time - if Derek Bumbledere, Pvt 1st class said it as his jeep trundled through the countryside nobody would care, least of all me. But it wasn't Derek, it was The President of the United States. And he's sourced as saying it.

Please provide a source that specifically refutes Roosevelt as saying this, and then you may have a case. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

(1) It's always impossible to prove that someone did not say something specific. The burden of proof is thus on those who claim the person said it. Claims that are not supported by sources can be deleted on wikipedia. (2) All the evidence we have are a primary source that's not claiming that Roosevelt said it. Instead, the line appears in a report written by the presidential administration in which the president's own words are clearly separated from the line in question. (2) All other sources brought forward are secondary sources going back to said primary source. (4) You did make the claim that I wrote, search this page for "the Jerrycan to have had a major impact on the outcome of the war - or at least a particular campaign." (5) I note that still nobody here has any evidence that Roosevelt ever said or wrote the words in question. So far we only have a primary source that shows that bureaucrats of the Roosevelt administration wrote the line. (6) Last but not least - the line is still misleading readers about what actually happened in France and thus unfit for wikipedia. Lastdingo (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC) (7) It was already clarified that the Think Defence author doesn't remember where he had that quote from. besides, that page will go down soon anyway, for the blog closes. (8) A statement of facts is never an insult, regardless of how (deservingly) bad the target feels. Lastdingo (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

OK so we now have the quote through multiple sources, dated November 1944. It would be odd indeed to drop something as 'unsourced' from wiki under these circumstances.

Lastdingo I'd appreciate it if you'd stop the personal attacks and stick to the issues. On this particular issue, the consensus of sources and editors is strongly in the 'keep it' camp. Let's move on to something productive because this isn't, any more. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

wrench or spanner?

Andy Dingley, as per the Wrench article, there is nothing to support the slightly confusing edit summary of "It's a wrench not a spanner. Even if it were British (and it wasn't)"

The article is a BR-eng article, therefore it's a spanner by default. The only application of "wrench" in BR-eng (According to the article) is for a torque or adjustable wrench - and the item in question is neither of those.

I accept that I only added the BR-eng tags recently, (and that there has been a confusing mix of both british and American usage, but there has always been a bias towards BR-Eng coupled with the argument that it's if not British certainly a European orientated article,) but it's still a BR-Eng article, therefore the BR-eng usage should be followed, even when referring to American tools. Language variations are applied to an entire article, not variably to sections or sentences within. Why do you say that even if it were British it would be a wrench not a spanner? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Wrench is always correct in the UK (even if obscure), for anything that isn't a wheel lock pistol. Spanner is, surprisingly, the relatively recent adoption. It only dates from the later Victorian period and mass-produced nuts. Before that, wrench was the common term – and adjustable wrenches were needed because nuts just weren't standardised well enough to fit standardised fixed-size ones.

There's also the issue that this US can isn't even a nut. So spanner is wrong, and it's a wrench. If it's not a nut, you use a wrench on it, in both countries.

And finally, it's a US wrench to fit US cans. They weren't British equipment (as standard). In the Netherlands during WWII British troops ran into trouble as fuel was arriving on the Red Ball Express in US cans and they had nothing to open them with, without some risk of chewing the caps. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As pointed out the fact that we're describing a US piece of equipment does not mean that it should be referred to as a wrench, rather the commonly used term in the country defined.

Your assertion that "Wrench is always correct in the UK" is not supported by the actual article which states "In Commonwealth English (excluding Canada), spanner is the standard term"

Victorian times? Times change. Wrench may have been the accepted term, but just like Motor omnibus, terms fall out of favour and are replaced with others.

There is nothing to support that there is such a distinction between the usage of wrench of spanner. There is no need to be so technical in the article, rather to use terms that the common man - from the relevant country - would expect to see. Nor does the Wheellock article say that other uses of the term are incorrect, and the Wrench article contains several examples of spanners that are called spanners despite not being used on nuts:

• spark plug spanner
• cone spanner

There are also examples of wrenches that are not used on nuts or bolts:

• monkey wrench
• Allen wrench
• Bristol wrench
• die wrench

Given the level of confusion for such a simple term, it makes much more sense to rely on Engvar, and use the BR-Eng term. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• " not supported by the actual article "
  You're using Wikipedia as a source? Use the OED.

Terminology does change. Spanner is certainly common in the UK, but that doesn't make wrench wrong. Also common usage is that spanner is still the one applied to nuts, or at the very least, things where its root in "spin" might have a hope of working. So yes, spark plugs are removed by spanners, because they're standard-sized, gripped easily by a standard sized and shaped spanner, and (most of all) they have integrated handles so that their long thread can be spun easily by hand to extract them. Nuts (literal nuts) aren't the only things for which a spanner is used, but this is their underlying theme. And when the thing is rusted solid and won't behave, it's a Mole wrench that's used, not a "Mole spanner". Cone spanners too are only used on things with accurately shaped and sized flats to grip.

As you note, wrench is still widely used in the UK too. Allen wrench, never an "Allen spanner". You'll never see a Bristol wrench (you can't even buy them in Bristol - Bristol's best toolshop (Roebuck) has to order them in), but that's the word for it. There's no such thing as a "die wrench", but taps are held in tap wrenches (dies go in die stocks).

But "US fuel can spanner" would be a complete invention. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Language constantly evolves. If you were to show the tool to someone in the UK, what would they call it, a wrench or a spanner? That is the criteria here. I suspect the answer is spanner, and if so, the term I will support for this article. MartinezMD (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect they'd call it a wrench. It doesn't look like it fits any sort of nut, which would be the usual criterion. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect they'd call it a spanner. It is after all the common name in the UK. As before, the absolute specific and pedantic differences between spanner and wrench-in-the-uk are utterly lost on the majority of the UK - and those reading wikipedia. I don't have access to OED, but the Cambridge dictionary supports the simple definition of wrench being American, and Spanner being British.[5] Interestingly, Macmillan dictionary doesn't even support "wrench" as being a synonym for "spanner":[6] Miriam Webster - also British usage[7]

Nobody in the UK calls it an "Allen wrench" - it's an Allen (or hex) Key. Given that the article name is "Hex key" and applying commonname, I doubt that many in the US call it an Allen wrench either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• So do you claim that "wrench" isnt used in the UK?

And if so, why did you first cite Allen wrench as an example? Now yes, Allen key is more common, but the point is that Allen spanner is unheard of. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but regardless of Allen, monkey, or any other item, let's stay focused on the article. Spanner or wrench? It looks like spanner is equivalent here and would be the appropriate choice under WP:engvar. MartinezMD (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

But no-one, in either country, has ever called it a "spanner". What's wrong with the perfectly common and acceptable British term "wrench"? (Britain uses both terms) This is what the British Army handbook for the M3 Scout Car calls it, as part of the toolkit. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Because "spanner" is a british term, and "wrench" is an American term. The M3 Scout Car is an American vehicle, so of course they're going to use the term "wrench" in their material which will be American as well. We are not discussing usage within the British Army handbook, but usage within this article - which means "spanner". The rest of your discussion is starting to digress more than is necessary for discussion on this article's usage of terms. The rest of your argument about Allen wrench/key/spanner is synthesis and not really relevant to this discussion, and as an intelligent editor I assume you know that as well so are just trying to confuse matters. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• So source your claim that it's called a spanner. As the (British) M3 handbook uses for the spark plugs.

Spanner is a British term, but it's not the only British term. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I included dictionary definitions above. It's clear that I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. I would suggest we go to 3O, but as a 3O (MartinezMD) has already given an opinion, I don't think that any further discussion is necessary, or indeed useful. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

We could ask for an outside opinion. I'm not trying to be obstinate. I'm just going with what I've been reading and my understanding of British English. MartinezMD (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Petrol or Gasoline in an British English language article

WP:ENGVAR, or more specifically WP:ARTCON is very clear on this: "Within a given article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently".

Whilst there are exceptions, none of them cover this instance. The only example where this could be qualified would be (as I suggested) to turn the entire list into a direct quote from the regulation in question.

Even if the section refers to an American usage, we still use the term "Petrol", as that is the national variety used in the article. Given that the Jerrycan is of German origin we don't say "it was originally intended to carry benzin". Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

ok, the list is now a direct quote as you suggested. Add quotation marks if needed. For now I bulleted the list but will work on formatting it further to match the source. MartinezMD (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul Pleiss' connection with Ambi-Budd

This article indicates that Paul Pleiss, the American who brought US attention to the container design, was actually the director of Ambi-Budd, which played a key role in the manufacturing of the container in Germany, suggesting that he likely was intimately familiar with the can without needing to be introduced to it by a friend. This suggests the story given here should be edited. It cites an NYT obituary, but I haven't been able to access it. -Ramzuiv (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is missing information about their modern usage in the developing world

I feel like this is pretty essential information to include in this article 2601:640:CC02:2D40:843B:238D:836E:BA15 (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably because the editors do not have much information about use in the developing world.

If you have this information then please feel free to add it to the article - with supporting references of course.  Stepho  talk  03:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)