“ It had three handles, enabling one man to carry two cans and pass one to another man in bucket-brigade fashion. Its capacity was approximately five U.S. gallons; its weight filled, forty-five pounds. Thanks to an air chamber at the top, it would float on water if dropped overboard or from a plane. Its short spout was secured with a snap closure that could be propped open for pouring, making unnecessary any funnel or opener. A gasket made the mouth leakproof. An air-breathing tube from the spout to the air space kept the pouring smooth. And most important, the can’s inside was lined with an impervious plastic material developed for the insides of steel beer barrels. This enabled the jerrycan to be used alternately for gasoline and water.”
Wow, seems like a lot of little design choices went into this can.
Now if only the portable fuel cans I'm able to buy were this good. Instead, they have nozzles that require a third hand to operate and they don't have breather tubes (by law these days, I think), so they make a mess every time. Filling my wood chipper's tank is frustrating.
you can also buy a hunsaker jug... they don't pack as nicely as jerrycans, but they're US legal, have a vent, and i can't recommend them enough. i use them for fueling a 24 hours of lemons race car, and they make my least favorite thing in the world relatively safe and drama free. they dump 5gal in ~20sec or so.
How is the rate of evaporation from the old type? I lose gas through evaporation from the new type anyway so they don’t even appear to work. It would be awesome to fill a jerry can with non ethanol fuel if it would last for at least a few months.
I don't think they changed the plastic when they changed the shape, so I'd expect fuel vapor to permeate the old plastic cans too (or at least some of them). A metal can with a good seal doesn't let vapor out, so be careful with big temperature changes.
Ah that makes sense. I can definitely see the pressure buildup in the plastic type. If there is a risk of exploding metal jerry cans that would be quite a hazard.
The regulation that made the old-style vented plastic gasoline cans illegal to produce is on my Mt Rushmore of well-intentioned, catastrophic failures.
Check out Wavian. When looking around I read that they are the 'official' jerry can. I think the one consumers can get might be different if anyone knows that?
It is very sturdy feeling. Literally got last week so tbd on long term use I'm optimistic.
Though I had a problem trying to fill the two up at gas station. I'm going to try again I think it was just the pump or card was acting up since it also wouldn't flow into my car.
Surely the nozzle has a breather tube? At least the one that I screw on to the plastic petrol can I use to fill my lawnmower does. I'm not in the US though; it's probably Norwegian but possibly British, can't remember where I bought it.
Me too. Empathetically. These deep dives feed my soul.
The Donald Norman books, obviously. I've read similar accounts about forks (the utensil), pencils, shipping containers, etc.
One organizational detail that pops out is the German government sponsored a design competition and then seriously reviewed everything.
Another data point in favor of broadly applying X-Prize like strategy to encourage innovation.
DARPA and a few others are (sometimes) smart this way. The book Design Rules: The Power of Modularity uses economic logic (based on net present value, aka NPV) to also make the argument in favor.
Something that I took away was that "good design" can only go so far in terms of strategic advantage. The Germans invested considerable funding, research, and testing into their cans... only to have them copied. Sure, they enjoyed a few years of genuine advantage, but that probably stemmed just as much from the woefully underdesigned state of allied gas cans.
My takeaway here is that they should have iterated until they had a "great, but not perfect" design. That way, when the design inevitably gets aped... there's still room for the opposing side to introduce their own improvements which you can steal right back.
Two problems with that thinking: a) even if you think you have a perfect design, you are still at "great, but not perfect", and b) there's no strategic advantage to doing less well than your opponent. In trying to avoid the later state where your enemy catches up to you, you're reducing or eliminating the initial advantage, which is probably not what you want.
You make it sounds as if they wasted years gold-plating fuel can design when they should have - done what exactly? Not waste 21 years from losing one world war to starting another? Deliberately start with inferior logistics to keep the next iteration in reserve for when the first version gets copied? (not even that far off, considering that weird window/düppel stalemate where for a while both sides held back the same innovation for fear of the other side copying it)
I'm not attempting to back-seat drive the third reich here -- I make software, not war. I'm just interested in gleaning design insight from history.
In any case... I do think that, ultimately, the Jerrycan was more useful to the allied forces. The copycat designs were instrumental in the invasion of Europe, which pushed supply logistics far harder than the blitz ever did.
FWIW "The Blitz" is used exclusively to refer to German bombing of towns and cities after they'd lost the Battle of Britain (a battle for Air Superiority over England, which would have considerably improved prospects for German invasion if it came to that), and is never short for "Blitzkrieg" (the Germans never called it this) a fighting style of very rapid advances allowing German forces to overwhelm their European enemy before they were properly organised to defend.
So, the Blitz didn't rely on Jerrycans at all, planes leave from and, if they aren't destroyed, return to your airbases, which have plenty of fuel and refuelling apparatus in place.
It should be noted that Scepter MFC's are unavailable in the United States because they lack the safety features that apparently the average American needs.
It's a shame, since they appear to be far superior to our "safe" gas cans/spouts.
I've also seen multiple reports of the Wavians developing some surface rust inside which makes me question how good the interior lining is, not sure how prevalent that is though.
Having had many vehicles and also done a drive to Banjul in The Gambia from the UK, plus done 10 years of rally driving, I've had a great many jerry cans. They are indeed a great design, and the triple-handle allowing easy carrying of two empties in one hand on either side of the body is only one of their high points.
I'd never given a moment's thought to the name, but as soon as I started reading the article, I realised where it came from... It's funny how we don't always think of the origins of words until prompted by something like this.
A funny side note on that: I'm German, we call those things Benzinkanister. My wife is French, they call them jerrycan. I never understood what she meant (ultimately I figured it out, and then I took me again a long time to connect "Jerry" to the Germans in WW2).
I was going to post this video, it explains the differences and advantages of the original (and british copies) one vs the american. Also how most modern reproductions fall short of the original. I would say that it is better than the article.
Just last night I was watching a YouTube segment on the jerry can. I wonder if OP saw the same video just recently, or if this is my Baader-Meinhof for the day.
I use Scepter brand cans - different ones for fuel and water. I had to buy them from a forum member in Canada, through the Land Cruiser forum, as they weren't legal to buy in the US for whatever reason. Kind of odd that I had to go black market for a darn jerry can. I wanted something that wouldn't ever leak or have fumes inside the cabin if I ever had to use them other than mounted on my rear bumper. Really odd considering these are the exact jerry cans that were used in Iraq, and have stood the test of time.
You CAN find the water cans in the US - there's a place in Lexington, KY that sells them.
Related: Bought a "racing" jerrycan or gas can and boy was it terrible. I thought because I had seen it at the track it was superior in some way. Example: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/vpr-3512
The vent it near the spout (impossible to tilt and not spill), and the flexible spout (sold separately) is slow and becomes stiff and unworkable in the cold.
My 20 year old, cheapo can with flexible accordion spout is vastly superior. Live and learn I guess.
The ones usually sold these days with the plastic caps on them are worse than useless, they leak all over and the safety nozzle on them leaks like hell too.
It's not bungled, it was an intentional, lightweight slur. Whoever downvoted you is ignorant. What were some slurs the Germans used for Americans in WW2?
Yeah, long refused to use the term as it seems like a slur. Most people consider military jargon used for enemy combatants to be offensive in a civilian context.
Emphasis on "lightweight". My impression is that Americans in ww2 used up all their slurs and disrespect on the Japanese and acted towards Germans almost as if they ("we", I'm German) were civilised people, politely agreeing to disagree. Even American caricatures of Hitler himself seem strangely benign compared to those about ww1's Kaiser.
Hence, "Einheitspreis" was the codename for a bombing raid on, I think, Wolverhampton because Woolworths was initially a fixed price store (everything 5 cents) although modern Brits probably remember it as something rather different before it ceased to exist.
World War II is about the last point where "clever" codenames are allowed before the burgeoning use of signals intelligence means everybody realises that you should pick codenames randomly so that the codename doesn't reveal anything and so you will get shouted out at if anybody can guess what your thing does from the name. It's also the last point where people who have three military units number them one, two and three, because it sure makes life harder for intelligence if your third tank group is named group twenty-six...
Manhattan was a pretty good codename by modern standards, but Sea Lion is not very subtle at all, and Ultra is hardly subtle either (it is referring to being even more secret than Most Secret, even if you can't guess why the Ultra secret is so secret it's pretty obvious this is important)
"American engineer Paul Pleiss" - with a suspiciously German-sounding name however, so it might be no coincidence that he was the first to notice this German invention. Unfortunately the only info I could find on Mr. Pleiss online was that he invented the jerrycan, so I couldn't find anything to confirm my suspicion...
Maybe due to it's distinct and utility design I still remember my granddad's Russian-made jerrycan that he used to fill his motorcycle with gasoline, in his remote Siberian village in the 80's.
If you like reading about the jerrycan design you may like Engineer Guy videos. He discusses pop cans, coffee makers, inkjet printers. He even has a four-part series discussing Albert Michelson’s Harmonic Analyzer.
modern gas cans are a nightmare in comparison. some genius thought they were building a better mousetrap but its objectively worse than what I had back in the 80s
it certainly solves some problems -- ones I didnt have before
it adds several new ones -- ones I didnt have before
reminder to self: TODO buy an 80s style the moment I can find one. I've had it with this little red 2022 abomination
You can actually just buy the real thing on Amazon or eBay, but they’re labeled not for gasoline use in the USA due to environmental regulations (https://fee.org/articles/the-epic-failure-of-the-government-...). It was really important the EPA saved the planet from the world’s number one environmental threat… minuscule amount of gas vapors escaping fuel cans, thus they haven’t legal since 2009.
I have 4 original NATO cans and have thrown them around, dropped them, had them slide around in the back of a truck and bang into things. They have never once leaked a single drop or stopped working.
The water cans are the same size and shape, but only have one handle. So you can tell whether you're picking up a fuel or a water can in the dark. Useful :)
“original” jerrycans don’t have that distinction, because the purpose of the extra handles are even more so for water: carrying two empties in one hand doesn't change, but the ability to share one can between two people is even more useful when carrying 20L water (20kg) than 20L gasoline (15kg).
For a good overview on the key role that enginners, scientists, and 'technologists' had in helping to win WW2 for the Allies, see Engineers of victory: the problem solvers who turned the tide in the Second World War by Kennedy:
> Kennedy recounts the inside stories of the invention of the cavity magnetron, a miniature radar “as small as a soup plate,” and the Hedgehog, a multi-headed grenade launcher that allowed the Allies to overcome the threat to their convoys crossing the Atlantic; the critical decision by engineers to install a super-charged Rolls-Royce engine in the P-51 Mustang, creating a fighter plane more powerful than the Luftwaffe’s; and the innovative use of pontoon bridges (made from rafts strung together) to help Russian troops cross rivers and elude the Nazi blitzkrieg. He takes readers behind the scenes, unveiling exactly how thousands of individual Allied planes and fighting ships were choreographed to collectively pull off the invasion of Normandy, and illuminating how crew chiefs perfected the high-flying and inaccessible B-29 Superfortress that would drop the atomic bombs on Japan.
> The story of World War II is often told as a grand narrative, as if it were fought by supermen or decided by fate. Here Kennedy uncovers the real heroes of the war, highlighting for the first time the creative strategies, tactics, and organizational decisions that made the lofty Allied objectives into a successful reality. In an even more significant way, The Turn of the Tide has another claim to our attention, for it restores “the middle level of war” to its rightful place in history.
Lots of references in case you want to dig into more detail on the particular inventions he goes over.
I was a bit surprised to learn that the Americans were quite reluctant to build Merlin-powered P-51s: they were originally designed with Allison engines, but after a test flight the British decide to shoehorn a Rolls Royce engine into one and the performance went from pretty good to astounding.
Recent events suggest that if stuff like that isn't considered at the top, a hierarchy of yes-men won't fill that gap. Note that "made ... a priority" does not necessarily mean "got involved in actual decisions"
Not really, because in a hierarchy like that, credit falls upwards to the highest level that didn't actively ignore the problem. Even if a leader just signs off a suggestion to prioritize it's still him making it a priority, not the person suggesting.
This is what I was asking for: whether there is evidence that he himself made a deliberate decision or at least consciously acknowledged it.
Such details can be of importance. When Ernst von Weizsäcker was tried in the last Nuremberg trial, one of the most important pieces of evidence was a document countersigned by him on the deportation of French jews to Auschwitz. Without this evidence it would not have been possible to proof his knowledge. And even in the light of this evidence it was still debatable to what extent personal responsibility arose from this. The presiding judge wanted to acquit v. Weizsäcker, but was overruled by the other two judges.
This guy was concerned with more details then was good for him, or anyone else involved. Accidentally, he also created one of the biggest traffic jams in the early days of the offensive against the Caucasus and Stalingrad.
I guess HN doesn't have eyes? Does anyone live in the real world?
Even if you have a recent metal jerrycan kinda like those from 80 years ago, cause they are cool, it will be very different if you actually look closely.
No design goes back 80 years. We are not some backwards society that can't move forward.
The US Army ones are single yandle, plastic versions. Same dimensions so from what I see on the picture, 30 litres. So yes, still, mostly, the same design. Obviously those plastic ones are cheaper then proper steel / metal ones.
Ukraine, well, for sure they use different stuff. The western allies used jerry cans after North Africa, which continued with NATO. Ukraine is, for rather obvious reasons, using Warsaw pact spec gear.
I am sure that many of the existing metal jerry cans might still be in use 50 years in the future from now.
However the cancellation notice for the military standard that was posted above mandated that all military procurement after June 1994 must be done only with plastic cans.
I have been using a couple of traditional jerry cans for several decades, but I have seen the new military plastic cans only in photos. They must be obviously much lighter, but I have no idea if besides this advantage they have disadvantages when compared with the metal cans that they have replaced.
I have a handful of Wehrmacht cans, and they’re all I use. New ones are very expensive, so I get them at flea markets and antique stores every time I see them. I probably have $75 each in them total.
Wow, seems like a lot of little design choices went into this can.
I love how good UX crops up everywhere.