"Cavalry" cup and canteen question

Hi all, please tell me:

1) In book "Manual for nonkomissioned officers and privates of cavalry of the army of the US, 1917",
shows aluminium mess cup Model of 1908. But the cavalryman already It has included canteen, with its own cup.
Why was the need mess cup Model of 1908? Maybe someone can tell me?

Attachment 73576

2) Which soldiers used to "Cover, Canteen, Mounted, M-1910", with hook on the back side of the cover?
If I understand correctly, the cavalry was not used?

Thank you in advance for your response,
Michael

We too were issued a canteen cup that accompanied the canteen and also a coffee cup separately. This is current...at least from the '70's to '08...and for ages we were issued mess tins redundantly and didn't use them for ANYTHING... So, these men being issued that way is no surprise. The canteen cup you can actually cook in and even that coffee cup you can't so much...

Thanks, Jim!
It seemed a little strange at the same time the existence of two cups.

If you allow, a couple of questions:

1) Early american canteens have any official title? If I understand correctly, the "pattern 1858" and "pattern 1862" - this is the name, adopted by collectors and dealers?

2) In book "The U.S. Army in the West, 1870-1880: Uniforms, Weapons, and Equipment" (Douglas C. McChristian), I read, that "in 1872...iron chain was replaced by a brass chain, which was attached to a brass wire loop surrounding the spout".
This actually happened in 1872, or later?

3) What exactly do the letters "I.C." or "X" in some cases the canteens? They are not suitable for use, or when they are excluded from military property?

PS sorry my very bad english :)

The confusion in the manual is that the Ordnance Department often used plates (images) from previous or other manuals that weren't current. The manual referenced was first published in 1905, edited and published again in 1908, and 1917. Individual and horse equipment had gone through some interesting changes as reflected in those printings of the manual, but the illustrations didn't always reflect the current regulations or equipment.

In 1917 when the manual was published two types of horse equipment was in general issue: horse equipments M1904, based on the McClellan saddle, and the Cavalry Board saddle (experimental) M1912. The Board included the canteen M1910, canteen cup M1910, and canteen cover (dismounted) M1910 to be carried in the pommel pockets when mounted and assembled to the belt when dismounted.

The individual canteen and cup for use with the McClellan saddle went through several changes that are difficult to make sense of by referencing the manuals only. In 1904 the regulation canteen was the round sheet steel tin-plated canteen in various details that had been issued since prior to the Civil War. Significant to this story was the web canteen strap, that had been adopted to carry the canteen assembled to the cartridge belt as part of the infantry equipments adopted in 1904. The Army Regulations specified that the cup be carried with the strap laced through the handle and the assembly attached to the saddle. In actual usage the strap was too short to accommodate this method of carrying the cup. As a consequence the cup was changed so that it would conveniently fit into the saddle bags without adding bulk, and the aluminum cup M1908 was designed and adopted. The mounted branches also complained that the snap hook on the web canteen strap was too weak to support the canteen and canteens were being lost. Shortly after the cup was adopted the Ordnance Department modified the triangular loops on the tin canteen to a rectangular form, and simultaneously issued an adjustable leather canteen strap similar to the canteen strap adopted in 1883. So throughout the late 1900s and early 1910s a mix of this equipment could be found in service, and it was impossible for the manuals to illustrate all the variations.

The next event in this story occurred in 1914 when the Cavalry Unit Accountability Equipment Manual (revised October 28, 1914) authorized the issue of the canteen M1910, and canteen cover dismounted M1910, to troops equipped with McClellan saddle, and the Special Orders specified that the the assembly be carried in the saddle bags. Reports from the field in 1915 indicated that the canteen took up too much room in the saddle bags and requested that a method be devised to carry the canteen attached to the saddle. The Cavalry Equipment Board and Rock Island Arsenal in 1915 designed a modification of the canteen cover dismounted M1910 that consisted of assembling web billets to the sides and bottom, reconfiguration of the leather canteen strap, that was then laced through the billets on the canteen cover. RIA was instructed to prepare kits that included web straps, rivets, leather canteen straps, and instructions to be sent to the units for field modification of the canteen covers. This design was was later adopted as canteen cover mounted M1917.

In 1917 when the manual referenced was printed mounted units were authorized to issue any of the equipment items mentioned, and it is likely a mix of the equipment was in use. The manual of course more or less reflected the current regulations and what was being manufactured at Rock Island Arsenal. In 1917 RIA was manufacturing the tin cavalry canteen, leather canteen strap, cup M1908, canteen M1910, canteen cup M1910, canteen cover dismounted M1910, and leather canteen strap for the modification of canteen cover dismounted M1910. Late in 1917 canteen cover mounted M1917 was in production but would not have been included in that printing of the manual.

The canteen cover mounted M1910 was part of the infantry equipment M1910 and was intended for use by soldiers that were mounted using the McClellan horse equipments, such as couriers, and mounted soldiers detailed from other "dismounted" branches such as signals, and engineers.

The use of "pattern 1858" and "pattern 1862" are purely militaria collector use to identify the two basic patterns of sheet steel tin-plated canteens produced in large quantity during the Civil War 1861-65. Both of these pattern years are inaccurate but have come to be accepted nomenclature by collectors.

Regarding the steel chain mentioned, both steel "jack" chain and cotton cord was used on canteens manufactured during the War. When the Infantry equipment Board in 1874 recommended the adjustable web strap, the canteens went through a series of modifications that included replacing the chain or cord with brass Omega or plumber's chain assembled to a loop of brass wire clenched around the spout of the canteen. The modified canteens were additionally covered with duck material in 1876, and the triangular loops were added in 1878. A large quantity of canteens were "re-covered" or "double-covered" in 1898 that the steel jack chain was retained apparently for identification.

"I.C." means inspected and condemned, and "X" basically the same thing, both used to assure that the property was not reintroduced in the supply system as an accountable item.

You're posting questions as I am typing so it appears I'm answering questions before they're posted.

The canteen strap pattern 1883 was assembled to the re-covered canteen pattern 1878, and was not a separate pattern of canteen.

RT Ellis, many thanks for the excellent explanation!

And one more question for cups - do I understand correctly, that the tin and porcelain cups from this topic used in 1917?

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=41642

"in the summer of 1917 for use by the recruits in camp, until sufficient supplies of M1910 equipment could be manufactured"

Attachment 73577

The sheet steel tin-plated cup on the left and the two porcelain-plated cups in the image (the one on top in the middle is a cup M1908) are examples of the cups acquired in 1917-18 for use in the training camps. Each of the chief ordnance officers (who were also the commanders of arsenals) in the Army geographical departments in 1917 were authorized $5000 to purchase mess equipment for issue to troops in the training camps in their departments. For example the commanding officer of Rock Island Arsenal was the chief ordnance officer for the Central Department, and the commanding officer Benicia Arsenal was the chief ordnance officer for the Pacific Department. Each of these chief ordnance officers made separate arrangements for the acquisition of suitable mess equipment, so there was no standardization of model or pattern. Some of the material was contracted and some was acquired by purchase order so most of this equipment was unmarked in any way or illustrated in documents or manuals for identification. The only items known to have been marked are the cups and the round meat cans marked U.S. Some examples of non-standard utensils have been examined that were stamped with typical unit identification and probably represent equipment acquired in this program.

In the group image attached a variety of mess equipment is illustrated, and several soldiers have either tin-plated or porcelain cups of the type acquired in 1917-18. The unidentified individual in the real photo post card displays an interesting variety of commercial mess equipment, including a porcelain-plated cup, the subject of this thread.

Attachment 73578
Attachment 73579

Thank you very much for the detailed, interesting story and excellent illustrations to it!

Could you tell us about the early covers for P1858/1862 canteens and carrying strap for them ?
As they say in many sources "First Army order of 20,000 canteens with covers were made of sky-blue cloth (it is also going to the federal army trousers), which was soon replaced by a dark blue, which in turn replaced the cloth, marching in the army blanket." Is it really so?
( I'm sorry that I ask so many questions, it is because I could not find exactly the right answers to them).

Most of the literature on the standard U.S. Civil War canteens is based on examination of existing canteens, a process that has occurred with many militaria items of equipment that I have found is often misleading after researching documents on the various items. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood area of collecting is U.S. Marine Corps equipment, but that is another story.

References that contribute useful information on Civil war Canteens:

Coates, Earl J. “The Civil War Issue Canteens: Patterns of 1858 and 1862.” Military Collector and Historian, vol. XLXVII no. 3, Fall 1995 : 98-109.
O'Donnell, Mike. "U.S. Army & Militia Canteens 1775-1910." 2008.

Until 1910 the U.S. Army usually used the method of contracting or manufacturing uniforms and equipment based on an accepted pattern or sample that was "sealed" and became the standard pattern. In the case of canteens the standard patterns were developed at Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot (PQD) and sent to the Office of the Quartermaster General (OQMG) for approval and "sealing." One tagged canteen was returned to PQD and one was retained at the OQMG. As far as I know no one has ever found any of the pattern canteens to confirm the details of construction or materials. What is known from the contracts is that the metal part of the canteens were manufactured to the sealed pattern at PQD, the PQD inspected the canteens, and then assembled the covers and straps. The contracts specified the weight of the canteen which apparently assured that the sheet steel tin-plate used in manufacture was in compliance with the pattern.

(After 1872 canteens and other individual field equipment was transferred to the Ordnance Department and the same pattern process was used with Watervliet Arsenal, Leavenworth Arsenal, and Rock Island Arsenal providing the sample materials to the Office of the Chief of Ordnance.)

PQD in 1861 developed a pattern with corrugated front and back panels that was approved by the OQMG and the first contracts were let in July 1861. It is assumed that the other QMC depots that contracted canteens also used standard patterns to demonstrate construction and materials. Before long the contracts started calling for the contractors to complete the canteens with cover and strap. It is noted that in a few contracts the specified canteen was per the contractor's sample submitted. The details of these canteens was not specified but was presumably close enough to the standard pattern to be acceptable.

By 1863 contract production of canteens was proceeding at a large and rapid pace. in some cases the delivery dates of contracts was so soon after the contract was let the contractors must have continued manufacturing canteens and had them on hand anticipating the QMC would purchase them.

The cover assembled by the PQD probably usually resembled the material on the pattern canteen, but the specific material and color is unknown. PQD probably assembled any suitable wool fabric that was available which was likely blue. When complete canteens were contracted the War was well under way and the contractors and the QMC had to accept any suitable material that was available to get the canteens completed and delivered to the depots. Mr. Coates in his article cited above provided some interesting observations regarding the cover materials and it is clear that materials other than wool were accepted. Probably the vast majority of existing original canteens have wool covers that can be described as gray or brown, apparently material that wasn't needed for other applications such as uniforms. I am aware that collectors and reinactors like to believe that some shade of blue wool was the standard color of canteen covers, and may well have been when DQP was assembling the covers, but after the contractors started delivering complete canteens the standard pattern cover material gave way to materials that were available, and blue wool covers occasionally show up. We have to be cognizant of the fact that these canteens may have been re-covered by users, or depots with materials at hand, and were in fact re-covered starting in 1875 with a coarse wool material known as Petersham. My observation is that Petersham was usually gray with some variation in shade.

The standard pattern for the material and color shade assembled to Civil War era canteens may never be known, and the examination of existing samples only useful to a limited extent. I think that what can best be said is that anyone that claims to know the information for a certainty had better be ready to cite some authority for the information.