Printable View
In the "Army Service Forces Catalog QM Sec. 1 {Enlisted Men's Clothing and Equipment, Quartermaster Supply Catalog, OQMG Circular No. 4-Revised August 1943" it list a "Can, Meat, M-1932 Stock No. 74-C-65" and a "Can, Meat, M-1943 Stock No. 74-C-62". For those who are not familiar with "Army Talk" a "Meat Can" is a mess kit. Can anyone tell me what is the difference between the M-1932 Meat Can and M-1942 Meat Can.
Meat can M1932 was adopted to replace the meat can M1910, and meat can M1918, and classified STANDARD in 1932. There is an interesting story behind the development and adoption of the meat can M1932 that starts with the report of a medical officer in 1926. Because of the quantities of meat cans contracted during the Great War no procurement of meat can M1932 occurred until 1941-42. The meat can M1932 pan and double compartment plate were made of aluminum, and the handle that was similar to the handle on the previous meat cans, featured a hole in the handle so that the assembled pan, plate, utensils, and cup could be hung up to dry after washing.
In 1941 the priority of aluminum stopped further procurement of aluminum field, and garrison mess equipment. The Army in 1942 first tried to produce a porcelain plated meat can that was unsatisfactory because the porcelain "crazed" when heated. The meat can M1942 was then manufactured of tin or zinc (galvanized) plated steel, and adopted classified SUBSTITUTE STANDARD for meat can M1932. Early examples of meat can M1942 had the same steel handle as meat can M1932, but the handle was soon changed to the pressed sheet steel handle that remained standard on all the meat cans manufactured thereafter. Meat can M1942 was manufactured in large quantities by several contractors in 1942-43.
In November 1942 the War Production Board released aluminum and corrosion resisting (stainless) steel for the production of field mess equipment. The meat can M1932 was put back into production with the pressed sheet steel handle with the nomenclature Meat Can M1942 Style1. The nomenclature in 1944 was changed to Meat Can Aluminum. Meat can M1932, meat can M1942 style 1, and meat can aluminum were all stocked under the same quartermaster stock number. So you could requisition a meat can aluminum and be issued a meat can M1932, meat can M1942 style 1, or meat can aluminum.
The principal difference between meat can M1932 and meat can M1942 is the pan and plate of the M1932 was aluminum, and the pan and plate of M1942 was sheet steel tin or zinc plated. There were differences in the hinges and handles as well.
Excellent clearification RT , and , dare I say it ..........a mouthful.
Chris
Excellent, RT. I've tried to explain it to different collectors and re-enactors and it's difficult... Some still come back and ask what would be "correct" for their WWII gear. Then you try to explain again that any would be "correct".
The first meat-can and plate combined, the M1874 was very much like the US M1910 and it's successors. The M1874 was used through the end of WW1.
When I started work on the book still in progress I was sure that the subject of field mess equipment would be a relatively easy and quick project. After my first research at the National Archives in 1996 I started to think of the project as a monster, and now call it bookgodzilla. Most of the books that cover field mess equipment in any way have errors and misinformation, that is understandable from the point of view of people trying to provide information based on examination of sample equipment, and the lack of understanding of how the military procured and issued equipment. One point of misunderstanding is that people seem to think that there was distinct end and start dates of production, and that supply to troops ended or started on those same dates. I can imagine a reenactor joining a group that has selected a point in time to represent in their uniforming and equipment, and then bewildering a newbie with an equipment list, based on misinformation, of what is "correct." Having been involved in reenacting before it was called reenacting I can testify that people will outfit themselves with "period" equipment that wasn't issued. For example in one Indian War cavalry group I was in one of the members carried a British saber, apparently justified because some were imported during the Civil War.
The question that started this thread is in a sense a case in point. The supply catalog didn't define the materials used in manufacture because it didn't matter. The meat can M1942 was the SUBSTITUTE STANDARD item and if the supply sergeant requisitioned meat can M1932 that was not in stock, the unit would receive whatever was in stock that was authorized as a substitute, which could have been meat can M1910, meat can M1918 and etc. Photographic evidence clearly demonstrates that meat can M1942 was used by troops overseas, despite the prohibition by both the Army, and Marine Corps that meat can M1942 was not to be issued to troops deploying, and not to be sent in bulk for replacement issue. To a purist reenactor meat can M1942 should not be in the kit of a group that is representing an overseas deployed unit. There is a practical side of this matter in that I wouldn't eat out of a meat can M1942 and if it was intended that the reenactors would actually use the equipment I would prefer and allow meat can corrosion resisting steel as a reasonable substitute.
I was surprised to find a meat can M1942 in the supply room of an Army Reserve unit in the 1980s, but understood it merely represented an accountable item on an inventory count. As I commented in the introduction to my book, no matter how a dealer or collector tries they can't put an item of equipment into the hands of troops prior to manufacture. That's were manufacturing history and an understanding of the supply system comes in handy. On the other hand serviceable equipment sometimes goes on an incredibly long time. One of my fellow trainees in basic training in 1970 was issued a canteen cup M1910 manufactured by A.G.M. Co. in 1918.
Having experienced reenacting, and advising a fellow that wanted to organize a reenactment group, I can relate that it is necessary to set standards and define what is acceptable, because people will show up with anything they think is "period" or "correct." There is also a need to compromise because of availability and cost. It's fairly easy to discourage an enthusiastic reenactor when the cost of the uniform and equipment hits the fan, and some items of equipment simply cannot be found as quickly as a newbie wants to be outfitted.
I recall that in the early to mid 1960's that a test was done to determine which mess kits were zinc plated (this was in the regular army) and any of the zinc plated mess kits/meat cans were removed from service. As I was not involved with this procedure, I do not recall all the details, but a chemical was applied with a eye dropper and this would indicate if the mess kit was zinc plated
RT, I find this an interesting statement. Is there a reason the M1942 Meat Can "was not to be issued to troops deploying, and not to be sent in bulk for replacement issue"?Quote:
Originally Posted by RT Ellis
Can a "mess kit" dated 1966 still be consider a "Meat Can M1942"? I have a Meat Can M1942 dated 1942 that is, except for very minor details, exactly the same as my mess kit dated 1966.
My interest in knowing the difference between a M1932 and a M1942 Meat Can is not so much about being "correct" but being able to identify and label examples I come across properly.
I think perhaps a history and list of meat cans is in order, to answer some comments and questions here:
The Infantry Equipment Board in 1974 met to consider the "Brace System" that had been sent for trial by the 1872-73 Board. The Board in November 1874 recommended for trial an improved set of equipment, that included a modified canteen, sheet steel tin-plated cup, utensils, and a sheet steel tin-plated meat can. The meat can was first manufactured during the fourth quarter (April-June) of fiscal year 1876, so referring to this meat can as Model 1874 is misleading. The nomenclature was Meat Can with no pattern or model number. Apparently the meat can was produced in limited quantity (about 2000) for trial. Production resumed at both Watervliet Arsenal, and Rock Island Arsenal in 1878, and several improvements had been made, so a fairly distinctive new pattern was produced that I refer to as the pattern 1878. Then in about 1880 further changes were made that I refer to as pattern 1880. A few minor changes were made and I identify the final version of the meat can as pattern 1882, which I have to admit is a WAG based on my research as to when it was manufactured. Watervliet Arsenal was converted to a gun manufacturing facility and discontinued manufacture of field equipment in 1890. The meat can (p1882) remained in production at R.I.A. until replaced by the sheet steel tin-plated meat can pattern 1900. During the War with Spain, R.I.A. in 1898 contracted with a few companies to manufacture the meat can (pattern 1882) and some slight variations in construction have been observed that were likely contractor manufactured.
At the request of Capt. Henry Reilly, Fifth U.S. Artillery in 1899, the meat can was changed by making the pan deeper adding volume, and the plate was made correspondingly flatter. (Capt. Reilly was KIA during the China Relief Expedition and never saw an example the meat can design he suggested) The meat can (p1900) was manufactured by R.I.A. from 1900 until 1910, when it was replaced by meat can M1910.
As early as 1894 the Army was examining aluminum for use in the manufacture of field mess equipment. The conditions in the Philippine Islands was such that the ordnance officers at the Manila Ordnance Depot repeatedly requested aluminum mess equipment, and in the early 1900s small lots of aluminum utensils, cups, and meat cans were sent to P.I. for trial. The Cavalry Equipment Board in 1905 recommended an aluminum meat can (Meat Can M1905) that was manufactured by R.I.A. in 1905. The Infantry Equipment Board in 1909 requested that an aluminum meat can be sent for trial as part of the infantry equipment that was recommended for adoption in 1910. The meat can M1910 was manufactured at Rock Island Arsenal, and in 1917-18 contracts were negotiated with several companies to manufacture meat can M1910.
Because of the shortage of meat can M1910 in 1917 the Ordnance Office authorized the Ordnance Officers of the districts funds to purchase mess equipment to meet the demand of the training camps that were engaged in training the large influx of recruits. Each of the district ordnance officers made arrangements for acquisition of off the shelf plates, cups and utensils. In some cases the meat cans were contracted. The most easily identified "meat cans" acquired in 1917-18 were round sheet steel tin-plated, provided with pan, plate, and handle that assembled similar to meat can M1910. These meat cans are usually associated with the emergency of 1898 by dealers and collectors.
Headquarters American Expeditionary Force requested that the meat can pan and plate be made deeper to accommodate a larger ration, much as Capt Reilly had suggested in 1899. Meat can M1918 was manufactured of aluminum as soon as the tools could be changed. A French company was contracted to produce a sheet steel tin-plated variation of the meat can M1918 for immediate issue to the AEF..
The Meat can M1932, and meat can M1942 was previously described. In addition a meat can, similar in construction to meat can M1932, made of sheet steel tin-plated was manufactured in Australia by a firm identified as "Metters" apparently for both the Army and Navy. Examples are marked "U.S.A." or "U.S.N." on the handle where the U.S. was usually embossed.
In 1944 meat can stainless steel was adopted classified STANDARD, and manufactured exclusively by contractors. The Army changed the specification for stainless steel nomenclature to corrosion resisting steel, and the meat can nomenclature was changed to meat can corrosion resisting steel. The nomenclature was changed in 1955 to Pan, Mess and has remained. The specification was changed in 1949 for the handle to be manufactured of pressed sheet CRS. The original stock number, was replaced by the Federal Stock Number (FSN), which in turn was replaced by the current National Stock Number(NSN) system.
To answer the questions posed: Reference the meat can M1942, both the Army and Marine Corps recognized the health hazard of the plating wearing or cooking off the steel which would then corrode. At the same time the manufacture of meat can aluminum and meat can CRS was beginning to get into the supply system and those items were prioritized for issue to units deploying overseas.
First, to me a "mess kit" is all of the equipment issued to sustain life in the field: canteen, cup, cover, utensils and meat can (or pan mess) not just the meat can, although I'm well aware of the popular use of the term to mean the meat can. Meat can M1942 was classified OBSOLETE, should have been surveyed to salvage, and should not have been issued under any conditions long before 1966. I have examined a few examples of meat can CRS that were manufactured to the specification for meat can M1942, in that the lip edge was half rolled in the same manner as meat can M1942. The nomenclature of these meat cans was meat can stainless steel, and if in serviceable condition, may have been issued as pan, mess in 1966.
RT, an excellent set of posts with good information, but a little confusing as to the dating of the items isn't it?
I find this document from the US Army Center of Military History clear and concise. Meat cans are listed starting on page 32:
http://www.history.army.mil/html/mus...d_Jul09%29.pdf
Please don't take offense, I have no doubt that your information found through diligent research is accurate, but I find the dating, especially the use of non-standard "pattern" references as in use by the British military in place of Model - meat can pattern 1882 - confusing and, perhaps, unnecessary. The Army's use of "type" after the standard Model date - example: 1874 meat can (type 3) - makes more sense to me.
The web site you provided got their information from uninformed collectors, and me before I had completed sufficient research to provide the information in my previous post, in fact some of the illustrations were provided by me, although I did not know at the time I was providing them for use in that website.
You're not the only person that prefers using the 1874 year as a bases for the meat can, and other equipment, that was recommended for trial in 1875. I think by using that year it is proof positive to many collectors that the troops involved in the Spring 1876 campaign were issued these meat cans. The three problems with referring to it as meat can model 1874: it was recommended for trial and not yet a standard pattern, was never adopted as a standard pattern, and as I have previously reported the Infantry Equipment Board recommended the meat can for trial in 1875. Call it what you will 1874 simply has no relation to the meat can, other than the Board was ordered to convene in 1874.
I have experimented with several ways of using the terms type, and pattern. And in fact do refer to these various meat cans as you suggest, but simply stating a type doesn't provide the interested collector, and etc. with a year that the item was adopted for manufacture, or actually manufactured. In fact I'm pretty sure the "type" descriptions used in the website you cited, was taken from a post I contributed to U.S. Mlilitaria Forum years ago. There are two reasons for using pattern. First collectors are used to the term, and the way in which the Army specified material items was through patterns, usually tagged and sealed as the "standard pattern" for the purpose that what would later be provided in written and illustrated specifications. So the different "types" as you prefer to call them were manufactured to the patterns approved by the Chief of Ordnance. I can certify that the Chief of Ordnance was directly involved in personally approving all pattern or model changes. So the term pattern applies to the various types of meat cans manufactured by the Ordnance Department until 1898 when it was found necessary to provide written descriptions or specifications, to the various contractors. To confuse the matter for people researching the original correspondence the various officers that wrote the documents used the term "model" informally, when there was no official model designation, but wanted to describe a particular pattern. So the use of the terms pattern and model were interchangeable, except for later when a "Model" was designated as part of the nomenclature. I don't recall the use of the term "type" in any correspondence related to field mess equipment, however the term "style" came into use during WWII to designate a variation to a specification, or a similar item adopted in the same year as another item. You may notice that I use the term pattern with the "p" in lower case to indicated that I'm using it informally, and it is not an official designation.
Something I neglected to mention previously is that the responsibility for the procurement of field equipment was transferred to the Quartermaster General in August 1918. Rock Island Arsenal's manufacturing equipment was transferred to the Jeffersonville Quartermaster Depot in 1920, however the decision had been made that JQMD would not manufacture any metal field equipment, and intended to contract for the equipment whenever necessary, and in fact during the emergency of 1941-45 JQMD contracted for canteens, cups, meat cans, and utensils. Jeffersonville Depot did occasionally do mechanical work on these items to test various changes, and had a laboratory that provided testing.