Meat Can Confusion

[RT Ellis]

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.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[The Wizard]

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.

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"?

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.