Side Mount gas cans, a USMC policy?

[lucakiki]

Are you blind? Or are you just argumentative? Or both?

The first photo caption says:
American Prototype - British - German.....and the one on the left is GREEN

None of them is a prototype, to begin with.

The second photo caption says:
Prototypes in New Zealand....of which only ONE is of this style and it is RED
Only one is a prototype and it is not red.

The thrid photo caption says:
Prototypes in the USA....of which only ONE is of this style and it is RED
Only one is a prototype and it is not red.


I hope this clears up your confused mind somewhat....if that is even remotely possible?

By the way, why show only obvious repaints?

And another question, that could be as aptly asked here as in any of the other Jerrycan threads: what are are you trying to demonstrate, Don Quijote?

[Chuck Lutz]

Luca....

Funny guy.....you asked about the COLORS....you got an answer.....

[gerrykan]

Everyone,
At this time, the following images show the only American jerrycan that can be called a prototype through documentation.









The documentaion:




The above text is from here:




Although at least one person will claim the cans he has named are the American Prototypes, he can offer no documentation to this fact.
Without documentation, or some other period evidence, you would be safer calling this the prototype for the jerrycan:

[Chuck Lutz]

[lucakiki]

Roy, the one you posted is a very, very early experimental container. Its major drawback, as usual, was in the closure.Once opened, it could not be easily closed.
However, it might also be considered as the prototype for this:



A couple of researchers had a different opinion on the container you posted.
I have a faint, very faint,exceedingly faint memory of an old post concerning the same container: so old that I cannot retrieve and duly revive it, my long and notorious experience in this sort of tricks not being enough.

Basically, those researchers considered it a prototype for the skull of mr. [ name witheld for privacy reasons ]: as a matter of fact, the production skull was way thicker,and noticeably limited the available space for the brain.
This feature made it difficult for mr. [ again, name witheld ] to grab subtleties or, at times,not even basic concepts. Nevertheless it allowed the guy to use and peruse the Internet.Recently he even acquired a surprising ability to re-post images.

On the serious side, I wholeheartedly agree on the prototype can with Mc Cord camlock closure. An article on Army Motors, that I mentioned elsewhere, was almost entirely taken from the paperwork you posted.

Mc Cord were the makers of the regular water can enclosure as manufactured by at least two Manufacturers, Cavalier and Monarch. I would not be surprised if Mc Cord were among the promoters of this prototype can.

[tipdog]

OK, we've determined that the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps did develop a "cam-lock" can, based on the "standard" U.S. 3-piece design.

However, the U.S. Marine Corps apparently developed their "expedititonary cans" earlier, based on the German 2-piece "clam-shell" design. Based on photographic evidence and the article in American Heritage, these are similar to the mystery cans. What we're lacking is more details of the early Navy contracts that procured these cans.

[lucakiki]

Regarding the article on American Heritage, let us not forget what Ray Cowdery published. See Army Motors #53.

[tipdog]

Luca,

Based on what you posted elsewhere, Cowdery was clearly talking about the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps, a part of the U.S. Army under the War Department.

The U.S. Marine Corps had a separate supply system through the Navy Department.

2 SEPARATE supply chains. 2 SEPARATE design requirements.

Is that clear?

As we have photographic evidence of the U.S. Marine Corps using the German design 2-piece clam shell "mystery cans," of unknown manufacture, in 1942, it may be that these cans were indeed produced by somebody in the U.S., under a U.S. Navy contract.

Just for fun:
http://www.howlingheights.com/index.php ... C00096.JPG

[lucakiki]

Luca,

Based on what you posted elsewhere, Cowdery was clearly talking about the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps, a part of the U.S. Army under the War Department.

The U.S. Marine Corps had a separate supply system through the Navy Department.

2 SEPARATE supply chains. 2 SEPARATE design requirements.

Is that clear?

As we have photographic evidence of the U.S. Marine Corps using the German design 2-piece clam shell "mystery cans," of unknown manufacture, in 1942, it may be that these cans were indeed produced by somebody in the U.S., under a U.S. Navy contract.

Just for fun:
http://www.howlingheights.com/index.php ... C00096.JPG

Very , very clear.!
What the USMC did,is a different thing from what the QMC did. I absolutely agree. And as you can read, I put it in writing here and also elsewhere, less than one hour ago..

About Ray Cowdery's article, I still think that it is quite worth considering and comparing it with what Richard Daniels had published on American Heritage and re-published in ARMY MOTORS #51.

Chris Benedict's article on Army Motors #13 is based on a QMC 1955 publication, as posted by Roy/Gerrykan: quite worth more than a just a quick look.

[tipdog]

About Ray Cowdery's article, I still think that it is quite worth considering and comparing it with what Richard Daniels had published on American Heritage and re-published in ARMY MOTORS #51.

Certainly as an example how 2 different people can look at the same events and come to different conclusions.

[Chuck Lutz]

Much like some of this discussion......

[lucakiki]

Verbatim, from Daniel's article:

The one jerry can in the army's possession was later sent to Camp Holabird in Maryland.
There it was poorly redesigned:the only features retained were the size, shape ,and handles.
The circumferential joint was replaced with rolled seams around the bottom and one side. Both a wrench and a funnel were required for its use. And it now had no liner. As any petroleum engineer knows,it is unsafe to store gasoline in a container with rolled seams. This ersatz can did not win wide acceptance.

I am posting this so all can read it directly, but I want it to be clear:I obviously do not agree with the author one bit.

However, I can't but laugh if I imagine the guy voting in Chuck Lutz's improvement poll...

[Chuck Lutz]

Let's see....You are going to be fighting a war in the Pacific, a war in the Med., a war in the Middle East, a war in northern Europe and a war in Asia. You will be supplying British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, French, Russian and Chinese forces in addition to the branches of your own forces....Hmmmm. They will need jerry cans.....

Now you can go out to some shops and have them hand-weld and assemble a very good version of the German/British cans....for the Marines....like the US Navy did......in small quantities.

...OR....you can do a little redesigning of the idea and make something that the mass production, the assembly line production of American industry can crank out MILLIONS and MILLIONS of....and faster...which is what the US Army did.

So...you want a significanly SMALLER number of excellent cans in WWII or do you want millions and millions of them?

There are many examples of the great industrial might of the US enabling many fronts to be supplied at the same time....we produced the Liberty Ship the same way.... nothing fancy, but it helped to overcame the Uboat menace to England when we made 'em faster than they could sink 'em. Were they an 'IMPROVEMENT" on current designs? NO...but they were easy to make and we made a LOT of them....just like we came up with a different version of the German jerry can that enabled us to mass produce it.....which is CERTAINLY an improvement if you needed the kind of fuel distribution quantities that we DID need in northern Europe in 1944.

I'm sure Patton would have called a cardboard box full of gasoline an improvement over the German can if it enabled his forces to put more gallons of gas into their vehicles. The IMPROVEMENT made mfger and production and the output greater....and THAT is an improvement if you can do it!

Don't get hung up on the actual QUALITY and PERFORMANCE of one can over another...the improvement was in the mfg and amount produced. Both certainly left the flimsey in the dust!

[Mark Tombleson]

What is he refering to when he says rolled seams are unsafe?

These threads are starting to blur the line and most are discussing the same issue, or at least related issues. I get a little irritated seeing exactly the same posted material on multiple threads.

You know, we are discussing an item that was produced from the early 1940's up into the 1990s so it is hard for me to agree the rolled seams were not up to the task. There was a big difference in the way the Germans engineered equipment and the way the USA engineered equipment. The Germans overengineered a lot of things then and now... while the Americans had and have a minimum specification mindset. I don't know which is the best way, but it is something to keep in mind.

The USMC had major supply problems several times during their invasions in the Pacific. I thought I had figured out the camlock USMC CONCO can was designed for use with water and gas. I still believe this must have been their initial plan as the can had no need for a funnel/DD, was lined to seal and prevent corrosion and needed no tool to open. I've seen enough footage on Color of War of pallet loads of CONCO camlocks marked WATER being offloaded during an invasion to know a lot of these cans were used for water. But because of the shortages, or some other reason, plenty of gas was transported in the "other" camlock cans. Also there are photos of "WATER" marked screw tops as well as the large mouth camlocks. My take on this is the USMC made due with what the had and got the job done.

[tipdog]

Mark, that is correct. Veteran's stories have even noted that many times their water supplies tasted like gasoline.