Was there any documentation provide to support the USMC Museum's supposition
or was this simply what they thought? I really doubt this claim, despite the
USMC Museum's opine. Just because a museum SAYS something is so, please
don't take it as gospel. Without documentation (contracts or spec sheets
for the cans from WWII) I just can't believe this. With some some
DOCUMENTATION, I would believe it as an anomoly. I really doubt though they
have any contract paperwork or Government specs on any cans, gas or water
that were built for them. Unfortunately, our military museums are as, if
not more, short staffed and overworked as anyone related to the Department
of Defense these days.
I know I am treading on dangerous ground here by applying logic, but tell me
why would only one company, building the cans to GOVT specs make their
openings/mouths differently and mark them differently than any other
manufacturer building to the same specs? Clearly, some other specs were
around and these cans were built to them, but for who?
Seriously, why would one can have have USMC embossed when both water cans
and gas cans by all others had US, USA or QMC embossed. Even a Marine could
see it was a metal can. Does US mean UNKNOWN SUBSTANCE or QMC mean
Quantitative Metal Can. I mean, it does hold a specified amount of liquid.
The logic that it means United States Metal Can when all others had US for
UNITED STATES or QUARTERMASTER CORPS doesn't hold much water (pun intended
even though we are discussing gas cans). I suppose some cans today should
have USPC embossed for United States Plastic Can.
I know I got some ridiculour answers to questions I asked at the Ft Sill
musuem. Heck, some of their displays were obviously wrong. They just
didn't have the manpower, funds or time to do the research and correct the
errors.
If you can provide some OFFICIAL specs, I'd be happy to believe you.
My 2 cents.....which won't change without some documentation.
Jim
>From: Jim Webster <jimweb@simonides.prestel.co.uk>
>To: <mil-veh@mil-veh.org> (Military Vehicles Mailing List)
>Subject: Re: [MV] jerry cans
>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:11:38 +0000
>
>This was debated to death on this list a couple of years ago and
>information from the Marine Corps Museum confirmed that the markings
>meant US Metallic Can and no amount of wishful thinking can magic them
>into US Marine Corp. This misconception probably arose because the
>majority of the production did go to the US Marine Corp and one can see
>why....
>
>--
>TTFN
>Jim
>Honorary Secretary
>ICQ: 58721472 [usually online 1900-2000 UK Time]
>****************************************************
>http://www.simonides.org The Simonides Group
>Simply the LARGEST military history & archaeology site on the web
>****************************************************
>http://ep.com/js/csp/7337.html Military Swop Shop Page
>http://www.onelist.com/group/steelwind The Artillery Mailing List
>http://www.onelist.com/group/steelfist The Armour Mailing List
>http://www.onelist.com/group/milhst-spotter Military History News
>http://www.egroups.com/group/Ferret-heaven Ferret Owners List
>http://www.egroups.com/group/GreenSix Post-war 6X6 Owners List
>****************************************************
>
>
>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
>To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 07:13:45 PST