Jump to content

Metal Jerry Can for water


ferret1958uk

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I bought that can from Clive but as I have sold all my military Land Rover's it is no longer needed. I should add it has some holes so is suitable for display only. Please let me know if you are interested.

 

Matt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
After one of these.

 

This image was stolen from Clive Elliots post of 2008 vintage where he advertised this can for £10.

 

Anyone have these laying around?

 

Ahem, if this can is 1960, shouldn't it be Camo Brown? :cool2:

Can.....open.....worms......everywhere......where's CW when you want him..... :rofl::rofl:

 

Alec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes worms all over the place now! There was a very long thread some years ago & lots of merriment from two people who don't come on the forum any more. To save wading through all that I have teased out the documentary basis for the colour debate.

 

It is traditionally believed that post-war water jerricans should be black with some of the detail picked out in white. However studying consecutive Regulations show that this colour scheme was perhaps not always appropriate.

 

Most jerricans I have seen have been ones restored in black or actually have the original paint that was black or seemingly appear black in black & white photographs. But I present the documents for you to decide.

 

Regulations for the Army 1947 Pamphlet No.3 Supply of Equipment. Army Code No.1804

 

Regs19472.jpg

 

There were no amendments & the consecutive document states the same.

Equipment Regulations 1955 Pamphlet No.2 Supply of Equipment Army Code No.10835

 

Regs19552.jpg

 

There were amendments to the 1955 document in 1961 & were incorporated in to the new Regulations which now stated black was to be used.

Equipment Regulations Pamphlet No.2 (1961) Supply of Equipment Army Code No.13104

 

Regs19612.jpg

 

As these documents were consecutive I took it to mean that the change from brown to black was authorised in 1961. However it has been pointed out that this is contradicted by this.

 

Equipment Regulations Pamphlet No.9 (1959) Marking & Painting of Vehicles, Army Aircraft & Equipment. Army Code No.12473

 

Regs19592.jpg

 

However this document is not relevant to the argument. Firstly it appears to be describing jerricans for fuel, as they are to be painted Olive drab or Light stone there is no mention of water jerricans. Secondly the reference at the bottom of the page to “Paint, finishing, G.S., gloss, brushing, Black” is actually related to the left hand column which is referring to “4(E) P.O.L. tanks & pipes (iv) ladders & platforms”.

 

Yes I know that there will be people who will say that Regulations are only there to be broken. Clearly they have been! But I am surprised that a few brown one's haven't as yet cropped up.

 

So anyone tempted to go brown? I’m not necessarily suggesting you should, but there are the documents, you decide!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After one of these.

 

This image was stolen from Clive Elliots post of 2008 vintage where he advertised this can for £10.

 

Anyone have these laying around?

 

It just so happens I do have one dated 1944, slightly dented but also available with a holder if wanted.

£20 inc postage for both.

If no takers by weekend they're going on Ebay.

 

Photo0834.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting info Clive. Below is from the 43rd Reconnaissance Regiment war diary for February 1944:

 

“Training

 

Water Cans 4.5 gallon, painted No.2 camouflage brown, ‘water’ painted on both sides, surface under handles and indentations painted white.

 

Leather Jerkins will not be worn for walking out.

 

Sten slings will be attached behind the foresight.

 

Dannert wire will be carried by all vehicles, either wrapped in hessian (training) or secured with wire.”

 

 

 

Clearly a long standing practice. Did it begin with the introduction of SCC2 paint I wonder and what colour were they before then? (water cans not of the tuetonic type!) I seem to recall they were sometimes black during WW1.

 

Regards

 

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Training

 

Water Cans 4.5 gallon, painted No.2 camouflage brown, ‘water’ painted on both sides, surface under handles and indentations painted white.

 

Paul yes very interesting. Is that hand written or printed? It would be nice to see a scan so I can put it in my dossier for the promotion of brown water cans!

 

I have been looking through some 660 pages of Regulations for the Equipment of the Army. Part 1. 1942 Despite having a chapter on marking equipment unfortunately there is no reference to marking water cans of any sort.

 

Going back to Supply Manual (War) 1909 there is no mention of water can markings but only for water bottles.

 

Moving to Handbook of Specifications for Supplies 1915 although petrol cans for MT & aircraft are covered in some detail nothing on water cans. Although there is plenty of detail on the requirements for & packaging of Brandy, Burgundy, Champagne, Claret, Port wine, light beer, lime juice, stout & Whiskey (Scotch & Irish) :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Need to be careful here,

As a modern day civil engineer, in the enviromentally friendly world "brown water" is the term applied to used water from baths etc. that is to be recycled for flushing toilets, watering etc.

As such drinking from a brown water jerrycan could be considered unhealthy.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Yes worms all over the place now! There was a very long thread some years ago & lots of merriment from two people who don't come on the forum any more. To save wading through all that I have teased out the documentary basis for the colour debate.

 

It is traditionally believed that post-war water jerricans should be black with some of the detail picked out in white. However studying consecutive Regulations show that this colour scheme was perhaps not always appropriate.

 

Most jerricans I have seen have been ones restored in black or actually have the original paint that was black or seemingly appear black in black & white photographs. But I present the documents for you to decide.

 

Regulations for the Army 1947 Pamphlet No.3 Supply of Equipment. Army Code No.1804

 

Regs19472.jpg

 

There were no amendments & the consecutive document states the same.

Equipment Regulations 1955 Pamphlet No.2 Supply of Equipment Army Code No.10835

 

Regs19552.jpg

 

There were amendments to the 1955 document in 1961 & were incorporated in to the new Regulations which now stated black was to be used.

Equipment Regulations Pamphlet No.2 (1961) Supply of Equipment Army Code No.13104

 

Regs19612.jpg

 

As these documents were consecutive I took it to mean that the change from brown to black was authorised in 1961. However it has been pointed out that this is contradicted by this.

 

Equipment Regulations Pamphlet No.9 (1959) Marking & Painting of Vehicles, Army Aircraft & Equipment. Army Code No.12473

 

Regs19592.jpg

 

However this document is not relevant to the argument. Firstly it appears to be describing jerricans for fuel, as they are to be painted Olive drab or Light stone there is no mention of water jerricans. Secondly the reference at the bottom of the page to “Paint, finishing, G.S., gloss, brushing, Black” is actually related to the left hand column which is referring to “4(E) P.O.L. tanks & pipes (iv) ladders & platforms”.

 

Yes I know that there will be people who will say that Regulations are only there to be broken. Clearly they have been! But I am surprised that a few brown one's haven't as yet cropped up.

 

So anyone tempted to go brown? I’m not necessarily suggesting you should, but there are the documents, you decide!

 

 

I was lucky enough to buy two 1944 Briggs Motor Body made water jerricans yesterday and under the flaking black paint on both of them is very clearly the original brown finish. Coincidentally I have recently borrowed the rather esoteric french-written jerrican book and having studied the (black and white) illustrations in it am of the opinion that the overall wartime finish is in a colour which seems lighter than black.

 

I for one when restoring these cans will be opting for a brown finish.

 

On a similar related note, are we also to believe that the WD stamped petroleum spirit 2 gallon cans should also be finished in brown from new or retrospectively painted by the military ?

 

Another further question is:-

Was there a 2 gallon can manufactured exclusively for water ?

 

I ask this because I have a 2 gallon can that I have just been looking at which differs from most that I have seen in that it has neither any " Petroleum Spirit " markings or WD stamp but is stamped 3-40 underneath. It carries not the usual makers name (Valor) but " FF & S Ltd. There is also an eye on the neck of the can which seems to be for a cap securing chain and the cap is unmarked.

There is very little paint on this can but if I had to guess ,I would say that this can was originally brown but has been overpainted black with a silver top like the silver colour the "flimsies" seem to have been painted.

 

Could this can have been exclusively intended for water ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave that is a significant find I've just got off the phone from Ian who was telling me about this together with his find of a 1944 jerrican which underneath the flaking black paint the original service brown shows through. Two very interesting bits of evidence in the space of half an hour!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another further question is:-

Was there a 2 gallon can manufactured exclusively for water ?

 

I ask this because I have a 2 gallon can that I have just been looking at which differs from most that I have seen in that it has neither any " Petroleum Spirit " markings or WD stamp but is stamped 3-40 underneath. It carries not the usual makers name (Valor) but " FF & S Ltd. There is also an eye on the neck of the can which seems to be for a cap securing chain and the cap is unmarked.

There is very little paint on this can but if I had to guess ,I would say that this can was originally brown but has been overpainted black with a silver top like the silver colour the "flimsies" seem to have been painted.

 

Could this can have been exclusively intended for water ?

Could this be a water can for the Vickers machine gun?

 

Matt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this be a water can for the Vickers machine gun?

 

Matt.

 

I have just been looking on the excellent site devoted to the Vickers and well worth a look www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk

 

There is a very similar can illustrated in the accessories section and also another variation of the 2 gallon can with "Water" stamped in the top. Are there any more about ?

Edited by David B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
This is what I have been hunting down for years.

Beneath the recent gloss black there is BROWN PAINT.

 

This is painted directly onto the metal. Beneath the black there are some traces of red on top of the brown.

 

Dscf7317.jpg

 

DSCF7311.jpg

 

DSCF7313.jpg

Right then Clive - all we need to do is to prove the same for the WD 2 gallon can. I have got one with no "Petroleum Spirit" stamping or any other markings other than the maker and date underneath. I have also seen one with "Water Only" stamped on it.

 

What colour were these originally and were either of them specific to the Vickers Machine Gun or were both of them for general water use ?

 

There is a variation with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Yes worms all over the place now! There was a very long thread some years ago & lots of merriment from two people who don't come on the forum any more. To save wading through all that I have teased out the documentary basis for the colour debate.

 

It is traditionally believed that post-war water jerricans should be black with some of the detail picked out in white. However studying consecutive Regulations show that this colour scheme was perhaps not always appropriate.

 

Most jerricans I have seen have been ones restored in black or actually have the original paint that was black or seemingly appear black in black & white photographs. But I present the documents for you to decide.

 

Regulations for the Army 1947 Pamphlet No.3 Supply of Equipment. Army Code No.1804

 

Regs19472.jpg

 

There were no amendments & the consecutive document states the same.

Equipment Regulations 1955 Pamphlet No.2 Supply of Equipment Army Code No.10835

 

Regs19552.jpg

 

There were amendments to the 1955 document in 1961 & were incorporated in to the new Regulations which now stated black was to be used.

Equipment Regulations Pamphlet No.2 (1961) Supply of Equipment Army Code No.13104

 

Regs19612.jpg

 

As these documents were consecutive I took it to mean that the change from brown to black was authorised in 1961. However it has been pointed out that this is contradicted by this.

 

Equipment Regulations Pamphlet No.9 (1959) Marking & Painting of Vehicles, Army Aircraft & Equipment. Army Code No.12473

 

Regs19592.jpg

 

However this document is not relevant to the argument. Firstly it appears to be describing jerricans for fuel, as they are to be painted Olive drab or Light stone there is no mention of water jerricans. Secondly the reference at the bottom of the page to “Paint, finishing, G.S., gloss, brushing, Black” is actually related to the left hand column which is referring to “4(E) P.O.L. tanks & pipes (iv) ladders & platforms”.

 

Yes I know that there will be people who will say that Regulations are only there to be broken. Clearly they have been! But I am surprised that a few brown one's haven't as yet cropped up.

 

So anyone tempted to go brown? I’m not necessarily suggesting you should, but there are the documents, you decide!

 

More evidence for the use of brown jerricans this time from the RAMC.

 

App3555_zpsb39f9de8.jpg

 

App3556_zpsb70f546d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...