Military Engineer

Army Regulations refer to these as "Saddle Cloth Insignia". 9 and 10 are definitely saddle cloth insignia, and you have correctly identified them. * is part of the saddle cloth insignia for a General Officer. The attached photo comes from the 1908 uniform regulation plates.

Thanks for the information on the back colors. I have wondered what they were for.

In 1905 and 1906 shovels were purchased by contract. There were many problems with the quality of handles. In 1907 the Chief of Ordnance directed that the steel parts continue to be contracted, but the wood parts be made at Rock Island Arsenal and the shovel be assembled at RIA. It seems likely that since the shovels made for the Army specified two straps, one of those contractors could have easily made a single strapped shovel for the civilian market.

War Department Pamphlet no 32, "Comparison of U.S. and British Chemical Warfare Protective Equipment", dated 6 Jan 1944, sheet No. 29, lists: "Nomenclature: Undershirts, Cotton, Protective. Description and Use: Long sleeves, high-neck undershirt of khaki color..... Remarks: Issued by QM and impregnated by CWS"

Jon, Do you have anything on the five-foot tape that replaced the two-foot rule?

Great Post, Thanks for sharing.

A few things to consider in the debate over the unsupported shovel. In 1906 the individual tools were made by contract. The Specs called for both the shovel spade and the handle (the shaft portion, not the T part) to be stamped US. After 1907, the medal part continued to be made on contract, while the wooden parts of the individual tools were made at RIA, and the assembly was done at RIA. All the examples of the unsupported intrenching tool I have seen do not have the US stamp on the handle. If the contractor was already making the metal parts for the RIA contract, it would be easy for

I think there is something to the idea of the letters representing the months. Remember, the Army did not use J. A regiment at this period of time has 12 companies, lettered A to M, with no J.

Pep, Look at the 1912 Cavalry Equipment Board Report.

These are (left to right) a Model 1910, a Model 1908, and a Model 1918.

So what we have in this photo (left to right) is a Model 1910, Model 1916 Light, and a Model 1910 with the insulation missing.

Now if that is not confusing enough, there is a RIA drawing for a Cutter, Wire, Light Model 1916.

There is also a RIA drawing for a Model 1918 (light) , which is insulated. I use (Light) as there are two RIA Model 1918 wire cutters. The other is the larger size that fits in the Model 1922 carrier.

So PEP you have the Model 1912 with one of the tips missing.

and one last crop from the RIA drawing.

There is an RIA drawing for a Model 1908 Wire Cutter. As Solcarlus pointed out, the 1908 is uninsulated.

What an incredible collection!

Here's a photo I recently bought.

After considerable research, I found a specification drawing for a Carrier, Wire Cutter, M1929 Spec, # 6-168 (drawing # 2-2-10) after comparing this drawing with the drawing for the M1938, Spec MIL-C-729 (drawing # 2-2-38) there are two differences.

The Spec drawing for the M1938, Case Canvas, Dispatch, (Jan 11, 1940) only give a single clue. The small packet behind the "pockets pen and pencil" (front loops) is referred to as "Pocket Message Book."

Great Thread!

931st Engineer Aviation Group

11th Engineer Battalion

Craig, Here's a British-made example

Unit newspapers for any conflict are fairly rare. You figure only a few hundred copies would have been printed, and newspaper is quite fragile. The U.S. Army Engineer Museum at Fort Leonard Wood has about 300 different unit newspapers from WW1 to Vietnam. Approximately 90% of these are wartime newspapers.