VolunteerArmoury Posted April 29, 2014 Share #26 Posted April 29, 2014 This is all very interesting; whether or not this case was for carrying the Engineer version or possibly the Artillery version, 1914 or 1917 etc... I though it may be usefull to add a pic' of the spring hooks that actually came with the pack (right) (I had mentioned previously that I had traded out the original SH's for the typical SH's we are all familiar with (left))... You can certainly see the difference between the two. Again I beg to question what these hooks would hook to?? Thank you for posting those photos of the clips. I was trying to get one loaded. Thanks also for pointing out its from the Engineer manual or if you mentioned it previously thanks for reiterating it. I'll try to load a photo of the pack this weekend unless someone beats me to it. No one has a photo of it in use that we know of yet?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrenchRat Posted April 29, 2014 Share #27 Posted April 29, 2014 All... Here are some views of my pack (again, with the typical snap hooks added)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrenchRat Posted April 29, 2014 Share #28 Posted April 29, 2014 Note carry handle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solcarlus Posted April 30, 2014 Share #29 Posted April 30, 2014 Bonjour TrenchRat. Thank you for the pictures. If we take as the exmple haversack M10, the longer straps must be attached to the bottom of the haversack with rings. Furthermore, if the hooks are of origin, it must be provided for receiving eyelets. But on what equipment?Your bag is WWI solcarlus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrenchRat Posted April 30, 2014 Share #30 Posted April 30, 2014 Solcarlus, all... Indeed, the pack is most certainly from the Great War. I will post the markings here. Oddly, there are no rings of any type on the body of the pack. It is obvious that this is meant to attach to some sort of belt, but like you say, what belt??? Therefore it is likely that ALL the straps connect to this unknown "belt"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinb Posted May 1, 2014 Share #31 Posted May 1, 2014 Here's mine. It's a 1917 dated table in a 1914 kit. And a USMC M1942. This is the only part that I have for this table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solcarlus Posted May 1, 2014 Share #32 Posted May 1, 2014 Bonjour. The whole question is, trencRat Good Stuff robind The case comes in the bag? solcarlus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted May 1, 2014 Share #33 Posted May 1, 2014 I went though a bunch of stuff and can't find anything on where/when/why this case was made. At this point it's all speculation. I just can't see it being a replacement for the 1914 recon sketch set. For one thing those sets were still being manufactured at least as late as WWII, so it is kind of unlikely they would have halted production during WWI long enough to make this pack which then vanishes again. It's always possible this was a non-branch specific item too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted May 1, 2014 Share #34 Posted May 1, 2014 Here's mine. It's a 1917 dated table in a 1914 kit. MVC-106S.JPG MVC-107S.JPG Robin that is a great set, can you take some closeups? I seem to remember that the contents changed at least once during the life of the box. What is stenciled on the lid? I am still trying to learn why the M1917 exists, especially since it appears to be the same as the M1913 table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted May 2, 2014 Share #35 Posted May 2, 2014 I did some digging but I can't find anything pertinent to the web carrier. "HANDBOOK OF ORDNANCE DATA" dated November 15, 1918 (with a printing date of 1919) lists the following: "Fire-control Equipment, Army Artillery ENGINEER CORPS MATERIAL Battery Battalion Levelrod plane table with tripod..............................1...............2........" But I don't think that is the M1913 or M1917 sketch board from the 1914 kit. Here is why: "Fire-control Equipment, Army Artillery ENGINEER CORPS MATERIAL Battery Battalion Reconnaissance Sets...............................................1...............1......." And of course the reconnaissance set is the 1914 sketch outfit. Incidentally, it also says 4 stadiarods and 1 transit per Artillery battalion. Lest anyone think their use was exclusive to engineers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted May 2, 2014 Share #36 Posted May 2, 2014 "ARMY APPROPRIATION BILL 1920, REGULAR SUPPLIES OF THE ARMY" PART 5. ITEM Formerly Procured By Plane, Table, 16x16", etc. ..............................Engineers.......... Plane, Table, 24x31" ......................................Engineers.......... Plane, Table, 18x24", complete......................Engineers.........." I have no idea what they meant by "16x16", ETC", but as you can see there were three plane tables available to the Engineers. Perhaps the 16x16" table was the one carried in the web carrying case. What I can say is that they wanted more of the complete 18x24" tables, followed by the 24x31" tables than the 16x16", etc. tables. At least in the 1920 bill. I believe the 18x24" table is the M1913 and M1917 tables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted May 2, 2014 Share #37 Posted May 2, 2014 Bonjour. The whole question is, trencRat Good Stuff robind The case comes in the bag? solcarlus. Hi Solcarlus, If you are talking about the 1914 case posted by Robin, no that will not fit in to the web carrier. RC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solcarlus Posted May 2, 2014 Share #38 Posted May 2, 2014 Hi. . The same manual. There should be two different sized tablets (planetable)? Merci RC for informations. sol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted May 2, 2014 Share #39 Posted May 2, 2014 Hi Solcarlus! Thank you for posting the scan, also note at the bottom of the page the entry for the "Planetable, 24 by 31 inch". So it seems all three were also available to artillery regiments. RC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solcarlus Posted May 3, 2014 Share #40 Posted May 3, 2014 Bonjour. From: "COMPLETE GUIDE U. S. INFANTRY 1913"It may be that this is not the same model, but he was staffing the regiments of infantry. sol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted May 3, 2014 Share #41 Posted May 3, 2014 Hi Solcarlus, I believe that is the 1913 set posted by Robin. RC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted May 14, 2014 Share #42 Posted May 14, 2014 Some photos of the 1913-1917 boards. I can't really find enough of a difference to lend any credence for why the 1917 model even existed. In fact it appears to me that the 1913 was in production long after 1917..very long afterward. I can't say the same for the 1917 because it appears only K&E made them at all. Maybe it was an error or miscommunication similar to that of the M1917 bayonets being marked '1918' for a short time..I hate to speculate, but that is a noticeable trend in the 1917 boards. 1913 Style of castle on M1913 manufactured by Burke & James. Notice the brass escutcheon for mounting to the tripod is flush with the wood. It is secured with six countersunk brass screws. 1913 Unknown manufacturer. My personal opinion on this is that it is WWII or later..I favor post WWII. Note the brass escutcheon is square and is only secured with four screws. 1917 Like RobinB's example it is manufactured by Keuffel & Esser Co. While the escutcheon is round like the M1913, it is raised above the wood like the M1942 USMC board posted by RobinB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted May 14, 2014 Share #43 Posted May 14, 2014 Does anyone have an M1917 that was not manufactured by K&E? I am beginning to believe they were the sole supplier of them. I have only two theories beyond what I have posted, but one is too insignificant for me to suggest at the moment and the other I cannot be certain of at this time. Rather than throw speculation to the wind let's see where facts get us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted October 16, 2014 Share #44 Posted October 16, 2014 Just adding this Signal Corps image to the discussion. RC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now