The Evolution of IJA Canteens (1889-1945) Expanded Version
Article about: The Evolution of IJA Canteens (1889-1945) Expanded Version This is a updated and expanded version of an article I originally released a month ago. Foreword The army’s standard infantryman’s
3) The Japanese Army cavalry used the same canteens, that other kind of troops? (except of course the navy and marines, I know that they are different). On the Japanese site I've seen that this canteens, called "cavalry", is not it? Apparently, this is a "civil" ?
That canteen are civil, the Japanese cavalry use the army canteen, this mistake start for an error in a book of Nakanishi "Japanese Military Uniforms 1930-1945" who a page 31 put a drawing of this canteen in cavalry equipment, one old collector in Japan tell me who it is an error and who this canteen is civil.
The photo below is a canteen that is often identified as an army cavalry canteen. However, the truth is that such a design specific for cavalry never officially existed in the Imperial Japanese Army.
The only explanation possible for the existence of numerous examples on the market is that they were prototypes, which were tested, but never got adopted OR a civilian canteen made for export in the 1920s.
All the books I’ve seen show a photo with a caption identifying it as a cavalry canteen, but nothing further about the year of establishment, type designation, etc are ever mentioned. The reason is that it is not mentioned anywhere in the official edicts signed by the emperor or in any of the Army Ordinances issued by the Minister of the Army. When an item does not appear in these documents, it means they did not exist as official equipment.
As I mentioned in the forgoing text, between 1898 and 1930, the 1898 style canteen was used by both the infantry and cavalry alike, the only difference being they were slung from opposite shoulders. At first, this different wear method meant different leather harnesses between infantry and cavalry specs. Cavalry canteens needed to be slung from the right shoulder not to get into way of the sword arm. In that case, the shoulder sling adjustment buckle needed to be located at front, so adjustments could be made while still wearing the canteen. An infantry model worm by cavalry would have the buckle in the back, out of reach and useless. But from 1919 when they changed harnesses to webbing, the same harness could be worn from either shoulder simply by turning the canteen front to back inside the harness.
So from 1898 to 1919, a cavalry model canteen existed separately, but the only difference was the leather harness having the shoulder strap adjustment buckle position being reversed. After 1919, the harness was the same and distinctions of cavalry and infantry models ceased to exist. These were in service up till 1930, when the Sho-5 regulations of 1930 renewed the whole lineup of army equipment by the Emperor’s Edict. This included the canteen used throughout WW2, but there was no cavalry model for this series either, as they were reversible and could be worn on whichever shoulder (the canteen inside the harness only needed flipping).
So between 1898 and 1945, both the cavalry and infantry used the same water bottle. Thus the only possible timeslots where a prototype canteen, specifically for cavalry could have been considered were (1) right before 1898, and (2) from right before 1930 until 1945.
Of the above 2 possible time slots, documents discussing prototype studies specific for cavalry only could be found for 20th January 1898. At that time, there were three alternative methods of carrying the canteen being considered for the cavalry. Thus the cavalry regiment of the first infantry division was issued samples to test by end of February.
These different samples are not illustrated nor described, but the result of this test was the cavalry canteen harness launched in July of that year. Is it possible that the so-called cavalry canteen was one of those prototypes that eventually failed this test?
I tend to think that very unlikely, because they were already having enough difficulty making the aluminum body that got launched in 1898 that they could not have had the production ability to deal with such an alternative basic shape. Besides, the January document asking the 3 methods to be tested only refer to “carry methods” and nothing about different canteen designs. So it could have only been a choice between 3 harness designs at most.
How about after the 1930 Sho-5 launch? Could they have regretted not having a cavalry canteen? That also seems unlikely, because canteen straps were canvass by that time, whereas the surviving, so-called cavalry canteens have elaborate leather straps.
That only leaves the period prior to the launch of the Sho-5 series, as a plausible time-slot for such a canteen option to be proposed in a prototype form. There obviously would have been canteen shape studies done before switching the shape of the 1898 canteen to that of the Sho-5 model and back then, leather was not yet a material that needed to be conserved.
So it sounds most plausible to regard it a prototype canteen tested prior to settling on the Showa 5 design of 1930. It has two separate harnesses. The inner harness allowed hanging the canteen on a belt. The outer harness was for slinging the canteen from the shoulder and this outer harness could be reversed to serve as an infantry or as a cavalry sling.
Yes, this design could indeed have been considered as an alternative to the 1930 model design. But would a military model seriously need two harness systems for belt-hanging and shoulder-slinging? I seriously doubt that.
What were they then?
A study of markings found on a canteen I have tells a totally different and more plausible story. These canteens have a circle in the center of the body formed by a recessed ring around it. Within this circle, from the top, markings read “NASU” followed by the logo depicting arrows being gripped by a hand, the so-called Nigiriya mark, for the Japan Light Metals Company. And at the bottom of all this, it said “Made in Japan”.
The company was established in 1899 as Nasu Aluminum Utensils Manufacturing Company 那須アルミニューム器具製造所, which later changed name to Japan Light Metals 日本軽金属(株) in 1939.
Remember that after WW1, Japan needed to get rid of tons of overstocked aluminum, but military demand was dwindling, because of the universal demilitarization boom. So naturally, companies like Nasu had to re-develop its goods for the commercial market (the double harness option can only be a commercial idea) and export them overseas during the 1920s, which explains the “Made in Japan” marking.
So my conclusion is that it was a commercial export product of the 1920s, which may or may not have been considered by the army prior to its adoption of the 1930 model canteen. Has anyone seen cavalry actually wearing this canteen in photos?
But as it is often said "absence of proof is not proof of absence. So as a last jigsaw piece before relegating the cavalry canteen to another hoax and myth, I wanted positive ID as a commercial product in the form of a catalog from the 1920s, but I don’t know when that will come, so I decided to let you have my straight opinion as it now stands.
The canteen as well as the story that it was a cavalry canteen were both Japanese exports, as the Nakata book of 1973 already called it a cavalry canteen. This mistake got further inherited by Ritta Nakanishi's book of 1991. So for a change, Japanese collectors were responsible for launching the hoax.
Last edited by Nick Komiya; 07-01-2018 at 01:35 PM.
An other example of a similar canteen same dimension same farm it to confirm who is a civil model (in this case it are described officer cavalry canteen)
That so-called cavalry officer's model confirms my theory that they were produced in the 1920s. In this case, the cover design is basically identical to the 1927 style army officer's canteen I showed in post 48. But the late 1920s timing does also support the possibility the army tried these out as prototypes before deciding on the 1930 design. Once again, if you see these "cavalry styles" in any photos please post them here. After all, Nakata must have had reason to believe they were legitimate army items.
Files relating to the development of the 1930 model canteen are clearly missing from the archives, as there is absolutely zero in documents about canteens in the late 1920s. So this vacuum of documents is still very likely hiding from us canteen designs they studied as an alternative to the 1930 model, not for cavalry use, but as a standard army canteen.
Nick and Type4 - thank you very much, for your wonderful and profound research. For me personally, the "cavalry flask" was a problem (up to this point). Myth is debunked!)
Recently got 2 well used Type 98's. This is the first. Whether it got this worn in the field or after WW2 who knows! The underlying brown paint is visible.
The webbing strap looks a bit 'last ditch'. Also there are no markings at all visible unlike the later model.
.
by dimmuborgir95
Bookmarks