Special Forces Veteran Terry Baldwin is continuing his series on the history of US Military equipment with the field pack, more commonly known as the buttpack.

I’m sure most everyone knows that the US Military once developed and issued load carrying accessories officially called Field Packs. “Buttpacks” is the more familiar nickname they immediately acquired. Here are some additional facts. Field Packs attach to the USGI web belt with slide keepers. There is no such thing as ALICE Clips. Slide Keepers were first fielded with the M1956 Load Carrying Equipment (LCE) which included the M1956 Field Pack. That was 18 years before ALICE. Buttpacks work best with H-harnesses and were never meant to interface with the ALICE Y-shaped Individual Equipment Belt Suspenders. No buttpack was ever a component of ALICE. The ALICE Medium and Large Rucksacks were intended to completely eliminate the need for buttpacks. And therefore USGI buttpacks were never designed or originally intended to be worn with a rucksack.

In the last months of WW II the US Military fielded the M1945 Field Pack. It replaced the general issue M1928 Haversack and the M1936 Musette Bag that was most widely associated with paratroopers. The M1945 gear delivered some needed improvements but was not well liked by soldiers during the conflict in Korea. Especially the pack. Which led to the development of the M1956 LCE. The H-harness that came with that system distributes and stabilizes the soldier’s load much better than its predecessors. The slide keepers kept items like canteens from bouncing the way they had with the earlier wire hanger attachment system. And moving the Field Pack to the rear of the soldier on the belt line better offset the weight of loaded ammunition pouches and frag grenades on the soldier’s front side. While not putting any additional strain on the shoulders as earlier packs had. For all those reasons, the M1956 system and the associated buttpack were very well received.

Some improvements were made in 1961 which included enlarging the Field Pack slightly, incorporating a waterproof collar and extending the pack cover. The grommets on both canvas versions were designed to be used to attach smaller items like the bayonet or wire cutters which still had the wire hanger system. However, since the same items could be attached directly to the belt, this feature was not often utilized. The M1961 version of the buttpack was the most widely produced and most common. There was a nylon version of the M1961 buttpack developed as part of the fielding of the M1967 Improved LCE. The M1967 gear was produced in limited quantities and only intended to replace the M1956 gear for troops being deployed to Vietnam. Some of the features of that system like new 30 round M16 magazine pouches were very popular. And experience with the M1967 gear clearly influenced the designers of the ALICE Load Carriage System some eight years later. So if you were ever issued or bought yourself an issue nylon buttpack it was legit. But it came from remaining stocks of the M1967 gear and not from ALICE.

Strictly speaking, the canvas buttpacks that we are all familiar with should not have been worn much past 1978-79 (four years after ALICE rucksacks were adopted). But it didn’t work out that way. First, the traditional military supply system had a standing Basis of Issue (BOI) of one buttpack per individual. Apparently that was never rescinded and many supply rooms and CIFs kept issuing buttpacks as long as they had serviceable inventory of the item. Second, there was an easy work around to make wearing the buttpack compatible with the ALICE Packs and it was even Army approved. TM 57-220, Technical Training of Parachutists, describes how to rig M1956 and later ALICE LCE to be worn under the parachute and parachute harness. It called for the soldier to unbuckle the pistol belt and adjust the rear of the LCE harness to droop down enough so that it rode comfortably below the body of the parachute. And the same procedure worked just as readily for packs of ALICE Large size or smaller. Note: this technique did not work nearly as well for more elongated packs with padded hip belts like the Lowe designed CFP 90 or the Gregory SPEAR pack. I think it is safe to say that is one of the reasons that those packs were not very popular with the troops at the time.

But clearly the most important reason the buttpack stayed in service so long was that “field soldiers” of all services liked them. A lot. So even after they were no longer being issued local surplus stores and manufacturers stepped up to supply the continuing demand. In the late 80s some components of ALICE like the suspenders and ammo pouches were replaced with the Load Bearing Vest (LBV). But since the LBV was basically an H-Harness design it mated even better with the buttpack than the ALICE Suspenders ever had. So buttpacks remained a fixture on LCEs / LBVs well into the 2000s. Even today, many modern versions of the buttpack are being produced. Although sometimes they are now referred to as waist packs or fanny packs and can be worn separate from LCE if desired.

Along with the fielding of the LBV, something called the Field Pack, Training was also introduced. It was noticeably larger than the earlier buttpacks. Too large in my opinion. Unfortunately that “super sizing” of buttpacks subsequently became something of a trend. With plus sized “Recon Packs” and “Optimized Buttpacks” being produced by various manufacturers. These usually consisted of a main pack that was about the volume of the Training Pack plus two, three or even four extra external pouches. What resulted was a near backpack sized load being mounted low on the soldier’s back. This tends to make the soldier’s LCE or vest uncomfortably unbalanced and rear heavy. It is simply not a good way to carry any substantial weight. Buttpacks were just never meant to be backpacks. In short, if you intend to carry something bulky or heavy then an Assault Pack or 3-Day Pack or even a full sized rucksack would be the better choice than an overloaded buttpack.

The reverse is also true. Some pouches can be too small to be legitimately called buttpacks at all. Or in other words, if it is too tiny the “pack” mounted on your lower back is really just a mid-sized utility pouch. I have two examples of pouches that I have tried that I consider on the borderline. One is LBT’s Mini-Buttpack, and the other was made by HSGI (and to be fair was not intended to be a buttpack). They are just barely big enough to carry what I would consider an appropriate minimum buttpack load of gear: i.e. poncho (emergency shelter), change of socks and some emergency rations. I prefer a little more room so these would not be my first choice but would be better than doing without. I would say that a modern pack with approximately the same volume as the M1961 buttpack would be the Goldilocks solution, not too big and not too small (TAG used to make one that was just about right). But you might decide otherwise.

Of course MOLLE / PALS, body armor and GWOT each added different functional factors to the equation. Buttpacks of any kind, even the smallest that I mentioned, can be a real pain if you are predominately involved in mounted (vehicle based) operations. There isn’t much room inside fighting vehicles and doors and hatches are narrow snag monsters. Achieving the slimmest profile you can manage: front, back and sides is highly desirable if you are working out of vehicles. Buttpacks are just not helpful in that scenario. That is why buttpacks were never, ever popular with tankers. However, if you are primarily doing dismounted operations than a buttpack might be well worth considering for your mission. Not attached directly onto body armor with PALS. That would definitely interfere with any backpack you might be using for extended operations. But if you are utilizing one of the modern H-Harness systems over slick armor than you can adjust the harness as I described above to make it work*. Bottom line: buttpacks will never again be as ubiquitous as they once were but in some cases they are still just right.

*It doesn’t look to me like the issue FLC vest can do that very effectively because of its design but someone can tell me if I am wrong.

Next: Ponchos and shelters.

-LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (RET) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments.

Special Forces Veteran Terry Baldwin is continuing his article on the history of the canteen cup with the USGI Stand, Canteen Cup AKA the Canteen Cup Stove.

I actually do some research before I write these short articles. Not exhaustive by any means but hopefully enough to flesh out the subject beyond my personal recollections. So I have been learning or relearning a thing or two myself in the process. This time I discovered something I didn’t know about the USGI Stand, Canteen Cup commonly referred to as a Canteen Cup Stove. I first recall seeing them around 1989-90. Their appearance coincided with the Army / USMC wide fielding of the Load Bearing Vest (LBV) and associated gear. Much of that new kit was a direct result of experimentation associated with the Army’s then new “Light Divisions”.

I distinctly recall the canteen cup stand being referred to as the “Natick Stove” at the time. The clear implication was that it had been dreamed up by someone at Natick…recently. Imagine my surprise all these years later to discover that apparently is not true. The very same canteen cup stove was actually patented in 1941 and saw at least some limited use by troops in the ETO late in WW II. As far as I can tell, it was only produced for a short time in small numbers and the Army lost interest after the war. So it became one of countless items the military has evaluated but chose ultimately not to adopt. That is until the late 80s when the design was rediscovered and resurrected by someone at Natick to address a tangentially related problem.

MREs had been introduced in the early 80s in large part to help reduce the individual soldier’s load. Unfortunately, the worthy goal of fielding a lighter ration also created some other unintended consequences. MRE pouches could not be put directly into a fire or over a heat tab the way a C-Ration can had been. In order to heat the MREs a soldier was advised to essentially boil his MRE packet in a half canteen cup of water. And because of concerns about chemicals leaching out of the pouches, the heated water could then only be used for shaving and could not be consumed. Obviously that would have resulted in a lot of water routinely being wasted. Water the same individual soldier would have to carry; thereby negating the weight savings of the MREs in the first place.

This also meant that a soldier might potentially need to heat his canteen cup three times a day, every day, rather than just occasionally for a cup of coffee or hot chocolate. Reintroducing the stove was a sincere albeit imperfect attempt at providing a viable solution. Now in practice no soldier was likely to go to that much effort multiple times a day. So just like C Rations before them, most MREs were destined to be consumed cold. At least until the advent of water activated chemical heaters (soon to be replaced by new chemical heaters that do not require water to work). Still, the chemical heaters are definitely not well suited for boiling water or heating liquids in general. There is a clear pouch called a Hot Beverage Bag meant for that purpose which was introduced with MREs circa 2009. I personally found them to be rather awkward, far from user friendly and just not very practical. If anyone out there has used them and likes them better than a canteen type cup please let me know why.

Still, despite its questionable parentage, I’m convinced that the issue stove and the concept of a lightweight canteen cup stand / stove continues to have utility and merit. Obviously others agree because there are many stoves designs out there from simple heat tab holders to more advanced jetboils and whisperlites. The issue canteen cup stand is definitely on the minimalist end of that spectrum including in terms of cost. As a side note, there were actually two versions of USGI stands introduced in the late 80s. The example on the left in the picture is the most widely fielded. I have only seen pictures of the second version known as the Type II or USMC stove. Supposedly it saw limited issue during Desert Shield / Storm and then was withdrawn. Perhaps someone from the Corps can confirm or deny that story. It looked something like the third canteen cup stand in the picture above but did not have any grill hole on top.

The USGI stove is light yet reasonably durable. If you are carrying the USGI canteen cup (with or without the canteen) it takes up little space because it slips around the cup. But this design does have two functional problems. First, if you seat the canteen cup too deep into it the hot stove has a tendency to remain attached when you pick the cup up. That is obviously something that the user needs to be aware of but is more of an annoyance than a major issue. On the other hand, the fact that the stand as issued works only with the GI canteen cup and no other cups or cans is a more significant shortcoming. However these faults are not hard to correct. There are numerous videos on the web that demonstrate various hacks to improve this piece of gear. One simple solution I put together in about ten minutes required only a file to put notches in the stand and stiff wire as shown above.

The stand on the right is a civilian design that also addresses and solves both problems I just mentioned. No additional modifications needed. It provides a stable platform for just about any cup or can making it very versatile. It is slightly heavier than the issue version but probably will last longer even if hard used. And it still nests neatly with the USGI canteen cup. All in all the better choice in my opinion and it is now my default stove. Keep in mind that I’m not selling anything nor am I affiliated with anyone who is selling something. But I might as well give the answer before someone decides to ask. I got this canteen stand some time ago from a place called BestGlide. They specialize in survival type gear. But the stand is actually produced by CanteenShop.com and is built in Ohio. Still, it may be too bulky or heavy or simply more stove than you need all the time.

I have therefore displayed some examples of smaller heat tab type stoves including the Esbit folding stove which German soldiers have used since before WW II. Germany actually having invented the first heat tabs in 1932. The middle stove is one that the Italians include in their modern daily ration packs. It can be used multiple times and comes with three tabs but isn’t designed for longer term use. Finally there is a folding stove that I have been told is in some US Air Force bailout kits. It is slightly larger and heavier than the Esbit but does provide a more stable platform than the smaller stoves. I first carried an Esbit when I was stationed in Germany in the mid-70s but they were not widely available in the US until many years later. Esbits are a good choice if you need something small and light but still effective.

Unless you are using a stove with some kind of liquid fuel like alcohol or white gas then you will need to choose some form of heat tab or newer gel fuel. There are many brands out there but they are not all created equal. Some burn hotter or longer than others. Some vent more hazardous fumes. And keep in mind that anything that produces a flame will consume oxygen rapidly in a confined space. Therefore, all of these heating methods are best done in a well ventilated area. While not a necessity, I personally prefer using a small container with lid to actually hold the tab. That prolongs the life of the stove and also allows me to utilize the lid to smother the flame and preserve the remaining tab for later use. As with all gear, it behooves you to practice and rehearse using whatever system you decide to carry in order to confirm the combination meets your needs. Preferably well before you really need it.

Next: So what about buttpacks?

-LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (RET) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments.

Special Forces Veteran Terry Baldwin recently gave us a look at the Canteen Cover. This time, he’s investigating the cup.

We all know that humans need an adequate supply of water to function and survive even during relatively short periods of strenuous outdoor activities. And there are a myriad of ways to carry water in a field environment available to today’s soldiers or civilians. Suitable canteens, bottles and bladders are issued or can be purchased in all sizes and shapes to fit your individual mission requirements. Each style of water container has some inherent advantages and disadvantages in any given situation. But they can all get the basic job done. The final choice often comes down to simply user preference. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Consequently, we can also all agree that a filled water container of some kind can rightly be considered mission essential in almost every field situation. But since you can drink the water directly from your chosen container do you really have any need for a separate cup? I submit that in most circumstances the answer is yes. In fact I believe it is prudent to always consider carrying a metal “canteen cup” of some kind while in the field. Bottom line, I consider the canteen cup to be an important survival tool and not a superfluous accessory. It does one thing very well that most water containers simply cannot. That is allowing you to effectively boil water on a direct heat source.

Why is boiling water so important? Well if you need to replenish your water from natural sources it may be necessary to purify by boiling before consuming. Or you might need to melt snow to drink. Or if you or your teammates begin to show the signs of hypothermia then drinking a hot beverage can mean the difference between someone continuing the mission or a possible medevac. When I was stationed at Ft Lewis 78-80, cases of hypothermia were routine on almost every field exercise. I have carried bouillon cubes in my personal survival kit for years based on what I learned from that particular experience. The possibility of hypothermia is an even more critical consideration if you intend to foray into the woods alone as civilians often do. Especially if you inadvertently get drenched from an unexpected downpour or fall into a stream or canal. I am sure most of the readers of SSD already know that hypothermia doesn’t just happen in cold regions or in the winter. I have seen service members on the brink of hypothermia even in places where people don’t expect it like in Iraq.

The good news is that we have a lot of suitable metal cups to choose from…starting with the USGI issue canteen cup. If you had been in the US Army or USMC prior to 1910 you would have likely carried a round canteen on a strap over your shoulder or on a saddle and a separate small tin cup with a finger loop handle. Most commonly a squad would share a communal coffee pot or cook pot and each soldier would gather around the fire to get his cup or mess tin filled. Of course this methodology worked best in the days when campaigning happened mostly in the daylight and armies bivouacked at night. The experience of the Army in the Spanish American War and especially the subsequent guerrilla fighting in the Philippines made military leaders reconsider almost every aspect of a soldier’s kit.

So for the first time in 1910 the US Military fielded a canteen “system” which included a cover designed to attach directly to a cartridge or pistol belt and hold: a new aluminum canteen with the now familiar kidney shaped bottom and an aluminum cup which nested around the base of the canteen. Minor modifications to the aluminum canteen were made over the years until it was replaced with the plastic model in 1961. The original 1910 canteen cup was the same size and shape as today’s cup. And its L-shaped folding handle remained the standard until 1974. That is when the wire handled version was introduced along with the first fielding of the LC-1 ALICE gear. So the canteen cup most of us grew up with is now 105 years old and still serving faithfully and well. Note: it is also not uncommon for field gear improvements to be borrowed from other countries. Third from the left in the photo is actually a British canteen cup with wire handles very similar to our current (1974) version…yet dated 1945.

I would suggest that even if you aren’t carrying the USGI canteen anymore you would still be well served carrying the canteen cup as a minimalist water heating and cooking implement. But there are other worthy choices. The issue Artic Canteen Cup has an elongated design that fits upright quite handily into many ammo pouches. Surplus canteen cups from other countries offer different size and shape options. And if you also use the associated canteens those cups are usually designed to nest and save space as well (see Swiss model in photo). A number of companies make cups that fit around the metal or plastic Nalgene bottles. While some even smaller cups are meant to stand alone. But all can be used to heat water when necessary. Something to consider as you make a choice is that few commercial cups are sized to hold the equivalent volume of the USGI canteen cup.

Lids are an accessory I would also suggest you consider. They are not necessarily essential but I would call them mission enhancing. They help keep dirt and debris out of the cup as you are heating the contents. But even more importantly, a lid helps capture the heat and can significantly speed up the boiling process (and thereby save fuel and time). Many commercial cups come equipped with lids for the very same reasons. However, despite the obvious benefits lids provide, the US Military has never produced or issued a canteen cup lid. Luckily there are adequate commercial versions readily available. I have two examples in the picture above. Both work. The thicker one is of higher quality. Still I prefer the thin one because it is lighter and takes up less space. Of course in a pinch you can origami one out of foil or other non-flammable material.

Finally I’d like to mention utensils and sanitation. If you have served in the US Military in the last 20 years or so then you have almost exclusively used one time throwaway plastic utensils (knife, fork and spoon) and paper plates instead of metal mess kits. From a preventative medicine point of view that is a very good thing. Keeping metal utensils and mess gear clean is a challenge in the field. Contracting a food or water borne illness can make you a casualty very quickly. And even in less serious cases, as many of us can attest, having to deal with a bout of diarrhea in an austere environment is an unpleasant experience. So why risk it? I would say don’t if you are hooked into a supply system that can get those expendable items to you on a routine basis.

However, if you are not or have a different mission that limits you access to that kind of support then you need something to cook and eat with besides your fingers. As with metal cups there are numerous options when it comes to suitable field utensils. They are commonly made of aluminum, stainless steel or titanium. Select the option that is right for your needs. The sporks are quite popular but don’t help much for food preparation. The old standard US and German Mess sets are not hard to find and give you a better range of capabilities. Just remember to sharpen the mess knives as they are issued dull. Don’t forget a simple reliable can opener like a P38. Best to have two of those to ensure you have one when you need it. A pot grabber is also helpful if you are eating from tin cans or if the handles on your cup get too hot to hold. Whatever you use it is important to do everything you can to keep you utensils and cup clean! Store them in a Ziploc inside a fully enclosed pouch and wash them or at least dip them in boiling water as often as you can. You will be glad you did.

Next: You have the metal cup so what about a stove to go with it?

-LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (RET) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments.