I was a freshly minted Infantry Staff Sergeant in the spring of 1981 attending the 25th Infantry Division’s Basic Non-Commissioned Officers Course. We had a 2-Star guest speaker one day. I admit I don’t recall his name or job title. But I do remember something he said about leadership. He said “I learned everything I know about leadership as a 2nd Lieutenant but it has taken me 30 years to understand what I learned”. I thought that was such an odd statement that it has stuck with me all these years. It simply didn’t make sense to me. How can you learn (know) something and not understand it? But as time passed and I moved into positions of greater responsibility I came to realize that he was absolutely right.

How can that be? Over centuries militaries have collected and codified time tested “principles of leadership”. In the US Military NCOs and Officers are formally taught and retaught at every level HOW to lead. They learn the principles and read historical examples of successful and less-than-successful leaders. But all of that fine education still doesn’t deliver or guarantee understanding. It is much like the old saw about pornography. You only know leadership when you see it. Leadership is truly an art not a science. And like any art the fundamentals of the craft can be taught in a classroom. But true understanding requires context derived from experience. In other words, in order to begin to understand leadership you have to lead…more than once. And from each small success or failure you become a little more knowledgeable on the subject. Eventually you start to grasp the hardest part of the equation. That is fully understanding WHY leadership works (or doesn’t) in any given situation.

I’m still trying to get there. But I have had more than my share of opportunities to lead. And I have had the good fortune to serve with countless exemplary leaders of all ranks. I can tell you up front that I learned the most from the very best leaders. But I learned the most important lessons from the worst leaders I encountered. And I also came to realize that when it comes to leadership we aren’t all ever going to be Picassos. But almost all of us – with a little effort and training – can be competent artists. But will the audience on this site find any value in my ruminations on the subject? I don’t know. SSD has graciously allowed me the chance to conduct an experiment to find out. So I am going to share some of my experiences and perspective in these areas, and you tell me. I original wrote and shared a somewhat shorter version of the piece below with some still serving friends in the summer of 2011 as I was beginning my retirement transition. TLB

A “grey man” is a cadre term used at the Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC) to describe a student who seems to expend most of his energy trying to blend into the background. And although he never causes any trouble for the cadre and generally “meets the standard”; he also fails to distinguish himself, studiously avoids risk, and rarely contributes anything of value to his student team or the mission at hand. A “grey leader” is a term I just coined and it refers to someone who displays the same characteristics but is in a leadership position or by virtue of seniority (NCO or Officer) is expected to lead. Admittedly, the terms are somewhat vague like the men and women they can be used to describe. Grey man is not exactly derogatory…but it is also clearly not complimentary. I can assure you that being the “gray man” in a group is certainly not desirable.

In November of 1976 I was in the 18th month of my initial 4 year enlistment. And at that moment, things were not going well for me. I was standing outside my Infantry Company Commander’s office waiting to report to him. Earlier in the week I had been in a very public and heated altercation with a “hard stripe” sergeant, E-5 in the unit motorpool. I had not started the argument, but once it was initiated I participated enthusiastically. I had been wearing “acting jack” sergeant stripes for almost 8 months and wasn’t about to back down. It was the most recent in a series of minor but less than positive incidents I had been involved in. I had also not bothered to hide the fact that I was not happy with being in a mech infantry unit that spent 90% of its collective time performing maintenance on M113s. I reminded everyone who would listen that I had joined the army to be an Infantryman not a mechanic. In short, I had identified myself as something of a problem soldier or troublemaker for my leaders. I was definitely not a grey man.

Almost as soon as I positioned myself in front of my CO’s door, my First Sergeant and Platoon Sergeant had come out of the office and rather unceremoniously replaced my sergeant’s strips with specialist (E-4) rank. I was shocked. I had been really proud of those stripes even though they were temporary and I had not thought that I would lose them over this particular incident. I had little time to dwell on my “demotion”. Moments later I had reported to my Commander and stood at attention before him awaiting my fate. My Lieutenant and Platoon Sergeant stood stoically on one side of the Captain’s desk with the First Sergeant on the other side but only the Captain talked.

He pushed two documents forward on his desk. One was an ART 15. I knew what they looked like since we usually had 3 or 4 new ones posted on our company bulletin board almost every week. The other was a Request for Transfer to the Divisional Pathfinder Detachment that I had previously discussed with the First Sergeant. The Captain glared at me and proceeded to explain that I had left him only two choices; either impose an ART 15 or endorse my Request for Transfer. He listed in excruciating detail the reasons why I didn’t deserve a second chance and how I had failed miserably to perform up to the standard expected of an NCO. Had there been any more tension in the room I would have wet myself. The Captain ended his “lecture” by saying “Baldwin, you are exactly as much trouble as you are worth”. Then, without any further comment, he signed the transfer document.

The Captain was right. At that point in my development I was not the soldier or leader I needed to be. But I wasn’t a truly a bad soldier either. I was misaligned and a poor fit for that assignment. My Platoon Sergeant and First Sergeant had seen me struggling and they had convinced the commander to take a chance that I could be salvaged in a different unit. I’m not sure if the Captain saw much potential in me, but he took the risk and sent me on my way. He also demonstrated some level of confidence that I could “soldier out” of my current challenges. And now, after a colorful and relatively successful 36 year career I hope that I have justified some of their trust in me. None of those men were grey leaders. Grey leaders wouldn’t have made the effort. It would have been easier for them to simply continue to pound the square peg soldier (me) into a round hole that I was ill suited to fill.

Bad leaders, including grey leaders, at best see soldiers as tools to be used to further his or her career. At worst they see soldiers as potential career ending hazards to mitigate and suppress. Bad leaders do not trust their subordinates. Good leaders see soldiers as precious National resources not to be exploited, but to be mentored, cultivated, nurtured and employed wisely. Good leaders not only trust their subordinates but empower and develop them to their full potential. Good leaders leave a legacy of strong units and strong subordinates. Bad leaders leave disillusioned soldiers and damaged units in their wake. The worst leaders we now aptly refer to as “toxic” and the Army is taking some initial steps to better identify and eliminate those individuals. Grey leaders aren’t as obvious. But I would argue that even though they do less immediate damage their effect is more insidious and does greater long term damage than the more noticeable toxic leader.

My career began just as the Army was transitioning itself from a draft based to a volunteer based manning system following 10 years of war. Today we face a similar transition. My experience in the mid-70s was that many of our combat veteran NCOs and Officers had difficulties transitioning back to a “peacetime” Army mode. Many of the best and most talented voted with their feet and the Army made little effort to retain them. That was unfortunate. Moreover, many of those NCOs and Officers that stayed and thrived in a non-combat environment were mediocre at best. Consummate grey men they were good at following the rules and unfortunately rarely gave cause for elimination. The Army struggled for many years with these conformists who took up space, routinely moving up in the ranks but contributing very little. These Grey leaders even inflicted longer term damage to the Army beyond their individual tenures. Since leaders tend to promote subordinates who look like themselves, grey men tend to beget more grey men. Grey leaders love their subordinates to be grey men. Grey men never take chances; never make waves, and always obey all the rules.

The Army obviously does need disciplined personnel. But the Army needs as many bold, innovative, risk talking soldiers and leaders as it can get. The people we assess with this kind of talent are often more challenging to lead and retain but, when properly shaped and directed, are infinitely more valuable than the grey man. The timid conformists and risk adverse types fill slots but provide little real value. Zero defects policies associated with a “one strike and you’re out” methodology will certainly not engender boldness…but rather encourage and reward the grey men and grey leaders in our ranks. I’m certainly not against enforcing standards or in applying appropriate disciplinary measures to soldiers who need correction. However, I believe it should be in the context of making those individuals better soldiers, not as an easy force sizing tool that defaults to elimination for every offense.

Human nature being what it is, it is very tempting for leaders (even relatively good ones) to simply eliminate anyone who is a “problem” if the system allows them to. Rather than take the harder route of shaping that soldier into something better. The Army is talking a lot now about “managing talent”. But the fact is the mechanisms – and the mindset – are not there. Even after almost 40 years of a volunteer Army we still treat people essentially the same way we did when we had the draft, i.e. interchangeable and easily replaceable. That “one size has to fit all” methodology limits our ability to deal with people as individuals and to effectively leverage their respective talents in support of our mission. In most cases SOF units do better. But even we are often hamstrung by archaic personnel management tools that hurt anyone’s career that doesn’t move with the herd. Just as we have moved to a more information based operational environment, we must move to a more individual based personnel management system. And that system cannot be exclusively “up or out” and certainly not “one strike and you’re out.”

An Army whose ranks are filled only with gray men would be terrible. An Army that is also led by grey leaders would be a disaster. As we move forward with painful but mandated force reductions, I would strongly suggest that the Army would be better served by keeping as many of those so-called “trouble makers” in the ranks as possible. Leaders may have to work harder to productively harness the energy and talent of those individuals, but we will be the stronger for it. And our leaders will be better for making the effort. After we have eliminated the small minority of truly toxic leaders and the few absolutely unsalvageable soldiers, I say cull the grey men next – starting with grey leaders.

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 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.