Kerosene cans [not petrol] for carrying water

[michaeldr]

Mea culpa - Please excuse my carelessness, but I've have mislaid the original the reference for this

However, I clearly remember a Gallipoli MO, or more probably one of the Naval surgeons with the RND, explaining that Kerosene cans, and not Petrol cans, must be used for carrying water.

The reason he gave for this was that he had seen too many hand wounds resulting from men carrying the petrol cans.

Can anyone explain to me the difference between to these two types of cans? Or better yet, can anyone come up with an illustration of the difference?

 

Thanks in advance.

Michael

[Pompey]

Michael,

I know that the petrol cans of that era had a flat metal handle which is really uncomfortable to carry a full can for any distance as they cut in and stop the blood flow to your fingers.  The oil cans of the time, however had a round wire and wood handle similar to a bucket handle and much more user friendly.  I can only assume that the Kerosene can was of the same manufacture.

REgards

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Depends on what was meant by petrol and kerosene cans.

IWM photos show different types of petrol can:

Small (maybe 1 gallon?) https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205247233

and large (maybe between 2 and 5 gallons?) https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205236607

'Kerosene tin' : https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205183512

Edited 6 July , 2021 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[Pompey]

Standard 2 gallon petrol can dated 1917

[michaeldr]

Pompey & Dai,

Thank you both for your interest and help here. Thank you also for mentioning the size; another oversight for which I apologise.

 

The transport from the beach, or the Supply Depot, was by mule,

and each mule carried four, 4-gallon Kerosene Cans (or tins in some accounts).

The problem with hand wounds must have occurred either when loading, or more likely,

at the unloading and distribution stage. This latter would have been by the battalion concerned,

and hence the involvement of the battalion MO/Surgeon to attend to the resulting hand wounds if Petrol Cans had been used instead of Kerosene ones.

 

An alternative scenario is the collection of water from a well. In which case the man-handling and carry would have very probably been further and the strain/stress on the men's hands greater, resulting in the more likelihood of wounds if the wrong cans had been used.

 

regards

Michael

Edited 6 July , 2021 by michaeldr

[michaeldr]

The difference between the two sorts of can, especially the handles as referred to by the Naval Surgeon serving with the RND, can be seen below. The Kerosene can has a rounded half ellipse for a handle, while the handle of the petrol can was straight. Apparently the rounded nature of kerosene handle did not cause the damage or injuries which the petrol can's straight handle did.

The first cans are kerosene

the second are petrol

[arantxa]

Hi

where di i locate the date..mine has a small broad arrow on the can..its grey and you can faintly see the word WATER..possibly it was green at one time i wonder if you can date them

[GWF1967]

4 hours ago, arantxa said:

Hi

where di i locate the date..mine has a small broad arrow on the can..its grey and you can faintly see the word WATER..possibly it was green at one time i wonder if you can date them

I think your can was used by A.S.C. Motor Transport. Sometimes dated underneath. 

[Great War Truck]

I think that your can is post WW1. WW1 cans mostly have the spout at an angle and have the date stamped on one end of the handle and the manufacturers name on the other end.

[arantxa]

Thank you for that ...it clarity’s things and I did once find a part on the battle fields and the spout had an angle to it 

[TullochArd]

On 06/07/2021 at 10:49, Pompey said:

Michael,

I know that the petrol cans of that era had a flat metal handle which is really uncomfortable to carry a full can for any distance as they cut in and stop the blood flow to your fingers.  The oil cans of the time, however had a round wire and wood handle similar to a bucket handle and much more user friendly.  I can only assume that the Kerosene can was of the same manufacture.

REgards

....... good selection of cans to choose from on this photo titled "Filtered water stored in cans and old petrol tins for the troops on Gallipoli"  I'd certainly prefer to carry the cylindrical ones with the wooden handle. The square ones shown here have a very thin wire handle.......notice how many of them have home made rope handles added.  These are the square 4 gallon "flimsies" that proved an awkward and significant weight to carry/manhandle.

Off on a tangent, this is a forum after all, Army Service Corps memo from 11 June 1915 states "all tins that are used for oil, paraffin and water must be painted black, with a white W, P or O as the case may be marked on both sides. "Tins that are used for petrol are to be left their original colour" ........ I suspect that particular memo didn't reach the troops in this photo.

Edited 28 April , 2022 by TullochArd
Off on a tangent .......

[arantxa]

super picture  !!!!!

[TullochArd]

Regarding earlier photo - a period 4 Gallon container - heavy, awkward with a poor carrying handle.

Edited 28 April , 2022 by TullochArd

[Fromelles]

Part of the AWM collection: 'Water carrier' by Wallace Anderson (1923) 

Description

Bronze statue of a First World War soldier wearing 'ANZAC uniform' (bare torso, shorts made from cut down trousers, hat, boots and socks) carrying three four-gallon tins used for water storage and collection.

[michaeldr]

If the cans were full, then that's a fair old weight he's lugging

If I'm not mistaken then about 54+ kilos

[Fromelles]

I think they are 2 gallon tins

[michaeldr]

I think that you are very likely right (and the AWM caption wrong). A very impressive bronze nevertheless

[Fromelles]

Still heavy enough, up those slopes in the height of summer.... no thanks