Talk:C-ration

message: C-Rations were still being used in 1983 when I left the Army in Germany as a Supply Specialist. I don't know where this information was found, but, since I was there, it  just looks to me like most of this was just made up. Another example of a lot of words and little research.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CA8:6800:658C:3E0:E76E:7BCD (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates are wrong

message: I suppose this article is accurate in the sense that it makes the best sense possible from the gibberish in a US Army field manual. But, as an infantry veteran of Vietnam (1968-1969 9th Infantry) I can say that it really doesn't describe Cs very well.
A case of C-rations contained 12 boxes, each one represented a meal. So, a case had enough food for four men for a day, or one man for four days. Each case consisted of a carboard box, about the size of a case of beer, which was slid inside a cardboard sleeve. The whole case was bound with baling wire so the inner case wouldn't slide out of the sleeve. We used the three-pronged flash supressor on an M-16 rifle as a wrench to twist the wire and cut it. Otherwise we would not have been able to get at the rations inside.
Meals came in several different menus. There were two general layouts for a meal: the entre in a large can - about the size of can of Campbell's concentrated soup; the entre in a small can - a little larger than a small can of tuna. Of course some of the menus were more desirable than others. Ham and eggs were nearly inedible, most soldiers would rather go hungry than try to choke down that slimy, yellowy-gray mass. Other menus were better, none were delectible.
Some of the large-can meals were:
Meatballs and beans. These were ordinary canned beans packed with meatballs to give the meal some heft.
Spaghetti and meatballs. This was pretty similar to ordinary supermarket canned spaghetti.
Beans and franks.
The small-can meals had a can about the diameter of a typical tuna can but somewhat higher, maybe two inches. Inside were patties of various meats. All these meals were acceptible. Some of these were:
Ham, sliced, cooked and canned, water added.
Pork.
Turkey.
The large can meals came with a small can treat. Some of these were poundcake, crackers and cheese, crackers and peanut butter or jelly. The small can meals came with a large can treat. Some of these were fruit cocktail, canned peaches etc. It was considered especially lucky to draw a pair of meals with pound cake and fruit cocktail which were then eaten together.
The crackers and cheese, peanut butter,or jelly treats consisted of a outer can holding four or five crackers and an inner can filled with one or another of the various spreads. The trick was to open the outer can upside-down so the inner can could be removed without first removing all the crackers - we didn't have particularly clean hands. The inner can was then opened so the contents could be scooped out with the crackers.
In the mornings before moving out of our RON (remain overnight) position, we had to destroy anything of value to be left behind. This included food. We would build a fire from the cardboard C-ration cases. We'd punch a hole in any ration can to be left behind and toss it into the fire. The hole allowed steam to escape. Occasionally someone would throw in a cracker can with an unpunctured peanut butter/jelly/cheese inner can. The inner can would, of course, explode from steam build up spattering anyone around with the molten contents. This was termed a 'peanut butter claymore' and was considered very funny.
C-rations were monotonous. We ate them every day while we were in the field, which was almost always. I never got a hot meal delivered in the field despite what the Army says. Cs would be acceptible on an occasional basis, say a civilian on a weekend camping trip, but for everyday fare they were terrible.
Peter70.253.173.49 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-rations: a memoir 

message: Why was the "iron ration" called that if no iron was included in the food or its packaging? Badagnani (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron ration 

message: Strongly disagree on merging. For those of us who have had to eat C-rats for a month at a time, during a 21+ year career.... no way. C-rat should be a stand alone article because it is unique. It is a part of our history. It is not supporting any organization. And they do not around anymore. Keep it as a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.184.143 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, thinking about names, History of rations of the military of the United States might work better. 3-sphere (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a fine idea to consolidate some of the smaller articles. It would be necessary, I think, to make sure that the proposed merge doesn't end up duplicating United States military ration.—Bellhalla (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it's considered not good to preserve each article. Badagnani (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're all past rations, and the individual articles tend to be both stubs and overlap on each other. A consolidated article could take the same information but present it in a more chronological view. 3-sphere (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, thinking about it, merging the smaller articles into United States military ration (and editing the rest to smooth them out and eliminate redundancies) might be the way to go. 3-sphere (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Patience, I say. Just wait a bit. There's a lot to be added yet on past field rations of WWII, not to mention the bureaucratic infighting that forced the troops of a wealthy nation to carry heavy wet canned rations around in socks during multi-day jungle patrols as late as the Vietnam War. Merging all those articles will result in a huge and unwieldy section; I fear, based on past experience, much information will be either intentionally or unintentionally deleted. Don't forget that just because an article is a stub, it won't grow into something much, much larger. Field rations were a source of much controversy in WWII and later as the result of economization and standardization policies by bean-counting Quartermaster Branch officials. The fact that World War II field rations had a significant impact on combat operations (including some quite famous military units) means that they will undoubtedly be expanded in the future. (Don 17) 20:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that each is worthy of its own article. Combining them into one would imply that each is not important in itself. That's one arguement, but I don't agree with it! Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

text: This is not to say that "History of rations of the military of the United States" is a bad idea. That overview article would just contain less info about each individual ration than is in the individual articles. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps 'History of United States Military Rations" would flow better? That said, I would agree; a broad overview in the form of a chronological timeline might be ideal for such a page. Theogrin (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm removing the merge tag. It's been 8 months since this discussion started, the opposition was already fairly strong, and most of the articles are well beyond stub status at this point. ENeville (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I have a proposal that will satisfy everyone (i hope). Make a main article under what ever heading History of rations of the military of the United States, History of rations of the military of the United States or some other name. Write a short summary of each ration pack (or merge the stubs), and add a link to the main articles of the longer ones. This would give a good overview of how the development of the ration packs to the present day packs, happened. Who agrees that this is a good idea? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk |  Sign 18:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article idea 

message: Why not just reduce the definition of all "military rations" articles to just "food et by da millytarry". It will just continue the current intellectual trend by the troll community. Hotspur23 (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: "The C ration was replaced in 1958 with the Meal Combat Individual (MCI). Although officially a new ration, the MCI was derived from and very similar to the original C ration, and in fact continued to be called "C rations" by American troops throughout its service life (1958-1980), although this nomenclature is, in a strictly technical sense, incorrect."
The date is wrong. I'm not certain where the author of the article obtain the dates, but 1980 is incorrect for the end of the C-rat service life.
While stationed in Germany with the US Army, we were issued C-rats through brigade supply well into 1983. I clearly remember when the MRE's began to replace C-rats. As the platoon toolman, I had some twenty cartons of C-rats in the platoon's tool trailer that lasted for just over a year after the MRE's began to arrive. When I left Germany in 1984, there was one carton left.TheOnlyChainsaw (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The date is not wrong; the last MCI (not C-rations) rations were produced in 1980. The Army QM branch records the historical discontinue date as the date the ration was officially discontinued, not when the last case of rations left the supply warehouse or the last ration was eaten by a trooper. Standard Army QM policy is for discontinued rations to be issued until depleted, at which time the new ration is supposed to be distributed, but in reality and practice there is no way to accurately determine when the last case of discontinued rations will reach the last unit or the last soldier to eat them. Sometimes, they are given away as relief aid instead, years after the army quits using them. Similarly, date of introduction means the date a combat ration was either type-classified for adoption or was first produced, not when the first ration package reached the first soldier. For example the MRE was adopted as the Department of Defense combat ration in 1975. However, due to budget problems a large-scale production test did not even take place until 1978 with first delivery to Army stores of the MRE in 1981 - with rations dated "1981", the first year of official production.Dellant (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: MCI service life 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on C-ration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025014022/http://www.qmfound.com:80/army_rations_historical_background.htm to http://qmfound.com/army_rations_historical_background.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The description under the photo of the opened “B” unit describes it as a 1941 can. In it, a chocolate fudge disk can be seen. However, in the article, it says that the chocolate fudge disk wasn’t added until 1944. Perhaps the photo is incorrectly dated? 2600:1005:B0C1:8A1B:5D:9AD1:FA6:94E9 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  “B” unit date