more images
 

Remaining images from from previous post. The last image of the die-cast pourer for the 4 gal drum originally had a flexible rubber hose attached with an external spring-like wire for strength and stiffening.

Mike

Thanks for posting Mike . Very interesting !!

My cans are dated from 1941 to 1944 . No 1945 . I also have a brand new 1951 dated 1 Gallon can .

Found a 1940 dated one somewhere else in the cache.

No 1945 dated ones in my collection either; just 1940 to 1944. But here's an oddity from my collection; 1941 dated with "PETROLEUM SPIRIT HIGHLY INFLAMMABLE" embossed in the top. Question: when did the Canadian manufacturers stop putting that warning on top of the 2 gallon cans? I thought it was 1940, but this suggests otherwise? :confused Paint is non-original, BTW.

Thanks!
Owen.

Now that’s a good question Owen . I will have a look at my cans next year ..... ( tomorrow ) .. Answer : None of my cans have the warning .

4 gallon can
 

4 gallon flimsy can acquired today. B.M.B. 1939 example. Not sure about the paint, probably re-painted over a sandy color. These seem to be quite rare.

Latest production?
 

How late were the 2 Gal cans manufactured for the military?

I have a few W^D 20lt jerry cans from the early 50's, and had thought that these superseded the 2 Gal types.

But on Ebay UK at the moment is a 1955 dated 2 Gal can (https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/VINTAGE-...YAAOSw8b1gSKcV)

Were they made much later than the mid-50's?

Meanwhile, yet another listing on Ebay shows and ad for an Australian Oil Company from 1949 promoting surplus British 20lt cans filled with engine oil.
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Ampol-Mo...QAAOSwQwZaVsqe

So by 1949, the British Army was already disposing of surplus 20lt Jerries, but was still making 2 Gal cans in 1955.

Tony,
That can on Ebay is actually a WD Water can as it does not have the 'petroleum' script embossed on it. I have a new unissued one dated 1950's era painted in gloss Deep Bronze Green with WATER stenciled on the side. There were still vehicles in service at that time, that had stowage for 2 gallon cans but not for jerricans.

As for the Ampol jerrican, over here in UK a friend recently bought an old jerrican with Shell logo and oil grade on it, so they were obviously utilised after the war when there was a shortage of steel.
regards, Richard

Thanks Dusan , Tony & Richard , amazing information . Keep it coming !

I think what Dusonn has is not a "Flimsy" I have one and they are much heavier with a screw cap. Mine is dated 1940 and it has been suggested that they are a food container? (Soup-Stew etc)

My 1942 "Flimsy" is just that! Very flimsy by comparison with a pull off cap (like a ring pull) Ron

Nice Ron . I see MT 80 . Motor Transport 80 Weight motor oil i suggest . It is punched on the side away from the opening to let air in when emptying . A flimsy is a one time use container . As for carrying soup / food in a 4 gallon tin can and with such a small opening ..... don’t know. But that model of can is reusable compared to a flimsy. MODERATOR : Please change the title of my thread to :Allied POL & Water containers . Thanks .

Hi Robert. I've never heard of Flimsy's being used for oil. 80 was the octane rating (pool petrol). You can actually see 80 on a couple of the cans in this stack. Ron :thup2:

I agree with the 80 being more likely octane than oil viscosity.

Consider that many cars now use 0 weight oil for fuel economy and ease of cold starting. In the WW2 period 30 weight was fairly common. I've never owned a vehicle tha called for anything heavier than 20W50 (motorcycle and 1976 VW and the VW only called for 20W50 for sustained very hot weather driving, mabe a holdover from the aircooled Beetle?) Oils in the 75 and above viscosity range are more often gear oil for transmission or axle use.
In that period, 50 octane gas was still in use, 70 considered regular, 80 a great improvement 100 for high powered aircraft engines and I don't think 130 and 145 aero fuels came along until post war. To further confuse things, fuels were often dual rated (eg. 80/87 or 100/130 for lean and rich mixtures - more commonly seen when dealing with aircraft where the pilot can directly control the mixture).

Flimsy for petrol
 

I agree with Grant & Ron: I've interviewed a number of Aust WW2 vets (many years ago now!) who served in North Africa, and the norm described was flimsys for fuel, more robust, reusable 1 gallon cans for oil.

A transport Sgt told me he always had a long sharp-pointed piece of steel in his truck, as did others. To refuel, hold the flimsy against the petrol tank spout, jab the steel through the flimsy top, all the way through the bottom in line with the spout. No pouring needed: air in the top hole, fuel out the bottom. Once emptied enough, chuck flimsy away.

The funnel in Ron's image is interesting: these had a gauze filter, and were still being made for the Aust Army in the 1980s, to drawings dated in the 1930s.

Mike

I've seen lots of Women MT Drivers in Wartime pics before, even a smattering of Pilots.
I think this is the first pic I've ever seen of female Motorcyclists.

Blimey Tony! I can show you loads of them. How about this group? The girl fourth from the left is actually Honor Blackman. Ron

Oops! Forgot to download. Ron

Here is 4 gallon I was lucky to get recently, the cap is a newly cast.

Heres a thing. The (minimum) octane rating on a 16 April, 1942 Jeep stated "68" Maybe the "80" refers to specific gravity of POL products for the weight calculation? Oil and petrol being approx. .8 sg?. Just a thought....

Sure, some of you are looking at the tins, other for some strange reason at the women. But for me it's the battledress and markings on the bikes. The formation flash seems to be SHAEF Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force with trade or other badges below. British obviously otherwise the bike number would be "CC". If it is the supreme headquarters you have to wonder just how all the cute DR riders happened to be attached there.

We are straying a bit off topic. But I'm quite sure that the girls were only ever UK based. Despatches for the Home Office and between RN, RAF and Army bases. Ron

I think Octane remains more likely. If 70 octane rating was "regular", with lower numbers being still available it would be reasonable if the Jeep required a minimum of 68 to specify the minimum to avoid someone using lower values. Surely the point of marking the tin is to ensure the correct product ends up in the correct vehicle but I've never heard of specific gravity of fuel or oil varying much (except with temperature - jet aircraft plan their required fuel load for a flight by weight since the energy content varies more accurately by weight than volume, then convert to volume, depending on temperature, for ease of measuring when pumping into the aircraft).

Google is one's friend, especially wrt this MT80 conundrum.


"RESTRICTED
I. – REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION OF M.T.80 PETROL

1. Certain American armoured fighting vehicles, in use both by British and American armies, were fitted with de-rated aircraft engines which required a fuel with a minimum octane rating of 80.

2. After due consideration, it was decided that it was impracticable to stock two different octane rating fuels within the army, and it was, therefore, decided that the basic army fuel would be of 80 octane rating and that this fuel would be the standard supply for all types of vehicles within the British and American armies."


Good discussion on it at this link: http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads...of-mt80.58510/

Guys, i don’t mind lovely women . It’s a nice change from rusty old cans. 80 is an aviation fuel rating ( 80/87) . It is also an hydraulic / transmission oil rating . I accept Rob’s explanation . MT 80 stands for 80 Octane grade motor transport gasoline . I also agree a flimsy is unlikely to have been used for oil . Keep them coming !

Would DR's wear street shoes and pants?

Hansard, 13th November 1950:

Mr Russell asked the Minister for Fuel and Power if he will consider raising the standard of pool petrol to approximately 80 octane.

(Answer: basically not without substantially increasing its lead content, which might cause maintenance issues with British engines.)

Further down:

Mr Noel-Baker "Before the war we had three grades of petrol - commercial 68 octane, No.1 grade 75 octane and top grade 80 octane. I am advised that very few vehicles used 80 octane. Nearly all of them used the other grades. To raise our petrol to even 75 octane would mean a loss of output."

Much later...

The 1967 British Standard "Star" system had:

1 Star - 89 octane "Standard" or "Regular" (89 - 91)
2 Star - 92 octane
3 Star - 95 octane "Mixture" (by mixing Premium and Regular)
4 Star - 98 octane "Premium" (96 - 98)
5 Star - 101 octane "Super" (99 - 101)

Chris.

Highly unlikely. They sometimes wore shorts in hot climates but usually with boots and sometimes Kinky Boots! Ron

Ron , you are fixated on female motorcyclists ! Show us their “cans” .... because that is the subject of this thread . Let’s stay on track “can” we ?

I'm not fixated. I merely posted a picture with girls because of their cans. Others then asked questions. I think it's better to talk about something, than nothing, which seems to be the case a lot of the time! Sorry to piss on your firework. Ron