Shovel ID?
 

Hi

Would I be correct in thinking this is a WW2 era shovel?? Military issue?

-36inches tall,
-"Bulldog" marked,
-"Patent 10-625" on the handle,

No "C-Broad arrow" to be seen though.

Waddya think?

regards
Darrell

Attachment 20762

Attachment 20763

Attachment 20764

I have those too, Darrell
 

We in NZ believe them to be Canadian made, issued with CMP vehicles.

I have seen pics of Kiwi infantry carrying these in the Italian campaign.
They certainly look like the ones in the CMP and UC parts lists.

Rob

Hi Rob

I should have mentioned that it is stamped "Made in Canada" on both sides of the handle just above the patent Stamping. Hard to see in the 3rd pic.

Still no C broad arrow mark that I can see. I may take a wire brush to it this weekend looking for one as it has the remnants of about 4 different layers of paint on the metal parts.

Thanks for your reply. Sometimes Kiwi beliefs are easy to swallow!!;)

Oh and please be careful around Fiordland National Park!!
http://www.canada.com/national/natio...daf78d70a6&p=1

regards
Darrell

I have a few of these shovels as well. I have yet to see one that is C/l\ marked. Same goes for the pick axe and handle....I have a number of these, and none of them are marked either.

I was in Doubtful Sound Fiordland last week . Never saw 1 moose carrying a shovel.

Hi Rob

Thanks for your reply. I have three of these now. One is about 3 inches longer though and has a different type shovel-head on it. Still all the same markings though. I have been all over all three and there is no sign of a broad arrow.

Graeme

Well then, consider yourself lucky you didn't!!! :D :)

regards
Darrell

A quick Google of BULLDOG SHOVEL reveals the following...

http://www.bulldogtools.co.uk/

They have about 200 different version of this shovel, just like the one in the photo. By chance are they British?

I asked this same question sometime ago because there was one fitted to my C15TA when I originally brought it.

Its certainly the correct pattern but obviously more evidence is required over there use. The British Army prefered T handled shovels.

Hi

No, I don't think it's British as it has "Made in Canada" stamped on it. Unless they mean just the metal parts of the handle but that doesn't seem to m,ake a lot of sense.

I too Googled it for a Canadian connection, and even tried to call Bulldog Technologies Inc in Richmond BC but the ph # doesn't work.

Oh well, it's not a priority or anything so I'll just keep looking off and on.

Thanks to all.

regards
Darrell

Today i found a Bulldog Shovel like the first post.
May be part of the tools inside some of the cmp that arrived in Argentina

Attachment 131461 Attachment 131462

Whenever I make it to one of the units on base and am in their battery/company level stores, I ask to look at their shovels, along with their old hydraulic jacks. They have donated more than a few of these shovels to the base museum, along with a few of the Walker hydraulic jacks. It is amazing how many decades some of this equipment has lasted.

Bulldog Shovel
 

Bulldog 1942.

Attachment 131463 Attachment 131464 Attachment 131465 Attachment 131466 Attachment 131467

Wooden shovel handles
 

Monday night is garbage night in my neighbourhood. Earlier this year I came home with a short wooden handled shovel that someone had let concrete dry on the blade. You've made me think it might be more relevant than just being an old shovel with a well-made D-handle.

Shovel on FGT bracket. The fuel tank filler cap, to close...

Attachment 132139

Ripping Yarns
 

Reminds me of the 'Ripping Yarns ' episode


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYpsz2eAKOs

Here is an extensive article on military WW2 shovels.

Looks like whatever make or style you have is correct.

http://jeepdraw.com/John_Barton1_Shovels.html

Anyone who has ever had to use a shovel in anger knows the extreme bend on a "jeep" shovel makes it very difficult to use properly while any of the more conventional straighter shank shovels are ergonomically superior.

Everyone talks about #2 being the correct shovel but those with other period styles may find #2 stamps on straighter shank varieties even long handled types. I think #2 referred to the size or possibly blade shape (round, square or coal-shovel). Because #2 is found on nearly all jeep curved shovels it has become legend it refers to them alone.

Lang

Just pulled 4 period shovels out of the shed. I am pretty well convinced the number refers to the shape/size of the blade and has nothing to do with a particular vehicle application or handle bends.

Here are 4 shovels.

1. Conventional "straight" 30 degree shank Stamped #2. The handle would stick out if fitted to a jeep.

2. "Jeep style" curved extreme 45 degree angle shank Stamped #2. Note blade is same as #1.

3 Conventional shank, angle same as #1, coal/sand/snow shovel large blade Stamped #3

4. Large conventional shank, angle same as #1, British "T" handle Stamped #5

Attachment 132282

There is more to shovels than meets the eye (except for Chinese beauties)

Here are Irish post-war regulations but I am sure every country had similar rules.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/.../made/en/print

Please note all this talk about shovels is totally wrong. A shovel has a long handle and a spade has a short handle.

Local language use describes a shovel or a spade by their shape, square or round - either way, in different places around the world, coal shovels and snow shovels but this is only tradition and not a manufacturers accepted desciption. In fact many people have never used the word spade for a digging instrument of any variety. Many experts, particularly gardening experts, on advice websites and hardware stores perpetuate this description. Then we have people talking about short or long shovels. Just because some technical writer who had never seen one called it a "shovel" in a manual or parts book does not make it so.

This is the important bit. Long handled shovels (or spades if you are a spade man) tend to have the blade in line with the handle for plunging and levering while standing erect - hard stuff and holes. Short handled spades (or shovels if you are a shovel man) have the blade angled for scooping and lifting - soft and loose stuff. You sometimes come upon a shovel or spade that has been fitted with the opposite handle and wonder why the thing has a useless angle. A bent spade shank and a straight shovel shank can both be exactly the same blade shape and both stamped #2.

PS Further info: The numbers refer to the size/weight not the shape. A #2 can be round or square and is the first and most common "man-sized" weight offered by manufacturers. #1, #00 and #0 are smaller garden, trench or specialist shovels/spades. #3, #4 and #5 are starting to get beyond amateur use and are made for operators with strength and skill ie concrete workers or boiler firemen.

Standard sizes may vary slightly between manufacturers but will be close to:

#2 9X12
#1 8 1/2x11
#00 7x9
#0 6x7 1/2

In the end in 99% of cases it matters not what you call it so long as you get the right size, handle length, blade angle and shape for the job in hand. Putting a long handle on a bent shank spade (round or square) is perfect to scoop sand from under the vehicle in the desert but useless for digging out of mud while putting a short handle on a straight shank shovel (square) is perfect for doing concrete grass edging but useless for filling the barrow with sand. Are they then shades and spovels?

And lastly "You can shovel some dirt out with a spade and spade the garden flat with a shovel"

Interestingly, in Dutch it is the other way around. A spade is used for plunging and levering while standing erect, a schep or schop is used for scooping and lifting soft and loose stuff.

Back to the first post: as far as I can tell the "Bulldog - Made in Canada" was made for the civilian market, but procured and issued to military users. The fact that it has a Patent marking and no WD C broad arrow /|\ marking is key to this.

I have seen them in plain wood handle with black metal parts, or green overall.

Tools like spades, shovels, picks were typically off the shelf items with no specific military requirements.

This does not mean they’re correct, though :) Many people call any military vehicle that has either armour or tracks, let alone both, a “tank” — does that make a Universal Carrier a tank, or an M29 Weasel?

The distinction is that a spade is an implement for digging, while a shovel is an implement for moving loose stuff around. It has nothing to do with what it looks like, but everything with what its intended use is. Look at the blade: if it’s strong, made from thick steel with a fairly sharp edge, the tool is most likely a spade; if it’s thin, usually pressed steel, the tool will probably be a shovel. Of course you can use a spade for shoveling stuff, or a shovel for digging a hole, but neither will work as well as the other for those jobs — especially if you try digging with a shovel in hard or sticky soil.

From now on, I will store my short handled shovel and my long handled spade with my left handed screw driver. :confused

Actually a great post Lang. Maybe you could delve into picks and mattocks?

Well here we go.

Why is a mattock called a mattock?
Etymology. From Middle English mattok (“mattock, pickaxe”), from Old English mattuc, meottoc, mettoc (“mattock, fork, trident”), from Proto-Germanic *mattukaz (“mattock, ploughshare”), from Proto-Indo-European *met- (“to cut, reap”).

1. A pick is a tool with a pointed end for breaking up hard soil or loosening rocks. Picks oftten have a large pointed end and a smaller pointed end. Many picks have the second point flattened to a horizontal cutting blade about 1 1/2" wide to allow a limited ability to cut through roots etc..

2. Pick-driver, miners pick or pick-hammer. This is a pick with only one pointed blade but the opposite side has a stub "hammer" for breaking rocks or hard lumps dug out by the pick. If you are a good shot it can be used for driving stakes and tent-pegs.

3. Pick-axe. There are two types. The Americans refer to a pick-axe as a tool that has one pointed end and a long flat blade with a sharp edge horizontal like a mattock but narrower and made for cutting roots etc. It can be used for digging.

In other places a pick-axe can be a tool with the narrow point and on the other side a shorter vertical "axe-like" blade for cutting roots etc. While it can not be used for digging like the American pick-axe it is far more efficient for chopping with similar charecteristics to a proper axe. See the blade on the Grubbing Mattock below.

4. Mattock. This is a tool that can have pick-like pointed end and a fairly short curved horizontal blade (much wider and usually shorter than the American pick axe blade) for chopping and digging. Some mattocks come without the pointed side and have the "Hammer" stub, some mattocks come with the vertical axe, probably most common, and some mattocks come with a large and small curved flat blade for different jobs.

5. A hoe, which does not come from New York, is a lighter tool with a broad horizontal blade with or without a pointed opposite side usually referred to as a gardening implement (tell this to people swinging them in a rice paddy)

Here is a selection. Americans commonly call all pick types a "Pick Axe" even if they have a point on each side or no opposite blade like a miners pick without any axe function at all. The rest of the world differentiates between Pick and Pick Axe.

Lastly a photo of what I have found to be almost universally seen in photos of American WW2 equipment. Shovel with steel "D" handle and normal blade angle, standard axe, mattock with round pick point (not the axe type)

Attachment 132339 Attachment 132340

Attachment 132341 Attachment 132344

Just a point on military shovels. During all this navel-gazing on picks and shovels I have looked at about 15 sites that have a study on the subject.

Those who say they were special military are only partly correct.

The vast bulk of shovels were whatever the contractor produced with the proviso he used the #2 standard dimension blade and 30 degree angle.

The split wood handles, like Darrell's and Mariano's above, are very pretty but several sites say they made up less than 10% of production. The rest being standard "D" metal handles. There were some shovels with all-wood "D" handles.

The British prefered the "T" handle and many British shovels were what would be #3 size and too big to handle easily in many circumstances.

Jeep shovels had to have a weird angle (45 degrees) to fit the vehicle and were unique. Many later contractors achieved the aim with their standard #2 conventional angle and a bent wooden shaft.

There were many complaints about the angle of jeep shovels and they were not popular with those requiring regular use.

The two photos are of the most common handle and the modified shaft to enable a standard shovel to fit a jeep.

In keeping with the British having the worst webbing of the mid-20th Century we have this "How to wear your equipment" official photo.

What idiot came up with this idea? What numerous idiots allowed it to become official? The soldier would have to remove his pack and shovel every time he sat down. Every time he climbed a fence the handle would catch on the wire and send him A over T. Who will clean the handle after he dropped his trousers and squatted? Every time he lay down the shovel would smack him on the back of the head. The shovel would prevent him craning his neck to observe his front properly while laying down. The jingle of his helmet against the shovel (that cover would be lost in 5 minutes) would delight the enemy. You can imagine how uncomfortable it would be with the pack pushing the handle into your shoulder blades.

Other photos are how the soldiers improvised some sensible way to carry a shovel without any help from the Army Research Establishment.

Pick or Pickaxe
 

See the Pickaxe dimensions thread for details on the US and British style pick or pickaxe

Load Carrying Equipment
 

I suspect these comments are your personal opinion and not based on any research given that the British influenced the design and evolution of load carrying equipment for the first half of the twentith century. While no particular webbing set was or is perfect, there has been a continual evaluation of webbing with a look at finding the best fit/balance to meet the needs of the military.

Finding a workable, lightweight infantry shovel has always been a challenge, and while I will agree that the entreching tool adapted by the British for the 1908 and 1937 Patterns was not the best; even the U.S. M1943 folding shovel (which was copied from the Germans) considered to be the superior design, had its limitations. I recall from my time in the army that as good as the current folding shovels were, nothing could top a full-size shovel for digging.

I offer this up for discussion, if the British did have the worst webbing of the mid-twentith century; then I suggest you have a look at the 1942 Pattern Battle Jerkin which is considered to be the predecessor of the modern tactical vest.

The 37 pattern webbing was primarily designed in line with trials in the 30's as the British army modernised and adapted to new equipment and weaponry. The Battledress suit was pretty revolutionary at the time and the new webbing design reflected the need for greater flexibility and to cater for the new section LMG - The Bren
One of the webbing sets drawbacks was that it tended to pull the waist belt up at the front when worn with the small pack and the cross straps didn't produce an even distribution of weight. Hence numerous modifications culminating in the 44 pattern design which was not generally issued, being primarily designed for tropical use (although used in Korea)

However the 37 pattern was actually quite adaptable. Due to its modular approach it could be assembled in numerous forms and additional items added or left out. Troops could fight light if needed and the various formats made to fit the requirements of various roles - infantry- Artillery - Transport - etc

The entrenching tool was never adequate for the type of digging in required by the Infantry. The section therefore carried a mix of picks and GS shovels to do the job. A common version of carrying position of the GS Shovel was tucked in the belt so that the head covered The lower abdomen and Liver area. There was some belief that The shovel head would provide some protection against low velocity fragments.

The Assault Jerkin was a great piece of load bearing kit, enabling troops to increase carrying capacity and had superior weight distribution characteristics. However it's key drawback was the inability to fight light - it was an all of nothing type of garment. Its pobably why the units issued with the jerkin almost completely reverted to standard webbing once the assault phase was over

If anything the modern day PLCE type equipment is a direct descendant of the good old 37 pattern kit.
Again a mix of my own opinion and historic record.

1942 Pattern Battle Jerkin
 

Yes, the trials documents all mention that the garment lacked ventilation making it warm to wear and that the fixed pouch arrangement did not allow for any changes. Although the designer, Col. Rivers-Macpherson, did envision that pouches could be removed by the wearer and we see this was done by RCN Beach Commando "W" when they replaced the front pouches with webbing Lanchester 50-round magazine Pouches.

As for D-Day use, the Battle Jerkin was issued in limited numbers to the British and Canadians for Op NEPTUNE - mainly the assault formations. The idea was that Battle Jerkin could easily carry the required 24 hours worth of rations and ammuniton required by these units to sustain them during the initial phase of the invasion. Once the beachhead was secured, these units would again be issued 1937 Pattern Web as this was the standard set of webbing for the army. Documents show that the assualt formations liked the Battle Jerkin and prior to D-Day were requesting more then could be supplied for their needs.

I thought the webbing comment would create some discussion. Many of us of older years have worn the British gear.

The problems to my mind were the lack of flexibility in "fine tuning" to suit the load and personal shape with stiff straps and fixed attach points. Photos show the gear riding up or hanging down, many belts up around their rib cages. Most countries developed a multi-hole and/or sliding buckle system in belts and load-bearing points to allow quick change, according to load and individual comfort as the British started to do post-war.

The webbing itself was far too thick and inflexible and I am sure other armys' thinner softer more comfortable webbing lasted just as long. Once again the British softened their post-war webbing.

Lastly and most importantly the British put those useless square buckles on everything from personal kit to vehicle and equipment straps and persisted right up to modern times.

You can not get them tight easily, you can not adjust them quickly and easily and if you do manage to get them tight they are really hard to loosen off. The hook, spring or lock slide, pull-through buckles of the Americans and many others and even the old fashioned trouser-belt pin and hole type buckle were far more user friendly.

As far as the jerkins go, only a miniscule number of the millions of British Empire troops were issued them and their existence alone said they realised there had to be something better. You can see photos of African big game hunters in what are now commonly known as "photographers jackets" with 20 pockets and pouches going back to the late 1800's. I can not believe the stuff the boys now carry in their multi pocket, modular unit kits although the day of mass moving whole units on a route march on foot 50 miles in 2 or 3 days is long past.

All sorts of legends about the weight soldiers carried, particularly WW1, but I bet most modern infantrymen would be very happy to revert to a WW1 soldier's load.

Hanno probably a new thread.

1942 Pattern Battle Jerkins
 

Again, this must be your take on the Assault Jerkin as it is not supported by any period documentation. In fact, the design was well-liked and considered ground-breaking to the extent that it was copied by the Americans.

Rather than using images of reproduction items lifted from other websites, I prefer originals and have attached a photograph of a 1942 Pattern Battle Jerkin from my collection.

Attachment 132358

Of course, you can always find out the full story of the Assault Jerkin by having a look at this book that was published in 2014.

Attachment 132359