So from WW2 to the present day the US has had some pretty terrible combat field rations. So the challenge is to improve US rations as much as feasibly, technologically, economically, and strategicly possible. So what do you change? What do you introduce tech wise and when? What styles do you go for.
Improve US Combat Rations both in WW2 and After
- Thread starter Father Maryland
- Start date
US rations in WW2 were notoriously good. So much so that the additional strain it placed on the supply chain was a real concern.
They had ice cream barges in the Pacific.
This was referring more towards "Field Rations" which generally mean rations for the ground forces in the field versus the food consumed in garrisons or by the Air/Naval rations which generally are considerably better.
marathag
Banned
Increase selection of meals
increase portions of meals, not enough calories.
have more portable stoves. The German stove was some of the few items that would be captured and reused.
Fewer cold meals is a real bonus
Make the D Ration neutral tasting, than actively bad tasting, so troops wouldn't eat them unless really necessary
include more of the larger opener
increase portions of meals, not enough calories.
have more portable stoves. The German stove was some of the few items that would be captured and reused.
Fewer cold meals is a real bonus
Make the D Ration neutral tasting, than actively bad tasting, so troops wouldn't eat them unless really necessary
include more of the larger opener
Driftless
Donor
He's too young for the OP, but Julia's buddy, Jacques Pepin would have been a good choice. He was a cook in the 1950's French Army before becoming a big time chef. He cooks fancy meals, but he also is a specialist in country cooking, where you make do with what you have on hand and use it well
I am wondering how many of those who reply to this thread actually eat combat rations for any length of time? I have eaten my share of Meal, Combat, Individual and Meal, Ready-to-Eat and although they were not mom's cooking they were not too bad. As for World War 2 rations, considering the time, technology and conditions the ration supplied to troops in the field were on the whole good and better than our allies and enemies.
Driftless
Donor
Yup. The Landjager sausage is a good example, or jerky (as long as you keep it dry).
Something quick to eat, if you are on a short break on a road march, or you're stuck in a foxhole in December in Belgium, freezing your testicles off.
That was not the opinion of those who examined it at the time. It was meant to be an emergency ration for a maximum of 10 days. When reviewed later in the war it was recommended that it not be used for more than 5 unless it was supplemented with other food to increase caloric and vitamin uptake. Most other armies issued camp stoves that allowed less preserved rations to be eaten while away from larger unit kitchens.
Having looked into it apparently the early versions of the ration did include pemmican bars. Though I think they were replaced in the final ration. The main issue seems to be, as identified by @marathag that the caloric intake was too low and the selection too limited.
In 1942 a paratrooper platoon tested the K-rations in Panama for Jungle effectiveness. However, they only tested it for 3 days and did not patrol in the jungle but rather on flat or gently rolling terrain and cleared roads and only 11 miles per day. At the end of it they were weighed and since there was no abnormal weight loss K-rations were certified for jungle troops. On the strength of this test the mountain and jungle rations (both of which had around 4000 calories per man per day) were discontinued in 1943. If they had done proper testing they may have found some of the deficiencies in the standard rations earlier. This is only likely to affect certain troops, but it was the troops that would be hit hardest by low caloric intake.
Alternatively, you could try shaking up the U.S Army Quartermasters. They apparently hated the non-standard rations as they were more expensive to procure and ship. They continued to insist that one K-ration was sufficient for any soldier, in any environment, in spite of evidence of malnutrition among G.I's in the later war.
The Mountain ration was apparently more efficient in calories provided per pound of ration. If a scaled down version were created for the common ration (3000-3200 calories) it might actually be easier to ship (though probably still more expensive) than the K-ration.
USA had specialized jungle and moutain rations, both were acording do wiki treated by soldiers as better than K-rations both in taste and nutrition. But both of them weren't more widespread due need of industrial capacity for K and C rations production.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Jungle ration - Wikipedia
Mountain ration - Wikipedia
They definitely weren't, in both the North-West Europe and Italian campaign it was repeatedly noted that British field rations did a much better job of keeping troops in contact supplied with their calorific needs. US hot rations prepared by field kitchens, mainly supplied to rear area troops and combat units when out of the line were by far and away the best but so what?
marathag
Banned
Being an Army Brat, grew up eating that at times, since was 'free' food.
But some selections were not that great.
Then having to eat the same meal for weeks at a time?
Bleh.
Army needed to have highly mobile kitchens in the back of a 1.5 ton truck, but didn't.
C and K were meant to be temporary, and were not.
I think trying for flameless ration heaters (The type that just need water to activate) is probably asking too much for WW2. Probably more realistic (and definitely doable with the tech) would be some sort of small folding camping stove with solid chemical esbit tablets. Include one new small cheap folding stove in every so many rations and one fuel tablet for say every meal can. Other nations did equip their troops with this type of small folding stove and small solid chemical fuel tablets. From what I can recall the US did issue some of this type of small folding stove in some theaters to some troops but they were pretty rare. More common though still under issued was a sort of gasoline stove (Which I think was really just a large can that gasoline would be poured into and ignited instead of modern gasoline/white gas/propane camping stoves.) Which were issued to something like one a company.
The closest thing to what you're talking about would be "Self Heating Soup" cans that saw extremely limited distribution late in the war on the Western Front. They were less "Flameless" and more a specially built soup can with a chemical 'Candle" in the middle which would be ignited by a cigarette and then heat the soup. They didn't see very widespread distribution or use and were more or less forgotten until similar "Self Heating Soup" cans became popular on the high end camping scene decades later. The biggest problem with them was cost from what I can recall. Namely that they cost something like a dozen times what a normal soup can would cost. I believe their was also some (somewhat overstated) fear of the pressurized soup cans (with a big stick of flammable chemicals in the middle) would explode if improperly used or hit by shrapnel.