Talk:K-ration

Lunch, Dinner and Supper terminology correction

In the research I've done, Dinner is more closely associated with a midday meal("Lunch"), especially when compared/paired with Supper, which always refers to a late evening meal. (References here, Find On Page:"supper" for the most relevant spots of reference [[1]] ) The original first paragraph of this page read

"The K-ration provided three separately boxed meal units: Breakfast, Supper, and Dinner." And when you hovered over "Supper", it showed "Lunch" as hover text.

From Wikipedia Page on Supper: "During World War II, rations in the U.S. military were still divided into breakfast, dinner, and supper, using the traditional designations for meals. In most parts of the United States and Canada today, "supper" and "dinner" are considered synonyms (although supper is a more antiquated term)"

I did some extra research to be sure, and I feel confident about correcting this mix-up. I present as additional evidence a tangentially-related real-world example of a menu card out of a 1957 MRE ration kit: The entity that made these rations agreed that Dinner = Midday meal and Supper = last meal. https://www.youtube.com/vkWM6mz_JVo?t=246 Thus, I'm changing the wording accordingly, and re-ordering the meals into intended chronological daily order. English is already crazy weird, and this dinner=lunch confusion has always had my sympathy for ESL persons. Equating supper with lunch, --this is the first time I've seen that. So grievous that I had to act. Chandell (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

For World War II. That is the terminology that was used for the K-ration see page 9 and 10 Breakfast, Dinner, and Supper that is how they were Issued for the us military in World War II. .http://www.90thidpg.us/Paperwork/Research/Misc/QMC%2017-3.pdfDriverofknowledge (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

That is a much better reference than I was able to find, thank you! Chandell (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem its very detailed with the meals.Driverofknowledge (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Mystery K

Any idea what the K in K-ration stands for? --Maikel 09:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The article itself is a bit all over the place on this topic, I tried to clear it up but I am uncertain as to how successful I was. It looks like it was named after the guy who, more or less, invented them. Don't really know myself though. --Hydraton31 08:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Likely for "Keyes Ration", after the guy who thought of em.--74.226.195.28 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Some believed the K-ration was named after Dr. Keys or was short for "Commando" (as elite troops were the first to receive it). However, the letter "K" was selected because it was phonetically distinct from other letter-name rations.

This is an excerpt from this Wikipedia page.

I believe this is your answer. 2001:48F8:7052:71F:90CD:250:5694:64C1 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

8300?

Can somebody please verify that one day's worth of K-rations did indeed contain 8300 (kilo)calories? 8300 kc is a freakin' lot, even when taking into account that soldiers in the field need much energy. Compare with MREs, where 3 such contain a total of 3600 kc. That's a much more reasonable amount of food energy, even for people working quite hard. I once read that old-style lumber jacks would need as much as 17500 kjoule a day, which is only around 4200 kc (compare 15000 kJ for 3xMRE). Sure, perhaps 3-MREs-a-day is a little low for young men in extreme situations, but 8300 is too much.--Peter Knutsen 00:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing that is a miscalculation, attributing the daily estimate of 2400 or so calories to to each meal. This is somewhat ironic, given that elsewhere in the text, the ration is alluded to as resulting in malnutrition.... Partly because commanders were making this same mistake. 68.186.234.8 (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Boy Scouts?

Boy Scouts use k_Rations nowadays? Really? Where would they get sixty year old rations? Deleted. (All the ration articles need attention. It seems non-experts are editing them with great energy._ Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Linkspam?

Is that what's causing the formatting errors present in the article since 2009?

Text and Image Inconsistent

The image of the K-ration shows 4 cigarettes packed into the supper unit. However, the text says that the cigarettes were included with the dinner unit. I assume the picture is accurate, but I wonder if there are other problems with the content list. Atterlep (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Matches

(Undid revision 806226858 by Anmccaff (talk) a/ Dont be sarky son, I have an extensive knowledge of this subject and b/ take to talk) I'll be as "sarky" as I like, child, I might even get a little cutty. There are extensive references to matches in K-rats, from far better sources than Some Guy on Youtube.

Next, it's BRD, not BRR. You made a major change, I reverted it, folks discuss.

Finally, lots of people have "extensive knowledge" of all sorts of subjects, but if they don't publish them elsewhere, that doesn't matter much here.Anmccaff (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't act like a WP:DICK and you will not be treated like one. Now, are you going to discuss this properly or not? I requested you to take to talk, which you have done. So, the requirements of BRD are satisfied. You will note in my previous edits I was changing the reference to matches. I was genuinely unsure. The material is sound, and it is irrelevant who is opening the boxes. However, 3 original K ration units, breakfast, dinner and supper, from a 1942 to a 1945 timeframe were opened, and none contained matches. The reviewer quite specifically comments on this in one. They are here, here, and here. They are worth watching. In the meantime you will find in Report of Wartime Problems in Subsistence research and Development, Vol VII pg 48, fig 20 that matches were only added to K ration units in 1945. Link here. So we have a definite issue in the menu section. You will find if you play nice, so will I. Irondome (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

We have discussed this properly, I think. Well, I have. I've pointed out that you have based an edit on OR. You have responded , it looks like, by playing the age card, which punks born in the 1960s should use with extreme caution. You have then, it appears, claimed that a single example of something proves it is true as a generality. Some of these undoubtedly didn't have matches, gum, or any of the other smaller objects in them, even if they were supposed to. Product defects don't change the general specs. Note also, that the person opening these was expecting to find them; if he has any real expertise, that's a point in the other direction. Finally, note that several package's markings do claim to contain matches, and display used as an illustration sourced to '43, shows them. You follow on with a dead-end link - "media not available online" of a fairly difficult to access work, at least online. DTIC has a different source online [www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA131903 here] which covers Ks on pp 29 forward. It claims that the things started with matches spec'd in 1943.

Now, you've also moved on to a search for Dick. Well, seek and ye shall find, I suppose.

Nothing you've mentioned above supports removing the reference to matches, at best to claiming they were added later than several authoritative texts suggest. Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Since I wrote this, youve changed your edit to:

Don't act like a WP:DICK and you will not be treated like one. Now, are you going to discuss this properly or not? I requested you to take to talk, which you have done. So, the requirements of BRD are satisfied. You will note in my previous edits I was changing the reference to matches. I was genuinely unsure. The You Tube videos are interesting. The units are original and unopened and it is irrelevant who is opening the boxes. The channel owner certainly is respectful and historically minded in his reviews, and appears to have links to the subsistence museum in the U.S. I am aware it is not a WP:RS However, 3 original K ration units, breakfast, dinner and supper, from a 1942 to a 1945 timeframe were opened, and none contained matches. The reviewer quite specifically comments on this in one. They are here, here, and here. They are worth watching. In the meantime you will find in 'Report of Wartime Problems in Subsistence research and Development, Vol VII' pg 48, fig 20, published 1947, that matches were only added to K ration units in 1945. Link here. However this PDF, Summary of operational rations, NATICK technical report, 1982, page 31, states that matches were only provided in the dinner unit. The summary of contents given there is dated 1943. So we have a definite issue in the menu section. You will find if you play nice, so will I. Irondome (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2017

Now, how does the YouTubeTron's "respectfulness" or "historical mindedness" change the fact that this shows a single anecdotal instance of something?

That K Rats only included matches in certain units was not, I hope, in dispute; that's something that can be settled, often, simply by looking at the outside of the box. Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

So you have effectively reverted back to my original the edit that it was only available in the dinner unit. I appreciate that. We appear to have reached agreement that they began to be added around 43. Ok then. Irondome (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think looking at things that way is a little dangerous "My edit" has implications that a description of the edit might not. From what I can see and remember (which includes eating part of a k-rat once, nearly 40-odd years ago, and being around a couple decent military libraries that I used), almost every production set of Ks had matches in at least one meal type, and the final iterations had them in all three, generally. Most Ks were produced from 43 onward, so earlier versions, while historically significant, weren'r inflicted on anywhere near the same number of people. Anmccaff (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The edit. I take your point on that. You ate part of a K? I'm impressed, seriously. You are of a vintage yourself, so I take back the son Anmccaff. Bad week and all that. I know those vids are useless as evidence of anything, except as items of general interest. It was just an unfortunate coincidence that none had matchbooks. You make a good point about consumption levels and distribution, which seemed to have soared in 43. The vast majority of surviving veterans and their anecdotes about K's would have been from the 43-45 production batches which increasingly featured matches. I've got the yearly production figures somewhere. I was lucky enough to download those multi-volume 1947 PDF's from a site that has sadly vanished. The ill-fated E ration acceptability report and the June 1944 comparison of rations report, which trialed the new multi-menu C, and some other stuff of interest. Happy to share them but you have probably seen them. Unsure how to send a downloaded PDF, but I certainly would if you wanna check them out. See you around! Irondome (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Nahh, I'm not that far on the other side of the 1960 turn-of-the-decade. I ran into the alleged foodstuff in question around 1970 or so. They would still sometimes show up in various surplus systems and such, but this made its way to a scout troop, of all things. (Later, around 1976, I found some minimally used reversible HBT fatigues in a surplus lot; I think that they were a solid 30 years out of the system, supposedly, by then, but there they were.) The only part I ate was part of the sugar packet; it was acidic. Dunno what had crept into it in storage -something from the package? some sublimated lemon powder? but it was very, very sharp.

Anything I've seen in print there could date back to the '80s, '70s or even '60s. Many civil libraries that were "federal depository libraries" used to have a good amount of official military histories, as did many post libraries, but the Vietnam backlash and the War on paper did a job on both. I had a bunch of stuff in print, but I concluded that keeping it inadequate storage wasn't really good stewardship, and donated it about 15, 16 years ago to local army post museum. A PDF beats 30 year old organic RAM anyday.

Yeah, I probably should have looked at what I typed a little harder first myself, tell ya the truth. It's easy for me to let my own state of mind override what the reader might see in it in anything but formal writing. (and even that sometimes makes the reader think "Heh. Pedant.") Be seeing you. Anmccaff (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)