Drawing,Taxi Numbers and Piecemarks on Tools

Manufacturers, configurations, Shovels, Axe, Wrenches, Oiler, F/E etc.
User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Chuck Lutz » Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:03 am

...and I would counter with asking this: If the TAXI number was to be put on the tools as per regulations, then there don't seem to be very many tool kits floating around that are "CORRECT"....

Please explain why Fairmount, Barcalo-Buffalo and Vlchek wrenches from existing WWII jeep and truck tool kits do NOT have a TAXI number on them and yet were found intact.

I am looking at the Ford Wrench Drawing which does NOT require a vendor to put the TAXI number on wrenches but DOES require the sizes on the jaw faces, the mfger's name/logo and a painted finish.

If there was a REQUIREMENT for the taxi number it would have been mentioned sometime between 1940 when the drawing was first made and October 1943 when the last dated notation was made.

While "the great bulk of artillery and small arms items and some combat vehilce material" bore the numbers on the drawings, it appears that the jeep tool kit was not included in this requirement?

Aside from scratching the taxi numbers on some wrenches found in the 1952-1954 repacks, I don't recall any of the other jeep tools found in the repacks having a FORGED IN taxi mumber...

I am not concerned with the GMTK tools, I am specifically interested in JEEP TOOL KITS....
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947


User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Wingnutt » Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:31 am

With respect to motorpool class tools purchased and provided by the Ordnance Department for 1st echelon (versus 2nd or 3rd echelon) applications, I don't place as much credence on found specimens as you do, Chuck. I consider that a logic trap, frankly, in many of these subjects of issue. I don't think anything we can or can't infer based on collected specimens ever outweighs a bonafide reference document, in this case, written explicitly by the US Army to record the Army's supply practices and procedures during WWII. Besides, there are certainly enough found specimens with other wartime features (physical characteristics, markings, etc) to back up the document. Also, just because it was a practice doesn't mean it was followed comprehensively and exhaustively. In other words, I'm not saying wrenches without a part number cast in are invalid, obviously. We have no idea how wide-spread or religiously this was followed.

With respect to factory class toolkits, my inclination is to interpret any government documentation like this along with factory documentation, together. I don't think either one trumps the other. So with respect to Willys, the tools may be examined on a case by case basis, using our aggregate sources (drawings, BOMs, TMs, etc), to see how if at all this marking practice was or was not followed, and more importantly when.

Bottom line is that the 1959 Ord book clearly - and without possible debate, in my opinion - validates the existence of tools with "taxi", piece mark, and federal stock numbers marked on them during wartime. Which tools when etc requires further analysis.
TEMPORARY DUTY

User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Chuck Lutz » Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:06 am

I'm not so sure a 1959 dated book is more relevant as the existing examples we have.....if the taxi number was SUPPOSED to be on jeep tools at the factory level....where are those tools today? Sure the repacks have them with the taxi number scratched on the jaw face with some pointed object, but that doesn't sound like what the 1959 quote had in mind...and those tools represent a very SMALL number of the total and are the exact same wrench as the majority without that marking found in the repacks.

Are you sure that this is not for just "THINGS" purchased directly by the Ordnance Dept? (your 1959 quote did not include TOOLS at all?).

Again....please address the existance of the Bizal GPW kit, Greg K.'s MB kit (both are late war) and the Dodge kit in cosmolene....none of which have a taxi number on them.....if this was a regulation, then what happened? The Bizel kit does not even have the 723, 25, 27C, 28S or 731A markings on the wrenches....I even have a few Vlchek 27C wrenches with the WO stocking tag on them and they don't have the taxi number on them either.

And...while the repacks DO have some wrenches with the taxi number SCRATCHED on them, none of them have it FORGED on them which would seem to go against the REQUIREMENT mentioned in the 1959 quote.

I'm not arguing what the 1959 quote says....I'm asking where the evidence is that jeep tools were thus marked.

As far as the Army saying one thing and doing something entirely different.....as an example of that...the Army, Willys and Ford call for an 11" Adj. wrench and yet the 12" MOORE seems to be "accepted" here on g503?

We have established that all kinds of methods of identifying a specific tool existed, was being implimented or ignored during WWII. While the taxi number was assigned to the DRAWING, it seems to have been ignored almost COMPLETELY in favor of the number/letters we find on the "acceptable" wrenches here on the gee (Fairmount, Barcalo and Vlchek to name a few).

Where ARE all those factory installed WWII jeep tools (wrenches specifically) that have forged-in taxi numbers as required by that 1959 document?
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947

User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Wingnutt » Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:59 am

Chuck Lutz wrote:Are you sure that this is not for just "THINGS" purchased directly by the Ordnance Dept? (your 1959 quote did not include TOOLS at all?).
Once again:

"A further means of identification was the "piece mark," or drawing number. The great bulk of artillery and small arms items, and some combat vehicle materiel, bore the numbers that appeared on their engineering drawings. These were usually nonsignificant numbers prefixed bv "A," "B," "C," "D," or "E.". The letters indicated drawing sizes, "A" the smallest, "E" the largest; the numbers assigned for each size began with 1 and continued serially. But if an article was of a common kind called "standard," like automotive parts, hardware, or tools, it would be marked with a number prefixed by four letters, the last of which was always "X." These were known as "taxi" numbers after the first number of this type, TAAX1."

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Chuck.

The idea of deferring to two found toolkits (which may represent a tiny fraction of the superset of valid possibilities) is not something I would ever subscribe to. And the idea of using those two found toolkit tools without part numbers marked on them to invalidate all tools WITH part numbers marked on them, when the possibility is validated by documentation, is even worse than merely unsubscribable by me.

As for everything else, you're arguing with a straw man. I have little to no interest in post-war re-packs (never have), and never claimed that this document says that factory Jeep toolkits should have a part number marked on them. I clearly said that Willys and Ford documentation needs to be considered. What this document does say, again, is that it is clearly wrong to dismiss tools with piece mark, taxi, or federal stock numbers as post-war outright, as a whole, as a class of tools we see now and again, due to some now dis-proven and erroneous notion that the Ordnance Department wasn't having tools marked with part or stock numbers during the war. This document clearly indicates that they were and many specimens (to include some shown right in this thread) clearly back that up.
TEMPORARY DUTY

User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Chuck Lutz » Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:32 am

I don't think anyone dismisses the "41-W" style markings, or the ISN numbered tools as "postwar"....or even the taxi numbered ones at this point, but some PROOF from the WWII era would seem to be better than a 1959 reference to a 1942 document. We have a lot of proof that the ISN numbered ones were available in WWII.....we even have proof that SOME were available with the "41-W" code, some with the Ford or Willys markings and some with just the mfgers part number on them.

Where ARE some tools with the drawing numbers forged on them that can be dated via a mfger date code and where is the proof that they were bought by the government? Without answering BOTH those questions, the introduction date of the taxi numbered tools for a jeep kit, a WC or any other vehicle is unknown.

I think with all the confusion over Willys numbers, Ford numbers, "41-W" code numbers, Ordnance Numbers, Drawing numbers, etc. that placing a lot of faith in a 1959 document that mentions SOME applications for the Drawing Number being placed on the item is a stretch at best.

The TM 9-803 only refers to the "41-W" codes (no drawing numbers) and even then doesn't list all of them...

The SNL G-503 January 15, 1944 lists the tools with Ford, Willys and ISN numbers.....and the only DRAWING NUMBER listed is for the sCREWDRIVER....of which we do not have any WWII-era examples that have it put on by the mfger....

The Dodge WC tool kit list DOES show the taxi numbers....but not for all the tools. However that existing Dodge tool kit shows the SAME wrenches as seen on that list and they do NOT have the taxi number on them.

I would think that finding WWII tools....wrenches specifically.....that have the taxi number FORGED or otherwise guaranted that was put on it by the mfger is rare....and being able to tell WHEN an example was produced is not always easy. There are some ARMSTRONG examples and here is another one that AA has dated to 1943-1946 era but it was STAMPED on and was an afterthough, not a part of the original stamping process as it is crooked and stamped deeper at one end and lighter at the other...so when that was put on is likely to have been AFTER it was initially produced.

Here is one AA identifies as 1942-1943:
Armstrong Alloy Art 1942 1943.jpg
Armstrong Alloy Art 1942 1943.jpg (14.79 KiB) Viewed 3009 times
...and another as from 1942-1945 with that drawing number:
Armstrong Alloy Dodge TKK 1942 1945.jpg
Armstrong Alloy Dodge TKK 1942 1945.jpg (15.19 KiB) Viewed 3009 times
AA shows TWO Armstrong wrenches (1730 & 1734) with taxi numbers on them and identifes one as possibly being from a Dodge truck. The only Dodge list I have is for the WC and neither of those wrenches is listed according to the sizes on AA and the sizes on the list. May be for some other Dodge vehicle?
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947

User avatar
lucakiki
G-General
G-General
Posts: 17578
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:18 am
Location: Torino, ITALY

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by lucakiki » Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:35 pm

All I can add to this interesting discussion is that obviously forgetting / disregarding the crudely etched repacked wrenches, which do not prove anything, the Fairmounts I have seen with a drawing number on them were definitely war time and predating the much loved "sharp" variant.
Luca

WillysMB#344142 6-19-44 Navy N.S.Blue Grey
45 Bantam T-3 #57248 1-10-45
42 Willys MB-T #13560 11-42
43 Willys MB-T # 25417 4-43
Way too many WWII military tools,hopefully thinning down,and way too many posts...

__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________

User avatar
Silly's MB
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2044
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:53 am
Location: North East Hampshire, UK

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Silly's MB » Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:27 pm

Unfortunately I can add no more to this than the fact I bought another identical Tac Amco wrench to my original the other weekend here in the UK. I have seen 2 on Ebay in the USA the same size also. It makes me wonder if it was a less common size with the 15 deg offest and they had to be commissioned especially hence following the spec and adding the taxi number.( Although that cant be said of Robins 731a. loads of those around!)
Limited access.
1942 August Willys MB
Complete MVMTS 100% sourced in the ETO

Empty vessels make the most noise .......

User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Chuck Lutz » Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:59 pm

It would seem then that any wrench with a taxi number on it that was forged on it would have been purchased using a RFB and a Drawing would have stipulated the taxi number/drawing number be included on the markings such as size and mfger and perhaps even the ISN number...be it a wartime or not.

To what end use those specific wrenches were contracted for and by whom is unknown.

It doesn't seem to be anything related to a factory jeep tool kit however....
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947

User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Wingnutt » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:17 am

We know the Ordnance Department bought tools for 1st (vehicle), 2nd (maintenance depot), and 3rd (repair depot) echelon toolkits. We know that included G503. Unless one wants to doubt the veracity of an authoritative government document, prepared from actual wartime records (footnoted throughout) by the US Army Center for Military History with the explicit purpose of documenting the Army's Ordnance Department practices during wartime, we know that tools were marked with Ordnance drawing numbers, "taxi" numbers, and Federal Standard Stock Catalog numbers during wartime. And we have examples of tools from known wartime manufacturers bearing these numbers that also match the other defining characteristics of the best known references for dating these tools to wartime.

Having examples of G503 tools would certainly verify that G503 tools were not an exception to the marking practice, but the lack of examples certainly doesn't rule it out for me. I see no reason why it should. In fact, I have good reason to doubt the idea that the Ordnance Department would, for some peculiar reason, selectively exclude the G503 wrench opening sizes from such a marking practice when the manufacturers they were buying tools from clearly manufactured wrenches in every size in the Federal Standard Stock Catalog at the time.

Again, I certainly like examples, and understand their benefit, but they don't operate in exclusionary logic in the collectors' world in the face of other information, and can be a red herring when used that way.
TEMPORARY DUTY

User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Wingnutt » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:30 am

Chuck Lutz wrote:It doesn't seem to be anything related to a factory jeep tool kit however....
I don't think we know enough about Willys factory jeep toolkits to agree or disagree with this statement.

We know the sizes, the general specifications, and the consistent citation in BOMs of Federal Standard Stock Catalog numbers, implying Federal Standard Stock Catalog specifications, and supposedly, the identity of one wartime supplier, based on a found NOS kit that has apparently been dated to 1945.

Do you assume that Willys used only one supplier because examples of wrenches from only one supplier have been found so far? I don't. Do you assume that the style and markings of the Fairmount wrenches found in the NOS kit are the only style and markings of Fairmount wrenches bought and provided by Willys? I don't. Similarly, I don't assume anything about the characteristics of other wrenches that may have been supplied by other manufacturers.

If Willys was purchasing wrenches from suppliers who were also supplying wrenches to the Ordnance Department after late 1942, it's possible they bore Ordnance piece mark, "taxi," or Federal Standard Stock Catalog numbers. I didn’t say probable and I didn’t say likely. But I’m not prepared to say improbable or unlikely, either. We simply don’t know enough about Willys factory-supplied DOE wrench sets to make that determination. Drawing A-378-C would certainly help. Until such time as we know more, I, for one, treat the Greg K toolkit exactly for what it is – 1 of 361,339 – and don’t summarily dismiss anything else as irrelevant out of hand because of it. This is not the same thing as saying anything goes. I'm not creating a judging standard on this subject, just analyzing the realm of possibilities for continuing collection research.
TEMPORARY DUTY

User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Chuck Lutz » Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:54 am

You have a document that mentions the taxi numbers but does not mention jeeps at all...there have been a few jeep wrenches found with the taxi number scratched on them but when that was done is unknown. Your contention...at least for the MB..... is based on the assumption that perhaps more than one mfger supplied Willys (granting the Greg K. kit is a Fairmount without the taxi numbers).

If that was an ORD requirement, you would ASSUME that there would be a significant number of them, a reasonable percentage of them found even today that had the taxi number on them.... on the one hand you have used the 1959/1942 document to assert that the taxi number was in use, but at the same time if that ORD document was a REQUIREMENT that Ford and Willys were to conform to it....why doesn't the Ford Wrench Drawing REQUIRE the taxi number? Either it is a REQUIREMENT or it isn't...even the Ford and Willys versions of the TMs use...Ford and Willys part numbers, not the taxi number so a replacement may be obtained.

I just looked at THIRTEEN tool drawings and NONE happen to require a taxi number on the tool (not just wrenches mind you). Most have dates from betwen 1940 and 1950 so if this was a 1942 REQUIREMENT, what happened to Ford and Willys REQUIREING that marking?

I'm not ASSUMING anything..... but I don't see anything so far that makes a case for factory jeep kits to contain wrenches with a taxi number on them beyond an invocation of the "Always/Never Rule".....some examples would go a long way to prove that though. While I would agree that we don't have a really HUGE number of NOS kits to check out (two I know of), even the vast numbers of REPACKS that workdawg went through....that were in the possession of the government and packed in the early 1950s do not provide examples of jeep wrenches with forged-in taxi numbers as far as I know.

Some of the wrenches with forged in taxi marks may be specialized contract orders....but they seem to be the ones not generally associated with jeeps (Fairmount, Barcalo, Williams for instance) and not in the sizes they used.

Then there are the ARCTURUS wrenchs (25, 27C, 28S, 731A) that are found with the "Official Stockage Number" on them, not the Ordnance Drawing number...and Arcturus I believe was mentioned as a VENDOR to the government? What happened there?

To quote a famous TV peersonality...."Where's the beef?"
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947

User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Wingnutt » Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:35 am

I'm not making any contentions, Chuck. You're arguing as if I am campaigning for tools with "taxi" numbers as a motorpool or factory toolkit requirement. Never happened. By the same token, it's illogical to contend that this wartime marking practice, now clearly documented where it was once the subject of murky controversy, did not apply to G503 simply because we have no G503 specimens. The lack (other than Robin's un-branded 731-A and Luca's Fairmount 27-C) of G503 tools with "taxi" numbers in circulation has NO impact whatsoever on the government document, which is clearly evidenced by the other wartime tools.

I am not unduly swayed by the numbers of examples - many, few or none - for any tool, part or other piece of equipment as a metric of its validity.

To wit the black-enamelled loop-foot Haviland tire pump. Or staying with wrenches, the BONNEY 585. Alloy Artifacts doesn't have one example in its esteemed collection, we see so few examples of these wrenches here compared with other brands and types, and they hardly ever get discussed. They're not even included on the Jeep Draw site, which ironically still includes some clearly invalid wrenches. They are so rare I have yet to see one single photo of a 585-5 ("723"), let alone an actual specimen. And yet their provenance - a wartime production line wrench from a wartime manufacturer with wartime date codes, that has the unassailable honor of bearing the QMC DOE wrench spec drawing number, repeated again and again in wartime G503 documentation, as its model number - is undeniable.

I can barely take your point that there should be some sense of consistency in adherance to these marking requirements seriously. You know as well as I do that there are more exceptions, nuances, twists, variances, and outright contradictions to what we can make of the "rules" (TMs, specs, etc) in this hobby than there are rules. And again, I'm not saying that ALL wartime tools were marked with "taxi" numbers; only, again, that it's clearly now erroneous to assume that they were not.

I can't be any more explicit or clear and further attempts to do so would go beyond the ad hominem/ad nauseum level this discussion has already reached.

If you don't agree with that, that's fine, but we've reached a fundamental impasse in our approaches to collecting and research that I'd just as soon acknowledge and drop.

Others can judge however they choose.
Last edited by Wingnutt on Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
TEMPORARY DUTY

User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Chuck Lutz » Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:28 pm

I would agree that based on the small number of examples of taxi marked wrenches found..... from any vendor, in any size, made during/after WWII.... that SOME did get a taxi number on them. I would NOT agree that based on the 1959/1942 documents that the use of the taxi number was consistent, widespread or in any way a REQUIREMENT or MANDATORY for gov't purchase....

By the way, my BONNEY 1723 is dated May 1943 and does not have a taxi number on it.... so again, even with a wartime BONNEY there is no consistency.....

by the way, what is the date code on the BONNEY 723 you are speaking about that DOES have a taxi number?
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947

User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Wingnutt » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:30 am

Chuck Lutz wrote:By the way, my BONNEY 1723 is dated May 1943 and does not have a taxi number on it.... so again, even with a wartime BONNEY there is no consistency...
The Ordnance history book doesn't claim consistency. In fact, the subject of the section from which I excerpted the quote (“The Language of Supply”) is the inconsistencies and multiplicities within the stock and supply system, and the efforts to achieve a single universal stock numbering system. I will say, again, that the book is a must read for any WW2 parts and tools collector. It answers many questions, resolves many ambiguities, and provides an insightful blow by blow account and timeline of how the Ordnance Department's tool supply and re-supply system actually worked during the war.

As for Bonney, there were at least three different production lines during the war:
(1) an alloy steel line (the variant you have) with 'BONNEY' over 'MADE IN U.S.A.' and the ISN on the faces, date codes (S,T,U,V,W) on the shank, and the sizes on the flip side faces;
(2) a ZENEL line, with the exact same markings, but '-ZENEL-' in a depressed panel in the shank, and
(3) the 585 series, with 'BONNEY' and the date code on the shank, '585-#' on the flip side shank, and the sizes on the flip side faces.
I personally accept a fourth Bonney line: 'CHROME-VANADIUM' (circle-CV) wrenches with late 1941 date codes, which all had a smoky black natural steel finish, unlike the circle-CV wrenches that preceded them.

I've never seen any of the four lines with a "taxi" number.
Chuck Lutz wrote:by the way, what is the date code on the BONNEY 723 you are speaking about that DOES have a taxi number?
I never said I had a BONNEY 723 with a "taxi" number. My point in mentioning the BONNEY 585 series, in general, is that it is an extremely rare wrench. Compared to Duro-Chrome, Vlchek, etc, we have very few examples. The 585-5 (in my analysis, the model and part number for the BONNEY 585 3/8 x 7/16 wrench) is so rare that I have never seen a photo of one, let alone an example. Yet the scarcity of these wrenches has no bearing whatsoever on their validity as wartime correct, in counterpoint to your supposition that the scarcity of tools with "taxi" numbers somehow calls their validity as wartime correct into question.
Chuck Lutz wrote: I would NOT agree that based on the 1959/1942 documents that the use of the taxi number was consistent, widespread or in any way a REQUIREMENT or MANDATORY for gov't purchase....
Again, the Ordnance Department history book quote did not indicate how consistent or widespread it was, and neither did I. That it was a requirement (which implies that it was mandatory) for some tools that the Ordnance Department purchased for supply at some time during the war is self-evident based on the book and the examples we have on hand. This is not debatable.

As for your references to a 1942 document, I'm guessing you're referring to GGG-W-636, Federal Standard Stock Catalog, Section 4, Part 5, Federal Specification for Wrenches, Bolt and Nut; Nonadjustable (Open End and Box), dated December 9, 1942. I’m not sure why you’re citing it with respect to Ordnance Department marking practices for Ordnance Department tools, but the marking requirements in this document, for Federal Standard Stock Catalog tools, were for sizes and manufacturer’s name or trademark only.
TEMPORARY DUTY

User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: Drawing Numbers on Tools

Post by Chuck Lutz » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:28 pm

One problem I think we have here is ythe contention that we need to consider any tool with a taxi number as "wartime" or as you said, at least from 1942 onwards....

I would say that in order to confirm that statement you would need to find an example with a taxi number that was put on in the forging process or guaranteed to have been stamped during the mfgering process....and....on a tool that is DATED to WWII. A style of wrench made from say, 1942 through 1952 would not fit the bill then.

In general, the appearance of the taxi number...be it forged, stamped or scratched on a wrench....any wrench.....in the government system is not being questioned. The date they appeared or were so marked is unknown....without an example to confirm that.

My observation would be that during WWII all kinds of markings, identifiers or codes were used to supply a wrench (or any tool) to a GI in the field and no one clear-cut system was used...the fact is as far as jeeps go, the Ford & Willys part numbers seem to have worked pretty well and for wrenches, the ISN numbers are still what we use as our "go-to" means of identification here on g503.

Any "requirement" for the application of the taxi number is another example of those behind desks failing to have it "their way" as the numbers of examples we find even today compared to other WWII jeep wrenches for instance shows. They do not seem to have convinced Henry Ford to make it a "requirment" to mark the wrenches they purchased for the vehicles they sold to Uncle Sam as the Ford Wrench Drawing illustrates.
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947


Post Reply

Return to “G503 Tools & Equipment (Vehicle & Pioneer)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: d42jeep and 35 guests