Box Plate

[sundogqhs]

Gentlemen,
I am currently deployed overseas :lightning and am using this time to improve my impression. All I have to work with is what I can see on the internet, so as you can imagine, it's a bit of a struggle. I am wondering if a box plate is wrong for a carbine box. I have seen photos of authentic gear with and without them, what is concidered correct? Any other ideas or sugestions would be appriciated.

Your humble servent;
SSG Mark Norman
A troop 1-113 CAV

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: Box Plate

Although I am not an expert on cavalry accoutrements, the 1850 Ordnance Manual states on page 203:

"CARTRIDGE BOX, for carbine or musketoon; like the rifle cartridge box.
PISTOL CARTRIDGE BOX. It is like the carbine cartridge box, except in its dho
mensions; length 6.2 in., width 1.3 in., height in front 3.5 in. —inner cover, 3.5 in, wide-flap, 6.6 in. wide at top, 6.8 in. at bottotm, 6 in. deep-Tins 20 lower divisions, 2 in. deep, 2.9 in. long, 1.2 wide; 5 upper divisions, 1.2 wide by 1.15 in. long and 1.5 in. deep.

CARTRIDGE BOX PLATE, for carbine or pistol cartridge box; the same as for
the rifle.

So I am assuming it would be the smaller US plate, if worn at all...

But it depends on what you were issued, and who exactly you are portraying etc.

[John E. Tobey]

Re: Box Plate

According to the 1862 Ordnance manual, carbine boxes were "...Like the infantry cartridge box, except in dimensions..." The plate specified for the infantry box was the large style, 3.5 by 2.2 inches.

So much for the regulations. Were plates really used on cav boxes? In reality, I think it depended more on the type of cartridge box and the whim of the officers.

One could look for "cartridge box plates" on the ordnance material returns of various cavalry regiments to determine if plates were actually present. This is the best method to determine if plates were used in a specific unit.

If the returns are not available to you, then you could make a decision based on the specific type of box used.

For example, the oft-seen carbine boxes with wooden inserts that Paul Johnson calls the "special cartridge boxes" do not appear to have been *meant* for plates, although even some of these have survived with plates attached, like the one on the belt set on page 205 of EOG (Union). The vast majority of this type, however, are "plateless". :-) If you or the original unit you portray used one of these, best to go "sans" plate, in my opinion.

One fairly common box *does* appear to have been intended for use with a plate. The early-war box issued with Sharps carbines (and other carbines using paper or linen cartridges between .52 and .56 caliber, for that matter) are more often found with box plates than the other types. One must ask -- was this done on the whim of a soldier, by order of a particular commander, or even done after the war by parties unknown? Or was this box intended for use with a plate?

Original boxes of this type that are in unused condition show the two mounting holes for the large-sized box plate (2-1/2 inches apart or so), factory-punched into the outer flap. This would suggest that they were *intended* for use with a large plate. If you use this box, I'd say you have a definite choice of using or not using a plate.

But be advised -- intent does not equal actual use. I have looked at returns of regiments that I know used these boxes, and not found box plates listed. This is why the *best* option is look at the returns.

For illustration, I've included a jpeg of two cav boxes from the first half of the war. The .52/.56 box is on the left...you may be able to make out the two mounting slots on the flap. Although this box was intended for use with a plate, it never had one attached. The "special cartridge box" on the right was made to hold Burnside rounds.

John Tobey

[sundogqhs]

Re: Box Plate

Thank you for your replies,

For unit specifics, I represent the 2nd/5th U.S. Cav, and have seen this in two pictures, but on no returns or QM reports.

It appears that "plateless" would be the way to go, yet since that it could be a soldiers decision to put one one, one should expect to see it somewhere in our circles? I am not trying to justify a piece of gear (really try to keep it to a min), but should these be scattered about among the troopers?

Your Humble Servent,
SSG Mark Norman
A Troop, 1-113 Cav

[John E. Tobey]

Re: Box Plate

LOL. Pics trump paperwork. Most of the time, that is. Yeah, I'd say you've got evidence to support plates among at least a smattering of troopers, particularly for the specific unit and the timeframe during which the photos were taken. There might be more information in the regimental order books.

John Tobey

[Robert Braun]

Re: Box Plate

Although the reliability of such artwork is often debatable, the statue commemorating the Pensylvania cavalry unit that was located at the Angle at Gettysburg is rendered with a Pattern of 1861 "U S" box plate on the carbine cartridge box.

The rest of the monument seems to be a very accurate portrayal of a Federal cavalryman.. so the suggestion here is that the box plate on the carbine cartridge box was a practice in this particular regiment.

Regards, Bob