|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Nov 11, 2014 14:48:46 GMT
(I wasn't sure whether to put this here or in Military Myths -- move if needed.)
We're into the centennial observances of World War I, which will be running until November 11 2018. I think that a WWI-themed episode might attract extra attention to the show ... trouble is, I can't come up with any testable myths. They already looked at trench construction. There's still conspiracy theories about the Lusitania sinking, but there's no way J&A will be given a full-sized ocean liner to blow up.
I've run across claims that the early gas masks were no more effective than the urine-soaked cloths soldiers improvised. But no one is going to agree to a test with chlorine gas, and I don't know if tear gas/pepper spray would be a valid substitute.
Can anyone come up with something testable?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 11, 2014 15:25:25 GMT
(I wasn't sure whether to put this here or in Military Myths -- move if needed.) We're into the centennial observances of World War I, which will be running until November 11 2018. I think that a WWI-themed episode might attract extra attention to the show ... trouble is, I can't come up with any testable myths. They already looked at trench construction. There's still conspiracy theories about the Lusitania sinking, but there's no way J&A will be given a full-sized ocean liner to blow up. I've run across claims that the early gas masks were no more effective than the urine-soaked cloths soldiers improvised. But no one is going to agree to a test with chlorine gas, and I don't know if tear gas/pepper spray would be a valid substitute. Can anyone come up with something testable? testing gas masks against chemical agents would almost require the correct chemical agent to be used. however, it could be done in a lab with chemical "sniffer" technology if they really wanted to do it. one legend I am aware of is that the Germans transitioned to smokeless powder before the allies, and that the early German machine guns used a closed water cooling system while the allies still used machine guns with open water cooling systems - both of which put the allies in a position of inviting return fire with visible smoke and steam plumes. another, which was brought up on the old boards was whether the "Red Baron" was actually shot down in a dogfight, or if he was struck by ground fire. but that is another one I don't expect they will be able to investigate any further than others already have. we may, however, be in a better position to have some myths answered, because we have a german in our midst - and we can compare between legends from Germany and legends from outside Germany. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 11, 2014 18:27:25 GMT
I think the closest might be testing the 'Dazzle' colour scheme used on ships to make it harder for Uboats to target them with torpedoes. (This is posted elsewhere). Although this scheme was used in WW2 it originated and was used mainly in WW1 and none of the research I did on this indicates that anyone bothered to test it to see if it worked.
Chemical testing would most likely be a none-starter. They could always look at protecting yourself from chlorine gas using a hankie soaked in urine, but this isn't really a myth as the chemistry holds up and the evidence shows this did work in the real world. Other chemical agents would be outright illegal to make and use even in controlled conditions - there are international treaties against it. So its not just a case of getting permission from the SFPD or US military.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Nov 11, 2014 19:28:03 GMT
"Dazzle" camouflage should be testable, if they can borrow enough boats for repainting. Or maybe use rafts with plywood superstructures. The last time I was at the National World War I Museum, they had a special exhibit on "dazzle" camouflage. Checking the website, it doesn't look like that exhibit is still running, but as I recall all that artwork came from their archives -- so getting copies of actual "dazzle" designs wouldn't be hard. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 12, 2014 0:09:48 GMT
keeping in mind that dazzle camouflage was not intended to make the ship invisible - just unrecognizable.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 12, 2014 1:00:20 GMT
Here's one.
Supposedly, during the days of trench warfare, the Allies got into the habit of using dummies as decoys to bait snipers.
From what I've heard, what people would do is take a fake head, mount it on a stick, and make it look like a particularly foolish soldier who was poking his head up to have a look around; some individuals would place a lit cigarette in its mouth to increase visibility.
If the dummy head was hit, the soldiers in the trench would lower it and check the angle from which the bullet came. They would then do some math and call in a fire mission onto the area where they suspected the sniper was.
1. Could a sniper, under period-accurate conditions, confuse a fake head with a real person?
2. Would the method of calculating the angle be plausible as a means of attempting to determine where a sniper was?
3. Would the method work? (If I was a sniper, I'd be crawling away after taking my shot just to avoid retaliatory fire.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 12, 2014 1:41:03 GMT
1; Depends on the specific conditions, the quality of the scope used and the range - which (off the top of my head) could vary from some 100 yards to a mile. Matters would be further complicated by the activity on that front. I seem to recall that areas that saw heavy artillery fire often had layers of smoke from the shells close to the ground. The helmets worn by British soldiers had a rim around them (it is the exact same design as was used in WW2), which would help in hiding the face.
2; Yes, it is in fact a basic ballistics trick (you don't/haven't watched CSI I take it?). In this case matters would be simplified because you wouldn't need to worry about elevation (any tall structure or tree would have been taken out early on, so the shot would have to be coming from ground level) and you already have some idea as to the basic direction (in the direction of the enemy trenches). All you'd need to do is shove a stick - or failing that a finger - into the hole while holding the 'head' towards the enemy trench. That would give you the general direction the shot came from, and the general area in which to call artillery fire down on.
3; Depends. It seems that Snipers in WW1 fired from fixed positions and didn't move around - there are some references to snipers shooting from behind metal sheets. However German troops proved rather good at getting from their positions into bunkers at the first sign of artillery fire. (Which is the main reason that sustained artillery bombardments of German Trenches over days or weeks didn't shatter German defenses when they sent the infantry in). In this case it would be open to debate. If the sniper had a reason to think that he might have hit a dummy he would have been more than capable of getting under cover before artillery fire could be called in. If not there would be a decent chance that he might be caught in the open, although even then he might have stood a good chance of surviving the bombardment unless more or less hit directly - which would be unlikely even if they knew exactly where he was - or a nearby shell buried him under the walls of a trench.
Most of which would actually be testable (they could alter 1 by simply having the 'sniper' calling out 'fake' or 'real', and use both A&J as well as an expert sniper from the SFPD's SWAT team.) 2 is, as I hinted at, something that is done on CSI as a matter of course and could easily be tested in this context instead of that show. 3 is probably not testable, as there are just to many factors to take into account to be able to make any judgement as to the probability of a sniper surviving any resulting artillery barrage.
Come to think of it, wasn't there some myth about shooting the metal plates snipers hid behind in the hopes of some of the metal on the inside breaking off and peppering the face of the sniper with shards?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 12, 2014 3:50:17 GMT
In that case:
#1: Broad daylight, nothing to interfere with the line-of-sight. This would be the control, as it would give a would-be "sniper" the best odds of telling if someone is a dummy or not. If the sniper cannot distinguish even under these circumstances, then the myth is automatically "plausible" pending confirmation of the practice.
#2: Smoke generator: This would cause a token amount of obscuring based on a hypothetical recent artillery bombardment or a similar situation.
#3: Darkness / artificial darkness: This would be a worst-case, and would represent a last-ditch effort to fool a sniper.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 12, 2014 10:06:17 GMT
Question, "Dazzle" camouflage was a disguise that reportedly used to make large ships look smaller, or look like something "Not worth hitting"....
No submarine would waste ammunition and give their position away for a fishing boat.......
Another question, what is narrow daylight?...
Why do we use the word Broad to describe daylight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 12, 2014 11:55:12 GMT
Question, "Dazzle" camouflage was a disguise that reportedly used to make large ships look smaller, or look like something "Not worth hitting".... No submarine would waste ammunition and give their position away for a fishing boat....... Dazzle camouflage was intended to break up a ships silhouette, making it harder for a U-Boat commander to target (no homing torpedoes in WW1, so everything rested on the Captains ability to correctly judge distance, speed and heading). It wasn't intended to hide what type of ship you were seeing, and couldn't have done that even in the murky conditions of the North Atlantic in winter; Not least because all but a handful of civilian ships traveled in convoy* and the other ships using it were warships. (*Convoy's were being formed by the Royal Navy for centuries, and one thing that the British got right from the start of WW1 was implementing the convoy system. There were rare exceptions from having to travel in convoy, and then only if the ship had a very high top speed. This was later amended so there were not exceptions. Even ships from neutral countries usually joined convoys although they were not required to do so.) |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Nov 12, 2014 15:32:47 GMT
Nitpick -- it was during WWII that Britain instituted convoy from the beginning. During WWI, the Admiralty didn't institute convoy until 1917.
Cyber, would it be easier for the researchers if I started a separate thread for dazzle camo and saved this one for brainstorming other potential ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 12, 2014 15:36:59 GMT
Nitpick -- it was during WWII that Britain instituted convoy from the beginning. During WWI, the Admiralty didn't institute convoy until 1917. Cyber, would it be easier for the researchers if I started a separate thread for dazzle camo and saved this one for brainstorming other potential ideas? we may already have a dazzle camo thread. if so, we could link it here and move on. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 12, 2014 16:00:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Nov 13, 2014 3:34:32 GMT
Come to think of it, wasn't there some myth about shooting the metal plates snipers hid behind in the hopes of some of the metal on the inside breaking off and peppering the face of the sniper with shards? That would be the reversed or backward bullet. I remember it from the disco board. The ammo channel (youtube) did some testing on this. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2014 15:05:05 GMT
Come to think of it, wasn't there some myth about shooting the metal plates snipers hid behind in the hopes of some of the metal on the inside breaking off and peppering the face of the sniper with shards? That would be the reversed or backward bullet. I remember it from the disco board. The ammo channel (youtube) did some testing on this. ah, yes. I recall that. I believe it was a bullet with a concave base that was alleged to become more effective against armor when loaded backwards in the shell. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 13, 2014 16:32:03 GMT
1; Depends on the specific conditions, the quality of the scope used and the range - which (off the top of my head) could vary from some 100 yards to a mile. Matters would be further complicated by the activity on that front. I seem to recall that areas that saw heavy artillery fire often had layers of smoke from the shells close to the ground. The helmets worn by British soldiers had a rim around them (it is the exact same design as was used in WW2), which would help in hiding the face. 2; Yes, it is in fact a basic ballistics trick (you don't/haven't watched CSI I take it?). In this case matters would be simplified because you wouldn't need to worry about elevation (any tall structure or tree would have been taken out early on, so the shot would have to be coming from ground level) and you already have some idea as to the basic direction (in the direction of the enemy trenches). All you'd need to do is shove a stick - or failing that a finger - into the hole while holding the 'head' towards the enemy trench. That would give you the general direction the shot came from, and the general area in which to call artillery fire down on. 3; Depends. It seems that Snipers in WW1 fired from fixed positions and didn't move around - there are some references to snipers shooting from behind metal sheets. However German troops proved rather good at getting from their positions into bunkers at the first sign of artillery fire. (Which is the main reason that sustained artillery bombardments of German Trenches over days or weeks didn't shatter German defenses when they sent the infantry in). In this case it would be open to debate. If the sniper had a reason to think that he might have hit a dummy he would have been more than capable of getting under cover before artillery fire could be called in. If not there would be a decent chance that he might be caught in the open, although even then he might have stood a good chance of surviving the bombardment unless more or less hit directly - which would be unlikely even if they knew exactly where he was - or a nearby shell buried him under the walls of a trench. Most of which would actually be testable (they could alter 1 by simply having the 'sniper' calling out 'fake' or 'real', and use both A&J as well as an expert sniper from the SFPD's SWAT team.) 2 is, as I hinted at, something that is done on CSI as a matter of course and could easily be tested in this context instead of that show. 3 is probably not testable, as there are just to many factors to take into account to be able to make any judgement as to the probability of a sniper surviving any resulting artillery barrage. Come to think of it, wasn't there some myth about shooting the metal plates snipers hid behind in the hopes of some of the metal on the inside breaking off and peppering the face of the sniper with shards? IIRC didn't they go as far as to create structures like fake trees where a sniper could hide and rest, even store some rations, and stay for some time? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 13, 2014 16:47:58 GMT
A fake tree-trunk yes, they did. Not a fake tree as such, as any such tall structure would usually end up being torn apart by artillery - the logic being that they were ideal locations for snipers. Allied troops blew a lot of Church spires to rubble in France after D-Day for this reason - even though it seems that snipers were smart enough not to pick church spires as hiding places, knowing they would be the first things to get shot at.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2014 16:53:06 GMT
A fake tree-trunk yes, they did. Not a fake tree as such, as any such tall structure would usually end up being torn apart by artillery - the logic being that they were ideal locations for snipers. Allied troops blew a lot of Church spires to rubble in France after D-Day for this reason - even though it seems that snipers were smart enough not to pick church spires as hiding places, knowing they would be the first things to get shot at. us yanks do have a propensity for smashing things. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Nov 19, 2014 13:39:50 GMT
My Great Grandfather said that for Scottish soldiers in the trenches their uniform was a kilt & that they wore silk Ladies tights (the fore-runner - no pun intended - to modern panty hose) to stop the mustard gas attacks to their exposed legs. Any truth to this or is it just a tall yarn.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 19, 2014 15:08:04 GMT
My Great Grandfather said that for Scottish soldiers in the trenches their uniform was a kilt & that they wore silk Ladies tights (the fore-runner - no pun intended - to modern panty hose) to stop the mustard gas attacks to their exposed legs. Any truth to this or is it just a tall yarn. According to the BBC, the MOD released documents showing they did tests on issuing gas protective leggings during the 1929s an 30s, but they were never issued. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2221824.stmI suppose it is possible that some Scottish soldiers got hold of some drawers and tried them during WWI, all sorts of improvisation did occur, but it seems they would not have been regulation. |
|
