|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 19, 2014 15:08:44 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. that would be one of those "we can't legally test this" questions - the key being whether the silk would provide significant protection. for intellectual testing, one would have to know if regular clothing was sufficient for skin protection - and if the tights were a dense enough cloth to afford the same protection the wikipedia article indicates that mustard gas would pass through permeable clothing - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_mustard |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 19, 2014 15:20:09 GMT
Getting hold of Mustard gas would be difficult or illegal (probably the later) but you could if that hurdle was gotten over wrap legs of pork in various grades of cloth.
But I think the Lightworks is correct, it probably cannot be done, and from what I understand normal clothes would not prevent burns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 19, 2014 18:05:51 GMT
A more likely explanation would be that wearing a kilt in the trenches in the middle of winter (which if memory serves included some of the coldest recorded) was begging for frostbite. Soldiers probably just bought tights as being something they could cover their cold legs with and which were available locally.
The bit about protecting against gas attacks...probably a manly way to explain why they were wearing women's underwear.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 20, 2014 9:35:23 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. Would they have worked?.... And how to test anyway. That particular gas is "Bad news", its not as if you could test against it could you?... What could you use instead?... |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 20, 2014 10:14:35 GMT
I am guessing no, or at least not in a way that was successful enough to think of issuing them, and that is why kilts were withdrawn from battledress uniforms. Like the article says they did tests at Porton Down, the British chemical and biological warfare test facility, and given what we know of 1959s Nuclear testing also done there I think they did not baulked at using recruits as test subjects. Take for instance their use of Nerve agents against this man, causing his death. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Maddison |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 20, 2014 10:17:54 GMT
I am guessing no, or at least not in a way that was successful enough to think of issuing them, and that is why kilts were withdrawn from battledress uniforms. Like the article says they did tests at Portland Down, the British chemical and biological warfare test facility, and given what we know of 1959s Nuclear testing also,done there I think they would not have baulked at using recruits as test subjects. Or was it a case of not being able to supply.... Take a look at Afghanistan and the troops sent there. Incapable vehicles, not suitable body armour, kit shortages, ... the list is endless...... I am wondering of the logistics of actual supply were not a "Bean count" expense in the reason to not issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Nov 21, 2014 12:09:43 GMT
Yes this myth is a bit 'dicey' isn’t it? I don’t know but I think the main problem will be getting hold of the mustard gas. From what I’ve read among other things (lung & eye damage) it causes blisters to the skin - hence the silk tights. If they could get the mustard gas what if they also got hold of a ‘human analog’ aka: a freshly dead pig they test the myth with the ‘human analog’ in silk tights? (Question if they do end up doing the myth with a pig is in silk tights then can we call it ‘Miss Piggy’?  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 21, 2014 13:30:48 GMT
Mustard gas is a schedule 1 chemical agent who's producted is limited to 100 grams per year and total stockpiles are limited to a ton. Use is likewise limited to testing with the intention of developing better anti-chemical defenses. This is because the only use of this chemical is warfare.
This classification and ruling isn't US specific, but an international treaty signed by practically all countries in the 1990's.
Translation; Mythbusters are not getting their hands on Mustard gas period, and would not be allowed to carry out any tests using it even if they could. The US military would outright refuse to allow them to do so, and making them own or carrying out tests for entertainment would result in them going to jail for the rest of their lives.
***
Using urine soaked hankies over the face to protect against chlorine gas *might* be something they could do. But both science and history backs the idea of this working, so its not quite a myth.
I like the idea of looking at WW1 myths as a theme, Adam could get to play dress up as an allied (probably British/Commonwealth soldier). But I think chemical agent myths are off the board here. Not that this really limits the number of myths;
The shockwave from a nearby shell could catch the edge of a soldiers helmet, causing it to rise up with enough force to break the soldiers neck. Hence you are better off leaving the strap undone. (This was discussed in depth elsewhere at one point, with the real reason for leaving the strap undone being that it rubbed. This was a common myth in both world wars it seems)
'Razzle Dazzle' - posted as its own thread a while back.
Interupter gearing vs Armed props - Also posted on TC elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Nov 21, 2014 13:48:07 GMT
Right then that's that then. I guess this myth will have to go into the same drawer as Poodle in a Microwave. On to the next one..................
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 21, 2014 15:15:51 GMT
the chin strap myth was on the old boards. - but it was not only shockwave from artillery - it also allegedly kept getting hit in the helmet with a bullet from breaking your neck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Nov 21, 2014 19:06:24 GMT
It would probably be easier to test the chin strap by firing bullets at a (reproduction, not original) helmet, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 21, 2014 19:33:30 GMT
Actually the best way to test the basic principle would probably be an air cannon, then to move up to testing this at the bomb range. It might prove to be a rather simple and straightforward myth to look at, since I'd be surprised if they couldn't buy a dozen helmets from various movie-prop departments. In the case of the Commonwealth helmets the design didn't change between the wars, or for quite sometime afterwards, and they were used not just for the military but also civilian agencies (specifically firefighters). So there should still be a huge number of these helmets lying around.
Firing bullets is problematic since they would most likely have to shoot upwards, which means a location where there is zero risk of the round hitting anything but dirt. While they might well be able to find such a location, I'm guessing they would consider it too much work for the footage gained.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 22, 2014 10:23:03 GMT
Question on dropping bullets "Back down"....
They did a terminal velocity thing of falling bullets...
Is there a way to fly overhead (Helicopter) and air-drop a bag of bullets... must be easier that firing loads straight up and hoping for one to drop on target?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 22, 2014 11:55:12 GMT
Question on dropping bullets "Back down".... They did a terminal velocity thing of falling bullets... Is there a way to fly overhead (Helicopter) and air-drop a bag of bullets... must be easier that firing loads straight up and hoping for one to drop on target?... not sure what that is relevant to on this topic. cyber is talking about simulating shooting trench to trench - which has a bit of an upgrade so they must make sure their backstop is sufficient to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Nov 22, 2014 17:39:47 GMT
Actually the best way to test the basic principle would probably be an air cannon, then to move up to testing this at the bomb range. It might prove to be a rather simple and straightforward myth to look at, since I'd be surprised if they couldn't buy a dozen helmets from various movie-prop departments. In the case of the Commonwealth helmets the design didn't change between the wars, or for quite sometime afterwards, and they were used not just for the military but also civilian agencies (specifically firefighters). So there should still be a huge number of these helmets lying around. Reproduction-grade WWI helmets aren't cheap, I just Googled up a few sites. On the other hand, movie-grade would be just fine for most of the tests; maybe get one period-accurate reproduction for Buster to wear in the final test to head off "you got X result because you used the wrong steel in the helmet" griping. My main concern with the shockwave test is the amount of fine-tuning they'll need. The claim appears to be that given the same shockwave from an explosion, a person with his chinstrap fastened would get a broken neck and a person with an unfastened chinstrap would survive. A trench should provide some protection against an explosion's shockwave, but figuring out how much of Buster can be above the edge of the trench without killing him could take time. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 22, 2014 20:12:32 GMT
Actually the best way to test the basic principle would probably be an air cannon, then to move up to testing this at the bomb range. It might prove to be a rather simple and straightforward myth to look at, since I'd be surprised if they couldn't buy a dozen helmets from various movie-prop departments. In the case of the Commonwealth helmets the design didn't change between the wars, or for quite sometime afterwards, and they were used not just for the military but also civilian agencies (specifically firefighters). So there should still be a huge number of these helmets lying around. Reproduction-grade WWI helmets aren't cheap, I just Googled up a few sites. On the other hand, movie-grade would be just fine for most of the tests; maybe get one period-accurate reproduction for Buster to wear in the final test to head off "you got X result because you used the wrong steel in the helmet" griping. My main concern with the shockwave test is the amount of fine-tuning they'll need. The claim appears to be that given the same shockwave from an explosion, a person with his chinstrap fastened would get a broken neck and a person with an unfastened chinstrap would survive. A trench should provide some protection against an explosion's shockwave, but figuring out how much of Buster can be above the edge of the trench without killing him could take time. you'd basically want some form of shockwave generator is there such a critter? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 22, 2014 21:00:29 GMT
MB would be more than capable of making their own helmets if they had to, they are basically just sheets of mild steel pressed into a bowl shape and were intended to be mass produced. Most of the cost of reproductions is probably in the interior webbing and attachments for those, which is a lot more complex than most people would think - My mother used to work in a nursery and one of the items in their play box was a WW2 air raid warden's helmet* which is identical to the helmets used by the military except for the paint. So I got to see one of these helmets up close and personal on several occasions...and probably played with it myself at some point as I went to the same nursery when I was a little kid.
(*Of course within a week of me pointing out what the helmet was it vanished...)
So we don't need something that is 100% identical, just that is the right shape and weight. The only part that might need to be comparable to the original design would be the chinstrap.
An air cannon would be the simplest way to test to see how much force the helmet actually catches, and would allow them to test both Commonwealth, US and German helmet designs. Heck, if they are making some of their own helmets they could even create a version specifically designed to catch as much force as possible. A fake head/neck with a force gage (and which can move) would allow them to measure the amount of force passed on to the neck. Maybe a 'spine' made from wood...or printed in plastic (Adam has, I think, a 3D printer or at least access to one through the guys at Tested.)
They can start with something like the 'pop' gun, move up to something like the gun used for supersonic ping pong and then move up to using actual explosives. Judging lethality would be easy, as they could simply use the burst disks they have used multiple times before.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 23, 2014 15:05:53 GMT
MB would be more than capable of making their own helmets if they had to, they are basically just sheets of mild steel pressed into a bowl shape and were intended to be mass produced. Most of the cost of reproductions is probably in the interior webbing and attachments for those, which is a lot more complex than most people would think - My mother used to work in a nursery and one of the items in their play box was a WW2 air raid warden's helmet* which is identical to the helmets used by the military except for the paint. So I got to see one of these helmets up close and personal on several occasions...and probably played with it myself at some point as I went to the same nursery when I was a little kid. (*Of course within a week of me pointing out what the helmet was it vanished...) So we don't need something that is 100% identical, just that is the right shape and weight. The only part that might need to be comparable to the original design would be the chinstrap. An air cannon would be the simplest way to test to see how much force the helmet actually catches, and would allow them to test both Commonwealth, US and German helmet designs. Heck, if they are making some of their own helmets they could even create a version specifically designed to catch as much force as possible. A fake head/neck with a force gage (and which can move) would allow them to measure the amount of force passed on to the neck. Maybe a 'spine' made from wood...or printed in plastic (Adam has, I think, a 3D printer or at least access to one through the guys at Tested.) They can start with something like the 'pop' gun, move up to something like the gun used for supersonic ping pong and then move up to using actual explosives. Judging lethality would be easy, as they could simply use the burst disks they have used multiple times before. but an air blast is not the shock wave from an explosion, and an air gun will not simulate the impact of a bullet. you could perhaps say that the air gun could be used to simulate shrapnel from an artillery strike, but that's an awful reach. theoretically for the helmet, they could get stampings made and put modern suspension in them - at risk of having the "you did it wrong because you didn't get the results I wanted" response. to be clear; by "shrapnel" I mean ANY flying debris, not just the material of the artillery shell |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 23, 2014 17:35:48 GMT
As I noted, I think that the bullet part of the myth would be untestable in practical terms due to the need to have a suitable backstop. They appear to be VERY wary of firing off projectiles of any sort into the air after the cannon mishap - which also showed them how unpredictable projectiles can be if they hit something. The quarry might be judged possible, as might the desert, but this would require a day of location filming for something fairly minor and this might not be practical production-wise. (Keep in mind that we wouldn't be talking about handgun rounds but rifle rounds).
No, an air blast isn't the same as the shock-wave from an explosion. However such testing would allow them to judge if it is even plausible for helmets to catch a blast wave, and even better is something that they could test in the shop quickly and simply - as well as providing additional high speed footage. The final testing with real explosives would of course be the clincher, and using information from shop testing opens up the possibility of trying to design a helmet design of their own as well as the historical designs. (Like I said, I suspect that MB would be quite capable of making metal helmets for testing if they had to. And would certainly be capable of modifying older designs in house).
The only part of the webbing in WW2 era helmets that would need to be made from traditional/historically accurate materials would be the chinstrap, since it would need to be shown if the strap would have snapped before the neck. The rest of the webbing just needs to have the same kind of gap between the helmet and head as with the real versions - as that *might* allow air to get under the helmet and push upwards. The tensile strength of that part of the webbing or how it is connected is irrelevant to the myth.
|
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Nov 23, 2014 18:51:32 GMT
As to smokeless US ammo the .30 caliber 1906 cartridge 30-06 was smokeless and used in the US battle rifles 1903 and 1917. Will have to look up when the Brits switched. www.m1-garand-rifle.com/30-06/Tankers wore a steel helmet with a mail like mesh covering their faces due to spalling from the armor plate when hit by non penetrating rounds. |
|
)
