|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 23, 2014 21:36:03 GMT
British .303 rifles used Cordite, a smokeless propellant, from 1891 until 1915 when shortages lead to the adoption and importation of alternative smokeless powders from the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 23, 2014 22:59:33 GMT
The smoke on the battlefields came from the shells, not the guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 24, 2014 0:58:11 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. there is definitely value in testing whether the chin strap is stronger than the neck, and it would be interesting to see it done with an air blast. I'll give you that. I don't think it would turn out to be all that quick to actually do, because I think it would take a much larger air blast than we might expect. the live explosive test could be done in one, by doing the mythbuster blast spiral. - it would take more helmets and neck analogues, of course. (I'd add in the complication of whether it would throw the soldier backwards before breaking his neck - but let's give this the best chance of success) the bullet question - I'd say they could test this at a gun range with a good bullet trap, like they used for the other shooting myths - since the only reference to uphill is really the angle of impact and they can do this with positioning of the test dummy. or to be more applicable to the test - it is essentially the same as the test of shooting a cowboy hat off a person's head. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 24, 2014 8:44:57 GMT
If a helmet is to catch air, I suspect it would matter what angle it was to the oncoming blast....
If the wearer sensed the blast and dipped his head?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 24, 2014 15:16:28 GMT
If a helmet is to catch air, I suspect it would matter what angle it was to the oncoming blast.... If the wearer sensed the blast and dipped his head?... which adds the minimyth of whether period artillery shells really made that whistling sound. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 25, 2014 9:08:57 GMT
If a helmet is to catch air, I suspect it would matter what angle it was to the oncoming blast.... If the wearer sensed the blast and dipped his head?... which adds the minimyth of whether period artillery shells really made that whistling sound. Yes and no. Some didnt. The others were designed to do that..... My Granddad told me that after the gunners learned that the whistling sound demoralised those it flew over, they designed in the sound to all shells, so that the constant passing of whistling ordinance would drive the enemy crazy. So you blow one to hell and then his next door neighbours all count down those that miss.... Apparently its worse than a dripping tap to a thirsty man?.... Depends what "Period" you talk about... it was certainly in the great war. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 25, 2014 12:50:49 GMT
Other WW1 myths that MB might be able to test?
They will have two weeks - one for design/planning and building and one to film (figure comes from Jamie) to do everything (less is better). A limited budget, can't do anything illegal (no chemical agents) and would not have access to major hardware (sorry no artillery myths).
'Razzle Dazzle' and 'Helmet decapitation' would seen good choices, although the emphisis on explosions might make them a bit to similar in some regards. If we assume they do one or another that means one explosive myth. What would be needed for a special would be two other myths that are somewhat different. Maybe something that involves a build - the dummy soldier trick *might* be something they could look at as this would harken back to their effects experience. Maybe myths about things soldiers did to try and deal with conditions in the trenches? Improvised (weather) protection clothing or something along those lines maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 25, 2014 14:58:50 GMT
Other WW1 myths that MB might be able to test? They will have two weeks - one for design/planning and building and one to film (figure comes from Jamie) to do everything (less is better). A limited budget, can't do anything illegal (no chemical agents) and would not have access to major hardware (sorry no artillery myths). 'Razzle Dazzle' and 'Helmet decapitation' would seen good choices, although the emphisis on explosions might make them a bit to similar in some regards. If we assume they do one or another that means one explosive myth. What would be needed for a special would be two other myths that are somewhat different. Maybe something that involves a build - the dummy soldier trick *might* be something they could look at as this would harken back to their effects experience. Maybe myths about things soldiers did to try and deal with conditions in the trenches? Improvised (weather) protection clothing or something along those lines maybe? improvised cooking might be a direction to look in, as well. but as for the razzle dazle being too similar to the helmet decapitation - I'm thinking not. I'm thinking they are sufficiently different. one is a myth about vision and perception. the other is a myth about impact dynamics. |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Nov 26, 2014 12:25:18 GMT
I'll see if I can find a cite for you, but there's stories that when field hospitals on the Western Front ran out of antiseptics they would use garlic juice on wounds. Supposedly it was as effective as the "official" antiseptics.
An agar-plate test should be perfectly valid for this -- after all, penicillin was discovered when mold spores contaminated a petri dish. They'd need to team up with a doctor, to get a strain of bacteria that would be found in an infected wound ... but they usually get a supervising doctor for bacteriological tests anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 26, 2014 13:43:56 GMT
That would make a nice minimyth to add to the list. I suspect that they may be wary of bacterial myths as they can be hard to pull off in a visually interesting way, or at least in a way that can sustain a full segment on its own. But it might make for a nice simple filler myth.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 26, 2014 15:11:12 GMT
That would make a nice minimyth to add to the list. I suspect that they may be wary of bacterial myths as they can be hard to pull off in a visually interesting way, or at least in a way that can sustain a full segment on its own. But it might make for a nice simple filler myth. a "field medicine" myth. what else is there that could actually be done? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 27, 2014 22:42:05 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.) Further musing on this particular little idea leads me to wonder if this might not be something they would be interested in. Such trickery would seem right down A&J's alley, being special effects guys and all. If we could find a source or information to indicate how the dummy was made - I'm guessing this was the kind of thing cobbled together in the trenches from what was available - that might be a good start. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 28, 2014 8:45:22 GMT
I'll see if I can find a cite for you, but there's stories that when field hospitals on the Western Front ran out of antiseptics they would use garlic juice on wounds. Supposedly it was as effective as the "official" antiseptics. An agar-plate test should be perfectly valid for this -- after all, penicillin was discovered when mold spores contaminated a petri dish. They'd need to team up with a doctor, to get a strain of bacteria that would be found in an infected wound ... but they usually get a supervising doctor for bacteriological tests anyway. Add Onions on to that list as well. Many of the multi-layer bulbs have been reported as having some anti-septic qualities. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 28, 2014 9:59:39 GMT
Wild Thyme can be added to the list, it was collected and used as an antiseptic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 28, 2014 11:17:04 GMT
Collected and used during WW1 in the trenches? Or just used in general?
MB would probably want to look at things specific to WW1, as in documented use (even if that is in personal journals rather than official reports) not just general usage.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 28, 2014 14:56:11 GMT
I heard it was used on the battlefield and in Army Hospitals behind the lines, I think it was on a visit to National Trust property that was used as one by a guide. I have also found this from the U.S. Army Nurse Corps that suggests they used it as part of a purgative for Mustard Gas treatment. e-anca.org/Mustard-WWI.htmSeveral treatments were devised. Acute conjunctivitis required alkaline eye irrigations over and over again until the symptoms lessened and abated. With the large numbers of patients admitted to hospital units, this meant the nurses started at one end of the ward and by the time they had reached the other end of the unit, it was time to begin a new round of treatments.5 For those who had breathed in the mustard gas, nurses at Base Hospital 32 helped devise a mixture of “guiacol, camphor, menthol, oil of thyme and eucalyptus [that forced the patients to expectorate the inflammatory material]. Patients received immediate relief, [respirations were less labored so] … healing was begun.” |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Nov 29, 2014 0:59:57 GMT
This link refers to garlic poultices on wounds. This WebMD article has some notes on modern medicinal garlic -- short form, allicin isn't the most stable chemical out there, if you're gonna use garlic as a medicine use the fresh stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 29, 2014 1:03:38 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.) Further musing on this particular little idea leads me to wonder if this might not be something they would be interested in. Such trickery would seem right down A&J's alley, being special effects guys and all. If we could find a source or information to indicate how the dummy was made - I'm guessing this was the kind of thing cobbled together in the trenches from what was available - that might be a good start. I got the idea from the show "Weird Warfare", which brought it up as part of a section talking about the use of dummies. This includes a defector whose lady friend used a crude dummy to delay the authorities long enough for him to meet with his contact and make his way out of the country. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 29, 2014 3:26:40 GMT
This link refers to garlic poultices on wounds. This WebMD article has some notes on modern medicinal garlic -- short form, allicin isn't the most stable chemical out there, if you're gonna use garlic as a medicine use the fresh stuff. This is a great quote: " Garlic is used for many conditions related to the heart and blood system. These conditions include high blood pressure, high cholesterol, coronary heart disease, heart attack, and “hardening of the arteries” (atherosclerosis). Some of these uses are supported by science. " |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Nov 29, 2014 3:50:41 GMT
Yeah, I was trying to steer clear of the nutcase sites.
|
|
