drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) (01/19/91)
From: drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) Before there are a large number of postings about why some TV reporters are saying that the British gas masks are "better" than American ones, I thought I would post this. The standard American issue combat CBR (gas) mask is the M17A1 which is a modification of the M17. The M17 was introduced about 1959-60. This design included many features which were based on years of chemical warfare experience. The major feature is that the filters are liver shaped pads roughly 6" x 4" x 1" that fit into cheek pouches _inside_ the mask. This gives the mask a smooth exterior with no cannister to hang on obstructions or to act as a handle for an assailant to use in removing the mask. Other features are: 1. Large, double lenses. The outer set being easily replaced if broken. 2. Provision for corrective lenses. 3. Good internal air flow to keep lenses clear. The M17A1 adds two features: 1. A small drinking tube to permit drinking from a canteen fitted with a special cap. 2. A fitting to permit giving artificial respiration to a victim without removing your mask. (I do not know how well this works in practice.) In recent years, NATO countries have realized that the Soviets had the capability to so contaminate a large area with chemical agents that soldiers would have to live 24 hours a day in their masks. To do this they would have to be able to change the filters _without removing the mask_. Herein lies the rub. Changing the filters on the M17 or M17A1 is sort of like stuffing a loaf of bread into the foot of a rubber boot, without breaking either the loaf or the boot. It can not be done with the mask in place. This is why the new British masks have gone back to the external filter cannister. (How one replaces the filter without introducing contamination must be an interesting engineering problem.) It is doubtful that Iraq could deliver the quantity of CW agents that would make this important. ========================================================================== | Donald R. Newcomb | Disclaimer: Disclaimer? I don' | | (601) 863-2235 | need no stinking disclaimer. I | | drn@pinet.aip.org (new) | pay for this mailbox. | ==========================================================================
yun@eng.umd.edu (Dragon Taunter) (01/21/91)
From: yun@eng.umd.edu (Dragon Taunter) drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) writes: >Before there are a large number of postings about why some >TV reporters are saying that the British gas masks are >"better" than American ones, I thought I would post this. [...] A local t.v. station is doing an expose of sorts on why the U.S. is still using gas masks with 70's technology in it. Another point to add is that the British masks have a provision for a voice amplifier with a speaker. The M-17 muffles out just enough sound to make speech practically unintelligible. It is not a good feature to have basic communications capability elimiated while under fire. -- yun@wam.umd.edu zwy0c@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov (code 926) yun@eng.umd.edu zwy0c@charney.gsfc.nasa.gov 5 hrs 10' 39" W 39 deg 2' 9.7" N A milihelen is the amount of beauty required to launch one ship.