Large box respirator cannister filter

[Hogenaker]

Hi there

i was just looking through some old posts about Large Box respirators. There is quite a bit on bags but does anyone have any photos of the filters? Most pictures I can see show the face bit and the tube going into the bag.

Stay safe

Hogenaker

 

[Chasemuseum]

Unfortunately there is nothing next to it to give scale compared to the SBR filter but I hope this helps.

The photo is from Purnell's History of the Great War series. There was no credit to the photo (a large multinational display of WW1 gas masks) but I suspect that it was a photo of an old IWM display.  The IWM does have LBR in the collection but are not photographed on line, see entry EQU 4983   .

Cheers

Ross

 

 

[Hogenaker]

That’s very helpful indeed. I wonder if the air intake was the same as the SBR.

cheers

ps to my untrained eye it looks like a sbr filter

[Chasemuseum]

11 hours ago, Hogenaker said:

ps to my untrained eye it looks like a sbr filter

 

It may be an SBR filter  - the photo is from  - Purnells History of the First World War, Vol 8 pages 3266 & 3267 it is part of a large display of mixed masks. It's described as a "British tank crew respirator and goggles".  The author is given as Chris Barker. No credit is given as to where the photos and data are sourced, I suspect IWM but also Porton Downs may have provided images.

 

I suspect it may actually be a salvaged LBR rebuilt with an SBR canister, hose and mouth piece, to provide a mask suitable for use with optical instruments.

       The face piece, head harness and nose clip are typical of the LBR. The goggles are the type normally associated with the LBR.

       The mouth piece is more typical of the SBR with the hose connection at 90deg to the main brass tube. The wire guard for the exhaust flutter valve is missing. 

 

This is the only photo I have of the canister.  In the book "La Guerre Des Gaz 1915-1918" by Delhomme & Lachaux, they only provide drawings of most of the masks rather than photos. The drawing of the LBR shows what looks like a larger canister, with a slightly bowed shape. Unfortunately they give no credits for where they accessed masks to make their drawings. The problem is that its always dangerous to trust modern drawings without references.

Cheers

Ross

 

Gerard Lachaux - the two models of Large Box Respirator gas mask

 

AIF chaplain wearing LBR                                                                                               USA Ordnance series on WW1 gas masks, LBR

 

 

Purnell's History WW1 various masks.

 

 

Purnell's History WW1 two SBR and a Russian Zalinsky mask.  The SBR canister on the right is an early model which has had the small extension filter taped to the base for protection against the arsenic gases (powders). The later model canister incorporated this protection inside the standard size canister.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hogenaker]

That’s great stuff many thanks. In the ‘face on’ photo the top of the cannister is just in view and it looks massive- size of a water bottle at least. I know it’s LBR but it’s still a surprisingly big thing.
the bag looks like a converted side bag.

great pics many thanks indeed.

👍Hogenaker 

[Ypres1915]

Here is a still captured from a film on gasmasks produced during the war. It shows the cannister under a pair of gas goggles. You can see the connection of the hose to the can, which seems similar to the SBR connection. I suspect the can had an extension that the facepiece tube was slipped over and secured with wire. The can is quite large compared to the SBR and I suspect the name came after the development of the SBR.

 

ypres1915

[Ypres1915]

I suspect the mask in the photo is indeed a rebuilt LBR but I would not rule our the original caption from the book. The connection to the facepiece is also a SBR piece as is the hose. It may well be a special gas mask developed to be worn with the tanker's anti splinter mask. An awkward fit for sure …. protecting the eyes from gas while wearing the splinter mask is another issue.

 

Ypres 1915

On 21/07/2020 at 05:22, Chasemuseum said:

Unfortunately there is nothing next to it to give scale compared to the SBR filter but I hope this helps.

The photo is from Purnell's History of the Great War series. There was no credit to the photo (a large multinational display of WW1 gas masks) but I suspect that it was a photo of an old IWM display.  The IWM does have LBR in the collection but are not photographed on line, see entry EQU 4983   .

Cheers

Ross

 

 

 

[Ypres1915]

I also suspect the mask in question may be a special "Tank Crew Mask" since it doesn't look padded like the LBR facepiece. I believe the LBR was layers of flannel that could be soaked to provide further protection. This leads me to believe the LBR facepiece was not rubber backed as was the SBR facepiece, but was just cotton. The one in the display does not look padded, it looks like and SBR without goggles. 

[Chasemuseum]

You would not be able to where the splinter mask and any type of gas mask at the same time, it simply would not be possible.

 

Also with virtually any type of war gas (chemical agent) you need to wear goggles if at all possible and only remove them for as short a time as possible.  Most of the agents are highly soluble in water and affect the eyes badly.

 

Cheers

Ross

 

[Hogenaker]

That’s wonderful stuff. Particular thanks Ypres 1915 for the still. You’ve gone to a lot of trouble. You are all generously giving your knowledge.

so pleased with the posts.

cheers Hogenaker 

[Ypres1915]

On 21/07/2020 at 05:22, Chasemuseum said:

I looked up the description of the LBR on the IWM site for the entry supplied. I thought it may be of some interest.

 

Attached caption reads: LARGE BOX RESPIRATOR The canister contains soda-lime-manganate granules (known as the "Boots" granule) and animal charcoal. The face-piece was made of many thicknesses of muslin sewn together and impregnated with a solution similar to that used with gas helmets. Only the mouth and nose are covered, sponge rubber goggles being used for eye protection. The issue of these was begun in February 1916. 7358

 

 

 

Unfortunately there is nothing next to it to give scale compared to the SBR filter but I hope this helps.

The photo is from Purnell's History of the Great War series. There was no credit to the photo (a large multinational display of WW1 gas masks) but I suspect that it was a photo of an old IWM display.  The IWM does have LBR in the collection but are not photographed on line, see entry EQU 4983   .

Cheers

Ross

 

 

 

[Ypres1915]

 

Just browsing the IWM site and came up with this listing. Interesting it states the mask covered the mouth only. The LBR covers the mouth and the nose I think.

 

Respirator, anti-gas (for tank crews): British

EQU 5002

 

description

Label

Attached caption reads: RESPIRATOR FOR USE IN TANKS The face-piece of this respirator covers the mouth only. The nostrils are closed by a nose-clip and the eyes are protected by goggles. 7346

 

 

Edited 25 July , 2020 by Ypres1915

[Chasemuseum]

On 26/07/2020 at 07:18, Ypres1915 said:

mask covered the mouth only

 

I suspect that this is incorrect. The German observers mask was a mouthpiece only with a nose clip, so a mouth only mask is possible but unusual. There were a large number of early masks that covered the mouth and nose.

 

When using an LBR or SBR there is a breathing tube into the mouth for both inhaling and exhaling. - inhaling through the canister and exhaling through a flutter valve, the function of the nose clip and fabric mask is to manage contaminated air leakage around the mask and minimize the hazard of leakage being accidentally inhaled through the nose or mouth. This is an added problem for British troops having used the P, PH & PHG gas masks for an extended period, where the soldier breathes in using the nose, with the contamination neutralized as air passes through the treated fabric of the hood and exhausts through the mouth only using the mouth tube and flutter valve. So LBR & SBR represent a significant change for troops in how an item of equipment is used, where a mistake in a period of confusion and stress is potentially lethal.

[Tom K]

On 25/07/2020 at 17:18, Ypres1915 said:

RESPIRATOR FOR USE IN TANKS The face-piece of this respirator covers the mouth only.

 

On 26/07/2020 at 21:10, Chasemuseum said:

I suspect that this is incorrect.

 

The IWM description may very well be incorrect - we all have seen misdescribed items in museums - but there is a picture of something that looks very much like what is described in post #2 above - and that particular something is definitely not an LBR (neither the face piece nor the canister), and it's face piece would only cover the mouth and nose.

 

As to why this might be useful in a tank - one of the drawbacks of the SBR face piece is that it is impossible to use optical equipment while wearing one. Since tanks are basically mobile platforms for cannons and machine guns, such a development might have be thought at the time, to have been useful.  Like many ideas (including the splinter mask Ypres posted) this proved impractical due to the characteristics of war gasses you already mentioned. 

 

I believe that later a version of the SBR with splinter proof glass lenses was introduced which may have improved its optical performance.

 

On 26/07/2020 at 21:10, Chasemuseum said:

a mouth only mask is possible but unusual.

 

Even if we discount the IWM description and the strange apparition in post #2. A mouth and nose only mask intended for general service is a fact. According to "British Military Respirators and Anti-Gas Equipment of the Two World Wars" by Thomas Mayer-Maguire and Brian Baker, the LBR covered only the mouth and nose.  You can see this in the two period photos above (which appear to be the only two photos in existence of anyone wearing a LBR).  Sponge goggles (as worn by the AIF Chaplain, and the RE private in the two period photos) or Spicer goggles (shown in front of the canister in Ypres' first post) were used to protect the eyes. This appears to have been an intentional design choice - specifically to deal with the problem of "dimming" due to moisture condensing on the eye pieces, so the full face piece in the drawing above appears to be pure fantasy. Also they refer to the exhalation through the canister reducing its life (due to moisture accumulation) - so by inference the LBR did not have a flutter valve (again contrary to the drawing).   

 

As mentioned above, the face piece of the LBR was made of 75  40 or so layers of muslin impregnated with a chemical solution (zinc hexamine) to neutralize some gases - just like the PH hood (how this was supposed to work when breathing through the canister I do not know - but perhaps the idea was to provide some backup protection in case the user needed to talk while wearing the respirator?

 

 

 

On 22/07/2020 at 03:30, Hogenaker said:

 it looks massive- size of a water bottle at least.

 

According to Mayer-Maguire and Baker - the original experimental canister developed by Bertram Lambert was in fact made using a water bottle.

 

On 22/07/2020 at 03:30, Hogenaker said:

The bag looks like a converted side bag.

 

The bag is purpose made just for the LBR - They were converted to use as haversacks by troops not equipped with P08 webbing after the LBR was superseded.

 

T.K.

Edited 30 July , 2020 by Tom K
corrected figure

[Chasemuseum]

15 hours ago, Tom K said:

A mouth and nose only mask intended for general service is a fact.

 

On 27/07/2020 at 11:10, Chasemuseum said:

There were a large number of early masks that covered the mouth and nose.

 

Mouth and nose masks were widely used, it is the mouth only mask which is unusual. Hence I suspect that, that comment in the IWM description is unreliable.

 

German observers mask from the Chase Museum collection and a well known contemporary photo of a British staff officer demonstrating one. This is the only "mouth only" mask of the Great War I am familiar with.

 

15 hours ago, Tom K said:

face piece of the LBR was made of 75 or so layers of muslin impregnated with a chemical solution (zinc hexamine)

Regards the number of muslin layers in the LBR face mask, my reference does not give the number of layers only a comment that it was modelled on the French TN mask (The museum has a TN and it is about 1cm thick with numerous layers of muslin).

 

15 hours ago, Tom K said:

the full face piece in the drawing above appears to be pure fantasy

Lachaux & Delhomme describe this as an improved version eliminating the need for separate goggles, and state that about 3 million masks total of both models were produced - a relatively low number compared to about 9 million P,PH & PHG and 50 million SBR. Their book contains no details of references, bibliography or where they accessed surviving equipment for the large numbers of drawings. Hence my original comment regarding trusting modern drawings (1985) without references.

 

I do not have any contemporary photos of the full face LBR, but given how hard it is to find any photos of LBR - this is not surprising

 

15 hours ago, Tom K said:

by inference the LBR did not have a flutter valve

Examination of the IWM example would be the best way to address this. At present this is absolutely impossible for me. IWM are really good, they will bring items out of storage for inspection, needs to be booked about a month in advance (that was before Covid) .

 

I would be surprised if the mask did not include the flutter valve as this was a well established technology from the P, PH & PHG masks and as the filter media of the canister used activated charcoal (bone charcoal) which is degraded by saliva (activated charcoal is/was used as a filter media in various industrial process water circuits including as the filter media in sugar refining and as the final gold capture media for the carbon in pulp - gold mining process.)

 

The photo of the "AIF chaplain" appears to show the protective cage for the flutter valve although the valve is very indistinct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ypres1915]

I agree with one of your original posts when you stated the display from the book you quoted is indeed from the IWM. I believe the mask in the photo is the same mask in their collection, EQU 5002. The description for this item describes a "label" that came with the mask. The description for the LBR in the collection also describes a "label". These labels were most likely produced by the person who donated the artifact which was well before the book you describe was published. During this period, there were many WWI veterans still alive who would have had direct knowledge of the masks worn whether they were not described in routine orders or lists of changes. From my experience these documents were well behind the issue and use of items in the field.

 

The German mask you photographed is an example of a mouth only mask but there is a possibility the mask in question is another example of a mouth only mask. Tanks were first used in September 1916 and the SBR was issued in August 1916. It would make some sense that the use of the mask in tanks was considered and a special mask issued in the event the Germans used gas as a defensive measure. The mask in the photo does appear to have a nose clip as shown in the photo below. It appears to be attached to the mask with cord.

 

As Tom K stated, the mask may have been impractical and was not further used. The problem of wearing the SBR in tanks was still an issue and led to the use and issue of shatterproof glass lenses in the SBR of tanks and MG crews. I have an example of this glass lens in my collection, see below. You can clearly see the perished celluloid sandwiched between the pieces of glass from the front and the back. You are correct that obtaining photos of both masks in question would further the conversation.

 

I believe the IWM will take photos for a floating fee depending on how the images will be used. 

 

All the best,

 

YPRES1915

Edited 28 July , 2020 by Ypres1915

[Tom K]

I'm not sure we are looking at a flutter valve, it could be, or it could be something behind the chaplain or equally well some chord looped around the breathing tube.

 

In their British Military Respirators book, Mayer-Maguire and Baker write: "inhaling and exhaling through the canister did lead to problems..." and go on to explain the moisture affecting the activated carbon problem that was explained in depth in the post above - the statement clearly implies there was no flutter valve, however well established the idea was.  It is also worth noting that just because there was a known problem, didn't mean that it wasn't done anyway. Inhaling and exhaling through the filter was not uncommon - on German respirators of the great war period the user inhaled and exhaled through the filter -  this was not changed until after WW1. 

 

Mayer-Maguire and Baker go on to indicate that the SBR was revolutionary and a significant advancement over the LBR - stating that the SBR it was the most technically advanced respirator in existence at the time.  These statements also lend weight to the idea that there was no full face LBR. If there were an LBR with full face piece equipped with exhalation flutter valves, the advancement would have been incremental - effectively amounting to a change in the size of the filter.

 

Tom K

 

Edited 28 July , 2020 by Tom K

[wainfleet]

 

17 hours ago, Tom K said:

I'm not sure we are looking at a flutter valve, it could be, or it could be something behind the chaplain or equally well some chord looped around the breathing tube.

 

In their British Military Respirators book, Mayer-Maguire and Baker write: "inhaling and exhaling through the canister did lead to problems..." and go on to explain the moisture affecting the activated carbon problem that was explained in depth in the post above - the statement clearly implies there was no flutter valve, however well established the idea was.  It is also worth noting that just because there was a known problem, didn't mean that it wasn't done anyway. Inhaling and exhaling through the filter was not uncommon - on German respirators of the great war period the user inhaled and exhaled through the filter -  this was not changed until after WW1. 

 

Mayer-Maguire and Baker go on to indicate that the SBR was revolutionary and a significant advancement over the LBR - stating that the SBR it was the most technically advanced respirator in existence at the time.  These statements also lend weight to the idea that there was no full face LBR. If there were an LBR with full face piece equipped with exhalation flutter valves, the advancement would have been incremental - effectively amounting to a change in the size of the filter.

 

Tom K

 

 

With the Gummimaske and Lederschutzmaske the user inhaled through the filter, but exhaled air was expelled from the mask through its sides at the cheeks. It was essentially the same principle as the flutter valve.

[Tom K]

Respectfully I disagree - that may have happened, if the mask were poorly fitted, and that may be what one experiences wearing a 100 year old artifact today, but it wouldn't work that way reliably unless there were a oneway valve fitted somewhere on the inlet.  On the SBR there are two one way valves - a rubber disk on the inlet to the canister, which opens when inhaling and closes on exhaling, and the flutter valve, which closes on inhaling and opens on exhaling. 

 

If the air flow resistance through the filter were high enough to prevent exhalation through it without a valve, you wouldn't be able to inhale through it either - so air would also enter at the cheeks, defeating the mask.  There is no evidence of a oneway valve on any WW1 German or Austrian gas masks or spare filters I have had the privilege of examining or owning.  Also, with the German Observers mask above, kindly posted by Chase Museum - the user clearly breaths in and out through the filter which would not be possible if there were a oneway valve built into the filter (I am of course assuming that it used the standard cartridge filter), or into the mouthpiece.  

 

Both the Gummimaske and the Ledershutzmaske - in particular - are very robustly constructed and it seems to me that they are intended to fit very tightly to the face.

 

The US Navy Mk 1 Gas Mask is very similar to the Gummimaske except that it is also equipped with a nose clip, inlet and exit flapper valves - it may be based on the British experimental mask that was introduced for troop trials along side the SBR in May of 1916 and that is described as "virtually identical" to the Gummimaske - the changes represent refinements of the deign that seem pointless if the Gummimaske were already designed this way.

 

Tom K

Edited 29 July , 2020 by Tom K

[wainfleet]

7 hours ago, Tom K said:

Respectfully I disagree - that may have happened, if the mask were poorly fitted, and that may be what one experiences wearing a 100 year old artifact today, but it wouldn't work that way reliably unless there were a oneway valve fitted somewhere on the inlet.  On the SBR there are two one way valves - a rubber disk on the inlet to the canister, which opens when inhaling and closes on exhaling, and the flutter valve, which closes on inhaling and opens on exhaling. 

 

If the air flow resistance through the filter were high enough to prevent exhalation through it without a valve, you wouldn't be able to inhale through it either - so air would also enter at the cheeks, defeating the mask.  There is no evidence of a oneway valve on any WW1 German or Austrian gas masks or spare filters I have had the privilege of examining or owning.  Also, with the German Observers mask above, kindly posted by Chase Museum - the user clearly breaths in and out through the filter which would not be possible if there were a oneway valve built into the filter (I am of course assuming that it used the standard cartridge filter), or into the mouthpiece.  

 

Both the Gummimaske and the Ledershutzmaske - in particular - are very robustly constructed and it seems to me that they are intended to fit very tightly to the face.

 

The US Navy Mk 1 Gas Mask is very similar to the Gummimaske except that it is also equipped with a nose clip, inlet and exit flapper valves - it may be based on the British experimental mask that was introduced for troop trials along side the SBR in May of 1916 and that is described as "virtually identical" to the Gummimaske - the changes represent refinements of the deign that seem pointless if the Gummimaske were already designed this way.

 

Tom K

 

My mistake Tom, you are correct. It's the British WW2 civilian gas mask that works this way and has a one-way valve. I had that in mind in another context and it intruded.....As you were, chaps!

[Ypres1915]

I revisited the film made during the war hoping to get some clarification and took some more stills that may shed some light on the discussion. There does appear to be a metal cage around a flutter valve on one LBR in the film. The inside of the mask is also photographed and illustrates the thickness of the padding. It is worth watching the video from the attached link. It shows a demonstration of a soldier putting on the LBR at approximately 7 minutes. I watched this video numerous times and can not see the cage or the flutter valve, although earlier in the film a cage and filter are seen on an LBR. Perhaps there are more than one model of the mask? One without a flutter valve and one with a valve. It shows how the head harness of the mask very clearly and clearly shows it being worn over the mouth and nose. 

 

http://ww1lit.nsms.ox.ac.uk/ww1lit/collections/item/5516

 

All the best,

 

Ypres1915

 

Edited 30 July , 2020 by Ypres1915

[Tom K]

OK - I stand corrected. 

 

Fascinating images - certainly show what looks like a flutter valve.  Send that film to Peter Jackson and get him to restore it - looks like it would be a treasure trove of images. The sequence of the sergeant donning the mask is particularly interesting.

 

Tom K

[GRANVILLE]

On 21/07/2020 at 08:15, Hogenaker said:

Hi there

i was just looking through some old posts about Large Box respirators. There is quite a bit on bags but does anyone have any photos of the filters? Most pictures I can see show the face bit and the tube going into the bag.

Stay safe

Hogenaker

 

There are no LBR photos in Peter Doyle & Chris Foster's excellent book 'Remembering Tommy', but there is an interesting comment made concerning them. Peter writes: "The box (actually a converted standard issue water bottle)......

 

David 

[Chasemuseum]

5 hours ago, GRANVILLE said:

Peter writes: "The box (actually a converted standard issue water bottle)......

I have seen this comment in a few books/articles about gas warfare, but the illustrations from Delhomme and Ypres1915 captures from the IWM film above show this as incorrect. The proportions and shape may have been similar and this is likely to have been the origin of the comment - the very first experiments in the manufacture of the canister may have involved converting water bottles but the production masks clearly used a purpose manufactured sheet metal canister - most probably using a lighter gauge tin plate metal with top and bottom lid sealing using press fit of cupped end pieces followed by light rolling of the lip. The metal can of the canister would have been substantially cheaper to manufacture than a Mk VI enamelled steel water bottle. 

[GRANVILLE]

I can well believe that the standard water bottle leant itself well in the haste to find a solution, but I agree that as actual production was attempted, something specific for the purpose will surely have been made.

David