Tank Crew eye protection

[delta]

During their tank actions, in September 1916, several of the crewmen suffered eye injuries from the glass prisms fitted to the tanks.

Does anyone have any details as to when tank face masks were introduced for the first time?

[14276265]

The design for Goggles, Field, Mark I |L|, steel, padded, with chain mail, vizor and tapes was formally approved 9 July, 1917.

TW Supply Department report of week ending 7 July, 1917, states initial demand of 7,000 and arrangements in hand for manufacture.

TWSD notes first issues of 1,200, week ending 28 September, 1917.

By 20 November, 1917, a total of 5,012 had been issued.

 

265

 

Edited 3 July , 2022 by 14276265
TWSD info added

[awjdthumper]

I always understood that these masks were required to protect the crew from metal flakes or spalling from the inside of the metal shell of the tank due to bullet impacts on the outside, especially from German K-bullets with their steel cores. However, people have also indicated that they were to protect against bullet splash (molten lead) penetrating past the joints in the metal plates or even past the rivets. In principle, the use of periscopic vision slits should have protected the crew from bullet impacts on the optics although nearby shell detonations could well have blown shattered optics into the tank. In this case, I'm not sure how much protection the mask would have provided?

[Pete_C]

On 03/07/2022 at 18:36, 14276265 said:

The design for Goggles, Field, Mark I |L|, steel, padded, with chain mail, vizor and tapes was formally approved 9 July, 1917.

TW Supply Department report of week ending 7 July, 1917, states initial demand of 7,000 and arrangements in hand for manufacture.

TWSD notes first issues of 1,200, week ending 28 September, 1917.

By 20 November, 1917, a total of 5,012 had been issued.

Outstanding research, thanks for sharing. An iconic item of Great War kit that everyone seems to be aware of but I'm not aware of any authoritative works on their origins, manufacture, deployment and effectiveness in battle. 

The 'initial' contract of 7,000 suggests more than that number may have been manufactured - have you any indication of total production ? Can't have been that many more as genuine surviving examples are so rare - certainly rarer than the growing number of fakes in circulation.

Pete

[delta]

Thank you so much - that's wonderful.

Can you please confirm the name of the TW SD as Trench Warfare Supply Department. 

Edited 4 July , 2022 by delta

[14276265]

2 hours ago, Pete_C said:

The 'initial' contract of 7,000 suggests more than that number may have been manufactured - have you any indication of total production ? Can't have been that many more as genuine surviving examples are so rare - certainly rarer than the growing number of fakes in circulation.

The first demand in June, 1917, was for 5,000, increased within a few days to 7,000. The demand was then increased in November to 12,000, and again in January, 1918, to 20,000. Finally it was bumped up to 22,000 in April. The final production figure that seems to have been recorded was 15,727 for week ending 11 May, when DMRS returns for spot requirements of Armour appear to have ceased. (Weekly production figures of steel shrapnel helmets continued to be recorded to the end of the war.)

As for the 15,727 recorded, all were issued by the Ministry of Munitions to either Ordnance Officer Boulogne, or Calais, and UK training schools, but whether they were actually issued to units is open to question. A 1919 MID report states, "goggles with a depending chain mail cover for the mouth, &c, have been issued to the Tank Corps, but they do not appear to have been extensively employed".  The small numbers of genuine surviving examples might be down to them being unpopular, and so ultimately dumped and scrapped in bulk.

 

37 minutes ago, delta said:

Can you please confirm the name of the TW SD as Trench Warfare Supply Department. 

My error - TWSD is in fact Trench Warfare Supplies Department, which was the official department name.

 

 

265

[Chasemuseum]

14276265  thank-you, great information with references to the primary source.

 

Given the volume of production and the alternative uses available for them the survival rate is relatively high at over 1% but well less than 10%. (More probably in the 2% to 5% range). The difficulty of course is that now the annual production of reproductions (fakes) appears to more than the likely total of all original surviving examples.

 

For most WW1 items of stores a survival rate of 1% is unlikely, its just that when you make millions of something, 1% can still be a big number – eg water bottles, mess tins, bayonets

[Pete_C]

10 hours ago, 14276265 said:

The first demand in June, 1917, was for 5,000, increased within a few days to 7,000. The demand was then increased in November to 12,000, and again in January, 1918, to 20,000. Finally it was bumped up to 22,000 in April. The final production figure that seems to have been recorded was 15,727 for week ending 11 May, when DMRS returns for spot requirements of Armour appear to have ceased. (Weekly production figures of steel shrapnel helmets continued to be recorded to the end of the war.)

As for the 15,727 recorded, all were issued by the Ministry of Munitions to either Ordnance Officer Boulogne, or Calais, and UK training schools, but whether they were actually issued to units is open to question. A 1919 MID report states, "goggles with a depending chain mail cover for the mouth, &c, have been issued to the Tank Corps, but they do not appear to have been extensively employed".  The small numbers of genuine surviving examples might be down to them being unpopular, and so ultimately dumped and scrapped in bulk.

 

My error - TWSD is in fact Trench Warfare Supplies Department, which was the official department name.

 

 

265

Thanks again for sharing this first rate research.  I’ve learned more from this thread than in preceding decades of reading, not least that they are in fact ‘goggles’ not masks.

Pete

[14276265]

13 hours ago, Pete_C said:

Thanks again for sharing this first rate research.  I’ve learned more from this thread than in preceding decades of reading, not least that they are in fact ‘goggles’ not masks.

Pete

 

22 hours ago, Chasemuseum said:

14276265  thank-you, great information with references to the primary source.

 

Given the volume of production and the alternative uses available for them the survival rate is relatively high at over 1% but well less than 10%. (More probably in the 2% to 5% range). The difficulty of course is that now the annual production of reproductions (fakes) appears to more than the likely total of all original surviving examples.

 

For most WW1 items of stores a survival rate of 1% is unlikely, its just that when you make millions of something, 1% can still be a big number – eg water bottles, mess tins, bayonets

 

Thank you, the information has been gleaned from a wide range of primary source documents as a by-product of other TW-focussed research. The full nomenclature "Goggles, Field, Mark I" is seen in contemporary documents (such as Priced Vocabulary of Munitions Stores 1919, and the Inspection and Manufacturing drawings) but has disappeared into obscurity. The Imperial War Museum refers to its examples as "face mask, anti-splinter, tank crew", which has the appearance of a formal stores nomenclature, but isn't; so the goggles will likely be known as anti-splinter masks for evermore. 

How many original examples survive is anyone's guess, but that numbers of fakes now exceed the total of extant originals is probably a fair statement. At least if anyone finds a bare metal "relic" with a date of 1916 stamped on the back face it should be obvious that its veracity is questionable. (Date of manufacture and contractor's initials/trade mark were applied, but just not where they appear on the fakes.)

[delta]

I will try to do a more detailed analysis of wounds suffered by crews of 15 September.  

As an immediate answer, penetration of tanks by bullets is reported by Gnr Charles Bond from Bridgwater who was the left hand front machine gunner in D15 Duchess - he was hit as the tank advanced across no man's land by machine gun bullets entering between gaps in the armour. Others were hit after artillery fire damaged the commander's front hatch thus providing an entrance.  

Both the skippers and driver of the male tanks D18 Damn and D24 were also wounded, the skipper of Damn and the two drivers were injured by broken glass from the prisms (vision blocks). Basil Henriquez and his unknown driver in the C22 crew suffering the same fate - his gunners wounded by bullets penetrating the sponsons.  The skipper of D24 suffered a head wound when a machine bullet bullet hit the top of the periscope and then travel down the tube into the tank. . 

Edited 6 July , 2022 by delta

[JMB1943]

This is an interesting thread.

I have two questions regarding these tank goggles,

1) Was there ever a British Patent, applied for or awarded, for these goggles?

2) What was the specification for the steel (or iron ore) used?

Regards,

JMB

Edited 6 July , 2022 by JMB1943
typo

[14276265]

3 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

1) Was there ever a British Patent, applied for or awarded, for these goggles?

2) What was the specification for the steel (or iron ore) used?

 

1) It would appear not. The request for steel goggles came directly from GHQ*, and was serviced by TW Supplies Department**. There was no private designer involved so, unlike Mr Brodie and his helmet lining, no need for a patent even if there was any novelty.

*Munitions Design report w/e 23 June, 1917: "Eye Protectors - A type of steel goggle with chain mail attachments to protect the face has been asked for by GHQ, and the matter is in hand."

**TWSD report w/e 30 June, 1917: "Steel Goggles with Chain Visors - A  demand has been received for 7,000, for protecting the eyes and faces of men employed in the 'tanks'. The department has in hand the preparation of a suitable design, which will be passed for approval in the course of the next few days."

2) The goggles consisted of a front shield made of tinplate, which facilitated the soldering of the nose piece; and the back plate of "Steel, No.18 SWG, Shrapnel Bullet Proof"***. At various times throughout 1916 the TW Munitions Design Committee authorised tests to select the plate required for body armour, and 18 gauge had been found to be proof against Shrapnel bullets, 41 to the pound, with a striking velocity of 1,050 f/s. The specification was formalised at 1,000 f/s, and plate proof to 950 f/s would be accepted. It is this specification that would most likely have applied to the back plate of the goggles.

*** This is marked on the manufacturing and inspection drawing and, per usual practice, was taken directly from the design specification.

****MDC minute (T)92,  8 September 1916.

 

 

265

[JMB1943]

265,

Those specs and their sources are very useful information.

I was interested in a comparison to the steel used for the Brodie helmets, and it seems that the 18 SWG steel at 1.22 mm is somewhat thicker than the Brodie steel at 20 SWG = 0.91 mm; the Brodie was specified to also stop a shrapnel ball (41 to the lb) at 700 ft/sec, while the backplate here is proofed to stop the same ball at 1000 ft/sec.

The ratio of steel thickness (1.219/0.914) at 1.33 is about equal to the ratio of velocities (1000/700) at 1.43.

Regards,

JMB

[14276265]

23 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

I was interested in a comparison to the steel used for the Brodie helmets, and it seems that the 18 SWG steel at 1.22 mm is somewhat thicker than the Brodie steel at 20 SWG = 0.91 mm; the Brodie was specified to also stop a shrapnel ball (41 to the lb) at 700 ft/sec, while the backplate here is proofed to stop the same ball at 1000 ft/sec.

MDC minute, (T)122, 26 January, 1917, addresses the suggested addition of rubber tubular cushioning to the liner of the Brodie helmet by Lt Andrewes, AIF. "He stated that in the field men often have helmets which do not properly fit and in which the top of the head is very close to or touching the crown, so that any heavy blow produces concussion or fracture. The addition of some buffer under the crown would seem desirable, as the blow of a Shrapnel bullet at 600 f/s is equivalent to that of a 10lb dumb-bell dropped from a height of 14ft." That analogy suggests that the cushioning of the steel goggles around the eyes - two thicknesses of chamois leather - was of limited effectiveness if the tank armour was compromised, and may have contributed to the goggles not being extensively employed.

As might be expected MDC minutes confirm the Brodie shell thickness as 20 SWG (0.036" inch), and also confirm that as early as January 1916, "18 gauge Firth, Whitworth, Hadfield or other high grade steel should be made into body armour".

 

11 hours ago, delta said:

I will try to do a more detailed analysis of wounds suffered by crews of 15 September.  

It might be more illuminating to consider causes of crew casualties in any tank actions of spring and early summer 1917. It was around early June 1917 that GHQ, France, asked for some form of face protection, perhaps spurred on by a recent spate of facial injuries?

[JMB1943]

265,

I was not aware of the 10lb weight dropped from 14 ft analogy to the strike of the shrapnel ball at 600 ft/sec---quite the eye-opener! (not meant as a joke).

Regards,

JMB

[Chasemuseum]

My immediate reaction to the statement above was that it was wrong and way off the mark. So I checked references and did the math.

A shrapnel ball for an 18-pounder shell is nominally 41 to the pound, travelling at 600 fps gives a kinetic energy of 185.0 joules

A 10-pound weight falling 14 feet has a kinetic energy of 165.2 Joules

So the comparison, although crude is roughly correct.

 

And a shrapnel bullet was very much an "eye opener". It would open up just about any part of the human body in a most unpleasant way.

 

The tank goggles of course were not meant to stop a shrapnel bullet in flight, rather as protection against the small metal fragments passing through armour plate when it cracked from being hit by concentrated machine gun fire, or the small metal fragments breaking off the back of an armour plate when the outside of the plate was hit by a shell that had been unable to penetrate the armour. 

[Chasemuseum]

On 06/07/2022 at 10:33, 14276265 said:

How many original examples survive is anyone's guess,

Having collected material from the Great War since the early 1970s, including obtaining two sets of goggles in the 1970s, when fakes were not a problem, I have regularly seen credible examples come on the market over the last 50 years and together with examples in museum collections can say with some confidence that there are probably at least 150 out there (1%) hence my estimate of more likely 2% to 5%  (300 to 750) with an upper credible limit of say 1500 (10%). 

 

Given the frequency with which examples are appearing on certain on-line auctions, there can be no doubt that most of these are reproduction and given the general quality of these (ie not absolutely dreadful copies) that they must be made on a semi-formal production line or several production lines. Extrapolating how frequently they appear in the single market place (that on-line auction that shall not be named) across the greater militaria markets through Europe, UK, and North America it would appear that several hundred copies are being manufactured every year.

[the_ageing_young_rebel]

The irony of all these fakes is that I could actually use a nice reproduction of these googles for a project I'm working on. But because all of these reproductions are being sold as real items, I can't afford them. Please sombody just sell me a nice reproduction at a reasonable price!