Landsturm Posted 2 April , 2005 Share Posted 2 April , 2005 I came across with this photo in http://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/Us..._in_World_War_I The caption says British infantry advancing through gas at Loos, 25 September 1915. But, since this online encyclopedia seems to have several mistakes I`d like to hear your opinion. Is this photo a real thing? I have never seen this before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 2 April , 2005 Share Posted 2 April , 2005 I couldn't say if it was 'real' or not. Some observations though. The blurry nature of the photograph, with the dust/smoke in the background, suggest it may have been taken during a battle. It doesn't look staged. The white 'earth' in the foreground suggests piles of chalk, which would be consistent with, but not diagnostic of, Loos. On the left, the soldier appears to be wearing a cap, not the anti-gas hood, so this makes it unlikely that the photograph was taken during the gas attack at Loos. It is possible that the more indistinct figure on the right has a steel helmet, which would rule Loos out completely. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 2 April , 2005 Share Posted 2 April , 2005 I would agree with Robert, the camera is nice and low to ground to give maximum protection to both camera and man, and it is not dramatic enough for a staged shot, the very grottyness with lack of "drama" of the picture suggests to me it's the real action photo, but probably not Loos. One last thing, I am no chemist. but didn't the early war gasses corrode brass and glass on contact, so a half or full plate camera wouldn't do well in a gas atmosphere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 2 April , 2005 Share Posted 2 April , 2005 An excellent point, T8HANTS. You are absolutely right. Chlorine was highly corrosive and within minutes of contact would severely tarnish any metal objects - several accounts mention this. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWills Posted 2 April , 2005 Share Posted 2 April , 2005 It is worth bearing in mind that although carrying of cameras was expressly forbidden from around March/April/May 1915 there continued to be a number still in the possesion of British servicemen through 1915 and beyond. I have seen correspondence relating to their use around the time of Loos, one writer spefically referring to "sausages" for the "sausage machine" implying camera roll film and have seen pictures from the Loos sector leading up to the attack. Gas was not terribly effective in places whereas smoke was also used and could account for the haze of the picture. That said, there is no easy way to tell and there are, as people have suggested, hints that it might well not be Loos. Whilst chlorine gas may have affected brass, it may well have had no effect on chrome fittings. I would suggest, therefore, that chlorine in the air may well not preclude photography, though it would not help it. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 On the right hand side of the photo, if you look through the gloom there seems to be a structure that could be a pit head. If it is then it may well be taken in the Loos sector. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 I like others have some reservations about the date of this picture, but it does at least seem to be authentic in regards to battle conditions. I find the comments on gas/chlorine and its possible effects on cameras interesting. I have a photo aledged from a gas attack at Loos, shown below. I have not taken it at face value as being totally genuine but bought it as i liked it. regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 Arm Nice photo. Looks like it is taken in a quarry. Certainly later than the Battle of Loos but there were other operations in the area, most notably the Canadian attack on Lens in 1917. Either, or both, photos might reflect later actions. After Loos, chlorine gas was either not used or cloud gas attacks were made during 'quiet' periods, purely for attrition of the German forces. One of the largest cloud gas attacks was made near Lens when rail trucks full of gas cylinders were run up on a siding parallel to the front line and all of the cylinders were opened electronically. The British troops had been evacuated from the trenches to the front and immediate flanks of the gas attack. Nasty! Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Robertson Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 The soldier on the right appears to be wearing a tin helmet - this would indicate a later date than Loos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pte1643 Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 I`d like to hear your opinion. Is this photo a real thing? I have never seen this before... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This EXACT picture also features in John Keegans book... The First World War, An Illustrated History. Page 176. The photo credit is given as, and I quote directly from the book... "Troops advancing to the attack through Gas. This photograph was taken by a member of the London Rifle Brigade on the first day of the Battle of Loos, Sept 25 1915." Make of this, what you will. A question though... Is the "Pit Head" in the murk consistent with the area that the LRB were fighting? Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 I have seen this photo in a 1920s/30s unit history somewhere, but can't think where. There is one problem with Keegan's caption - the LRB didn't take part in the Battle of Loos! They were in the Salient at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pte1643 Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 Paul. I was unaware of the LRB's position at that time. Wow, I've always taken Keegan to be one of the better military historians, for such a "Goof" to appear in one of his books surprises me a little. Personally, I would say the picture was Loos, but obviously not by a member of the LRB. Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff. Hobson Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 My uncle who was gassed and taken prisoner at Loos whilst with the 8th Battalion the Lincolnshire Regt., but I believe it was a result of British gas which had been released when the wind direction changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pte1643 Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 They were in the Salient at this time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can I just ask a stooooopid question... I've read many times of "THE SALIENT", can I assume this is a reference to the 2nd Ypres? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkristof Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 Can I just ask a stooooopid question... I've read many times of "THE SALIENT", can I assume this is a reference to the 2nd Ypres? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The salient is the bow shaped frontline around Ypres... More info on my website: http://users.skynet.be/fa068453/SRD/salient.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 Most veterans referred to the Ypres area as 'The Salient', irrespective of when and where they had served in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hone Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 Donald Richler's otherwise reliable book on British gas warfare 'Chemical Soldiers' includes a couple of photographs allegedly of Loos which are quite clearly not as the British troops are, as in the examples above, wearing steel helmets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnie Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 I think that it could be any where, who is to dipute it. However am I right in saying that no one seems to be carrying a rifle certainly not one with a fixed bayonet? If we think we can tell the difference between service dress caps and stell Helmets should we not be able to detect weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 3 April , 2005 Share Posted 3 April , 2005 I do not wish to be overskeptical, but the very first second I saw this 'photograph' I thought : "This is not a photograph, but a drawing." Are we sure it's not a drawing ? Yes, I know, both the Encyclopedia and John Keegan explicitly write in their caption : "Photo taken..." and "This photograph was taken ...", but could they be wrong when thinking it's a photo, not a drawing ? By the way, the Encyclopedia mentions both the Regiment and the Battalion, J. Keegan only the Regiment, so the Encyclopedia did not just borrow the caption from Keegan, but took it from elsewhere. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landsturm Posted 3 April , 2005 Author Share Posted 3 April , 2005 If we think we can tell the difference between service dress caps and stell Helmets should we not be able to detect weapons? From this ankle it is difficult. In fact I`m not sure if the man on right is even wearing a steel helmet, like it was suggested. The photo (if this is one, like Aurel already stated) is quite poor quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen binks Posted 4 April , 2005 Share Posted 4 April , 2005 Most veterans referred to the Ypres area as 'The Salient', irrespective of when and where they had served in the area. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I always considered anywhere between Plugsteert and Bixschoote as the Salient. However having read "Armageddon road" (for the 100th time!) and taken that same right turn, I now think of Shrapnel Corner as the true start of the bottom of the Salient. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 4 April , 2005 Share Posted 4 April , 2005 Steve, Shrapnel Corner being the start of the bottom of the Salient ? I really think that's a bit too tight. The lines never were there. Shrapnel Corner is only 750 meters (0.5 mile) south of the Lille Gate. True Fourth Ypres (Emperor's Battle) brought the lines a lot closer (Hell Fire Corner 1 mile meters east), but south of Ypres was still as far as 2.5 km (1.6 miles) south of the Lille Gate (Lankhof, Demarcation Stone) Where did the Salient start and end ? Hard to say, as it depends on the time. - First Ypres : Salient ran from Steenstrate - Bikschote in the north down to east of Wijtschate in the south. - Second Ypres made it shrink : Boezinge in the north down to Hill 60 in the south - Third Ypres made it expand again from Noordschote in the north, east of Passendale and down to Ploegsteert in the south. - Fourth Ypres made it shrink again and brought the lines - at least in the east and south - closer than they had ever been. I think it is safe to consider the Salient as what it was in its largest phase ? The Map in Major & Mrs. Holt's gives a good idea. However no lines for Fourth Ypres there. (I have always wondered why these are absent.) For that you should have a look at the (remaining) Demarcations Stones. (Though I heard that these are not always in the correct position. I know for sure that the one in my village (Boezinge) is on the wrong location ! Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pte1643 Posted 4 April , 2005 Share Posted 4 April , 2005 Many thanks guys, for explaining the area known as "The Salient". But I fear I/We have hi-jacked Lands' original thread. Getting back to Landsturm's Original Photo... The photo is very "Fuzzy", Could it be that the chap on the right is wearing a Gas Hood, rather than a Steel Helmet? The chap on the left, who appears to be wearing a Cap. Well couldn't he be wearing his Cap on top of his Gas Hood, as I'm sure I've seen this practice in a photo somewhere? It would be a shame, for me personally, if the picture where NOT to be of the Loos area though, as I've always taken it to be true. As I said, always associated Keegan to be one of the more knowledgable. How about Richard Holmes and Gary Sheffield, I've always taken their work in reverence also? Arm's picture, however clearly shows that the chap on the far right is wearing a Steel Helmet and a Gas "Mask", rather than a "Hood" and therefore is obviously later than Loos. Both deeply "atmospheric" pictures though. Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 4 April , 2005 Share Posted 4 April , 2005 Authors, typically, don't choose the photos for a commercially published book - especially big timers like Keegan. Some publication assitant or researcher probably found it somewhere and took the caption as true ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWills Posted 4 April , 2005 Share Posted 4 April , 2005 Even the best of archives have questionable captions, usually due to assumptions made in the past or the donor simply saying "this is ...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now