Jump to content

AEF Gasmasks & Respirators 1917 to 1919


world war I nerd
 Share

Recommended Posts

World War I Nerd, I look forward to meeting you some day to shake your hand- what a great article and piece of research and reference resource this is!! I especially enjoy the personal stories and anecdotes from the soldiers, and the gas warfare experience is part of what makes the study of WWi stuff and stories unique!! Thanks for all your hard work!

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Thanks for the virtual handshake Tennessee; I look forward to the real thing one day.

 

I recently found the following stating that as of January 1918, it was a court marshal offense to lose one’s gasmask. This was likely due to the fact that the British SBR was in short supply. Early in 1918, the AEF didn’t even have enough masks to go around. In fact, the 1st Division only had enough gasmasks to supply two of its three infantry battalions. Therefore, when one battalion came out of the line they had to give their respirators to the men of the new battalion as they filed into their positions.

 

Protection against gas was one of the most important parts of training. The masks or box respirators, were adequate protection when put on in time, but wearing them was torture until one’s face became accustomed to the large mouth piece, clip that shut the nose tightly, and the close-fitting face piece. Practice perfected the Company to get the masks on in six seconds, and wearing them at drill and while firing the guns. But it was necessary to make it a Courts-Marshal offense to lose one. Later in the year, after they had experienced gas at the front, one rarely found a man without a mask at hand while sleeping.

 

Captain, Wendell Westover, Company A, 4th Machine Gun Battalion, 2nd Division, AEF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

WOW!!! Great reading and a great reference. I really enjoyed the section on animal gasmasks. I see the German dog mask is in Australia - curious if anyone knows of one on display in US?

Keep up the great work - these are better than any reference books I own

Thanks so much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Thanks for reading the post Jeff, I'm glad you found it informative. Thanks also for mentioning the animal gasmasks. I almost didn't include that section - thinking that no one would be interested in that aspect of gas warfare.

 

 

Here's some additional first hand information regarding how ill-prepared the AEF was in respect to anti-gas training:

 

About this time we were issued gas masks for the first time, thus furnishing us with another weapon, or means, of warfare about which we knew nothing. There was a small, active individual with glasses from general headquarters who was supposed to be our instructor. He used to give us long lectures on gas, in which he told us when gas had first been used in the past (I believe by the Greeks), how it had been employed in the beginning of the war, what gases had been used, and what their chemical components were. He told us at great length how to protect ourselves against the gas cloud, and then informed us that cloud gas was not used any longer. Later he took up the deadly effects of mustard gas, and how we must immediately put on the gas masks when gas was evident.

 

Toward the end of the lecture a deeply interested officer asked him how one could detect gas when it was present in dangerous quantities. He didn't know; so we left the lecture with full information as to obsolete methods of using gas, with full information as to its chemical components and effects, but with no information as to how to detect it when it was present in dangerous quantities.

 

Lieutenant Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, CO 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, AEF

 

An interesting photo showing 'Hello Girls' or AEF telephone operators working the switchboard within the gas alert zone of 12 or less miles from the front. This fact is indicated by the presence of the respirators and steel helmets slung from their chairs.

 

 

post-5143-0-95873700-1431042421.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Kevin_quin

Wow this really helped a lot!! I have my own CEM gas mask from World War 1 and I am fairly new to the subject. After many questions were answered I still have a few. On the bag under the serial number reads "S-18-18". I am not sure what this indicateds and am very curious. My flutter valve has broken off but it reads "22", then "1819", and then "7819". I couldn't find anything on this and am wondering what significance these numbers hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Hi Kevin,

 

To this day the markings on the gasmask satchels remain a mystery (or at least to me they do). Some speculate that the letter and numerals like - "S-18-18" refer to a production date, i.e. September 18, 1918, but that remains an unproven theory. As to what the other numbers represent, (more speculation) they are likely some sort of "lot" or internal control number, or perhaps a reference to the number of the government contract, or to the manufacturer, whom the government also assigned a number. All of which could likely be identified if someone were to dig through all of the Chemical warfare Service and Medical Department's wartime purchasing records.

 

A letter initial could also be a reference to the firm that manufactured a particular part. Probably a dozen or more separate firms manufactured individual parts, such as eye pieces, face pieces, hoses, flutter valves, filter canisters, etc. All of the separate parts were then shipped to one or two central firms presided over by the Chemical Warfare Service for assembly and testing. The numbers, and or letters, were probably used as some sort of quality control to identify who made what and when, as well as how many were ordered in case there was a problem with any given part.

 

If you click on the link shown at the very beginning of this thread, it will take you to another post here on the forum that has some discussion, but no real conclusions on the various serial numbers found on the gasmask satchels.

 

If you learn anything please let the rest of us know ...

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rvandehoef

Thanks so much for posting this info World War 1 nerd. I never knew there was a 4th Div mascot dog. I'll dig in to see if I can find more info about him/her, and post it.

 

Rogier

Photo No. 144: It’s probably safe to assume that nearly every regiment and division within the AEF kept a dog, cat, or some other more unusual animal as a mascot. From left to right is an unnamed 4th Division mascot, “Stubby”, the 26th Division’s and perhaps the most well known mascot of the AEF, and “Sergeant Helen Kaiser”, who is said to have been the first American dog to enter German territory. The caption that accompanied this newspaper photo read as follows:

 

Here is Seargt. Helen Kaiser, the heroic war mascot of the First Separate Battalion District National Guard, who was twice decorated with the Croix de Guerre by her regiment for bravery in the trenches, and who has just returned to Washington with her owner, Private James M. White, colored. The dog was gassed and wounded by shrapnel while in the Champagne sector, fighting with the “Bloody Hand” Division. She was the first American dog to enter German territory and has been with the 372nd Infantry since she was born in Potomac Park fifteen months ago.

 

Underneath the images are the 4th Division, 26th Division, and 93rd Division insignia, as worn by their respective mascots.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I recently picked up a very well preserved example of a U.S. Navy MK I Canister Gasmask.

 

For strictly academic purposes, I have pictured the storage canister with an French ARS and a German Lederschutzmasken. The ARS has been re-painted.

 

The innocuous little strip of material is a repair plaster, which is more commonly encountered within the tags seen on British and American SBRs.

 

post-97349-0-26761000-1450232553.jpg

post-97349-0-09806700-1450232566.jpg

post-97349-0-46576400-1450232591.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Greetings Kevin, and WWINerd,

 

 

I missed the following comments due to some offline commitments which kept me thoroughly busy the previous summer, however I think I can shed light on this. I started researching WWI gas masks a long time ago, and even built a small database of information related to them.

 

Wow this really helped a lot!! I have my own CEM gas mask from World War 1 and I am fairly new to the subject. After many questions were answered I still have a few. On the bag under the serial number reads "S-18-18". I am not sure what this indicateds and am very curious. My flutter valve has broken off but it reads "22", then "1819", and then "7819". I couldn't find anything on this and am wondering what significance these numbers hold.

 

 

Hi Kevin,

 

To this day the markings on the gasmask satchels remain a mystery (or at least to me they do). Some speculate that the letter and numerals like - "S-18-18" refer to a production date, i.e. September 18, 1918, but that remains an unproven theory. As to what the other numbers represent, (more speculation) they are likely some sort of "lot" or internal control number, or perhaps a reference to the number of the government contract, or to the manufacturer, whom the government also assigned a number. All of which could likely be identified if someone were to dig through all of the Chemical warfare Service and Medical Department's wartime purchasing records.

 

A letter initial could also be a reference to the firm that manufactured a particular part. Probably a dozen or more separate firms manufactured individual parts, such as eye pieces, face pieces, hoses, flutter valves, filter canisters, etc. All of the separate parts were then shipped to one or two central firms presided over by the Chemical Warfare Service for assembly and testing. The numbers, and or letters, were probably used as some sort of quality control to identify who made what and when, as well as how many were ordered in case there was a problem with any given part.

 

If you click on the link shown at the very beginning of this thread, it will take you to another post here on the forum that has some discussion, but no real conclusions on the various serial numbers found on the gasmask satchels.

 

If you learn anything please let the rest of us know ...

 

Brian

 

 

 

 

My research indicates the alpha-numeric code found inside the gas mask haversacks/satchels is a lot simpler than is assumed. It's just a matter of getting more research to fully tell the story, but here are the basics from my own research and observations which I will share:

 

For example, this is an actual number that can be found in some bags:

 

R - 18 - 29 - 1547

 

The first letter stands for the manufacturer. Rosenwasser Brothers. The '18' is the year date of the contract; 1918. '29' is the real mystery, as the numbers in this position have a high variable range and run in sequence; they may be a date code, perhaps related to weeks and definitely not representing actual days. The last numbers are easy! '1547' is the actual contract number. Thus we have Rosenwasser Bros., 1918, Unknown, Contract 1547. Sometimes you will see an 'A' after the contract number; off the top of my head that was either a contract extension/addition (i.e. increased number ordered), or a change in specification.

 

 

 

The contract numbers (last digit grouping) do not show up except on later production; I have never looked at my database that hard, but I would say they did not come into use until late summer 1918. No doubt there was some reason for going with this standardized system for CWS equipment.

 

So the first letter is what is the most important, since it tells us who made it. I do not have my full list available, but the best way to tie the manufacturer to the letter will always be the contract number found on the later bags. To say all 'L' marked bags were made by 'Long' would be a mistake at this time (although I personally believe each code was arranged to be unique for each manufacturer, at least those manufacturing them in 1918), since we have evidence 'Langrock' was awarded a contract (in 1917) as well. That said, it is my belief that the "L - 18 - etc." letter does stand for 'Long'. I would have to dig more (both in my own research and in the period information), but the following is a basic list:

 

L - R. H. Long.

P - J. Phelan & Sons.

R- Rossenwasser Bros.

S - Simmons Hardware.

 

 

Hopefully some of you will find this tidbit of interest.

 

Regards,

RC

 

PS - The above numbers should not be confused with the serial number of the mask, which was usually ink stamped near the manufacturers' information in the flap and/or on the front of the bag. Each mask was numbered, and the number so duplicated on the bag. Which was really of questionable utility, since the masks had to be turned in and either new or reconditioned canisters attached for reissue. So often the number on the mask will not match the number on the bag for this very reason. As for the mask number, usually the number will end in an alpha suffix (commonly 'C', 'K', or 'X'); I haven't been able to verify it, but my personal theory is that the suffix was used to denote the pattern of facepiece; it's also possible that it denoted the plant that assembled the facepieces. That is only a theory, so do not take it as the final word. They had all of this stuff figured out at the time, so it is only a matter of looking before the documentation will be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continued from the above post:

 

 

The CWS contracted for gas mask knapsacks/haversacks from three companies in June of 1918; R.H. Long (1426), Simmons Hardware (1427), and, Rosenwasser Bros. (1547). By September of 1918 a fourth contract was awarded to Jas. Phelan & Sons (1719). Around this time (September) R.H. Long was in talks with a CWS representative for an additional contract that would triple the total number ordered from them. On October 1, 1918 a second contract was awarded to R.H. Long (1757) for an additional 2,000,000 knapsacks, along with another contract to Rosenwasser Bros (1758). Of course several of these contracts ended up canceled before being completed due to the signing of the Armistice. The numbers in parenthesis are the contract numbers, which can also be found on some of the bags.

 

There are other contract numbers that have also been found on the bags which indicate (but do not prove) that the alpha-numeric coding system was initiated by late spring or early summer. So far, the bulk of evidence shows that it was in effect during earlier production of the summer contracts. Also, keeping in mind that the date of a contract does not necessarily reflect the date the first product was completed. For example, R.H. Long's contract of June 19, 1918 called for the first deliveries of knapsacks to be made by September 1, 1918; nearly 2 months later. Jas. Phelan & Sons was awarded a contract in the spring of 1918, and some of their knapsacks bear that contract, but it is impossible as of this time to conclusively say those bearing the alpha-numerical code were manufactured in April, May, June, or July. What we do know, is that the evidence points to the system most likely having been established by the summer months.

 

Then too, I have observed several knapsacks which appear to have no manufacturer's identification, which is very unusual. We know that Simmons Hardware was marking their product in 1917 (having used two fonts in that time), and also marking them in the early months of 1918. We know that other manufacturers such as Rosenwasser Bros. were awarded contracts in the spring of 1918, and yet I am not aware of any so marked with the full company name (only those with the alpha-numeric code beginning with 'R', which indicate a summer or later manufacture). Langrock too is currently a mystery, as we know they were awarded a contract in late 1917, and yet I know of no so marked examples. Indeed these anomalies point in favor that the coding system was not implemented until early summer 1918. It is possible that the unmarked knapsacks were made by one of the well known makers prior to the application of the coding system; were made by a company which had a smaller contract; or were simply anomalies, whose markings were either not applied though they should have been, or whose markings have simply faded from use. Perhaps further research will be able to tell us which of those is more likely.

 

One question a collector might ask, is what all this means for a 'proper' wartime 1917-1918 display? That is an interesting question! I think much of the above speaks for itself, and we can roughly pin down when such a bag was produced. It is clear that the majority of contracts were not awarded until the summer of 1918, and several more contracts were awarded after that; which of course means most of the knapsacks we see probably did not leave the factory until late summer or early autumn. This is of no surprise when we consider that there was concern that enough be on hand for the 1919 offensives that never were; but were a future possibility when the orders were placed. Again too, we know that doughboys were allowed to retain a mask as a souvenir; with replacement issue authorized for those who had already turned theirs in. My personal observations have pointed to some interesting correlations, but I don't feel they are 'good enough' to share at this time, and I think facts are better than supposition. Some of you might be thinking along the lines of 'my display will just use a 1917 dated knapsack to get around the 1918 questions'; unfortunately it isn't that easy. It is true that some of the (approximately 25,000) early issue masks and knapsacks were shipped to France in late 1917, but they were found unsatisfactory, and many of the early Simmons knapsacks produced in 1917 can be found with notations that they are to be used for training only. There is no doubt that some of the 1917 Simmons production reached the AEF and were probably used, since the knapsacks often were reused with newer masks. However one consideration is that Simmons manufactured an unusual variant knapsack which was superseded by the more 'standardized' knapsacks of 1918. Could this be a reason so many of the early Simmons production was relegated to training; or was it simply the fact they happened to carry the much derided early masks which were declared unsuitable for combat? Certainly in hindsight, we could think that it would have surely made more sense to mark the masks and not the knapsacks, but as the canister and mask were not all that visible once in the knapsack, the marking of the knapsacks might prevent an accidental case of confusion with an approved CE or RFK mask.

 

But that is enough for now,

 

RC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

 

Since posting this I started going through notes I made based on personal observation of surviving masks and knapsacks. There are some interesting patterns that have emerged, but I need to expand my scope and see if it holds up. If it does, there may be a better way to date the knapsacks or masks even more precisely.

 

What I need are good clear photos of the following areas:

 

Front of knapsack open & closed.

Interior of flap open with markings (if present).

Any personalization or naming/painting.

Any information on the instruction record book in the knapsack (if present).

 

All of the above can be checked without having to pull the mask. I would however, appreciate it if you could tell me (or better yet try to get a photo if possible without removing it) what color the filter canister is painted, and whether or not there are any markings stamped on the top of the canister (where the hose inlet is). If you happen to see the serial number on the mask, I could use that too. Since the masks seldom match the original issue knapsack, the serial number on the mask is not of importance to me at this time, so do not pull the mask out if you can't see it or read it. Most of these masks and hoses are very fragile and there is no need to risk damage or breakage to fulfill this request.

 

All of this is optional, but I am hoping that I can 'test' some theories of mine, as well as test some of the emerging patterns I have observed.

 

For those replying to this optional request, please contact me via the personal messenger so we do not fill up the thread.

 

Thanks,

RC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RustyCanteen

Hi all,

 

 

 

I am still collecting replies to the above request, and have received good results from them. I want to thank everyone who has sent me PM's with their contributions.

 

As promised, I have been 'testing' an old theory I had with a database I built of information. I have held off posting or sharing the results since I did not want to cause confusion in the event my theory was later shown to be incorrect, but after looking at the data I feel the picture that has emerged is a very good one. I had originally intended on posting a more detailed reply, but there isn't really a lot to post except my explanation for the numbers. I hope no one will be disappointed. I tried to approach this subject in an unbiased manner, since I did not want to fall victim to bias confirmation (see the answers that I wanted or expected to see); so instead of posting it in the past, I pondered the issue further, trying to find the best way to prove or disprove the theory. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a document spelling out the markings, but I built a database using notes and observations I had made in the past and, with the help of forum members; managed to 'test' what I was seeing with surviving examples in collections. I'm pleased to say that the test appeared to be a good one, and nothing appeared to contradict the data that I saw.

 

I had suggested that we might be able to date them more precisely than just '1918', and it seems that we can.

 

With that, I feel very confident this is the correct manner to read the 'mystery' codes found in the flaps of WWI gas mask knapsacks:

 

Example:

 

R -- 18 -- 23

 

 

Explained:

 

R = Rosenwasser Bros. The manufacturer.

 

18 = The year of the contract; 1918.

 

23 = The week the knapsack was manufactured.

 

Thus R - 18 - 23 tells us that the knapsack was manufactured by Rosenwasser Bros. in 1918, week 23. Week 23 of 1918 would have been June 3-9.

 

I have looked at hundreds of knapsacks and while I was not able to locate any documentation on the numbers, I was able to look at my database and confirm that the numbers found on the knapsacks correspond perfectly with a calendar week, with earlier production in 1918 having lower numbers, and late production in 1918 being in the 40s+ (October and later). There were some other interesting correlations that appeared, but again, until I can test those I would prefer to not post them at this time. They range from some observations on issue, mask numbering, and even rarity. There are some anomalies however, and so nothing should be considered 100%. For example, there are times with it seems certain batches of masks were off from the number range they had been running; likely due to shipments of completed masks and knapsacks being mated after shipping delays. I have also noted that specific variations in the design appear from more than one manufacturer coinciding at around the same time. Another typical anomaly concerns patterns in issuance; it is clear in some cases where a knapsack was either a replacement, or the soldier was likely a replacement since their knapsack falls out of a rough, broad range that others for the same unit fall in. 1917 dated knapsacks show evidence of having been used well into late 1918 even, with new replacement masks in the 2,000,000+ range. Some of the anomalies are more than trivial as some of the others are; an example of this is the use of a small leather pad used to reinforce the 'gusset' in the corners of the knapsack mouth. This change seems to have been in manufacture for a relatively short time. As a matter of interest, one of the generous forum members sent me some information on a knapsack in their possession which provided a perfect example of how I wanted to test my findings. With the number he gave me, I was able to correctly predict a specific feature which he confirmed.

 

My studies certainly appear to show that the knapsacks without the contract number were manufactured in the spring of 1918, while the full contract number are likely late summer production at best. However there is evidence that quite a few late manufacture knapsacks must have been shipped overseas to the AEF. It appears that with more study, we might be able to find a rough range of mask numbers and knapsack production dates that could be attributed to specific divisions. However I would caution against assuming that an attributed knapsack must fall into a specific range to be 'correct'; since there is no question that issue and rotation of new and reconditioned masks and knapsacks in the AEF would introduce many anomalies. At some future date I intend to take a harder look at the mask numbers, but I already have a pretty good amount of data gathered to roughly date most of them by number alone.

 

I don't want to toss out too much, but it does seem that Simmons Hardware knapsacks are by far the most encountered during my study. It would be easy to assume they might be more common due to the massive contracts awarded to them from 1917-1918, but other companies who were awarded large contracts just seem to be harder to find. Is this simply the result of the 1918 distribution among the doughboys? Could the other manufacturers (who also made them in early 1918) simply be harder to locate because they were worn out/turned in by November 1918? Who knows, and perhaps; we will simply have to see if the data holds up, or better yet, actual documentation can be located to give us further insight into those days of old.

 

 

As always, questions and comments are welcome. I don't pretend to be the expert; I'm just trying to find the answers.

 

RC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Excellent work RC, you've been able to somewhat explain, something that collectors have been pondering for ... well, nearly a 100 years!

 

Thank you for your efforts on untangling the gasmask satchel serial numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
world war I nerd

I thought I'd post this image taken in December of 1917 of Color Sergeant George LeDuc and J.L. De Grasse, both of the 14th Engineer Regiment (Railway) because it's rare to see AEF Doughboys carrying around the British PH Helmet Gasmask instead of the French M2 Gasmask as a backup or reserve gasmask.

 

The photo next to it shows two British officers also carrying PH Helmets inside their khaki cotton haversacks.

post-5143-0-19473600-1453690499.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
world war I nerd

The lenses on most U.S.made gasmasks were made from laminated glass, or two layers of glass with a thin layer of thin plastic sandwiched in the middle.

 

This is just a guess, but the darkening effect of the lenses was likely the result of the early adhesives ageing and darkening over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lenses on most U.S.made gasmasks were made from laminated glass, or two layers of glass with a thin layer of thin plastic sandwiched in the middle.

 

This is just a guess, but the darkening effect of the lenses was likely the result of the early adhesives ageing and darkening over time.

Thanks for the info

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
world war I nerd

As far as I know, there is no way to soften up a petrified gasmask or a way to clear up cloudy or discolored lenses.

 

Some high tech chemist with a couple of PHDs after his name or one of the geniuses working for NASA might have an idea or two on this matter though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
world war I nerd

An interesting image of a Stateside Doughboy in training wearing an American Training Gasmask (ATG). The outer surface of the satchel is stamped "For Training Purposes Only". This is unusual because as far as I know, most training gasmask satchels were stamped on the underside of the flap - see post No. 24 on page 1 of this post.

 

Photos courtesy of the John Adams-Graf collection

post-5143-0-27572400-1480992438_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question is there anything i can do to preserve a gas mask? It is in mint condition and named. Dont want it to become a crusty ball

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
King_CreepaLot

Another question is there anything i can do to preserve a gas mask? It is in mint condition and named. Dont want it to become a crusty ball

 

Late reply here, but it's really difficult to preserve masks. Try your best to keep it out of direct sunlight and in a nice, cool area, that way it stays in shape longer.

 

Rubber has an interesting process, so it will break down no matter what, but if you can keep it preserved, it should last for a very, very long time. There are images of M2s and Navy Mk. IVs just left around in Attu, Alaska; they seem to be in pretty good shape giving the fact that they've been left on the ground for 70 years, haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...