That actually leads into some discussions in comments about the general horrors and mass slaughter of WWI, which was notable both for widespread and mass industry supply of weapons, advances in those weapons themselves to allow maximum killing — and tactical / logistical issues that required mass troop charges (no radios to coordinate small unit actions) against significant defender advantages (rail lines to resupply, while the attackers had no such things as trucks and jeeps to get more ammo, etc. from). (Good comment about this all here http://goo.gl/gihe1x)
This giant flamethrower was the most terrifying weapon of World War I
You’re looking at a Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector in action, the mother and father of all flamethrowers, capable of torching everything as far as 100 to 130 feet away (30 to 40 meters.) They were deployed for the first time in World War I by the British Army, and apparently they were quite effective.
I need to do some research and find out what "mustard gas" really is. From a 21st century perspective of someone who's eaten hot dogs in Chicago, it doesn't sound as horrible as it apparently was.
As I recall, it's a chemical irritant on steroids. Pepper spray in gas form, causing vision and lung problems. Not explicitly poisonous like some of the gas warfare used at the time, but capable of killing due to the damage it caused.
UPDATE: I stand somewhat corrected (see below).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_mustard
"A class of related cytotoxic and vesicant chemical warfare agents with the ability to form large blisters on the exposed skin and in the lungs. Pure sulfur mustards are colorless, viscous liquids at room temperature. When used in impure form, such as warfare agents, they are usually yellow-brown in color and have an odor resembling mustard plants, garlic, or horseradish, hence the name."
"Mustard gas has extremely powerful vesicant effects on its victims. In addition, it is strongly mutagenic and carcinogenic, due to its alkylating properties. … Because people exposed to mustard gas rarely suffer immediate symptoms, and mustard-contaminated areas may appear completely normal, victims can unknowingly receive high dosages. Within 24 hours of exposure to mustard agent, victims experience intense itching and skin irritation, which gradually turns into large blisters filled with yellow fluid wherever the mustard agent contacted the skin. These are chemical burns and are very debilitating. Mustard gas vapour easily penetrates clothing fabrics such as wool or cotton, so it is not only the exposed skin of victims that gets burned. If the victim's eyes were exposed then they become sore, starting with conjunctivitis, after which the eyelids swell, resulting in temporary blindness. … At very high concentrations, if inhaled, mustard agent causes bleeding and blistering within the respiratory system, damaging mucous membranes and causing pulmonary edema. Depending on the level of contamination, mustard gas burns can vary between first and second degree burns, though they can also be every bit as severe, disfiguring and dangerous as third degree burns. Severe mustard gas burns (i.e. where more than 50% of the victim's skin has been burned) are often fatal, with death occurring after some days or even weeks have passed. Mild or moderate exposure to mustard agent is unlikely to kill, though victims require lengthy periods of medical treatment and convalescence before recovery is complete. The mutagenic and carcinogenic effects of mustard agent mean that victims who recover from mustard gas burns have an increased risk of developing cancer in later life."
"A British nurse treating soldiers with mustard gas burns during World War I commented: 'They cannot be bandaged or touched. We cover them with a tent of propped-up sheets. Gas burns must be agonizing because usually the other cases do not complain, even with the worst wounds, but gas cases are invariably beyond endurance and they cannot help crying out.'"
I almost liked that due to the detailed information shared, but I was afraid that my like could be misconstrued.
+John E. Bredehoft Ah. Yes, like how to react to a post where someone eulogizes their dead spouse. "That's great! I mean, that's awful. But, the part that wasn't awful was great! I mean …"
I have read several opinions about the mass causalities of WWI and the American Civil War. There seems to be some consensus that anytime military technology makes an advancement (the machine gun, etc. for WWI and the mini-ball for the Civil War) there is period of time where the tactics based on previous technology is employed against the new tech.
Massing troops in order to mass, relatively, inaccurate musket fire was unnecessary in the civil war and led to horrendous causalities. Likewise the mounted calvary charges and mass infantry charges against barbed wire and machine guns led to similar results.
Mounted Calvary and the machine gun are paradoxical concepts.
Failure to adapt to the new tactics that new technology requires = massive death tolls.
+Barrett McCarstle Which makes a certain amount of sense, certainly — the article (or comment's) suggestion is that it was difficult to break out of this because close coordination of small units within the great armies massed in the West (at least) was not possible until late in the war because of communication issues.
Eventually those were overcome, and smaller unit work on both sides proved surprisingly effective. But by that time, all the parties involved with economically and psychologically exhausted, and the addition of American troops meant that the Germans had to fold first.
All very true of course. And the specific issue of the now banned, sort-a-kind-a, chemical weapons are a special case, but I think the concept holds true.