Protection in War is Relative Only
Napoleon is credited with saying “In order to make an omelet, it is necessary to break some eggs.” Every student of war realizes that casualties cannot be avoided in battle and yet one American Staff Officer went so far as to refuse to use gas offensively unless the Chemical Warfare Service could absolutely guarantee that not a single American casualty could occur under any circumstances. This same idea early got into the heads of the laboratory workers on masks. They seemed to feel that if a single gas casualty occurred through failure of the mask, their work would be a failure or at least they would be open to severe criticism. Accordingly efforts were made to perfect masks and to perfect protection regardless of the discomfort imposed upon the wearer of the mask. This idea was very difficult to eradicate. The laboratory worker who accustoms himself to experiment with a particular thing forgets that he develops an ability to endure discomfort, that is not possible of attainment by the ordinary man in the time available for his training.
Furthermore, if the need for such training can be avoided it is of course highly desirable. This applies to the mouthpiece of the British respirator; to elastics that cause undue discomfort to the face; to the noseclip and to the large boxes that cause too great resistance to breathing.
It may be taken as a general rule that when protection requires so much effort or becomes so much of a burden that the average man cannot or will not endure it, it is high time to find out what the average man will stand and then provide it even if some casualties result. Protection in battle is always relative. A man who cannot balance protection against legitimate risk has no business passing on arms, equipment or tactics to be used in battle.