this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2025
61 points (100.0% liked)

HistoryPhotos

645 readers
261 users here now

HistoryPhotos is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Foster a continuous learning environment.
  4. No genocide or atrocity denialism.

Related Communities:

!militaryporn@lemmy.world

!forgottenweapons@lemmy.world

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If he stood still, outside, yes.

This would not be something you would ever enter a building with. Far too bulky, visibility would be shit even before getting close to the fire. He has at least 2 hoses for water, and there is probably an air hose too...

Edit: spelling

[โ€“] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Hose on the left is for air. Hose on the right feeds the main hose and the helmet. Drop the air hose for a modern air tank.

Doesn't seem any more bulky than modern gear, just not as tightly fitted. Not discounting the importance of fit! I lug a 20lb. pack around the woods, slightest bit off and it quickly becomes a pain in the ass.

Liking the way the hose is attached! Wide belt, tight across your center of gravity, swivels easily, you can drop it and use your hands, right back in action. Must be a reason they don't do that IRL.

You're right on the visibility. Easy enough to fix though. What if the water flowed from a collar instead? ๐Ÿ˜‚

Anyway, wish a real fire fighter would get in this convo.

[โ€“] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

I don't like how it is attached. From my experience with shipboard firefighting that would catch on everything.