Poison Gas In WW2

Grieg:
I found it to be an interesting read... Enjoy. I may have to dig it out and read it again myself.
-------------
The novel based on the hypothetical intent of the Nazis to use Sarin/Somin nerve agents against Allied troops landing at Normandy is titled:
Black Cross
By Greg Iles

Tim

 

I second Tim's assessment - a very interesting book.

 

gas use

one reason i've heard for germany's non use of gas was this. something like 90% of germany's supply system from the railroad to the troops was horse drawn. nobody ever came up with a good gas mask for a horse. and a gas attack would stop any logistic movement cold. for what its worth

 

That is as such a valid reason, but it would not explain why gas was then used during World War I.

 

Re: gas use

They didn't produce effective bomb proof armour for horses either to the best of my knowledge but the tons of bombs dropped on German supply lines didn't stop them completely. So whilst what you say may be true it won't have been a reason for not provoking the Allies into using gas.

 

I would speculate that it may even have been possible for gas attacks on tiny, remote Pacific islands could have even been carried out in secret.

 

Does anyone know if the US used gas in Vietnam - I know they used chemicals in the form of agent orange but I mean ones more directly target at humans.

I ask because I have seen films of the Viet Kong subterranean complexes which were compartmentalised bysunken water-gates as a precaution against gas attack (the obvious way to attack such a complex). The theory was that if gas entered a section, they would dive through one of these water-gates to the next section where the gas would be kept out by the water.

(no puns on the Watergate Scandal please)

 

No. No use of chemical weapons against humans. Agent Orange was a defoliant only.

 

IF the American military had realized the extent of the vast network of tunnel-complexes that existed at Cu Chi... the most effective means of destroying them would have been the use of B-52s and "ARC-LIGHT" raids.
These were capable of collapsing most of the complex and the the Viet Cong were quite terrified by the possiblity this would happen.
As it was, the US military did not, and we all know the VC were "tunneling fools" and able to ambush, fight and withdraw at will when pressed by attacking forces.
As to the use of gas during Vietnam, tear-gas was to my knowledge the most common agent employed in attempting to ferret-out VC from tunnels... with poor results.

Tim

 

Re: gas use

This is incorrect, the Germans did develop a gas mask for horses. The Musée de la Bataille des Ardennes in La Roche (Belgium) has one on display.

 

.



On the subject of gas during WW2 , all of this is informations picked up in the trashbin of my reading memories

- germany ,
had developed sarin and its little brother tabun from insecticide reserches back in the thirties ,
had a whole industrial plant , with double glazed glass wall and negative pressurisation making the stuff in industrial quantities
ready to use it after the allied used it first .
hadler and other generals are supposed to have begged hitler to use it on the russian front , at stalingad in particular ,to no avail

-england ,
having only mustard gas and no clues as to the new german gasses ,churchill was quite gun ho to use the stuff on aerial bombing in 1941
it was conventional wisdom that gas would be used against civilians targets
during carpet bombing , watch all thoses old pictures of the blitz , everybody had one , children included .
brooke had to insist on no first use reapetedly as churchill did not take no as an answers.

- usa ,
while totally commited to the no first use policy , large quantities of gas ammunitions are supposed to have been stockpiled behind every front , ready for use , the cat came out of the bag after an accident in the port of napoli , in 44, resulting in massive fish death.

-australia ,
our generals true to their innate bastardness called for volunteers , got plenty of diggers keen and all ,the secret project was to ascertain the effect of mustard gas in jungle environment and to establish the non lethal disabling doses in case of required use.
some died, many were disabled for life proving the old addage true ,never ever volunteer for anything :angry:



.

 

good mask

note that i said good mask not just mask. there were masks tried out in WWI but they were not successful except in fringe areas of an attack. also in WWI the fronts were stable enough that the railroads were run right up to the fighting lines so the dependence on horse drawn logistics was reduced. WWII was a different animal, often the lines moved too fast for the rails to keep up so it was necessary to use lots of horse drawn supply. note also that sarin and the other new gases were skin contact weapons. they could be absorbed right through the skin so masks were worthless. i'm sure there were other factors involved also but since germany had all it could handle moving its resources froward as it was they didn't need any more trouble. as to vietman the us used various kinds of tear gas and powders. many not only attacked the eyes but also breathing and they caused nausea and vomiting. it was a common practice to tape packages of the powered agents to claymore mines for ambushes.

 

Re: good mask

The CS gas and other gases used in Vietnam were for purposes of clearing bunkers, tunnels etc. There were harrasing agents only. Our troops were exposed to the same gases (at least in the USMC) as a yearly familiarization exercise. They would not be very effective in the open and AFAIK wer eseldom used. The idea of taping powdered packages of agents to a claymore sounds dubious at best (though some sources claim it was an option, I never heard of it being done). If they were close enough to be effected by the not very effective harrasing agent what would the 700 steel balls backed by a pound and a half of C-4 explosive do to them?

 

In his book Reflections on Intelligence, the late Professor R.V. Jones, Churchill's wartime Head of Scientific Intelligence, confirmed the role of deterrence in averting a nerve gas attack. From decrypted Japanese signals, Jones had learned that "Hitler had told the Japanese ambassador in Berlin that he had some new and very effective gases, but that he was refraining from using them because he thought that we had equally deadly ones. Here he was wrong, because his chemists had discovered nerve gases and ours had not; that he thought that they had was in itself a deterrent, and neither side resorted to gas warfare".

 

My theory is that the reason gas wasn't used in WW2 is due the fast manuever tactics and strategies used. If you use gas, you have to stop and wait for that area to clear before taking it. With mechanized warfare, it's easier to just out flank an opponent and cut them off. You are also subject to varying weather conditions that will make gas less effective or blow it back on you.

Air support also allowed for better strikes against positions so gas wasn't needed for that either.

In WW1 nobody did an serious moving so gas was used to try to get the enemy out of their trenches and onto the open ground where they would then get shot to pieces with mahine guns and artillery.

 

What about strategic bombing ? The assumed deterrent argument makes more sense there - particularly as the Allied bombing campaign reached a far higher intensity than the German.

 

The famous stategic boming theories of Douhet suggested a mix of high explosive, incedinary, and posion gas bombs for use against the civilan population. These ideas, combined with the pre-radar acknowledgement that "the bomber will always get through", were major factors in the appeasement approach of the western leaders.

 

Scary to think about - that combination in sufficient intensity against a city could genuinely qualify for weapons of mass destruction - particularly when nerve gas is considered. Which brings me back to my original point that if anyone was going to do it it would have been the Nazis - therefore the deterrent factor of the allies incorrectly assumed parity in such weapons carrys much weight.

 

Acctualy it came out in aftermath of succesfull German air raid on port of Bari in the night of december 2nd 1943 (nicknamed "little Pearl Harbour"). Liberty ship John Harvey whose cargo included large quantities of Iperit (mustard gas) artillery shells was one of the casulties of the raid. US had about 69 dead mostly civilan merchant sailors and large number of other casulties resulting from gas being released and floating on sea surface. They were simply not paying attention of what rescued sailors told them. Since nobody knew about Iperit on one of the ships (all being hush, hush stuff), sailor stories about yellowish mist clinging to the sea surface and strong smell of garlic were dissmised out of hand. Number of casulties (deaths) is still matter of contraversy as Luftwaffe attack was highly succesfull. Number of 69 deaths is the low estimate high going up to more than 1000 US casuties and more than 1000 of Italian civilians. I belive that 69 deaths were proven as Iperit casulties. Other casulties resulting from no decontamination efforts are not reported (at least to my knowledge)

Regarding Japanese Unit 741 experiments they did large number of experiments on humans and perfected cheramic gas mask filters (their barganing chip with US in post war years). They also used limited biological warfare on Chinese (bubonic plague, cholera).

Regarding Iwo jima. US did contemplate using gass on the island but was more or less stopped by voices of reason (mostly british) who were afraid of German retaliation with V-1 and V-2 filled with gas.

Regarding US invasion of Japan.
Japanese were actively seaking honurable surrender trough Soviets but were more or less rebuffed by Truman who demanded unconditional surrender. Japan at the time was in ruins and ashes with basicly entire industry in ruins as US firebombings were highly succesfull. It is a matter of debate if US would invade or simply sit back and firebomb the rest of Japan. I regard formation of civilians into combat units more or less as morale boosting excercise as bulk of experienced japanese troops were on Chinese mainland, Korea and SE Asia.

Use of combat gasses was contemplated by various sides on number of occasions. By Germans in Leningrad (calculations proved it unfeasible), British (invasion of britain) and US (iwo jima). None used them first as it was feared the reataliation in kind from opposing side. Use of these weapons was as feared as the use of A bomb during the cold war. As mostly all sides possesed delivery capabilities to deliver such wapons to the enemy (with notable exception of US which was simply to far out of reach to the germans and japanese) fear of retaliation on user or his allies was simply too great.
In post ww1 analises it was proven that poissenous gasses were not deciding factor (only possible exception being 12th offensive on Soška fronta/Isonzo front) and that they only contributed to misery of the trenches. That combined with problems of use (weather conditions, large quantities of shells blocking logistic networks...) and definite retaliation it was simply considered a folly to use them first, but worth of keeping large stocks in case if retaliation was needed.

Untill now there are huge problems with discarded ww2 poissenous munitions. Largest problems are in the baltic where SSSR was droping old german munition and in front of San Francisco where US was discarding their munitions. In both cases there are occasional fish poisonings and occasional fisherman deaths. Another couse of concern are also British dumping grounds in north sea.

 

Many of the woods in my area were used as ammunition dumps in the war, and quite recently a large consignment of Mustard Gas was found in one.