"What if gas had been used?" Topic

How would things have been affected in a tactical role, if gas had been used in ww2, as it was in ww1 ?

We know everybody had it, we know everybody expected it to be used, in the end it wasn't. But would anything change if it had ?

Tactically, gas shells are less effective than high explosive. Strategically, it's less effective than firebombing. Which is why it wasn't used.

Gas was the major WMD of the day, and all sides knew if they used it then they would be in for retaliation on *cities* not just troops. Each side made the other aware of how much nerve gas they'd stockpiled -- thousands of tons of nerve gas. I think the Germans had enough to wipe out 30-40 cities the size of Paris, and the US and UK had enough to do the same to every single German and Japanese city. So even in his final moments of madness, Hitler never used gas against the allies -- though I believe the Japanese used gas against the Chinese.

It was use but in limited amounts and in back waters of the war.

If I remember correctly from when I went through NBC school there were three case.

The Italians used it on the Ethiopians.
The Japanese on the Chinese.
And a US merchant ship that had a cargo of gas on board was sunk in Naples harbor by the German LW and contaminated the harbor.

Here are a few sites that I found.

Robert Henry

rense.com/general83/gas.htm

slate.com/id/2089121

link

link

answerbag.com/q_view/31133

link

Take a look at the "accidental" gassing of Bari in 1943 for an example of what a small amount could do and this was mustard gas, not nerve gas.

By the time Hitler might have been desperate enough to consider it, he lacked the projection ability (long range aircraft) and the western allies had it. Think of a 1000 bomber raid dropping gas on a German city.

Also, there is the uncertain belief that Hitler, having been badly gassed himself in WW1 was not willing to use it against the allies.

Add the final thought which is that the Nazis were led to believe that the allies had the same nerve gas (they did not) as the Nazis.

Dan

Imagine if the Germans had used gas against the Allies at Dunkirk. There would have been no rescuing the British Army. The invasion of Britain would have been more feasible. Britain would use gas against the German invasion beaches. Would it stop there, or would German and British cities become targets for gas attacks?

Mutually assured destruction 1940 style?

The original intent was to use gas against cities. Emilio Douhet was the father of the notion that strategic airpower could win wars. But his basic premise, often forgotten, was that the payloads would be poison gas dropped on the cities of the enemy.

That would have been enormously effective, but all sides knew that their opponents would retaliate in kind, and gas, by itself, wouldn't win the war in a single strike.

From the tactical point of view, it was much less feared as an effective weapon -- even against confined targets like Dunkirk. At least in the early stages of the war, everyone carried gas masks and were ata least nominally prepared to take defensive measures.

It would have slowed some things down.

Casualties would have been higher, but the overall outcome of the war would not have been changed.

Now if Germany had invaded England…….

Gas worked well in WW1 because of the static trench lines, the more mobile warfare of WW2 would have made it lees usefull than HE

There was also the knowledge that the first to use it would sacrifice an enormous amount of goodwill. The generals of WWII had fought in the front lines of WWI. They regarded gas as abominable, almost to a man. (The proponents of gas tend to be people who have never experienced it.)

If Hitler had used gas before the Allies, it would immediately have marked his regime as immoral to the likes of Rommel, Guderian and von Rundstedt. They were trying desperately to believe they were on the right side, and gas would have quite likely convinced them otherwise somewhat earlier.

"The original intent was to use gas against cities. Emilio Douhet was the father of the notion that strategic airpower could win wars. But his basic premise, often forgotten, was that the payloads would be poison gas dropped on the cities of the enemy.
That would have been enormously effective, but all sides knew that their opponents would retaliate in kind, and gas, by itself, wouldn't win the war in a single strike."

In some respects it actually wouldn't have been very effective at all in 1940, no-one possessed the payloads necessary to deliver sufficient quantities of the stuff, and, unlike bombing, it has little effect on the physical infrastructure (the destruction of which was the goal of the Douhet-ists). There was also a massive effort by all governments to edjucate the population about how to survive an attack. However, the morale effect could have been extremely damaging, but at the same time creating enormous moral outrage.
I think its effects, both physical and moral, were too unpredictable for anyone to use it.

"Gas worked well in WWI because of the static trench lines…"

I wasn't aware that it did work well. Maybe as a terror weapon, but it really wasn't terribly effective at winning battles, just at making everyone's lives even more miserable.

Maybe the gas (and delivery methods) available in the 40s would have made it a different proposition, I don't know.

The fear may have been the almost certain escalation to biolological warfare.

The whole point of wonder weapons is that you are the only side that have them.

Also the fear of knowing the enemy can use the same weapon agiants you – questionable whether WWII would have gone nuclear if both sides had had the bomb.

Gas was effective the first time it wa used… then it was down hill a tactical nuisance no more on purely military terms if you use gas against prepared opponents you don't have to expect really much. Douhet again resurrected it agaisnt mass of unprepared civilians, but his theory was flawed owing to an insufficent understanding of the nature of gas barrage concentrations and delivery. Gas seemed attractive beacuse the bombers could carry more GAS bombs than HE ones, but still in insufficent quantities, it would have caused losses, but no in the quantities required by the dohuetist to make the scheme work, and by 1939 the Bomber was unable to get through unescorted and with minimal defensive aramento so more weight was de3dicated to machine guns at the expense of the payload.

Gas would have worked in 1944 with the heavier allied bomber but then it was useless and firebombing was more effective (and the idea of breaking civilian morale had been shelved toward increasing the physical destruction).

BTW CS gas was used at IWO, Okinawa in the philippines and Mariannas with good effect agaisnt entrnched japanese.

There are rumors that in 1945 gas shells wereused in despiration as the russians approached araes where they were stockpiled, but I have never seen anything fcatual on that.

But by the end of WW1 Mustard was the predominate chemical used. It was a liquid blistering agent and was used quite well in the late war open warfare. It was used to deny areas to the enemy, make everyone in the area miserable, and cause casualties.

IF you moved through an area that had been hit with mustard, often the first symptons were an itching in the 'moist' areas of your body- which means armpits and groin- which then start painfully blistering. Nasty evil stuff.

Gas, although miserable, killed less people affected by it than normal weapons, and thus by many people was considered more humane, but it clogged the medical system and took a lot of men out of atcion.

For the Normandy landing the Americans took the threat of a gas attack very seriously. Everyone was quite prepared for it (gas proofed uniforms, dectors, etc.) as it would make sense to hit a concentration like the beaches.

'It would have slowed some things down.

Casualties would have been higher, but the overall outcome of the war would not have been changed.

Now if Germany had invaded England…….'

Try invading England, just try. It would have proved impossible, unless you believe every army list and give the Germans the usual +85 on a D6.

Didn't the Germans use it against the nderground positions in Sevastopol? Or am I remembering incorrectly?
--
Tim

invading England-

all I can think of is that great book SS-GB !

Would've only changed the details, not much else.
-Kle.

Gas is like minefields, a serious annoyance, any casualties caused are a bonus. They force the target troops to suit up, which massively degrades their combat efficiency, and makes things like operating artillery pieces exhausting. They also cause considerably problems for horse drawn transport, particularly agents which operate on the skin. In WW1 gas was most effective when used for counter battery and interdiction missions, although it was possible to kill large numbers of enemy troops by prepared surprise mass gas attacks using Livens projectors at al.

The concern of both sides in WW2 was not its battlefeld use, which was a known quantity if it occurred, but its use as an adjunct to strategic bombing. Both sides were very concencerned about the possible devastating repercussions, and refrained from doing it in an early form of MAD. It does beg the question of why chemical weapons weren't used against Japan though (discountng mass incendiary strikes), but nuclear ones were, as they had no means to retaliate against either.

When the Japanese tactics of fight-to-the-last-man became clear, Roosevelt took some pressure (from civilians) to use gas on dug-in enemy emplacements. The logic was that the Japanese were determined to die anyway, and using nerve gas on them would reduce American casualties. I believe he refused on moral grounds, not out of fear of retaliation.

Interesting stuff. As far as the comments about "mobile warfare", there were plenty of static fighting in ww2 as well. And hell, if the red army could amass as many guns in one spot as they did, it'd be plenty of time to lob mustard shells at ..or by.. them

One of the reasons Gas was not used against GB was the very public test just before the war of the effect of Anthrax on a remote Scottish island. The implied threat being simple, gas us and you will have no livestock so you can starve…

All I can say is "He who sows the wind shal reap the whirlwind"

All the talk about gas being a issue that military forces can handle is true, but the target would be gassing civilians in cities. Imagine a 1000 tons of mustard gas, or some lovely mix in the center of a major city. Thousands, 10s of thousands of dead?

Good thing both sides were afraid of each other reaction.

Dan

I thought the reason it wasn't used was becuase it was banned from 1925 onwards under the terms of the Geneva convention.

@ Cpt Haddock
CS Forrester wrote a piece imagining that Sea Lion took place. Its a little tinged with patriotism but mostly quite historically valid.
He does have the British momentarily considering using the "odious" poison gas when a German armoured column reaces to within 40kms of London.
But that is the German high water mark and the Germans are crushed in the air, on the sea and on the ground.
Do you know the story?

"I thought the reason it wasn't used was because it was banned from 1925 onwards under the terms of the Geneva convention."

Remember, not all country's had signed, or followed, or obeyed the Geneva Convention.

<cynicism>
All the nations in question signed the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact that outlawed war altogether. Everyone knows how well that worked. Treaties succeed only when everyone wants them to succeed. A piece of paper would not have stopped any nation from using gas if that was the only thing holding them back.
</cynicism>

My dad had a customer that had been gassed in WWI. Talking to him as a kid, that was the thing he was most bitter about. As angry as he was about attrocities of WWII, that was the thing he always complained about the most. So I agree, that those that had experienced it, were probably the least likly to want to use it, followed by being afraid of like retaliation.

As was said earlier Hitler believed that the allies had Nerve Gas and as there was currently no practical defense against it refused to allow its use had he known that the allies did not have it he still might not have used it as he was a victim of gas warfare in WWI.

The effectiveness of persistent nerve gas would have put fixed installations or beach heads out of service for weeks until the liquid dissipated or was neutralized.

--Churchill would have used gas if the Germans had successfully got ashore in 1940--
Also gas was used by the Germans to kill millions in WW2--Most were civilians but a lot were Soviet POWs…

Gas was also used tactically during the seige of Sevastopol to clear deep bunkers I think about the only recorded time it happenned…

I thought the Hitlerites used tear gas at Sevastopol (with much the same justification as the US in Viet Nam and police forces around the world – it's non-lethal?

I've also read that the Japanese used hydrogen cyanide grenades against British armour in the opening phases of the Burma campaign (Tank tracks to Rangoon – I think).

The Russians had stocks of mustard type agents in place in the Crimea in 41/ 42, and came close to using them, but didn't (Erickson Road to Stalingrad)

I understood the Germans refrained from using nerve agents because they thought we had the same stuff – we (Western Allies) stopped publishing research on the organo-phosphates the Germans started out with when we were looking at producing DDT, and that the Allies of all types were unpleasantly surprised to discover Sarin/ Tabun etc. at the war's end. (Mangold – Frightfulness)

Do the MOD experiments with germ warfare cehmicals over Dorset in the fifties count?

The last WWI gas casualty occurred quite recently. A friend who is a WWI reenactor told me about a guy in his group who purchased an original WWI gas mask. When he put it on trace amounts of mustard gas which had been trapped in the filter started leaking inside! His eyes and skin started burning but fortunatley the amount was so small he wasn't seriously injured.