# Chemical warfare in ww1



## The Basket (Jul 30, 2017)

Was it more psychological than physical?


----------



## stona (Jul 30, 2017)

British casualties, 1915-1918 to all types of gas attacks, 180,983, of which 6,062 were fatal (3.3%).

I recommend "Terror Weapons: The British Experience of Gas and Its Treatment in the First World War" by Edgar Jones. I think this is available online. It certainly covers your question.

Terms such as 'gas hysteria' and 'gas neurosis' were coined to quantify the psychological effects of gas attacks.

Also, "Seeking Victory on the Western Front - The British Army and Chemical Warfare in World War 1" by the Australian historian Albert Palazzo.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## The Basket (Jul 30, 2017)

Quite low figures and I would expect more British servicemen to be killed in road traffic accidents.
Every loss is a tragedy but the effect of chemical warfare is less than the effort applied.


----------



## stona (Jul 30, 2017)

Chemical agents accounted for about 1% of the 750,000 British troops killed in ww1, but the 180,000 plus casualties represents a disproportionate number for the investment in such systems. Chemical attacks were very effective in this sense.
As for the psychological effects, here is an abstract from the paper I mentioned above.













Cheers

Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 30, 2017)

Do remember, too, that "dead" is not always the desire for an enemy attack. Since WW1 was very much about attrition, a soldier who is made an invalid is actually more economically damaging to the enemy than a soldier who is killed: a soldier who has been blinded or has had his lung capacity badly damaged by, for example, mustard gas needs medical treatment, rehabilitation, and possibly a permanent disability pension. A dead person just needs a sympathy letter to his family and a shroud. 

Gas attacks against unprepared troops can also cause panic, and a loss of unit cohesion, which can lead to large numbers of surrendered prisoners (which are somewhat bad for the enemy, as they have to be fed) and desertions. Gas attacks against troops with effective equipment and training may not cause mass casualties, but they will reduce operational efficiency, and the need to provide that equipment and training means that resources have to be diverted from something else. 

As an aside, Fritz Haber, who developed the Haber process for the production of ammonia (and probably, single-handedly, prolonged Germany's ability to wage war by a year) was an advocate of chemical warfare. His wife ended up killing herself because she thought his attitude was immoral and inhumane.


----------



## stona (Jul 30, 2017)

Fritz Haber wrote
_"If the war had gone on until 1919 you would have won by gas alone."_
Which is in itself an admission of defeat from a German scientist, modernist, and man who saw gas as an independent device that would help to transform war into an activity dominated by technology.
Brigadier General James Edmonds, general editor of Britain's history of the war expressed a different and more realistic opinion when he wrote
_"Gas achieved but local success, nothing decisive; it made war uncomfortable to no purpose."_
Opinions were and still are divided. The truth lies between the two, but closer to Edmonds than to Haber.

It was Haber who devised a table of lethality for the commonly used war time gases. It is the product of concentration in parts per million and minutes required to cause death. The lower the figure, the more lethal the gas. This is a product of the so called 'Haber Rule'

Chlorine 7,500
Mustard Gas 1,500
Chloropicrin 1,000
Diphosgene 500
Phosgene 450

For whatever reasons Clara killed herself, at least she did not live to see members of her extended family murdered by gas developed at the Haber institute.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## The Basket (Jul 30, 2017)

My partner's relative died due to been caught in poison gas ww1...in 1925.


----------



## stona (Jul 30, 2017)

Obviously any comment on an individual case is impossible.
But generally victims of gas recovered to a large extent. Some victims of gassing were in fact re-classified to allow them to receive the relevant pensions. Your relative may sadly have been one of an unlucky few.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 30, 2017)

I had a great-uncle invalided home due to gas, which eventually killed him a number of years later, due to susceptibility to other respiratory issues.

There was also the effect of delaying troops response to an attack if the gas was used immediately prior to an attack. If they were busy fumbling with their gas masks (which could account for the low numbers of fatalities, gas was easily countered), then they would be unprepared.

Oddly enough, the gasses don't smell terribly 'bad'. In fact, one of them (phosgene, I think) smells pretty good...


----------



## stona (Jul 31, 2017)

gumbyk said:


> There was also the effect of delaying troops response to an attack if the gas was used immediately prior to an attack. If they were busy fumbling with their gas masks (which could account for the low numbers of fatalities, gas was easily countered), then they would be unprepared.
> 
> Oddly enough, the gasses don't smell terribly 'bad'. In fact, one of them (phosgene, I think) smells pretty good...



The British were keen on using their lachtymatory gases (SK in particular) for counter battery fire. It obviously inconvenienced the gun crews, at the very least forcing them to wear masks/hoods and due to its persistence prevented support of the battery from the rear, bringing up of ammunition for example. A coughing, wretching and temporarily blinded soldier is not going to serve his gun very efficiently, if at all. The gas also affected horses.
Other, more volatile gases were preferred for trenches and other fortifications as gasing your own infantry, who would hopefully quickly occupy such positions, was obviously not a brilliant plan.

Phosgene is probably the one you are thinking of. It is colourless and has a not unpleasant odour, often described as being like 'wet hay'. A lethal dose can be inhaled without the coughing and respiratory discomfort associated with chlorine. The symptoms of the poisoning could be delayed for some time, making immediate diagnosis difficult. For these reasons it has been estimated that as many as 85% of fatal gas casualties were caused by Phosgene.

It was not difficult to detect the tear gases and Chlorarsenes, as these were designed to cause short term respiratory distress and to terrify. Colonel Soltau, consultant physician in France for gas cases wrote:

_"There is nothing more likely probably to cause panic than the idea of being choked...of being slowly strangled."_

Of the lethal gases Chlorine and Mustard Gas were easily detectable either by their visibility or the immediate effects of exposure. Phosgene was not.

The mixtures and compositions of the gases used was continually altered in an attempt to defeat protective measures. Sir John French wrote that it was 

_"... essential that the nature of the gases discharged from cylinders and in projectiles should be varied from time to time in order that the enemy's protective measures may be rendered as difficult as possible."_

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 31, 2017)

I think it important to understand the number of reagents used in WW1 chemical warfare. This is a list, along with abbreviation/codes for those used by the British.

BB Mustard Gas
CBR 50% Phosgene, 50% Arsenious Chloride OR 60% Phosgene, 40% Stannic Chloride
CG Phosgene
DA Diphenylchloroarsine
DM Diphenylaminechloroarsine
HS Mustard Gas
JBR 55% Hydrocyanic Acid, 25% Chloroform, 20% Arsenious Chloride
JL 50% Hydrocyanic Acid, 50% Chloroform
KJ Stannic Chloride
KSK Ethyl Iodoacetate
NC 80% Chloropicrin, 20% Stannic Chloride
PG 75% Chloropicrin, 25% Phosgene
PS Chloropicrin
RP Red Phosphorous
SK 75% Ethyl Iodoacetate, 25% Ethyl Alcohol
WP White Phosphorous
Blue Star 80% Chlorine, 20% Sulphur Chloride
Green Star 65% Chloropicrin, 35% Sulphuretted Hydrogen
Red Star Chlorine
Two Red Star 90% Sulphuretted Hydrogen, 10% Carbon Disulphide
White Star 50% Chlorine, 50% Phosgene
Yellow Star 30% Chloropicrin, 70% Chlorine.

Most of these would be described as non lethal, many lachrymatory or irritants. The terminology is contemporary to WW1. I'm not going to go through them all, but for example 'Sulphuretted Hydrogen' would now be called hydrogen sulphide. This is an example of a gas with which most will be familiar. It is not lethal, except in very high concentrations, but even in relatively low concentrations it can irritate the eyes, cause a cough and shortness of breath. It also has a very unpleasant odour! It was used in combination with Chloropicrin, another irritant which could also induce vomiting, causing the affected soldier to remove mis hood/mask. Chloropicrin and Phosgene (PG) might therefore become a lethal combination.....and so on.
It's a nasty business, chemical warfare.

How much gas was used? Excluding cylinder attacks, somewhere between 25% and 40% of all shells fired by British artillery on 7th and 8th June 1918 as the 'March to Victory' progressed were gas shells. This percentage could be as high as 50% in some actions.
In July that year the Special Brigade also released 8,263 cylinders of various gases and fired 13,464 drums from their projectors.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jul 31, 2017)

Be interesting to know how many men died of thier wounds years later.
They wouldn't have been counted as KIA so probably never be known.
That's counting physical wounds inflected in ww1. Odd to criticize Haber for being a monster when the allies also used gas.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 31, 2017)

Part of the effectiveness of gas was getting the opponents to put on a gas mask, for hours. It restricts your vision, even at the best. Then what do you do when the lenses fog up ? If you're active, it really limits you breathing ability too.

I know what the 60's Army gas mask was like, I doubt the WW1 era mask was more comfortable, or had a better view.


----------



## stona (Jul 31, 2017)

[QUOTE="The Basket, post: 1345619, member: 10799"
. Odd to criticize Haber for being a monster when the allies also used gas.[/QUOTE]
That's what you get for being on the losing side


----------



## The Basket (Jul 31, 2017)

I remember wearing full NBC suit with respirator and gloves and overshoes.
You don't forget that. Being CS gassed in the respirator testing facility. 
I do indeed. 
Best type of fear is irrational fear. Fear of the unknown. And chemical warfare tapped into that.
Passchendaele today. 100 years ago. You can study ww1 all day long and not have the absolute first idea what it was like. Can't even comprehend.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.


----------



## Glider (Jul 31, 2017)

I think the tactical use of gas should be noted. In more than one attack by the british the gas was used at the start and mixed with smoke. The germans obviously used there gas masks which limited the losses but it alsohad a mojor impact on the efficiency of the soldiers. As the bombardment continued the ratio of gas to smoke dropped until it was just smoke. The Germans still had their gas masks on when the british infantry went over the top without their gas masks and it all helped in the attack


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 31, 2017)

I wonder how many of Fritz Haber's relatives were murdered by Hitler's minions. He, like his first (I do not know about his second) wife was Jewish, in that his parents were Jewish. 

It's somewhat


The Basket said:


> Be interesting to know how many men died of thier wounds years later.
> They wouldn't have been counted as KIA so probably never be known.
> That's counting physical wounds inflected in ww1. Odd to criticize Haber for being a monster when the allies also used gas.



The Germans were also first.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 31, 2017)

stona said:


> but for example 'Sulphuretted Hydrogen' would now be called hydrogen sulphide. This is an example of a gas with which most will be familiar. It is not lethal, except in very high concentrations, but even in relatively low concentrations it can irritate the eyes, cause a cough and shortness of breath.



Steve, the only guy I ever knew that died on a refinery was from H2S. He opened a valve without breathing apparatus and died before he even hit the ground. Everyone knows H2S smells of bad eggs, it causes head aches and can cause brain damage. However as a gas in concentrations high enough to kill you it doesn't smell because it instantly destroys your smell receptors, that makes it especially dangerous. It was the gas I worked with most (it is used in corrosion tests) even in low (trace) doses it caused me a creasing headache, which may have been brain damage, which may explain a lot, I think I will sue.

In terms of the thread, if you can smell H2S even if it is overpowering and making you choke, you are lucky and will not die.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 31, 2017)

The Basket said:


> My partner's relative died due to been caught in poison gas ww1...in 1925.



Yes many died prematurely post war because of gas attacks.My grandmother's brother was gassed and had a perpetual cough all his life, tho he did live into his '70s.


----------



## stona (Aug 1, 2017)

The sheer quantities used beggar the imagination. In the early days of use the British were unsure of the effects of their gas attacks, relying on indirect means, supposed suppression of enemy batteries, hearing ambulances behind enemy lines, occasional prisoner interogations etc. Eventually proof of efficacity was collected by coordinating gas attacks with trench raids.

On 27th June 1916 O Company, Special Brigade RE released 1,070 cylinders of White Star, *that's 30 TONS of Phosgene,* on the front of 47th (London) Division over a two hour period. Lieut. Gen. Wilson, IV Corps commander, reported hat the subsequent raid was a success due to the use of the gas. He reported

_"1. We crossed 'No Man's Land' and entered the enemy trenches without being met by either machine gun or rifle fire.
2. The enemy's artillery was very slow in coming into action and were very wild with their shooting when they did fire."_

Maj. Gen. Barter, Wilson's superior and C.O. of the 'Londoners' believed that the Germans must have suffered significant casualties and loss of morale because

_"it is difficult to suppose that our infantry could have penetrated into the German trenches with so little opposition without its assistance."_

He also suggested that the inefficiency of the German gunners was due to the necessity for them to wear respirators.

Eventually the British worked out how much gas and what types were required for various purposes. As an example I will give the numbers to 'Neutralize a Village'.

Lachrymatory SK 4,950
Lethal PS 6,200
Lethal White Star 7,425
Lethal Jellite (this is JL) 7,425
White Star in Damp Conditions 8,650

The concentrations of shells per 1,000 square yards required for this purpose were.

Lachrymatory SK .88 in first five minutes, .22 for next 25 minutes
Lethal PS 1.1 in first five minutes, .27 for next 25 minutes
Lethal White Star 1.32 in first five minutes, .33 for next 25 minutes
Lethal Jellite 1.32 in first five minutes, .33 for next 25 minutes
White Star in Damp Conditions 1.54 in first five minutes, .38 for next 25 minutes.

It became quite a science, though how such numbers were calculated I have no idea.

The role of chemical warfare in the final victory in WW1 is often underestimated or ignored. Palazzo has argued.

_"...when employed upon the integrated battlefield, gas became an important player in the phases of battle, in the struggle for fire supremacy, and in the destruction of the enemy's determination to resist. Utilising the intelligence gathering and coordination functions of the counter-battery staff, the artillery gained the ability to silence the enemy's artillery quickly at zero hour, thereby making the achievement of surprise a reality.. Without this contribution the task of the infantry would certainly have been more bloody, if not impossible. The victories of 1918 showed that gas had aided the British officer corps in achieving the preconditions they believed essential for the decisive battle. When used to lower morale, gas proved to be a formidable weapon and a crucial component of the wearing down process. Furthermore, during the assault gas denied the Germans the use of their defensive fire and helped to restore the power of the attack, which permitted the infantry to assault across no man's land relatively unscathed...The great achievement of Amiens and the French success at Soissons indicated that the conditions were right and that their opponent's troops were in a dire state. The British had achieved their critical superiority and the defeat of the German army soon followed."_



Cheers

Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 1, 2017)

Historian/military theorist BH Liddell-Hart was gassed. I remember him writing that he didn't understand why people thought being injured by gas was any more horrifying than being torn up by shell fragments.

I'm not defending gas, but WWI was mass-production homicide.


----------



## stona (Aug 1, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Historian/military theorist BH Liddell-Hart was gassed. I remember him writing that he didn't understand why people thought being injured by gas was any more horrifying than being torn up by shell fragments.



I once expressed that view (and Liddell Hart was not the only one to share it) in the context of the Iran-Iraq war. To say the reaction was hostile would be something of an understatement 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 1, 2017)

stona said:


> I once expressed that view (and Liddell Hart was not the only one to share it) in the context of the Iran-Iraq war. To say the reaction was hostile would be something of an understatement
> Cheers
> Steve



Considering that many weapons, such as anti-personnel land mines, were designed to maim (the nazis may have fielded land mines specifically to castrate soldiers....), the attitude against gas is far too narrow. To some extent it's been expanded to include cluster bombs and land mines. "Humane weapon" is an oxymoron.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 1, 2017)

One could argue that all war is hell but Chemical weapons are just not cricket.
A gentleman can dual with a sword or a pistol but not with a spoonful of VX.
I don't know Liddel-Harts full story but he has a point that gas wasn't as bigger killer or a bigger threat than artillery.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 1, 2017)

Chemical warfare is reasonably well documented. Its the biological strand of this form of combat that is worrying, and we still have an incomplete picture as to how far advanced the development of biological weaponary has progressed

The use of biological agents is not a new concept, and history is filled with examples of their use.

Modern times: Biological warfare reached sophistication during the 1900s.

During World War I, the German Army developed anthrax, glanders, cholera, and a wheat fungus specifically for use as biological weapons. They allegedly spread plague in St. Petersburg, Russia, infected mules with glanders in Mesopotamia, and attempted to do the same with the horses of the French Cavalry.
The Geneva Protocol of 1925 was signed by 108 nations. This was the first multilateral agreement that extended prohibition of chemical agents to biological agents. Unfortunately, no method for verification of compliance was addressed.
During World War II, Japanese forces operated a secret biological warfare research facility (Unit 731) in Manchuria that carried out human experiments on prisoners. They exposed more than 3,000 victims to plague, anthrax, syphilis, and other agents in an attempt to develop and observe the disease. Some victims were executed or died from their infections. Autopsies were also performed for greater understanding of the effects on the human body.
In 1942, the United States formed the War Research Service. Anthrax and botulinum toxin initially were investigated for use as weapons. Sufficient quantities of botulinum toxin and anthrax were stockpiled by June 1944 to allow unlimited retaliation if the German forces first used biological agents. The British also tested anthrax bombs on Gruinard Island off the northwest coast of Scotland in 1942 and 1943 and then prepared and stockpiled anthrax-laced cattle cakes for the same reason.
The United States continued research on various offensive biological weapons during the 1950s and 1960s. From 1951-1954, harmless organisms were released off both coasts of the United States to demonstrate the vulnerability of American cities to biological attacks. This weakness was tested again in 1966 when a test substance was released in the New York City subway system.
During the Vietnam War, Viet Cong guerrillas used needle-sharp punji sticks dipped in feces to cause severe infections after an enemy soldier had been stabbed.
In 1979, an accidental release of anthrax from a weapons facility in Sverdlovsk, USSR, killed at least 66 people. The Russian government claimed these deaths were due to infected meat and maintained this position until 1992, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin finally admitted to the accident.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 2, 2017)

Some of the gases( mustard gas, maybe chlorine too) could even soak into the soil and get you days later, when you disturbed the soil, or laid down on it.

The men in the trenches very much feared gas, there were several false gas alerts from men sighting early morning fog and thinking it was gas.


----------



## stona (Aug 2, 2017)

Chlorine is quite volatile and therefore not likely to be persistent, except in some special circumstances. Mustard gas and several of the non lethal lachrymogens were more persistent.
Obviously saturating an area in which you hoped to quickly establish your own troops with a persistent agent is not a good idea.
The British were exceptional at counter battery fire (much better than the Germans ever were) and tended to use the most persistent agents for this, as the positions were unlikely to be occupied quickly, if at all.
For example, for fighting in trenches, the British developed grenades filled with phosgene, KSK (Ethyl Iodoacetate) and KJ (Stannic Chloride) which were found to be more effective than either the high explosive grenades or the white phosphorous P-bomb for clearing underground bunkers and strongholds.The German masks were ineffective against KJ. It wasn't lethal, but like highly irritating.
Phosgene only gave the defenders a few seconds to get on their masks before inhaling a lethal dose, if the KJ forced them to remove the mask they would die. It is not difficult to understand why an Australian journalist reported Germans rushing from a dug out, hands up to surrender as soon as a KSK or KJ grenade exploded, despite already having their masks on.
A bunker cleared in this way was not inhabitable for at least 12 hours, both KSK and KJ were persistent and even the normally volatile phosgene would persist in such confined spaces. One report stated that after fourteen hours it was impossible to remain in a dug out cleared this way "for more than a few seconds". This implies that the lethal phosgene had dispersed, but the other irritants had not.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 11, 2017)

Is chemical warfare treated same as guns and grenades?
In Soviet doctrine yes.
Western doctrine no.
Having to wear gas masks and full NBC suits is extremely tiring and degrades even the best troops.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 11, 2017)

did a bit of NBC training back in the late 70's. Our NBC suits were far superior to the rubber sweat suits issued to the eastern bloc nations. the problem for the west isn't habitability, it the number of suits required. as I recall, the suit had to be changed every 6hours or so. Relied on activated carbon as a primary defence. also constant injections of a substance called atropin.

We were led to believe all this was an effective NBC defence, but were dismayed to learn that in the whole of the RAN we possessed a stock of some 3000 of these suits and enough atropin to last about 8 hours. For a force of some 16000 at the time. and we were equipped to similar scales as the USN at the time.

The Soviet rubber suits were much longer lasting but a man in a rubber suit might last 2 hours before collapsing from exhaustion. soviet AFVs were not NBC resistant like our vehicles, so I doubt they were much better than us really.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Aug 11, 2017)

In the early 80's the suites we used in the Air Force for NBC were rated at 48 hours of endurance. Changing the filter packs could extend that another 24 hours. However a single snag or tear in the suite rendered them useless. The endurance figures were for biological and chemical use. Radiation endurance was measured in minutes. The filters would remove heavy particles but actual environmental radiation would penetrate the suite rather quickly. Having worn them I can honestly say their endurance would exceed that of the person wearing them. They got hot fast! And even with the water pass through you are going to dehydrate and overheat quickly. Mostly they were meant to allow you to escape from a contaminated area not for fighting within.


----------



## stona (Aug 11, 2017)

_'Chemical Soldiers: Gas Warfare in World War One' _by Donald Richter is a good source for the efforts made to protect soldiers from the various chemical agents in WW1. He devotes more to this than many of the other authors (Prentiss, Spiers, Haber (Ludwig,a different one) and Harrison to name a few).
Various masks were developed but not so much protective clothing as we know it in modern times. It was the introduction of the British 'box repsirator' in 1916/17, which if worn correctly gave good protection against the lethal gases (primarily chlorine and phosgene) that accelerated the German use of mustard gas. Mustard gas doesn't have a strong smell, and initial reaction is not severe, just an irritation of the nose and throat. Many troops did not realise they had been exposed at first, which inevitably increased their exposure before they took any action to protect themselves. The box respirator protected a soldier's respiratory system from the effects of mustard gas, if he got it on in time, The typical woolen uniforms of the day offered no defence against blistering of the skin.
A thick suit, coated with _'oxidised oils and resins' _was developed and did offer protection against the vesicant (blistering) effect of mustard gas but according to yet another imaginatively named British report, _‘Protection against Dichlorethylsulphide by Means of Special Clothing’_, it was not practical. The garment was deemed
_‘...hot and uncomfortable to wear, and for a fully equipped soldier marching and fighting in such clothing would be impossible’._
Nothing of the sort was issued to British or Commonwealth soldiers during WW1, though there may be one or two here familiar with the gas cape, originally issued in WW2. They came in a variety of colours, and were still issued up to the end of the war, despite no chemical agents having been used. They are more like a sort of waterproof mackintosh to look at than a modern suit.

One of he iconic images of WW1 is the lines of blinded soldiers, hand on the shoulder of the man in front, being led to or from aid stations. It is important to remember that for the vast majority of these men the blindness was temporary, their eyes and sight usually recovered in a mater of days.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 11, 2017)

The US had a large cargo ship loaded with chemical munitions bombed in harbor shortly after the invasion of southern Italy. The expectation was that the Germans would use gas on Allied troops, which wasn't too surprising considering that a) they were using gas on civilians, albeit for mass murder of civilian prisoners and b) Germany had initiated gas warfare in WW1. What is surprising is that the Germans didn't use gas in WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> In the early 80's the suites we used in the Air Force for NBC were rated at 48 hours of endurance. Changing the filter packs could extend that another 24 hours. However a single snag or tear in the suite rendered them useless. The endurance figures were for biological and chemical use. Radiation endurance was measured in minutes. The filters would remove heavy particles but actual environmental radiation would penetrate the suite rather quickly. Having worn them I can honestly say their endurance would exceed that of the person wearing them. They got hot fast! And even with the water pass through you are going to dehydrate and overheat quickly. Mostly they were meant to allow you to escape from a contaminated area not for fighting within.



That is exactly how ours were. 48-72 hours of useful protection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 11, 2017)

Chemical weapons didn't really work for the Germans in WW1, they never used them as effectively as the British. The British integrated technical weapons such as tanks and gas into their systems in a way the Germans did not.
Everyone remembers the success of German attacks in March 1918 and the gains made against Gough's Fifth Army. These were substantial, but against an over extended defender protecting a strategically unimportant zone. They did cause much consternation, but the situation was stabilised.
When similar tactics (much vaunted by some later historians) were made in April, against the much stronger British defences in Flanders, protecting the Channel ports, the inability of the Germans to master British firepower soon led to their collapse,
Consider the *relative** ease with which Rawlinson's Fourth Army subsequently penetrated the Hindenburg Line, the strongest defensive position on the Western Front, and within hours made the position untenable for the Germans. The integrated use of chemical weapons was an important part of this success.
Cheers
Steve
* Nothing was easy, it cost blood and treasure. The slowness of the French (Debeny) is well documented as is the heroic if slightly over enthusiastic participation of the Americans (one day Rawlinson was "full of confidence in the Yankees', the next bemoaning the fact that using such inexperienced troops was "a bit of a lottery".) 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 13, 2017)

I think the concept of chemical warfare as a war winning weapon or a battle winning weapon was not proven so it's use would still be controversial as more effort than worth.


----------



## stona (Aug 13, 2017)

The 1919 Holland Report does not agree with that conclusion.

_"Ample and generous provision must be made for the continuous study of chemical warfare both as regards offence and defence during peace, in order to ensure the future safety of the fighting forces of the Empire."_

The use of chemical weapons in WW2 was only ever seriously considered by the British, though its use was anticipated by all sides and it would be naive to think that other nations were not prepared to use them. The RAF trained extensively in 1940 in order to be able to attack any German landings with mustard gas and, lesser known, to attack the German civilian population with phosgene.
The RAF established a committee to deal with the use of chemical weapons in September 1940. At the very first meting the use of phosgene against German civilians was discussed, described as

_" ...a very suitable weapon against the German civilian population"_

particularly because so few German civilians, in contrast to the British, had gas masks.
By this time the RAF had already developed its 'Gas Plan'. Sixteen squadrons within Bomber Command were designated for dropping chemical ordnance onto, or spraying chemical agents over any invading forces. Until an emergency arose these squadrons would carry out their normal duties. Slessor (then director of RAF Plans) wrote to Brooke.

_"It is not present policy that squadrons should stand by to use gas against enemy landings. If the use of gas is authorised after invasion has taken place, an interval of 24 hours will be required to change over from bombing to gas spray."_

In fact the five squadrons of Lysanders among the designated sprayers could be ready in six hours. Slessor also confirmed that station commanders and enough pilots were trained in the use of gas. He also wrote that

_"...it was feasible for orders for gas spray to be given in the same manner as for the bombing of targets. It is not considered necessary to introduce a special code word for the use of gas, since we are operating in our own country and such orders will have been issued before the aircraft take off."_

Initially, as of June 1940, stocks of gas were only sufficient for two days of intensive operations, but production was rapidly increased. By September 27th 350 tons of mustard gas and 45 tons of phosgene were being produced *every week *and stocks had risen to 13,000 tons. Storage for a 4,000 ton reserve was nearing completion.

Spraying was a preferred method of achieveing high concentrations of gas, but the RAF was well aware that low altitudes gave better results, but also made the aircraft much more vulnerable. Large numbers of 250lb and 30lb bomb cases were avialable, and were filled through the summer of 1940 with mustard gas. This agent was preferred for its persistence, and ability to contaminate the ground, equipment and clothing of the enemy, forcing them to wear respirators. One 30lb mustard gas bomb could_ 'heavily contaminate' _an area of 50 square yards, with_ 'lighter contamination'_ spreading over 300 square yards.

There is a common misconception that the British would have been constrained by some kind of moral scruples in their fight for survival. We might ask a survivor from the French Mediterranean Fleet about that. I have seen it argued that men who had seen the effects of gas, or been gassed themselves, in WW1 had a reluctance to use such weapons again. From a British perspective this is palpable nonsense. There was a debate about the morals of the FIRST USE of chemical weapons, but it was won by the pro-use faction, behind who Churchill threw his weight. The pro lobby was led by the CIGS, Sir John Dill, and this is one thing on which he and Churchill did agree. I have no doubt at all that if, by some miracle, a German beachhead had been established on British soil in 1940/41 it would have been attacked with chemical weapons. The landings never happened, and the 'Gas Plan' was never put to the test.

The Army had ten companies trained in the use of gas and substantial stocks. 12,000 x 4.5", 13,000 x 6", 15,000 x 6lb 'ground bombs' all filled with mustard gas along with 1,000 chemical mines, each containing 4 gallons of mustard gas. there were also ten 'Bulk Contamination Vehicles' available, each carrying 130 gallons of gas, designed to contaminate the ground in a withdrawal. 950 WW1 vintage Livens Projectors were resurrected from stores, one of the most effective way of delivering high concentrations of gasses, out to about a mile, developed in WW1, but only effective when dug into a defensive line, like the Royal Military Canal.

The principal reason they were not used later in the war was that other and more reliable solutions to the military problems in which chemical attacks were deemed effective in WW1 had been developed.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 13, 2017)

A very brief synopsis of the moral argument over the use of gas.

Sir John Dill argued that the German landings would make an excellent target, whilst acknowledging the potential unfavourable consequences.
_"Enemy forces crowded on the beaches, with the confusion inevitable on first landing, would present a splendid target. Gas spray aircraft under such conditions would be likely to have a more widespread and wholesale effect than high explosive. It can. moreover, be applied very rapidly and so is particularly suitable in an operation where we may get very little warning...contamination of obstacles, beaches and defiles by liquid mustard would have a great delaying effect."_
He did acknowledge two _"grave objections" _to the first use of gas. First, undermining of Britain's moral standing which would alienate sympathy for Britain's war effort in the USA, and, second, _"invite retaliation against our industry and civil population"._ Nonetheless Dill's conclusion was 
_"that the military advantages to be gained are sufficient to justify us in taking this step."_

The contrary view was expressed by Dill's own Deputy, Major General Desmond Anderson, who believed first use of chemical weapons would 
_"throw away the incalculable moral strength we derive from keeping our pledged word for a tactical surprise, which may well produce immediate gains, but will in the long run rebound to our disadvantage. Germany would gain great propaganda advantage from the fact that we had used gas first, not only in America and other neutral states, but in her own country and dependencies as well."_
He considered Dill's _"dangerous proposal...a departure from our principles and traditions"_ with the result that _"some of us would begin to wonder whether it really mattered which side won."_

Others were infuriated by such moral doubts. The Commandant of the Army Staff College at Camberley (Jack Collins) wrote to Dill on 27th June asking him
_"to do your utmost to get Cabinet authority to use blister gas spray on any seaborne German force attempting to land on our shores _[German troops] _will become casualties before they can become dangerous. Those not blinded can be 'written off' for the next four months, which look like being critical for us._ [Gas would] _give the Boche a setback and he will realise that, at long last, we have taken the gloves off and really mean business."
_
At this point the decision was effectively made by Churchill.
_"Supposing lodgements were affected on our coast, there could be no better points for application of mustard gas than those beaches and lodgements"_
Then, crucially
_"In my view there would be no need to wait for the enemy to adopt such methods. He will certainly adopt them if he thinks it will pay. Home Defence should be consulted as to whether the prompt drenching of lodgements would not be a great help. Everything should be brought to the highest pitch of readiness, but the question of actual deployment must be settled by the Cabinet."
_
Any misgivings about first use of chemical weapons in the military were now irrelevant. The moral argument against their use had been lost. The final decision regarding their use now rested with Churchill and the War Cabinet. With the support of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff (Dill) there can be little doubt what that decision would have been, had landings been made._
_
Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 13, 2017)

War winning in the ww1 era not ww2.
I would have moral misgivings about bombing a civilian population with gas. I would have none about using it against an invading force. Screw 'em. 
I would consider the bombing of a civilian population a very sticky wicket. And no wonder that no German was tried for war crimes bombing a civilian target. Tu quoque.

I would perhaps take note that Bari in Italy was accidentally exposed to mustard gas and so could be an interesting note to add.

I doubt chemical warfare on its own would win a decisive battle and cheerleaders for the pros of chemical warfare will always over egg the pudding.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 13, 2017)

"I would have moral misgivings about bombing a civilian population with gas. I would have none about using it against an invading force. Screw 'em."

That's just presentism.

Nobody on the British side was claiming chemical warfare would win a decisive battle. They were all officers who were well aware of the way it had been used in WW1. It wasn't in itself decisive in any British WW1 battle (the British only overestimated it's effectiveness once, at Loos) but it did give certain advantages when integrated into an offensive or, as would have been the case in 1940, defensive system. That's why officers like Dill, who had fought WW1, been mentioned in despatches eight times and by early 1918 was Head of Operations at GHQ under Haig, were so keen to use it.

Edit: Though the use of phosgene against Germany's civilian population was mentioned at the first meeting of the Committee developing the gas plan, it's use was never seriously contemplated, at least in this role. All the RAF's chemical bombs and spray tanks were filled, or were to be filled, with mustard gas. It's an indication of how desperate times were that a small relative advantage, the equipping of Britain's civilian population with gas masks far more effectively than had been accomplished in Germany, was considered worth exploiting.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 13, 2017)

Does the use of phosphorus constitute chemical warfare?
British chemical warfare in Ww2 seems to be a continuation of ww1.
Whereas the Germans had already developed nerve gas. It is certainly interesting that the deployment of gas masks to British civilians is certainly a sign the war Britain was expecting.


----------



## stona (Aug 13, 2017)

The Basket said:


> Does the use of phosphorus constitute chemical warfare?



Today? Against military targets? Morally, for most people, yes. Legally a very grey area.

In 1982 the British maintained that white phosphorous was used to produce smoke screens, which is perfectly allowable and an intended use. I believe this story was blown in 2005. 

Does that allow a WP grenade to be thrown or fired into a mortar pit or at a machine gun crew? Can it be used to force men from a house or bunker? There are no referees on real battlefields.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Robert Porter (Aug 13, 2017)

The US used phosphorus heavily in Korea and Vietnam, ostensibly as a defoliant as well as an antipersonnel weapon, and even as markers. There was a lot of discussion over the pro's and con's of the use but I would say today, especially against civilian populations it would not be accepted.


----------



## stona (Aug 13, 2017)

The US 'Shake 'n' Bake' tactic?
We're not supposed to do it......but.....

A 2005 article from the US Artillery's Field Artillery Magazine reviewed a November 2004 operation ih Fallujah thus.

"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes where we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosive]. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out,"

There's nothing new here. I personally know an ex Britsh serviceman who was trained to 'FISH'* using WP grenades.

*'Fight In Someone's House'

Colonel Tim Collins admitted (coincidentally in 2005) to training his men prior to operations in Iraq in 2003 in such tactics.

"The star of the show was the new grenade which had only been on issue since the previous summer. It absolutely trashed the inside of the room it was put into.
I directed the men to use them where possible with white phosphorus, as the noxious smoke and heat had the effect of drawing out any enemy from cover, while the fragmentation grenade would shred them."

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 13, 2017)

A few points. 
Since the invasion beaches were unknown and flying Lysanders at low altitude and low speed would be suicidal over a defended area then the use of chemical weapons would be difficult to bring to the enemy.
Also once off the beaches then you're fighting in civilian areas where your going to gas your own population. Plus of course the danger of Jerry using his stocks of gas.


----------



## Robert Porter (Aug 13, 2017)

I think just like the Normandy landings, unless you can repel an invasion very decisively and quickly the difficulties in winning against the invader with any weapons, mount very quickly. But I truly cannot see the British command allowing the use of gas or chemical weapons where their own civilian population, gas masks or not, would be potentially affected.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2017)

The use of white phosphorous as a weapon against human targets is contested. The 1999 “rules of war” outlaw its use, along with other incendiary weaponary, especially on civilian. This has been more or less the accepted convention since the 70’s. This did not stop the Iraqi forces using WP against his their Kurdish minorities in the 1980’s and again against Kuwaiti civilians during the 1991 invasion. It also dod not stop certain USMC formations using them in the opening stages of the invasion of Iraq in 2004, during the siege of Fallujah.


Within the U.S. Army, there appears to be conflicting advice on the use of white phosphorus against humans. According to the field manual on the Rule of Land Warfare, "The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law (it is problematic how they reach that conclusion)” . Conversely, the 1999 ST 100-3 “Battle Book”, (a student text published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College), states that "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets." At the same time, other field manuals discuss the use of white phosphorus against personnel. The US armed forces are allover the place on this issue


Though white phosphorus is still used in modern armed conflict, its use in incendiary weapons is regulated by international humanitarian law, generally prohibited against fully civilian targets.


----------



## stona (Aug 14, 2017)

The RAF accepted the risk of flying low over beachheads. The air defence over the landings was unlikely to have been effective or organised. None of the forces took much light flak with them, they were dependent in the early stages on very limited light naval forces or, as the planning envisaged complete local air superiority, the Luftwaffe.
I have the figures for the planned light flak which the various invasion fleets intended to take with them, either on the barges or rafts etc. at home (where I am not for the next couple of days). It was not substantial.

There were plans to contaminate the ground behind any withdrawal. Any civilians who were not evacuated (many left the south coast and east coasts of their own accord in the summer of 1940) may have been affected. They may have been affected by any other weapons used. Staying indoors and wearing a respirator gave better protection from gas than HE. In 1940 gas would have been just another weapon to endanger any civilians caught up in the fighting.

The possibility of retaliation by the Germans 'against our industry and civilian population' as Dill put it, was acknowledged, but considered worth the risk. The British were not aware of the German development of what we now call nerve agents, but this was not relevant militarily in 1940 anyway.

Again, beware of presentism. The conventions prohibiting the use of poisonous gasses had been flouted by all sides in WW1, though first use is ascribed to the Germans. In 1940 there were few moral qualms about using such weapons again; there were more qualms about being the first to use them. The British feared the propaganda advantage to the Germans. Britain fought on for time, utterly dependent on increasing American involvement, and anything that jeopardised that was considered risky, but the risk would have been taken in extremis.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 14, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> I think just like the Normandy landings, unless you can repel an invasion very decisively and quickly the difficulties in winning against the invader with any weapons, mount very quickly. But I truly cannot see the British command allowing the use of gas or chemical weapons where their own civilian population, gas masks or not, would be potentially affected.



The plan by the summer of 1940 was to fight delaying action on the beaches, holding the Germans as long as possible and not allowing a substantial lodgement to develop. This is where gas was considered particularly useful. This would then allow mobile forces to be concentrated against the German beachheads. The planned use of gas was limited to these beachheads where relatively few civilians would have been affected.
Compare Sealion and Overlord and look at the lengths the Allies went to in order to prevent any concentration of German forces against their landings. The Germans didn't really have any comparable plan and their reaction was confused and delayed anyway.
At the same time the Royal Navy, who would have seriously dropped the ball by allowing the landings to happen at all, would interdict the re-supply of any forces landed, cutting them off and allowing the Army to deal with them.

By September 1940 Britain was nowhere near as defenceless as some popular mythology would have us believe. The Army had substantially reorganised and rearmed. In August 1940 there was far more than the RAF standing between Hitler and his invasion of Britain. At the beginning of June the British army had 600 field guns, by August 1600, plus another 820 American 75mm guns, which had arrived with another 200,000 rifles, 2,600 'tank machine guns' (?) and 60,000 Thomson sub machine guns. In three months well over a million rifles had been imported from Canada and the US, equipping the LDF/Home Guard. The regular army had over a million SMLE, plus 75,000 in depots, 65,000 under repair and BSA was turning out 2,000 a week. 400 million rounds of .303 ammunition were to hand. By the end of August Home Defence formations were generally at 80% of their establishment. There were 250 medium and heavy guns with these troops compared to just 140 in June. The supply of two pounder anti tank guns had quadrupled, that of the BOYS anti tank rifle and the Bren gun doubled. By early September the army had 1200 British made tanks, 720 in front line service, including 360 infantry and cruiser tanks and 300 light tanks. Transport problems were somewhat alleviated by the requisition of just about every corporations bus fleet. According to Ismay the total strength of the army in Britain, including men from the Dominions was 75,945 officers and 1,758,122 enlisted men. Brooke, in his own front line, could muster 26 Divisions, 2 of them armoured. By mid-September the Home Guard numbered 1.5 million men, average age 35 (not 95 as some seem to believe, I blame Dad's Army) most now properly armed, uniformed and with some training. Some of these units were very good, others not so much. Colonel Watson of the Durham Light Infantry recalled that the Home Guard in the West Country where he was based were
_"extremely good. They all wanted to cooperate with us and we got them on a very high footing. My view was that we should not turn them into Grenadier Guardsmen, but should instead exploit their own ingenuity and individuality."_
He might have added local knowledge.
Because of the growing strength and confidence, many of the fixed defences were dismantled inland. They were seen not as a bulwark against attackers but as hindrances to the mobility of Home Forces. Work on the inland 'stop lines' ceased and plans for demolishing bridges etc along the main lines of communication suspended. The only place where fixed fortifications continued to be developed was the beaches and surrounding areas.
There may have been an invasion fever, but not an invasion panic. The growing confidence of the British is reflected in the communiques sent back from various embassies to their respective governments, most importantly to Washington. Even the Soviets conceded that any invasion looked like being a far from foregone conclusion.
In June 1940 the British feared what would happen if any force, even a large raid, was mounted on their east coast. By September those that even believed an invasion could be attempted (a diminishing band) were far more confident that it could be dealt with.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Aug 14, 2017)

I often wondered at the tendency to portray England as prostrate and defenseless against invasion in 1940. In my thoughts the Royal Navy was left out of the picture entirely by those claiming an invasion of England was a walk over. If it had been I doubt Hitler would have waited. Plus citizens and troops fighting for their homes and land always tend to be underestimated. You make excellent points thanks for your input!


----------



## stona (Aug 14, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> In my thoughts the Royal Navy was left out of the picture entirely by those claiming an invasion of England was a walk over.



I haven't even mentioned the Royal Navy. I think it has been covered in various 'Sealion' threads. The KM was totally overmatched by the RN, no contest, not even the Germans thought it was.
The English Channel is not a wide river, it is a sea and a fickle one at that. It would also have been heavily contested by the most powerful navy in the world, operating close to home.

Unfortunately the mythologising of the BoB has obscured the reality of the military situation in the autumn of 1940 and the true scale of the task facing the Germans. I can't blame 'Dad's Army' for this. The myth making has been going on since 1940, but in more recent history I blame the film 'Battle of Britain' which is great entertainment, but not a documentary, and the 1961 Wood and Dempster book (The Narrow Margin) on which it is largely based.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 14, 2017)

Phosphorus was discovered in Hamburg by literally taking the urine.
And then Hamburg was bombed with Phosphorus and loss of life was high. 
Haber was going to be part of a war trial but didn't happen.


----------



## stona (Aug 14, 2017)

A relatively neutral appraisal of Germany's chances from General Raymond Lee, US military attache, September 5th 1940.

_"On a cold blooded appraisal, one might say that the betting on Britain beating off an invasion in this fall is about 3 to 1, with the odds lengthening every week. There is still a little time for an attempt and I really believe that Hitler will have to try to admit what he can hardly afford to admit: first that invasion is hopeless and second that he is in for a long war. The first means a defeat in this years campaign and the second, an ultimate defeat. The results of this months intensive air attack are remarkably slender. All the railways are running, road circulation is normal, telephone and telegraph services are in order, industrial production undamaged."_

I don't know anything about Raymond Lee, but I would struggle to put it any better with nearly 80 years of hindsight.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 14, 2017)

The Basket said:


> Phosphorus was discovered in Hamburg by literally taking the urine.
> And then Hamburg was bombed with Phosphorus and loss of life was high.
> Haber was going to be part of a war trial but didn't happen.




A very small percentage of British incendiary bombs dropped contained phosphorous. I can give you the exact figures on Wednesday.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 17, 2017)

The Basket said:


> Phosphorus was discovered in Hamburg by literally taking the urine.
> And then Hamburg was bombed with Phosphorus and loss of life was high.



The British developed the 30lb phosphorus incendiary bomb to ensure against any future shortage of magnesium. It was a 30lb bomb because 250,000 30lb light case bomb bodies, intended for filling with chemical weapons, became available. The filling was 1.5 lbs of phosphorus and six lbs of a rubber-benzol mixture. Mks I-III all used this filling, though with slightly different cases and fusing. The MkIV used a cellulose acetate filling, produced from scrap perspex, due to a shortage of rubber.
3,000,000 of these weapons were dropped by Bomber Command during the war. This may seem a lot, but it must be compared with the 80,000,000 4lb incendiaries, which were filled with various 'pellets' of material but used magnesium as the primary incendiary mechanism, dropped during the same period.

The general opinion of Germans interrogated at the end of the war was that the 30lb incendiary was about as effective as the 4lb incendiary, giving a weight for weight advantage of about 7:1 to the 4lb bomb
In 1944 the Air Ministry Incendiary Panel (you couldn't make it up!) was of the view that weight for weight the 30lb bomb was four times less efficient than the 4lb bomb.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 17, 2017)

Going back to ww1 and Zeppelin raids. A new use for phosphorus is as an incendiary bullet to burst balloons and ignite hydrogen. 
But only against sacs of air. Not people.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 17, 2017)

Only against sacs supporting a aircraft with people in it.

Who would burn to death on the way down, or jump.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 18, 2017)

The legal points of using incendiary rounds or the Buckingham rounds are fascinating. They were needed against Zeppelins to ignite the hydrogen. Thier use against pilots and air crew was against the rules but they were used all the same.
They fell to thier deaths due to no parachutes. It was believed that it would make men cowards. 
The use of incendiary ammunition in Ww2 didn't have the same legal issues it seems.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 18, 2017)

Observation balloon observers on both sides had parachutes, they were expected to abandon the balloon when they were attacked.

The WW1 era Luftwaffe had a different view on parachutes for aircrew than the Allied brass. Udet's life was saved by a parachute in WW1.

I don't know if the Zeppelin crews had parachutes or not. They were so anal about carrying "extra weight " they may have left them behind.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 18, 2017)

The Basket said:


> Does the use of phosphorus constitute chemical warfare?




Possibly; see https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/...ssue1/Reyhan10U.Pa.J.L.&Soc.Change1(2007).pdf and http://www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/White-Phosphorus-and-the-law-of-war.pdf

The trouble with international law is that it's more analogous to agreements between crime bosses than any kind of domestic law, and if you're big enough it doesn't matter even if you're signatory to a treaty banning something.


----------



## stona (Aug 18, 2017)

When push comes to shove nobody cares about the legality. The use of the chemical agents used in WW1 was illegal under the 1899 Hague Declaration and the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare.
All it did was make people wary of 'first use', but once one side had done it, Germany in WW1, everybody jumped on the band wagon.

In WW2 the RAF went from not bombing KM ships if tied up at a wharf, for fear of injuring or killing civilian workers, to overtly targeting the civilian population of Germany's cities.
My mother would have said 'needs must when the devil drives.'

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 18, 2017)

How about instead of using chemical weapons, Haber invented a weapon of mass destruction. 
I would say the Germans thought use of a pump action shotgun was a war crime. 
A flammenwerfer must have been used purely to make toast.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2017)

The Basket said:


> How about instead of using chemical weapons, Haber invented a weapon of mass destruction.
> I would say the Germans thought use of a pump action shotgun was a war crime.
> A flammenwerfer must have been used purely to make toast.



I believe they objected to the shotgun because of the ammo. Soft lead projectiles that would deform as they hit (flatten out=expand).
at least that would be the "legal" objection under the "rules" of war at the time. 
Apparently anything that was not specifically prohibited was OK to use. 

I would note that even by WW I most countries were getting a bit cynical about some of the Hague conventions as it is harder to get repeating small arms to feed using lead or lead tipped bullets than when using full metal jackets so nobody ever really pushed back against that provision.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 21, 2017)

Flame throwers are very feared on the battlefield. Although number of injury and death would probably be minimal but the fear factor was enormous. 
Was the ammo deliberate or just stock in shotguns? 
The Americans didn't have an auto weapon for trench raids unless you count the Chauchat and the Commonwealth used Lewis guns so a pump action shotgun would be pretty handy.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2017)

lead nose or pure lead bullets give (or gave) feeding problems in semi-automatic pistols and even bolt action rifles. It has to do with the nose of the bullet sliding on the feed ramp. Some guns are more prone to troubles than others. Angle of the ramp, how much the ramp controlled the feed vrs the lips of the magazine and the smoothness of the ramp. The last was a common modification for Military surplus pistols, Polishing the feed ramp to get rid of machine marks (groves) to get non-military bullets to feed reliably. Not a big deal but the more hand work the more expensive a gun is to manufacture.

US Shotguns used, at first, commercial ammunition which in WW I days meant a "paper" shell body with a crimped on sheet brass rim and primer cup. It tended to absorb water and swell in trench (or jungle) conditions and was replaced by a full length brass case. 
A standard load for the military was a buckshot load of 9 pellets of 00 size which is .33 caliber and 53.8 grains (just under 3.5 grams).

Nobody was using steel or iron shot in the early part of the last century. Even "plated" shot was rare and expensive.


----------



## Robert Porter (Aug 21, 2017)

Heck the advent of the machine gun was originally termed a terror weapon and a weapon of mass destruction! It is all relative I suppose.


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 21, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> I don't know if the Zeppelin crews had parachutes or not. They were so anal about carrying "extra weight " they may have left them behind.


From what I understand, they didn't carry parachutes due to weight issues.

To put the use of incendiary rounds into perspective: Germany was deliberately trying to firebomb London, so using incendiary rounds is hardly surprising.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 21, 2017)

The use of incendiary rounds was to ignite the hydrogen. Hydrogen was found to be difficult to ignite so needed some persuasive measures.

In early days Zeppelin flew too high and was pretty safe. 

Against a ww1 airplane then an incendiary bullet would be good against wood and fabric as well of course in a fuel tank. I suppose if a pilot got in the way it wouldn't be pretty but any high velocity machine gun round is going to painful.


----------



## stona (Aug 22, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Heck the advent of the machine gun was originally termed a terror weapon and a weapon of mass destruction! It is all relative I suppose.



So was the crossbow. I believe one Pope wanted to ban them too 
Cheers
Steve

Edit: I looked it up. Pope Innocent II banned the use of crossbows, along with other bows and slings, against Christians in 1139. You could still kill non-believers or heretics with these weapons, which would have been handy for those heading off on the 2nd or subsequent Crusades. 
As far as I can tell nobody took much notice of the ban, a bit like the Hague Conventions nearly 800 years later

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 22, 2017)

If the crossbow was the only weapon in Ww1 we had to worry about then that would have been an improvement. Unless they were phosphorus tipped.


----------



## Robert Porter (Aug 22, 2017)

Those flaming crossbow bolts always gave me the heebeegeebees!


----------

