Chemical warfare in ww1

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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...
 

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
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
[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
 
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.
 
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
 
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 Germans were also first.
 

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.
 
Last edited:
The Basket said:
My partner's relative died due to been caught in poison gas ww1...in 1925.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
WW1 Aircraft Photos
4 5 6
Replies
102
Views
8K
Musec04
M
Restoring a German WW1 Artillery Piece....in Australia
Replies
3
Views
851
Wildcat
M
Thomas Morse S-4 Scout in Flying Condition
Replies
2
Views
349
Gnomey
HMS Hawke found in 'remarkable' condition
Replies
6
Views
745
Gnomey
Possible WW1 RN Submarine Found Buried Under Park!
Replies
1
Views
755
Airframes
Menu
Log in
Register