Gas shells

[David B]

One reads plenty about troops being shelled by HE and gas but I would like to know actually a gas shell operated.

Was it exploded by a small charge to release gas under pressure ? What was the general calibre of a gas shell, one would think in terms of large,

where was the shell charged - at the factory or close to the front line, was the gas under a high or medium pressure etc.

Thanks in advance

david

[phil@basildon]

The Germans used 150mm shells to deliver their gas and as they were colour coded I presume they were filled at the factory. In fact filling them in battle conditions would make them more dangerous to the users than the enemy. The British experimented with firing a special cylinder with an 8" mortar (Levens projector) and successfully used it towards the end of the war.

As much as 20% of the shells fired failed to explode and many are still in the ground.

[David B]

thanks Phil,

lets NOT go digging eh?

David

[Robert Dunlop]

The Livens Projector (named after its inventor) was used throughout 1917 and 18. Rows of projectors would be set up and then triggered electronically. Huge quantities of gas could be dumped into a relatively small area, but the range was quite short.

The projectors were also used to fire burning oil too. They were originally designed for this purpose.

Robert

[Matt Dixon]

Where gas shells proportionately more dangerous for those loading them into guns than HE or shrapnel shells? I can understand that dropping any shell probably wasn't a great idea, but were there special precautions used for gas shells?

I think I am right in saying a Livens projector had a range of about 1 mile.

[David B]

I dont know much about explosives except they go bang, but I thought it was pretty inert stuff until

triggered by an explosive fuze. How were gas shells filled ? by a hose connected via a tap - I dont

know, but I thought that there would be a greater likelihood of an accident filling up a gas shell,

presumably they were filled to a standard pressure and/or weight.

D

[roel22]

David, you may want to read this article.

Roel

[phil@basildon]

Gas shells were filled at the factory. There was twenty different types of gas used by both sides and each was different in handling techniques and type of containment. Mustard gas for example came as a liquid. The explosive to distribute the gas would be small as it would otherwise spread the gas to thinly, this probably accounts for the high proportion of duds, it was only neccessary to open the shell to release the contents. This is why the Livens Projector was so successful, it could concentrate the gas into a small area.

[jeremym]

My father, George Oswald Mitchell (G.O.M.), was in the RE Special Brigade from its formation in the summer of 1915 through to the Armistice. He took part in many gas attacks, latterly as a Sergeant in 'M' Company. Cylinders, Livens projectors and four inch Stokes mortars were used, with occasional variants, such as cylinders fired from steel pipes. There is little doubt that the Livens projector was the most effective method of employing gas in attack.

jeremym

(Jeremy Mitchell)

[Terry_Reeves]

Gas shells were liquid filled, which was converted into gas through the heat generated by the bursting charge. British shells were filled , rather inefficiently, through a charging hole in the shell wall. The Germans, rather more logically, filled theirs through the nose of the projectile. Mustard gas dispensed its payload as droplets rather than gas.

TR

[Matt Dixon]

Terry,

Were the shells filled in standard munitions factories, or were there "labs" where they were done? Sounds like a crummy job to me.

[Robert Dunlop]

There is little doubt that the Livens projector was the most effective method of employing gas in attack.

Jeremy, your point is well-made with respect to the means available to the Special Brigade RE. Overall, however, it could be argued that artillery gas shells fired for counter-battery suppression was the most effective method of employing gas. A Liven's projector attack might cause enemy casualties in a very localised area. Counter-battery work saved countless friendly lives during major offensives.

Robert

[Terry_Reeves]

Matt

They were filled at special plants. I'll have a look for my notes and post the locations if you are interested. Shells could and did leak and much effort had to be put into sealing them efficiently. The British developed a diagphram that fitted between the explosive charge and the chemical content, but did not really solve the leakage problem entirely. The Germans, looking for a efficient method of sealing their mustard gas rounds, using recovered British rounds as an example, redesigned the diagphram the "Zwischenbodengeschoss" and successfully made the seal.

With regard to Livens projectors projectiles, although they were particularly good at getting a large volume of gas onto an enemy position, with a degree of suprise, they were most useful when used in the harassment role, particularly in the middle of the night. There were however some spectacular successes in the offensive, most notably a 3000 gun launch on 9 April 1918 at Arras. The weakness of the projector, was that it required a fair amount of manpower to transport and dig in the guns, almost always at night, and also maintaining the electrical firing system.

By comparison, the gas shell was obviously far more efficient in terms of man power and had longer much range. The disadvantage was that the capacity of these carrier shell varied from calibre to calibre and was generally much less than that of the Livens bomb.

TR

[David B]

thanks for all those, we live and learn

david

[Matt Dixon]

Terry,

Fascinating stuff! I would be interested in the locations of the filling plants.

[MartinWills]

As regards range, it would depend on the Livens projector size, the charge and the type/load of container.

[sotonmate]

rga

I recall an article I was reading a couple of years ago which stated that there are still piles of gas shells in Houthurst Forest awaiting disposal !

Doubtless someone here knows whether that is still fact,I certainly won't be going to see if it is so !

Sotonmate

[phil@basildon]

rga

I recall an article I was reading a couple of years ago which stated that there are still piles of gas shells in Houthurst Forest awaiting disposal !

Doubtless someone here knows whether that is still fact,I certainly won't be going to see if it is so !

Sotonmate

As recently as the 1980's the French military stored any gas shells found by ploughing ect. on the former battlefield on a military base (I cant remember which) when the locals found out and protested they then moved them to an underground storage facility. These shells can not be disposed of by conventional means and what to do with them is a perenial problem.

[nigelfe]

All chemical shells contain the chemical agent as a liquid. These vary quite widely in their characteristics, hence moden terminology of 'persistent' and 'non-persistent'. Non-persistent types are volatile and evaporate rapidly, persistent are typically quite oily and evaporate slowly and present a significant contact hazard.

The bursting shell shell tries to break the liquid into small droplets, which evaporate quickly if they are volatile. The shell burst does not try to cause evaporation by heat of the burst. Mustard is persistent, phosgene is NP. The degree of vapour hazard depends on the concentration (ppm) in air, for agents like mustard with slow evaporation, the ppm depends of the weather and the amount of liquid delivered. I think I'm right in saying that most if not all WW1 chemical shells were ground burst, which is a very inefficient form of delivery, later designs were airburst or used a plunger to force the liquid out of the shell's base after it was blown off in the air.

[sotonmate]

phil w

I also noted that the Belgians continue to process the shells,both from the stack and the farmer's "iron harvest",by a steaming process. I seem to recall that they estimated some 30 years worth of processing to come !

Sotonmate

[phil@basildon]

It seems that chemical weapons are worse than nuclear ones. Nagasaki and Hiroshima sound a lot safer than the WW1 battlefields!