Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Mustard Gas vs Clorine Gas?


momsirish

Recommended Posts

This may be a topic over used, and I'm sorry if anyone is tired of it, but search did not bring up the topic as requested. I think many people associate Mustard Gas with WW1. Yet Clorine Gas seemes to be mentioned more in articles related to the War. Does anyone on the Forum, have a handle on this? Which gas was worse, if in they are seperate gases. How were surplus supplies of gases destroyed post war?

momsirish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your best bet is to get a copy of "Chemical Soldiers" by Dr Donal Rickter.

Very detailed description of gas warfare in WW1.

Very nice chap too, he will answer any questions you might have via his University email address.

http://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Soldiers-Br...s/dp/0700611134

Back to your question. Mustard gas was the processor to Chlorine gas.

After this came Phosgene gas. They were also mixed together in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two different gases. Chlorine was a true gas that poisoned on being inhaled - thus a gas mask offered protection. Mustard gas was essentially a form of vapour and burned tissue on contact so as well as a gas mask bare skin had to be protected - said to be one reason for the abandonment of the kilt and the discouragement of shorts. Both used in some quantity. A larger area could be covered quicker with Chlorine but it also dispersed more rapidly (especially if there was wind). MG hung around as the droplets condensed and 'pooled and coated' but would revapourise if the temperature rose. An area well MGed would be dangerous afterwards as things would b coated in MG droplets and would inflict burns slow to heal if touched and pools would lurk under the duckboards. Good for denying ground to your enemy but not so good if you plan to take and occupy that ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your best bet is to get a copy of "Chemical Soldiers" by Dr Donal Rickter.

Very detailed description of gas warfare in WW1.

Very nice chap too, he will answer any questions you might have via his University email address.

http://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Soldiers-Br...s/dp/0700611134

Back to your question. Mustard gas was the processor to Chlorine gas.

After this came Phosgene gas. They were also mixed together in some cases.

Chlorine preceded but did not replace Mustard Gas and both were used up to the end of the war. Nerve gases were also in use in 1918

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MUSTARD GAS

"Dichlorethylsulphide, known as mustard gas, Yperite

or Yellow Cross gas, is an oily liquid boiling at 422 F. .

On account of its high boiling point, it vaporizes very

slowly, and is therefore, extremely persistent. It is a sta-

ble compound, being but slowly destroyed by water at ;

ordinary temperatures, more quickly by alkalies such as

bicarbonate of soda. Chloride of lime will destroy any

mustard gas, either liquid or gaseous, with which it comes

in contact. The liquid will soak into soil on which it is

thrown and remain there from a week to a month."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your best bet is to get a copy of "Chemical Soldiers" by Dr Donal Rickter.

Very detailed description of gas warfare in WW1.

Very nice chap too, he will answer any questions you might have via his University email address.

http://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Soldiers-Br...s/dp/0700611134

Back to your question. Mustard gas was the processor to Chlorine gas.

After this came Phosgene gas. They were also mixed together in some cases.

Great, Thanks for the reply: I was in a local library and picked up Anthony Livesey's Great Battles of WW1, the book easily opened to a page with the painting, (actually more like a colored pencil drawing) "Soldats Masques" by Zingg. All the soldiers are covered head to foot. That would indicate Mustard gas was expected, or in use at the time.

The comment next to the drawing says it makes "note of the inhumanity and horror of gas warfare." "In 1915 only a damp cloth to cover the nose and mouth was available."

The index of the book "The Pity of War, by Niall Ferguson and several others I broused through did not list gas in the indexes.

It has always seemed that the general conception of WW1 was an image of masses of men being gunned down or poisoned by gas. Images of blind leading the blind. Yet, while many histories of WW1 do mention gas, it seems it does not warrent being discussed or listed seperately in a book's index by the authors.

Environmentalists today are dreadfully fearful of hair sprays, spraypaints etc. That makes me think newer books relating to WW1 will give more attention to what effects these gases had on the troops. That should not lessen the readability of the history of WW1.

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two different gases. Chlorine was a true gas that poisoned on being inhaled - thus a gas mask offered protection. Mustard gas was essentially a form of vapour and burned tissue on contact so as well as a gas mask bare skin had to be protected - said to be one reason for the abandonment of the kilt and the discouragement of shorts. Both used in some quantity. A larger area could be covered quicker with Chlorine but it also dispersed more rapidly (especially if there was wind). MG hung around as the droplets condensed and 'pooled and coated' but would revapourise if the temperature rose. An area well MGed would be dangerous afterwards as things would b coated in MG droplets and would inflict burns slow to heal if touched and pools would lurk under the duckboards. Good for denying ground to your enemy but not so good if you plan to take and occupy that ground.

Thanks centurion: I was wondering just how they delivered the gas in shells. Did the gases escape only on the impact of the shell, or were they released upon explosion above ground. The vapor of mustard seems better released through shells exploding above ground, and the chlorine gas being released on impact. A good way to tell what gas in the shell by noting the type of shell. That little picture "Soldat Masques" certainly got me thinking.

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MUSTARD GAS

"Dichlorethylsulphide, known as mustard gas, Yperite

or Yellow Cross gas, is an oily liquid boiling at 422 F. .

On account of its high boiling point, it vaporizes very

slowly, and is therefore, extremely persistent. It is a sta-

ble compound, being but slowly destroyed by water at ;

ordinary temperatures, more quickly by alkalies such as

bicarbonate of soda. Chloride of lime will destroy any

mustard gas, either liquid or gaseous, with which it comes

in contact. The liquid will soak into soil on which it is

thrown and remain there from a week to a month."

The word, and cpmpound Yperite seems a wicked coincidence with the name Ypers. Is that naturally accidental or did mustard gas get the name from the battle areas?

In the states. I think old news reports used to show gas stockpiles bring destroyed by high temperature burning. That presumedly did not cause downwind people anxiety. If chlorine lime will neutralize Mustard, what neutralized chlorine gases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This website is also useful:

http://www.vlib.us/medical/gaswar/gas.htm

Pmaasz, I shuld have gone to your reccomended website first. The word Yperite is from the battle areas and Ypers, I would not have asked that question to Centurion had I known that.

Just the first couple of paragraphs on that website lets one know the unprepared people of WW1 probably handled the gases better than unprepared people of today could handle the same attacks. All the medicenes advertised for heartburn, indigestion, shortness of breath today were not necessary or probably even used in the years 1914 to 1918. Our bodies of today can't handle acid reflux or simple indigestion.

thanks,

momsirish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks centurion: I was wondering just how they delivered the gas in shells. Did the gases escape only on the impact of the shell, or were they released upon explosion above ground. The vapor of mustard seems better released through shells exploding above ground, and the chlorine gas being released on impact. A good way to tell what gas in the shell by noting the type of shell. That little picture "Soldat Masques" certainly got me thinking.

Carl

A good question. I know that the Allies delivered a lot of MG using Livens projectors and AFAIK these rounds did not air burst

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the medicenes advertised for heartburn, indigestion, shortness of breath today were not necessary or probably even used in the years 1914 to 1918. Our bodies of today can't handle acid reflux or simple indigestion.

thanks,

I think that its more of a problem your side of the pond - my local pharmacy (drug store) has a few very short shelves with medicines for indigestion, trapped wind, constipation etc etc - it is not untypical of a British chemist (again drug store). I've seen drug stores in small American towns with a whole aisle dedicated to intestinal problems

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear momsirish,

Chlorine was the first gas to be deployed by the Germans, beginning with their first attack at Ypres in 1915. It was a gas that as a by-product of German industry they had in large quantities. The British and French had it too, and soon manufacured it in large quantities.

The second major gas the Germans used was Phosgene, which could be obtained as a byproduct of the chemical dye industry, in which Germany was a leader. One of the reasons that the British and French were worried about the use of Chlorine and Phosgene was that pre-war German industry was much better prepared for producing these gases than either of the others; however, they quickly caught up.

Mustard Gas was nastier than either of the two gases mentioned above, and was first deployed by the Germans in 1917. Mustard gas sublimed at quite a high temperature, which meant that a soldier splashed with the liquid form could go into a dug out, warm up, and start producing the gas from splashes on his uniform.

However, gas casualties during the War were very small as a proportion of casualties caused by all weapons. Both sides rapidly adopted effective gas masks, and so the main purpose of gas attacks was to cause confusion in front and rear areas by forcing troops to don gas masks, which restricted breathing, hearing and vision. Both sides frequently fired tear gas or smoke shells instead of lethal gas shells, simply to force the troops on the other side to don their gas masks.

The best gas mask of the war was the British Box Respirator, which had the advantage of separating the filter canisters from the mask by a rubber hose, allowing the filters to be changed and minimising the weight of the mask, unlike the German gas mask which hung from the face like a nose bag.

A tactic of gas warfare which was being developed as the war came to a close was the firing of large quantities of harmless gas shells (eg tear gas) forcing the opposing troops to don their masks. The filters only had a limited lifetime, so after a certain period they would switch to lethal gas and the enemy frontline troops would have no defence. However, the technology to do this was in the development stage in 1918 - the British were developing gases designed to penetrate German filters, for example - and never came to fruition.

Britian was best at gas warfare, but it was never actually that useful for either side once the shock value had worn off and gas masks were issued as standard; the main value was the inconvenience - forcing enemy troops to don cumbersome equipment which was very uncomfortable and restricted their vision and hearing.

Many variants of gases were used - lethal and non-lethal - in addition to chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas; tear gas was used in large quantities by both sides.

However, ultimately gas was not that useful as a weapon of war once the shock value had worn off.

Hope this helps.

Aidan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How were surplus supplies of gases destroyed post war?

Supplies (and duds) found on the battlefield were not destroyed.

Because dismantling them was a hazardous job, for many years the bomb disposal unit in Belgium used to dump large quantities of gas-shells in the sea, covered in concrete.

Roel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may fall into the category of silly question...

I have read that a result of gas attacks was a reduction in the population of rats because obviously they had no protection against gas which was heavier than air and fumigated the battle areas.

Did a nerve gas or a gas like Phosgene (not mustard gas which would burn your skin) which I believe were the early precusors of insecticides have a similar effect on lice?

Ta

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not agree with you more. We no longer have local drug stores or local pharmacies, almost everything is in big supermarkets, thousands of square feet on one level. Each shelf seems to have more junk goods than beneficial goods.

Gastro-intestinal problems probably result from eating too much prepared foods. Cooking out of the box seems to be the thing these days. Hopefully terrorists will not stap on gas bombs here or anywhere else. I'm not complaining or taking the topic off course, just stating a fact as I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear momsirish,

Chlorine was the first gas to be deployed by the Germans, beginning with their first attack at Ypres in 1915. It was a gas that as a by-product of German industry they had in large quantities. The British and French had it too, and soon manufacured it in large quantities.

The second major gas the Germans used was Phosgene, which could be obtained as a byproduct of the chemical dye industry, in which Germany was a leader. One of the reasons that the British and French were worried about the use of Chlorine and Phosgene was that pre-war German industry was much better prepared for producing these gases than either of the others; however, they quickly caught up.

Mustard Gas was nastier than either of the two gases mentioned above, and was first deployed by the Germans in 1917. Mustard gas sublimed at quite a high temperature, which meant that a soldier splashed with the liquid form could go into a dug out, warm up, and start producing the gas from splashes on his uniform.

However, gas casualties during the War were very small as a proportion of casualties caused by all weapons. Both sides rapidly adopted effective gas masks, and so the main purpose of gas attacks was to cause confusion in front and rear areas by forcing troops to don gas masks, which restricted breathing, hearing and vision. Both sides frequently fired tear gas or smoke shells instead of lethal gas shells, simply to force the troops on the other side to don their gas masks.

The best gas mask of the war was the British Box Respirator, which had the advantage of separating the filter canisters from the mask by a rubber hose, allowing the filters to be changed and minimising the weight of the mask, unlike the German gas mask which hung from the face like a nose bag.

A tactic of gas warfare which was being developed as the war came to a close was the firing of large quantities of harmless gas shells (eg tear gas) forcing the opposing troops to don their masks. The filters only had a limited lifetime, so after a certain period they would switch to lethal gas and the enemy frontline troops would have no defence. However, the technology to do this was in the development stage in 1918 - the British were developing gases designed to penetrate German filters, for example - and never came to fruition.

Britian was best at gas warfare, but it was never actually that useful for either side once the shock value had worn off and gas masks were issued as standard; the main value was the inconvenience - forcing enemy troops to don cumbersome equipment which was very uncomfortable and restricted their vision and hearing.

Many variants of gases were used - lethal and non-lethal - in addition to chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas; tear gas was used in large quantities by both sides.

However, ultimately gas was not that useful as a weapon of war once the shock value had worn off.

Hope this helps.

Aidan

Aiden that helps a lot in taking some of the probable guilt feelings one side feels for gasing the other side. Shooting rifles or even machine gun fire gives the soldier a better chance of not being hit, and surviving the battle. Gas hits everyone, without giving chances seems somewhat unsporting. I see young GI's today in wheel chairs and hope they will have some relief in the near future and not be so immobilized for life. It is just that we're used to hearing tales of gassed WW1 veterans being miserable for most of their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supplies (and duds) found on the battlefield were not destroyed.

Because dismantling them was a hazardous job, for many years the bomb disposal unit in Belgium used to dump large quantities of gas-shells in the sea, covered in concrete.

Roel

It had not occurred to me that these gases were industrial by products, I just thought of sinister mindsets. The ocean was as good a solution at the time. The treaty of Versallies may have considered setting a precident for the disposal of such weapons. But if one side had to conform to the rule all sides would have to as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may fall into the category of silly question...

I have read that a result of gas attacks was a reduction in the population of rats because obviously they had no protection against gas which was heavier than air and fumigated the battle areas.

Did a nerve gas or a gas like Phosgene (not mustard gas which would burn your skin) which I believe were the early precusors of insecticides have a similar effect on lice?

Ta

James

Thats not a silly question at all, One has to think the gases mustard or otherwise must have had an effect on rodents, mice rats etc. I've heard tales of people claiming soldiers came home from the front with lice. That would indicate it did not affect them as it would the larger pests. DDT was I think universal at the time. The gases would seem logical predecessors for insecticides. Not being facetious but trying to ad levity to this itching problem, some lice were probably able to run between the drops, and bred like mad afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insects and other similar creatures, such as lice and Arachnids do not use lungs to breathe; they "breathe" usually through tubes in their outer body shell but in such minute quantities that airborne gasses would not have any significant effect. Mustard gas would have an effect being in a vapour form and being ingested when they clean themselves.

Fumigation to deal with pest insects requires them to be under a reasonably high concentration of CO2 in an enclosed, airtight container for between two to three weeks to ensure that they are dealt with for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes some gases were precursors of insecticides - these were the nerve gases introduced in 1918 and killed or incapacitated through skin contact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, ultimately gas was not that useful as a weapon of war once the shock value had worn off.

On the contrary it was very useful at denying ground to the enemy and neutralising gun batteries etc that could not otherwise be knocked out. Got a battery that would cause huge casualties if it is still operating when the attack starts but you can't eliminate (possibly because its staying quiet and you only know its approximate position, or its sitting in dead ground too far back for your howitzers to reach) smother the area with a persistent gas and keep topping it up. Yes the gunners can wear gas masks but its very difficult and tiring to work a battery in masks and they cease to be effective anyway after a few hours. If you can drive the gunners away from their guns and/or the guns away from their position you don't need to kill them or destroy the guns. Effectiveness and deadliness are not necessarily the same thing.

The British were able to put very large amounts of smoke and gas down in the final, winning, battles especially when batteries of Livens projectors were used. The Germans were unable to copy the Livens in any significant numbers, simple as it was in design, as they could not produce the special steel used to make the barrels very thin walled (and therefore light enough to be man ported into position).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How were surplus supplies of gases destroyed post war?

In 1995 it was estimated that it would take 15 years to dispose of the backlog of unexploded gas shells recovered from the Ypres/Passchendaele area alone. This doesn't include any of those that are still turning up. At the beginning of this century the French were dealing with 30 tons of unexploded gas shells each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...