Mustard Gas vs Clorine Gas?

[centurion]

In 1945 German stocks of gas were disposed of by taking 132,000 tons of German merchant shipping as war reparations, loading the gas on board and scuttling it out in the Atlantic. I suspect a similar approach might have been taken in 1919. So its all down there, cylinders gradually corroding. I wonder which way the wind will be blowing when bubbles (big ones) rise to the surface.

[ahargitt]

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).

Dear Centurion,

You're absolutely right; by effective, I meant effective as a means of actually killing enemy troops, but I should have made that clear. Gas, or the threat thereof, was very useful in many ways beyond directly causing casualties, and was a good way of causing the enemy a huge amount of inconvenience.

best

Aidan

[Robert Dunlop]

Aidan, don't throw away your observation too quickly. centurion described the theoretical effects of gas when used against artillery. In practice, there were multiple ways in which the artillery adapted to reduce the effects of gas. During the Battle of Verdun, for example, the French gunners were issued with new gas masks prior to a major German attack. Given the type of gas being used at that time, the new masks proved sufficient to enable the French gunners to mount major counter-preparatory artillery measures. Later in the war, the Germans developed ever more sophisticated measures to minimise British and French counter-battery fire during offensives. Many batteries would remain silent until moment when the offensive started. If they were not detected, then they were not targeted with gas. Other batteries would move around all the time. As night fell, the batteries would move into one position, fire throughout the night and then withdraw. This would be repeated on subsequent nights but at different locations. Dummy guns were set up to fool aerial and ground observers. Flash and the 'boom' of guns were both mimicked as well.

During the period between 1915 and Spring 1918, the British and French were rarely on the defensive (Verdun being the notable exception - German use of gas for counter battery fire did not stop the French artillery exacting a fearsome toll after the opening of the offensive). The German attacks in 1918 made liberal use of gas for counter-battery fire, and it took a little while for the British and French to adjust accordingly. By Operation Marneschutz-Reims (Ludendorff's last offensive in July 1918), the lessons had been well and truly learned. Zabecki noted:

"Since the French were outnumbered in guns they decided to forego counter-battery fire and concentrate their counter-preparation on the German infantry. As a result, the German guns executed their own preparation relatively unhampered.

By not firing on the German guns the French artillery had taken a calculated risk that paid off. Long before the start of the attack the Germans had acquired most of the French divisional artillery in the line. But just prior to the attack the French divisional artilleries were reinforced by additional units that moved up in secrecy. Once in position they meteorological calculations rather than registering. The 43rd Division's reinforcing artillery, for example, occupied their positions on the 4 July and remained silent until the Germans attacked. When the attack came the 43rd Division's organic three direct support battalions and one general support battalion lost 25 per cent of their guns to German counter-fire. Only two out of the division's nine reinforcing batteries took any German artillery fire at all."

It should be noted that much of the French artillery had also been posted further back from the front line, compared with earlier operations in 1918.

There was a further factor that could reduce the effectiveness of gas: the weather. I have been studying the effectiveness of gas for some time, gathering evidence from both sides and trying to match accounts with the actual use of gas. The details are very hard to come by. It is clear, however, that the effectiveness of gas was significantly reduced during several days in Third Ypres, for example, when the weather was rainy and/or windy.

Robert

[Cnock]

Hi,

After WWI gas shells were dumped in the North Sea close to the Belgian Coast, and covered with sand (where they still ar laying)

Afterwards they were dumped in blocs of concrete in French waters, until this was forbidden too.

Cnock

[centurion]

Aidan, don't throw away your observation too quickly. centurion described the theoretical effects of gas when used against artillery. In practice, there were multiple ways in which the artillery adapted to reduce the effects of gas. During the Battle of Verdun, for example, the French gunners were issued with new gas masks prior to a major German attack. Given the type of gas being used at that time, the new masks proved sufficient to enable the French gunners to mount major counter-preparatory artillery measures. Later in the war, the Germans developed ever more sophisticated measures to minimise British and French counter-battery fire during offensives. Many batteries would remain silent until moment when the offensive started. If they were not detected, then they were not targeted with gas. Other batteries would move around all the time. As night fell, the batteries would move into one position, fire throughout the night and then withdraw. This would be repeated on subsequent nights but at different locations. Dummy guns were set up to fool aerial and ground observers. Flash and the 'boom' of guns were both mimicked as well.

No I described actual effect and practice by both sides in 1918. Even the new gas masks were not effective after a few hours of use (about 3) and so the secret as I said was to use a persistent gas and keep it topped up. A lot of lessons had been learnt since Verdun and areas that might contain artillery were targeted.

[truthergw]

It is high time there was an informed discussion on gas, its use and effectiveness. The little I know suggests that, on the battlefield, it was as much a psychological weapon as a physical one. The effects, as Centurion pointed out, of being forced to wear gas masks for long periods, the fear of being caught unawares and the terrible scenes witnessed during a successful gas strike must have taken a continual toll on morale. That is not to deny or minimise the many casualties which were inflicted. From a strategic and attritional point of view, gas was a very effective weapon precisely because of the high proportion of victims who were wounded rather than killed. A wounded man has to be replaced, just as a man who is killed but the wounded man also has to be evacuated and treated. He consumes scarce resources in material and manpower.

[ahargitt]

True, a thorough discussion of gas warfare would be very useful, particularly as it's an aspect of warfare which has remained fixed in popular consciousness and the realities can become distorted.

We all seem to be circling around the same general points (correct me if I'm wrong...) - gas warfare could produce horrendous effects against troops caught unprepared, but with good commanders, well-developed and adhered-to procedures and proper precautions the chances of being caught unprepared should be greatly reduced. The psychological effects of gas, and the incovenience of the equipment needed to counter it, were very valuable tools when used by skilled commanders, but could bring with them their own problems (attacking troops having to wear gas masks to take recently gassed positions, for example).

The calculation that wounded men caused the enemy more problems in terms of evacuation, transport, and treatment than dead ones is also a perfectly valid (if chilling) one for a commander to make.

Gordon Corrigan has a good chapter on gas warfare in his "Mud, Blood and Poppycock"; he suggests, and there may be some truth to this though I'm not sure I'd be quite that cynical, that if gas had truly been that useful to commanders it would never have been outlawed. I certainly think it's fair to say that gas didn't live up to the high hopes commanders on both sides had for it; like many new weapons, it took time to develop the best technology and techniques to deploy it and if the war had gone on for another year or two it seems possible that gas could have been used to greater effects.

On the subject of nerve gas, which was never developed in WW1:

The first nerve agent Tabun, and derivative G agent Sarin, were discovered in Germany in 1938 by scientists working on stronger pesticides. Production and development was taken over by the German army, and the Germans may have manufactured up to 10 tons of Sarin by 1945. Whether they would have deployed it is a moot point; given what we know of the Nazis I can't imagine them witholding it for moral, ethical or humanitarian reasons. More likely, they either thought they didn't have enough of it to be truly effective (although 10 tons of Sarin will go a very long way), or, and there is evidence to back this up, German intelligence wrongly believed that the Allies had the capability to produce Sarin as well, and in much greater quantities than they did; consequently, discretion became the better part of valour.

[T8HANTS]

Gas was dumped off the IOW at St Catherine's Deep, and the Mull of Kintyre. IIRC there was a problem a few years ago when Scottish fisherman were getting skin burns from their gear because the shells had rusted, but the gas remained as jelly covering the sea bottom, as much to everyone's surprised it doesn't disperse or dilute in salt-water.

Gareth

[centurion]

In 1918 25% of all artillery shells fired contained gas of some sort some some one must have considered it effective.

Types of gas used

List of gases used in World War I

benzyl bromide - German, tear gas, first used 1915

bromacetone - Both sides, tear gas/fatal in concentration, first used 1916

carbonyl chloride (phosgene) - both sides, asphyxiant, fatal with delayed action, first used 1915

chlorine - both sides, asphyxiant, fatal in concentration, first used in 1915, cylinder release only

chloromethyl chloroformate - both sides, tearing, first used in 1915, artillery shell

chloropircin - both sides, tear gas, first used in 1916, artillery shell (green cross I)

cyanogen (cyanide) compounds - Allies/Austria, asphyxiant, fatal in concentration, first used in 1916, artillery shell

dichlormethylether - German, tear gas, first used 1918, artillery shell

dibrommethylethylketone - German, tear gas, fatal in concentration, first used in 1916

dichloroethylsulphide (mustard gas)- both sides, blistering, artillery shell (yellow cross)

diphenylchloroarsine - German, asphyxiant, fatal in concentration, (dust - could not be filtered), first used in 1917, artillery shell (blue cross)

diphenylcyonoarsine - German, more powerful replacement for blue cross, first used in 1918

ethyldichloroarsine - German, less powerful replacement for blue cross, first used in 1918, artillery shell (yellow cross I, green cross III)

ethyl iodoacetate - British, tear gas, first used in 1916

monobrommethylethylketone - German, more powerful replacement for bromacetone, first used 1916

trichloromethylchloroformate (diphosgene) - both sides, asphyxiant, fatal with delayed action, first used 1916

Casualties

British Empire incapacitated 180,597 dead 8,109 total 188,706

France incapacitated 182,000 dead 8,000 total 190,000

United States incapacitated 71,345 dead 1,462 total 72,807

Italy incapacitated 55,373 dead 4,627 total 60,000

Russia incapacitated 419,340 dead 56,000 total 475,340

Germany incapacitated 191,000 dead 9,000 total 200,000

Austria-Hungary incapacitated 97,000 dead 3,000 total 100,000

Others incapacitated 9,000 dead 1,000 total 10.000

Total incapacitated 1,205,655 dead 91,198 total 1,296,853

Other related figures

British Gas Casualties: 1914-18

Chlorine incapacitated 164,457 dead 1,976

Mustard Gas incapacitated 16,526 dead 4,086

The key figures are those incapacitated - gas was a neutralising weapon.

Of course many of these incapacitated would die in the long run - but in the case of my grandfather it took 20 years to contribute to his death

[centurion]

Hi,

After WWI gas shells were dumped in the North Sea close to the Belgian Coast, and covered with sand (where they still ar laying)

Afterwards they were dumped in blocs of concrete in French waters, until this was forbidden too.

Cnock

I may be mistaken but I think these were unexploded shells recovered from the battle fields rather than stocks of unused gas - happy to be proven wrong.

[joerookery]

This has been a really interesting discussion!

[Cnock]

Hi,

Centurion: I may be mistaken but I think these were unexploded shells recovered from the battle fields rather than stocks of unused gas - happy to be proven wrong.

The munition dumped in 1919 in sea close to the Belgian coast, was some 35.000 tons, 1/3 of it being gas shells.

Not unexploded shells recovered from the battle fields, but stocks left behind by the Germans, most of them still packed in their orginal boxes.

Cnock

[Cnock]

Hi,

unfortunately in Dutch

http://alpha2.mumm.ac.be/NL/Management/Sea...aardenmarkt.php

Cnock

[Robert Dunlop]

British Gas Casualties: 1914-18

Chlorine incapacitated 164,457 dead 1,976

Mustard Gas incapacitated 16,526 dead 4,086

centurion, I think the 'incapacitated' figures have been reversed?

Robert

[centurion]

Figures as found on a number of educational web sites. However suspect they all copied from the tables in the Spartacus web site and I don't know where these came from. However anecdotal evidence suggests that MG was much more deadly than Chlorine and reported deaths from MG in the Iran Iraq war would confirm this.

[centurion]

Some possibly relevant figures

Production of Chlorine gas by all sides 93,800 tons Production of Mustard Gas by all sides 15,100 tons Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

[Robert Dunlop]

Figures as found on a number of educational web sites. However suspect they all copied from the tables in the Spartacus web site and I don't know where these came from.

The figures can't be right. The Germans did not use chlorine to any extent in 1918, which means the casualties would have had to have been inflicted in the cloud gas attacks around Ypres in 1915. The numbers for mustard gas are so low as to be insignificant in 1918, which wasn't the case.

Robert

[centurion]

The figures can't be right. The Germans did not use chlorine to any extent in 1918, which means the casualties would have had to have been inflicted in the cloud gas attacks around Ypres in 1915. The numbers for mustard gas are so low as to be insignificant in 1918, which wasn't the case.

Robert

They do fit the production figures however

[Herekawe]

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.

I flicked through a couple of books at work today and the types of gases likely to kill insects, phosgene and so on (I am excluding MG as while it might kill insects it would also injure the wearer of the clothes) which killed insects would not be in sufficient concentrations to do much damage to lice as per Squirrels post. You would have to actually used DDT dust as was done in WW2.

Strangely DDT was actually invented before WW1 buts its insecticidal properties were not appreciated until just before WW2. Could have stopped a lot of itching, typhus etc if it had been available to put on the uniform.

It does seem a bit strange that while they had the technology to develop gases, explosives etc they don't seem to have spent much time on a reliable insecticide, or perhaps they did and and someone can enlighten me.

James

[truthergw]

Just a guess, really. I wonder if they had insecticides but not the means to apply them wholesale as in crop dusters. There were vermorel sprayers etc which were used widely in the trenches.

[centurion]

It does seem a bit strange that while they had the technology to develop gases, explosives etc they don't seem to have spent much time on a reliable insecticide, or perhaps they did and and someone can enlighten me.

Keatings powder was effective against fleas, beetles, silver fish, mosquitos, moths and flies- it had been around since the begining of the 20th century and was often bought by Britons travelling abroad (consular officials, missionaries, explorers etc). By 1914 it was even possible to buy corsets impregnated with the stuff.

'Whats that you're a wearing of Private Tomkins, you pathetic little man?

My Keatings corset Sarge, I promised me mum

Get it orf!'

Not sure why more reference isn't made to it in WW1

[centurion]

The figures can't be right. The Germans did not use chlorine to any extent in 1918,

I rather think they did but not from cylinders. That famous photo of a column of blinded men awaiting treatment during the German offensive are chlorine gas victims. The last soldier with an eye injury from Chlorine that I can find was wounded in early October 1918.

[Simon Jones]

I think some of the foregoing is garbled information lifted from unreliable web sources.

Just to correct a few points:

This photo taken 10 April 1918 shows victims of mustard gas.

Chlorine was not used as a shell filling except mixed with other gases, such as phosgene and diphosgene, as it was not sufficiently toxic and by 1918 was obsolete. It has a value in decontamination for mustard but I don't know if it was used for that purpose.

Mustard gas was not used as a filling for Livens projectors during WW1 but was available as such in 1940.

[centurion]

I think some of the foregoing is garbled information lifted from unreliable web sources.

Just to correct a few points:

This photo taken 10 April 1918 shows victims of mustard gas.

Chlorine was not used as a shell filling except mixed with other gases, such as phosgene and diphosgene, as it was not sufficiently toxic and by 1918 was obsolete. It has a value in decontamination for mustard but I don't know if it was used for that purpose.

Mustard gas was not used as a filling for Livens projectors during WW1 but was available as such in 1940.

Sorry but you're wrong

Not victims of mustard gas (often a confusion) - no burns on hands or faces. Chlorine was used as a shell filling - see earlier thread on this unreliable web site. Mustard gas was used in Livens. The Americans recorded a significant number of Chlorine victims in 1918, last Chlorine victim I can find was a Canadian entered hospital in Oct 1918 with eye ulceration caused by Chlorine gas, discharged from the army later that month.

A lot of information comes from Gilchrist HL. A Comparative Study of World War Casualties From Gas and Other Weapons. 1924, Chemical Warfare Fries and West 1922 (a US Dept Defence publication) and other near contemporary sources - not "unreliable web sites" The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is another useful source

[Simon Jones]

I give up!