Mustard Gas vs Clorine Gas?

[centurion]

Just to add some more flesh on the bones. The Medical Department of the United States in the World War, Volume XIV, Medical Aspects of Gas Warfare reported that Mustard Gas, when encountered in a vaporised form (rather than a liquid) had no immediate effect on the eye. True the victim could well develop an extreme form of conjunctivitis which could lead to permanent blindness but this would happen some significant time after exposure. If the victim touched the liquid, condensed, form and rubbed his eyes then there would be an immediate effect but you would also see burning and blistering of the hands and face. The immediate impact of MG in vapour form was on the lungs. Chlorine, on the other hand, unless very attenuated, does have an immediate effect on eye tissue and can cause almost immediate blindness. It was used well after more toxic gases had emerged for this effect - it is a chilling fact that a blind man on the battle field causes a much bigger problem than a dead one (not to mention the moral and psychological effect on others). Thus pictures and reports of gas blinded men in the battle area are most likely to be the result of Chlorine than MG. Chlorine and MG often get mixed up in reporting - the classic examples are German stories regarding Hitler and gas that claim that he experienced temporary blindness as a result of exposure to British MG (although some do say Chlorine). Given the description of the symptoms and the time and place of the alleged incident then Chlorine is almost certainly the culprit (but MG makes a better story).

[Terry_Reeves]

I support Simon's post fully. Freis and West's publication in particular is littered with errors and should be treated very carefully. Chlorine was not used in shells on its own because it had a low boiling point, with a resultant high vapour pressure. This meant a very high rate of diffusion, which was no good on the battlefield. The only way around this was to dispense it in high volumes from cylinders (referred to as cloud gas in many publications) )which had its own problems, as the delivery method meant that it was was subject to the vagaries of the wind. By contrast, phosgene and chloropicrin are relatively heavy liquids with a low vapour pressure that can only be dispersed effectively by the detonation of a shell. Because of the low vapour pressure, a small amount of chlorine had to be added as a propellant. It follows that phosgene (or di-phosgene in the German case) was only suitable for shells. With regard to mustard gas in Livens bombs, this is fallacious. I have read all the war diaries of the Special Brigade, many of them several times, and can say without a doubt that their records show no evidence whatsoever of mustard gas being used by them. Their operational orders are quite specific about what gasses, or combination thereof, were being used.

TR

[Herekawe]

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

Hi

I have often seen references to Keatings powder but it never occured to me it was effective. I thought it was one of those remedies highly promoted but ineffective in practice. Given the problem that lice, flies, sanitation etc were I would have thought that a crude but effective general insecticide would have been a great boost to the war effort, in all geographic areas.

James

[centurion]

I support Simon's post fully. Freis and West's publication in particular is littered with errors and should be treated very carefully. Chlorine was not used in shells on its own because it had a low boiling point, with a resultant high vapour pressure. This meant a very high rate of diffusion, which was no good on the battlefield. The only way around this was to dispense it in high volumes from cylinders (referred to as cloud gas in many publications) )which had its own problems, as the delivery method meant that it was was subject to the vagaries of the wind. By contrast, phosgene and chloropicrin are relatively heavy liquids with a low vapour pressure that can only be dispersed effectively by the detonation of a shell. Because of the low vapour pressure, a small amount of chlorine had to be added as a propellant. It follows that phosgene (or di-phosgene in the German case) was only suitable for shells. With regard to mustard gas in Livens bombs, this is fallacious. I have read all the war diaries of the Special Brigade, many of them several times, and can say without a doubt that their records show no evidence whatsoever of mustard gas being used by them. Their operational orders were quite specific about what gasses, or combination thereof, were being used.

TR

According to Major General Foulkes in, " Gas! ", chlorine was available in shells from an early stage of the war. First mention is specifically, 18 pounder shells. (Posted by Truthergw in 2009)

Chlorine shells were shipped to the Middle East in 1917

The German Chlorine Gas Shell was the GR 12 - more later - I have done my research.

[Terry_Reeves]

The only mention in Foulke's publication is that 250 chlorine filled rounds were sent to France. He does not mention that they were used nor that the idea was pursued. The reason for that is, it wasn't. Perhaps you can reference the the fact that chlorine shells were shipped to the Middle East in 1917, and even if they were, were they used? It may be that the Germans experimented with chlorine shells, which is quite reasonable, but perhaps you can give a date for this and a reference. Also, preferably, could you give the date and whether these German experiments were brought to a conclusion, and if they were, whether they were viable operationally? I doubt that you can - the chemistry was against it.

By the way, if you believe that chlorine shells only were used operationally by the British, beyond the 250 mentioned by Foulkes, (if they were) can you provide any evidence of shell markings for this, bearing in mind that I have various copies of the Treatise on Ammunition for WW1 and after and the List of Changes in War Materiel for the period - no mention of this in these publications.

TR

[momsirish]

<br />Dear momsirish,<br /><br />Chlorine was the first gas to be deployed by the Germans, beginning

Hi Aiden:

Being not so smart with computereese, I lost track of this thread and just rediscovered it. Sorry to get back to you so late. Your comment about Britain attempting to produce gases able to penetrate mask filters can give a person chills in today's world. Penetrating filters connotates a use of smaller molicules, i.e. today's nannotechnology. How small does a molecule need to be to go further to penetrate the brain's natural barriers. No doubt that was known then in the medical profession. Thank God creative thinking did not go that far in those days, and computers were not yet invented. I presume that not only could they make smaller molicules, their day's science probably could have extended the half-life for various chemical compunds. I have not researched how strong international anti-gas warfare rules were agreed to, but something tells me that any and all such rules will not be strong enough and will be broken by some adversary

[Robert Dunlop]

How small does a molecule need to be to go further to penetrate the brain's natural barriers?

The barrier between the blood and the brain is very complex. Small size does not mean that a molecule will cross this barrier. Molecules that dissolve very well in water are much less likely to get through the barrier compared with molecules that dissolve better in fat or oil, for example.

More important, gas warfare did not depend on getting molecules into the brain.

Robert

[momsirish]

Hi Robert:I realize WW1 gas warfare was not concentrating on brain damage per say. Primarily to stop the adversary, slow him down, take more personnel off the battlefield. But the use of chemicals already known from manufacturing processes were being further proecssed for use in war. The period seems the right time for opportunity for more expermentation for breakthroughs for mecial, or civilian benefits immediately following the war. But this would not be a topic suited for this forum, even though there were I'm told tales of WW1 soldiers returning home on leave from battlefields still dirty and lice ridden. Certainly a time for eyeopening ideas. momsirish

[Capt_Starlight]

Can I "plug" Albert Palazzo, Seeking victory on the Western Front: the British army and chemical warfare in World War I ?