old sparky Posted 22 November , 2013 Share Posted 22 November , 2013 Reading through the 8th Devons War Diary for Sept 1915, the writer blames the high numbers of casualties in part on the fact that they had caught up with 'Accessory No 1'. The effects of said accessory are later blamed for the death of an officer. Was this gas or a veiled reference to the artillery barrage? Peter B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 22 November , 2013 Share Posted 22 November , 2013 I think this was the 'official' name for gas. Perhaps a security precaution name. Like 'tanks' but did not catch on as well. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old sparky Posted 22 November , 2013 Author Share Posted 22 November , 2013 Thanks Old Tom. Much as I suspected. Perhaps there had been a miscalculation of wind speed and direction in this case? Peter B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 22 November , 2013 Share Posted 22 November , 2013 It was indeed the code name for gas and used before Loos but once Britain had used gas it there was no need for a code name and this was dropped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 22 November , 2013 Share Posted 22 November , 2013 Peter No miscalculations I'm afraid. The problem was that local weather conditions changed quite quickly and wasn't always possible to predict these changes. The war diaries of the Special Brigade normally start with wind speed and direction on any particular day, but blow back was always a problem, particularly when cylinder gas was used, as it was in this case. TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old sparky Posted 23 November , 2013 Author Share Posted 23 November , 2013 This must have raised a few questions with the Staff as the disadvantages of using such an unpredictable weapon could easily outweigh the advantages it seems. Are there any records of the attackers wearing gas protection when going over? Peter B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 23 November , 2013 Share Posted 23 November , 2013 Peter The use of cylinder gas was always a problem in this respect although surprise attacks on the enemy with, particularly at night, could cause a lot f casualties. The Staff were well aware of the problem, and although it was continued to be used, the Livens Projector came into its own from 1917 onwards, not to forget gas shell of course. TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 23 November , 2013 Share Posted 23 November , 2013 Cylinders were useful if you wanted to spread a lot of gas, fairly indiscriminately, shells and mortars (2 inch, Stokes 4 inch) used where specific target areas were identified (e.g when using gas to suppress a particular area or deny it to the enemy) as the gas could be delivered more accurately and by keeping up fire a cloud maintained in that area (often long enough that any gas masks would cease to function) With banks of Livens projectors you could deliver a lot of gas to the target at once but it was difficult to maintain fire on it (as reloading was what is technically known as a bu**er) and being earth embedded you couldn't easily shift your target as the tactical situation demanded. Horses for courses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old sparky Posted 23 November , 2013 Author Share Posted 23 November , 2013 Thank you, Gentlemen, for a very comprehensive answer. It leaves me a more than little disturbed that as well as hostile artillery and small arms fire our men had this to contend with, not to mention 'drop shorts'. Peter B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now