Gas at Thiepval 1/7/1916

[Skipman]

The Official History volume 1, 1916, page 339, says " Shortly before the final bombardment began at 7.00 a.m. gas was released from cylinders placed in No Man's Land during the night, and drifted slowly towards Thiepval. The German gas alarms at once sounded, but there was little or no fire in reply. " This on the 96th Infantry Brigade, 32nd Division, X. Corps front.

 

Which type of gas would have been used (presume chlorine), and was gas used anywhere else on the Somme front the 1st July, 1916?

 

Mike

[bill24chev]

"Covenant With Death" I know it is a novel, but seems to be well researched, mentions  working parties carrying gas cylinders to the front line just prior to the 1st July attack.

 

Harris, goes on to mention that some of these men passsed them as gas casualties, apparently their cylinders were hit by Artillery fire before they could be deployed.

 

The book is about the Shefield City Battalion which was virtually destroyed in front of Serre.

 

Many recollections of the 1/7/16 mention the good weather on that day. This implies an high pressure wether system which usually mean at most light winds. So the use of gas, that required wind assistance to spread to the German trenches may not have been effective.

[SiegeGunner]

Wouldn't gas drifting towards Thiepval have interfered with the Ulster Division's attack on the Schwaben Redoubt?

[Terry_Reeves]

Gas was not used on the Somme 1.7.16.  Cylinder gas was used throughout June the  first attack being on the 20th as part of the softening up process but this  had all been used by the 1st July.   The principle effort by the SB was by the mortar companies of 5th Battalion who were laying down smoke barrages.  The operational records of the SB show that Operation Nos 49 and 50 were in the Thiepval area in support of  32 Division as mentioned in your post. Operation 49 is noted as being at Thiepval where 178 smoke bombs were fired. Operation number 50 was NW of Thiepval where 73 bombs were fired. The wind at  both locations was WSW 2-3. 

 

I have to say that I am very suspicious about the OH account  because there is absolutely no way that cylinders were dug in in no man's land. Does the OH give the source for its information?

 

TR

Edited 15 February , 2017 by Terry_Reeves

[Guest]

Hi Terry, thanks for that. I don't think it does give the source. I will check again. Have just looked at the 96th Infantry Brigade diary and no mention of the 1st (as far as I can see) It does mention gas on the 27th of June.

 

Mike

[Terry_Reeves]

Thanks Mike. I should add that gas was used after 1 July.

 

TR

[Guest]

Will check OH later, but, pretty sure source not given. Wonder how the author managed such an error?

 

Mike

[kenf48]

Another historian, David Stevenson commenting on the 1st July notes, 'Nor after the unhappy experience at Loos, did the BEF use gas, although nothing else could have neutralised dugouts burrowed into the Picardy chalkto depths of forty feet.' 1914-1918

 

Was it a strategic decision because of Loos, or that all the cylinders had been used, as noted above?  If the latter seems they were ineffective.  Sheffield notes the artillery included sixty French 75mm guns for firing gas shells.

 

Ken

Edited 15 February , 2017 by kenf48

[Terry_Reeves]

The point of my post was to reinforce the fact that gas was not used by the British Army on the Somme on 1 July 1916 .   The last of the gas had been expended on the night of 27/28 June. That is a fact.  

 

I will take up the other points:

 

1. The employment of gas was tactical not strategic. It is true, prior to Loos, that some super-optimists in the army consider the  the possibility  of gas as strategic weapon, that is as a war winning weapon or at least a serious factor in bringing an end to trench warfare. That idea was killed off by Loos.

 

2.  The first of the softening up operations was due to start on the 20th June, but was postponed until  the 24th the day the artillery bombardment started.  The following day Foulkes, the SB commander, was informed by Rawlinson that the arrangements for discharge of the gas was to be left to  his Corps Commanders who in turn delegated this  to the Divisional Commanders.  The effect of this was to use the gas in piecemeal operations thus alerting the Germans. Another problem arose, and can be seen in the SB operations records,  is that most of the operations took place in the day time, allowing the Germans to mask up.  For these type of operations the SB knew that night time operations were much better from the surprise  point of view, not just because sentries would quickly surprised  by the cloud gas , but also because many of the troops would be asleep in their dugouts.

 

It is reasonable to say that many senior officers, who had little experience of gas distrusted its use  mainly because of Loos , indeed Foulkes  remarked that there was a “distinct tendency to get the stuff off”. The fact is that generally, senior  commanders had not really grasped the advantages of the tactical use of gas     despite the problems associated it with it.

 

3. There is  a question that needs to asked. The major problem associated with the use of gas as related in this thread is really associated with the use of cylinder gas which posed three distinct problems:

 

a.  The logistics of carrying in cylinders into the front-line which was a bit more than an irritant to infantry commanders who would be tasked to assist with this task.

 

b.  The vagaries of the weather. The general synopsis for the summer and autumn of 1916 was good and favoured the use of cloud gas, however local conditions could prove awkward.

 

c. As already mentioned above, there appears distinct lack of interest in the tactical aspect of the use of gas by the infantry.

 

Both Haig and Rawlinson were never happy with the use of gas, why then did the continue with it?

 

TR

 

 

Edited 16 February , 2017 by Terry_Reeves

[Guest]

No source given on the Official History. Chris Baker has drawn my attention to this in the 32nd Divisional Headquarters Diary that is of interest.

 

http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/60779/43849_2368_0-00000?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2fsearch%2fdb.aspx%3fdbid%3d60779%26path%3d&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnBrowsing#?imageId=43849_2368_0-00150

 

Mike

 

[kenf48]

Thank you Terry

 

Ken

[Terry_Reeves]

2 hours ago, Skipman said:

No source given on the Official History. Chris Baker has drawn my attention to this in the 32nd Divisional Headquarters Diary that is of interest.

 

http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/60779/43849_2368_0-00000?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2fsearch%2fdb.aspx%3fdbid%3d60779%26path%3d&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnBrowsing#?imageId=43849_2368_0-00150

 

Mike

 

Mike

 

If you download WO95/122/3 from TNA you will get the detailed smoke reports from the mortar sub-sections supporting 32nd Division, these give details of ammuntion used  , misfires, casualties etc.

 

TR

[Guest]

Thanks Terry. That's probably more detail than I need but interesting. Any thoughts why the author might have thought gas was used, the Official History seem a pretty thorough piece of research. Just an error?

 

Mike

[Terry_Reeves]

Mike

 

Sir James Edmonds was the author of volume 1 of the Somme battle which dealt wholly with the 1st of July and was published in 1932. Edmonds certainly sought information from some of those who participated and this statement has the feel of coming from such correspondence. The most likely explanation is that  Edmonds' informant actually saw the start of the smoke barrage and on hearing the German gas alarms go off assumed gas was being used. I don't doubt the statement about the gas alarms, the Germans were very well aware that gas might be used after the events of the previous work saw the smoke, assumed it was gas and sensibly took precautionary measures.

 

TR

[Guest]

Thanks Terry. That is as likely an explanation as any.

 

Mike

[Ron Clifton]

1 hour ago, Terry_Reeves said:

I don't doubt the statement about the gas alarms, the Germans were very well aware that gas might be used after the events of the previous work saw the smoke, assumed it was gas and sensibly took precautionary measures.

Terry

 

You probably know that for at least one attack in 1918 - capture of Meteren on 19 July, I think - the British bombardment on the preceding days had included gas shell. On the day of the assault, the barrage included smoke shells. The Germans assumed that it was gas again and put on their masks; the British knew that it was not gas, so left their masks off, and it is a lot harder to fight in a gas mask than without one.

 

Ron

[Terry_Reeves]

Ron 

 

Thanks,   the tactical application  of gas is often ignored by authors. The Germans used mustard gas shells to good effect in 1918 to protect their flanks and against our artillery positions.  The Special Brigade would use smoke barrages, early to late evening, against selected positions  to keep the defenders on their toes and also used a mixture of smoke and gas to cause confusion.

 

TR

[SiegeGunner]

I've just had a look back through translations I've made in the past of accounts written by German officers involved in the fighting around Thiepval on the 1st of July.  One company commander mentions 'incendiary flares', which may have been smoke devices, but I can't find any references to gas or gas alarms or the putting-on of gas masks.  Perhaps the alarms heard were signalling 'Attack imminent' rather than 'Gas'.  I have also translated standing orders relating to alarms, and while both 'Attack' and 'Gas' alarms were sounded using various different devices (bells, whistles, klaxons, etc, accompanied by shouts of 'Alarm' or 'Gas-Alarm'), the clanging of ploughshares was reserved exclusively for gas alarms. 

[Jack Sheldon]

I have copies of the battle logs of RIR 99 for the periods 24 - 30 June and 1 July 1916. No gas was used on 1 July as far as I can see, though there was report from Schwaben Redoubt timed at 12.41 am (German time) that 'There is a smell of gas in the air. It is causing eyes to sting severely.' There were a couple of instances of smoke use however. During the bombardment there were several releases of gas, beginning with what was reported as a 'test release' of one cylinder on late on 24 June (though this could have been an accident, I suppose). There was a major effort, including the use of gas shells, during the afternoon of 26 June and another twenty four hours later. There were further releases for an hour between 7.30 and 8.30 am on 28 June, with a repetition that afternoon and evening. At 10.30 am on 29 a more limited attack took place and the final reference I can find is of a gas attack at 10.23 am on 30 June. The entire British effort was an utter waste of time and effort. On several occasions the gas blew back into the British lines or swirled along the Ancre valley being watched by German sentries and there appear to have been hardly any casualties at all.

 

[Guest]

Thank you very much Jack. Very interesting to hear the story from the other side.

 

Mike

[Ianh40]

On 22/02/2017 at 18:16, Jack Sheldon said:

I have copies of the battle logs of RIR 99 for the periods 24 - 30 June and 1 July 1916. No gas was used on 1 July as far as I can see, though there was report from Schwaben Redoubt timed at 12.41 am (German time) that 'There is a smell of gas in the air. It is causing eyes to sting severely.' There were a couple of instances of smoke use however. During the bombardment there were several releases of gas, beginning with what was reported as a 'test release' of one cylinder on late on 24 June (though this could have been an accident, I suppose). There was a major effort, including the use of gas shells, during the afternoon of 26 June and another twenty four hours later. There were further releases for an hour between 7.30 and 8.30 am on 28 June, with a repetition that afternoon and evening. At 10.30 am on 29 a more limited attack took place and the final reference I can find is of a gas attack at 10.23 am on 30 June. The entire British effort was an utter waste of time and effort. On several occasions the gas blew back into the British lines or swirled along the Ancre valley being watched by German sentries and there appear to have been hardly any casualties at all.

 

Hi m8 any chance getting read full report