[Bosnjak]

Why was no poisonous gas used in the WW2 in the batllefield?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

They revealed today that Britain considered using it against Japanese civilians:

Britain considered Japan chemical attack: records

LONDON (AFP) — Britain considered attacking Tokyo with chemical weapons almost a year before the US bombardments that ended World War II in Asia, declassified records revealed on Friday.

The records at the National Archives, which have remained hidden from public view for 65 years, revealed clear proposals to use gas on civilians in 1944.

Although the plan was never put into operation, a detailed memorandum laid out measures to ensure any attack would have the most devastating impact possible.

A Chemical Board note marked "secret" and signed by E.E. Haddon, Secretary, stated: "In his report on his discussions in America... Major General Goldnoy suggested that it might be worthwhile attempting to assess the probable effects of a C.W. (chemical weapons) bombing attack on Tokyo.

"Particulars of the population and layout and photographs of typical buildings and areas in Tokyo were kindly provided by the Director of Military Intelligence, War Office and those have now been studied by Professor Brunt."

Blunt, in a memorandum attached to the document, suggested the initial bombardments should take place in areas of densely packed buildings, using incendiaries "sufficient to set the large areas involved on fire."

Once the inflammable buildings of the Japanese capital have been destroyed, he suggested, a gas attack on the "more modern type of streets" could begin.

However, Blunt warned the military planners that the city's layout could present obstacles to chemical warfare.

"In the densely built areas of Japanese-type buildings, where the streets are narrow, the flow of a gas cloud would be hindered by the narrowness of the streets," he wrote.

The memorandum recommended attacking during the summer season because it said a cold winter could reduce the impact of mustard gas, although heavy rainfall was also highlighted as possibly leading to decontamination.

The memorandum concluded: "Persistent danger from mustard would only be achievable in the intervals between the summer rains."

The document also said "very large numbers of small bombs" would be necessary in densely populated parts of the city.

Phosgene, mustard and incendiaries are all put forward as possible options.

"If mustard were used and it produced the effect of driving the population away from the densely built areas, attack with incendiaries should follow a few days later," it said.

Mark Dunton, Contemporary History Specialist at the National Archives, said: "What is interesting about this file is that it shows we could have been ahead of America in our thinking.

"It seems shocking to modern eyes that the attempt to assess the effect of a chemical gas attack on civilians is described in such an objective way - the pressures of war brought their own terrible logic."

The United States dropped nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, killing more than 210,000 people.

Less than a week after the Nagasaki attack, Japan surrendered, ending World War II.

[Dave]

Two reasons:

• Much of the top leadership during WW2 had fought in World War One and remember the horror of gas. Hitler himself was a victim of chlorine gas.
• Fear of retaliation. The Germans feared the Allies could outstrip them in gas production, and the Allies feared the Germans had advanced gases (which in fact they did--nerve gas).

[Smilin' Dave]

Another element is chemical warfare had proved to be of dubious value in WWI. Using gas on the opposition when you are in close contact isn't too far off just dropping it on your own troops (blowback, or you end up advancing through the same toxic mess). Against strategic targets it was found that when properly equipped the target was inconvenienced (doing heavy work in a gas mask, never mind modern MOPP gear, isn't easy at all), but not necessarily disabled. So chemical warfare worked, but perhaps the cost-benefit balance wasn't good enough to encourage a continuation of past practice.

I think all major participants had plans/infrastructure for chemical warfare (IIRC US heavy mortars were called 'chemical mortars' for this reason) in any event.

[redcarpet]

1. Both Britain and Nazi Germany had large arsenals with a second-strike policy to use in retaliation.

2. Ineffectiveness.

[MB.]

Contrary to the claims that gas was ineffective, it was actaully used to win WWI; ie,the Bruchmuller method and his Allied counterparts.

[Smilin' Dave]

Bruchmuller's method was largely based on the employment of conventional artillery, no? IIRC the Spring Offensive by the Germans wasn't won by gas but by good old fashioned HE/shrapnel (and infantry of course). Further I seem the planned trick of mixing gas bombardments with mustard/Lachymatory failed to surpress the artillery.

Similarly, looking at the Entente Hundred Days offensive (chosen for its significant gains and as an example of the best example of doctrine) I can't find any significant reference to gas bombardments.

[MB.]

Further I seem the planned trick of mixing gas bombardments with mustard/Lachymatory failed to surpress the artillery.

Oh? Bruchmuller was clear about the importance of using gas shells for neutralizing enemy artillery.

Similarly, looking at the Entente Hundred Days offensive (chosen for its significant gains and as an example of the best example of doctrine) I can't find any significant reference to gas bombardments.

I admit it's not my area, but hurricane bombardments involving gas shells of one type or another were used frequently by the Allies, in imitation of the methods employed by the Germans (specifically I'm thinking of the opening bombardment at Cambrai, 1917 as that may be).


Hmmm, I suspect there might be too great a focus on the effects of gas attacks in the literature to the exclusions of analysis of the currency of employment of gas weapons during the 1918 Allied offensive.

I was of the understanding that late in 1918 the belligerents were employing the full arsenal of industrial warfare to their advantage, though I admit I've only read of Bruchmuller's method (indisputably reliant on gas weapons), and have not read anything with regard to Allied gas use during the 100 days, but I would suspect frequent and liberal use based on the simple logic of comprehensive efficiency.

To say the least, a dirth of sources does not indicate that gas weapons were not used.

Consider:

Between 18 and 21 January 1918, units of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division relieved the French 1st Moroccan Division manning the front lines in the Ansauville sector. In doing so, the "Big Red One" became the first American division to occupy a portion of the Western Front. The movement of American troops into the lines was uneventful except for one incident, "As we take our positions in the trenches," Maj. Gen. Robert Bullard, the division commander, noted, "from the French position on our right some two hundred gas casualties are evacuated-our first object lesson."1

This grim "object lesson" reinforced French warnings that the Ansauville sector was a highly active gas front with both sides constantly employing large amounts of chemical agents.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources ... n%20spring

That source has some fairly interesting information about American & Allied anti-gas preparatory and defensive measures, if these methods were as developed as is indicated (I have no reason to suspect that they would not be) I can imagine the effectiveness of the Bruchmuller method being reduced but as you did astutely observe above, the method was certainly a mixed method, gas taking an integral suppression function- when mixed judiciously with high-explosive.

The point, of course, is that gas was just another weapon and it is most astounding that its use was not continued into WW2- I would imagine the root cause of this abandonment was a cultural predisposition away from 'trench warfare' including it's related implements; the flame-thrower, the bayonet, gas & c (all of which have subsequently returned to common use, of course).