Chemical Warfare in the ACW

[Derek Pullem]

Originally Posted by Cook

Interesting Unalist. Just wondering, do you know at what level the decision not to use chemicals was made? Was it by members of the army or by the respective governments?

Given the British refused to use these weapons whilst at war less than a decade before I'd imagine use by one side or the other would bring intervention that much closer. Can't see the Union needing it and can't see the Confederacy risking the ending of any chance of foreign intervention

[Kalan]

The late Robert Perkins wrote a short timeline about this, briefly a several improvments of firearms are adopted during 1800-1850 which leads to a WWI like trenchwarfare during the american civil war. To finally break the stalemate the USA employs large quantities of chlorine shells in 1865, which allows them to win the war.

You can read it on his page: http://www.myalternatehistoryplace.c...eyofdeath.html

[Unalist]

The Chemical weapons taboo while it has deep roots was not as developed or codified by the ACW. Given the technology and the type of warefare it's use would probably of been inconsequential. Basically like every other time it was actually used prior to WWI. Even the successes (used in counter mining) demonstrate the limitations.

Also consider you did not have IG Farben and the Wermacht on one side to be organized by a knowledgable chemist, a would be Fritz Haber. You have a series of basically one off ideas that were rejected at all levels of command probably because they were half baked or not worth the effort.

What I am surprised is none of them got the green light to try. You could WI your way into a single use but I'm hard pressed to imagine a success. Think of the avalible quantities and delivery systems on par with deploying an irritating smoke screen. But I'd be glad to discuss if someone else has an idea they think would work.

[TheKnightIrish]

Originally Posted by Unalist

The Chemical weapons taboo while it has deep roots was not as developed or codified by the ACW. Given the technology and the type of warefare it's use would probably of been inconsequential. Basically like every other time it was actually used prior to WWI. Even the successes (used in counter mining) demonstrate the limitations.

Also consider you did not have IG Farben and the Wermacht on one side to be organized by a knowledgable chemist, a would be Fritz Haber. You have a series of basically one off ideas that were rejected at all levels of command probably because they were half baked or not worth the effort.

What I am surprised is none of them got the green light to try. You could WI your way into a single use but I'm hard pressed to imagine a success. Think of the avalible quantities and delivery systems on par with deploying an irritating smoke screen. But I'd be glad to discuss if someone else has an idea they think would work.

Lets say things are desparate and in order to defend Richmond, Petersburg or Atlanta the President orders an attempt to be made. What is the most likely attempt that could plausibly be tried by the CSA in 1864 in one of those cities?

[Unalist]

OK I'll bite and give you my best "before I've had breakfast" attempt.

If the chlorine shell (proposed to the Union Secretary of War in April 5, 1862) was actually built and used I suspect it would of been disappionting in that you would need massed coordinated artilery and enormous amounts of shells to create a concentration that would be anything more than annoying and that you couldn't just walk away from. Not the kind of support an untried idea usally enjoys. Now if a confederate chemist observed this and sees clearly if the chlorine was positioned in bulk and then released with favorable winds such as at Ypres it would be more effective.

In Petersburg Hydrochloric/Sulfuric Acid cloud was proposed to Lincon. It could of been acted on. Unfortunately again the amount envision would have to of been massive and the devilery system purposed was "mix on flat surface". After the Battle of the Crater the confederates did prepare countermines with an unknown "sufficating smoke". This would of worked and was a standard countermining technique. Getting it to work above ground is the issue. Also on the Confederate side a stink mixture was propsed. Thier Ordnance Department said they could make it but apparently the order was never put in.

Finally there are hints that a cacodyl grenade was made but never tested.

No matter who started it, it would be the Union's advantage.

[Zebra Cakes]

I'm just gonna throw a few random thoughts in:

I think its plausible it'd be used if available. It was a very brutal war.

Also, there's a psychological effect. We know gas freaks people out. They panic. But they also get very scared of gas being used on them.

So, the ACW is before smokeless powder. You get a volley and you get a big cloud of smoke. After troops get used to gas, does this smoke start to look like gas to them? Can you tell without being in the cloud which is gas and which is smoke? Does one or both sides begin adding dye or something to powder to make it more easily resemble gas?

[Helios Ra]

Originally Posted by Marc Pasquin

but to the point of certain death ? kamikaze were brainwashed with the idea of dieing honourably based on bushido and modern islamist suicide bombers are sure to go to heaven.

I can see a soldier charging the ennemy if he thinks it will help his mates or carry the battle but the idea of attacking a static target outside of the battlezone which would ensured your own death seem a few steps further then that somehow.

What if you promised a slave to free his family if he did it? Whether you go through with it after the fact is less important.

[Unalist]

Originally Posted by Zebra Cakes

I'm just gonna throw a few random thoughts in:

I think its plausible it'd be used if available. It was a very brutal war.

Also, there's a psychological effect. We know gas freaks people out. They panic. But they also get very scared of gas being used on them.

So, the ACW is before smokeless powder. You get a volley and you get a big cloud of smoke. After troops get used to gas, does this smoke start to look like gas to them? Can you tell without being in the cloud which is gas and which is smoke? Does one or both sides begin adding dye or something to powder to make it more easily resemble gas?

Assuming it actually worked:

Colored gas? Hmmm. The uncertainty would be more effective weapon I'd think. I don't recall any power ever coloring gas.

I'm curious how far protective equipment would go and if new gasses would be employed to counter that equipment like in WWI. Or if they'd just max out the possible tech quickly.

[Marc Pasquin]

Originally Posted by Helios Ra

What if you promised a slave to free his family if he did it? Whether you go through with it after the fact is less important.

There's a few problems with that scheme. First off, the government *would* have to go through with freeing the family, if it did not, news would spread quickly and your pool of volunteers would dry up completely.
It also begs the question of who would pay for the slaves. no one would volunteer theirs since they would just lose him and his family and the government buying them would probably be costly for a one off weapon with limited casualty rate.

There would also be a problem on the propaganda front. A southern soldier legging it toward ennemy lines with a gas cylinder says "we're badass and fear not death for our cause is just". Using blacks would say "we're a bunch of wusses who bribe our slaves to do the dirty work".

[Geredis]

Originally Posted by Unalist

Assuming it actually worked:

Colored gas? Hmmm. The uncertainty would be more effective weapon I'd think. I don't recall any power ever coloring gas.

I'm curious how far protective equipment would go and if new gasses would be employed to counter that equipment like in WWI. Or if they'd just max out the possible tech quickly.

I think it'd be a little more feasible to colour the actual dangerous gasses to that hazy grey-white of gunfire than for the gunpowder to be coloured (as I THINK the original suggestion...suggested).

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by Shawn Endresen

Lyon Playfair worked up full-scale WWI style chemical shells for Crimea, and the British artillery officers refused to use such a weapon on the Russians. So the technology definitely exists, but the reluctance to use it on a white Christian enemy is if anything going to be even stronger in the ACW. How do you overcome that?

Yep. This sort of technology had been conceived of back then. The Union Army's code of conduct specifically barred the use of chemical weapons. I was just reading about this. Torture and Chemical weapons were the only two things the army was specifically forbidden from using in war.

The Confederates could use them, but they'd lose a ton of public support.

[Unalist]

Historically speaking the situation gets despirate all taboos are weakened. If you really go off the rails (ASB) and have Mexico ally with the CSA and invade the Southwest to take back everything west of Texas and or Great Britain intervenes with finacial support and blocades the Union to re-establish access to cotton, the Confederacy loses sight of peace and goes into high gear on a war of revenge then for the Union every weapon, every theoretical weapon gets re-considered.