WI Chemical Warfare Used in WWII

[Hannibal.Caesar]

During WWII Nazi Germany was able to produce and synthesize nerve agents, notably sarin, soman, and tabun, and the agents were actually produced for artillery shells. Fortunately, German intelligence didn't know that the Allies hadn't produced similar weapons, and they feared what would inevitably happen to Germany if they unleashed chemical warfare.

WI Hitler had been off his rocker even more than he was and had ordered the use of sarin, tabun, and soman during WWII? The best idea that I have come up with is that the Germans use chemical weapons on the Eastern Front, possibly while trying to break the siege of Stalingrad or to make Leningrad capitulate. How would that have affected WWII? I'm sure that the Russians would have stumbled over themselves to produce chemical weapons of their own, which they would not have hesitated to use on any Axis target.

But would that have encouraged the Western Allies to use chemical agents of their own? I can see Roosevelt and Churchill being hesitant to use such weapons on the Western Front, especially if the Germans "only" used it against the Russians. The Nazis would have still assuredly lost the war, but how much new friction would have been caused between the West and Russia if Stalin felt the West chickened out? Would he, and future Soviet leaders, have assumed the West lacked any backbone and perhaps prosecuted the blockade of Berlin with more vigor?

[keystoneking44]

pretty sure churchill was more than prepared to use chemical weapons. there were plans to use them if the germans every pulled off sealion.

[Bavarian Raven]

...if they were "smart" about their use of chemical warfare i could see the war dragging out another year...or worse, everytime they got to a "big town" they wait for the right wind and then unleash the gas...plus there would be less "rebel" citizens to deal with too...

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by keystoneking44

pretty sure churchill was more than prepared to use chemical weapons. there were plans to use them if the germans every pulled off sealion.

So they would never be used.

[TeaDaemon]

IIRC, the reason the Germans were so convinced that the allies had nerve agents was that they'd patented the process for making a number of them a couple of years before the outbreak of war. Had they used them in action, it probably wouldn't have taken very long for the allies to work out what they were and to put them into production.

Both the British and the US stockpiled mustard gas in large quantities, ready to be used in retaliation. IIRC, they made it perfectly clear to Hitler that using chemical weapons on the Eastern Front would lead to them being used by all of the allies in retaliation. If the Germans use chemical weapons against Leningrad or Stalingrad, they're likely to find mustard gas being dropped on Berlin.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by Atreus

So they would never be used.

Or if the Nazis had used chemical weapons as well. He didn't say that Sealion would be the only trigger, just that it was one.

[The Dean]

AFAIK Britain and America had ships with chemical aircraft bombs and warheads for all the main artillery pieces available for all of the major landings from Torch onwards.

[Hannibal.Caesar]

Originally Posted by TeaDaemon

IIRC, the reason the Germans were so convinced that the allies had nerve agents was that they'd patented the process for making a number of them a couple of years before the outbreak of war. Had they used them in action, it probably wouldn't have taken very long for the allies to work out what they were and to put them into production.

Both the British and the US stockpiled mustard gas in large quantities, ready to be used in retaliation. IIRC, they made it perfectly clear to Hitler that using chemical weapons on the Eastern Front would lead to them being used by all of the allies in retaliation. If the Germans use chemical weapons against Leningrad or Stalingrad, they're likely to find mustard gas being dropped on Berlin.

I don't think the Allies were as prepared as you mention. True, they had stockpiles of mustard gas and other WWI-era chemical weapons that they were willing to use if Germany used them first. However, the Germans had weaponized nerve agents such as tabun--which have a much higher lethality and use than mustard gas. Mustard gas, for example, was used primarily as an area denial weapon by the end of WWI. In comparison, sarin's only use is to kill people and kill them swiftly and effectively.

I can see the Western Allies retaliating against Nazi Germany if the chemical weapons were used during the height of WWII, when there may or may not have been fears that the Soviets were close to defeat. However, I think the situation would have been different near the end of the war. I think the Westerners' response would have been more calculated and/or limited if, say for example, the Nazis used nerve agents during the Battle of Budapest or the Siege of Vienna.

[dummnutzer]

Originally Posted by TeaDaemon

IIRC, the reason the Germans were so convinced that the allies had nerve agents was that they'd patented the process for making a number of them a couple of years before the outbreak of war.

AFAIK there was a different reason: The US stopped publishing any research on phosphor-organic chemistry to preserve the secret of DDT. This field of knowledge is closely related to the production of nerve agents, so the Germans wrongly assumed that the US was at least researching this stuff.

Caveat: I am no chemist and may well be wrong.

The Allies failed to search patent files IRL: The details of an advanced German bomb detonator had been published before the war, but nobody looked it up, despite mounting loses among bomb disposal teams in the UK.

[Unknown]

Check out www.shatteredworld.net. In this TL, by 1949, WMDs have been used by all sides. It's pretty awful (and good, IMO).

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

Or if the Nazis had used chemical weapons as well. He didn't say that Sealion would be the only trigger, just that it was one.

I've heard this. And from Churchill, I don't doubt it.

[CalBear]

Chemical weapons would have not made a bit of difference. The truth is that chemical weapons were never used because the ROI wasn't there. The cost to your own forces, both in gross casualties AND in efficiency of your own troops in a chemical enviroment was such that neither side saw a sufficient advantage in their use.

You could increase the enemies losses, but only with a close to one for one loss of your own. Nerve agents would have cause more deaths than the allies blistering agents, but the number of CASUALTIES suffered by both sides would have been close to identical.

In some ways, from a purely military perspecive, the KIA from gas are better than a near equal number of gas WIA, given the huge amount of resource that the WIA population absorbs. Most blistering agents have a fairly low PK but a remarkably high casualty rate, especially in eye injuries, creating the infamous events from the First War, where a single sighted soldier would be assisgned to lead dozens of blinded troops, each man having his hand on the next man's shoulder.The "WW I gases" especially nitrogen mustard, also have a longer persistance on a targeted area than either Tabun or Sarin, making them more effective for a longer time period in any given area.

Given the lack of advantage the weapons afforded, it would actually have been far more surprising if either side had chosen TO use Chemical Weapons during the war.

BTW: IIRC the British had an early weaponized version of Anthrax that Chuchill was prepared to use if Hitler used chemicals on civilian populations

[RCTFI]

Quick idea - what about dropping nerve gas bombs on London as part of the Blitz? I know such bombs exist, would they have been effective? Especially since nerve gas makes gas masks useless...

[Croesus]

Originally Posted by Hannibal.Caesar

WI Hitler had been off his rocker even more than he was and had ordered the use of sarin, tabun, and soman during WWII? How would that have affected WWII? But would that have encouraged the Western Allies to use chemical agents of their own?

OTL Germany didn't realise it had a CW advantage in the period up to 1943 and was prepared to deploy CW only in retaliation, although there seems to be some possibility of their use in initiation if they felt they had an advantage. The US/UK maintained a retaliation option, though considered initiation three times: after Tarawa , during V1 blitz and after Iwo Jima/Okinawa.

CW in the World War is an interesting study in successful deterrance; neither side considered using them for fear of the response. I can't see Hitler authorising them in the offensive phase of the war 39 - 42 due to practicalities around their deployment, likely extreme opposition from OKH and the deterrence factor.

Neither during the early defensive phase of 43 - 44, for reasons that conventional arms may yet deliver a diplomatic/political result. But the later defensive phase of 44 - 45 seems to provide the right situation. Hitler's mood of fatalism, betrayal and gotterdammerung overcomes his remaining vestiges of judgement.

He orders two uses of CW: in V1's and V2's on London and Antwerp; and in artillery/mortar shells and nebelwerfers on the collapsing eastern front and during the Battle of the Bulge.

There is another option: following the Bari incident in 1943 German intelligence believes that the allies are going to initiate in an attempt to crack the Winter Line defences and exploit up to Rome and beyond. Wiser heads don't prevail and when the 34th Infantry Division attempts to force Cassino they are bombarded with CW shells.

Croesus

[Karlos]

If used by the germans on the east front in 1941-42, nerve gas could have been decisive to alter the course of the war. In Leningrad, in Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk could be used against static defenses with no protection against it. I have no doubt the germans could have cleaned Stalingrad in october 1942 of soviet defenders with nerve gas, even the other shore of the Volga. There is a risk of retaliation by the british, but then it might win the war in the east for them.

[Markus]

Originally Posted by Hannibal.Caesar

During WWII Nazi Germany was able to produce and synthesize nerve agents, notably sarin, soman, and tabun, and the agents were actually produced for artillery shells. Fortunately, German intelligence didn't know that the Allies hadn't produced similar weapons, and they feared what would inevitably happen to Germany if they unleashed chemical warfare.

1.Germany mass produced nerve agent like Tabun and Soman.
2.WW1 proved without doubt that the use of CWs was unseless if the enemy had CWs, too.

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally Posted by Markus

1.Germany mass produced nerve agent like Tabun and Soman.
2.WW1 proved without doubt that the use of CWs was unseless if the enemy had CWs, too.

Nerve gas alters fact number 2 though, since a gas mask won't do much good against an agent that can kill by being absorbed through the skin.

[Markus]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

Nerve gas alters fact number 2 though, since a gas mask won't do much good against an agent that can kill by being absorbed through the skin.

Only barely. The Allies will quickly introduce improved protective gear and use their technically less advanced CWs to retaliate. Just like they did in WW1. In WW1 Germany was the first nation to use CWs and Germany had the highly effective mustard gas almost one year before the Entente and the strategic advantage was marginal at best. The Entente retaliated using less powerful CWs that turned out to be good enough to get the job done.
In WW2 it would be the same all over again.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

Nerve gas alters fact number 2 though, since a gas mask won't do much good against an agent that can kill by being absorbed through the skin.

As noted earlier in this thread, the use of blistering agents would have been at least as damaging in purely military terms as a nerve agent. Given the much longer persistance (generally a factor of between 3 and 6 times) of blistering agents, particularly nitrogen mustard, when compared to 1st generation nerve agents, the reduction in fighting effectiveness of troops exposed to blistering chemicals is huge. This is why, even in an age of full MOPPs gear, that the vast majority of the agents stockpiled during the Cold War were of the blistering type. It should also be noted that severe, even fatal, chemical burns can be caused by nitrogen mustard skin contamination (with a particularly nasty effect on morale since the visible onset of injury doesn't appear for some hours after initial exposure).

[ThomasG]

The most devastating use of Nerve Gas would be against Partisans, who lack CW gear. Would definitely reduce that problem to an annoyance rather than a knife in the back.

Against Leningrad, it would be crippling, but not quite a battle winner.