What if someone worked out mustard gas or another type of gas during the ACW. Would it be used?
Chemical Warfare in the ACW
- Thread starter Anime Ninja
- Start date
RamscoopRaider
Donor
They figured out Chlorine. The South, or a group of Southerners, planned to use it to kill off Congress, never got the chance to try.
The issue is that the chemical industry is not there to make enough to matter, and to get a chemical industry there you butterfly the civil war
Or do what they did in the First World War, open the drums and let the stuff drift down wind.
Technically, one could use gas bombs with something like hydrogen sulfide to clear out buildings, et cetera if it got to house-to-house fighting.
Iron, sulfur, sulfuric acid and of course lead or glass to contain the acid any you're there.
Iron, sulfur, sulfuric acid and of course lead or glass to contain the acid any you're there.
It would need to be glass. Sulphuric acid dissolves lead.
might work better in trench warfare tough if you're close enough to the ennemy that it wont dissipate too much before reaching him. Plus the "Advance slowly toward the ennemies" approach often used would have made its use limited short of suicidal attack.
Could use gas during some of the sieges. Battle of the Crater maybe?
yup, that's when the catapult would come in handy: lob a few gas grenades inside petersburg and shoot at people trying to run out.
I feel like that would end up beating out the burning of Atlanta as the worst event of the war.
okay now I'm curious, what would have been the reaction if this was seriously attempted?
To a degree, yes, but since it forms a protective layer of insoluble lead sulphate, lead is resistant enough to be used to construct the chambers needed for the lead chamber process, the first large scale synthesis of sulfuric acid.
S+O2--->SO2, SO2+NO2--->SO3+NO, SO3+H2O-->H2SO4, 2NO+2O2-->2NO2 (NOx is a catalyst generated by adding some saltpeter to the burning sulfur)
One would use something like a lead-clad barrel, filling it with powdered iron sulfide and "priming" it by adding a sealed lead or glass cannister of sulfuric acid. The reaction forms H2S, which is toxic, extremely smelly (eau de rotten eggs), and somewhat heavier than air. If the targets cannot simply run, it'd probably be quite effective in killing them off. Perhaps getting them to run away and abandon their fortified position is the point?
Chlorine would be more difficult to handle, Cl2 is a gas, and AFAIK all easily made chemicals known to produce it in 1865 were expensive (MnO2 and hydrochloric acid). I do not known if reliable pressure bottles could be produced with 1860s tech, but artillery shells containing pressurized gases would be even more difficult. Lack of safety equipment for the people handling it would probably be even more of a problem. Though I imagine a slave state could find "ways" to overcome that....
Last edited:
If the perpetrators were lucky they would get police protection before a lynch mob got their hands on them. Being beaten up is better than slow strangulation from a noose.
On the more general subject of using chemical grenades, you get captured with some in your pack the best that you can hope is a quick stab from a bayonet. More likely you will be retained long enough to be tied to a tree then one lobbed at your feet. Chemical grenadiers are going to be as popular with the enemy of any persuasion as flame thrower users were in WW1 and 2.
Postulating the use of chlorine gas as in 1915 is overly sophisticated. All one need do was prepare glass spheres partially full of a somewhat-dilute (say, 20-25% by weight) solution of sulfuric acid. That stuff is violently hygroscopic and generates incredible heat in absorbing water. Thus, one would get not only the destructive potential of the acid itself but thermal damage as well. I might add that lye solutions (sodium hydroxide) could be fairly effective also. Last but not least: white phosphorus was known then (indeed, it's been known since the Renaissance), and could theoretically have been deployed.
Delivery remains a problem. Artillery shells are out of the question, AFAIK. The possibility of a latter-day catapult is not inconceivable (say, using wire rope or springs instead of the sinews used in the 15th century).
Delivery remains a problem. Artillery shells are out of the question, AFAIK. The possibility of a latter-day catapult is not inconceivable (say, using wire rope or springs instead of the sinews used in the 15th century).
"Delivery remains a problem. Artillery shells are out of the question, AFAIK. The possibility of a latter-day catapult is not inconceivable (say, using wire rope or springs instead of the sinews used in the 15th century).[/QUOTE]
The best way to cause the most problems would be to have it delivered by suicide bombers. IMHO attacking ship yards and the ports would cause the most disruption.
The best way to cause the most problems would be to have it delivered by suicide bombers. IMHO attacking ship yards and the ports would cause the most disruption.
That would require a rather desperate army though. I could *maybe* see a southern officer saying to a slave "take this boy and run that way. You *might* survive if you do, you sure as hell won't if you don't" but I don't think the north would have anyone either fanatical or expendable enough to do the same.
There are many things worse than the burning of Atlanta in OTL. Sherman evacuated Atlanta before burning it. At Lawrence, KS Confederate troops threw wounded civilians into buildings, then set the buildings on fire.
Speaking from personal experience, a simple combination of bleach and ammonia would probably suffice. Vinegar supposedly works too instead of ammonia. Hypochlorite bleach was invented in 1789, so it should be well known by the Civil War and easier and cheaper to make than pure chlorine.