Gassing the beaches Sealion

drakle

Banned
Lets say that in 1936 Hitler orders Training in Naval bombing and gets good long range drop tanks (maybe for the vast Russian wastes). That means they sink alot of the Navy at Dunkirk and destroys most of the Army as they escape. Then they destroy the RAF in a Battle of Britain.

Using their Naval Bombers and Air Supremacy they keep the channel clear of the Royal Navy for Operation Sealion.

So the Question is how likely is the UK going to gas the landing beaches? And if they do how will other countries react? And would Gassing the Beaches stop the Invasion?

(This is not meant to be a discussion on If Sealion is Possible so don't Go NAZI CANT INVADE BRITISH NO SURRENDER NEVR SURRENDER!!!!)
 
Churchill had some rather nasty plans if it had ever come to that:

Mustard gas
Flame ditches

just to name a few.

Churchill would not exactly hold back in any way at all.

I think there is a book somewhere (I know I have seen it) which goes into detail on those things

Ivan
 
What Britain Had...

....Gas enough for 200 miles of beaches.

...Aircraft delivery systems...

...Livens projectors...

...Fougasse flaming oil projectors.

Nasty.:eek:
 
dropping gas from airplanes entirely unreliable, probably kill the invading force as well so once again sealion fails. :D
 
If the 'air superiority' cheat code is applied and soldiers end up on beaches, yes, I believe we would see gas used.
 
I don't think Britain would need to gas the invasion beaches, but after the fall of France, they might not be so confident.

There were certainly plans for flame fougasse (think a 40 gallon oil drum full of petrol with an explosive charge on the bottom, normally buried in groups at choke points like any roads coming off beaches, bridge approaches, etc). There were also fixed flamethrowers designed to spray petrol from networks of pipe, normally arranged to spread a sheet of flame across the top of the water at high tide. After the fall of France one thing the UK was not short of was petrol and petroleum products in general - supplies in transit for mainland Europe were diverted to the UK, and with no large motorised units in battle, we weren't using a huge amount of the stuff.

Given that the anti-invasion plans involved a maximal effort on the part of the RN and RAF (including modifying trainer aircraft like Tiger Moths to carry 20lb anti-personnel bombs and having them flown by pretty much anyone who could get them to the invasion beaches), I wouldn't be surprised if the order came through to use mustard gas on the beaches, and possibly on the embarkation ports in France (although they might hold back from that to avoid French civilian casualties).
 
The British wouldn't have needed gas the beaches if Germans came ashore. But if they did, it would justify future German usage. They might not have stockpiles to utilize immediately, but there might be token retaliation at the time. The thing is chemical weapons aren't really incredibly useful in most maneuver warfare situations. The Nazis might use them in a limited battle where they're useful; Siege of Tobruk for instance. It's not in anybody's best interests for them to become a commonly used weapon, but once they are used, everyone will be jumpy and a little more trigger friendly with them. The Eastern Front and the war in China will be all the more brutal in that case. However, even if chemical weapons are used during Sealion, and never again by either side, when D-Day occurs the Germans would be hard-pressed to find a reason not to coat the beaches with sarin. The Allies would prepare for that, but D-Day will be all the more costly.
 

Deleted member 1487

The British wouldn't have needed gas the beaches if Germans came ashore. But if they did, it would justify future German usage. They might not have stockpiles to utilize immediately, but there might be token retaliation at the time. The thing is chemical weapons aren't really incredibly useful in most maneuver warfare situations. The Nazis might use them in a limited battle where they're useful; Siege of Tobruk for instance. It's not in anybody's best interests for them to become a commonly used weapon, but once they are used, everyone will be jumpy and a little more trigger friendly with them. The Eastern Front and the war in China will be all the more brutal in that case. However, even if chemical weapons are used during Sealion, and never again by either side, when D-Day occurs the Germans would be hard-pressed to find a reason not to coat the beaches with sarin. The Allies would prepare for that, but D-Day will be all the more costly.

German chemical weapons come out in a big, nasty way against British bases, troop concentrations, and probably cities. Tabun is in production in a minor way until 1942, but it would be very useful for critical areas that need a quick dispersing agent that doesn't need to be breathed in to be deadly.

The Germans also have ultra persistant Mustard Gas in hundreds of tons, so can and will use these as area denial weapons to shut down British airfields, bases (army and navy), and probably to turn British cities into graveyards. The British don't have a means to retaliate against German cities at this point and their Anthrax project wouldn't be advanced enough to launch Operation Vegetation until 1944. Also until the Butt Report in late 1941 (not really paid attention to until 1942), Britain was wildly inaccurate in its night bombing and really didn't get accurate until 1943. Plus Bomber Command was pretty small until 1942-43, so wouldn't be able to retaliate at 'Blitz' levels until 1943. Coastal Command wouldn't really make up for these failings either, as their success only came from bombing Channel Ports, which were not German inhabited, so would only make the conquered former continental allies of Britain actively turn against her if they were gassed in retaliation.

For Britain using chemical weapons in 1940 would be as stupid as Germany using them in 1944-45.
 
German chemical weapons come out in a big, nasty way against British bases, troop concentrations, and probably cities. Tabun is in production in a minor way until 1942, but it would be very useful for critical areas that need a quick dispersing agent that doesn't need to be breathed in to be deadly.

The Germans also have ultra persistant Mustard Gas in hundreds of tons, so can and will use these as area denial weapons to shut down British airfields, bases (army and navy), and probably to turn British cities into graveyards. The British don't have a means to retaliate against German cities at this point and their Anthrax project wouldn't be advanced enough to launch Operation Vegetation until 1944. Also until the Butt Report in late 1941 (not really paid attention to until 1942), Britain was wildly inaccurate in its night bombing and really didn't get accurate until 1943. Plus Bomber Command was pretty small until 1942-43, so wouldn't be able to retaliate at 'Blitz' levels until 1943. Coastal Command wouldn't really make up for these failings either, as their success only came from bombing Channel Ports, which were not German inhabited, so would only make the conquered former continental allies of Britain actively turn against her if they were gassed in retaliation.

For Britain using chemical weapons in 1940 would be as stupid as Germany using them in 1944-45.

Actually, I think you've got a point here, in that first use of gas (by either side), turns the war in the west into something very grim indeed. Not only the use of gas on the battlefield and against cities, but I would suspect that any captured bomber crew on either side are likely to end up hanging from lamp posts or summarily executed, possibly also artillerymen. That would probably get more common, until there were Eastern Front/Pacific levels of brutality towards prisoners and potential prisoners, from both sides.
 
German chemical weapons come out in a big, nasty way against British bases, troop concentrations, and probably cities. Tabun is in production in a minor way until 1942, but it would be very useful for critical areas that need a quick dispersing agent that doesn't need to be breathed in to be deadly.

The Germans also have ultra persistant Mustard Gas in hundreds of tons, so can and will use these as area denial weapons to shut down British airfields, bases (army and navy), and probably to turn British cities into graveyards. The British don't have a means to retaliate against German cities at this point and their Anthrax project wouldn't be advanced enough to launch Operation Vegetation until 1944. Also until the Butt Report in late 1941 (not really paid attention to until 1942), Britain was wildly inaccurate in its night bombing and really didn't get accurate until 1943. Plus Bomber Command was pretty small until 1942-43, so wouldn't be able to retaliate at 'Blitz' levels until 1943. Coastal Command wouldn't really make up for these failings either, as their success only came from bombing Channel Ports, which were not German inhabited, so would only make the conquered former continental allies of Britain actively turn against her if they were gassed in retaliation.

For Britain using chemical weapons in 1940 would be as stupid as Germany using them in 1944-45.

If chemical weapons were such a potentially war winning weapon, why weren't they used...oh right. Hitler's personal feelings. I've never fully bought that explanation. Hitler was a pretty ruthless man, and it would be ironic if he passed on a decisive weapon because it offended his sense of humanity. Hitler might have been irrational, but he wasn't bonkers as of 1940.
 

Deleted member 1487

If chemical weapons were such a potentially war winning weapon, why weren't they used...oh right. Hitler's personal feelings. I've never fully bought that explanation. Hitler was a pretty ruthless man, and it would be ironic if he passed on a decisive weapon because it offended his sense of humanity. Hitler might have been irrational, but he wasn't bonkers as of 1940.

I didn't say that. German intellgience thought that nerve gas was known to all of the other major powers are were afraid of retaliation. That's why they weren't going to break the taboo against its use, fearing that they would suffer worse, even if just politically. Also I wrote my post with full hindsight of what the situation was; Hitler and German military planners didn't have that hindsight, so were operating on their limited information and didn't want to stir up a chemical weapons exchange; however if one was started by the enemy, Germany was going to win it. That's my point.
 
Lets say that in 1936 Hitler orders Training in Naval bombing and gets good long range drop tanks (maybe for the vast Russian wastes). That means they sink alot of the Navy at Dunkirk and destroys most of the Army as they escape. Then they destroy the RAF in a Battle of Britain.
I'm trying to understand how you get 'longer range' and 'sunk royal navy at Dunkirk' into the same thought, it wasn't lack of range, but lack of anti-ship capabilities that prevented them doing real damage at Dunkirk.

As for poison gas, yes, the British would have used it, and a lot of other nasty stuff too.
 
Nice to see something invasion which is not getting into the classical Sea Lion. Let's try to keep it like that for a moment.

Interesting to note that gas masks got distributed by the millions in the UK. Some designed for horses, others for babies, etc, etc.

So, they must have thought it important unless it was another way of mobilising the population against the "huns".

Gas is not an easy thing to handle.

1) A RAF bomber getting shot down and crashes in London?
2) A convoy of trucks collides with a couple of tanks and the cylinders rupture?
3) a test goes wrong?
4) ...

Let us look at the ramifications.

1) War escalation: First Sea Lion wave is gassed. Germany is in the game and is gassing the surrounding landscape of the invasion beaches. Troops and civilians die

2) Sea Lion is now defeated and everything is very good again: V1 and V2 with all kind of things?

3) far East. Will Japan feel OK with using gas now? insofar as Britain started?

On a positive note: How many casualties are we talking about? gas masks were reasonable efficient after all?

Also on gas usage: Italy used gas in Ethiopia without any major consequences. Was the usage sort of OK with the Western Allies as it was "only" used in Africa?

Ivan
 

flaris

Banned
I'm trying to understand how you get 'longer range' and 'sunk royal navy at Dunkirk' into the same thought, it wasn't lack of range, but lack of anti-ship capabilities that prevented them doing real damage at Dunkirk.

As for poison gas, yes, the British would have used it, and a lot of other nasty stuff too.

No i Meant Naval bombing = More losses at Dunkirk
Longer range allows them to do better in Battle of Britain (they had only 5 min to fight over London which decreased their numerical advantage.) Longer range would be a big bonus.
 
If chemical weapons were such a potentially war winning weapon, why weren't they used...oh right. Hitler's personal feelings. I've never fully bought that explanation. Hitler was a pretty ruthless man, and it would be ironic if he passed on a decisive weapon because it offended his sense of humanity. Hitler might have been irrational, but he wasn't bonkers as of 1940.

IIRC he caught a mid case of Mustard Gas during his action in the trenches in the Great War where he lost his sight. I believe that that was a major reason why the Germans didn't adopt gas warfare due to the 'leader at the top' not authorising it because of his experiences with it, which would have deeply affected him.
 
No i Meant Naval bombing = More losses at Dunkirk
Longer range allows them to do better in Battle of Britain (they had only 5 min to fight over London which decreased their numerical advantage.) Longer range would be a big bonus.
Naval bombing by the Germans? Have you had a look at what the Germans had left by that time?
 

drakle

Banned
Naval bombing by the Germans? Have you had a look at what the Germans had left by that time?

No they earlier start Naval bombing (anti ship) training. And which time do you mean by your second sentence.

Plus it was just a quick scenario that seemed Possible. The Real Question is if they would Gas the Beaches
 
No they earlier start Naval bombing (anti ship) training.
I'm still not convinced. If you could give them an earlier realisation that torpedoes would be useful weapons maybe...

And which time do you mean by your second sentence.
Late 1940.

Plus it was just a quick scenario that seemed Possible. The Real Question is if they would Gas the Beaches
I'm pretty sure they would.
 

Sior

Banned
Nice to see something invasion which is not getting into the classical Sea Lion. Let's try to keep it like that for a moment.

Interesting to note that gas masks got distributed by the millions in the UK. Some designed for horses, others for babies, etc, etc.

So, they must have thought it important unless it was another way of mobilising the population against the "huns".

Gas is not an easy thing to handle.

1) A RAF bomber getting shot down and crashes in London?
2) A convoy of trucks collides with a couple of tanks and the cylinders rupture?
3) a test goes wrong?
4) ...

Let us look at the ramifications.

1) War escalation: First Sea Lion wave is gassed. Germany is in the game and is gassing the surrounding landscape of the invasion beaches. Troops and civilians die

2) Sea Lion is now defeated and everything is very good again: V1 and V2 with all kind of things?

3) far East. Will Japan feel OK with using gas now? insofar as Britain started?

On a positive note: How many casualties are we talking about? gas masks were reasonable efficient after all?

Also on gas usage: Italy used gas in Ethiopia without any major consequences. Was the usage sort of OK with the Western Allies as it was "only" used in Africa?

Ivan

Fighting in a gas mask suits defence more than attack! It's bloody difficult to carry out section attackes in full noddy suits and mask I can tell you!
 
Top