Would the war in Europe have played out particularly differently if, maintaining its same strategy, Germany had utilised any chemical or biological weapons in its inventory and had dedicated resources to mass producing them?
Change Hitler's military history slightly. The main reason that he didn't use those types of weapons was literally due to his experience in WW1, in particular when he was blinded.
I am curious how this would affect his personality and how he lead the country. It obviously had a big effect on his adult life. It might be that he decides not to use it for tactical reasons.
The effectiveness would depend on where they used it and what delivery systems they devised. In WW1 they seemed more an annoyance than a winning strategy. With their massed armies and poor logistics the Soviets would be a good choice.
There were gas masks available for horses, they certainly were available during WW1 and also during WW2. How effective they were and what impact they had on the animals ability as draft animals I have no idea.
http://www.teachinghistory100.org/objects/about_the_object/gas_mask_for_a_horse
The Germans were very concerned about the possibility of Soviet use of nerve agents, in particular as a lot of the scientific work carried out on organophosphates based insecticides by Russian scientists. They never conceived the Russians could have missed such an obvious line of development.
Depends on the agent. Both sides used chemical weapons on the attack in WW1 just fine. Nerve agents generally quickly disperse, especially the early ones like Tabun and Sarin, which were ideal for the offensive, because they are fast acting and disperse quickly. Of course in specific situations like cauldron battles and the German defensive fighting around Smolensk from July-September persistent agents like the viscus Mustard Gas compound they invented in the 1930s would be highly valuable especially against the Soviets who had very few working gas masks. The Soviets specifically would suffer extreme casualties from even WW1 chemical weapons in 1941 due to their lack of quality protective gear.There is also the fact that Germany had a great military incentive to not use chemical weapons: even if it is the attacker firing off gas, said attacker then has to move through the gas clouds and they have to do so even more slowly and cautiously then they might have otherwise. This slows down the tempo of operations and, for the Germans in World War 2, sustaining high operational tempos was positively vital in keeping their enemies off balance. Ultimately, chemical weapons use benefits the defender, not the attacker.
In fact, the Soviets in 1941 briefly debated using chemical weapons precisely because of the aforementioned means in which it could slow the Germans down. They decided the political costs of being the first to use chemical weapons outweighed whatever military gains it would bring them.
Both sides used chemical weapons on the attack in WW1 just fine.
Nerve agents generally quickly disperse, especially the early ones like Tabun and Sarin, which were ideal for the offensive, because they are fast acting and disperse quickly.
The Soviets specifically would suffer extreme casualties from even WW1 chemical weapons in 1941 due to their lack of quality protective gear.
There are plenty of images of WW1 infantry advancing through clouds of their own gas to assault a position. Its not like that is that big of a problem with WW1 gas that everyone, but the Germans had. And the WW2 tempo isn't so fast as to prevent dispersal before attacks go in, especially of 1941 vintage nerve agents.Because warfare in WW1 was slow-moving and had low operational tempos to begin with. Something the Germans in World War 2 can not afford.
30 minutes is too long? I'm talking Tabun. VX and Soman are much more persistent than Sarin and Tabun. The Germans have much more ability to defend against Mustard and Phosgene gases due to their protective gear; the Soviets on the other hand lacked that gear and during Barbarossa had some issues getting supplies forward without German aerial and artillery interdiction in many cases. Not saying that the Soviets wouldn't be able to douse certain areas with chemical agents, like during the Smolensk offensives, but chemical weapons would hurt them worse than the Germans in 1941, especially as it would mean Leningrad would fall early and cauldrons would be liquidated more quickly with less losses and fortified positions the Soviets had would fall with far less effort.Nerve agents only quickly disperse relative to WW1 gases. Depending on the weather conditions and terrain, nerve gases can linger for days and even weeks. And this is before we factor in Soviet retaliation, which would invariably involve more viscous mustard and phosgene gas. This unpredictably only enhances the aforementioned problem in tempo: without any way to be entirely certain, the Germans would have to assume the worse and move more slowly in all cases they use gas regardless.
The might have had things in depots, but they couldn't get that to their troops and once the original depots were overrun they didn't even have enough rifles to go around, let alone gas masks. Plus their masks didn't work against Tabun or Sarin. So Soviet losses in protective gear would mean they'd be exceedingly vulnerable by July.Soviet forces were actually exceedingly well equipped for WW1 style chemical warfare, as their interwar doctrine had envisaged their usage en-masse. The problem really was that such equipment was the first thing Soviet soldiers would abandon while on the retreat. The Germans recorded capturing huge quantities of Soviet protective gear which they found just left on the ground in the trail of the retreating Red Army. Although against nerve agents they would have been about as useful as anybody else's protective gear.
There are plenty of images of WW1 infantry advancing through clouds of their own gas to assault a position.
And the WW2 tempo isn't so fast as to prevent dispersal before attacks go in, especially of 1941 vintage nerve agents.
30 minutes is too long? I'm talking Tabun.
Not saying that the Soviets wouldn't be able to douse certain areas with chemical agents, like during the Smolensk offensives, but chemical weapons would hurt them worse than the Germans in 1941
The might have had things in depots, but they couldn't get that to their troops and once the original depots were overrun they didn't even have enough rifles to go around, let alone gas masks.
So Soviet losses in protective gear would mean they'd be exceedingly vulnerable by July.
Plus their masks didn't work against Tabun or Sarin.