Little Pearl Harbor escalated

But assume that the chemical warfare was on the 7th or 8th of June 1944. The troops were still building up. With enough gas there would be more casualties. The loses would have an effect on the possibility of a next invasion.


1. In order to mount a massive attack on June 7 or 8, the Germans need to understand, on June 6, this is not a diversionary move. Given that in OTL they didn't…

2. Assuming they do, tell us about the delivery means. Remember, the stuff is in the Pas de Calais. Bring it up front and distribute it to the platforms tasked with using it. You'll see it will be a tad difficult.

3. The Allied troops landing in Normandy were exceptionally well equipped against chemical attacks. There would be losses, certainly, mainly due to malfunctioning, torn, misused equipment, and anybody WIA for other causes would almost certainly become a gas KIA. But it wouldn't be a massacre, even with sarin. Additionally, the delivery means that you have to list won't be deliverying ordinary HE, which reduces the other causes of casualties.

4. And I don't think those casualties would affect further landings. Another one was already slated to go, Dragoon/Anvil, and it had other units already set aside for it. The Allies would learn about the events in Normandy and would strengthen their countermeasures; they would, by the time of Anvil, have carried out extensive gas attacks against German cities. The Allies would of course use gases in turn, in preparation and during the landing.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
So the threat of Gas was equal to nuclear weapons: to terrible to use, but you need them to scare the enemy?


Not quite, but the comparison has some merit, as far as the need to maintain a counterforce, even if one had no plans for first use.

The difference between Gas and Nuclear weapons in practical effect is almost as great as the difference in how they work.

Nukes can be highly effective against troop concentrations even with personal protective countermeasures. Gas isn't, not to the same level. Nukes offer the "best" of both nerve and blistering agents in that they cause massive casualties initially AND huge numbers of long term medical cases. Nukes would also be extremely effective against massed shipping traffic, such as the invasion fleet at Normandy while Gas weapons were nearly useless against WW II vessels, at least mass targets. A single nuclear weapon is also far more effective than a large number of gas weapons, a not small consideration in combat.

By the time nukes had reached the potential for reasonable tactical use, they had also been developed into a fairly accurate weapon, making them useful against fortified targets (a potential WW II target being the Reich submarine pens, had even semi accurate delivery been possible).

Mostly, the difference between the two types is actual destructive potential. Nuclear weapons offer you blast, heat, blinding light flash, shock and even a little understood (in 1944-45) long term posioning effect in a single package that would require the massing of several thousand conventional aircraft to provide even a marginally similar degree of damage. Gas offers posioning effect only, and over a smaller total area of effect.

One is the Hammer of God & the other isn't.
 
Not quite, but the comparison has some merit, as far as the need to maintain a counterforce, even if one had no plans for first use.

The difference between Gas and Nuclear weapons in practical effect is almost as great as the difference in how they work.

Nukes can be highly effective against troop concentrations even with personal protective countermeasures. Gas isn't, not to the same level. Nukes offer the "best" of both nerve and blistering agents in that they cause massive casualties initially AND huge numbers of long term medical cases. Nukes would also be extremely effective against massed shipping traffic, such as the invasion fleet at Normandy while Gas weapons were nearly useless against WW II vessels, at least mass targets. A single nuclear weapon is also far more effective than a large number of gas weapons, a not small consideration in combat.

By the time nukes had reached the potential for reasonable tactical use, they had also been developed into a fairly accurate weapon, making them useful against fortified targets (a potential WW II target being the Reich submarine pens, had even semi accurate delivery been possible).

Mostly, the difference between the two types is actual destructive potential. Nuclear weapons offer you blast, heat, blinding light flash, shock and even a little understood (in 1944-45) long term posioning effect in a single package that would require the massing of several thousand conventional aircraft to provide even a marginally similar degree of damage. Gas offers posioning effect only, and over a smaller total area of effect.

One is the Hammer of God & the other isn't.

good way of putting it. and "Hammer of god" is such an atiqute way of discribing how it's first victems must have felt about it.

In the highly unlikely senario where the allies retaliate with gas weapons (i know the USSR and Britian still had some stock, and with the USA's productivity, it would be possible to make more), do they start using Mustard Gas bombs in their raids on Germany?
 
In the highly unlikely senario where the allies retaliate with gas weapons (i know the USSR and Britian still had some stock, and with the USA's productivity, it would be possible to make more), do they start using Mustard Gas bombs in their raids on Germany?

1. Why do you think a retaliation in kind highly unlikely? It is very likely indeed.

2. You seem to believe the USA would have to start production of gases from scrap. If that's your assumption, it's wrong. Not only they had stocks; those stocks were right behind the frontlines, as the Harvey accident shows. You'll know the US 4.2" mortars, right? The official name of the outfits equipped with them was "Chemical Mortar Companies". Those mortars ended up firing only conventional rounds, but they had been specifically designed, developed, built and fielded to deliver gases. They were the US Nebelwerfers.
 
1. Why do you think a retaliation in kind highly unlikely? It is very likely indeed.

maybe i phrased that wrong.
I ment Chemical bomb drops on civilian targets,rather than strategic millitery bombings.
Conventinal bombing and fire bombing is one thing, at least it lets the civilians escape, but Chemical bombs don't really give you much of a chance.
but then again, i could just be over thinking this.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
maybe i phrased that wrong.
I ment Chemical bomb drops on civilian targets,rather than strategic millitery bombings.
Conventinal bombing and fire bombing is one thing, at least it lets the civilians escape, but Chemical bombs don't really give you much of a chance.
but then again, i could just be over thinking this.

Chemical weapons would be just one more level of brutality in what was already a war that exceeded any before or since in it's totality. The addition of Mustard or Lewisite to the weapons dropped on Dresden or Tokyo would have been nothing more the cherry on top the sundae.

On the other hand, Churchill plans to see and raise any gas attack on British civilian targets with Anthrax against German civilian targets WOULD have ushered in a rather nasty new element into modern conflict.
 
Chemical weapons would be just one more level of brutality in what was already a war that exceeded any before or since in it's totality. The addition of Mustard or Lewisite to the weapons dropped on Dresden or Tokyo would have been nothing more the cherry on top the sundae.

On the other hand, Churchill plans to see and raise any gas attack on British civilian targets with Anthrax against German civilian targets WOULD have ushered in a rather nasty new element into modern conflict.

that would be horrible. anthrax attacks on the Fuhrer bunker, or Berlin or any of those.
But i see your point.

my next question is, would Chemical attacks, along with traditional bombing and Fire bombing, speed up Japan's surrender, or just make japan create "Dirty Kamikazes"?
 
that would be horrible. anthrax attacks on the Fuhrer bunker, or Berlin or any of those.
But i see your point.

my next question is, would Chemical attacks, along with traditional bombing and Fire bombing, speed up Japan's surrender, or just make japan create "Dirty Kamikazes"?

Not by any significant margin, and as the these already existed in the first place Japan needs no other reasons.

I'm pretty sure the second Hitler authorises the use of gas the Allies will reply in kind, they had stock just waiting for this event.

Bombing and fire-bombing are the same thing essentially, one used to achieve the other. Bombings 'allowing civilians to escape' was not the intention I'm sure, I can hardly see them saying 'Forget the mustard, we want to give them a chance'.

But I'm glad it was never authorised, it would add a another horrible new dimension something too far gone.

Sorry for my ignorance here, but what was the napalm used by the Americans on the Germans classed, I thought it was a nerve agent surely?
 
we had this discussion somewhere else.
The only advantegous use of gas by the germans, IMO, would be in the eastern front in the static battles of 1941-43, specially in Stalingrad or Kursk. In both ocassions, even if its a only one use weapon, they can achieve a decisive victory that might be worth it. It can always be considered an east-front-only weapon, as it was a separated theatre of war which was already worst in many ways from the western one. I wonder if the british, in the face of the new nerve gas they didn't know about, would risk starting a gas war in the west even if the germans don't.
Of course, by late 1943 germans are on the bad side a of gas war in the west, with no means of delivery and thousands of bombers over them.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not by any significant margin, and as the these already existed in the first place Japan needs no other reasons.

I'm pretty sure the second Hitler authorises the use of gas the Allies will reply in kind, they had stock just waiting for this event.

Bombing and fire-bombing are the same thing essentially, one used to achieve the other. Bombings 'allowing civilians to escape' was not the intention I'm sure, I can hardly see them saying 'Forget the mustard, we want to give them a chance'.

But I'm glad it was never authorised, it would add a another horrible new dimension something too far gone.

Sorry for my ignorance here, but what was the napalm used by the Americans on the Germans classed, I thought it was a nerve agent surely?


Napalm? Incendiary. Dropped it on the Japanese too, lakes of it.

Napalm was a primary element (along with both Thermite and WP) of the firebombs dropped by the B-29s over Japanese cities, starting with the March 9/10 1945 Tokyo attacks. It is noteworthy that it wasn't until the introduction of the Rocky Mountain incendairy weapons that the USAAF bombing campaign actually began to bear fruit and separated itself from the ETO strategic campaign.

For those interested
(WARNING!
A couple rather graphic photos included in this document) http://www.chem.sc.edu/faculty/morgan/resources/cw/cw.pdf
 
we had this discussion somewhere else.
The only advantegous use of gas by the germans, IMO, would be in the eastern front in the static battles of 1941-43, specially in Stalingrad or Kursk. In both ocassions, even if its a only one use weapon, they can achieve a decisive victory that might be worth it. It can always be considered an east-front-only weapon, as it was a separated theatre of war which was already worst in many ways from the western one. I wonder if the british, in the face of the new nerve gas they didn't know about, would risk starting a gas war in the west even if the germans don't.
Of course, by late 1943 germans are on the bad side a of gas war in the west, with no means of delivery and thousands of bombers over them.

Karlos

Can't remember the sources but believe that Churchill had made clear that any use of gas by the Nazis against the Soviets would result in retaliation by Britain on Germany. Given that by the time Barbarossa started, let alone when the Germans thought it might be useful to them, Britain was started to deploy its 4 engined strategic bombers, this would have been very bad for Germany. Especially since from what I have read, unlike Britain there was no real scheme for gas protection for the population in Germany. Britain didn't have nerve agents but the Germans didn't know that for sure. Furthermore the Germans only had small stocks of sarin and delivery would be difficult while mustard gas for instance, which Britain has sizeable stocks of, would as mentioned earlier be even more effective in many ways than sarin.

I did read once, a long time ago, that Hitler did in the dying days of the war, order use of gas against the Red Army. However his sub-ordinates, having somewhat more grip on reality and knowing the consequences for Germany, wisely decided to 'lose' the order.

Steve
 
maybe i phrased that wrong.
I ment Chemical bomb drops on civilian targets,rather than strategic millitery bombings.
Conventinal bombing and fire bombing is one thing, at least it lets the civilians escape, but Chemical bombs don't really give you much of a chance.
but then again, i could just be over thinking this.


My bet would be that strategic bombing with gas bombs used against German "industrial centers" would not be highly unlikely, either.

It might depend somewhat on the time frame. If the Allies have to take this decision exactly at the time when London is under V-Waffen attack, then maybe they refrain. Again, not to spare German civilians but for self-interest. Note the British civilians are better equipped to face gas attacks than German civilians (and, of course, than German-employed slave laborers). But the British wouldn't be sure of that, and anyway, they might not want to test their own readiness.
If the decision has to be taken before that, or after the land-based V-Waffen attacks are over, well then.
 
My bet would be that strategic bombing with gas bombs used against German "industrial centers" would not be highly unlikely, either.

Gas attacks don’t work against hard targets, so it would only kill human and with the lack of Germans more forced labour would be used.

It might depend somewhat on the time frame. If the Allies have to take this decision exactly at the time when London is under V-Waffen attack, then maybe they refrain. Again, not to spare German civilians but for self-interest. Note the British civilians are better equipped to face gas attacks than German civilians (and, of course, than German-employed slave laborers). But the British wouldn't be sure of that, and anyway, they might not want to test their own readiness.
If the decision has to be taken before that, or after the land-based V-Waffen attacks are over, well then.


When the British would start gas retaliations while the v-weapons were used in huge amounts the risk of Gas attacks with V-weapons was likely. In that case the casualties of British civilians would be even higher.
 
Gas attacks don’t work against hard targets, so it would only kill human and with the lack of Germans more forced labour would be used.

Persistent gases like mustard are very efficient at stopping/delaying just about any operations. [Industrial work, transport etc]. Also the big effect with gas attacks on urban centres would probably be the paralysis generated as masses of population flee the cities, bringing them to a standstill, choking transport and generating a huge requirement to house/feed etc the population that has fled the industrial centres.

If the worse comes to the worse and the Germans did try and fight on they would struggle to be able to force slave labourers into the cities and would have to have some of their own people in there to enforce them actually doing any work. Thus even if things got to such extreme events I think Germany would collapse pretty quickly. Don't forget their trying to wage war on multiple fronts while production at home is virtually collapsing.

When the British would start gas retaliations while the v-weapons were used in huge amounts the risk of Gas attacks with V-weapons was likely. In that case the casualties of British civilians would be even higher.
They might or might not. Don't forget the allied throw-weight is hugely greater than what the Germans could supply by their V weapons. Also the latter are limited in range. Could cause greater disruption in London and neighbouring areas but all of Germany would be suffering fair worse. Furthermore the initial trigger is that the Germans are using gas against the Soviets, which means that much of their capacity in both gas stocks and deliverly systems are committed there.

Steve
 
this is alittle off-topic,
We know Germany most likely will atempt to retaliate with Poison gas, and the Allies will use their gas against Germany,
But what about Japan? If they Use Gas against japan, will japan Use gas too?
Japan used Mustard gas in China, and did do numerous experiments with it.
does the use of Gas lead to 'Dirty Kamikazes'?
 
Gas attacks don’t work against hard targets, so it would only kill human and with the lack of Germans more forced labour would be used.

First, yes and no. Nobody less than Dohuet theorized a combination of gas and fire bombing. Gas would at least hamper the firemen's work, thus increasing the property damage.

Second, yes, it would affect humans (and horses, don't forget them; killing them reduces the local transportation means). This in turn affects industrial output. Yes, it is possible more forced labor would be used. This was notoriously less productive, and in case of gas attacks, much more vulnerable, not being issued with gas masks. I do not believe that concern about the casualties among slaves would deter this kind of of attacks, if the Germans are using gases on the front or in V-Waffen.

When the British would start gas retaliations while the v-weapons were used in huge amounts the risk of Gas attacks with V-weapons was likely. In that case the casualties of British civilians would be even higher.

Yes, as I have said myself, the British might be wary of starting strategic gas bombings if at the time of the decision they are under attack by the V-Waffen. That said, yes, the British casualties would be higher; the German ones would be much, much, much higher. Note that a city-bombing conventional escalation did happen in OTL, notwithstanding the fears about that.
 
Top