Nerve Gas in the Second World War

The first two weaponized nerve agents, GA/Tabun and GB/Sarin, were both successfully synthesized before the Second World War by German scientists. As organophosphate nerve agents, they're essentially Raid for people. Sarin, for example, is 500 times more toxic than cyanide, and can be easily turned into an aerosol.

A single tiny drop worth on the skin is enough to kill a full grown adult in minutes. Inhaled, it takes significantly less. Thankfully, unlike the later V series agents, the G-series aren't persistent agents, and tend to break down in a matter of weeks. They're still effective as terrain denial weapons though, for much of that period.

IOTL, the Germans generally had the lead in chemical weapons technology, but avoided its battlefield use for fear that the Allies would produce much more of it. But is it plausible that nerve agents could end up getting used by either side during the war? If so, how? Would they be used as terrain denial weapons, offensive tactical weapons, or would they end up being used as strategic terror weapons, depopulating the industrial sectors of cities?
 
The Germans had a monpoly on Nerve Gas, a weapon which could render an area uninhabitable for weeks.

The British had a monopoly on Anthrax, a weapon which could render an area extremely toxic (1 in 5 death rate) for decades.

Regardless of the fact that neither side used their WMD's because they were convinced the other side had them, it would have been a very bad idea for Germany, a perfect analogy of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
 
The Germans had a monpoly on Nerve Gas, a weapon which could render an area uninhabitable for weeks.

The British had a monopoly on Anthrax, a weapon which could render an area extremely toxic (1 in 5 death rate) for decades.

Regardless of the fact that neither side used their WMD's because they were convinced the other side had them, it would have been a very bad idea for Germany, a perfect analogy of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
But would the British have retaliated with Anthrax if the Germans deployed Tabun or Sarin on the Eastern Front? I don't think they'd put their own cities at that much risk to help out the Soviets.
 
But would the British have retaliated with Anthrax if the Germans deployed Tabun or Sarin on the Eastern Front? I don't think they'd put their own cities at that much risk to help out the Soviets.

What point in the war would you be suggesting? If it's pre-Kursk then they very well might considering that the Germans are at least seen to have a chance at gaining victory on the Eastern Front and thus Churchill would panic. Post-Kursk were the German Army is in retreat would be another story but there's still a good chance Churchill might retaliate. After all, the danger to British cities is pretty small by this point compared to what the RAF could do to Germany.
 
The only way Germany would ever use chemical weapons in WW2 if Hitler goes totally off the deep end again or if he was not gas in the WW1.

But if Germany would use Chemical Weapons on the battlefield, that the allied forces would use chemical weapons on their cities as part of their bombing camping, and causlties would went thought the roof, and the German people become a very small group of people after the war.

Japan on the other hand, they would have use any and all chemical weapons they had if the Americas had try to land on the beaches of mainland Japan. And American would have hit back with their chemical weapons plus the stock of chemical weapons they took in Germany. In the end with the Nuclear Weapons use Japan would just stop being a nation,with something like 50 to 90% causlties on the main islands.
 

Cook

Banned
Churchill planned to use Mustard Gas on the landing beaches had Germany tried to invade England in 1940.
http://www.rense.com/general83/gas.htm
The photos of civilians, soldiers and politicians carrying gas mask bags in the early years of the war are a fair indication that the threat of gas attack was taken very seriously, and as a strategic terror weapon as well as a battlefield weapon.
 
The Allies no doubt have the advantage when it comes to WMDs in WW2. So then I guess a more important question is whether the Allies would have contemplated the first use of chemical or/biological agents, particularly against the Germans.

I know that the US planned to use chemical weapons in Operation Downfall against Japan, but that's a very different story. The Soviets, as far as I know, really didn't have the capacity IOTL to use chemical or biological weapons. I'm sure the Allies would have to be sure of massive superiority chemical weapons before they deployed them, whether tactically or strategically. And it would raise the interesting question of whether WMDs can ever be strictly deployed in a tactical manner.

Unfortunately, there really are no historical case studies on the subject.
 
I'm sorry to say that I can't remember the details, but I recall reading that the Germans thought about using Nerve Gas a couple of times during World War II, (Stalingrad and Kursk I believe, but it has been a while since I read up on it) but they were having trouble producing the quantities they would have needed to make the use worth the various downsides.
 
But would the British have retaliated with Anthrax if the Germans deployed Tabun or Sarin on the Eastern Front? I don't think they'd put their own cities at that much risk to help out the Soviets.

Eastern front, I don't know for sure. But if Germany used gas against Poland, France, or Britain, Germany would essentially be rendered lifeless pretty quickly. IMHO, the British anthrax reserves were FAR deadlier than even the early atomic bombs from the Manhattan Project.
 
I'm sorry to say that I can't remember the details, but I recall reading that the Germans thought about using Nerve Gas a couple of times during World War II, (Stalingrad and Kursk I believe, but it has been a while since I read up on it) but they were having trouble producing the quantities they would have needed to make the use worth the various downsides.

Kursk would have been the best place for them to use it, since a million Soviet soldiers were in fixed positions that could be blanketed in gas. The Germans could tear a huge hole in the line there with Nerve gas.

The problem is preventing the Brits from retaliating in kind. I'm sure the Germans would announce they would only use that against the subhuman Russians and the "Aryan" Britons would be spared, unless they used gas themselves, which if they did London would be smothered by a gas that masks could not stop. Would the Brits listen? Probably not.
 
The trouble with using gas in the field is it really isnt that effective, and it favours the defenders (who can stay in their holes wearing protective clothing.
The attackers meanwhile are courting heatstroke in that they have to wear full protective gear and attack. Just as bad in tanks, as WW2 tanks didnt have closed and filtered air systems.

In the cold war, it was expected that the USSR would use gas against rear echelon targets, to hold them and make them ineffective for a time rather than in the actual forward fighting.

Any gas used by the Russians will be nearly as effective in rear areas as nerve gas - its the nuisance of the gas that causes the major problems.

And if Germany uses nerve gases in Russia, expect the next shipments to the USSR to include Lewisite....
 
The British had a monopoly on Anthrax, a weapon which could render an area extremely toxic (1 in 5 death rate) for decades.

Forget decades,it is more like centuries, the scottish island where the british tested it was just as lethal after 50 years, as when they sprayed it with anthrax.
Anthrax endospores can stay dangerous for centuries, and cause reinfection all that time.
 
Top