Some important info about Nazi chemical warfare

Yeah, even if the Axis blast something important with Tabun or Sarin they're still facing in retaliation the complete loss of their strategic mobility - except on rail lines or for the Panzer Divisions.
The Heer without horses is basically an immobile force without artillery or heavy weapons ammunition.

That's what Goering said after the war, when he was being interviewed by Allied interrogators.

"You would have won the war years ago, if you had used gas - not on our troops, but on our transport. Your intelligence men are asses!"

(Even in defeat and captivity, Goering loved to score points and show off.)
 
thanks, was sure there was simple answer.

wonder the effects of smoke screen dropped with incendiaries THAT was not subject to any convention was it?

No clear answer is possible in the legal frame of 1939-1945. At the time, what was outlawed was the use of poisoned weapons, poisonous gases, asphyxiating gases, and bacteriological weapons. Nobody thought to come up, in 1925, with the kind of painstakingly detailed definitions you got in 1972, 1980 and 1993.
Pdf27's reply, above, going to the intention and motive in the use of any ammunition, is actually echoing those later definitions.

So, one could claim that smoke rounds and equipment were not considered poisonous in 1939-45 (it was routine to send own troops into smoke screens, BTW). Another one could claim you can be poisoned by ordinary smoke, and therefore all those smoke screens were violations.
I'd stay with the former.
 
thanks, was sure there was simple answer.

wonder the effects of smoke screen dropped with incendiaries THAT was not subject to any convention was it?

No clear answer is possible in the legal frame of 1939-1945. At the time, what was outlawed was the use of poisoned weapons, poisonous gases, asphyxiating gases, and bacteriological weapons.

So, one could claim that smoke rounds and equipment were not considered poisonous in 1939-45 (it was routine to send own troops into smoke screens, BTW). Another one could claim you can be poisoned by ordinary smoke, and therefore all those smoke screens were violations.
I'd stay with the former.

of course my speculative scenario might be totally ineffective even if legal?

but at least during most famous of raids on London a thick smoke screen would have hampered extinguishing (finding) incendiaries?

and maybe even worse in smaller cities with less fire brigades?
 
Top