Strategic bombing and (nerve) gas during WW2

[Amakan]

During WW2 nerve and poison gas never ended up being used in the European theatre. Apart from a few rare and isolated incidents in case of the latter.
On the Axis side due to the Nazi leadership thinking the allies also had the knowledge and capability to manufacture and use them in greater quantities. While on the Allied side it was a prevailing sense of humanity and maintaining the moral high ground that resulted in usage not being authorised. (Even in the face of indiscriminate bombing and the V-attacks).

Assuming this however would have gone the other way, how bad could it have gotten? Especially on the western front.

Note that this assumes nerve gas being used against military and civilian targets before the British, Soviets, etc. (except for limited mustard gas reserves) would be able retaliate in kind. (Anthrax, area bombing of German cities, etc.)

How severe would the casualties have been? (Gassing Dunkirk or London, etc.)
And could it have forced Britain to the negotiating table?

 

[wietze]

While on the Allied side it was a prevailing sense of humanity and maintaining the moral high ground that resulted in usage not being authorised. (Even in the face of indiscriminate bombing and the V-attacks).

moral high ground?? humanity?? dresden.. operation vegetarian.. the ethnic cleansing of east and west prussia etc etc.

this has been discussed over and over again
use search, and find some of the previous discussions

 

[Amakan]

moral high ground?? humanity?? dresden.. operation vegetarian.. the ethnic cleansing of east and west prussia etc etc.

this has been discussed over and over again
use search, and find some of the previous discussions

I have. Unfortunately not a lot of conclusive information popped up. I've tried looking up info about delivery systems as well, but that information is scarce.

As for "moral high ground". That is a relative term and more how they themselves saw it. I'm not making any moral judgement about the actions of the allies in the European Theatre, though in a hindsight some of those were obviously disgusting. In the end though, the question isn't why it wasn't used and how it related to a hypothetical moral high ground, but rather what would have happened if it had.

The most I've been able to read here is about how what would have happened in 1942 and afterwards (when the RAF commenced strategic bombing and the anthrax trials on Gruinard Island had been concluded).
I think I should clarify that I am more referring to what would have happened if the taboo had been broken in (mid) 1940. With a hint at the Nazis using it first.

 

[alexcoppo]

How severe would the casualties have been? (Gassing Dunkirk or London, etc.)

A single KC250 would splash an area of 4000 m2 with 87 kg of Tabun (22 g/m2). Tabun Lct50 dose is 500 mg/m3/min so not only those 4000 m2 are drenched into a quickly deadly amount of agent, but there is enough overkill to affect a larger area, either by turbulence or wind so let's say 10000 m2 affected directly or indirectly by one or more plumes.

A He-111 would carry 8 KC250 so it would affect an area of .08 km2. A Staffel of 12 He-111 would affect an area of about 1 km2. London population density was about 40000+ persons per km2, so a single Staffel can easily kill 20000 persons and poison another 20000 in a single raid.

Tabun effects persist for days so if somebody was exposed again to it the likelihood of fatal effect would increase w.r.t. the first exposure.

A single Gruppe would approch Tokio Mar 9th 1945 body count (~100000), a larger raid (like Dec 29th 1940 on London) would easily reach a body count on the order of half million dead and another half million poisoned.

And could it have forced Britain to the negotiating table?

Yes... provided that there would have still been somebody enough alive to surrender.




And now, since this picture is too unpleasant to consider, board ostriches can come in and slam the ASB hammer to try to exorcise the cold, hard data I posted.

 

[galveston bay]

bottom line, Hitler did not like chemical weapons and refused to use them, from his own experience being gassed by Mustard Gas during that war (although apparently is fine for concentration camp use)

Also in spite of having a monopoly on nerve gas the Germans were convinced that the Allies had it too. The Allies didn't, although they could have developed it quickly enough (after all the US produced massive amounts of insecticide, and only minor retooling and some applied chemistry is all that is needed). So basically a balance of terror resulted.

Although the Allies didn't realize it.

On a couple of occasions, the Allies were certain that chemical weapons would be used. The British planned to use it if Sealion was attempted, and the Allies assumed the Germans would use it on D Day (American uniforms were impregnated with retardant and everyone had gas masks)

If Operation Downfall had occurred (the Invasion of Japan), it is very likely the US would have used chemical weapons on a massive scale, as it was being pushed by Marshall and after Okinawa and the developing intelligence situation made it clear that a huge Japanese Army was in Kyushu, and thoroughly dug in, the prospect of doing whatever it took,, including using up to 5 atomic bombs on the battlefield, was making its way quickly through the planning and operational use stages. (so was biological warfare for that matter) (from the books "Operation Downfall" by Daniel McNeet and "Hell to Pay" by Giangreco)

as for any implication that Dresden, Hamburg or Tokyo are war crimes, Max Hastings put it very well. The mass killing by the Allies ended immediately upon the surrender of Japan and Germany. The mass killing by the Japanese and Germans would have gone on and on.

Don't ask me to feel too sorry for the Germans of East Prussia, tragic and horrifying as their plight was in the winter of 1945. Many of them survived, and most of the expulsions occurred once the war ended (in ugly conditions but a lot better conditions than Jews, Russians, and Poles saw when they suffered ethnic cleansing and extermination)

Dresden was indeed a stupid decision, and unnecessary (as Ike, Churchill and practically everyone who wasn't Bomber Harris determined... after the fact), and Operation Vegetarian never actually took place.


Yes indeed, compared to the SS and Unit 731, the moral high ground was most definitely on the Allied side.

 

[pdf27]

Something to consider there - the LD50 values are for unprotected humans. Somebody in a shelter (either a buried Anderson shelter or the more common indoor Morrison shelters or something like a tube station) will have quite a high protection factor, and this will be enhanced when they start wearing gas masks as after the first raid. The gas masks don't provide total protection from nerve gas (you need a suit for that), but they provide surprisingly complete protection - the lungs have a relatively huge surface area, are wetted and have a continuous flow of air over them, which doesn't apply to the skin.
Even today with gas drills you're taught to mask up then get under cover, and that even if you aren't suited up you're probably OK.

 

[galveston bay]

Something to consider there - the LD50 values are for unprotected humans. Somebody in a shelter (either a buried Anderson shelter or the more common indoor Morrison shelters or something like a tube station) will have quite a high protection factor, and this will be enhanced when they start wearing gas masks as after the first raid. The gas masks don't provide total protection from nerve gas (you need a suit for that), but they provide surprisingly complete protection - the lungs have a relatively huge surface area, are wetted and have a continuous flow of air over them, which doesn't apply to the skin.
Even today with gas drills you're taught to mask up then get under cover, and that even if you aren't suited up you're probably OK.

also nerve gas, and for that matter nearly all chemical agents, are far less effective in damp rainy climates (the British Isles) and in World War I, it required massive amounts of chemical agents to have useful effect

As I recall the British public had a rather large supply of gas masks available too.

 

[MattII]

moral high ground?? humanity?? dresden.. operation vegetarian.. the ethnic cleansing of east and west prussia etc etc.

Vegetarian never happened, Dresden was simply a scaled up version of the Blitz, and as for Prussia, that was the Soviets, not the Western Allies' fault.

 

[trurle]

Something to consider there - the LD50 values are for unprotected humans. Somebody in a shelter (either a buried Anderson shelter or the more common indoor Morrison shelters or something like a tube station) will have quite a high protection factor, and this will be enhanced when they start wearing gas masks as after the first raid. The gas masks don't provide total protection from nerve gas (you need a suit for that), but they provide surprisingly complete protection - the lungs have a relatively huge surface area, are wetted and have a continuous flow of air over them, which doesn't apply to the skin.
Even today with gas drills you're taught to mask up then get under cover, and that even if you aren't suited up you're probably OK.

I agree. The gas was never used because the effect was not worth the expense. The important targets (soldiers) can be easily protected, and civilian deaths are largely irrelevant for war outcome as long as the industry are undamaged. Killing a million or even 5 million British citizens (which is impossible as gas masks will be used soon) is not going to lower the war production. England only had a 38 millions population in 1941.

On the other hand, Japanese also considered using the nerve gas and rejected the idea on the grounds what it would be not effective on the US troops. The fear of likewise retaliation (for which Japanese soldiers, lacking masks and crowded in cave complexes would be much more vulnerable) have play a role as well.

 

[trurle]

During WW2 nerve and poison gas never ended up being used in the European theatre. Apart from a few rare and isolated incidents in case of the latter.
On the Axis side due to the Nazi leadership thinking the allies also had the knowledge and capability to manufacture and use them in greater quantities. While on the Allied side it was a prevailing sense of humanity and maintaining the moral high ground that resulted in usage not being authorised. (Even in the face of indiscriminate bombing and the V-attacks).

Assuming this however would have gone the other way, how bad could it have gotten? Especially on the western front.

Note that this assumes nerve gas being used against military and civilian targets before the British, Soviets, etc. (except for limited mustard gas reserves) would be able retaliate in kind. (Anthrax, area bombing of German cities, etc.)

How severe would the casualties have been? (Gassing Dunkirk or London, etc.)
And could it have forced Britain to the negotiating table?

So the formal answer: the results will be negligible in terms of casualties, the soldiers on both sides will soon start to laugh on "fart bombs", and will be a huge pressure (with some nasty political fallout) from military to return to conventional explosive bombs.

 

[jmc247]

bottom line, Hitler did not like chemical weapons and refused to use them, from his own experience being gassed by Mustard Gas during that war (although apparently is fine for concentration camp use)

Not that I think he wouldn't have accepted it, but the actual ways the concentration camps were eliminating their population was never actually discussed between Hitler and Himmler. We actually have the transcripts and euphemism for mass murder and genocide were used like "deported East" among others, but an actual discussion of how they were doing it. No in fact Hitler didn't want to know the particulars, just that it was being done.

 

[galveston bay]

So the formal answer: the results will be negligible in terms of casualties, the soldiers on both sides will soon start to laugh on "fart bombs", and will be a huge pressure (with some nasty political fallout) from military to return to conventional explosive bombs.

it would make operations far more difficult for both sides, and increase the attrition on both sides. Really not worth the effort against troops trained and equipped to deal with a chemical environment other than slowing down the pace of operations, while the possibility of inflicting disruptive civilian casualties has its merits in terms of reducing war production (and bombing did indeed effect production) it would not do so decisively at the time the Luftwaffe had sufficient air strength to really hammer Britain and certainly not later when far far fewer Luftwaffe bombers were available and the RAF actually had a mature air defense system with significant numbers of night fighters.

The Western Allies by 1943 more than had the means to lay down a horrifying amount of chemical weapons, but didn't want to trigger a German response in kind. It simply wasn't worth the cost.

Now both sides might have used chemical weapons, convinced that it would break the morale of the defending population but did not in the end do so. If they had, the comments above regarding effectiveness come to mind.

If in spite of this the Germans had used nerve gas on a large scale, you had better believe that the Morganthau Plan would have been far more likely in Germany. Any appreciable slowing of Allied victory would have seen B29s raining atomic bombs on German cities as well.

 

[Amakan]

I agree. The gas was never used because the effect was not worth the expense. The important targets (soldiers) can be easily protected, and civilian deaths are largely irrelevant for war outcome as long as the industry are undamaged. Killing a million or even 5 million British citizens (which is impossible as gas masks will be used soon) is not going to lower the war production. England only had a 38 millions population in 1941

5 million would be around 10x the number of OTL casualties. Regardless of its effects on production (Upon which I can imagine it not having any effect), it would have other effects (such as demographic).

So the formal answer: the results will be negligible in terms of casualties, the soldiers on both sides will soon start to laugh on "fart bombs", and will be a huge pressure (with some nasty political fallout) from military to return to conventional explosive bombs.

Chlorine gas is different from (persistent) mustard gas, which in turn is different from nerve gas.

A Dec 29, 1940 style raid using a combination of persistent Mustard and a cocktail of various nerve gasses would be devastating, including the aftermath. A single such raid has the potential to cause more casualties than the entire Blitz.
There have also been reports about people dying in the aftermath of Halabja attack from lingering gas.

 

[galveston bay]

according to some quick research, the Germans didn't have the ability to mass produce nerve gas in quantity until the end of World War II. This highest estimate of production of Sarin (first available 1939 in the lab) is 10 tons by the end of the war. Tobin came in 1944, and was in even smaller quantities. Although some shells were produced, apparently no bombs were.

The older gases (mustard, phosgene, and chlorine) were available in large quantities, but they degrade once exposed to the air far more quickly, and are not nearly as deadly as nerve gas. Both sides had lots of this (which was a bad thing in this particular case)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_John_Harvey

had the war continued another year, than the Germans would have had large amounts of nerve gas available it seems. But on the other hand, the Allies would have had plenty of atomic bombs to strike back with

The only time the Germans had the means to deliver mass attacks with chemical weapons (against Britain) was 1940-41, and only for a few months, and for part of this period it was winter. Chlorine and Phosgene require large clouds to be deadly, which is very hard to do while bombing at night as it requires precise bombing under fire from the defenders. Mustard would have been more effective in causing casualties, but considering that the Allies would have been free to deliver massive amounts of chemical weapons after 1942 it certainly would have been a bad trade off for the Nazis.

So it would seem nerve gas based on its availability is not an option for the Nazis until late war, and by that time, except for artillery shells, they lacked the ability to strike at Allied targets with it.

While the V2 would seem like a perfect solution, it took a few years post war to get the kinks out of that problem, which is not time the Germans had.

Now the Germans could have used chemical weapons against the Russians, but apparently Churchill let it be known that the British would retaliate if this happened. The Soviets had their own stocks of chemical weapons as well of course. Considering this is the Soviet Red Army we are discussing, willing to take huge casualties and keep fighting, I am not sure the Nazis would have found this a good trade.

 

[Gunnarnz]

While the V2 would seem like a perfect solution...

The V1 seems much more like a perfect solution. Cheap, easy to make and launch, and can be programmed to fly whatever sort of profile you want while dispensing gas. If the gas can be dispersed from an aircraft, it can be dispersed from a V1.

The V2, on the other hand, is a different kettle of very expensive fish. Quite apart from the cost and difficulty of manufacture, I'm not at all sure it would be as effective as a distribution system for chemical weapons. There is only a very short time in which it is at the proper altitude for dispensing such agents, which might be affected by atmospheric heating during flight in any case. Ballistic missiles just don't seem like a good choice for this mission.

 

[jmc247]

according to some quick research, the Germans didn't have the ability to mass produce nerve gas in quantity until the end of World War II. This highest estimate of production of Sarin (first available 1939 in the lab) is 10 tons by the end of the war. Tobin came in 1944, and was in even smaller quantities. Although some shells were produced, apparently no bombs were.

The older gases (mustard, phosgene, and chlorine) were available in large quantities, but they degrade once exposed to the air far more quickly, and are not nearly as deadly as nerve gas. Both sides had lots of this (which was a bad thing in this particular case)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_John_Harvey

had the war continued another year, than the Germans would have had large amounts of nerve gas available it seems. But on the other hand, the Allies would have had plenty of atomic bombs to strike back with

The only time the Germans had the means to deliver mass attacks with chemical weapons (against Britain) was 1940-41, and only for a few months, and for part of this period it was winter. Chlorine and Phosgene require large clouds to be deadly, which is very hard to do while bombing at night as it requires precise bombing under fire from the defenders. Mustard would have been more effective in causing casualties, but considering that the Allies would have been free to deliver massive amounts of chemical weapons after 1942 it certainly would have been a bad trade off for the Nazis.

So it would seem nerve gas based on its availability is not an option for the Nazis until late war, and by that time, except for artillery shells, they lacked the ability to strike at Allied targets with it.

While the V2 would seem like a perfect solution, it took a few years post war to get the kinks out of that problem, which is not time the Germans had.

Now the Germans could have used chemical weapons against the Russians, but apparently Churchill let it be known that the British would retaliate if this happened. The Soviets had their own stocks of chemical weapons as well of course. Considering this is the Soviet Red Army we are discussing, willing to take huge casualties and keep fighting, I am not sure the Nazis would have found this a good trade.

Germany didn't invest a great deal of resources in chemical or bio-weapons because even pre-war they were considered to be off the table other then to respond back if gassed.

Change that thinking you change the funding and the whole weapons program.

 

[MattII]

I wonder what the US would have thought of the Germans had they done this. Certainly I imagine there would have been a significant shift in public opinion against the Germans.