The Paris Gun with Poison Gas

What if the Germans in early 1918 loaded the Paris Gun with shells bearing mustard-gas instead of high explosive? Would these increase the civilian casualties in Paris during the bombardment? What effect would it have on the peace negotiations (or, far less likely, the ultimate outcome of the war)?
 
I suppose the Entente would retaliate with gas bombings of German cities.

What do you think?
 
Retaliatory strikes follow and the French probably demand that the Kaiser and other senior German leaders are put on trial after the war, the terms of Versailles are even harsher than IOTL.
 
France takes the Saar Basin outright, along with probably a decent area of the southern Rhine Province.
 
Step 1 Paris Gun lobs mustard gas shells into the city.
Step 2 French Airforce responds in kind over the Rhineland.
Step 3 German Airforce attacks towns across norther France with Gas.
Step 4 French and British aircraft attack across western Germany.
Step 5 German Aircraft attack London, Dover, Portsmouth and other towns across south east England.
Step 6 RNAS Aircraft attack German High Seas Fleet bases with gas bombs.
Step 7 German Airships bomb British east coast and Scapa Flow with Gas.
Step 8 RN bombards German coast with gas shells.
Step 9 German Navy storms out of port after the RN eventially leeding to a general fleet engageement with the Grand Fleet, which it almost surely looses.
Step 10 Revolution in Germany.
Step 11 Germany broken up at the peace conference and stripped of most of its industrial areas. East Prussia given to the poles.
 
The Entente probably insists on unconditional surrender, with the German army completely disarmed and Entente troops in Germany in a situation similar to 1945. Of course if that happened the 'stab in the back' notion might not take root.
 
The Paris Gun would be a very inefficient way of delivering poison gas. the quantities would be miniscule, the concentration terrible, and the overall effects pretty small. The psychological effect could be quite large - using gas on a civilian target might attract quite an outcry. The casualties, however, might well be lower than if they used conventional HE. A 15kg payload per shell, and a rate of fire of 20 per day, does not a huge cloud of gas produce.
 
Last edited:
True, but it starts a ladder of retaliation that soon gets out of control. Withen weeks of the first round being fired you get strategic bombing of civilians with made of modified gas shells. Except close to the frontlines in WWI civilians had no protection from poison gas.
 
I see an unconditional surrender of Germany and the country being broken up into a million pieces by a very pissed off Entente.
 
That would be an humanitarian disaster. Even for the time it would be considered barbarians and the german would be lucky if there is still a state called Germany at the end of the war.
 
Yes I can see Churchill standing up in Parliament and proclaiming that "by the end of the war German will be a language only heard in hell".
 

sharlin

Banned
I'd have to say so. In the 1st world war the bombing of civilians was viewed as deplorable and simply wrong, something not done. But to use gas against them would cause huge implications even if only a few dozen people died.

The French would retaliate, and you can bet the germans would then retaliate themselves and then it would escalate from there.
 
So we're all agreed that the actual physical damage would be minimal but the psychlogical impact would be huge?

Yep it would be a terrorist strike more than a military action, as to the post war consequences, perhaps the use of gas is outlawed, that could have a lot of consequences in the following years.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I thought the barrels wore out so quickly that the shells had differing diameters and orders to be fired in? If that is the case make sure to never load the wrong shell or generally have any other issues or you will end up turning your superweapon into a toxiv waste site.
 
The Paris Gun would be a very inefficient way of delivering poison gas. the quantities would be miniscule, the concentration terrible, and the overall effects pretty small. The psychological effect could be quite large - using gas on a civilian target might attract quite an outcry. The casualties, however, might well be lower than if they used conventional HE. A 15kg payload per shell, and a rate of fire of 20 per day, does not a huge cloud of gas produce.

Use something a bit more effective, such as thioacetone. Can you imagine Germany tossing a round at Paris every few hours that forces evacuation because people are panicking from the smell? This is a smell that overpowers noses that are used to a Soap factory (with all the lye in the air that hints at).

Or I'd see the Nazis doing this as a prank.
 
I thought the barrels wore out so quickly that the shells had differing diameters and orders to be fired in? If that is the case make sure to never load the wrong shell or generally have any other issues or you will end up turning your superweapon into a toxiv waste site.

Yes, it is the case. As for turning the gun position into a toxic waste site, I don't think it would be any worse for the crew than a premature detonation at the breech or in the bore (which is to say, it's probably a whole crew's worth of "sad duty to inform you" letters being written either way). Seriously, with the amount of propellant being used in that thing to get an 80 mile range, if you're close enough to get a good view of a breech prem you're probably dead.

But in general you're right, gas shells (and other exotic payloads) require special care and precautions in handling. That's one reason white phosphorous shells went out of fashion, it's a pain in the neck looking after them on a gun position.
 
I'd have to say so. In the 1st world war the bombing of civilians was viewed as deplorable and simply wrong, something not done. But to use gas against them would cause huge implications even if only a few dozen people died.

The French would retaliate, and you can bet the germans would then retaliate themselves and then it would escalate from there.

Except that the Germans did bomb civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_strategic_bombing_during_World_War_I

Fredette's book, in the references above, is an excellent popular account of the campaign.

The use of poison gas in the above campaign, or in the bombardment of Paris, would simply be one more atrocity added to the list in the eyes of the Allies. Perhaps slightly harsher terms would be enacted at Versailles, but those were pretty harsh already. Breaking up Germany into lots of little pieces would not be done; it was needed as a barrier against Bolshevism, in the Allies' view. IOTL it was reduced in size, with large chunks given to Poland and bits to Belgium, Denmark, and Czechoslovakia; much more than that is probably not politically feasable.
 
IOTL it was reduced in size, with large chunks given to Poland and bits to Belgium, Denmark, and Czechoslovakia; much more than that is probably not politically feasable.
Well I can't see the harm in giving Poland East Prussia, I mean it was already cut off from Germany.
 
Top