U-boat launched gas attack on United States

I'm not sure how plausible this is, but a post on the Facebook AH group got me thinking.

What would have happened had Germany placed gas warheads on V2-style rockets (or at the very minimum torpedoes), loaded them onto U-boats, drove the U-boats to within launching distance of the US, and then fired? Granted, Hitler had preferred to not use poison gas as a weapon. However, if it's 1944 or something like that and his back is up against the wall...

Deploying poison gas against enemy units may not have made sense as Allies probably had gas masks running around: all that would do would cause the targeted country to retaliate with gas.

An attack on the US coast, however, could serve more as a terror attack to try to get the US out of the war than a typical military operation. The victims would be civilian, so they wouldn't have protection. The US would also have to transport any retaliatory gas munitions over to Europe, which would take a while. Yes, it would have been a war crime, but if you're desperate and are already going to be indicted for the death camps anyway...

I suspect this is impractical, but who knows? I'd assume torpedoes are out as the U-boat would likely be spotted if it got within torpedo range (but if the Germans want US warships back in the Americas instead of fighting somewhere in Europe or the Pacific...)

For this to work, a contagious disease would make sense as the weapon. I'm not sure how well biological warfare had developed by the time though. I can't remember if active agents were used in WWI, and the agents used in the death camps did not have to be contagious in order to do their work (the victims were crowded in rooms and the gas introduced).

A joint operation with the Japanese could be considered as well, with both coasts being attacked at the same time. I wonder if Hitler would allow Japanese access to U-boat technology as they're on the other side of the world and wouldn't be in a position to use it against Germany anyway.

Assume the Manhattan Project proceeds as IOTL.

I wonder if a U-boat could make it up a river without being detected (it would have to be deep obviously). Of course, the commander would need a map of the riverbed which would be tough to come by. Maybe if he got a map of old shipping routes? EDIT: nix the river as the U-boat would be intercepted on the way back out.

What is the range of a rocket capable of launching this warhead? Would a decapitation strike on Washington be in order?
 
Last edited:

nbcman

Donor
The US already had chemical munitions in Europe plus the UK had their own munitions plus anthrax laced cattle cakes ready in 1945 to retaliate against the Germans. There was a major accident in Bari, Italy in late 1943 that involved the release of sulfur mustard bombs that were being stockpiled in case the Germans used chemical agents in Italy.

Assuming the Germans work out the bugs, the US already was anticipating the attacks - see Operation Teardrop.
 
It's a scary thought. A single U-Boat couldn't carry very much gas and casualties would be relatively light, but it would certainly scare a lot of people. Immediate reactions would be to recall a lot of destroyers, destroyer escorts, patrol boats, and aircraft to try and establish an airtight defense of the east coast. Gas masks would have been distributed to civilian populations in coastal cities. All in all, a huge waste of resources.

As for retaliating with poison gas against the Germans, the Allies were always well-prepared for that with big stockpiles ready to go in England and in ships. There was a major disaster in the Italian port city of Bari when an American freighter filled with mustard gas was hit by a German air raid. Several hundred military and civilians were killed. I imagine retaliatory raids, dropping gas bombs on German cities, could have started within a week or so.
 
1) Torpedos are fairly pointless for chemical attacks?

2) The germans didn't have reasonable means for U-Boat missiles.

3) The germans didn't have a reasonably useful dispersal method for chemical weapons on missiles.

4) Chemical weapons are pretty shit weapons.

5) Biological weapons are extremly shitty weapons. Even with decades of technological advancement and a much bigger investment than the germans ever had the Soviets were massivly disappointed by their bio weapons programm and largely left it going because of inertia.
 

Deleted member 9338

As many chemical weapons are water soluble the torpedoes are useless
 
As many chemical weapons are water soluble the torpedoes are useless

I was thinking more along the lines of a Tomahawk missile launch as from a modern battleship or destroyer, but now that I think about they probably couldn't do that.
 
In my opinion the only way to pull this insane stunt off would be with a monitor submarine along the lines of the French Surcouf lobbing gas shells into a port. Even then it's very likely to be a one way trip. Actual physical damage and casualties caused would likely be minimal but the outrage it would cause in the US would be immense and the US would respond in kind over Germany.

5aa4982a34b5.jpg
 
This has fiasco written all over it. The US gets hit and suffers a few hundred deaths. It then retaliates with AT LEAST a moderate effort of its own dropping mustard gas and chlorine gas on cities like Hamburg and Frankfort causing thousands at a minimum. A couple of subs can't launch within a magnitude what even a small B-17 strike can.
 
Forgetting the logistics of a transatlantic gas attack vs say hitting London which isn’t easy to forget.

I am not sure how this fits Berlin’s political or military strategy of 1944 of to cause enough military grief that FDR loses the election to someone who will talk peace with them.

Also, a nation crossing the WMD mental taboo is apt to start limited before going big as in the war in the East devolves into a chemical weapons slugging match. The WAllies then use gas tactically in say Italy, then a decision comes down the line to up the ante. The end state may devolve into a city gassing contest.
 
Last edited:
Once the US had retaliated in kind against Germany would they go on to gas Japan? Japanese actions in China would be ample justification for such an attack.
 
Years ago I read that the Germans had developed and weaponized early forms of blood agents. They assumed that the U.S. had discovered similar weapons and didn't even conntemplate using it. After the war rhe U.S. Chemical Corps was shocked when they discovered the German weapons. We had not developed any such weapons and the U.S. gas masks would have provided NO defense against it. Since the weapon had been developed from research into insecticides the Germans assumed that the advanced American research into agricultural pests had discovered and developed similar weapons and might be more advanced than they were.
 
A Few Thoughts...

...When younger I had a model of the submarine USS Nautilus with a drum-like container on its afterdeck and launch rails for a JB-2 Loon missile designed with a high-explosive warhead, which could have been replaced with a small atomic bomb. The USN certainly tested the H.E. version in the 1950s, so the Kriegsmarine could in theory tested and launched a Fi103 with a chemical or biological warhead much earlier. However, the USSR was a bigger immediate threat than the USA, so it is amazing that nerve gases were never used against Russian forces. Attacking the USA was feasible but politically would have been a disaster.

Hope this helps.
 
A Few Thoughts...

...When younger I had a model of the submarine USS Nautilus with a drum-like container on its afterdeck and launch rails for a JB-2 Loon missile designed with a high-explosive warhead, which could have been replaced with a small atomic bomb. The USN certainly tested the H.E. version in the 1950s, so the Kriegsmarine could in theory tested and launched a Fi103 with a chemical or biological warhead much earlier. However, the USSR was a bigger immediate threat than the USA, so it is amazing that nerve gases were never used against Russian forces. Attacking the USA was feasible but politically would have been a disaster.

Hope this helps.

The V1 was considered but rejected, as was firing unguided rockets from underwater or surfaced:
http://www.uboataces.com/articles-rocket-uboat.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_cm_Wurfkörper_42_Spreng

Main problem was/would-be proper gas dispersion over (supposedly) the target. And as mentioned the well known and quite obvoius response which would have devestaed what was left of Germany. Then again Hitler DID basicly order Speer to lay waste to German infrastructure to "punish" the nation that had failed him...

Randy
 
The Fi103 offered advantages...

...Dispersal of the gases/biowarfare agents whilst still in flight, from ports in the payload bay. That could produce a massive plume that both killed and injured unprotected people and animals, so several missiles hitting Washington or New York couldconceivably cause thousands of casualties and spread panic. The same thing hitting infantry formations would penetrate most respirators and injure personnel so severely that whole units would be unable to fight. A tank formation would be almost as badly affected, as Russian masks were not very effective.
 
Top