WI: A Douhetian WWII

Let's say that Douhet has a bit more influence in military theory than he historically did. Not enough to cause much change to the starting forces of WWII, but enough so that the Germans engage in the mass use of air dropped chemical weapons during their strategic air campaign over Poland, and, following the Phoney War, the bomber forces of both sides engage in the mass use of chemical weapons, so far as is sustainable and appropriate for the targets. How does this effect the course of the Second World War? Does the Luftwaffe ignore RAF Fighter Command from the beginning in favor of a Mustard Blitz, and does a Blitz with chemical weapons knock Britain out of the war? How about decontamination efforts, both concurrent and post-war? Are the American and British strategic bombing campaigns significantly more effective and do they escalate to the use of biological weapons, such as Operation Vegetarian or the mass-use of anthrax on urban targets? Is there any great change to the effectiveness of the strategic bombing campaign against Japan?
 
Here we are looking at heading for the lowest common denominator quicker than on OTL.

One issue that immediately strikes me is that chemical weapons only really useful against people and by using them air forces are saying that they can not navigate and bomb accurately enough to hit military targets. The fact that they could not at the time is less important than the fact that they claimed at the time that they could. It was only really after Bomber Command could not, at least at night, was demonstrated that they could not that the British strategy of going after entire cities as targets commenced.

If we thus take the issue raised, the politicians (who remember gas attacks from the Great War) might very well say to air force commanders, "If long range bombers are 'useless' then we won't let you have many. Spent the money instead on fighters and ground attack aircraft."

Thus at the beginning of the Second World War, Germany finds it difficult to fight the Battle of Britain and the Blitz is a non starter. For its part, Britain finds that its counter attack at this time is essentially limited to bombing troops in France rather than striking at the enemy heartland as it did.
 
Here we are looking at heading for the lowest common denominator quicker than on OTL.

One issue that immediately strikes me is that chemical weapons only really useful against people and by using them air forces are saying that they can not navigate and bomb accurately enough to hit military targets. The fact that they could not at the time is less important than the fact that they claimed at the time that they could. It was only really after Bomber Command could not, at least at night, was demonstrated that they could not that the British strategy of going after entire cities as targets commenced.

If we thus take the issue raised, the politicians (who remember gas attacks from the Great War) might very well say to air force commanders, "If long range bombers are 'useless' then we won't let you have many. Spent the money instead on fighters and ground attack aircraft."

I'm not sure this is convincing. The heavy bombers were for attacking enemy industries in the first place. So the obvious counter is: but they _are_ useful. We'll kill the workers with their gas bombs.
 
Everyone in Britain was issued with a gas mask so there would be a basic level of protection there - however, gas raids would've caused a lot of disruption.
 
Did I miss something, somewhere? Where is the connection with gas attack to Douhet?
I thought the crux, of his theories was that - a new era of warfare had dawned with the coming of age of the aeroplane. He thought that, armies may become unnecessary - all that was needed was fleets of bombers!
But such ideas were before the advent of radar - which cancelled out Balddwin's dictum "the bomber will always get through".

Yet Douhet still had supporters during the war - Harris believed that with more bombers he could so wreck Germany, an 'invasion' wouldn't be necessary!!
Perhaps too, the Luftwaffe attack on London in 1940 was an attempt to do the same!!
 
Did I miss something, somewhere? Where is the connection with gas attack to Douhet?

One of Douhet's main ideas was that these bomber fleets could end a war quickly through dropping HE, incendiary, and chemical weapons on civilian population centers, thereby breaking their morale. As I understand it, Douhet actually preferred attacks on civilians for that reason (not that it actually worked when we tried it out in WWII).
 
One of Douhet's main ideas was that these bomber fleets could end a war quickly through dropping HE, incendiary, and chemical weapons on civilian population centers, thereby breaking their morale. As I understand it, Douhet actually preferred attacks on civilians for that reason (not that it actually worked when we tried it out in WWII).
How about selling the idea to Hitler so that instead of building Panzer divisions, the Wehrmacht is kept relatively small and a super Luftwaffe under Herr Goering becomes the principle arm. Of course a better heavy bomber would be needed, but that is a matter of detail as there sufficient AH examples of one.

The Blitzkrieg is thus bomb the enemy into submission then send in the ground troops to mop up the last resistance and take the surrender.
 
Everyone in Britain was issued with a gas mask so there would be a basic level of protection there - however, gas raids would've caused a lot of disruption.

If the Germans use the nerve gas they're alone in the world in knowing of, gas masks aren't gonna be any help.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Germans use the nerve gas they're alone in the world in knowing of, gas masks aren't gonna be any help.

The nerve agents available in the early war years were not the horror that we associate with VX. It is arguable (something that I have done with previous poison gas threads here) that Mustard & Lewisite were both far more effective from the military perspective, both for persistance of effect over a given area (Mustard can contaminate an area for days, even weeks in ideal conditions, while the early nerve agents had very short contamination periods.) and in resource denial (early nerve agants killed you or you were uninjured, Mustard and Lewisite both crippled more than killed, creating a massive drain on medical assets along with a huge morale impact). Miltary planners would far rather severely wound a person than kill them; every wounded individual takes, on average, between 1.5 & 2 others to care for them, transport them, etc. Dead, on the other hand is just dead, no major additional manpower drain. (Did I mention that military math has little in common with the civilian version?)

There is one basic reason that gas weapons were not used major power on major power during WW II or at any time since WW I, they do not confer any advantage. During WW II all the major power had tons of poisonous chemical agents ready for near instant deployment, both from artillery and from aircraft which effectvely made the weapon useless. The Luftwaffe gasses London, the RAF, probably within 24 hours, gasses Berlin AND Hamburg which result in the Germans hitting Liverpool, followed by the RAF... The entire process become a tit-for-tat that causes as much damage to you as to the enemy. It is something of a mini-MAD, especially when dealing with civilian populations, where there is absolutely no hope of any effective countermeasure.

Now, if you are fighting an opponent that can NOT retaliate (e.g. China in 1939) that is a very different matter. In this case the ROI is more reasonable, assuming you will not be engaging any major power at the same time (since your use may push you other, equal opponent into useage in anticipation of attack, again a mini-MAD scenario).

Gas is just ineffective against a equal. The math doesn't add up.
 
The nerve agents available in the early war years were not the horror that we associate with VX. It is arguable (something that I have done with previous poison gas threads here) that Mustard & Lewisite were both far more effective from the military perspective, both for persistance of effect over a given area (Mustard can contaminate an area for days, even weeks in ideal conditions, while the early nerve agents had very short contamination periods.) and in resource denial (early nerve agants killed you or you were uninjured, Mustard and Lewisite both crippled more than killed, creating a massive drain on medical assets along with a huge morale impact). Miltary planners would far rather severely wound a person than kill them; every wounded individual takes, on average, between 1.5 & 2 others to care for them, transport them, etc. Dead, on the other hand is just dead, no major additional manpower drain. (Did I mention that military math has little in common with the civilian version?)

There is one basic reason that gas weapons were not used major power on major power during WW II or at any time since WW I, they do not confer any advantage. During WW II all the major power had tons of poisonous chemical agents ready for near instant deployment, both from artillery and from aircraft which effectvely made the weapon useless. The Luftwaffe gasses London, the RAF, probably within 24 hours, gasses Berlin AND Hamburg which result in the Germans hitting Liverpool, followed by the RAF... The entire process become a tit-for-tat that causes as much damage to you as to the enemy. It is something of a mini-MAD, especially when dealing with civilian populations, where there is absolutely no hope of any effective countermeasure.

Now, if you are fighting an opponent that can NOT retaliate (e.g. China in 1939) that is a very different matter. In this case the ROI is more reasonable, assuming you will not be engaging any major power at the same time (since your use may push you other, equal opponent into useage in anticipation of attack, again a mini-MAD scenario).

Gas is just ineffective against a equal. The math doesn't add up.

So for it to work, you'd have to destroy the enemy's second strike capability - something that was impossible at the time? Hmmm... I haven't looked at it like that before. But now that you've explained it, it makes sense.
 
I'll add the following factors to the considerations put forth by Cal Bear.

Gas masks, when coupled with heavy clothing such as a raincoat and gloves, provide reasonable chances of survival against the early nerve gases.

Any gas weapon is only as good as the carrier and the device used to deliver it. In particular, the high LD figures of the early nerve agents look impressive, but whatever means of delivery is used, the distribution would be uneven. Dropping 10,000 LDs onto 1,000 persons in a densely populated area, you wouldn't get 1,000 persons all getting 10 times their LD; you'd get some 50 getting much higher multiples of the LD, and the others remaining unscathed. Which doesn't make the nerve agents all that superior to earlier gases.

There were differences in the level of readiness of the major players. Just by way of example, compare the British and the Germans in 1939-40.
a) The British made a real effort to give every last civilian, including babies, his/her own gas mask. By early 1940, they were successful. Needless to say the military also had them, plus additional protective equipment. The Germans were nowhere near that.
b) The British Empire was one of the main producers in the world of natural rubber. In 1939, Germany produced no natural rubber and experimental tiny amounts of synthetic rubber.
c) The BEF was an entirely mechanized force. That doesn't mean no man had to walk; it means there were no draught animals. The German Heer, OTOH, relied on horses.
 
How about selling the idea to Hitler so that instead of building Panzer divisions, the Wehrmacht is kept relatively small and a super Luftwaffe under Herr Goering becomes the principle arm. Of course a better heavy bomber would be needed, but that is a matter of detail as there sufficient AH examples of one.

The Blitzkrieg is thus bomb the enemy into submission then send in the ground troops to mop up the last resistance and take the surrender.

The enemy builds a normal land army and an air force made of fighters. This combination is cheaper than your combination of big costly bombers and light mop-up ground units.
The fighters intercept the bombers; they also establish air superiority over the normal ground troops that slice through your light mop-up forces facing them. Some bombers do get through to the cities of the enemy, but such an approach will take years to work. Meanwhile the enemy regular land forces need less than a year to take over your cities (and your bombers' bases) by conventional ground operations supported by air superiority.
I might be wrong, but that's what I'd do if I were the enemy.
 
Top