WI chemical naval battles.

The Great Pacific War

There is a fascinating novel/speculation from the late 1920's entitled "The Great Pacific War". Among other things, such as chivalrous Japanese who treat prisoners extremely well (!), it presumes naval surface engagements will use AP, HE, and gas shells. Crews wear gas masks and protective gear.
Neat book.

I read that one, and it made a good bit of sense to me.

1920's aircraft carriers had 1920's aircraft...much less effective than 1940's aircraft. And he did not neglect the airplane carriers...they were important, as were the planes themselves. But I suspect that the battleship would be the arm of decision in a 1920's war.

I'm under the impression that Japan treated its POWs decently in the Russo-Japanese War and in the Great War, so Bywater can't reasonably be criticised for failing to see Japan going completely nuts in that regard.

As for the gas...well, who could have predicted that that particular treaty would be honored any more than so many other treaties?

IMVHO, it would make a great A/H timeline. I might even use it sooner or later in my role playing campaign.
 
Immediately postwar the RN studied the actual events of WW1 and did teasts and concluded that a battle squadron, task force or whatever at sea didn't have much to worry about from air attack. With maneuvre and return fire it was assumed in about 1920 that only limited modifications were needed to counter aircraft.

Attacks on harbours etc are completely different, you can't design a ship to be safe in harbour, it's element is the sea and that's where the RN Admirals decided that air attacks weren't a huge problem in 1920, not in harbour.
 
If you could hole a ship with a gas shell, the gas would get into the corridors and would be murderous.
In combat conditions a warship would usually be pretty effectively seeled up below deck... and while gas may get past water tight doors eventually they would still significantly slow the spread of the gas.
 
In combat conditions a warship would usually be pretty effectively seeled up below deck... and while gas may get past water tight doors eventually they would still significantly slow the spread of the gas.

True.

However, it could still make stretches of corridor "no-go" areas, which would hamper attempts to get to vital parts of the ship in the event of trouble.
 
In combat conditions a warship would usually be pretty effectively seeled up below deck... and while gas may get past water tight doors eventually they would still significantly slow the spread of the gas.
You're forgetting, even w WT doors shut, the ventilators still have to be on:eek: or it gets mightily hot.:eek:
 
I can see the possible attraction of using gas shells during a naval battle. It's an area weapon which could seriously hamper a ship's operation, especially a damaged ship, with a near miss.

So WI it's first use was by the Germans at Jutland? Would this turn the tide of the battle?

1) Unless they penetrated into the interior, I can't see them causing any more damage or disruption than a hi-ex shell. Probably a lot less, even in the immediate term, and anything watertight is gas tight - although not the other way around.

2) Why waste the % hit rate firing gas shells, when your oppo if trying to blow you out of the water>
?

3) Ships tend to be moving, very often in conjunction with a stiff breeze (it can get a mite cold mid-ocean), so nowhere for gas to linger. It'd be washed off surfaces pretty quickly.

4) Sailors soon took to wearing anti-flash gear and overalls to limit burns, which could protect the skin against blister agents. Wearing a respirator too wouldn't cause that much hardship, especially for those manning exposed areas (who'd also be relatively sedentary).

5) Assuming no precautions and the ability to concentrate gas via the vents - through cannisters or a pipe, a la the film Zeppelin, then it could possibly cause a bit of harm. Otherwise, seems silly.
 
Top