Gas! Gas! Gas!... Germans Flushing Greek Troops From Forts

[Mr Holmes]

Hi all,

I'm currently reading a book written by the Hellenic Army General Staff, An Abridged History of the Greek-Italian and Greek-German War 1940-1941 (Land Operations), The Army History Directorate Editions, Athens (ISBN 960-7897-01-3).

I am reading this book to and fro work, and today I read something quite interesting:

At Fort Kelkayia, the Germans blocked off the openings during the night and piped choking gases and thick smoke into the galleries, an act which forced the garrison to surrender at 1130hrs.

p. 190

Further down the same page:

The garrison of Fort Istimbei was forced to surrender at 1600hrs, because of the choking gases and the flaming petrol used by the Germans.

And, again, this time on p. 192 regarding the struggle for Fort Nymphaea:

...the Fort continued the defence until 2330hrs, whereupon it was forced to surrender, since the atmosphere inside it had by then become suffocating, due to the smoke agents thrown by the Germans through the wrecked openings of the pill-boxes.

I have no reason to not believe these accounts as it is the first time (and only time) I have ever read in a Greek source, that the Germans employed gas to flush out Greek defenders.

However, what my views are is of no consequence to this thread, nor of my questions, which are:

a Does anyone know what sort of agents the Germans used in these attacks (tear gas, for instance)?

b Were such methods widespread when encountering a stubborn, fortified position?

c I don't know where I have read it, but I thought that there was an implicit agreement between the Axis and Allies not to use Chemical or Biological weapons in the War. Or am I mistaken?

I realise that the agents used in the above fortified positions probably do not fit under the Chemical Weapons category, but I found the above methodology immensely intriguing, not because it presents a new form of innovative warfare, but rather that the Blitzkrieg doctrine needed the assistance of gas.

Any comments?

[Christoph Awender]

a Does anyone know what sort of agents the Germans used in these attacks (tear gas, for instance)?

b Were such methods widespread when encountering a stubborn, fortified position?

c I don't know where I have read it, but I thought that there was an implicit agreement between the Axis and Allies not to use Chemical or Biological weapons in the War. Or am I mistaken?

I realise that the agents used in the above fortified positions probably do not fit under the Chemical Weapons category, but I found the above methodology immensely intriguing, not because it presents a new form of innovative warfare, but rather that the Blitzkrieg doctrine needed the assistance of gas.

Any comments?

Hello

a) No agents were used. They used fuel canisters, smoke pots and smoke-grenades.
b) Yes this was standard
c) They didn´t

Well I don´t know why you find this occurance intriguing, new or "barbaric". War is a drity business and this method of "Ausräuchern" was not new at all, was used by all nations and the Blitzkrieg doctrine does not mean that the soldies are not allowed to use techniques which were older than this doctrine.

\Christoph

[Mr Holmes]

Hello

a) No agents were used. They used fuel canisters, smoke pots and smoke-grenades.
b) Yes this was standard
c) They didn´t

Well I don´t know why you find this occurance intriguing, new or "barbaric". War is a drity business and this method of "Ausräuchern" was not new at all, was used by all nations and the Blitzkrieg doctrine does not mean that the soldies are not allowed to use techniques which were older than this doctrine.

\Christoph

Thanks for the answers Christoph.

However, where in my post did I say it is new or barbaric? I find it intriguing in the sense that I thought Blitzkrieg tactics called for a combined force attack on any given position with planes, artillery and armour with a sweep or, mop up, as it were, with infantry. It's just that prior to this, I hadn't heard of the Germans using such tools (apart from flamethrowers) during WW2... at least in the very early years. Nor do I state anywhere that German troops were not allowed to use this or that.

Frankly, I find this last part of your answer a little perplexing, especially as I did not know what agent was used in these fortified positions.

War is a drity business

heh, I nearly got in trouble for saying just that a while ago...

[Lupo Solitario]

I add a point: Blitzkrieg is a mobile warfare doctrine but doesn't care the attack to heavily fortified positions. So when we have to face this sort of "troubles", it's not a problem of Blitzkrieg cause Blitzkrieg studies to break enemy positions in its weaker points, not stronger ones. Logically a fast removal of an enemy fortification can help the action of mobile forces in many cases.

The use of special assault teams with particular equipments is a system which had been largely studied by whermacht. The first application was the known attack at Eben Emael forts in Belgium. Other systems include the use of very heavy artillery, for example. You have to think frontal attacks of tanks against hard fortifications usually end in a slaughter or, often, fortifications are built in positions not accessible to tanks...

my 2 cents

Lupo

[Mr Holmes]

So obviously we have a reversion to other tactics to overcome the strongholds.

[Christoph Awender]

So obviously we have a reversion to other tactics to overcome the strongholds.

Of course! Sorry that I sound a little bit "snappy" but what do you expect they would do when a fortification is holding the advance? "Blitzkrieg" is a word many people interpret too much into.... Of course it was a new way of deploying support, mobility etc.. but of course all kind of the old "Bunker busting" techniques were used. Nothing speaks against it that and honestly I find it strange that you are surprised about something. You cannot take out such fortifications with the tactics you consider as Blitzkrieg tactic. No offense intended.

\Christoph

[Mr Holmes]

So obviously we have a reversion to other tactics to overcome the strongholds.

Of course!

That's why I wrote "obviously".

Anyhow, let's leave it at that, I found out what the gas agent was. Nothing else to discuss..

[Andy H]

In Fortress Europe (European Fortifications of WW2) by Kaufmann & Jurga they briefly detail the attacks on the Greek forts of Istebei & Kelkaja and how the German assualt troops damaged the ventilation systems first and then used 'smoke' to cause the defenders to surrender.

Kind Regards

Andy H

[Lupo Solitario]

slightly OT, do you know if there's a way to purchase the book named by Sepp without making a pay-thru-internet? I' don't trust this sort of stuff...

[Christoph Awender]

In Fortress Europe (European Fortifications of WW2) by Kaufmann & Jurga they briefly detail the attacks on the Greek forts of Istebei & Kelkaja and how the German assualt troops damaged the ventilation systems first and then used 'smoke' to cause the defenders to surrender.

Kind Regards

Andy H

Hello

There are also some detailed battle accounts on my site in the daily reports section.

\Christoph