Defeating Invasion Fleets

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Peter89 » 02 Mar 2023 08:18

Gas was simply not a thing that any belligerent could deploy calmly. They were in range of each others' civilian population and the effect of such attacks are not negligible. Let's not forget that we are talking about WW2 in which the dumb idea of "strategic" bombing made a huge impression on all leaders maybe except Stalin. Also if the Germans use gas in Stalingrad / Leningrad / Sevastopol / etc., they should have equipped their troops with protection and so on; another logistical nightmare on top of the already overburdened logistics. To use gas on a windy seashore is simply not gonna cut it on most days.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8744
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by wm » 02 Mar 2023 15:40

Although Brian Blodgett is a professor at American Military University, not ww1 soldier.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10028
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 02 Mar 2023 22:39

Recalling my training from 30-40 years ago.

Evaporation: Several things going on there. One is dispersal and reduction of concentration. Also Nerve agents are not very stable & the more volatile components separate & disperse as a lighter vapor, leaving behind a less toxic residue.


Temperature: All agents are not very stable, but some more than others. ie: Blister agents like Mustard Gas can last for days. Higher temperatures accelerate the breakdown into subcomponents reducing toxicity. They also are vulnerable to fire. Flash temperature was very low for many of these agents. Cover a contaminated area with burning Phosphorus ammunition and you literally burn away the agent. Not perfectly, but much better than it was.


Sunlight: Degrades all. The UV has the same effect as it has on any organic or many non organic matter. Even if it cold the UV will degrade the nerve, blood, or blister agent into its components, then further subdivide the agent it its core components.


Chemistry: About all nerve, blood, and blister agents are acidic. Any Alkaline degrades them. Rain with a high Ph, smoke from fires, falling on a soil with a high Ph on the surface. ie: Falling on a road of crushed limestone pavement imeadiatly starts breaking down the agent. We cleaned contaminated equipment with a Alkaline labeled Super Tropical Bleach. A mixture of that and water, usually with some detergent would be applied to vehicles with brushes, sprayers, or mops. Dip tanks for small items like rifles.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Destroyer500 » 04 Mar 2023 00:57

Peter89 wrote:
02 Mar 2023 08:18
Gas was simply not a thing that any belligerent could deploy calmly. They were in range of each others' civilian population and the effect of such attacks are not negligible. Let's not forget that we are talking about WW2 in which the dumb idea of "strategic" bombing made a huge impression on all leaders maybe except Stalin. Also if the Germans use gas in Stalingrad / Leningrad / Sevastopol / etc., they should have equipped their troops with protection and so on; another logistical nightmare on top of the already overburdened logistics. To use gas on a windy seashore is simply not gonna cut it on most days.

I dont think,i didnt say that im sure of it,the Germans would have that much of a problem equipping their men with masks.What im afraid of is the US sending millions of gas masks to the USSR and solving the Soviets Problems.That is if were talking about the use of chemical weapons against the Russians.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8744
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by wm » 04 Mar 2023 13:50

Nerve gas can be absorbed through the skin, so gas masks aren't going to save anybody.

The invasion must fail if the Germans detonate buried in sand drums with mustard gas and nerve gas when the soldiers arrive at the beach.
You can't crawl through a terrain drenched in mustard gas. And you can't advance against unknown gas.

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 569
Joined: 20 Jan 2019 10:14
Location: Australia

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 04 Mar 2023 15:57

wm wrote:
04 Mar 2023 13:50
Nerve gas can be absorbed through the skin, so gas masks aren't going to save anybody.

The invasion must fail if the Germans detonate buried in sand drums with mustard gas and nerve gas when the soldiers arrive at the beach.
You can't crawl through a terrain drenched in mustard gas. And you can't advance against unknown gas.
Yeah you need actual NBC-rated suits to survive some chemical weapons.
No point wearing a gas mask when you die in minutes from skin exposure.
Even blistering agents can be lethal with skin contact.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Destroyer500 » 06 Mar 2023 02:14

wm wrote:
04 Mar 2023 13:50
Nerve gas can be absorbed through the skin, so gas masks aren't going to save anybody.

The invasion must fail if the Germans detonate buried in sand drums with mustard gas and nerve gas when the soldiers arrive at the beach.
You can't crawl through a terrain drenched in mustard gas. And you can't advance against unknown gas.
Although this started as a thread about defeating invasion fleets of the WAllies i dont know how good of a choise that is.WAllies barely stopped Churchill from throwing every single chemical weapon he could on German cities,in this scenario it would make matters even harder.Apart from that theres also the problem of how you make these things work when theres a shit ton of wind.From some research i did gas was mostly useful in enclosed spaces,trenches or something in and between because a few gusts of wind can just move the thing away and dissipate it.

Now on the eastern front things would be easier.The Russians could never hope to get the necessary equipment for chemical warfare fast enough.In the long term im sure the Americans could provide them with lets say a 30-40% coverage when it comes to suits and masks (its napkin math but were not aiming for 100% accuracy) but it would be too late.Throwing that kind of stuff on Russian cities would depopulate them very fast and of course leave 0 space for any kind of Soviet army to defend it.Even if they tried to defend the cities with 0 equipment it would just be suicide.In my opinion big and densely populated cities would have it worst due to more buildings and thus less air to move the gas around.I also believe it would be better used on the Russians because i dont think this would trigger the WAllies to bomb German cities with gas since its not "their people".

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10028
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 06 Mar 2023 19:42

Getting back to theOP for a moment:

... I got curious about others opinins on how much damage there would have to be to the amphib/cargo fleet to badly disrupt and defeat the landing operation? The answer may or may not depend on when during the several days invasion cycle the counter attacks occur.


5% sunk? 10%, 20% ? Any insight or thoughts here?



OTL the fleet used to execute Op HUSKY took maybe 2% losses. Im picking over the losses and what inflicted them, but here will use some very rough figures. Exactly how many sorties inlficted that loss of a dozen cargo ships, warships, amphib transports, and lighter LST/LSI is not at all clear. It Does look like the Axis could only muster around 1,200 operational aircraft in the Med, and maybe 800 of those in range of Sicilly when Op HUSKY started. Scaling directly up at a 1-1 ratio suggests you'd need to jump the Axis air forces to 4,000 aircraft to get a 10% loss rate or better on the Allied fleet. Even if the Axis AF scales up only 3x to get a 10% loss of Allied ships its still a number the might cause the Allies to postpone the operation until air superiority is had.

But, at this point I'm skeptical even 10% losses of the invasion fleet (withdrawn as well as outright sunk) would cause the Allied leaders to call off the invasion. They'd have to think the losses would rapidly increase.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10028
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 06 Mar 2023 19:58

The Guadalcanal campaign has only been examined here for the Japanese side of the problem.   On the US side the original WATCHTOWER op included a fleet of some 75 blue water vessels both combat and transport. From the 6th when the battle started to the 9th when Turner withdrew the amphib fleet, the Allies had cruisers sunk, one cargo ship sunk, and three destroyers and one tranport damaged & withdrawn. That gives a rough loss of 12%. Admiral Turner did continue unloading another day, but withdrew late on the 9th August. Since the amphib fleet did get the critical margin of material discharged ashore it can be argue the Allied fleet was not 'defeated'. In operational terms I've have to agree. Since the landing force as able to successfully operate until supply ships returned days later. Tactically it looks more like a Japanese win in the context of defeating a amphib fleet.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3513
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by T. A. Gardner » 17 Mar 2023 18:42

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
06 Mar 2023 19:58
The Guadalcanal campaign has only been examined here for the Japanese side of the problem.   On the US side the original WATCHTOWER op included a fleet of some 75 blue water vessels both combat and transport. From the 6th when the battle started to the 9th when Turner withdrew the amphib fleet, the Allies had cruisers sunk, one cargo ship sunk, and three destroyers and one tranport damaged & withdrawn. That gives a rough loss of 12%. Admiral Turner did continue unloading another day, but withdrew late on the 9th August. Since the amphib fleet did get the critical margin of material discharged ashore it can be argue the Allied fleet was not 'defeated'. In operational terms I've have to agree. Since the landing force as able to successfully operate until supply ships returned days later. Tactically it looks more like a Japanese win in the context of defeating a amphib fleet.
One thing that's often overlooked here is that the US took the nearest location that could be used as a port simultaneously with Guadalcanal, Tulagi across the channel. That gave the US a sheltered and protected anchorage for a large variety of smaller ships and craft that regularly plied the waters around Guadalcanal itself.
This meant that smaller ships like APD's could sneak into Tulagi, anchor, and unload then slip out again all in relative safety. The supplies and material they brought would then be transferred to landing craft, or small ships like the 4 YP present. These could then haul and unload those supplies on Guadalcanal--where there was no good harbor--at times of their choosing which meant avoiding most Japanese air and naval activity.

The Japanese had no such luxury and it cost them dearly in terms of loss of material and supplies when these were delivered.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8744
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by wm » 17 Mar 2023 23:54

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Mar 2023 02:14
Although this started as a thread about defeating invasion fleets of the WAllies i dont know how good of a choise that is.WAllies barely stopped Churchill from throwing every single chemical weapon he could on German cities,in this scenario it would make matters even harder.Apart from that theres also the problem of how you make these things work when theres a shit ton of wind.From some research i did gas was mostly useful in enclosed spaces,trenches or something in and between because a few gusts of wind can just move the thing away and dissipate it.
Mustard gas is heavy and sticks to everything; it's not going anywhere unless heavy rain happens.
Nerve gas is good for at least 30 minutes.

Hitler's plan was to delay the defeat as long as possible, hoping for a miracle, preferably a disagreement between the Allies.
A total defeat in Normandy would be useful for the purpose.
But the rest of the story wouldn't be nice because the Allies had lots of gas too and, even more importantly, a lot of means to deliver it to German cities - unless the Americans get offended by the defeat and go home Vietnam-style.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Destroyer500 » 27 Mar 2023 18:35

wm wrote:
17 Mar 2023 23:54
Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Mar 2023 02:14
Although this started as a thread about defeating invasion fleets of the WAllies i dont know how good of a choise that is.WAllies barely stopped Churchill from throwing every single chemical weapon he could on German cities,in this scenario it would make matters even harder.Apart from that theres also the problem of how you make these things work when theres a shit ton of wind.From some research i did gas was mostly useful in enclosed spaces,trenches or something in and between because a few gusts of wind can just move the thing away and dissipate it.
Mustard gas is heavy and sticks to everything; it's not going anywhere unless heavy rain happens.
Nerve gas is good for at least 30 minutes.

Hitler's plan was to delay the defeat as long as possible, hoping for a miracle, preferably a disagreement between the Allies.
A total defeat in Normandy would be useful for the purpose.
But the rest of the story wouldn't be nice because the Allies had lots of gas too and, even more importantly, a lot of means to deliver it to German cities - unless the Americans get offended by the defeat and go home Vietnam-style.
The Americans depended on the invasion being successful.I dont know if they could explain a defeat to their people.Roosvelt would have it difficult to mount another one.One thing is certain though,if it failed,the Germans would have bought themselfs a lot of time

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5845
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by glenn239 » 01 Apr 2023 14:58

Destroyer500 wrote:
27 Mar 2023 18:35
The Americans depended on the invasion being successful.I dont know if they could explain a defeat to their people.Roosvelt would have it difficult to mount another one.One thing is certain though,if it failed,the Germans would have bought themselfs a lot of time
The closest the Allies came to a defeated invasion was probably Anzio. Had they had to evacuate instead of holding on until the front reached the beachhead, I don't think the American public would have cared. The politics of invasions seemed more attuned to the status of the generals making the invasions than it did to the overall strategic impact in some failure and, because of Allied seapower, withdrawal.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3169
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 01 Apr 2023 16:04

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Mar 2023 02:14
WAllies barely stopped Churchill from throwing every single chemical weapon he could on German cities
I'm looking forward to seeing a reference to show that this is anything other than a personal opinion. :welcome:

Regards

Tom

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Destroyer500 » 02 Apr 2023 20:54

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
01 Apr 2023 16:04
Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Mar 2023 02:14
WAllies barely stopped Churchill from throwing every single chemical weapon he could on German cities
I'm looking forward to seeing a reference to show that this is anything other than a personal opinion. :welcome:

Regards

Tom
I cant really cite a source saying that but i had seen a documentary or two many years ago and of course we all know that he was very open about it https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/ ... l-warfare/

Return to “What if”