Defeating Invasion Fleets

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3232
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 02 Apr 2023 21:35

Destroyer500 wrote:
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/
Did you read your reference? That makes clear that your statement that “the W(estern) Allies barely stopped Churchill” from employing gas is historically incorrect, thanks.

Regards

Tom

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Destroyer500 » 02 Apr 2023 22:48

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
02 Apr 2023 21:35
Destroyer500 wrote:
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/
Did you read your reference? That makes clear that your statement that “the W(estern) Allies barely stopped Churchill” from employing gas is historically incorrect, thanks.

Regards

Tom
Well yes i did read it and it seems i was wrong.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3232
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 03 Apr 2023 22:43

Destroyer500 wrote:
02 Apr 2023 22:48
Tom from Cornwall wrote:
02 Apr 2023 21:35
Destroyer500 wrote:
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/
Did you read your reference? That makes clear that your statement that “the W(estern) Allies barely stopped Churchill” from employing gas is historically incorrect, thanks.

Regards

Tom
Well yes i did read it and it seems i was wrong.
Thanks for the reply and the link to that article which was interesting. I’ve always been surprised that chemical warfare was widely used in WW1 by seemingly more moderate regimes but not by the more ideologically driven Nazi and Soviet regimes in WW2.

Kind regards,

Tom

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10062
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 04 Apr 2023 16:13

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
03 Apr 2023 22:43

Thanks for the reply and the link to that article which was interesting. I’ve always been surprised that chemical warfare was widely used in WW1 by seemingly more moderate regimes but not by the more ideologically driven Nazi and Soviet regimes in WW2.

Kind regards,

Tom

When I trawled through the 1920s issues of the Journal of Royal Artillery, and US Field Artillery Journal I noticed surprising little in either on the subject of chemical ammunition, or chemical warfare tactics. Despite the social & political revulsion at the top I'd have thought there'd be more residual technical writing by the artillery officers. Certainly there was a lot of writing about the uglier aspects of HE ammunition and other tactics in the US FA, but precious little mention of chemical warfare.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Destroyer500 » 04 Apr 2023 17:09

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
03 Apr 2023 22:43
Destroyer500 wrote:
02 Apr 2023 22:48
Tom from Cornwall wrote:
02 Apr 2023 21:35
Destroyer500 wrote:
02 Apr 2023 20:54
Tom from Cornwall wrote:
01 Apr 2023 16:04


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/
Did you read your reference? That makes clear that your statement that “the W(estern) Allies barely stopped Churchill” from employing gas is historically incorrect, thanks.

Regards

Tom
Well yes i did read it and it seems i was wrong.
Thanks for the reply and the link to that article which was interesting. I’ve always been surprised that chemical warfare was widely used in WW1 by seemingly more moderate regimes but not by the more ideologically driven Nazi and Soviet regimes in WW2.

Kind regards,

Tom
Youre welcome man :)

I think chemical weapons are ok for use against purely soldiers but i would never in my entire life throw anything of that kind to civilians.Personally i would never even bomb civilians.

I think ww1 was the testing ground for many weapons and some got a bad reputation due to their effects even if they didnt always kill.Because having your entire face and body f...ed up by chemicals is sometimes a fate worse than death.However regimes and nations of that time werent more moderate if you ask me.Colonial wars left and right,genocides of natives whenever they became too annoying and a lot of other stuff was happening.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10062
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 05 Apr 2023 19:21

Destroyer500 wrote:
04 Apr 2023 17:09

I think ww1 was the testing ground for many weapons and some got a bad reputation due to their effects even if they didnt always kill.Because having your entire face and body f...ed up by chemicals is sometimes a fate worse than death.However regimes and nations of that time werent more moderate if you ask me.Colonial wars left and right,genocides of natives whenever they became too annoying and a lot of other stuff was happening.

One of the uncles returned in 1918 after incapacitation from a gas attack. He tried to resume civilian life, but ended dying in a Colorado sanitarium before the 1920s ran out.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3568
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by T. A. Gardner » 05 Apr 2023 20:59

Destroyer500 wrote:
04 Apr 2023 17:09
I think chemical weapons are ok for use against purely soldiers but i would never in my entire life throw anything of that kind to civilians.Personally i would never even bomb civilians.

I think ww1 was the testing ground for many weapons and some got a bad reputation due to their effects even if they didnt always kill.Because having your entire face and body f...ed up by chemicals is sometimes a fate worse than death.However regimes and nations of that time werent more moderate if you ask me.Colonial wars left and right,genocides of natives whenever they became too annoying and a lot of other stuff was happening.
My view based on the historical use of chemicals in warfare is, that if you can hit the target with chemical munitions you can hit it with conventional munitions, and conventional munitions will do far more harm than chemicals will. In WW 1, chemicals caused a lot of personnel casualties, but fewer deaths than the equivalent of conventional munitions would have. Chemicals also don't destroy or disable equipment and weapons.

Used against troops that are properly equipped to handle a gas attack, chemicals are far more of an annoyance--think like those attacked are now fighting in the equivalent of deep mud--rather than something that will make them casualties.

On the whole, chemical munitions aren't worth the bother. Hit the bad guys with high explosives instead.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8759
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by wm » 05 Apr 2023 21:37

Although practitioners disagree:
In the spring offensives of 1918, the Germans created mustard gas zones to protect the flanks of advancing infantry, to neutralize enemy strong points, to deny the enemy key terrain, to block supply routes, and to render enemy artillery batteries ineffective.
"Even in open warfare," a German officer wrote, "the troops soon were asking for gas supporting fire."
Chemical warfare in World War I : the American experience, 1917-1918, by Charles E. Heller
The use of gas against landing parties or to aid landing parties has come up in many ways. Our studies to date indicate that gas is a greater advantage to the defense against landing parties than to the offense.
Mustard gas and the like may be sprinkled from aeroplanes, and while it will not float long on the water, it will float long enough to smear any small boats attempting to land. It can be sprinkled over all the areas that landing parties must occupy.
Mustard gas may be placed in bombs or drums around all areas that are apt to be used as landing places and exploded in the face of advancing troops.
Chemical Warfare by Amos A. Fries and Clarence J. West

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3568
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by T. A. Gardner » 06 Apr 2023 01:35

wm wrote:
05 Apr 2023 21:37
Although practitioners disagree:
In the spring offensives of 1918, the Germans created mustard gas zones to protect the flanks of advancing infantry, to neutralize enemy strong points, to deny the enemy key terrain, to block supply routes, and to render enemy artillery batteries ineffective.
"Even in open warfare," a German officer wrote, "the troops soon were asking for gas supporting fire."
Chemical warfare in World War I : the American experience, 1917-1918, by Charles E. Heller
The use of gas against landing parties or to aid landing parties has come up in many ways. Our studies to date indicate that gas is a greater advantage to the defense against landing parties than to the offense.
Mustard gas and the like may be sprinkled from aeroplanes, and while it will not float long on the water, it will float long enough to smear any small boats attempting to land. It can be sprinkled over all the areas that landing parties must occupy.
Mustard gas may be placed in bombs or drums around all areas that are apt to be used as landing places and exploded in the face of advancing troops.
Chemical Warfare by Amos A. Fries and Clarence J. West
This shows its value as an interdiction means. That can be accomplished by regular shell fire too. The above doesn't address the reality that fewer casualties are caused, nor the point that material isn't destroyed. Mustard gas is little different from difficult to pass ground. It is 'chemical mud' for all intents.

It also doesn't address that if the weather doesn't cooperate, rain, wind, etc., then gas will be anywhere from less effective than normal to totally ineffective.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Destroyer500 » 06 Apr 2023 17:04


My view based on the historical use of chemicals in warfare is, that if you can hit the target with chemical munitions you can hit it with conventional munitions, and conventional munitions will do far more harm than chemicals will. In WW 1, chemicals caused a lot of personnel casualties, but fewer deaths than the equivalent of conventional munitions would have. Chemicals also don't destroy or disable equipment and weapons.

Used against troops that are properly equipped to handle a gas attack, chemicals are far more of an annoyance--think like those attacked are now fighting in the equivalent of deep mud--rather than something that will make them casualties.

On the whole, chemical munitions aren't worth the bother. Hit the bad guys with high explosives instead.
What you describe is true.Although i still think their use on an army that doesnt have the necessary equipment to protect themselfs,for example the Soviets in ww2,is going to be effective.Also you dont always have to use an explosive device to deliver chemicals and lets not forget the psychological effect.

Even if the enemy is properly equipped though its not as easy fighting with a gas mask and chemical warfare gear as it is without it.Yes its mostly a nuisance but it can be deadly if things go sideways

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8759
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by wm » 07 Apr 2023 00:24

T. A. Gardner wrote:
06 Apr 2023 01:35
This shows its value as an interdiction means. That can be accomplished by regular shell fire too.
Although the Germans couldn't win with regular shell fire, their enemies' guns were (much) better.


T. A. Gardner wrote:
06 Apr 2023 01:35
It also doesn't address that if the weather doesn't cooperate, rain, wind, etc., then gas will be anywhere from less effective than normal to totally ineffective.
But mustard gas isn't gas; it's a liquid. It's only slightly soluble in water; actually, it floats on water. And evaporates much slower than water.
You could be safe from it in your full body protection suit or fight.
But not both.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3568
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by T. A. Gardner » 07 Apr 2023 02:23

wm wrote:
07 Apr 2023 00:24
T. A. Gardner wrote:
06 Apr 2023 01:35
This shows its value as an interdiction means. That can be accomplished by regular shell fire too.
Although the Germans couldn't win with regular shell fire, their enemies' guns were (much) better.
Well then, they weren't winning with gas either. They'd need a paradigm shift technology like nuclear weapons.

T. A. Gardner wrote:
06 Apr 2023 01:35
It also doesn't address that if the weather doesn't cooperate, rain, wind, etc., then gas will be anywhere from less effective than normal to totally ineffective.
But mustard gas isn't gas; it's a liquid. It's only slightly soluble in water; actually, it floats on water. And evaporates much slower than water.
You could be safe from it in your full body protection suit or fight.
But not both.
[/quote]

The problem there is that used against naval targets, it gets diluted in the water, even if floating on it. Against ships, the majority of the crew are under shelter.

The other issue becomes you get only one surprise attack with it before the other side retaliates. And, given that the Allies could easily deliver 10 tons for every one you toss at them, that's probably a losing proposition.

Against the Russians and Red Army, gas would likely be highly effective given the poor state of readiness for dealing with it. The problem there is would the Western Allies retaliate for the Russians? The second issue would be, how long of an advantage would you get from using it?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10062
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Defeating Invasion Fleets

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 07 Apr 2023 10:16

But mustard gas isn't gas; it's a liquid. It's only slightly soluble in water; actually, it floats on water. And evaporates much slower than water.

Correct. It can be described as a oil with a acid particularly corrosive of organic substances nixed in. Any Alkilinity of the water neutralizes a portion of the acidic component. The salts in seawater react with the Mustard gas, or more properly the blister agent.

Return to “What if”