PDA

View Full Version : Why didnt the nazis use poisonous gas?



XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:30 AM
Its a stupid question I know but Ive often wondered why the Germans never gassed Britain or Stalingrad? Im sure it would have helped them stand a chance?
How is this related to IL:2/FB? If they would have used gas what plane would deliever the payload? Im sure they could have just dropped concentrated tanks of the stuff?

Its probably a waste of a post, but perhaps you can help me, or maybe help others with the same question?

=]



Yea if she wasn't a nazi and she was still alive,

I'd hump her.


ftp://63.15.185.43/hannah.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:30 AM
Its a stupid question I know but Ive often wondered why the Germans never gassed Britain or Stalingrad? Im sure it would have helped them stand a chance?
How is this related to IL:2/FB? If they would have used gas what plane would deliever the payload? Im sure they could have just dropped concentrated tanks of the stuff?

Its probably a waste of a post, but perhaps you can help me, or maybe help others with the same question?

=]



Yea if she wasn't a nazi and she was still alive,

I'd hump her.


ftp://63.15.185.43/hannah.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:31 AM
They were too busy using gas on jews.

---------------------------------------
"The Eyeties are comparatively easy to shoot down. Oh, they're brave enough. In fact, I think the Eyeties have more courage than the Germans, but their tactics aren't so good. They are very good gliders, but they try to do clever acrobatics and looping. But they will stick it even if things are going against them, where as the Jerries will run." Beurling in Malta Spitfire

http://www.x-plane.org/users/butcherbird/202k1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:39 AM
Hitler was gassed in WWI and did not like the idea of it

Churchill was keen to use gas but was stopped by more reasonable members of the British government

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:43 AM
Don't you think the allies would have retalliated in a similiar manner (probably with more), and I believe hitler feared the use of gas in warfare due in part at least to his experiences as a soldier in the first war.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:43 AM
The thing is, if you use weapons of mass destruction over your enemy, your enemy is legitimated to use it on you... and this forwards to mutual anihilation.
Letal gas is the cheapest atrocity avalaible, so you'r enemy is sure capable of producing it.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:44 AM
pdog1 wrote:
- They were too busy using gas on jews.

right about that!

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:58 AM
They used mustard gas on the Soviets at the siege of Sevastapol IIRC.
'Tear' gas (chlorarsnine) which is toxic when concentrated enough was also used at Sevastapol, Odessa and elsewhere.

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/ForgottenFighter/crikey!.jpg?0.9947684259733767

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 05:00 AM
The idea of Hitler hating gases kinda fits with this...

This is a tale I heard....USA scientific publications concerning insecticide vanished from the public, mostly because of the war effort was more important. The Germans read this as USA covering up a massive nerve gas project, and so feared USA nerve gas. Both USA and UK never learned of German nerve gases during the war. So the Germans feared nerve gas reprisal when the west had none, and so never used their very real stockpile. If the case, this is weird how it worked out.

Just something I read once, don't recall where. I dunno. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 05:06 AM
Germans knew using gas would cause gas to be used against them. Their army would be more damaged by a gas attack becuase of their large use of horses.

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 05:33 AM
EStare wrote:
- Its a stupid question I know but Ive often wondered
- why the Germans never gassed Britain or Stalingrad?
- Im sure it would have helped them stand a chance?
- How is this related to IL:2/FB? If they would have
- used gas what plane would deliever the payload? Im
- sure they could have just dropped concentrated tanks
- of the stuff?
-
- Its probably a waste of a post, but perhaps you can
- help me, or maybe help others with the same
- question?

And people complain about the off topic forum....

<HR WIDTH=100% ALIGN=CENTER SIZE=2>
<font color="red">
Cardinal
Staffel Adjudant Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
7jg77 (http://7jg77.com)
<font color="blue">

CO
92nd FG
92ndFG (http://92ndFG.com)
<center>http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 05:33 AM
The larger question is the nerve gases. I know there were plans made to load nerve gas canisters on subs and open them off the East Coast of USA. If the story I heard was correct, its interesting that one side had the nerve gases...

...but thought the other side had the nerve gas too...

...but the other side didn't know about the one side having nerve gas...

Confusing eh?

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 06:07 AM
Would have been kinda tough to do lexx given the prevailing winds go the other direction http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Maybe the Pacific coast might have been a better plan.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 10:50 AM
AFAIK the air proponents prior to WW2 claimed, as usual, that strategic bombing could win wars. Especially the mass employment of chemical weapons over cities. The projected number of casualties was in the millions.

It seems that prospect was enough to keep the major belligerents from employing chemical weapons in massive scale against the civilian population of their enemy, although it would have fitted nicely with the strategic air objectives of both the Allied and the German airforces. But the fear of retaliation prevailed ...

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 10:58 AM
Had a Gas War started, the Germans would've come out on top. They had larger quantities of superior gases, like the nerve gases tabun and sarin. Gas masks don't work with nerve gases. The Allies had old fashion mustard gas and stuff.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 11:04 AM
PsychoninIII wrote:
- Had a Gas War started, the Germans would've come out
- on top. They had larger quantities of superior
- gases, like the nerve gases tabun and sarin. Gas
- masks don't work with nerve gases. The Allies had
- old fashion mustard gas and stuff.

Eh... no. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

If you're in a saturated chemical warfare environment, you need a full protective suit regardless the nature of the active agent. In a less saturated environment a gas mask is indeed enough to offer an acceptable protection against nerve agents.

AFAIK both US, UK and Soviet chemical warfare research was at least as advanced as the German. And they could easily produce stockpiles to match the Germans.

The difficult thing in chemical warfare is not the active agent itself. It's the delivery mechanism: Artillery shells, bombs, rockets etc. They have to ensure a sufficent spread of the agent, and they have to make sure that the active ingredients aren't destroyed in the impact/limited explosion.

cheers/slush


http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

fluke39
07-30-2003, 11:11 AM
PsychoninIII wrote:
- Had a Gas War started, the Germans would've come out
- on top. They had larger quantities of superior
- gases, like the nerve gases tabun and sarin. Gas
- masks don't work with nerve gases. The Allies had
- old fashion mustard gas and stuff.


the germans may well have had better supplies of it - but i think the allies woould have had the edge on delivery of such weapons - having by 1943 built up a huge quantity of long range heavy bombers.



<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 12:08 PM
Most of what's said above explains it. Hitler having been gassed himself if often put forward as a reason, as is the 'they must have it too' idea. Nerve gas is actually very simple to make and the Germans naturally assumed the allies had it too.

I might add that this was probably based on knowledge gained during the 20s & 30s when Germany and the USSR were co-operating on many military matters. I think the Soviets were - initially at least - more advanced in the chemical warfare field, which helped the Germans develop nerve agents in the first place. IIRC, the Soviet also developed nerve agents (perhaps before the Germans or while still co-operating), but didn't share this knowledge with their allies. Like all technological and intelligence 'sharing' between the Western Allies and the Soviets, it was a one way thing.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 12:25 PM
I saw a Discovery channel programme (I think it was discovery) about how the Japanese were actually developing biological weapons. They would infect fleas with plague or other diseases and would then place them in special clay bombs. These were the first "smart" bombs, since they used a radio transmitter to detonate the bomb at the best altitude. The fleas would be spread over the target, with devastating consequences. A plan was made to attack San Diego, but to achieve this they would have needed to use one of the new Carrier submarines, which the Navy wanted to use for Kamikaze attacks, so the attack never took place. By the end of the Second World War, Japan had enough plague to wipe out the worlds population. However, biological weapons were used on the Chinese and are still having an effect today. The person who led the research- a man who had killed hundreds of thousands of people and intended to kill many more- was employed by the US government to head the biological weapons research. Justice, eh?

To be able to fare well,
To avoid the frustration of misfortune,
That, in this world, is happiness.
-Euripides' Electra

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 12:25 PM
I read somewhere the Allies thought about using gas during the battle around the Abbey of Monte Cassino in Italy, because of the hard defence of Germans.

http://www.forces70.freeserve.co.uk/Fallshirmjager/cass_2.jpg


http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


"Kimura, tu as une tĂÂȘte carrĂ©e comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura



Message Edited on 07/30/0312:26PM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 12:31 PM
The actual reason was that Gasses were found to be inneffective and too dangerous to deploy for your own troops. WW1 proved that releasing gas would often result in killing/injuring more of the own troops than enemy ones, due to changing winds/weather. On top of that they were not suitable for Blitzkrieg tactics.
If you want quick gains in territory you cannot wait until the gas is gone.

-------------------------------------

A superior pilot may be defined as one who stays out of trouble by using his superior judgement, to avoid situations which might require the use of his superior skills.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 12:39 PM
Morbid_Jester wrote:
- The actual reason was that Gasses were found to be
- inneffective and too dangerous to deploy for your
- own troops. WW1 proved that releasing gas would
- often result in killing/injuring more of the own
- troops than enemy ones, due to changing
- winds/weather. On top of that they were not suitable
- for Blitzkrieg tactics.
- If you want quick gains in territory you cannot wait
- until the gas is gone.

That doesn't explain why chemical warfare wasn't used in strategic bomber campaigns or to strike enemy troop concentrations so far from your own lines that any a blue on blue wasn't a concern.

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 12:50 PM
EDtheHead6445 wrote:
- I saw a Discovery channel programme (I think it was
- discovery) about how the Japanese were actually
- developing biological weapons.

As were the British (specifically Anthrax bombs).
Guinard (spelling?) was contaminated and off limits
for about 50 years due to the tests.

- They would infect
- fleas with plague or other diseases and would then
- place them in special clay bombs. These were the
- first "smart" bombs, since they used a radio
- transmitter to detonate the bomb at the best
- altitude. The fleas would be spread over the target,
- with devastating consequences.

I heard that the research was inconclusiveand delivery
was problematic and didn't produce the desired results.
The documents were studied
post war, and tests continued, but biological weapons
were not considered easy to deliver.

With regard to nerve gases, I think Zyklon B was
derived from pesticides used in Germany, and Sarin is,
I believe, an organophosphate related to pesticides.
This is the root of some of the controversy regarding
Gulf War syndrome as some suggest that the symptoms
mimic low level exposure to nerve gas, but also
extensive exposure to organophosphate pesticides
has a similar set of symptoms.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 12:53 PM
Slush69 wrote:
- That doesn't explain why chemical warfare wasn't
- used in strategic bomber campaigns or to strike
- enemy troop concentrations so far from your own
- lines that any a blue on blue wasn't a concern.

Churchill was keen on it (which is why there
is a problem with mustard gas supplies being
found at old WW2 airbases in the UK, that and
the army sometimes dumped its supplies on
disused bases). Others were not so keen as
by the point it was being considered most UK
citizens had thrown away their gas masks, and it
was felt that the UK would be very vulnerable
to a counterattack in kind (let alone the fact
that mustard gas is also a blistering agent, and
if the UK was attacked with a blistering agent
casulaties would be high even with the use of
gas masks).

So the idea was shelved.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 01:06 PM
Nerve Agents were discovered by chance in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry in the 1920s (today Max Planck Institute for Chemistry).
This institute was officially researching insecticides, but of course they had chemical weapons in mind.
Zyklon was deemed "not suited for combat use, only as an insecticide for disinfecting closed rooms" by Prof. Fritz Haber, the head of the Institute and inventor of chemical weapons in WW1. Ironically, Haber was a jew and was expelled by the Nazis in 1933. But since he was a german patriot, he died of depression a year later.
Regarding chemical weapons, there were a number of very close calls in 1945. For unknown reasons, those weapons stockpiles were moved back and forth by rail even then, and there were a number of gas releases after allied strafing attacks on the trains, with a number of fatalities.
When the americans approached, the SS ordered the main depot near Freiburg to be blown up. This explosion would have set free 3000 tons of Tabun and most likely eliminated the population of the entire Breisgau. So the Wehrmacht guard personell was having none of it and shot the SS guys instead.
Regarding Sevastopol, I think tear gas was used, but not any kind of lethal agent.
What was used and led to soviet accusations of gas warfare was the Special Equipment "Taifun". That consisted of some volatile gas (Hydrogen or something even more flammable) which was to be pumped into an enemy fortification to cause a fuel-air explosion. It did not work properly, since the equipment used was too weak to create a gas concentration sufficient enough for an explosion, but the soviet defenders of course noticed the gas. The soviet high command issued a warning to the germans that they would reply with chemical weapons if this weapon was used further. The germans stopped it then.
After the war, the responsible officer, a Major of the Pionier Battalion which was equipped with Taifun, was court martialled by the Soviets and sentenced to death for using chemical weapons. However, he was pardoned and released together with the last PoWs 1955.

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 01:09 PM
Well the Germans actually would have had lots of gas but didn't use it. We still have some bunkers here with tons of gas still canned since WW1, where they produced it like maniacs. Now we have to watch it all the time cause they don't know where to destroy it. Saw an interesting report about an incident in the Northern sea. The allies decided to sink the gas they found ingermany there. Some years later after ppl started to use bigger ships and nets for fishing some unlucky fishermen caught some of it and got killed. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.greenhearts.org/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/eagle.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 01:13 PM
lol yeah and he survived it (duh) and managed to escape from the place he and his group were before the allies could get him

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 01:36 PM
very imformative thread. thanks for the information.

stubby

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 01:36 PM
Slush69 wrote:
-

-
- That doesn't explain why chemical warfare wasn't
- used in strategic bomber campaigns or to strike
- enemy troop concentrations so far from your own
- lines that any a blue on blue wasn't a concern.
-


Because you have to have a certain level of agent over a period of time to have the desired effect. You'd need a rather precise weather forecast and spotters on the ground for a strategic gas bombing to be effective. Too many factors that might contribute to failure. Besides Gas does not damage Equipment, so unless you are able to capture it (and your scenario implies being quite a distance away, which would make doing so hard) the equipment could be salvaged and reused by the enemy. Strategic bombing delivers more bang for your buck in that respect. Gas is only good to make a certain area hard to cross for a certain priod of time. It will hinder movement, not interdict.



-------------------------------------

A superior pilot may be defined as one who stays out of trouble by using his superior judgement, to avoid situations which might require the use of his superior skills.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 01:59 PM
Why? Because they have 1000 B 17&24 over their heads, although with "only" classic iron bomb, it was something for them to ponder about....

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:04 PM
I agree with most points of this thread regarding Hitler's apprehension to using gas at the begining of the war, but really, what stopped him in the end? Being encircled, fear of being captured and dragged off to Moscow was in his mind. Scorched earth policy at the end was what he had in mind for his own people. Why not V-1 and V-2 with gas in the end. He was in his death throw by now, why not lash out?

http://mysite.freeserve.com/jjffjj/images/0-picture.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 03:13 PM
Also, I heard there was a large accident with USA ship releacing large amounts of transported gas in a port on the coast of Africa, during the African campaign. Anybody hear about this one?

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 03:12 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Also, I heard there was a large accident with USA
- ship releacing large amounts of transported gas in a
- port on the coast of Africa, during the African
- campaign. Anybody hear about this one?
-
-


One of the largest ever accident, in WWII, involving mustard gas ocurred on the night of December 2nd 1943, in the port of Bari Italy. Bari was one of the main ports being used to move Allied forces into Italy.

During the night the Germans JU-88 bombers carried out a heavy bombing raid over the town. Some seventeen ships were totally destroyed, among them the USS John Harvey was hit. What was unknown by most people at the time was that this ship was carrying over one hundred tonnes of 100lb mustard bombs. All weapons were blown apart spreading liquid mustard gas across the harbour, into the air and water.
The Allies referred to the attack as the Second Pearl Harbor.

The water was full of men from sinking ships, and the wind blew the mustard gas towards the town. Over 1,000 men were killed or missing after the attack. Over 800 casualties were hospitalized after the attack, 617 of them suffering from mustard exposure.
These patients were not treated for mustard exposure because the medical units on hand had no idea that mustard was present. 13.6% of the mustard casualties proved fatal, as opposed to 2% in World War I.

Exactly how many died will never be known because these figures account for military personnal only. The civilian population of Bari was exposed to large quantities of mustard gas, but had no hospital to go to. An official count was never made of civilian casualties, but it is likely to be much higher than military casualties, because of the lack of medical care.

It isn't still clear why the USS John Harvey was carrying the gas, if and how the Allies intended to use it.

more notices: http://www.mapleleafup.org/histories/scislowski/bari2.html
http://www.vnh.org/CHEMCASU/01Introduction.html#History

Some cases of fishermen's exposure to mustard gas happened in the following years of the war:
http://www.mitretek.org/home.nsf/homelandsecurity/AdriaticMustardExposure

bye

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 06:50 AM
some of german chemical weapons have been dumped into ostsee, south of bornholm (sarin, tabun, phosgen, c-lost) some of this ammunition is only 6-25 meters deep in the water with a minimum distance of 20 km to the city of flensburg. in total 270.000 tons of wmd have been sunk after 45.

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 07:05 AM
It's a continuing problem with poison gas or bio-weapons, the delivery system is a big problem. Consider the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. Perfect environment for it but a bomb would have done 100 times the damage.

<center>
http://members.verizon.net/~vze2cb22/KosSig.gif

America: #1 military...#15 in literacy...
Because right wingers run our military
and leftists run our schools!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </center>