OT Question about gas warfare

[ilovestrategy]

Did anyone in the Pacific War use gas warfare like in WW 1? It's my understanding that Japan was not bound to any wartime treaties of any kind, that's why I'm wondering. Or am I mistaken?

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

Did anyone in the Pacific War use gas warfare like in WW 1? It's my understanding that Japan was not bound to any wartime treaties of any kind, that's why I'm wondering. Or am I mistaken?

They didn't use it in large amounts, but there are accounts of Japan using chemical weapons against tank attacks in Burma.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

Did anyone in the Pacific War use gas warfare like in WW 1? It's my understanding that Japan was not bound to any wartime treaties of any kind, that's why I'm wondering. Or am I mistaken?

They didn't use it in large amounts, but there are accounts of Japan using chemical weapons against tank attacks in Burma.

I believe Japan used CW in China. CW tended to shut down the battlefield for both sides, so most of the advanced countries maintained a capability to retaliate and avoided first use.

[ilovestrategy]

So it was a practical reason not to use gas warfare, not morale or by a treaty?

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

Did anyone in the Pacific War use gas warfare like in WW 1? It's my understanding that Japan was not bound to any wartime treaties of any kind, that's why I'm wondering. Or am I mistaken?

They didn't use it in large amounts, but there are accounts of Japan using chemical weapons against tank attacks in Burma.

Cyanide gas in very small quantities. The IJA developed an anti-tank rifle round containing a small amount of the stuff, which was singularly ineffectual. There was, as Dixie says, a few reports of Jap close-assault teams using cyanide bombs (ceramic jars) in Burma.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

So it was a practical reason not to use gas warfare, not morale or by a treaty?

Of course. It was the same in Europe; Churchill wanted to use mustard gas against the Germans many times but was dissuaded from it, since the Germans were known to have a well-developed nerve gas capability.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

So it was a practical reason not to use gas warfare, not morale or by a treaty?

Of course. It was the same in Europe; Churchill wanted to use mustard gas against the Germans many times but was dissuaded from it, since the Germans were known to have a well-developed nerve gas capability.

And V2 rockets. [:D]

[Shellshock]

I've read that Churchill was ready to use gas to drench the beaches in the event of a successful German landing in Operation Sealion. In 1940 Britain had a stockpile of 1495 tons of mustard gas made ready for dispersal by low flying aircraft. It was regarded as a weapon of last resort but given the vital need to deny the Germans a lodgement and the lack of armour in the Brtitish Army after Dunkirk, gas likely would have been used.

[DuckofTindalos]

True. He was also ready to use it on German cities during the Blitz and the V-weapon attacks.

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy
So it was a practical reason not to use gas warfare, not morale or by a treaty?

The original Hague Convention (1899 I believe), signed by a number of states who would then be parties to both world wars, included provisions banning any use of suffocating gases, aerial bombardment, and explosive ordnance (this last point being a bit unclear : the text spoke of "explosive bullets").

These regulations never were respected, and were edited several times, to provide for ever expanding "fair uses": from ban pure and simple, to strictily military targets, to targets of military relevance, to pretty much everything, which sort of proves the point of the original convention.

For the use of gas, in Europe at least, there was a moral background. Gas had been used a lot in WWI, and was held by most vets as the worst of the worst (in an already quite horrific conflict). As such, many WWII military leaders, who had seen battle in WWI, were very reluctant to use it.

Francois

[DuckofTindalos]

Wonder if Churchill was ever gassed when he was in the trenches... Hitler certainly was.

[ilovestrategy]

Thanks for the info everyone. It helped a lot! [&o]

[bush]

Marshal and the JCS were considering the use of gas and/or atomic bombs during the invasion of Japan proper.

[rader]

My understanding was that the Japanese didn't use it for fear of retaliation - the same reason no one used it in WW2. But it was deployed by all sides "just in case". Japan *might* have used it during Downfall, but probably not because the allies had much larger stocks. There was a US cargo ship in the Italian theater loaded with gas that was bombed and relased a bunch. Found this online about it:

The US merchant Ship John Harvey, 10617 BRT, came on November 28, 1943, her skipper was Captain Edwin F Knowles from Baltimore, Maryland. The ship had 540 tons (14) of mustard gas on board. Only seven US soldiers and their commanding officer, Lieutenant Howard Beckström knew about the mustard gas while none of the crew or the ship captain knew.

On December 2, 1943 the German Luftwaffen with JU 88-bombers attacked the 30 US-transport ships in Bari. The Germans sank 17 ships and damaged 8 more (15). This was almost a Pearl Harbor in the Mediterranean. During the bomb attack the ship John Harvey caught fire, exploded and sank. In the explosion the mustard gas was set free. All those who knew about the mustard gas died. USA did not tell about the gas onboard the John Harvey (16) which led to the poisoning of 328 soldiers and sailors of whom 96 died. Even the number of civilians that died due to mustard gad poisonings was kept quiet. The allies said the dead either died from burning or bronchitis or lung problems(17). Churchill ordered British medical personnel not to tell what the reason was.(18) First in 1974 did English documents come to light which told the reason.

EDIT: In summary, I think it was a mix of lack of effectiveness and fear of retaliation. I can't imagine that if it would have been a really effective weapon, someone wouldn't have started using it. But all sides were well prepared, kept stocks, and issued gas masks, etc.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

Marshal and the JCS were considering the use of gas and/or atomic bombs during the invasion of Japan proper.

Marshal was a very strong advocate of gas after Okinawa.

[Braedonnal]

If I remember right didn't Unit 731 test bio and chemical weapons on those the military police rounded up?  Probably not the type of incident you are looking for but pretty grisly nevertheless.

[Tiornu]

French 15in AP shells were designed with little cavities in the baseplate that could house poison-gas capsules. Personally, I'm dubious about the entire concept; I'd be a little more concerned about the forty pounds of explosive than the little bit of poison gas. (Old shell bursters actually had some potential to fill spaces with noxious gas.) Well, anyway, it turned out to be a bad idea. When fired, the propellant charge caved in the caps over these cavities and promptly burned its way into the shell--boom. That's how Richelieu wrecked her own guns at Dakar.

[rtrapasso]

Actually, flamethrowers were so effective against caves because they generated carbon monoxide and would kill people deep in the caves without them being anywhere near the flames... this wasn't discovered until years after the war with archeological digs on caves in places like Okinawa... we had a big discussion on this on the old WITP thread (i had to produce references before folks would believe this.)

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Braedonnal

If I remember right didn't Unit 731 test bio and chemical weapons on those the military police rounded up?  Probably not the type of incident you are looking for but pretty grisly nevertheless.

They did Bio, but I don't think they did chemical.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

So it was a practical reason not to use gas warfare, not morale or by a treaty?

Of course. It was the same in Europe; Churchill wanted to use mustard gas against the Germans many times but was dissuaded from it, since the Germans were known to have a well-developed nerve gas capability.

And there was an article in a recent issue of WWII on the flip-side: Hitler wanted to use nerve gas against the allies, but Speer and some expert convinced him that the Allies had nerve gas too. Hitler believed them, although it apparently wasn't true.