Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 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.

If memory serves me, didn't some US officers want to use gas on Iwo, but Rosevelt forbade it citing that it would set a "bad precedent"?

There was some testing done by the Australian Army on how effective (or not) mustard gas was on troops in the tropics/jungle.  It was tested on volunteers.[X(]  I remember seeing some films showing the results when I was in the green machine back in the 80's.  Man some of those guys had horrific blisters.

If memory serves me correctly....The Germans were able to make nerve gas based off of some research of Russian scientists..So they
assumed incorrectly (as mentioned by Erstad) that the Allies had it as well.
 
Also I am pretty sure Hitler was gassed in the trenches and it was not a happy experience.

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

There was some testing done by the Australian Army on how effective (or not) mustard gas was on troops in the tropics/jungle.  It was tested on volunteers.[X(]  I remember seeing some films showing the results when I was in the green machine back in the 80's.  Man some of those guys had horrific blisters.

My mother participated in mustard gas experiments at UC Berkeley in 1940-1941. She was relatively immune to its effects. This was before they realised it was a mutagen.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: 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.

If memory serves me, didn't some US officers want to use gas on Iwo, but Rosevelt forbade it citing that it would set a "bad precedent"?

One of the things that kept the Cold War from going hot was America's quiet advice to potential adversaries that any NCA that ordered the use of nuclear weapons would not survive the decision for very long. I believe the advice was later extended to the use of chemical or biological weapons.

There are a few isolated instances where gas is said to have been used: in 1940, against some of the deeper Maginot line bunkers, a few cases in the Pacific... And then, in the context of WWII, phosphore would probably count as a chemical weapon, and was used during more than a few battles.

ORIGINAL: rader
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.

I don't think the effectiveness of gas warfare was doubted. It had been used to good effect in WWI, to inderdict areas, force rotation of front line troops, prepare an area for assault (many contemporaries considered it more effective than barrage), and, most importantly, damage enemy morale (it truly was a terror weapon). I don't see how it could not have had the same effect on WWII armies, conscript-based like those of the previous world war.

It did have limitations: it could backfire and cause friendly casualties (but then, so does artillery...), fighting in environments where gas is present was very difficult (just try running, save fighting, with a gas mask), and area interdiction cut both ways. As such, it was not a war-winning weapon. But lack of effectiveness of a weapon has never prevented its use in war: think of infantry sabres in the napoleonic era, early types of amphibious vehicles, pistols, and (even recently) some models of submachine guns which jammed so easily while firing that they were (probably rightly) said to kill more friendlies than enemies (as any french reader who encountered the Mac49 would know, but I'm certain we're not the only one, esp. once reserves are concerned: pros get the good weapons, but world wars were fought by reserves, with the subpar stuff)

Besides, if it was thought ineffective, why would there be fear of retaliation?

My impression is that it was not used because it was considered a dangerous gamble. Gas could ruin enemy morale, but it could also ruin yours. The previous world war had seen quite a few mutinies from front line troops, support for the war sometimes wavered. This made the use of gas a risk.

Francois

Dang, I've learned a lot! [&o]

Besides, if it was thought ineffective, why would there be fear of retaliation?



Francois

I dare say that it was implied that retaliation would be strategic rather than tactical.

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.

Actually, no.

The Germans were NOT known to have nerve gases.

They did, however, believe that the Allies did because they noticed that US Scientific Journals had stopped publishing anything related to organophosphates (*this is from memory, it may have been some other chemical) which the Germans knew, from their nerve gas program, was a precursor chemical for nerve gases ... but they were wrong. The publication blackout was because of the development of DDT.

In any case, the Germans, while they developed nerve gases didn't manage to weaponise them effectively or, indeed, manage to scale production up to industrial levels until very late in the war, 1944-45 IIRC ... so they were not a real threat, especially in V-Weapons (as they were all heavier than air liquids, and really need to be delivered by spraying, in effect, for real effectiveness ... figures for artillery delivered casualties were much much lower than for aerosol/air delivered.

Phil