Gas

[Franconicus]

I think there were the two reasons already mentioned:

- Hitler had bad experience with gas during WW1
- Any strike with gas would have have led to a counterstrike. If Hitler attacked London they would have attacked Berlin ...

Germany had a lot of chemical weapons. They were thrown into lakes at the end of the war where you still can find some
The German troops were prepared to be attacked with gas.

[CBR]

Several nations did research as well as produce chemical weapons during WW2. Generally it was considered an inhumane weapon and the fear of retaliation attacks against cities also caused leaders to not use such weapons.

I guess we were lucky that WW1 saw the use of such weapons as the horrors of it was remembered during WW2. With WW2 being an even more total war than WW1 had ever been and with better capabilites for using them (long range bombers) it could have turned into a nightmare.


CBR

[English assassin]

The problem was just this. If one side bagan to use gas on troops, the result might be a retaliation against civilians. And they didn't have gasmasks.

Well, OK, but, leaving the Nazis out of it for a change, Arthur "Bomber" Harris, head of RAF Bomber command, would have had no problem with this. Dresden was deliberate. A man who can incinerate going on 100,000 civilians when the war was won is a man who could have gassed those civilians two years earlier. Curtis Lemay wasn't what you would call squeamish either.

I'm also not convinced by the argument that a tactical battlefield use would have provoked strategic use against civilians. That is, assuming that with bombing accuracy as it was it was actually possible to drop enough gas bombs in a small enough area from the height of a strategic bomber to acheive a fatal concentration, which I'm not sure about.

BTW Liddell-Hart is a must read for those interested in WWII.

He is indeed, the main pleasure of the book was that it was obviously written (in 1930) by a man with a genius for the theory of warfare. Shame we paid no attention to him and let Guderian read it all instead, really.

[Franconicus]

Maybe I am wrong but isn't gas usually lighter than air. Then it would not have had much effect during city bombing. You could not reach those in cellars. Those on the streets you can get with fire bombs anyway.

Do you think there would have been more death or even terror by using gas during the attacks on Tokio or Hamburg? I doubt that.

Regarding the field battles: I do not have a clue why the Germans did not use it in the end. In the beginning they surely thought they could do without and maybe they did not want to have bad propaganda in the US. But later

[CBR]

Maybe I am wrong but isn't gas usually lighter than air. Then it would not have had much effect during city bombing. You could not reach those in cellars. Those on the streets you can get with fire bombs anyway.

If it was lighter than air then it wouldnt have much use would it Phosgene is heavier than air and was IIRC widely used in WW1

Regarding the field battles: I do not have a clue why the Germans did not use it in the end. In the beginning they surely thought they could do without and maybe they did not want to have bad propaganda in the US. But later

Because late in the war they would have been at the mercy of the allies as the allies could have bombed any city they wanted. Plus their own troops could be hit too so where is the advantage in starting using such weapons? Only thing would be better chemical weapons but that would not have assured a victory.


CBR

[CBR]

Well, OK, but, leaving the Nazis out of it for a change, Arthur "Bomber" Harris, head of RAF Bomber command, would have had no problem with this. Dresden was deliberate. A man who can incinerate going on 100,000 civilians when the war was won is a man who could have gassed those civilians two years earlier. Curtis Lemay wasn't what you would call squeamish either.

And fortunately they couldnt take the decision to use chemical weapons

I'm also not convinced by the argument that a tactical battlefield use would have provoked strategic use against civilians. That is, assuming that with bombing accuracy as it was it was actually possible to drop enough gas bombs in a small enough area from the height of a strategic bomber to acheive a fatal concentration, which I'm not sure about.

If they could firebomb a city they could hit a city with gas too and Im pretty sure wherever a bomb hits it will a have a fatal concentration in that area. A ton of gas would in general kill more people than a ton of TNT and cause a lot more panic too.

The enemy could also use it tactically so the advantage you might have got one place would be lost another place. If lots of chemical weapons are used on the front then no one really has an advantage and all you got is one big mess.


CBR