Why didn't Germany deploy poison gas in WW2?

[JodelDiplom]

The myth of combat effectiveness of poison gasses vastly outstrips their actual bettlefield performance. Poison gasses, nerve agents, etc are unpredictable, easily dispersed, and just not a great weapon of war, especially if your enemy has preventative measures.

So, let's say you have that 1T warhead. On paper, one ton of sarin can kill a hell of a lot of people.

But you need to disperse that sarin (more likely tabun) over an area, or you are just hypersaturating a living block. Then you have to factor in wind dispersal, occlusion in buildings, etc,etc, and in the end, you have not killed significantly more people than just a cheaper and more reliable warhead.

Factor in as well that rockets explode. A big fireball from everything flammable in a rocket (and in the target), and your nerve agent probably burns into much less harmfull compounds.

Agreed.

Effective dispersal means spreading many little bomblets across a wide area. The tactics would be similar to city bombing... You need to overwhelm the fire fighters and civilian protection at the target location, and you need to combine the chemical attack with explosives, both to tie up fire fighters and to force people out of homes into underground bunkers.

So there's no use for rockets, really, you want to use bombers. And at this point there are only so many bombers, so the question is, do you load more chemicals and less explosives, or more explosives and less chemicals.

 

[Premu]

Besides the arguments already mentioned - really bad propaganda, dubious effectiveness and fear of retaliation - Germany had apparently another good reason not to use poison gas.

It was very hard to protect horses from it. Which is really bad for you if your logistics depend on them.

 

[Jopa79]

It was very hard to protect horses from it. Which is really bad for you if your logistics depend on them.

During the WWI - when the logistics were much more dependent on horses - gas masks for animals were introduced.

More than 16 million animals served in the WWI, the fact that gas masks were made for them demonstrates the vital role they played for the war effort for many countries in the Great War.

If gas masks protected animals in the WWI, why wouldn't gas masks protect animals in the WWII?

 

[Jorlaan]

During the WWI - when the logistics were much more dependent on horses - gas masks for animals were introduced.

More than 16 million animals served in the WWI, the fact that gas masks were made for them demonstrates the vital role they played for the war effort for many countries in the Great War.

If gas masks protected animals in the WWI, why wouldn't gas masks protect animals in the WWII?

Mustard gas rendered most masks nearly useless. When gas attacks any and all exposed skin as well just having a mask is not much.
There are far more harmful-to-the-skin gasses and chemicals than mustard gas. They would have had to come up with some sort of a full-body protective suit for every horse. That sounds horrifically impractical to me.

 

[Director]

@Aardvark Bellay - was it the 'Please' you objected to? If not, then you should direct your displeasure to the moderators and to Paradox.

Or go ahead - ramble on about mass deaths, atrocities, gas and the 'g' word - go ahead, and see where it gets you. More than a red X, I dare say. But I prefer 'not' to see people banned from the forum, temporarily or permanently, so I do not advise it.

If you didn't like what I said or how I said it, you could have sent me a PM. If you don't like forum rules, you can petition the owners.

But since you chose to go public with an unexplained driveby 'don't like', I'll just ask you politely to, "Please study the forum guidelines and conduct yourself in a manner more befitting an adult."

 

[Easy-Kill]

@Aardvark Bellay - was it the 'Please' you objected to? If not, then you should direct your displeasure to the moderators and to Paradox.

Or go ahead - ramble on about mass deaths, atrocities, gas and the 'g' word - go ahead, and see where it gets you. More than a red X, I dare say. But I prefer 'not' to see people banned from the forum, temporarily or permanently, so I do not advise it.

If you didn't like what I said or how I said it, you could have sent me a PM. If you don't like forum rules, you can petition the owners.

But since you chose to go public with an unexplained driveby 'don't like', I'll just ask you politely to, "Please study the forum guidelines and conduct yourself in a manner more befitting an adult."

I got a red X for one of my posts too. But I suspect that yours was even less disagreeable and still got a red X.

I was very happy for a reminder!

 

[Director]

@Easy-Kill - I don't mind having someone disagree with me, particularly if they can point out something I've gotten wrong or overlooked. I like to learn. But a 'driveby' disagree is just juvenile trolling when it's put on a pretty non-controversial post with no explanation.

I don't like to see people barred - and I'm sensitive to it because I'm a former mod and I know how these things can go. We're just adults having an interesting conversation and then the ban hammer comes out... because Paradox mods don't have any latitude to argue over rules and have already used up their patience on the six people ahead of you...

If you ever think I'm out of line or lecturing you can PM me. I mostly take that stuff OK - depending on the tone used, of course.

@Aardvark Bellay - OK. We've established that you're a jerk and can't behave like an adult. Do whatever you like; I've ignored worse trolling.

 

[pithorr]

Agreed.

Effective dispersal means spreading many little bomblets across a wide area. The tactics would be similar to city bombing... You need to overwhelm the fire fighters and civilian protection at the target location, and you need to combine the chemical attack with explosives, both to tie up fire fighters and to force people out of homes into underground bunkers.

So there's no use for rockets, really, you want to use bombers. And at this point there are only so many bombers, so the question is, do you load more chemicals and less explosives, or more explosives and less chemicals.

So why was Germany using missiles instead of bombers to shell London?...

 

[JodelDiplom]

So why was Germany using missiles instead of bombers to shell London?...

Because the bombers were shot down

 

[pithorr]

Because the bombers were shot down

You see...

 

[newtlord]

While I don't know how much this fact influenced policy on chemical weapons, it should be born in mind that, right up until the very end, the Germans were hoping for a negotiated settlement with the British. Pouring poison gas over their cities would not have been conducive to achieving this aim. (The discussion of the V2's efficiency as a method for delivering chemical weapons rather overlooks the fact that, by the time the V2 was available, huge numbers of allied bombers were flying over all Germany almost unopposed, and, indeed, German heavy bombing capacity lagged that of the British from the beginning. To the extent that strategic use of poison gas would successfully have damaged an enemy's ability to wage war, establishing it as an option would have done more to hurt the Germans than the British.)


It should also be born in mind that, on a tactical level, poison gas wasn't really all that successful a weapon even in the First World War, when large numbers of enemy soldiers were sitting fortified in place within easy reach of artillery. The more mobile and dispersed tactical environment of the Second World War would have done nothing to improve its effectiveness.

 

[bz249]

Because the bombers were shot down

Let's say that in an alternate universe Germany does not call off Operation Steinbock (or Baby Blitz). In that case the Luftwaffe would have flown bombing sorties over England from 21.01.1944 till 29.05.1944 using about 500 bombers for that operation.

Would they use in that hypothetical scenario nerve gas on the UK or not?

 

[pithorr]

Let's say that in an alternate universe Germany does not call off Operation Steinbock (or Baby Blitz). In that case the Luftwaffe would have flown bombing sorties over England from 21.01.1944 till 29.05.1944 using about 500 bombers for that operation.

Would they use in that hypothetical scenario nerve gas on the UK or not?

Oh, in this case there would be even more no point to do it. Just conventional retaliation in accordance with the Totaler Krieg reality.

But, if they, instead of nonsense shelling London with HE warheads, only to make some blasts, would have sent a dozen of their expensive missiles on Surrey, gased some hundred cows there and left leaflets like:
Dear Gen. Harris.
If you don't stop to bomb our beautiful cities into oblivion, next ones will land in the White Hall area and other borroughs of London, how our previous missiles used to do so far. We are really on the verge now and actually have nothing to lose in this moment.
SAD
Adolf Hitler, the Fuehrer of the Thousand Year Reich.

 

[olm]

From purely callous military perspective it would have made most sense for Western Allies to be the ones to liberally employ poison gasses. They had a large long range bomber fleet capable of reaching most major Axis cities and largely motorized logistics.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Oh, in this case there would be even more no point to do it. Just conventional retaliation in accordance with the Totaler Krieg reality.

But, if they, instead of nonsense shelling London with HE warheads, only to make some blasts, would have sent a dozen of their expensive missiles on Surrey, gased some hundred cows there and left leaflets like:
Dear Gen. Harris.
If you don't stop to bomb our beautiful cities into oblivion, next ones will land in the White Hall area and other borroughs of London, how our previous missiles used to do so far. We are really on the verge now and actually have nothing to lose in this moment.
SAD
Adolf Hitler, the Fuehrer of the Thousand Year Reich.

It would be a bit of a pointless exercise for the Germans. The British were not disposed to negotiate with Germany over anything short of unconditional surrender. Churchill's answer would be a an equally fiery threat of chemical retaliation against German cities, and a redoubling of the fire bombing efforts, just to drive home the point that there will not be any negotiation over the conduct of the air war. If Hitler then orders chemical bomb attacks, so be it. He'll suffer more for it.

 

[pithorr]

It would be a bit of a pointless exercise for the Germans. The British were not disposed to negotiate with Germany over anything short of unconditional surrender. Churchill's answer would be a an equally fiery threat of chemical retaliation against German cities, and a redoubling of the fire bombing efforts, just to drive home the point that there will not be any negotiation over the conduct of the air war. If Hitler then orders chemical bomb attacks, so be it. He'll suffer more for it.

I only meant an argument over bargain to stop or at least limit bombing campaign by the Allies.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I only meant an argument over bargain to stop or at least limit bombing campaign by the Allies.

What do you mean? I don't understand

 

[pithorr]

What do you mean? I don't understand

Allies were bombing Germany with impunity IRL.
Germany had actually nothing to lose, cities were turning into ruins and civilians were dying in hundreds of thousands. Why not to endanger the British of the retaliation with chemical weapons if they don't stop bombing cities? London was within V2 range... Gas attack by the British wouldn't have changed much, comparing to fire storms which were for real...
And for the bargain purpose to use this weapon in some barely habitated area for the starter. As the last warning...

 

[olm]

Allies were bombing Germany with impunity IRL.
Germany had actually nothing to lose, cities were turning into ruins and civilians were dying in hundreds of thousands. Why not to endanger the British of the retaliation with chemical weapons if they don't stop bombing cities? London was within V2 range... Gas attack by the British wouldn't have changed much, comparing to fire storms which were for real...
And for the bargain purpose to use this weapon in some barely habitated area for the starter. As the last warning...

Churchill would undoubtedly call the bluff. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he advocated for immediate use of gas to have the first move advantage on his side.

 

[CelticSaintAndScholar]

The title speaks for itself, really. Britain issued gasmasks to every single one of its subjects, in what appears to have been a sincere expectation of gas attacks by the Luftwaffe on targets in the UK. You could argue that the war was too mobile for the use of gas on the battlefield, but what reason was there for not deploying it on static targets like cities? Is there any written policy statement from the time? Was a change of policy ever considered, especially in the Goebbels 'Totaler Krieg' period? I'm really asking if anyone really knows what the official policy was, and how it was arrived at, but I suppose speculation may be appropriate.

My understanding is that the Germans believed (falsely) that the Allies possessed chemical weapons too and would use them in retaliation if Germany used them first. The Allies even made propaganda films threatening they would do so.