In the recent Forts thread there has been discussion as to when gas was first used in WW1. I’ve been looking at an interesting research paper produce after WW1 for the US Staff College on the subjec6t of gas warfare and gleaned the following interesting points:
Gas was banned as a weapon of war by the Hague Convention in 1899. All the delegations voted for the ban with the interesting exception of the United States whose representative argued that the ban was illogical given the general nastiness of modern warfare. An unusual viewpoint which almost clears any weapon to be used.
The first use of Gas in WW1 was in August 1914 when the French used police tear gas grenades. These were completely ineffectual on the open battlefield.
The first firing of gas shells was by the German Army at Neuve-Chapelle on October 27th 1914 when 3,000 shells containing dianisidine chlorosulphonate (a tear gas like substance) were fired at the British Army. They were not very effective as nobody on the British side realised that they had been under chemical attack. The Germans mistook the lack of news of any impact as being the result of British counter intelligence and censorship designed to conceal the effect of the gas shells (If they are keeping it so secret it must have been very effective).
Further development was undertaken by the Germans to produce gas shells that would be lethal. They dealt with the Hague Convention ban with the following piece of sophistry. The convention wording forbade shells used purely to carry poison gas. As the Germans used the carcases of shrapnel shells, that used a small explosive bursting charge, to carry the gas they argued that these were partly explosive shells and therefore not subject to the ban!
The next use of gas was on January 31st 1915 when 18,000 shells containing xylyl bromide were fired at Russian positions at Bolimov. The Germans expected the subsequent attack to be a walkover and were therefore shocked to be repulsed with very heavy losses. The cold weather had meant that the xylyl bromide would not vaporise.
The Germans then decided to use Chlorine (a very nasty gas and one first suggested to the British War Office during the Crimean War but rejected as barbarous and uncivilized). The delivery mechanism was to be commercial gas cylinders and as these were not specifically mentioned in the Hague Convention the line was taken that no breach would be involved.
Please use the name of the town Liége, not leige. It is pronounced "Li-ej-e" and was and is centre of the begium arms manufacterers, like i.e. FN ( Fabrique Nationale des Armes de Guerre, Herstal). Concerning the use of Poison Gas the foowing data are reveiling first uses of the following agents:
agent: Nation: first issued:
teargas (chlorineacetophenon,CN) France 02.Feb.1915 near NAMUR in Hand-Grenades!!!
Chlorine, 150 tons in 4o-l-bottles Germany 22.April 1915 near GHELUVELT, Ypres
Xylylbromide (Teargas) Germany same day used in flanks of chlorine-front)
Chlorine-Phosgene (asphyciating) Germany 31. May 1915 95%Cl, 5% Phosgene) BOLIMOV, near WARSAW
PerChlorMethylMercaptane France 08.Septembre 1915 (suffocating agent in arty ammo)
Blue-Star (70%Phosgene/20% Great Britain 09.January 1916 Sulphuric Cloride) FROMMELLES/F
pure Phosgene France 21.February 1916 VERDUN-Fleury
Di-Phosgene Germany 07. May 1916 VERDUN / Doaumont
Vincennite France 01. July 1916 (Arsenic+Arsenic-Trichloride)
Date for French use of teat gas is incorrect, location right date wrong. Does not take into acount German use of gas at Neuve Chappel. Dates for Bolimov are way out!
I have seen the French tear gas date and description as Centurion wrote it before and the Bolimov event, although the text were that was from stated that it was horrifying to the Russians and supposedly there were trenches of soldiers that were blue and aphixating from the attack so it might have been at least morale wise pretty successful.
A lot of arguments are coming home after 80 years now; regretfully no new arguments may be releasedon said subject: so..........what is new?????????????????
Best regards,
Pody
P.S.:
I'll be on deck tomorrow, have a good night to all of you, Pody
-- Edited by Pody at 01:13, 2006-11-28
__________________
"Ein Volk, das keine Waffen traegt,
wird Ketten tragen!"
(Carl von Clausewitz)
My source is a copy of: Chemical Warfare in World War I by MAJ(P) Charles E. Heller, USAR. This is a book sized research paper commissioned by the Combat Studies Institute U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in the early 1980s in order to see if there were any lessons from WW1 that could be appled to the Soviet chemical threat of the time. I enclose the forward and Major Heller's summary of the sources used by him.
FOREWORD
This Leavenworth Paper chronicles the introduction of chemical agents in World War I, the U.S. Army's tentative preparations for gas warfare prior to and after American entry into the war, and the AEF experience with gas on the Western Front.
Chemical warfare affected tactics and almost changed the outcome of World War I. The overwhelming success of the first use of gas caught both sides by suprise. Fortunately, the pace of hostilities permitted the Allies to develop a suitable defense to German gas attacks and eventually to field a considerable offensive chemical capability. Nonetheless, from the introduction of chemical warfare in early 1915 until Armistice Day in November, 1918, the Allies were usually one step behind their German counterparts in the development of gas doctrine and the employment of gas tactics and procedures.
In his final report to Congress on World War I, General John J. Pershing expressed the sentiment of contemporary senior officers when he said, "Whether or not gas will be employed in future wars is a matter of conjecture, but the effect is so deadly to the unprepared that we can never afford to neglect the question." General Pershing was the last American field commander actually to confront chemical agents on the battlefield. Today, in light of a significant Soviet chemical threat and solid evidence of chemical warfare in Southeast and Southwest Asia, it is by no means certain he will retain that distinction.
Over 50 percent of the Total Army's Chemical Corps assets are located within the United States Army Reserve. The Leavenworth Paper was prepared by the USAR Staff Officer serving with the Combat Studies Institute, USACGSC, after a number of request from USAR Chemical Corps officers for a historical study on the nature of chemical warfare in World War I. In fulfilling the needs of the USAR, this Leavenworth Paper also meets the needs of the Total Army in its preparations to fight, if necessary, on a battlefield where chemical agents might be employed.
Sources
There is an abundance of material available for a study of gas warfare during World War 1. Sources include unit reports, the published and unpublished diaries of participants, books written by chemical officers during the interwar period, and a number of secondary historical works of more recent origin. Also, I conducted several interviews with veterans of the First World War to obtain as accurate a picture as possible of what it was like for an AEF doughboy to train for, and to live, work, and fight in, a chemical environment. During the war the newly created Chemical Warfare Service (CWS)* did its best to record its activities and report on the use of chemicals. I relied extensively on these records. A number of agencies provided a great deal of assistance to me in the preparation of this paper, and I would like to acknowledge the staffs of the following institutions: the Technical Library, Chemical Systems Laboratory, Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground;, U.S. Army Chemical Center and School, Fort McClellan, Alabama; National Archives, Washington, D.C.; Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; and Combined Arms Research Library, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. I especially want to thank members of the 1st Gas Regiment Association for graciously consenting to be interviewed, and Lt. Col. Charles M. Wurm, Chemical Corps, CACDA, Fort Leavenworth, for providing me with a great amount of technical information and advice.
Thank you very much for your detailed answers and the enclosed inhibitions to my thread! Regretfully, my contributions to the thread about gas-warfare may be proofed by the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institut and the proponent Federal German Successors of it. American sources tend to follow the official USA way of making history by official statements including the way of viewing "how it should be viewed". Best finest examples proofed by historians are the "Lusitania"-sinking and the use of "Lewisite" in 1917. I'm born in 1956 and am eye-whitness to many-a-lot of US-statements not compatible with truth of international charactre. The US public is not to be denied for the information policy of theirs statesmen. ...........Mr.Churchill stated that no public reference should be believed he himself did not fake........... A quotation, I tend to believe........... vae victis...... as Ceasar put it. I do believe in your believe of US-history but I do have one of my own...
A short discours on said topic would be most welcomed at my side. There are so many items to be discussed in recent history to proof my challenges that the US of A are just adjusting history to their tell-tale history plans.
Some time it takes more than 65 years to look beyond the strategy.....
I'm watching daily..........
Best regards from good ol' Germany,
Pody
__________________
"Ein Volk, das keine Waffen traegt,
wird Ketten tragen!"
(Carl von Clausewitz)
Thank you very much for your detailed answers and the enclosed inhibitions to my thread! Regretfully, my contributions to the thread about gas-warfare may be proofed by the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institut and the proponent Federal German Successors of it. American sources tend to follow the official USA way of making history by official statements including the way of viewing "how it should be viewed". Best finest examples proofed by historians are the "Lusitania"-sinking and the use of "Lewisite" in 1917. I'm born in 1956 and am eye-whitness to many-a-lot of US-statements not compatible with truth of international charactre. The US public is not to be denied for the information policy of theirs statesmen. ...........Mr.Churchill stated that no public reference should be believed he himself did not fake........... A quotation, I tend to believe........... vae victis...... as Ceasar put it. I do believe in your believe of US-history but I do have one of my own...
A short discours on said topic would be most welcomed at my side. There are so many items to be discussed in recent history to proof my challenges that the US of A are just adjusting history to their tell-tale history plans.
Some time it takes more than 65 years to look beyond the strategy.....
Gist of what i said was that the source I was using had been originally an internal document used for practical study within the US Army Staff College in an attempt to understand the issues around operating in a chemical environment and only recently made public so it seem highly unlikely that it was an attempt to re write history for what ever motive (and what motive would there be in this case anyway?). The dates quoted can be cross checked against other sources and seem correct (at least they got the date of the Russian battle right!).
