Let's say that the Soviets are being badly beaten in '41; the Germans and the Soviets are fighting for Moscow and it looks like the Germans are going to win. Is it plausible that the Soviets, in a last ditch attempt to try and prevent the Germans from taking the city, use poison gas against the german army? How would it effect the German army, and how would Germany and the Allies respond to this?
WI the Soviets used poison gas against the german army?
- Thread starter El_Presidente
- Start date
Deleted member 9338
If I remember correctly, poison gas in general is not very effective 8n cold weather.
Deleted member 1487
Doing it after winter has hit doesn't make sense for a number of reasons including those already given. If they do crack open that bottle in October or early November fearing the attack could reach Moscow then it probably does slow down the Germans. But, it has some potentially hazardous outcomes for the Russians.
LL was afforded to the Soviets by the US in November. This could might delay that and that knock on effect might delay war between Germany and the US for at least a little while after Pearl Harbor. The US extending support to the British was not a shock to Berlin, but LL to the Soviets was and I think was a tipping point issue.
Regardless of what happens Soviets lose a little global sympathy probably not a lot though. The real impact is in 1942. The gas would slow down any long attempts at German offensives, but it would also make short German offensives easier. As ugly as the eastern front was it gets a fair bit uglier here.
Gas will be an overall advantage to the defense once both get their production in high gear.
LL was afforded to the Soviets by the US in November. This could might delay that and that knock on effect might delay war between Germany and the US for at least a little while after Pearl Harbor. The US extending support to the British was not a shock to Berlin, but LL to the Soviets was and I think was a tipping point issue.
Regardless of what happens Soviets lose a little global sympathy probably not a lot though. The real impact is in 1942. The gas would slow down any long attempts at German offensives, but it would also make short German offensives easier. As ugly as the eastern front was it gets a fair bit uglier here.
Gas will be an overall advantage to the defense once both get their production in high gear.
Last edited:
Hitler goes in full rage and Sarin is used in the Eastern Front. All goes very nasty from then on.
marathag
Banned
But troops exposed to Mustard Gas, well in the cold it was liquid, and not as reactive.
Problem was, anytime that got above 40 ddegrees or so, like say in an aid station, mess hall or barracks, it would start fuming.
And gas simply ruins German horse drawn logistics.
marathag
Banned
on paper, nerve gasses are terrifying.
But in actual use?
not so much
Japanese AUM groups spread WWII type Sarin around.
Not as efficive as had they just spilled gasoline and set that on fire in the subway. Stampede of people trying to get away would have injured more.
And given how Germans did things, its likely that you would have as many German casualties just from mishandling. That why the US spent so much effort in the binary mix agents
IIRC, that was one of the reasons that kept Hitler from using it.
Baering in mind how Hitler worked from time to time, he would try, never mind the cost. After all, we are talking about the guy who wasted resources, time and money just to have the V-1s to hit London.
Garrison
Donor
People hear the horror stories of the effects of gas in WWI and don't realize that's all they are, stories. The reality was that after the shock value of its initial use wore off gas proved to be most effective as an area denial weapon and to force troops into gas masks which made it harder for them to carry out tasks., dropping it on where you thought the enemy had positioned artillery for example. It was never a war winner and in terms of the war as a whole the casualties it caused were minimal. The cynical view is that so many nations were willing to go along with banning it because it wasn't very useful.
Xylyl bromide, was also not a particularly effective weapon anyway.First use of it in WW1 proved that one:
Bolimów - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It wouldn't prove that effective for the Red Army, for many of the reasons already stated. Germany had far greater Chemical Warfare capabilities, and the prevailing winds in Russia are West to East.
Well, the Germans didn't use nerve agents IOTL partly as the Russians had published research on insecticides in the early 1930's which lead the Germans directly to Sarin. The Germans made the assumption that the Russians had an equivalent nerve agent program so they avoided first use. The Germans may well have decided that the lack of Soviet gas masks/equipment which could deal with nerve gas may have been the Soviets Security paranoia ensuring all the right gear was well to the rear in warehouses instead of being at the front.
However, if the Sov's had used Mustard or Phosgene extensively, they may conclude that the Russians didn't have a Sarin equivalent, in which case they may well have decided to use it. However, I suspect the Germans had limited stocks of Sarin avalable in 1941/2 and so using it may well have been something to avoid.
It wouldn't be very effective militarily but would certainly have a psychological effect on the Germans. Whether it would demoralize them or spur them to even greater atrocities for revenge is up in the air.
Definitely.
But in 1941, the Soviets were even more reliant on horses.
The Germans would retaliate. And the wind tends to blow eastward.
Garrison
Donor
Same problem afflicted the Soviets when it came to nuclear war decades later, drop bombs on Western Europe and guess where the fallout ends up. Gas is just not going to change the tide of battle by itself.
There are practical reasons to not use chemical weapons in conventional warfare between two near peers. However the Germans using gas against partisans makes more sense (though still runs the risk of retaliation of course).
In OTL theirs some evidence that some Soviet artillery batteries accidentally used some milder chemical weapons against the Germans during the first battle of Sevastapol. Apparently in the Soviets very confused conditions some lewisite artillery shells got mixed into the battery's normal shells. Hitler was afraid enough about escalation that the incident got buried and the Germans never retaliated in kind.
Like I said using gas against another peer conventional force raises a lot of BS. If you're going to use it it makes more sense to use it like the Japanese did in China. Namely use it as a terror weapon against densely populated civilian cities or against very poorly equipped enemy irregulars. Kind of solves the "hiding in a sea of civilians" COIN problem if your just willing to remove the sea of civilians from existence.
Though I do wonder if it might have been worth it for the US/Allies to use gas in the Island hopping campaign in cases like Iwo Jima or Pellieu. Situations where the enemy has pretty poor chemical protective capabilities and little to no ability to really retaliate. Relatively small target areas with little to no civilian population to worry about indirectly harming. And where the enemy is dug into fortified positions where gases that sink (like mustard gas) would seep into.
In OTL theirs some evidence that some Soviet artillery batteries accidentally used some milder chemical weapons against the Germans during the first battle of Sevastapol. Apparently in the Soviets very confused conditions some lewisite artillery shells got mixed into the battery's normal shells. Hitler was afraid enough about escalation that the incident got buried and the Germans never retaliated in kind.
Like I said using gas against another peer conventional force raises a lot of BS. If you're going to use it it makes more sense to use it like the Japanese did in China. Namely use it as a terror weapon against densely populated civilian cities or against very poorly equipped enemy irregulars. Kind of solves the "hiding in a sea of civilians" COIN problem if your just willing to remove the sea of civilians from existence.
Though I do wonder if it might have been worth it for the US/Allies to use gas in the Island hopping campaign in cases like Iwo Jima or Pellieu. Situations where the enemy has pretty poor chemical protective capabilities and little to no ability to really retaliate. Relatively small target areas with little to no civilian population to worry about indirectly harming. And where the enemy is dug into fortified positions where gases that sink (like mustard gas) would seep into.
marathag
Banned
wind direction is barely a tactical issue, otherwise the Germans never would have used Gas in WWI
Soviets are in a far better position to do without horses than the Germans.
In 1939, they had one Cavalry Brigade with 6,200 men and 4,200 horses: 1945 they had six Divisions, two of them SS, and this isn't counting the Cossack units that joined the Heer.
Germans produced 50,000 Kübelwagens, while the USSR did 2400 GAZ-64 Jeeps befor that line was switched over to the BA-64 Armored Car, 9000 built during the War, almost 5000 of the later GAZ-67, mostly because of plentiful LL Jeeps(43,000). After the LL Jeeps dried up in 1945, the GAZ-67B was put to full production of 12,000 a year
marathag
Banned
WWIII, that fallout will circle the whole Northern Hemisphere. Didn't stop either the US or USSR from making an absurd amount of city killers
Garrison
Donor
But it did lead the Soviets deciding to design smaller, 'cleaner' warheads for tactical use, as you say it would have been academic in the end but it did influence their thinking. Anyway getting away from the point which is that the prevailing winds are not kind to the Soviets when it comes to deploying chemical weapons.