|
Elyv posted:So this is probably pretty common knowledge in this thread, but my friend asked me this and I didn't really have an answer: why was there no(large scale?) deployment of chemical/biological weapons in WW2? The technology has existed since WW1, after all. Fear of retribution, if I understand it correctly. Most of the major combatants had stockpiles, but it was so incredibly obvious that using gas (especially against civilians) would start a horrific retribution spiral that ends with every major European city having their lungs melted that even the Nazis weren't dumb enough to try it.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:27 |
|
|
Elyv posted:So this is probably pretty common knowledge in this thread, but my friend asked me this and I didn't really have an answer: why was there no(large scale?) deployment of chemical/biological weapons in WW2? The technology has existed since WW1, after all. Because of the experience with them in WWI was terrible enough that all the powers somehow stuck to not using them. Everybody had it on hand still, just in case...
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Elyv posted:So this is probably pretty common knowledge in this thread, but my friend asked me this and I didn't really have an answer: why was there no(large scale?) deployment of chemical/biological weapons in WW2? The technology has existed since WW1, after all. MAD. It was on the table from British forces if Sealion had actually happened though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
In short "many of the commanders had fought in WWI and weren't about to relive that poo poo again."
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Isn't the actual utility of chemical weapons kind of debatable? From what I understand, they're more effective if you have a fairly static situation like most of the Western Front and not useful otherwise. So it wasn't so much a "chemical weapons are too horrifying to be used" thing it was "what would be the point of dropping a chemical shell instead of high explosives?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Also chemical weapons didn't give a decisive advantage because pretty much everyone was somewhat prepared for it and chemical weapons were unreliable in general. If they were only a nuisance in WW1 then might as well skip them in WW2. Biological weapons could have been something, but fortunately cooler minds prevailed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Churchill had plans for a mass deployment of chemical weapons in the event of the invasion of Britain as one of a number of "gently caress you, we'd rather destroy everything than lose" plans, but nothing came of it. There was a lot of shuffling around chemical weapons by both sides, but nothing really happened aside from an accidental deployment when a ship carrying them was bombed. I feel like I remember that some other weapons that were used had previously been banned, like flamethrowers, but I can't find a good source confirming that. Balloon bombs had been banned by the Hague, but I don't suppose Japan had agreed to that anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Is that woman Victory? Victory over the Buffet Table at Giorgio's Taverna, I assume. Because she fat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Your Victory is so fat when she sits around the peace conference table, she sits around the peace conference table.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
drat, look at Versailles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:To get at the most obvious point of failure in the hypothetical, were German losses any more sustainable? I would think they would be having an even harder time fighting over enemy territory, but I don't know what the relative manpower pools of the RAF and Luftwaffe looked like. Nope. If I remember correctly, Luftwaffe pilot numbers are consistently going downwards while RAF pilot numbers are always able to keep pace with losses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Because of the experience with them in WWI was terrible enough that all the powers somehow stuck to not using them. Everybody had it on hand still, just in case... I also seem to remember that Germany had a weird thing about using shotguns in war as a result of them being used in WW1 which is part of why they never fielded any.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Because of the experience with them in WWI was terrible enough that all the powers somehow stuck to not using them. Everybody had it on hand still, just in case... I've read the Wehrmacht finally used some chemical weapons during the mountain fighting in Italy, near the end of the war. But since no-one wanted to really use this poo poo, even the Nazis soon stopped using it again. Hitler himself got hurt by a gas attack in WWI and rumour has it this was the reason he was dead set against using it. Which makes the usage of poison gas on Jews kind of even more horrifying in hindsight...
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Is that woman Victory? It's your mom I actually don't know who it is but my best guess is that it's Mars, Venus, and Cupid. That doesn't explain the cup though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
The US had an enormous stockpile of chemical weapons, and seriously contemplated using them in the Pacific during the island-hopping as a solution to Japanese tunnel fortresses. In the last ten years or so there was an interesting US army plan declassified: as a potential alternative to the atomic bomb, FDR was presented with a plan to deploy the American chemical arsenal to its fullest extent against the Japanese Home Islands due to the expected casualties of Operations Olympic and Coronet. From what I've read, the decision not to employ chemical weapons in the Pacific came down to a combination of tactical factors (being unsure how well the gasses would work in the tropical climate, the danger to American troops who would need to deploy the gasses and later check the Japanese strongpoints to verify that everyone was dead, etc) and FDR and Truman feeling the political downsides to using chemical weapons on a large scale not being worth the payoff over existing island warfare techniques. Then, of course, Truman chose the atom bomb over the chemical assault option for the Home Islands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:Hey thread, my dad visited Bratislava, Prague, and Vienna this year, and I wanted to get him some books on that general part of Europe for Christmas since he came back with a bunch of questions. Any good recs for the HRE or the Hapsburgs? Danubia and Germania by Simon Winder are both fantastic, assuming threadposters don't immediately beat me to death for inaccuracies of which I am unaware.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Japan did extensively use chemical and biological weapons against the Chinese in WW2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The US had basically run out of cities to bomb by the time they got around to drop the first nuke The bit that sticks in my head is the message from LeMay saying the bombing of Japan would be complete by the end of 1945. You know you've been bombed when Curtis LeMay doesn't see any point in it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:Japan did extensively use chemical and biological weapons against the Chinese in WW2. Came to post this. Germ warfare was mostly tested on Chinese villages, but they straight up deployed mustard gas and lewisite against military targets. Libluini posted:I've read the Wehrmacht finally used some chemical weapons during the mountain fighting in Italy, near the end of the war. But since no-one wanted to really use this poo poo, even the Nazis soon stopped using it again. Ivan's War says the wehrmact flushed out a cave fortress near Sevastopol with a chemical weapon, but I have heard it mentioned no other place. Could be CS, perhaps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Even Australia tested chemical weapons in WW2 with the Americans, on our own soldiers no less. Getting back to the bombing, it's generally acknowledged that it didn't have the desired effect on any major population's morale, whether that be British, German or Japan pre-atomic weapons. The first major missile bombing only made the British angrier. Only atomic weapons or outright invasion definitively worked, and the cost in lives was too much even then. I don't know that it would be any different today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:It's your mom i think Fortuna has a cup sometimes, but since this woman has none of Fortuna's other attributes idk
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Didn't Germans use tear gas against Poles during the 39 invasion?HEY GAL posted:i think Fortuna has a cup sometimes, but since this woman has none of Fortuna's other attributes idk Is her rear end too small?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Didn't Germans use tear gas against Poles during the 39 invasion? it's kind of interesting how CS gas constitutes a chemical weapon on par with lewisite or VX according to the treaty, but I suppose it has to do with the potential for identification failure - you get hit with a gas shell and all of sudden you can't breathe, you're going to report that, and your commander might respond "in kind". I've been CS and CN gassed, like, twenty times, it's a good thing for the police the treaty doesn't apply to protestors I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Tias posted:it's kind of interesting how CS gas constitutes a chemical weapon on par with lewisite or VX according to the treaty, but I suppose it has to do with the potential for identification failure - you get hit with a gas shell and all of sudden you can't breathe, you're going to report that, and your commander might respond "in kind". We had gas protection training when I was conscripted, but my gas mask was faulty (probably my own fault) and I got a taste of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:We had gas protection training when I was conscripted, but my gas mask was faulty (probably my own fault) and I got a taste of it. Yikes man
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Is her rear end too small? the globe's her rear end
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:We had gas protection training when I was conscripted, but my gas mask was faulty (probably my own fault) and I got a taste of it. I had intentionally left mine at the barracks when we headed to the final maneuvres ("the ending war" as it's called in Finnish) and then one day we got a gas alert. But I got lucky, either the gas never reached our position or maybe they realized that gassing an entire forest would constitute an environmental crime, I doubt wild animals like CS gas any better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I also seem to remember that Germany had a weird thing about using shotguns in war as a result of them being used in WW1 which is part of why they never fielded any. They did have a very limited number that were issued, in the form of the Luftwaffe's M30 Drilling gun, which was issued to Luftwaffe crews that flew up north, as a means to hunt. As for chemical weapons, depending on how you look at/classify White Phosphorus, then everyone was using Chemical Weapons on a large scale. Also, the Germans were still scared of chemical warfare as evidenced by the fact that late-'44 and '45 Panzers had gas attack/detection panels fitted to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:fortuna usually is standing on a ball or globe, or has a wheel with her post pics! here's a fortuna with big assets and a cup: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Tias posted:I've been CS and CN gassed, like, twenty times, it's a good thing for the police the treaty doesn't apply to protestors I guess. American cops are under far, far less restrictions when dealing with civilians than actual soldiers in a war zone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:American cops are under far, far less restrictions when dealing with civilians than actual soldiers in a war zone. This is in Denmark, but I think this is a pretty cop-wide thing. I've had both regular canisters and Ferrets( piercing cartridges made for penetrating DOORS before discharging gas) fired directly at me, even had to drag a young girl away after one exploded against her head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:American cops are under far, far less restrictions when dealing with civilians than actual soldiers in a war zone. Let's be honest, tear gas and ricin might both be chemical weapons but then also a baton and a chainsaw are both melee weapons. Also the police and their enemies have never ratified a treaty limiting the use of chemical weapons so anything goes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Is it significant that there were no chemical weapons used on the Eastern front? It seems like they weren't pulling any punches there otherwise, so is the idea just that it wouldn't have been particularly effective? There was an interesting situation in Italy, a ship carrying mustard gas bombs was hit in an air raid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari#John_Harvey I didn't even realize that the Luftwaffe was still doing 100-bomber-raids in 1943. Does someone know something about Operation Vegetarian? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vegetarian It was apparently a plan to use anthrax against Germany. I found a few hits on google scholar and jstor but I don't seem to be able to get my uni library login to work on this computer, and open source hits seem poorly sourced / sensational.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Tias posted:This is in Denmark, but I think this is a pretty cop-wide thing. I've had both regular canisters and Ferrets( piercing cartridges made for penetrating DOORS before discharging gas) fired directly at me, even had to drag a young girl away after one exploded against her head. Everyone uses tear gas, but American police are unique in the amount of violence and the number of deaths they cause. While they're theoretically supposed to use minimal force, in practice a lot of unarmed civilians get killed in ways that a military would poo poo their pants over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Everyone uses tear gas, but American police are unique in the amount of violence and the number of deaths they cause. While they're theoretically supposed to use minimal force, in practice a lot of unarmed civilians get killed in ways that a military would poo poo their pants over. Eh, I'm not super sure the military would care a lot, afaik current british military policy is something absurd like "we have no evidence of collateral damage caused by our airstrikes and also we don't look for any" Sometimes it feels like the only change from WW2 massacring of civilian targets is the volume of destruction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Is it significant that there were no chemical weapons used on the Eastern front? It seems like they weren't pulling any punches there otherwise, so is the idea just that it wouldn't have been particularly effective? Everyone must have realized that there was very little to be gained apart from minute tactical gains. Chemical weapons didn't decide WW1 and were little more than nuisance after gas masks were distributed and methods of chemical detection developed, so why bother? Still they were prepared for it at all levels of military and civilian organization. Chemical weapons would be useful mostly against an opponent totally defenceless against them, like when Britain (supposedly?) used them in Iraq or Italy in Ethiopia. You'd think that Nazis would have used them as a last ditch measure, but there must have been little point in doing so at that point, the response would only have been far worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:To get at the most obvious point of failure in the hypothetical, were German losses any more sustainable? I would think they would be having an even harder time fighting over enemy territory, but I don't know what the relative manpower pools of the RAF and Luftwaffe looked like. The Luftwaffe probably had the world's best all around pilot training in 1940; they got a whole lot of guys through with a whole lot of quality training. They started feeling a bit of a pinch with bomber crews (they took about an extra 3 months/50 hours to train to early war standards) but they never were forced to reduce training hours or increase the size of the pipeline. The RAF on the other hand, at the height of the Battle was having to send guys up after 10 hours of training. I'm not a pilot but I feel like that is barely enough time to teach someone to drive a modern car. The Luftwaffe's major logistical issue in the Battle was maintenance, specifically repair of their bombers. There were some pretty serious structural issues with how they were organized (Air Fleets) and by mid-August the leadership was getting really concerned about the low ORs and really poor turnaround rate on damaged aircraft. This was about the time that Hitler was starting to get really interested in Russia, and they weren't able to both run the attacks against England and set aside reserve aircraft for Barbarossa, despite building plenty of aircraft and not losing that many in the air battles. This only got worse as time went on and then really reared its head later on the Eastern Front. Also getting tear gassed is an annual training thing for the US Army; I actually kind of liked it (eventually) because it really clears out your sinuses which is fantastic if you have a cold. That said, one time I was playing a "POW" so I was bound hands and feet and had a ski mask pulled over my head and some idiot set off a CS grenade right next to my face. I had to be medevaced and was hospitalized because the CS crystals were embedded in my eyes or some poo poo like that. I did not enjoy that one bit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
I've been watching a lot of videos of riot police lately, and it's interesting to see line tactics and shield walls being used in the modern day, although for a very different purpose. American riot police vary a lot from place to place, but there are a lot of instances of overreacting or bringing things along that are more threatening than actually useful, like green camo uniforms and assault rifles. By contrast, British police seem like they have made the biggest effort to be nonthreatening, with their neon jackets, and the videos I've seen make it look like they put more effort into verbally engaging with crowds. There are also videos of Ukraine back before the war, which are interesting because rioters were largely successful in beating the police back. The most impressive so far though was this video where South Korean riot police use a variant of the manipular system. one thing I can't understand though is why sometimes riot police are outfitted with round shields instead of rectangular. What's that about?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The most impressive so far though was this video where South Korean riot police use a variant of the manipular system. That's just a training video, right? It looks like those formations would be highly vulnerable to flanking, and the "rioters" are just lining up perfectly in front of the shields even when it means the excess guys in the back can't do anything but watch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:27 |
|
|
If you see British police walking around in high vis it's probably because that's what colour their body armour is. Though the windbreakers are also that colour because they have to do traffic control in them as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:14
|
|