Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

No bio-chemicals against Russia - why?

Discussion in 'Eastern Europe October 1939 to February 1943' started by Kruska, Feb 10, 2010.

  1. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    141
    They had plenty. There were ruthless with nations they were at war with, but do you know of any acts they ordered which broke the then internationally agreed rules of warfare ?
     
    brndirt1 likes this.
  2. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I agree, those two didn't instigate any what would be considered "war crimes" in the context of the time. However they were both willing to retaliate "in kind" if such methods were used against their own or their allies.
     
  3. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Hello redcoat,

    hmmm..national feelings got aroused? :D after all Churchill was mentioned.

    I forwarded this in regards to the topic G A S. Churchill had already proposed the usage of gas when things got out of hands for the British in the 20's in Mesopotamia. Churchill had also proposed the usage of Gas in case of a landing of German troops on British soil.
    FDR had proposed the usage of gas in case of D-day being a failure, before in 1943 he had already send gas to Italy (Bari incident).

    So all the three had no scruples in taking/proposing gas as a solution - luckily none did, and if the USA didn't have the A-bomb, I bet you all my money Truman would have gased away a couple of Japanese cities (Mery-killings out of kindness :rolleyes:) it would be termed later in history.

    The Status Quo on GAS worked only were retaliation was to be taken into account.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  4. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    141
    Well, I'm as proud to be British, as you are probably proud to be German ;)
    But they didn't use them, so no war crime.
    Churchill's views on gas are well known, he didn't understand the ban on the use of gas, even gases like tear gas which could disable but not kill, while it was perfectly acceptable to design weapons that kill and wound in the most horrid ways imaginable
     
  5. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    redcoat;
    :D yes, but Bavarian in the first place ;)

    I never said that they (Hitler,Churchill and FDR) used them, nor did I forward the term war crime.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  6. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    141
    No, you used the word scruples.
    But both Churchill and FDR had enough scruples to not commit any war crimes in WW2 ;)
     
  7. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Again, I did not mention war crimes.

    I forwarded that in regards to threatening/proposing the usage of GAS as a military option, Churchill and FDR had no less scruples than Hitler had in this issue.

    That Hitler was a mentally distorted criminal in all regards is understood - but does not alter the fact that Churchill or FDR threatened/proposed the usage of GAS. ;)

    And if Hitler would have won - Churchill would certainly have ended up being hanged due to numerous war crimes against the German people. Those who win decide upon justice and punishment or interprete causes and actions deemed to be war crimes.

    And upon Hitler having won, the extermination of Jews and others would be termed by those Nazi dickheads a sacrifice of humanity for a greater cause - and all European politicians would be sending telegrams of appreciation till today on his birthday for whatever true reason.

    And again I think it is necessary to state that luckily a Churchill was around to stop the madman - I do hope that you get my point which is not about excusing Hitlers doings or wrongfully placing a Churchill into the same league with Hitler.

    But I really hate these post, where Hitlers or Nazi war crimes are forwarded to excuse or downplay wrongdoings or actions by the so called victors.
    Sorry for getting carried away.(let's see if my prison cell is still available)

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  8. Herr Oberst

    Herr Oberst Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    70
    I think you answered your own question. NBC has a nasty way of biting the user/sender back in the ass. My wife's grandfather got nailed that way in WWI, he survived but barely. Hitler was also afraid of reprisals with gas. I seem to recall reading that somewhere regarding the white, blue gas classifications, can't recall the source now. Bio is even worse with collateral issues.

    K the firebombings were horrific against both sides but effective in their use. Although I don't classify incendiary bombs of WWII as chemical weapons, I'm sure someone will argue the contrary.
     
  9. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Hello Herr Oberst,

    Not quite, Tabun nerve gas dripplets in conjunction with the appropriate mix to its carrier/disperse medium do not wander around for miles such as the GAS of WWI. It is acctually very concentric in its dispersal mode and dropped via bombs or artillery shells it would not effect troops being away from the target more then one km. Dispersing it via a V1/V2 would enhance range tremendously, however the precision in regards to the target factor would in most cases decrease.

    The military advantage lies in its contamination period. Tabun affected areas could not have been used or literaly touched for up to 8 days. Militarily speaking you can create or incorporate "unspoiled pockets of no resistance" into your strategy. The later developed US Lance and Honest John systems were ment for this kind of strategy besides using nuke warheads.

    The dissadvantage of Firebombings would be that you only get to occupy destroyed cities - so no real advantage towards Russia besides spreading terror amongst the population and destroying infrastructure.

    Nerve gas agents are more simmilar to the neutron bomb in its intension of meerly getting rid of people.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  10. Herr Oberst

    Herr Oberst Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    70
    Isn't what you are discussing 1950's technology rather than WW2 vintage. Regards Honest John Bomblets. Granted ideas developed and perfected from German engineering but what about the operational differences. Please provide source for the WW2 application. I would like to read more about it. I am somewhat familiar with the Germans working with the Russians on chemical warfare in the 20s Bersol AG, Hugo Stolzenberg Company. Also familiar with the differences between Ypres style of wind dispersal of chlorine gas and the development of submunitions of the 50s and 60s but by no mean am I an expert on the subject. I see your point of active life of the agent Tabun as a desireable weapon but what of the safety to user troops on transport and the delivery system?

    What of the lack of use by Bolshevik forces when they were in retreat for the cities of Kiev and Stalingrad in WWII? The Bolsheviks used chemical weapons during The Russian Civil War in Tambov.
     
  11. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Hello Oberst,

    I meerly brought up the Honest John in regards to the later US ABC weapons strategy "unspoiled pockets of no resistance" and issues regarding (target break through range), approximation and precision.
    The V1 and V2 had a good to fantastic target break through range-, but weren't really "precise" weapons.

    The factors approximation and impact speed (off the warhead) - have a great deal of influence on the dispersal eveloping character - one would need an approximity fuse (which the Germans didn't have) or a time fuse (Which they had).

    That is what I tried to point out in regards to the production of Tabun and a carrier system not being available before 1943/44.

    Furthermore AFAIK only in conjunction with the rocket fuel of the V2 the Germans had developed full size protection suits.

    I am not an expert either - but the gas used by the Soviets IIRC was "just" mustard gas - not a nerve gas which is going/acting through the skin of its victims.

    Since the A-bomb project in Germany wasn't really on the way, I sometimes wonder if Hitlers "prime - wonderweapon" was supposed to be a V2 carring Tabun or Sarin.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  12. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Location:
    Michigan
    A V2 with either of the above would be essentially useless. About all it would do is create a hole in the ground that was contaminated for a short time.
     
  13. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Certainly not with an approximity fuse - on which the "rocket engineers" were working on feverishly - not just for the Wasserfall.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  14. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Location:
    Michigan
    Even if it had one I'm not sure it would be up to what they needed with 1940's level tech. The timing has to be pretty close to get the effect you desire. Too high and you have a harmless mist and some chunks of metal headed to the ground. To low and you have a hole in the ground with a fairly small contaminated rign around it. Getting the dispersion right is not a neasy thing, witness the failure a few years ago to have any significant effect in a subway station and hand delivered gas. At best it's going to require a rather extensive and expensive testing program. Expensive not just in terms of cash but in terms of time and equipment.
     
  15. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Correct, - but it might. Since the Germans to my knowledge didn't have anything else (besides flying soucers:)) by 44/45 the so much desired and talked about "changing everthing wonderweapon" - could probably have only been this Tabun V2. - who knows?

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  16. GrandsonofAMarine

    GrandsonofAMarine Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hey, the author of that article was a professor of mine at Eastern Michigan University. Dr. Citino is a great teacher.
     

Share This Page