Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: sporay@adm.brl.mil (/usr/brl/bin/Pnews: /usr/bin/ypmatch: cannot execute) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Nerve Gas Message-ID: <1990Sep18.024204.19773@cbnews.att.com> Date: 18 Sep 90 02:42:04 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 67 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "/usr/brl/bin/Pnews: /usr/bin/ypmatch: cannot execute" >>>*Historically*, in pre-nerve-gas days, it was indeed true that chemical >>>weapons very seldom killed or permanently injured soldiers. >> >>Yes, during WW1 fewer chemical casualties were killed then injured, that >>holds true for just about any weapon. >I checked Ian Hogg's book "Gas" for the numbers. 7% of gas casualties >died; 12% had some degree of permanent disability. These numbers aren't >quite as low as I misremembered them, but they are still well below the >corresponding ones for any other major weapon. Take into consideration that during WW1 chemical weapons were not used on every battlefield like s, thats why the percentages are lower. Did you think that for every HE round fired there was a compli- entary H-series or CG round that followed. On those battlefields where first generation chemical weapons were used they were effective, despite the inefficiency in which they were deliveried. "Out of 224,089 A.E.F. soldiers recorded as having been admitted to hospital for all purposes, 70,552 were suffering from gas alone and a number of others were suffering from bullet or shell wounds and gas. In addition there were nearly 1,000 U.S. Marine gas casualties listed separately." This means that over 30% of the wounds received by American troops were attributed to chemical weapons. >>One reason why casualties weren't >>higher was because the means of delivery was primative compared to the >>modern battle field. In the beginning of WW1 they used gas cylinders and >>piped it over trench walls with the wind blowing toward the enemy, today >>chemicals agents are delivered by aircraft spray, bomblets, artillery, >>missiles, and mortars. Back then you could run from a chemical cloud... >Only if by "back then" you mean *early* in WW1. Most of the methods you >mention were in use by 1918. Gas cylinders were very quickly recognized >as a very inefficient method of attack; artillery and mortars replaced >them. You couldn't run from those. The first battle at Ypres, France took place in 1915 so that is <*early*>. "By early summer 1917 both sides had cylinders and shells and a chemical warfare stalemate had been reached; then the Germans used mustard gas for the first time. It took the Allies months to catch up, but they did in the end." Gas cylinders were used to the end of the war and were not replaced, artillery and mortar chemical rounds were just added to the inventory of new weapons, the same was true for the flamethrower it didn't replace the trench lighter. One of the largest gas cylinder attacks took place late in the war "5,000 cylinders had been discharged and reports said the gas had travelled up to eight miles behind the enemy lines, causing more than 4,000 casualties." >>>(The tales you see about people blinded by gas in WWI are basically >>>propaganda... >>Lewisite (blister agent) was ready for use before the end of WW1 but >>did not go into service... [it blinded] >Nobody is disputing that later gases were worse than the ones used in WW1. "Under the terms of the Armistice Treaty the Germans were obliged to reveal the secrets of the manufacture of all their war gases and it was learned that they too had experimented with a form of Lewisite, the Germans had once again, used the Russian front for their experiments." reference Moore, William, Gas Attack, Hippocrene Books, 1987 ************************************************** sporay@brl.mil