Oh but gatlin is so nice and civiliced… A chemical war fare killed less people than artillery. A lot less and a better dead. Faster in many cases. If you initially paralyze the other side and end battle faster less people would die and end hurt.
I’ll not speak for @Goshman setting but IRL it’s never been particularly effective. Shifting weather conditions make it just as likely to affect your own troops as the enemy when they are in close proximity and often reduce effectiveness. Also masks and other CBRN equipment over time make it so enemy troops aren’t as effected directly and you mess up your own ability to take the territory they are sitting on cuz you yucked it up.
Overall chemical weapons can be effective as a terror weapon, and circumstantially against enemy troops, particularly if you are trying to break contact.
2 Likes
Getting ready for chemical warfare only began in earnest at the turn of the century, and then blew up (pardon the pun) during the first World War. There were attempts at use of chemicals during the American Civil War, and the general staff on both sides were quite opposed to the idea which never allowed chemical weapons to really develop during the conflict or afterwards.
Ultimately the success of chemical weapons relied on the industrial manufacturing methods becoming far more refined during the 1890-1920 period. That is what allowed the large-scale deployment of new and horrific compounds in WWI whereas they weren’t plausible for large-scale use before that.
The stability of the frontline during WWI also helped chemical weapons in becoming an efficient tool of war. If you have marching formations, there is the possibility to avoid a gas shelling and redeploy somewhere safe, but when you’re dug in, you have nowhere to run.
We also have to remember that there has been some kind of an international agreement against the use of chemical weapons since the 17th century. The Hague Conventions would also go on to constrict usage in the late 19th century. So it’s likely that the world in the story has something similar to keep “unsportsmanlike” conduct of warfare out of the mainstream until things get bad enough to warrant the use of such horrible weapons.
So chemical weapons won’t be much of a thing in the story. I think I’ll introduce something along the way, but it’ll be limited to what was feasible during the period. So if I introduce something, it’ll be a milder compound, something like chlorine gas would be likely tested, but not the really horrific stuff like mustard gas.
2 Likes
I want a fear war to break their will and their flanks… Poisoning water supplies destroy intendence mines…
I mean it was used extensively on both sides in WWI and no wills were broken…
Gas also killing many, many, many fewer troops than rifle bullets.
1 Like
Well if my mc has any say in it the side he’s on will certainly be set against it.
If he does see it used expect him to become a vociferous proponent of this world equivalent of the Hague Conventions, or to propose something like that if it hasn’t yet been conceived.
Besides not being that effective and being a war-crime here are the cheery effects of mustard gas:
Moral arguments aside this is the big practical argument against it, depending on weather conditions you make the territory you want to take unusable for days.
My mc would rather use those gatling guns and, if he can get some, close support aircraft to break the enemy ranks.
As for terror weapons my mc would rather use Zeppelin “strategic” bombardment on enemy territory.
I think there is a tendency to greatly overestimate how much international agreements actually restrain armies and governments when SHTF. The Italians used gas in WWII on Ethiopia. The only reason they didn’t use it on the Allies wasn’t their regard for international law but rather their desire not to be gassed in turn.
That and again the limited effectiveness on actual troop formations particularly as dispersion increased.
1 Like
“And they came at us in the same old ways…”
1 Like
Unfortunately true, but other then creating a global super-state to make sure there are no more wars and everybody follows the same laws (a popular thing in scifi, where it will remain for the foreseeable future) those international agreements are the next best thing.
You know the Germans developed nerve gas during the war. Shamed it was never used to slow down the hordes in the east or even on the D day beaches. But your right the allies already had stockpiles of gas to use of the axis if they start first, heck they even had a accidental release of it in italy
Well, when the other guy has chem as well, and you’re already on a pretty shit footing, that becomes less an effective footing. Plus, the amount of chem you need in an open environment is immense. Every artillery round you’re using to fire chem is one less of HE.
Why all of you are thinking in gas? Amateurs in Poisoning… lol Water and corpses with an illness let there in a supposed re taken place kill the grain poison the crops … fire the forest … Not a simple gas grenade… I am Roman follower Tabula Rasa… Antrax … arsenic … cianide … lead and quicksilver
Well, because in a fast moving conflict those are a touch less easy to employ with any degree of rapidity. Plus, the commentary was on the Germans not using gas against the Allies in the second world war…
3 Likes
I say keep it gender lock one things I like about game is everyone has there own preference. But make up for have gay or character on into no gender in the university route offer a great boom.
1 Like
Not at all. International agreements mean less than jack shit when going gets tough. It’s paper to wipe one’s ass with, as we see in almost every war that has ever been waged.
However, it does reflect a general attitude of the time towards warfare and shows us that there were indeed great concerns within governments and general staff about widespread chemical weapons. If you want to be more cynical about it: there’s no way to stop the spreading of these weapons, but you can make it less attractive by having the most powerful Empires agree that their chemical toys will be their chemical toys and not anyone else’s.
It’s the same as we see today and throughout the second half of the 20th century with nuclear weapons, in fact.
At least to me it’s quite likely that WWI would probably not have seen such widespread adoption of chemical warfare if it were not for the simple fact that everyone was stuck in the same holes for years and years. If the war had been more mobile, it’s quite unlikely that either side would have resorted to chemical weapons at least on a large scale.
In fact, we see that on the far more mobile WWI Eastern front where chemical weapons were far less prevalent and it had nothing to do with a curmudgeon general refusing to use them. It just wasn’t nearly as effective, and the likelyhood of advancing into your own gas was greater.
As for WWII, I believe it’s Hitler that was most against the use of chemical weapons. (Unless that is unsubstantiated information, of course. I recall reading it somewhere and I doubt it was a reputable source.) He’d been on the receiving end of it. And, of course, they knew that chemical weapons would just bring even more ire their way, as well as retaliatory chemical attacks from the Allies who had far superior stockpiles to the Germans. It’s likely there would have been a bit of an uproar at home as well.
But to be fair to the Axis, it’s not just them who thought about using chemical weapons. There are plenty of documents where Churchill implores time and time again for the general staff to consider using chemical weapons - not just against German military targets, but civilian population as well. Instead, as we see later in the war, the generals decided to firebomb the German civilian population.
Not to mention that the British plan against Operation Sealion was to flood the beaches with all sorts of gasses.
1 Like
Well, like you said, a lot of it is related to mobility. It is much easier to saturate relatively stationary targets than forces that can just… drive out of it.
I suspect the Generals were like, “Thank you for your note sir. Please leave the mircomanagement of the war and the selection of weapon systems for specific operations to us… You know, the folks currently in your employ to make those decisions.”
I think your latter point about mobility is proably the most right. It’s very hard to exploit an opening you created in the enemy’s line with gas, and both the Allies and Axis always believed they were one deft stroke away from “wrapping this up before Christmas.”
1 Like
This is a little late, but I found something about gatling guns. I know this is a Maxim.
10 Likes
You might be interested in Agent Orange.
Well, you said chemical weaponry not biological. And biological weaponry have insane infection rates and can easily backfire on you. I would take chemical weaponry over biological weaponry any day.
There’s the Blue Cross and the White Cross but they were predominantly chlorine and bromide/chlorine respectively (plus a shit ton of hydrocarbons).
Too slow, unless it’s a projectile.
I’m not aware of any battlefield or strategic bombing usage of any of these, so if you do know any I would like to know.
On a related note, I found somewhere on the Internet that the discovery of the nasty chlorine gasses was a result of the Germans trying to find a more potent tear gas to outdo the French when the latter used it. I’m not sure if this is true or not. And the famous gasses were the Green Cross and the Yellow Cross (phosgene and mustard gas respectively).
I do have a question about machine guns. What are the strengths and weaknesses of automatic rifles such as the BAR versus that of light machine guns (Bren guns, bipod MG42, etc.). I’m curious as to what situations one gun is better than the other.
2 Likes
Actually they were more like: “If we use this first as an offensive weapon, it’ll erode our moral high ground. and if we use this on an entirely civilian population it’ll make it near impossible to continue a rapid advance when the civilian population is in constant resistance against us. Also, our people still remember what it was like last war, we’ll lose support at home.”
I believe Churchill’s response was akin to: “What’s this nonsense about morality when we used this weapon throughout the last war without so much as a peep from anyone?”
I believe I can help on defining a difference to an extent, but definitely correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not a machine gunner, I’m an NCO, so my answer will obviously be from a more tactical instead of technical point of view.
Automatic rifles are support weapons with a focus on mobility and redeployability by a single soldier. That means lesser capacity for continuous fire, but ability to move around freely as an integrated part of a squad.
Machine guns tend to be operated by a squad of their own, or a group of soldiers within a squad, and thus can be heavier and will be more inclined to stay where they are for longer to provide support instead of moving around with a squad.
As a complete aside, I had a lazy day and the Empire has a new crown:
11 Likes