Without the soldier the weapons of war such as the rifle, tanks, and machine guns become useless with no tactical value. Therefore the solution to advancing troops forward, and render the enemy useless, was to either kill or injure them, or disarm him. One of them most effective and inhumane methods to injure and kill men was the introduction of gas warfare onto the battlefield.
Introduction into War
Although chemicals have been used on the battlefield for thousands of years (poisonous arrows, arsenic smoke, boiling tar), modern day chemical warfare was developed during World War One. The first recorded large-scale gas attack was set off by the French in August of 1914 at leper in Belgium to try and stop the Germans from advancing[1]. They used tear gas grenades holding xylyl bromide as a last attempt, even if it went against all previous casualties of battlefield ethics. Although the French were the first to use gas during battle, the Germans were the first to decisively plan and test gas as a weapon. During World War I, the Germans adopted a proposal by Dundonald to suffocate the enemy’s trench garrisons with toxic gas[2]. In October of the same year, the Germans employed a form of sneezing gas to render their opponents unable to defend their positions[3].
Warning Bell for Gas Attacks
Although chemicals have been used on the battlefield for thousands of years (poisonous arrows, arsenic smoke, boiling tar), modern day chemical warfare was developed during World War One. The first recorded large-scale gas attack was set off by the French in August of 1914 at leper in Belgium to try and stop the Germans from advancing[1]. They used tear gas grenades holding xylyl bromide as a last attempt, even if it went against all previous casualties of battlefield ethics. Although the French were the first to use gas during battle, the Germans were the first to decisively plan and test gas as a weapon. During World War I, the Germans adopted a proposal by Dundonald to suffocate the enemy’s trench garrisons with toxic gas[2]. In October of the same year, the Germans employed a form of sneezing gas to render their opponents unable to defend their positions[3].
Gas Cylinders
However once trench warfare had made its indent on war, a heavier gas was needed in order to achieve the desired effect. The Germans chose to use chlorine gas for its ease of production and use, and decided to use metal cylinders built into the front line parapet as a method of discharge. Rather than employ all the gas cylinders at once, they focused on a small section on the north-eastern face of the Ypres salient to test its effects. However their decision to employ only small amounts proved to be advantageous to the Allies. When the Canadians came to replace the French Division, they noticed that there was no gas on the enemy’s side and they would be safer fighting there than in the old French trenches[4]. Soaking their handkerchiefs with urine to neutralize the effects of the chlorine, they advanced. The Germans were not expecting such movement and were not prepared for this attack, making it easier for the Canadians to take their positions.
Gas cylinder warfare had many shortfalls. In order to be successful, it heavily depended on the speed and direction of the wind. Otherwise the wind could blow the gas back to the army employing it, completely defeating its purpose. The cylinders were often heavy and difficult to transport and install. With a weight of approximately 160 pounds, the cylinders were strapped to the backs of soldiers (often referred to as "the frightfulness squad") to be carried to the front lines[5]. After they were in place many men spent weeks on end living alongside the cylinders, waiting for the right time, knowing that any bombardment or random shell from the enemy could detonate them.
However once trench warfare had made its indent on war, a heavier gas was needed in order to achieve the desired effect. The Germans chose to use chlorine gas for its ease of production and use, and decided to use metal cylinders built into the front line parapet as a method of discharge. Rather than employ all the gas cylinders at once, they focused on a small section on the north-eastern face of the Ypres salient to test its effects. However their decision to employ only small amounts proved to be advantageous to the Allies. When the Canadians came to replace the French Division, they noticed that there was no gas on the enemy’s side and they would be safer fighting there than in the old French trenches[4]. Soaking their handkerchiefs with urine to neutralize the effects of the chlorine, they advanced. The Germans were not expecting such movement and were not prepared for this attack, making it easier for the Canadians to take their positions.
Gas cylinder warfare had many shortfalls. In order to be successful, it heavily depended on the speed and direction of the wind. Otherwise the wind could blow the gas back to the army employing it, completely defeating its purpose. The cylinders were often heavy and difficult to transport and install. With a weight of approximately 160 pounds, the cylinders were strapped to the backs of soldiers (often referred to as "the frightfulness squad") to be carried to the front lines[5]. After they were in place many men spent weeks on end living alongside the cylinders, waiting for the right time, knowing that any bombardment or random shell from the enemy could detonate them.
Early British Gas Shell
Gas Shells
The introduction of the gas shell helped with the shortfalls of the gas cylinder in many ways. First of all, it was not dependent of the wind, which allowed quick concentrations of gas onto a specific target[6]. The gas shell also did not need special training of its operators, making it a quick and mobile method of attack. One of the only problems with the shell was that it could only be made into small containers, which led to the introduction of more concentrated gases such as phosgene and mustard gas.
The introduction of the gas shell helped with the shortfalls of the gas cylinder in many ways. First of all, it was not dependent of the wind, which allowed quick concentrations of gas onto a specific target[6]. The gas shell also did not need special training of its operators, making it a quick and mobile method of attack. One of the only problems with the shell was that it could only be made into small containers, which led to the introduction of more concentrated gases such as phosgene and mustard gas.
Mustard Gas
Mustard gas (also known as Yellow Cross and Yperite) was introduced onto the battlefield along with the gas shells. Rather than killing those who come in contact with it, mustard gas often causes severe blistering on the skin which burns for several hours after exposure, and heals slowly[7]. In many cases it can also cause blindness. It was first used by the Germans on the Ypres Salient on July 11th 1917, and caused 20 000 British casualties in the next six weeks afterwards[8]. It was after this which the British and the French started to manufacture mustard gas in large amounts.
Mustard gas (also known as Yellow Cross and Yperite) was introduced onto the battlefield along with the gas shells. Rather than killing those who come in contact with it, mustard gas often causes severe blistering on the skin which burns for several hours after exposure, and heals slowly[7]. In many cases it can also cause blindness. It was first used by the Germans on the Ypres Salient on July 11th 1917, and caused 20 000 British casualties in the next six weeks afterwards[8]. It was after this which the British and the French started to manufacture mustard gas in large amounts.
Phosgene
Phosgene gas is eighteen times as deadly as chlorine gas and its effect is much slower. Sometimes taking as long as 48 hours for symptoms to show, the victim’s breathing becomes laboured, they start to vomit, their pulse increases, their skin turns grey, and they start coughing pints of yellow fluid. Phosgene gas exposure causes much less coughing than chlorine gas exposure does. A "white star" mixture of phosgene and chlorine gas was commonly used on the Somme: the chlorine content supplied the necessary vapour to carry the phosgene gas to the enemy.
Phosgene gas is eighteen times as deadly as chlorine gas and its effect is much slower. Sometimes taking as long as 48 hours for symptoms to show, the victim’s breathing becomes laboured, they start to vomit, their pulse increases, their skin turns grey, and they start coughing pints of yellow fluid. Phosgene gas exposure causes much less coughing than chlorine gas exposure does. A "white star" mixture of phosgene and chlorine gas was commonly used on the Somme: the chlorine content supplied the necessary vapour to carry the phosgene gas to the enemy.
Geneva Protocol
After seeing the horrendous effects that gas warfare made on the battlefield after world war one, few countries wanted to see it employed again in future wars. In 1925, a convention was held in Geneva to create the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. However the Geneva Protocol did not ban the development, production or possession of chemical weapons, and permitting countries who signed the protocol the use of them on ones who did not[9]. Since the Geneva Protocol, most countries have retained from the use of chemical warfare, some have not.
After seeing the horrendous effects that gas warfare made on the battlefield after world war one, few countries wanted to see it employed again in future wars. In 1925, a convention was held in Geneva to create the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. However the Geneva Protocol did not ban the development, production or possession of chemical weapons, and permitting countries who signed the protocol the use of them on ones who did not[9]. Since the Geneva Protocol, most countries have retained from the use of chemical warfare, some have not.
References
[1] Trueman, Chris. “Poison Gas and World War One” HistoryLearningSite.co.uk http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/poison_gas_and_world_war_one.htm (Accessed May 23, 2013)
[2] Fuller, J.F.C. The Conduct of War 1789-1961 New Brunswick, New Jersey: Da Capo Press, p 172
[3] Trueman, Ibid. (Accessed May 23, 2013)
[4] Brewer, Paul. The Chronicle of War London: SevenOaks, 2007 p 119
[5] Berton, Pierre. Vimy Markham: Penguin Books Ltd., 1986 p 127.
[6] Fuller, J.F.C. Ibid. p 173
[7] Fuller, Ibid. p 173
[8] Fuller, J.F.C. Ibid. p 173
[9] Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons “Basic Facts on Chemical Disarmament” http://www.opcw.org/news-publications/publications/history-of-the-chemical-weapons-convention/ (Accessed June 3, 2013)
[1] Trueman, Chris. “Poison Gas and World War One” HistoryLearningSite.co.uk http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/poison_gas_and_world_war_one.htm (Accessed May 23, 2013)
[2] Fuller, J.F.C. The Conduct of War 1789-1961 New Brunswick, New Jersey: Da Capo Press, p 172
[3] Trueman, Ibid. (Accessed May 23, 2013)
[4] Brewer, Paul. The Chronicle of War London: SevenOaks, 2007 p 119
[5] Berton, Pierre. Vimy Markham: Penguin Books Ltd., 1986 p 127.
[6] Fuller, J.F.C. Ibid. p 173
[7] Fuller, Ibid. p 173
[8] Fuller, J.F.C. Ibid. p 173
[9] Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons “Basic Facts on Chemical Disarmament” http://www.opcw.org/news-publications/publications/history-of-the-chemical-weapons-convention/ (Accessed June 3, 2013)