Comments on: Gas! http://airminded.org/2009/06/27/gas/ Airpower and British society, 1908-1941 Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:05:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: History Carnival 78 | TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog http://airminded.org/2009/06/27/gas/comment-page-1/#comment-107387 History Carnival 78 | TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:32:42 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=2121#comment-107387 [...] believes George Meade and Ulysses S. Grant should shoulder the lion’s share of the blame.  Brett Holman remarks on the possible effects and use of gas attacks on the British and by the Britis... at Airminded.  British worries about desperate Nazi gas attacks turned out to be [...] [...] believes George Meade and Ulysses S. Grant should shoulder the lion’s share of the blame.  Brett Holman remarks on the possible effects and use of gas attacks on the British and by the Britis… at Airminded.  British worries about desperate Nazi gas attacks turned out to be [...]

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2009/06/27/gas/comment-page-1/#comment-107376 Brett Holman Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:00:36 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=2121#comment-107376 Yes, that definitely could be. Operation Crossbow started in August 1943 so civil defence planning could certainly have started around then too. Unfortunately I don't have O'Brien's volume of the official history to hand, that would probably have some information. There was certainly a worry that the V-weapons would amount to a knock-out blow, given a war-weary populace, and IIRC that would be late 1943 or early 1944. Yes, that definitely could be. Operation Crossbow started in August 1943 so civil defence planning could certainly have started around then too. Unfortunately I don’t have O’Brien’s volume of the official history to hand, that would probably have some information. There was certainly a worry that the V-weapons would amount to a knock-out blow, given a war-weary populace, and IIRC that would be late 1943 or early 1944.

]]> By: Chris Williams http://airminded.org/2009/06/27/gas/comment-page-1/#comment-107298 Chris Williams Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:38:34 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=2121#comment-107298 Not sure about Tokyo, but might the mustard test have something to do with the acquistion of intelligence about the V-weapons programme? Gas makes a kind of sense as a weapon dispensed from a cruise missile. Not sure about Tokyo, but might the mustard test have something to do with the acquistion of intelligence about the V-weapons programme? Gas makes a kind of sense as a weapon dispensed from a cruise missile.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2009/06/27/gas/comment-page-1/#comment-107268 Brett Holman Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:20:19 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=2121#comment-107268 Fair points! I probably should have said that Britain was starting to run up against the limits of its manpower. It wasn't scraping the bottom of the barrel (after all, casualties were much less than in WWI), but it couldn't expand its forces (military or industrial) by much either. After D-Day Britain's proportion of Allied forces in Europe kept dropping; if there <em>had</em> been massive casualties and a prolonged campaign, and an invasion of Japan was needed ... Judging from <a href="http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20090627TDY02310.htm" rel="nofollow">this report</a>, it was the Ministry of Supply's Chemical Board which was interested in this question, so maybe it was about asking what could be done with all this mustard gas that's lying around. Fair points! I probably should have said that Britain was starting to run up against the limits of its manpower. It wasn’t scraping the bottom of the barrel (after all, casualties were much less than in WWI), but it couldn’t expand its forces (military or industrial) by much either. After D-Day Britain’s proportion of Allied forces in Europe kept dropping; if there had been massive casualties and a prolonged campaign, and an invasion of Japan was needed …

Judging from this report, it was the Ministry of Supply’s Chemical Board which was interested in this question, so maybe it was about asking what could be done with all this mustard gas that’s lying around.

]]> By: Erik Lund http://airminded.org/2009/06/27/gas/comment-page-1/#comment-107223 Erik Lund Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:28:45 +0000 http://airminded.org/?p=2121#comment-107223 Brett, you're missing a key point. Mustard gas, being a vesicant that acts at a cellular level, is the perfect anti-zombie weapon, ideal for getting all those autonomous crawling bits. No doubt the War Office was expecting the A-Bomb to cause a Japanese zombie holocaust. Forward thinking, there. On another note... the notion of "running out of manpower" is a bit misleading, I think. As long as a nation doesn't lose more than an annual cohort (over 300,000 in the UK, I think?), it's good in the medium term. What happened in 1944 was that the casualty replacement pools were misallocated, mainly to the artillery, and the Middle Eastern Base Area couldn't be dismantled. (IIRC, there's a discussion buried in _Victory in the West_.) A better context for this kind of blue-skying _might_ be the air-industrial complex's reorientation from maximum aircraft production to a "get the new toys out." Looking at all the specifications and prototype activity in 1944, it would be natural for someone to ask "what will our new turboprop, steel-wool skinned Windsors drop on Tokyo?" The idea here being, if my speculation is right, to simultaneously prove to the United States (and Australia) that Britain remained a worthy ally through an overwhelming display of cool stuff, and patch up fraying national self-respect after blows such as the Fedden Report and other commentary on comparative productivity. Brett, you’re missing a key point. Mustard gas, being a vesicant that acts at a cellular level, is the perfect anti-zombie weapon, ideal for getting all those autonomous crawling bits. No doubt the War Office was expecting the A-Bomb to cause a Japanese zombie holocaust. Forward thinking, there.
On another note… the notion of “running out of manpower” is a bit misleading, I think. As long as a nation doesn’t lose more than an annual cohort (over 300,000 in the UK, I think?), it’s good in the medium term. What happened in 1944 was that the casualty replacement pools were misallocated, mainly to the artillery, and the Middle Eastern Base Area couldn’t be dismantled. (IIRC, there’s a discussion buried in _Victory in the West_.)
A better context for this kind of blue-skying _might_ be the air-industrial complex’s reorientation from maximum aircraft production to a “get the new toys out.” Looking at all the specifications and prototype activity in 1944, it would be natural for someone to ask “what will our new turboprop, steel-wool skinned Windsors drop on Tokyo?”
The idea here being, if my speculation is right, to simultaneously prove to the United States (and Australia) that Britain remained a worthy ally through an overwhelming display of cool stuff, and patch up fraying national self-respect after blows such as the Fedden Report and other commentary on comparative productivity.

]]>