Chemical warfare

by Amos A. Fries; Clarence J. West

Skin Irritants

Substances which seem useful for producing skin burns are studied both on animals and on man. Dichloroethyl sulfide (mustard gas) is used as a basis of comparison. Several methods are available.

Direct Application. This method consists of the direct application of the compound itself to the skin, using a definite quantity (0.005 cc. or 0.005 mg.) over a definite area (5 square centimeters) of the skin. With such a quantity of mustard gas a rather severe burn on animals is produced. No precautions are taken to prevent evaporation from the skin since it is believed that in this way the test will approximate fairly closely the field conditions.

Vapor Tests. Preliminary tests with vapors of volatile compounds are best made by placing a small amount of the material on a plug of cotton in the bottom of a test tube enclosed in a larger test tube which acts as an air jacket. After about an hour at room temperature the mouth of the test tube is applied to the skin. The concentration is not known, but one is dealing practically with saturated vapor. If an exposure of from 30 to 60 minutes produces no effect, one is safe to assume that the compound is not sufficiently active to be of value as a skin irritant.

If quantitative results are desired, the apparatus shown in [Fig. 119] is used. Dry air is blown through the bubbler, which is connected with a series of glass skin applicators. The concentration is determined in the usual way. The skin applicator consists of a small cylinder about 1.5 to 2 cm. in diameter and about 4 cm. long with a small glass handle attached on top. The opening is 1 cm. in diameter. When the concentration of the gas is constant, the exposure to the skin is made directly for any desired length of time. The skin irritant efficiency is judged by comparing the per cent of positive responses to approximately equal concentrations of the vapors, using mustard gas as a standard.

TABLE I—Physical and Physiological Properties
of Chemicals Used as Stenches

Chemical	Boiling Point, °C.	Freezing Point, °C.	Character of Odor	Physiological Properties of Vapor	Remarks
Amyl acetate	148	-75 (thick)	Banana oil	Harmless	Pleasant to most people; disagreeable to some
Ethyl acetate	77.4	-83.8	Fruity, pleasant	Harmless
Amyl alcohol	137.8		Alcoholic	Harmless
Butyric acid	162.3	-7.9	Very disagreeable	Harmless
Valeric acid	186.4	-58.5	Very disagreeable	Harmless
Ethyl ether	35	-112.6	Pungent	Soporific
Phenyl isocyanide	165		Very disagreeable	Unknown
Allyl isothiocyanate	151		Mustard oil, disagreeable	Lachrymatory and toxic
Methyl isothiocyanate	119	34	Mustard oil, disagreeable	Lachrymatory and toxic
Amyl isovalerate	190		Very disagreeable	Harmless
Butyl mercaptan	97		Very disagreeable	Harmless
Isobutyl mercaptan	88		Very disagreeable	Unknown	Probably harmless
Ethyl mercaptan	37	-144.4	Very disagreeable	Harmless
Propyl mercaptan	67		Very disagreeable	Unknown	Probably harmless
Methyl salicylate	222.2	-8.3	Oil of wintergreen, pleasant	Harmless
Amyl thioether	95-98		Very disagreeable	Unknown	Probably harmless
Ethyl thioether	92	-99.5	Very disagreeable	Unknown	Probably harmless
Carbon tetrachloride	76.74	-19.5	Sweet, unpleasant	Harmless
Chloroform	62	-63.2	Sweet, agreeable	Soporific
Iodoform	Decomposes	119	Unpleasant	Harmless
Artificial musk			Pleasant	Harmless	Unpleasant in higher concentration
Nitrobenzene	209.4	5.71	Almonds, pleasant	Toxic
Oil of peppermint			Pleasant	Harmless
Pyridine	115.2	-42	Very disagreeable	Toxic

TABLE II—Results of Measurement of the Intensity
of Various Stenches

Chemical	Volumes of the Chemical, as a Perfect Gas, per Million Volumes of Air, Intensity of Odor
	Detectable	Faint	Quite Noticeable	Strong	Very Strong
Amyl acetate	7	10	13	90	246
Ethyl acetate	190	339	615	1236	1753
Amyl alcohol	63	83	123	439	601
Butyric acid	2.4	6	18	91	161
Valeric acid	7	29	125	332	962
Ethyl ether	1923	3352	4927	5825	19982
Butyl mercaptan	6	12	18	38	56
Isobutyl mercaptan	3.5	5	7	11	16
Ethyl mercaptan	18	35	73	141	198
Propyl mercaptan	2	7	9	14	17
Amyl thioether	0.2	1	1.6	1.7	2.2
Ethyl thioether	3	12	29	61	74
Allyl isothiocyanate	?2	3	6	8	50
Methyl isothiocyanate	5	13	23	36	48
Amyl isovalerate	1.7	3	6	10	12
Carbon tetrachloride	718	1461	1588	4964	6091
Chloroform	674	1389	2600	5887	19528
Iodoform	1.1[35]
Artificial musk
Nitrobenzene	29	36	44	114	296
Phenyl isocyanide	0.5	1	3	10	25
Pyridine	10	45	93	700	1764
Methyl salicylate	16.1	23	29	244[36]
Oil of peppermint

Chemical	Milligrams of Chemical per Cu. Ft. of Air, Intensity of Odor
	Detectable	Faint	Quite Noticeable	Strong	Very Strong
Amyl acetate	1.1	1.5	2	14	38
Ethyl acetate	19.4	34.6	63	126	191
Amyl alcohol	6.4	8.5	13	45	61
Butyric acid	0.3	0.6	2	9	16
Valeric acid	0.8	3.4	15	39	114
Ethyl ether	165.1	287.7	423	500	1715
Butyl mercaptan	0.5	1.0	2	3	5
Isobutyl mercaptan	0.2	0.5	0.7	1	2
Ethyl mercaptan	1.3	2.5	5	10	14
Propyl mercaptan	0.2	0.6	0.8	1.2	1.6
Amyl thioether	0.04	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5
Ethyl thioether	0.3	1.2	3	6	8
Allyl isothiocyanate	0.2	0.3	0.7	0.9	6
Methyl isothiocyanate	0.4	1.1	2	3	4
Amyl isovalerate	0.4	0.5	1	2	2.3
Carbon tetrachloride	128	260	283	886	1087
Chloroform	93	192	360	816	1321
Iodoform	0.5[37]
Artificial musk	0.001[38]
Nitrobenzene	4	5	6	16	42
Phenyl isocyanide	0.06	0.1	0.4	1	3
Pyridine	0.9	4	9	64	162
Methyl salicylate	2.8	4	5	43[39]
Oil of peppermint	0.68	0.9	3	9.5	9.9

Chemical	Milligrams of Chemical per Liter of Air, Intensity of Odor
	Detectable	Faint	Quite Noticeable	Strong	Very Strong
Amyl acetate	0.039	0.053	0.067	0.478	1.326
Ethyl acetate	0.686	1.224	2.219	4.457	6.733
Amyl alcohol	0.225	0.300	0.442	1.581	2.167
Butyric acid	0.009	0.021	0.066	0.329	0.580
Valeric acid	0.029	0.119	0.523	1.394	4.036
Ethyl ether	5.833	10.167	14.944	17.6667	60.600
Butyl mercaptan	0.018	0.037	0.055	0.120	0.177
Isobutyl mercaptan	0.008	0.018	0.025	0.041	0.060
Ethyl mercaptan	0.046	0.088	0.186	0.357	0.501
Propyl mercaptan	0.006	0.020	0.028	0.043	0.054
Amyl thioether	0.001	0.007	0.0115	0.012	0.015
Ethyl thioether	0.012	0.042	0.107	0.223	0.271
Allyl isothiocyanate	0.008	0.012	0.024	0.030	0.201
Methyl isothiocyanate	0.015	0.039	0.067	0.108	0.144
Amyl isovalerate	0.012	0.018	0.039	0.072	0.082
Carbon tetrachloride	4.533	9.222	10.024	31.333	38.444
Chloroform	3.300	6.800	12.733	28.833	46.666
Iodoform	0.018[40]
Artificial musk	0.00004[41]
Nitrobenzene	0.146	0.178	0.222	0.563	1.493
Phenyl isocyanide	0.002	0.005	0.013	0.042	0.105
Pyridine	0.032	0.146	0.301	2.265	5.710
Methyl salicylate	0.100	0.145	0.179	1.526[42]
Oil of peppermint	0.024	0.032	0.109	0.332	0.348

Touch Method. This method consists of dipping a small glass rod drawn to a needle-like end to the depth of 1 mm. in the compound and then quickly touching the skin. The method is qualitative only.

Fig. 119.—Skin Irritant Vapor Apparatus.

Use of Solutions. Alcohol, kerosene, olive oil, carbon tetrachloride and other solvents may be used for the purpose of determining the lowest effective concentration of a substance, and for the determination of the relative skin irritant efficiencies of various compounds. Since the skin irritants were scarcely ever used in this form in the field, that is, in solution, the method is not as satisfactory as the vapor method.

CHAPTER XXII
CHEMICAL WARFARE IN RELATION TO
STRATEGY AND TACTICS[43]

Fundamentals of War. The underlying fundamental principles of Chemical Warfare are the same as for all other arms. Because of this, it is worth while, and even necessary, to understand the applications of Chemical Warfare, for us to go back and study the work of the masters in war from the dawn of history down to the present. When we do that we find that the underlying fundamental principles of war remain unchanged. They are the same today as they were in the time of Demosthenes, and as they will be 10,000 years from now. It is an axiom that the basis of success in war is the ability to have at the decisive point at the decisive moment a more effective force than that of the enemy. This involves men and materials. It involves courage, fighting ability, and the discrimination and energy of the opposing commanders.

Another fundamental is that no success is achieved without positive action; passive resistance never wins. These are really unchanging fundamentals. We may also say that the vigor of attack, the speed of movement of men and supplies, and the thorough training of men in the use of the weapons of war are unchanging requirements, but outside of these everything is subject to the universal law of change.

Grecian Phalanx and Roman Legion. The last word in the development of human strength as a battle weapon was illustrated by the Grecian phalanx with its sixteen rows of men, the spears of each row being so adjusted that all reached to the front line. That phalanx could not be stopped by any other human formation that met it face to face. To overcome it required a Roman legion that could open up and take the phalanx in the flank and rear. In the same way, the elephants of the Africans and the chariots of the Romans with their great swords swept all in front of them, until the Roman Legion, opening up into smaller groups allowed the elephants and chariots to pass through only to close in on them from the rear. Then and then only did those engines of war disappear forever.

Frederick the Great. Frederick the Great, realizing that rapidity of fire would win on the fields of battle where he fought, trained his men to a precision of movement in close order probably never achieved by any other troops in the world and then added to their efficiency by teaching them to load and fire muskets at double the rate of that of his adversaries. He was thus enabled to concentrate at the decisive points a preponderance of power, which swept all his enemies before him.

Napoleon. Napoleon achieved the same decisive power in a different way. Realizing that his French troops could not stand the rigorous training that the Prussians underwent, he trained them to fight with great enthusiasm, to travel long distances with unheard of swiftness, and to strike the enemy where least expected. He added to that a concentration of artillery until then not thought of as possible on the field of battle. He, of course, had also a genius for organizing and keeping up his supply.

Grant and Jackson. Grant at Vicksburg and Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley and at Chancellorsville, achieved the same results in different ways. In every case the fundamental principle of concentrating the greatest force at the decisive point at the vital moment in the battle remained the same. The methods for achieving that end change with every age, and every commander of world-wide renown developed something new or used an old method in a new way. And that is the fundamental requirement for a successful general. Hannibal, Hasdrubal, Cæsar, Napoleon, Frederick the Great, Scott, Grant, and Jackson were all independent thinkers. Each and every one dared to do something that every other general and statesman of his time told him could not be done or that would bring about disaster. They had the courage of their convictions. They had the courage to think out new ideas and to develop them, and then they had the courage to carry through those convictions, not alone against the opposition of the enemy, but against the opposition of their own people, both in the field and at home. And we may be perfectly sure that in each case had these men not done the things they did, they would have gone down to oblivion just as has been the case with millions of others who tried the usual methods in the usual way.

Chemical Warfare Latest Development. Chemical Warfare is the latest development of war. So far as the United States is concerned, it is considerably less than four years old. It is the most scientific of all methods of fighting and also the most universally applicable to all other methods of making war. The use of poisonous and irritating gases in war is just as fundamental as the introduction of gunpowder. In fact, they have an even wider application to war than powder itself.

Necessity for New Methods. The idea that has been expressed above is that the General Staff and the Army commander who sticks to old and tried methods and who is unwilling to try with all his might new developments, will never achieve any first class success. The General Staffs and the generals of the future that win wars will be the ones who make the most vigorous and efficient use of Chemical Warfare materials. They cannot confine this use to the artillery, to Aviation, to Special Gas Troops, or to any other single branch of the war machine. They must make use of it in every way.

What Is Meant by Gas. It must be understood that by gases we refer to materials that injure by being carried to the victim in the air. The word “gas” has nothing whatever to do with the condition of the material when in the shell, or the bombs, or the cylinders before released. In every case, the gases are liquids or solids. When the containers are broken open the liquids are volatilized either by the gas pressure or by the force of the explosion of the bomb.

Groups of Gases. Chemical Warfare gases are divided into three great groups. So far as their actual tactical use on the field of battle is concerned, there are only two groups—persistent and non-persistent. The third is the irritant group. This group affects the eyes and the lungs so as to make the victim very uncomfortable if not completely incapable of action in quantities so small as to cause no injury that lasts more than a few hours. The quantities of such gases needed to force the wearing of the mask is ¹/₁₀₀₀ that needed to cause the same discomfort by the really poisonous gases, such as phosgene. They, therefore, have a very great economic value in harassing the enemy by forcing him to wear masks and to take other precautions against gas. And no matter how perfect gas masks and gas-proof clothing become, their long-continued use will cut down physical vigor in an ever increasing ratio until in two or three days an army may be totally incapacitated.

Smoke. In Chemical Warfare materials we have another great group which will probably be equal in the future to the three groups just mentioned. That is common smoke. Smoke has a variety of uses. By the simple term “smoke” is meant smokes that are not poisonous or irritating. Such smokes offer a perfect screen against enemy vision, whether it is the man who sights the machine gun, the observer in the lookout station, the cannoneer or even the aeroplane observer. Every shot through impenetrable smoke is a shot in the dark and has a tenth or even less chance of hitting its mark. Smoke affords a means of decreasing the accuracy of firing, much the same as night decreases it, without the inherent difficulties of night action.

Peace Strategy. The strategy of successful war involves the strategy of peace. This has been true from the days when David with his sling-shot slew Goliath, down to the present moment. We don’t always think of it in connection with war, but back of every successful war has been preparation during peace. It may have been incidental preparation such as the training of men in fighting Indians, and in creating public sentiment favorable to an independent nation that preceded the Revolutionary War. It may, on the other hand, have been a deeply studied policy such as that of the Germans prior to the World War. They tried and generally quite successfully, to coördinate all peace activities toward the day when a war should come that would decide the future destiny of the German Empire, and it was only because of that study in peace that Germany almost single-handed was able to stand out for more than four years against the world. The Allies came near losing that war because they did not appreciate that the strategy of efficient war had to be preceded by the strategy of peace.

Chemical Warfare an Example. Chemical warfare is a particularly good example of this fact. Prior to the World War we had acknowledged, and without any misgivings, that Germany led the world in chemistry, that it produced most of the dyes in the world, and to a large extent the medicines of the world. We felt that when American needs showed it to be advisable we could take up chemistry and chemical production and soon excel the Germans. We had not reckoned on the suddenness of war.

We were just getting ready with chemicals, and that included powders and high explosives, when the war closed. And yet we had had not only eighteen months’ intensive preparation after our own entry into the World War, but also the preparation of great steel institutions and powder factories for nearly three years in manufacturing supplies for the Allies who preceded us in the war.

Coal Tar. The World War opened the eyes of England, France and Japan as well as the United States. Each of them today is struggling to build up a great chemical industry as the very foundation of successful war. Few of us realized prior to the World War that in the black, sticky mess called coal tar from the coking of coal or the manufacture of gas from coal and oil, was stored up most of the high explosives used in war, the majority of the poison gases, a great deal of the medicines of the world, and nearly all the dyes of the world. The Germans realized it and in their control over methods of using this material, together with the great commercial plants developed to manufacture it, as well as with the trained personnel that must go with such plants, were enabled, when blockaded on land and sea, to furnish the munitions, the clothing and the food needed for four and one-half years of war.

Great Chemical Industries. Thus it is that our Government today is giving most serious heed to the need of building up a great chemical industry in the United States. We have the raw materials. We need only the factories and the trained men that go with them. We need, of course, in addition to the development of the coal tar industry, a production of heavy chemicals such as chlorine, sulfuric acid and the like, all of which, however, are bound together by community interest in peace as well as in war.

Reserves of Chemists. A part of the strategy of peace is the card-indexing of the manpower of a nation divided into special groups. In one great group must come those who have a knowledge of chemistry and the chemical industries. That must be so worked out that if war should come on a moment’s notice, within twenty-four hours thereafter every chemist could be given his job, jobs extending from the firing line to the research laboratory. And that is the task of the Chemical Warfare Service. And right here it is well to know that Congress, among the other features of its Army Reorganization Act of June 4, 1920, provided for a separate Chemical Warfare Service with these powers:

Chemical Warfare Powers

The Chief of the Chemical Warfare Service under the authority of the Secretary of War shall be charged with the investigation, development, manufacture, or procurement and supply to the Army of all smoke and incendiary materials, all toxic gases, and all gas defense appliances; the research, design, and experimentation connected with chemical warfare and its material; and chemical projectile filling plants and proving grounds; the supervision of the training of the Army in chemical warfare, both offensive and defensive, including the necessary schools of instruction; the organization, equipment, training, and operation of special gas troops, and such other duties as the President may from time to time prescribe.

Why Power Is Needed. These rather broad powers indicate that Congress realized the unity of effort that must be made from the research laboratory to the firing line if America was to keep pace with Germany or any other nation in chemical warfare. Some have raised the question as to whether a service should be both supply and combat. Perhaps the best answer to that question is that so organized Chemical Warfare was a success in the World War. It was a success notwithstanding it had to be developed in the field six months after our entry into the war and with no precedents, no materials, no literature and no personnel. Through its officers on the staffs of commanding generals of armies, corps and divisions, and through its fighting gas troops in the front line, it was enabled to direct its research, development and manufacture more quickly along lines shown to be necessary by every change in battle conditions, than any other service.

Chemical Warfare Troops. And why should there not be fighting Chemical Warfare troops? They fight under exactly the same orders as all other troops. They conform to the same general plan of battle. They bring, however, to that battle experts in a line that it takes a long time to master. And where has there been any live commander in the world’s history who refused aid from any class of troops that might help him win?

Specialists in War. The wars of the future will become more and more wars of the specialists. Your Infantry may remain the backbone of the fighting force, but if it has not the Artillery, the Aviation, the Chemical Warfare, the Engineers, the tanks and other specialists to back it up, it will be overcome by the army which has such specialists. Indeed the specialist goes into the very organization of the Infantry itself with its machine gun battalions, its tank battalions, and as now proposed, the Infantry light howitzer companies.

Duties of Chemical Warfare Staff Officers. The Chemical Warfare officers on the staff of armies, corps and divisions are there for the purpose of giving expert advice as to the quantities of chemical materials available, the best conditions for using them, and the best way of avoiding the effects of enemy gas upon our own troops. The conditions that must be kept in mind are so many that no other officer can be expected to master and keep them if he does his own work well. The general staff officers and commanding generals will not have the time to even try to remember the actual effects of clouds, wind, rain, trees, valleys, villages and plains upon each and every gas. They must depend upon the Chemical Warfare officer for accurate information along those lines, and if he cannot furnish it they will have to secure some one who can. The history of war is filled with the names of generals who failed because they could not forget how to command a company. These Chemical Warfare officers will also furnish all data as to supply of chemical warfare materials, and will furnish the best information along lines of training, whether for defensive or offensive use of gas.

Gas Used by all Arms. As before stated, we cannot confine the use of gas to any one arm. We may then ask why, if it is applicable to all arms, it should need special gas troops. Special gas troops are for the purpose of putting off great quantities of chemical warfare materials by special methods that are not applicable to any other branch now organized or that any other branch has the time to master. Long-range firing of gas by the artillery can be done just as well by the artillery as by gas troops. Why? Because in the mechanics of firing chemical ammunition there is no difference whatever from the mechanics of firing high explosives or shrapnel. The same will be true of gas rifle grenades and smoke candles in use by the Infantry. The same will be true of the dropping of gas bombs and the sprinkling of gas by the aeroplanes. In this connection just remember that all of the army is trained in first aid, but in addition we have our ambulance companies, our hospitals, and our trained medical personnel.

Arguments Against Use of Gas. It has been many times suggested since the Armistice that the use of poisonous gas in war may be done away with by agreement among nations. The arguments against the use of gas are that it is inhumane and that it might be used against non-combatants, especially women and children. The inhumanity of it is absolutely disproven by the results of its use in the World War. The death rate from gas alone was less than one-twelfth that from bullets, high explosives and other methods of warfare. The disability rate for gas patients discharged was only about one-fourth that for the wounded discharged for other causes. The permanently injured is likewise apparently very much less than from other causes.

Humanity. No reliable statistics that we can get show that gas in any way causes tuberculosis any more than a severe attack of bronchitis or pneumonia causes tuberculosis. Since its principal effects are upon the lungs and, therefore, hidden from sight, every impostor is beginning to claim gassing as the reason for his wanting War Risk benefits from the Government. We do not claim there may not be some who are suffering permanent injuries from gas, and we are trying very hard to find out from the manufacturers of poisonous gases and allied chemicals if they have any authentic records of such cases. So far the results indicate that permanent after-effects are very rare.

As to non-combatants, certainly we do not contemplate using poisonous gas against them, no more at least than we propose to use high explosives in long-range guns or aeroplanes against them. The use of the one against non-combatants is just as damnable as the other and it is just as easy to refrain from using one as the other.

Gas Cannot be Abolished. As to the abandonment of poison gas, it must be remembered that no powerful weapon of war has ever been abandoned once it proved its power unless a more powerful weapon was discovered. Poisonous gas in the World War proved to be one of the most powerful of all weapons of war. For that reason alone it will never be abandoned. It cannot be stopped by agreement, because if you can stop the use of any one powerful weapon of war by agreement you can stop all war by agreement. To prepare to use it only in case it is used against you is on the same plane as an order that was once upon a time issued to troops in the Philippine Islands. That order stated in substance that no officer or soldier should shoot a savage Moro, even were he approaching the said officer or soldier with drawn kriss (sword), unless actually first struck by such savage. Every officer preferred, if necessary, to face a court-martial for disobedience of such an order rather than allow a savage Moro with a drawn kriss to get anywhere near, let alone wait until actually struck.

Let the world know that we propose to use gas against all troops that may be engaged against us, and that we propose to use it to the fullest extent of our ability. We believe that such a proposition will do more to head off war than all the peace propaganda since time began. It has been said that we should not use gas against those not equipped with gas. Then why did we use repeating rifles and machine guns against Negritos and Moros armed only with bows and arrows or poor muskets and knives. Let us apply the same common sense to the use of gas that we apply to all other weapons of war.

Effect on World War Tactics. A very brief study of the effects of chemical warfare materials on the strategy of the World War will indicate its future. It began with clouds of chlorine let loose from heavy cylinders buried under the firing trench. These took a long time to install and then a wait, sometimes long, sometimes brief, for a favorable wind, but even at that these cloud gas attacks created a new method of fighting and forced new methods of protection. Gas at once added a tremendous burden to supply in the field, to manufacture, and to transportation, and in a short time even made some decided changes in the tactics of the battle field itself.

Cloud Gas. The fact that the gas cloud looked like smoke is responsible for the name “cloud gas.” Really all gases are nearly or wholly invisible, but those which volatilize suddenly from the liquid state so cool the air as to cause clouds of condensed water vapor. The cloud obscured everything behind and in front of it. It led the German to put off fake smoke clouds and attack through them, thus taking the British at a tremendous disadvantage. Then and there began a realization of the value of smoke. Cloud gas was also the real cause of the highly organized raid that became common in every army during the World War. The real purpose in the first raids, carried out by means of the box barrage, was to find out whether or not gas cylinders were being installed in trenches.

These raids finally became responsible, in a large measure, for driving the old cloud gas off the field of battle. It did not, however, stop the British from putting off cloud gas attacks in 1918 by installing their gas cylinders on their light railway cars and then letting the gas loose from the cylinders while still on the cars. This enabled them to move their materials to the front and put off gas attacks on a few hours’ notice when the wind was right.

Toxic Smoke Candles. To-day we have poisonous smokes that exist in solid form and that are perfectly safe to handle until a fuse is lighted. The so-called candles will be light enough so that one man can carry them. With these, cloud gas can be put off on an hour’s notice when wind and weather conditions are right, no matter how fast the army may be moving and whether on the advance or in retreat. Cloud gas will usually be put off at night because the cloud cannot be seen, because then men are tired and sleepy, and all but the most highly trained become panicky. Under those conditions the greatest casualties result. The steadiness of wind currents also aids cloud gas attacks at night.

Value of Training in Peace. And this brings up the value of training in peace. We are frequently asked, “Why do you need training with masks in peace; why do you need training with actual gas in peace; cannot these things be taught on short notice in war?” The answer is, “No!” Nothing will take the place of training in peace.

All of us recall that early in the war the Germans spread broadcast charges that the Allies were using unfair and inhumane methods of fighting because they brought the Ghurka with his terrible knife from Asia and the Moroccan from Africa. And we all know that after a time the Germans ceased saying anything about these troops. What was the cause? They were not efficient. Just as the Negro will follow a white officer over the top in daylight and fight with as much energy and courage and many times as much efficiency as the white man, he cannot stand the terrors of the night, and the same was true of the Ghurka and the Moroccan.

All the Allies soon recognized that fact as shown by their drawing those troops almost entirely away from the fighting lines. In some cases dark-skinned troops were kept only as shock troops to be replaced by the more highly developed Caucasian when the line had to be held for days under the deadly fire of the counter attack. The German idea, and our own idea prior to the World War, was that semi-savages could stand the rigors and terrors of war better than the highly sensitive white man. War proved that to be utterly false.

Familiarity with Gas Necessary. The same training that makes for advancement in science, and success in manufacture in peace, gives the control of the body that holds the white man to the firing line no matter what its terrors. A great deal of this comes because the white man has had trained out of him nearly all superstition. He has had drilled into him for hundreds of years that powder and high explosive can do certain things and no more. If the soldier is not to be afraid of gas we must give him an equal knowledge of it, its dangers, and its limitations. The old adage says, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” Perhaps that is not quite true, but we all know that it breeds callousness and forgetfulness; that the man manufacturing dynamite or other more dangerous explosives takes chances that we who do not engage in such manufacture shudder at.

Edgewood Chemists Not Afraid. All of this has direct application to training with chemical warfare materials in peace. We believe that all opposition to chemical warfare today can be divided into two classes—those who do not understand it and those who are afraid of it—ignorance and cowardice. Our chemists at Edgewood Arsenal are every day toying with the most powerful chemical compounds; toying with mixtures they know nothing of, not knowing what instant they may induce an explosion of some fearful poisonous gas. But they have learned how to protect themselves. They have learned that if they stop breathing and get out of that place and on the windward side they are safe. They have been at that work long enough to do that automatically.

Staff Officers Must Think of Gas in Every Problem. The staff officer must train the army man in peace with all chemical warfare materials or he will lose his head in war and become a casualty. The general staff officers and commanding generals must so familiarize themselves with these gases and their general use that they will think them in all their problems just exactly as they think of the Infantry, or of the Cavalry, or of the tanks or of the Artillery in every problem. On them rests the responsibility that these gases are used properly in battle. If plans before the battle do not include these materials for every arm and in the proper quantities of the proper kinds they will not be used properly on the field of battle and on them will rest the responsibility.

They are not expected to know all the details of gases and their uses, but they will be expected to consider the use of gas in every phase of preparing plans and orders and then to appeal to the chemical warfare officers for the details that will enable them to use the proper gases and the proper quantities. They cannot go into those details any more than they can go into the details of each company of infantry. If they try to do that they are a failure as staff officers.

Effect of Masks on Troops. The very best of masks cause a little decrease in vision, a little increase in breathing resistance, and a little added discomfort in warm weather, and hence the soldier must learn to use them under all conditions. But above all in the future he must be so accustomed to the use of the mask that he will put it on automatically—almost in his sleep as it were. We have tear gases, today, so powerful and so sudden in their action that it is doubtful if one man out of five who has had only a little training can get his mask on if subject to the tear gas alone—that is, with tear gas striking him with full force before he is aware of it.

Effectiveness of Gas in World War. In the past war more than 27 out of every 100 Americans killed and wounded suffered from gas alone. You may say that many of the wounds were light. That is true; but those men were put out of the battle line for from one to four months—divisions, corps and armies almost broken up—and yet the use of gas in that war was a child’s game compared to what it will be in the future.

It is even said that many of them were malingerers. Perhaps they were, but do you not suppose that there were at least as many malingerers among the enemy as there were in our own ranks? Furthermore, if you can induce malingering it is a proper method of waging war, and unless our boasted ability is all a myth we should have fewer malingerers under conditions of battle than any other nation.

Strategy of Gas at Picardy Plains. Let us go back now to the strategy of gas in war. Following the cloud gas came tear gases and poisonous gases in shells and bombs. A little advance in tactics here and a little there, the idea, though, in the early days being only to produce casualties. As usual the Germans awoke first to the fact that gas might be used strategically and on a large scale. And thus we find that ten days before he began the battle of Picardy Plains he deluged many sections of the front with mustard gas. He secured casualties by the thousands, but he secured something of greater importance. He wore out the physical vigor and lowered the morale of division after division, thus paving the way for the break in the British Army which almost let him through to the sea.

He used non-persistent gases up to the very moment when his own men reached the British lines, thereby reducing the efficiency of British rifle and artillery fire and saving his own men. And this is just a guide to the future. A recent writer in the Field Artillery Journal states that gas will probably not be used in the barrage because of its probable interference with the movement of our own troops. In making that statement he forgot the enemy and you cannot do that if you expect to win a war.

Gas in Barrages. In the future we must expect the enemy to be in a measure as well prepared in chemical warfare as we are. Let us consider the special case of our own men advancing to the attack behind a rolling barrage. We will consider also that the wind is blowing toward our own troops. Obviously under those conditions the wind will blow our own gas back onto our troops. Will we use gas in that barrage? We certainly will! Because with the wind blowing toward our own troops we have the exact ideal condition that the enemy wants for his use of gas. He will then be deluging our advancing troops with all the gas he can fire, in addition to high explosives and shrapnel. Our men must wear masks and take every precaution against enemy gas. How foolish it would be not to fire gas at the enemy under those conditions. If we did not fire gas we would leave him entirely free from wearing masks, and entirely free from taking every other precaution against gas while our own troops were subject to all the difficulties of gas. No, we will fire gas at him in just as great quantities as we consider efficient. And that is just a sample of what is coming on every field of battle—gas used on both sides by every method of putting it over that can be devised.

World War Lessons Only Guide Posts. Example of Book Worms. Every lesson taught by the World War must be taken as a guide-post on the road to future success in war. No use of gas or other materials in the past war must be taken as an exact pattern for use in any battle of the future. Too much study, too much attention to the past, may cause that very thing to happen. A certain general commanding a brigade in the Argonne told me just recently that while the battle was going on a general staff officer called him on the telephone and asked him what the situation was. He gave it to him. The staff officer then asked, “What are you doing?” and he told him. The staff officer replied, “Why, the book doesn’t say to do it that way under such conditions.” There you have the absurd side of too much study and too close reliance on details of the past.

The battle field is a perfect kaleidoscope. The best we can hope to get out of books is a guide—something that we will keep in our minds to help us decide the best way to meet certain situations. He who tries to remember a particular position taught in his school with the idea of applying that to actual use in battle is laying the foundation for absolute failure. Your expert rifleman never thinks back when he goes to fire a shot as to just what his instructor told him or what the book said. He just concentrates his mind on the object to be attained, using so far as comes to him facts he has learned from books or teachers. Your general and your staff must do the same.

Infantry Use of Gas. A few words about how we will use gas in the future. We will start with the Infantry. The Infantry as such will use gas in only two or three ways. They will use some gas in rifle grenades, and a great deal more smoke. We speak of the rifle grenade because in our opinion the hand grenade is a thing of the past. We do not believe there will ever be used in the future any grenade that is not applicable to the rifle. The Infantry will probably often carry large quantities of gas in the shape of the toxic smoke candle. These materials being solids may be shot up by rifles or artillery fire, run over by trucks or tractors, or trampled and still be harmless. It is only when the fuses are lighted and the material driven off by heat that they are dangerous. In using these candles under these conditions you must have sufficient chemical warfare officers and soldiers to get the necessary control indicated by the sun, wind, woods, fogs, ravines and the like.

Cavalry Use of Gas. Next consider the Cavalry. The Cavalry will use gas practically the same as the Infantry. The chemical warfare troops will accompany the Cavalry with Stokes’ mortars or other materials to fire gases into small enemy strongholds that may be encountered whether machine gun nests, mountain tops, woods or villages. They will do this either against savages or civilized people. Methods of making these materials mobile for that purpose are already well under way. If against savages and one does not want to kill them, use tear gases—no better method of searching out hidden snipers in mountain tops, among rocks, or villages, in ravines, or in forests was ever invented.

Use of Gas by Tanks. The tanks will employ gas in the same way as the Infantry with the possibility, however, that they may be used to carry large quantities of gas on caterpillar tractors where otherwise it would be difficult to move the gas. This is not a certainty, but is a situation promising enough to warrant further study.

Artillery Use of Gas. Your Artillery will fire gas and smoke in every caliber of gun. There is a tendency now to limit gas to certain guns and howitzers and to limit smoke to even a smaller number of guns. This is a mistake that we are going to recognize. A very careful study of the records of the war show that more casualties were produced several times over by a thousand gas shells than by a thousand high explosive or shrapnel. And that is because gas has an inherent permanence that no other weapon of war has.

Permanency of Gas. The bullet whistles through the air and does its work or misses. The high explosive shell bursts, hurling its fragments that in a few seconds settle to earth, and its work is done. The shrapnel acts in the same way, but when one turns loose a shell of gas it will kill and injure the same as the high explosive shell and in the same length of time and in addition for some minutes thereafter. Even with the non-persistent gases, it will continue on its way, causing death or injury to every unprotected animal, man or beast in its path. With the persistent gases, the materials from each shell may persist for days.

Variety of Uses of Gas. This brings up the point of the great variety of uses to which gas can be put. The non-persistent gas may be used at all times where one wants to get rid of it in a few moments—the persistent gas wherever one wants to keep the enemy under gas for days at a time. We will use mustard gas on strong points in the advance, on flanks, on distant areas one will not expect to be reached, and as our own protection of masks and clothing increases toward perfection we will use it on the very fields you expect to cross. Why? Because we will be firing it at the enemy for days before hand and we will cause him trouble all those days while we ourselves will encounter it for a few hours at the most. So do not think that mustard gas is only going to be used in defense in the future.

Solid Mustard Gas and Long-Range Guns. We will come to use chemical warfare materials just as high explosives and bullets are used today, even though at times we do suffer an occasional loss from our own weapons. Our Artillery in long-range guns where we want destruction will fill each shell with say 15 per cent gas and 85 per cent high explosive. We have a solid mustard gas that may be so used. We have tremendously powerful tear gases and irritating gases that may be so used. Being solids they do not affect the ballistic qualities of the shell. And what an added danger will mustard gas from every shell bring against railroad centers, rest villages, cantonments, cross-roads and the like. The results will be too great for any force to overlook such use.

Tear Gases in Shrapnel. We will probably use tear gas in most, if not all, of our shrapnel. The general idea now is that we should not put tear gas in all shrapnel because under certain conditions it will be blown back and harass our own troops. But as was said before, we must remember that the enemy will be using gas at all times as well as ourselves, and hence if we limit ourselves in any line we give the enemy an advantage. This use of gas by the Artillery will extend to all classes of guns—seacoast, field, turret and what not.

Use of Gas by Air Service. Bombs. Let us next consider the Air Service. We naturally think of dropping gas in bombs when we speak of the use of gas by the Air Service. Gas will so be used and it will be used in bombs of perhaps a thousand pounds or even a ton in weight, at least 50 per cent of which will be gas. Such gases, however, will be of the non-persistent type—phosgene or similar ones. They will be used against concentration camps and cross-roads, on troops on the road in columns; against railroad centers and rest areas; in other words, against groups of men or animals.

Sprinkling. But that is not even the beginning of the use of gas by aeroplanes. Mustard gas, which is one-third again as heavy as water, and which volatilizes far slower than water, may be sprinkled through a small opening such as a bung hole in a tank that simply lets liquid float out. The speed of the aeroplane will atomize it. In this way, gas can be sprinkled over whole areas that must be crossed in battle. The Lewisite, of which we have heard considerable, will be used. It is less persistent than the mustard gas, but like mustard gas it produces casualties by burning. Unlike mustard gas, however, the burns from a quantity equal to three drops will usually cause death. The material can be made up by hundreds, even thousands, of tons per month.

We are working on clothing that will keep it out just as we have been and are working on clothing that will protect against mustard gas. But these gases are so powerful that if any opening be left in the clothing the gas will get through, so that even if we get clothing that will protect, it must cover every inch of the skin from head to foot. Besides the mask must be worn at all times.

Consider the burden put on any army in the field that would have to continually wear such complete protection. What a strain on the mentality of the men! As before said, to endure it at all we must train our men to think of such conditions, to face them in peace, and in order to do so we must actually use gas. Just as in the World War the highly trained Caucasian outdistanced the savage in endurance, just so will the most highly trained men in the future outdistance all others in endurance.

Navy. We now come to the consideration of the Navy. The Navy will use gas both in its guns and in smoke clouds, and in some form of candle that will float. The toxic smokes that in high enough concentrations will kill are extraordinarily irritating in minute quantities—so minute they cannot be seen or felt for a few moments. Every human being on a ship must breathe every minute just as every human being everywhere must breathe every minute or die. A gas that gets into the ventilating system of a ship will go all through it and the Navy realizes it.

The Navy is studying how to keep the gas out of their own ships, and how to get it into the enemy’s ships. The toxic smokes may be dropped from aeroplanes or turned loose from under water by submarines. In either case they will give off smokes over wide areas through which ships must pass. Any defects will let these toxic smokes in and will force every man to wear a mask. Aeroplane bombs will come raining down on the ship or alongside of it either with toxic smokes or other terrible gases. White phosphorus that burns and cannot be put out wet or dry will be rained on ships. Yes, chemical warfare materials will be used by the Navy.

Gas Against Landing Parties. The use of gas against landing parties or to aid landing parties has come up in many ways. Our studies to date indicate that gas is a greater advantage to the defense against landing parties than to the offense. Mustard gas and the like may be sprinkled from aeroplanes, and while it will not float long on the water, it will float long enough to smear any small boats attempting to land. It can be sprinkled over all the areas that landing parties must occupy. Mustard gas may be placed in bombs or drums around all areas that are apt to be used as landing places and exploded in the face of advancing troops.

Storing Reserve Gases in Peace. And a word here about how long gases may be stored. One of the statements made by opponents of chemical warfare was that gas is a purely war time project and could not be stored up in peace. We have today at Edgewood Arsenal some 1,400 tons of poisonous gases not including chlorine. Those gases have been manufactured, practically every ounce of them, for three years, and are yet in almost perfect condition. Our chemists believe they can be kept in the future for ten years and perhaps longer. Our gas shells then will have the life almost of a modern battleship, while the cost of a million will be but a fraction of the cost of a battleship. What I have just said applies particularly to liquid gases such as phosgene, chlorpicrin, and mustard gas. We know that many of the solids may be kept for far longer periods.

Storing Gas Masks. Our masks, too, we believe can be kept for at least ten years. Experience to date indicates that rubber deteriorates mainly through the action of sunlight and moisture that cause oxidation or other change in the crystalline structure of cured rubber. Accordingly, we are putting up masks today in hermetically sealed boxes. It is thus evident that we can store a reserve of masks and gases in peace the same as other war materials.

Use of Gas by Gas Troops. Now we come to the use of gas by special gas troops. In the war, Gas Troops used 4-inch Stokes’ mortars and 8-inch Livens’ projectors and in a very short time would have used a new portable cylinder for setting off cloud gas, using liquid gases, such as phosgene. They will use these same weapons in future wars. All of these are short-range weapons, but since the Livens’ bomb or drum contains 50 per cent of its weight in gas while the artillery shell contains 10 per cent, they have an efficiency away beyond that of artillery or any other method of discharging gas except cloud gas. They will, therefore, produce more casualties than any other method known for the amount of material taken to the front. These short-range weapons were developed by the British for trench use and not for open warfare, and yet our troops developed methods with the Stokes’ mortars that enabled them to keep up with many of the Infantry divisions.

Phosphorus and Thermit Against Machine Gun Nests. The use of phosphorus and thermit against German machine gun nests by the Gas Troops is well known. How effective it was is not known to so many. Phosphorus and thermit were so used from the early days of the Marne fight in the latter part of July, 1918, to the very close of the war. There is no recorded instance where the Gas Troops failed to silence machine gun nests once the machine guns were located. In the future Gas Troops will put off the majority of all cloud gas attacks even with toxic smoke candles.

Necessity for Training in Peace. This is an outline of the subject of chemical warfare. As stated in the beginning, the fundamental underlying principles for the successful use of poisonous gas is necessarily the same as for any other war materials. The necessity for continuous training in peace is just the same with chemical warfare as with the rifle, the machine gun, with field artillery or any other weapon of war. Indeed it is more so because the use of gas is so perfectly adaptable to night work. Men must be taught to take precautionary measures when so sleepy, tired and worn out that they will sleep through the roar of artillery.

How Chemical Warfare Should be Considered. We ask you only to look at the use of chemical warfare materials as you look at the use of the artillery, infantry, cavalry, tanks or aeroplanes. Measure its possible future use; not simply by its use in the World War, but by considering all possible developments of the future. Remember that its use was barely four years old when the war closed, while the machine gun, the latest type of infantry weapon, had been known for more than one-third of a century. Chemical warfare developments are in the infant stage. Even those on the inside of chemical warfare when the Armistice was signed can see today things that are certain to come that were undreamed of at that time. This is bound to be so with a new weapon.

To sum up, gas is a universal weapon, applicable to every arm and every sort of action. Since we can choose gases that are either liquid or solid, that are irritating only or highly poisonous, that are visible or invisible, that persist for days or that pass with the wind, we have a weapon applicable to every act of war and for that matter, to every act of peace. But we must plan its use, remembering there is no middle ground in war, it is success or failure, life or death. Remember also that training outruns production in a great war, that 5,000,000 men can be raised and trained before they can be equipped unless we with proper foresight build up our essential industries, keep up our reserve of supplies, and above all, keep such perfect plans that we can turn all the wheels of peace into the wings of war on a moment’s notice.

CHAPTER XXIII
THE OFFENSIVE USE OF GAS