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.
[Footnote 43: This material is adapted from a lecture by Gen. Fries
before the students of the General Staff College, in Washington, May
11, 1921.]
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.