New weapons and capability transformed experience of war were among primary features of World War I. It seems reasonable to say that the introduction of chemical weapons during the period was a significant factor that changed the course of the war to a great extent. Due to this, there were many casualties who were dying in suffering, which was a foundation for the international ban on such an approach to conducting warfare. Below, the primary aspects of the application of chemical weapons will be presented, making an emphasis on the strategic changes it caused.
At the beginning of the war, ideas about chemical weapons were vague, and the British began by trying to give a “second life” to Lord Dundonald’s unrealized project to burn heaps of sulfur with a fair wind. But by the end of the war, the combatants successfully used chemical weapons against each other in offensive and defensive combat operations on an operational scale. Chemical weapons in the First World War were created to get out of the positional impasse. The gas launch near Ypres on April 22, 1915, showed the great potential of chemical weapons (Trumpener 460). Their use became an integral tactical technique in an attack on a prepared defense line. In 1915–1916, the use of chemical weapons to overcome the enemy’s first line of defense changed the formation of battle formations by dispersing them and moving them into the depths of the defense line. The approach to the selection of organic substances has also changed. Chemical warfare began with the use of Incapacitants (bromoacetone, bromomethyl ketone) and low-toxic suffocating organic substances (Smart 22). Among the latter were chlorine or bromine gradually took on an extreme form, which meant the destruction of the enemy with lethal chemicals.
The scale of the use of chemical weapons has increased significantly – from single gas launches to the inclusion in artillery parks of 30-50% of chemical shells for various tactical purposes. LPG launches did not justify their results of the complexity of their preparation and, by the end of 1916, had lost their significance. Using 50% or more chemical projectiles was considered the key to suppressing the enemy’s defenses (Fitzgerald 621). In this case, the tactical and operational surprise was achieved. Gas rectangles were created on areas of tens of square kilometers. Mustard yellow spaces occupied hundreds of square kilometers of enemy territory for weeks.
In 1917, due to chemical weapons, the German army managed to overcome the contradiction between prolonged artillery preparation and the surprise of the offensive. The Germans began to use chemical weapons to reduce the duration of artillery preparation for an offensive from several days to several hours and as an alternative to tank attacks (Smart 14). Achievements in the field of chemical synthesis of organic substances, the improvement of the material base of artillery, and the tactics of artillery shooting, have significantly increased the lethality of chemical weapons. During the First World War, the inhalation toxicity of toxic substances compared with the toxicity of the initially applied chlorine increased by about 15 times. In addition to organic substances that affect a person through the respiratory system, since 1917, substances capable of causing crippling lesions through the skin and mucous surfaces have been widely used. It also became possible to break through the filters of gas masks that worked on the principles of non-specific sorption and chemical vapor absorption. In both blocs, industrial-scale production of the relevant chemicals has been established.
During the years of the First World War, many different organic substances were used. In combat conditions, the striking effectiveness of 45 chemicals was tested (Smart 19). The quantitative growth of artillery made it possible to conduct massive chemical fires in the front of contact with the enemy. The improvement of artillery systems made it possible to hit the enemy with chemical weapons throughout the entire depth of the first line of defense and even deliver chemical strikes at the location of divisional headquarters and corps headquarters.
The importance of chemical weapons in the last year of the war is evidenced by the losses of the American army. The absolute number of losses of the American army from chemical weapons was 72,000 casualties, or 26,4% of the total losses, which amounted to 272,000 people (Smart 24). Such a significant percentage of losses from chemical weapons in the American army is explained by the fact that it took part in hostilities only in the second half of 1918, when chemical weapons reached their maximum perfection and were widely used at the front. Other armies suffered colossal losses from the very beginning of the war, so the percentage of losses from chemical weapons was less than American ones.
An analysis of losses from various types of chemical weapons showed that massive losses of the British were caused by artillery fire with the addition of a chemical element. The highest percentage of deaths among those affected by organic substances occurred as a result of the use of gas cannons (Fitzgerald 618). The reasons for the high losses among military personnel subjected to a gas-propelled attack at the war’s end are understandable. Filtering gas masks are not able to protect a person from high concentrations of vapors created by a gas cannon volley. Therefore, artillery became a universal means of chemical destruction and mutual extermination in the First World War.
The massive use of chemical projectiles for various tactical purposes with unstable toxic substances to suppress enemy artillery batteries allowed the German command to change the tactics of the offensive. They reduced the duration of artillery preparation from several days to several hours and achieved its surprise. In the autumn of 1917, for the first time, it became possible to change the positional nature of the war through the use of two technical innovations: tanks and chemical weapons. The large German offensives on the Western Front in the spring of 1918 showed that the saturation of the troops with artillery and the addition of artillery chemical firing with shells with persistent poisonous substances led to the emergence of a new type of armed struggle – artillery chemical battle (Smart 14). Such a battle includes combat actions united by a single plan, carried out by operational formations, in which the gain of fire superiority over the enemy is pursued.
However, an artillery chemical battle is possible under conditions of low troop mobility. It was prepared for months, carried out by the state of defense, and stopped by returning to the same state. An effective chemical bombardment required thousands of guns conducting artillery preparation according to a single plan and millions of chemical shells for various tactical purposes (Center of Military History 608). Still, due to their vulnerable forms of warfare, artillery itself has become a more convenient object of chemical attack compared to infantry.
Nevertheless, in the second half of 1918, chemical weapons began to lose to another combat weapon that competed with them to break through the enemy’s fortified defense line – a tank. The point here is not only the ability of the tank to destroy wire obstacles, destroy machine-gun crews, and save the consumption of “manpower” with its armor. Since the German attempts to break through the defenses, there has been a problem with tactical pursuit on the battlefield (Smart 21). The skillful use of tanks by the Allies left the Germans with a heavy impression of some other war, which they could not resist. The mass deployment of tank brigades into battle during the second battle on the Marne and in the battle at Amiens with fire and air support indicated the path for the development of offensive tactics in the post-war period. But the problem of breaking through on an operational scale without the use of chemical weapons was overcome only during the Second World War by the creation of shock tank armies.
To conclude, chemical weapons greatly impacted the tactics and operational art of the First World War. Already its first use showed great opportunities to break through the enemy’s first line of defense, after which its use became an integral tactical technique. Chemical weapons were used to reduce the duration of artillery preparation for an offensive from several days to several hours and to ensure its surprise as an alternative to tank attacks. The First World War ended at the stage of development of chemical weapons, which involved their use by aviation for operational and strategic purposes.
Works Cited
Center of Military History. “Policy-forming Documents of the American Expeditionary Forces: Volume 2.” 1989, Web.
Smart, Jeffery. “History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: An American Perspective.” Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, edited by Russ Zajtchuk and Ronald Bellamy, Office of The Surgeon General Department of the Army, 1997, pp. 9–87.
Trumpener, Ulrich. “The Road to Ypres: The Beginnings of Gas Warfare in World War I.” The Journal of Modern History, vol. 47, no. 3, 1975, pp. 460–480.
Fitzgerald, Gerard. “Chemical Warfare and Medical Response During World War I.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 98, 2008, pp. 611 – 625.