Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink

what would happen if the V2 were launched to the eastern front?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 15 of 15
  • Message 1.Μύ

    Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Thursday, 4th May 2006

    I have been wondering what would be the effects of V2 missiles on the eastern front could it stop the eastern front?

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by JIMBOB52 (U3286524) on Thursday, 4th May 2006

    simple answer: No. Far far too many russian soldiers, tanks etc for the V2 to do anything other than slightly slow them down.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Thursday, 4th May 2006

    I have been wondering what would be the effects of V2 missiles on the eastern front could it stop the eastern front?Μύ

    the only way they would have been any use of the Eastern Front might have been if they'd been filled with chemical warfare agents - would have been a slaughter house.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 4th May 2006

    If they'd stuffed them with Nerve Agents then maybe, otherwise, no.

    The Germans had already stockpiled large quantities of Tabun and Sarin by the time the V2 was in production, so they could have done it, why they didn't, who knows?

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Thursday, 4th May 2006

    it sounds mean but I wish they had have done - we'd have still won the war but the Sovs. would have been thrased at the same time - what do you think the outcome would have been? When you think no Sov. nukes 'til 1949 - although I have to be honest and say I don't know what CW's the Sovs. had.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Thursday, 4th May 2006

    If they'd stuffed them with Nerve Agents then maybe, otherwise, no.

    The Germans had already stockpiled large quantities of Tabun and Sarin by the time the V2 was in production, so they could have done it, why they didn't, who knows?

    Μύ


    DL,
    You have reminded me that I owe you an answer on the effect of Tabun and Sarin on D Day if the Germans had used chemical weapons to oppose the landings.

    Well, to give my answer here, I have looked into it, I have tried my best to evaluate the data, I have compared the toxicity data against known examples of chemical warfare.

    Here is what I've come up with. It would have been much worse. The casualties that were experienced on Omaha would (in my opinion) have been duplicated on Utah, Sword, Juno and Gold. Omaha would have been much, much worse.

    However at Omaha (without Chemical Weapons) the landing was achieved. So, in my opinion only, the landing would still have been achieved on four beaches, at a much greater cost in human life. How this would have affected the later conduct of the war, anyones guess.

    It's a macabre subject for me, Cheers AA.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 5th May 2006

    Hi AA,

    I'd be interested to know where you researched this one.

    I still disagree totally. Let's look at the facts, you've got allied troops fully armed and loaded up with equipment marching ashore. If the Germans had used either chemical mines or artillery shells, the allies would have been massacred. Imagine it, the troops are marching ashore with a flail tanks clearing a path for them, then boom, there's another mine gone. The tank keeps going, but a minute or two later, the infantry behind it start to collapse, the tank goes off at an angle and crashes into a wall, as the driver goes down too.

    Their NBC protection consisted of a mask, not full charcoal lined suit as used these days. Nerve agent doesn't even need to be inhaled, and is odorless, colourless and tasteless. It is effective in minutes, and exposed skin is all that is needed. If they had used Tabun or Sarin on the Normandy beaches, D-Day would have failed. The Allied first waves would have been slaughtered, and the Allies wouldn't have even understood why they were dying, morale would have collapsed, and panic would have set in. My guess would be that the Allies would have realised that something was killing them, and some chemical or even germ was involved, and they'd have probably had to abandon the survivors on the beaches. After all, if you have a force of 500,000 men, and 100,000 are ashore, do you risk 400,000 to get the 10 or 20,000 survivors back? No, of course you don't.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by TerribleTomas (U1765869) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006

    I have several thoughts as to why they didn't

    Chemical Warfare is a double edged sword and depending on persistence they would not have been able to advance over the ground gained durig the enemies panic striken retreat. The Germans may not have fully deveoped the requisite personal protectiive equipment or been able to issue it to troops in sufficient quantities

    They may also have been fearful that the Soviets/Westen Allies had something just as nasty up their sleeves + Their Commmanders had less regard for the lives of their men and more conscripts to replace those lost

    Hitler may have been opposed to it because he had been gassed himself at Ypres - Thougb in his view the Soviets were Untersmensch (sub human) and there were commanders on the ground who were more fanatical and desperate

    Commanders who were veterans of the First World War might not obey the order to deploy it or even risk keeping it close enough to the front for fear that stocks might be captured and used against them.

    There was another Nerve agent called Soman under development which was reportedly more deadly than Sarin

    Tom

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006

    One thing always puzzles me is that the Germans had tons of gas/chemicals stockpiled and as we know the dwarf really didnt care about his own peoples sufferring let alone his enemies - why when the Russians were at the gates of Berlin - didnt he use them ??

    he knew the end was near so why not s--t or bust ??

    ST

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by TerribleTomas (U1765869) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006

    Not sure anyone took old Adolf's rantings seriously anymore by then plus they were probably more concerned with fleeing West if they could. I believe some stuff was held around Spandau/in The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute as it was a priority for the NKVD to capture the info held there according to Mr Beevor's book

    I really meant to say that it was the Russian Commanders who were less concerned about losses but failed to specify this - though the Nazi's were scraping the barrel too and sending out the Hitler Youth and Volksturm

    Tom

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006

    tHEY UNFORTUNATELY TOOK THE DWARFS ramblings seriously up to the minute when he snuffed it out

    why did he not send all his gas/chemical stuff into the conflict - its amazing ??

    ST

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 11th May 2006

    Tom,

    You're spot on! The Soviets took over development of Soman, and eventually produced a persistent version known as VR-55. Their version of the Yanks' VX I suppose, a thickened, persistent nerve agent.

    As for why they didn't use the stuff, my guess is that they believed that (at least late on in the war) tha the allies had nerve gases too, and since Germany was getting bombed every night, then if they used gas, the allies would start dropping gas bombs. The consequences of them using it would have been more horrific. We Brits had been working on using anthrax as a weapon, and were developing anthrax bombs, so had they used gas on us, I'd guess we'd have retaliated with using bio-weapons. It would have only been a matter of months before we managed to figure out countermeasures and develop our own stocks of Tabun and Sarin, so any advantage would have been seriously short-lived. The only way that nerve agent could have been a decisive weapon would have been if its first use was either D-Day, or Stalingrad or Kursk in the Eastern war. These battles were decisive in the fact that the Germans never recovered from them, so reversing the result could have been effective. D-Day in particular is one where effective use of nerve gas would have been catastrophic for the allies.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Thursday, 11th May 2006


    They may also have been fearful that the Soviets/Westen Allies had something just as nasty up their sleeves + Their Commmanders had less regard for the lives of their men and more conscripts to replace those lost

    Hitler may have been opposed to it because he had been gassed himself at Ypres - Thougb in his view the Soviets were Untersmensch (sub human) and there were commanders on the ground who were more fanatical and desperate
    Μύ

    the main reason was they were afraid that using chemicals against the allies would give the latter perfect justification for using chemicals against Germany, which might have complicated things just as much for them.
    On the eastern front I've heard of one occasion when they used gas, I can't be sure but it was against the remaining defenders of either Odessa or Sevastopol in 1941, the defenders were hiding in some sort of caves or catacombs and causing the Germans trouble in insurgency style attacks, so they pumped the caves/catacombs with some gas. It wasn't a nevre agent though, rather something like chlorine.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 11th May 2006

    <>

    If they couldn't slow down the Western Allies how could they have affected the Soviets?

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Thursday, 11th May 2006


    These battles were decisive in the fact that the Germans never recovered from them, so reversing the result could have been effective. D-Day in particular is one where effective use of nerve gas would have been catastrophic for the allies.
    Μύ

    imho D-day was too late for that as was Kursk as neither D-day nor Kursk were really decisive in the sense that by the time they took place it wasn't a question of whether Germany would lose but rather a question of how long it would manage to hold out. Plus I don't think that Wermacht commanders would have been excited if they'd have received orders to deploy gas, it'd have turned the war into a total mess.

    Report message15

Back to top

About this Board

The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

or Μύto take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The message board is closed for posting.

This messageboard is .

Find out more about this board's

Search this Board

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.