Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1946-02-09
Failure 10 Use Gas
Attributed in Part 10
Value Of Bombings
BY THOMAS r. HENRY.


was that neither side used gas.
At the time of the invasion O.
Normandy every American soldier
carried q gas mask and wore i'm.
pregnated clothing which was sup.
posed to protect him from sucf
burning gases as mustard.
Within two weeks the masks hac
been collected by quartermaster de.
tachments. The impregnated cloth.
ing had been given to destitute
French civilians. Yet always there
was the disQuieting rumor that Hit.
ler's last desperate move would be 9
gas attack.
Some of the reasons why GU,
forces never used gas have just beer
detailed by Prof. j. H. Hildebrano
OF the University of California
liaison officer for the Office OF
Scientific Research and Develop
ment with the Chemical Warfare
Service in the European theater
He cites five major reasons In re-
port just published by the American
Chemical Society here.
Pacific Situation Different.
These reasons apply to the Euro.
pean theater.
I'VE faced very different situa.
ton in the Pacific in our attacks on
Japanese-held islands," Prof. Hide
brand said. st am confident that
thousands of American soldiers
would have been saved if we had
Kept raining mustard gas on the
islands under attack for a week
waited for couple of days, for the
stuff disappears rapidly under trop-
ical conditions, and then moved in"
Detailing the season why we did
not use gas in Europe, the report
says:
While the Germans were in
French, Belgian, Dutch and Nor
Wegian territory, our use of gas
against the German Army would
have been danger to the friendly
civilian population.
I'VE were undoubtedly deferred by
the popular effect of our own propa-
ganda during the World War. The
Germans were the first to use gas.
Therefore, we could represent it as
another example of Hunnish inven-
ton. Ever since then the American
public has seemed to think that it Is
preferable to be lacerated than
gassed, despite the fact that at least
one of our States considers gas to
offer the most humane method of
killing man.
Explosives More Effective.
IF gas we're used on cities, it
would have to displace an equivalent
load of high explosive and incendi-
airy bombs. I see no justification for
expecting greater results from gas.
If windows are not broken, persons
indoors are well protected against
gas dropped outside.
1.-THE object of bombarding cities
was not primarily to injure the
civilian population but to interfere
with their production of war mate
rails. In this respect, incendiaries
were fby far the most effective
weapon, with high explosives in a
supporting rather than primary role.
by the time the ground fighting
began in France, Germany had lost
corInand of the air and would have
had to depend mainly on mortar
fire to deliver gas, while we could
have dropped it in aerial bombs.
The former method is valuable only
for harassment of local objectives.
No great concentration can be set
up over wide areas. A motar shell
can deliver at best only about 10
per cent of its weight in gas.
Workmanship Limitations.
Lastly, aerial bombing is subject
to grave limitations. The hopes of
many gas enthusiasts were placed
on delivery of high concentrations
of nonpersistent gas by means of
aerial bombs. They were aided in
this by lack of knowledge of the
limitations of aerial bombs.
THE coordination between our
different services has been so poor
that officers outside the Army Air
Force were easily misled by early
claims that our heavy bombers
could drop a bomb in a rain barrel
from $4,000 feet. This was so far
from true that not only was a large
target, such as factory area, often