J R Army Med Corps: first published as 10.1136/jramc-47-03-10 on 1 September 1926. Downloaded from 223 <!urrent 1ttel'atul'e.-Bbstl'acts. Chemical Warfare: Gas Offence, Gas Defence, and Smoke Pro­ duction. By R. Hanslian and F. Bergendorff, Berlin, 1924.-We publish short extracts from this book as we think they indicate clearly the wide range of chemical warfare. PREFACE. The .authors state that the purpose of the book is to give an unbiassed review of chemical warfare based on published facts. They state that a certain amount of information on chemical warfare . has been publish,ed in American and English journals. Although Germany was not the originator of chemical warfare, she maintained her lead in it throughout the war. German methods are therefore largely referred to. Where the claims of Germany and the Allies differ, both sides have been quoted. guest. Protected by copyright. INTRODUCTION. A very general chapter on toxic gases, their definition (i.e., gases, liquids or solids) and their method of use, chief methods of anti-gas pro­ tection, importance of gas discipline. and the psychological effect of gas on troops. I.-GAS OFFENCE. 1. DEVELOPMENT OF GAS ATTACKS. A brief historical summary of early uses of gas and smoke from ancient times to 1871 is given. Special reference is made to Article 23e of the Hague Convention wherein the use of weapons, shell or substances causing unnecessary suffering is forbidden. The words unnecessarg suffering are emphasized; the argument being that firstly,. if there was one weapon introduced during http://militaryhealth.bmj.com/ the war which could not be called useless that weapon was gas. Secondly,. statistics on the German and French sides show that the fatal casualties due to gas were only about three per cent. Moreover, other casualties soon made a complete recovery. By other weapons fatal casualties were twenty­ five per cent. 'l'herefore Article 23e of the Hague Convention does not. apply to gas. The only section of the Hague Convention which does apply is the clause forbidding the use of gas weapons from the air-particularly in reference to the defenceless civilian population-and the use of projectiles whose sole purpose is spreading of asphyxiating or toxic gases. It was on October 1, 2021 by realized that carbon monoxide, prussic acid and' oxides of nitrogen must 'always be produced, and hence the proposed clause, "The explosive effect of such projectiles must exceed their toxic action." The insertion of this clause was not agreed to by England and America. England finally, in, J R Army Med Corps: first published as 10.1136/jramc-47-03-10 on 1 September 1926. Downloaded from Ourrent Literature 1907, agreed to subscribe to it, but America did not .. Germany adhered to this strictly till May, 1916, when German Green Cross was introduced, as the French had already departed from the undertaking by using phosgene shell in February, 1916. This shell had little shattering effect, but con­ -siderable toxic action. The German prior use of lachrymators in shell, which had a considerable explosive action, and the use of gas clouds, which was but a revival of the ancient smoking out methods,. and had not even been referred to in the agreement, was but a formal transgression of the la,w of nations. Chemical Watjare Preparations by the Higher Commands of the l.larious countries.---':'In so far as Germany was concerned, no preparations had been made prior to the war for the use of chemical substances. Germany had relied entirely on the use of ordinary weapons. The French had introduced prior to the war a twenty-six millimetre rifle-grenade charged with ethyl bromo-acetate, and this had been used prior to the war against the apaches at Choisy-le-Roi. The French 'Pioneers carried these with them in the war, and instructions for their use guest. Protected by copyright. were issued by the French War Ministry on February 21, 1915. They also carried a gas hand-grenade cha,rged with ethyl bromo-acetate and -chloro-acetone. This was used for the first time in March, 1915. German Irritant Shell.-The German Army fired in the year 1914, on October 27, 3,000 shells charged with dianisidine. It was only, however, in the beginning of 1915 that a fifteen cubic metre German gas shell, charged 'with a mixture of xylyl and xylylene-bromide, was used. This was replaced iater by bromo-acetone and bromo-methylethylketone. Militm'Y Necessity for Gas.-The stalemate of trench warfare turned the thoughts of the General Staff to the use of chemical warfare materials, as it was found that .explosive shell were of· little value against the opponent's trenches. Introduction of the Gas Cloud Method by the Germans.-The existence ·of large quantities of chlorine in Germany in the liquid state suggested the http://militaryhealth.bmj.com/ pO$sibilities of its use. Contravention of International Law did not arise, as the toxicity of chlorine was not so great as that of ethyl bromo-acetate and chloro-acetone, which had already been used by the French. A brief description is given of the first German gas attack on April 22, 1915. A short historical account is then given of the developments of gas warfare. The part the Americans played in supplying gas shell and men and the preparation of gas warfare chemicals in the States up to the end of the on October 1, 2021 by war is briefly discussed. Brief reference is also made to the casualties by. gas warfare as given in the reports by .the Americans, English, French and Germans, which show that chemical warfare means were the most effective in causing -casualties in 'the World War. J R Army Med Corps: first published as 10.1136/jramc-47-03-10 on 1 September 1926. Downloaded from Current Literature 225 (2) GAS WARFARE CHEMICALS. The nature of the so-called gases is discussed and the methods of classification adopted by the Germans and the Allies are given. Typical examples of each class are mentioned, wi th general particulars of their toxic effect anq the mode of use (i.e., from shell, projectors or cylinders) . For the purposes of the book, the following classification is adopted :­ (a) Lachrymators. (b) Lung irritants. (c) Prussic acid type. (d) Mustard gas. (e) Arsenic gases. (f) Gases from high explosives. Under each section, the gases used during the war .are enumerated; their physical and physiological properties, their tactical importance and mode of use being given:- (a) Lachrymators. guest. Protected by copyright. Xylyl bromide and xylylene bromide. Bromo-acetone and bromo-methylethylketone. Bromo-benzylcyanide. Dimethyl-sulphate. (b) Lung Irritants. Chlorine. Chloro-methy lchloroformate. Phosgene. Trichloromethylchloroformate (diphosgene). Chloro-picrin. (c) Prussic Acid. Hydrocyanic acid. (d) Mustard Gas. Dichlorodiethylsulphide. http://militaryhealth.bmj.com/ German Yellow Oross shell, with small bursting cha,·ge. German Yellow Oross H.E. shell. 'l'his latter type of shell combined the properties of a gas and H.E. shell and was first used iu March, 1918. The gas and H.E. were con­ tained in separate compartments. The upper chamber contained the fuse H.E. The intermediate part was filled with an iron parabolic diaphragm. Such shell were known as Z.B. and were also used later with Green Cross Mling. In consequence of the heavy explosive charge a complete~onver­ S10n of the mustard gas into vapour took place. (e) Arsenic Oompounds. on October 1, 2021 by Diphenylchloroarsine. Phen y ldichloroarsine. Dipheny lcyanoarsine. Ethyldichloroarsine. 15 J R Army Med Corps: first published as 10.1136/jramc-47-03-10 on 1 September 1926. Downloaded from 226 Ourrent Literature Ethyldibromoarsine. Meth y ldichloroarsine. Ohlorovinyldichloroarsine. (j) Gas from H.E. shell. Carbon monoxide.-Advantages of use of carbon monoxide: failure to detect its presence in the atmosphere, and penetration of respirator. Disadvantages: its lightness, difficulty of loading compressed into projectiles. It is stated that the technical difficulties of its use might be overcome in the future, and attention is drawn to the adoption by the American Navy of the Burrell respirator containing hopcalite, which gives protection against carbon monoxide. Tables ,are then given of data for the different gas weapons used by the various countries. Particulars are likewise given of the various weapons used by the English, French, Russians and Italians, but the data are not so complete as in the case of German projectiles. guest. Protected by copyright. Statistics of the chemicals filIed into shell, number of projectiles filled and total weight of gas chemicals made by America are also given. 0. TECHNIQUE OF GAS ATTACK. (A) Cloud Method. Particulars are given of the arrangements made for a gas-cloud attack, such as nature and number of cylinders required for a given front, personnel for operating and installation, weather and terrain considera­ tions. The organization of the attack and the gases which are suitable are also discussed. Deductions are drawn from war experience as to the military value of such attacks. Details are then given of 'a number of German gas-cloud attacks during 1915-1917 on . both fronts, data as to wind direction and velocity, time of duration of cloud, and number of casualties caused to the Allies, any other relevant data where available being included. http://militaryhealth.bmj.com/ Brief summaries are also given of the French and English gas-cloud attacks during the same period. More detailed data are given of several Russian gas-cloud attacks. (B) Gas Shell. This section opens with a discussion of the development of the use of gas "hell for bombardments, and the factors, such as weather and terrain, which have to be considered in relation to the tactical importance of this method.