Chemical and other special warfare units

[Darman]

Well, the defender normally has the advantage, so the odds of success- everything being even- should be less than 50% to start with.

I would generally agree with you.  However, there is ample evidence of surprise attacks creating a lot of chaos amongst the defenders, some men staying on the firing steps, as you pointed out, and others fleeing along with the gas cloud (which was moving from the frontline trenches rearward).  I believe that article was referencing one of the first uses of a new gas, but I'm not positive.  I forget which gas it was too. 

The fact that there wasn't a lot that either side could do to counter mustard gas, which is theoretically of the same tech level as all the defensive anti-gas equipment in use up til the end of the war, should count towards gas attacks of a specific level having a fair chance of success against units equipped to the same level.  Fair chance meaning approximately 50-50.  I figure that it is about as fair a ratio as we're going to get, unless you'd rather go with the historical figure that says it has a 59.275% chance of failure... but good luck flipping a coin or rolling die to get that.  (I pulled the number out of thin air, I have no idea.  I just view it as a simple expedient, if the tech level is equal then its a 50-50 chance of success, if you're a tech level behind then make it a 1 in 6 chance of success, and if you're a tech level ahead then make it a 5 in 6 chance you've succeeded.  That way the surprise use of gas can either succeed brilliantly despite your lack of investment in it, or fail spectacularly despite all your investments in it.)

[Kaiser Kirk]

I believe that article was referencing one of the first uses of a new gas, but I'm not positive.  I forget which gas it was too. 

The fact that there wasn't a lot that either side could do to counter mustard gas, which is theoretically of the same tech level as all the defensive anti-gas equipment in use up til the end of the war, should count towards gas attacks of a specific level having a fair chance of success against units equipped to the same level. 

It was how folks coped with Chlorine as 1916 got on, I was merely looking for something that mentioned gas- as I recalled- sank.  Which means where I live in the Coastal Mountains, it would be of very limited use.
"Gas never reproduced the dramatic success of 22 April 1915; however, it became a standard weapon which, combined with conventional artillery, was used to support most attacks in the later stages of the war. Gas was employed primarily on the Western Front—the static, confined trench system was ideal for achieving an effective concentration. Germany also made use of gas against Russia on the Eastern Front, where the lack of effective countermeasures resulted in deaths of over 56,000 Russians,[37] "


As for Mustard Gas - ok, so we have something that was produced in large quantity, used in large quantity, had little defense, had some successes....albeit it made the environment hostile to would be victor as well....but wasn't the backbreaker.

"The polluting nature of mustard gas meant that it was not always suitable for supporting an attack as the assaulting infantry would be exposed to the gas when they advanced. When Germany launched Operation Michael on 21 March 1918, they saturated the Flesquières salient with mustard gas instead of attacking it directly, believing that the harassing effect of the gas, coupled with threats to the salient's flanks, would make the British position untenable.[citation needed]"

"The Allies mounted more gas attacks than the Germans in 1917 and 1918 because of a marked increase in production of gas from the Allied nations. Germany was unable to keep up with this pace despite creating various new gases for use in battle, mostly as a result of very costly methods of production."

Useful yes - automatic victory - no.
The Germans used most of these first, didn't win. The Allies used them more, did win, but not due to a decisive gas attack. Superior numbers, technology, supplies, war weariness, flu, mismanagement of food resources, etc.

1.3 million casualties, 100,000 dead, 190,000tons produced- not known how much used.  A grisly tool.

[Darman]

The fact that there wasn't a lot that either side could do to counter mustard gas, which is theoretically of the same tech level as all the defensive anti-gas equipment in use up til the end of the war, should count towards gas attacks of a specific level having a fair chance of success against units equipped to the same level. 

Useful yes - automatic victory - no.

And this is where we are talking about two different things.  When I speak of the attack being measured as a success I'm not referring to it being an "automatic victory" over the enemy, winning the battle on its own.  My meaning is that the gas attack has an effect on the battle, it makes the odds of winning the battle more favorable to the user of the gas.  Which is why gas attacks between units of equal tech levels should have a 50% chance of success: because the gas attack isn't the battle itself, its whether or not the gas attack has any positive effect at all on the battle, whether that effect is actually causing casualties, or causing confusion, or simply forcing enemy soldiers to wear those bulky respirators and for enemy artillerymen to continue to operate in a chemical environment as they try to fight back.  The details of what happened in the battle are entirely up to the mods or to the player(s) involved.  The gas cloud could have been blown back onto its own lines, the gas used may have been ineffective in general, whatever you decide. 

Gas was a supporting weapon, not a silver bullet, as they'd hoped at the time.  It didn't win the war single-handedly in WW1 and it won't and shouldn't here in Navalism.  But it can influence the outcome of a battle, tip the scales in one direction or another, at least for a little while.  If you notice, whenever large-scale gas attacks occurred the defender always rushed reinforcements to the area.  To me that means that the attack worked: it placed the enemy in a position where they didn't think their troops could hold the line without reinforcement.  They diverted valuable resources to counter that attack, that had been supported by a gas attack, which probably tipped the scales in the attacker's favor enough initially that reinforcements were required to balance things out. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

And this is where we are talking about two different things.  When I speak of the attack being measured as a success I'm not referring to it being an "automatic victory" over the enemy, winning the battle on its own.  My meaning is that the gas attack has an effect on the battle, it makes the odds of winning the battle more favorable to the user of the gas.

Yep, I misunderstood :)

[Darman]

Yep, I misunderstood :)

Its completely okay.  I never really made it clear in any of my statements on the matter.  Sometimes I do that, I know what my interpretation of a phrase is and then forget that I'm the only one who knows it. 

[Darman]

One thing I've found interesting in my reading on the subject has been examples whereby units maintain good gas discipline, meaning they wear their masks and otherwise protect themselves, and yet still suffer 33% casualties.  In one case 1500 Americans were deployed to support a French attack and came under German gas attack.  The concentration of chemicals in the air was such that despite perfect gas discipline, 500 American casualties were caused, the vast majority were in the lungs when the respirators failed to contain the high concentrations of gases in the air. 

Another example is an American regiment that spent 10 hours under constant gas bombardment and suffered 200 gas casualties alone, because of weariness and some men couldn't stand to wear the respirators any longer, and after the ten hours the regimental commander begged permission to be allowed to withdraw his men to rest. 

Otherwise, surprise attacks against units with good training can cause 33% or more casualties in only a matter of hours.  The example given was a group of soldiers who had an attack occur during nighttime hours, weather conditions were perfect.  Despite regulations that all men sleep in gas-proof bunkers, the problem was that to keep the bunkers healthy they had to be aired out too, and this particular gas attack caused 33% casualties.  Because it was nighttime the gas snuck up on them, the alarm was given late, men swapped masks when they thought it was safe because they had to perform their normal routine, the secondary masks were not as effective but allowed them to do chores. 

Edit: Approximately 31% of all AEF hospitalized casualties were treated primarily for gas injuries during the war. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

Happened to note this BBC article today :
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31042472