From: erudnick@claudius.pica.army.mil (Edward J. Rudnicki )
Subject: Re: Gas = Stupidity
Originator: erudnick@claudius
Organization: U.S. Army  Armament Research Development & Engineering Center, Dover NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:26:46 GMT

DanZ writes:
#>Not true, Dan. Chemical weapons can be exceedingly effective under the right
#>circumstances; that's what makes them so tempting to folks like Saddam.
#>
#   My first reaction is that if they are effective, how come no modern army
#uses them? Bombing was considered immoral until it was determined to be
#effective, and then when it bacame common, nobody complained about morality
#anymore.

I suspect that morality, as it were, is a factor. With bombing you can
rationalize that you are destroying infrastructure and production base,
with the people just getting in the way. Chemical weapons are of course
a purely antipersonnel weapon. In circumstances where a user does not
care about morality or the response of third parties, the weapons will
be, and have been used.


#>After the introduction of mustard during the Great War, chemical weapons
#>accounted for about one third of Allied casualties.
#
#     And yet the German lost. Perhaps it has the ability to cause casualties,
#but without the ability to give military advantage.

The German loss has little to do with chemical weapons. Both sides used them.
In fact, the most devastating system used by either side was the Livens
Projector, a British device, which could produce a lethal concentration
on the target real fast.

One could make a case that Germany held out longer because of chemical
weapons. They reduced expenditures of HE and were more efficient at
certain tasks, allowing the Germans to "stretch" their artillery assets.
We use the term "force multiplier" today.


#>Delivered by artillery or aircraft, nonpersistent agents pose little
#>hazard to one's own troops.
#
#   But you cannot operate your troops in close proximity to the agent. I think
#this destroys most of it's military utility.

I was referring to hitting artillery, CPs, follow-on echelons, etc. targets
in the rear. With today's weapons you really can't use them in the close
assault role as in the Great War.


#>Persistent agents like mustard can deny an area to the enemy without
#>requiring covering troops
#
#    In unihabited areas, and in good weather, maybe. But it would be an
#ecological disaster to continuosly cover and area with chemical waepons.

Of course in uninhabited areas; that's the whole point of area denial,
whether with mines or whatever. Weather only affects the duration of
persistency; the stuff will stay there for military useful periods of
time in any event.

One theoretical use is in jungle warfare, where personnel would have
to make their way through dense brush. Some mustard or VX deposited on
the foliage would be unnoticed until it took effect.

Why an ecological disaster? The agents typically affect only animal
life, and the areas are small enough that fauna would move back in
once the agents dissipated.


#>Mustard was extensively
#>used by the Germans as a counterbattery weapon, requiring far less
#>expenditure of munitions than HE.
#>
#   May have been of use back then, but with modern mobile artillery, it won'
#be effective. Besides, I bet the chemical weapons were more expensive than the
#equivalent amount of HE.

Lots of people still use fixed defenses. And while the chemical weapons were
more expensive, they were far more efficient. Another factor, which I
touched upon earlier, is "stretching". If one has only a fixed amount of
HE available, it lets one field more munitions: 15 lb HE in a 15cm HE
projectile vs a 1 lb HE burster in a chemical projectile. The Germans used
so much mustard that they were running out toward the end.


#>Against unprotected troops with no retaliatory capability, mustard can be
#>devastating: Italians in Ethiopia and Iran-Iraq War.
#>
#   Anything is devestating to the unprotected. We certainly don't need to
#discuss the use of military force against undefended targets.

Again, a matter of efficiency. In the case of the Ethiopians, they could
take a lot of punishment from conventional munitions, same as anyone
else. But as many fought barefoot, a quantity of mustard placed along
likely march routes......


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil
Disclaimer - All my information on chemical weapons is derived from books
I found in my library at work. List supplied on request. All other
disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: alt.war