Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
General Sir John Hackett suggests that USAEUR would largely be off-limits to Pact chemical weapons, since use of chemical weapons by both sides tends to slow battlefield progress. Hackett suggests that the US would make chemicals available to the European allies, who would use them against the Pact in retaliation. Pact use of chemical weapons would taper off as soon as forward momentum began to suffer.
There is a fair amount of logic to this. Soviet doctrine for the employment of chemicals involved using non-persistent agents on the defenders at the anticipated point(s) of breakthrough and persistent agents in adjacent areas. If NATO replied in kind by laying persistent agents in front of defended positions, the Soviet infantry would be forced to conduct dismounted attacks in chemical protective gear. Having done a couple of peacetime breaches of minefields in MOPP 4, I can say that I would prefer not to try to make a dismounted attack that way.
Use of chemicals against support troops and headquarters affects everyone, but throughout the Cold War everyone envisioned the Soviets being on the offensive. The attacker suffers disproportionately because he is relying on speed and momentum. How this would have played out in East Germany and Poland is another question.
Webstral
|
Ironically NATO assumed the Soviets would be the one who attacked, while many in the PACT felt it was NATO who would attack first. Where as the Soviets were mainly sitting on the fence watching for a time to pick off the rest of Europe, again they also were watching too. If they felt NATO or any member was about to attack they were more than willing to launch preemptive strikes, but that another issue all together.