Warsaw Pact use of chemical weapons.

[WallShadow]

As good as modern military planning might be, I always look at how history has treated the "givens" of upcoming conflict.

So much of the build up and thought process between the world wars was dedicated to gas warfare. "The Great Pacific War" postulated gas bombs used from aircraft against ships and land forces. I recently acquired a book written in 1941 concerning Civil Air Raid Defense, much of which was "learned" from the British model. This book is at least half taken up by gas preparation and countermeasures.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by WallShadow

As good as modern military planning might be, I always look at how history has treated the "givens" of upcoming conflict.

So much of the build up and thought process between the world wars was dedicated to gas warfare. "The Great Pacific War" postulated gas bombs used from aircraft against ships and land forces. I recently acquired a book written in 1941 concerning Civil Air Raid Defense, much of which was "learned" from the British model. This book is at least half taken up by gas preparation and countermeasures.

The overall plan for the invasion of Japan that would have taken place if the atom bombs hadn't been dropped called for the use of chemical weapons by the Allies on selected Japanese cities, industrial facilities, and suspected strongpoints. So we didn't have our potential hands clean in that one either.

[Matt Wiser]

The plan for gas in DOWNFALL was not finalized, but Hap Arnold was on record as being against strategic use, as the industrial targets meant to be hit by gas would've been burned out by B-29s anyway. Limited, tactical use of gas was far more likely, and troops going ashore would've had masks, protective suits and gloves, and four Liberty ships with gas munitions were to be offshore on X-Day in Kyushu (scheduled for 1 Nov 45). After Iwo and Okinawa, the plan was to use gas on those cave and bunker defenses that had resisted all other efforts to subdue (i.e. the "blowtorch and screwdriver" method of flame throwers, explosive charges, and direct fire from tanks and artillery), that were in the line of advance. The agents used were likely to have been Phosgene and Cyanogen Chloride. And in tests at Dugway in Utah, those agents were tested against mockup cave and bunker defenses, with gas concentrations five to ten times as dense inside the cave as one got outside, enough to penetrate gas mask filters and kill masked Japanese. All that one needed was formal Presidential Approval, but that had not been given prior to the Japanese surrender.

[Raellus]

IIRC, there was an incident during the invasion of Italy in '43 when a German bomber hit a supply ship in port filled with poison gas, dispersing it. I seem to remember reading something about this in Rick Atkinson's The Day of Battle. So it would seem that the Americans, at least, brought poison gas supplies with them in other theatres as a "just in case" measure.

[HorseSoldier]

Haven't heard about it, but it makes sense -- if the other side had gone hot on chemical weapons, it would have been a bad scene to be waiting on stuff from CONUS, or even the UK, to respond.

[jester]

There were also stocks of chemical weapons in the Pacific, especialy when the buildup for Operation Coronet and Olympic were being readied.

They also are working on destroying some of the stockpiles stored at the chemical munitions depots, many of which have been obsolete since WWII and a few items when I did the study had been obsolete prior to WWII.

Another thing to consider,

We had chemical weapons units in theater in WWII. Most of the time their job was to send in smoke. But, I would imagine where one finds those troops, their assets ie chemical weapons would be near.

[enrious]

Originally Posted by Raellus

IIRC, there was an incident during the invasion of Italy in '43 when a German bomber hit a supply ship in port filled with poison gas, dispersing it. I seem to remember reading something about this in Rick Atkinson's The Day of Battle. So it would seem that the Americans, at least, brought poison gas supplies with them in other theatres as a "just in case" measure.

That was Bari, Italy. A good book on it, Disaster at Bari.

There is a wikipedia entry on it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Raid_on_Bari

From the article: "One of the destroyed vessels, the US Liberty ship John Harvey, had been carrying a secret cargo of 2,000 M47A1 World War I type mustard gas bombs, each of which held 30-35kg (60-70 lb) of sulfur mustard. This cargo had been sent to Europe to retaliate if Germany resorted to chemical warfare."

[HorseSoldier]

We had chemical weapons units in theater in WWII. Most of the time their job was to send in smoke. But, I would imagine where one finds those troops, their assets ie chemical weapons would be near.

If I remember right, some of the WW2 Ranger battalions had 4.2" Chemical Mortar companies attached to augment their limited organic support weapons, also.

[Webstral]

We should assume, and I believe always have, that the Soviets used chemical weapons in Europe prior to the nuclear exchange. We should assume that the use of chemical weapons would be dictated by Soviet perception of advantage. Perhaps they don't use chemicals against the West Germans in 1996 because the other Western Allies are still on the sidelines. It's hard to say how things would shape up once the Anglo-Americans get involved. I'm certain the Soviets would use chemicals in Poland, although I can't say how that would play out for them without investing some real time and energy.

The Soviets and the Chinese start the Sino-Soviet War with darned significant chemical exchanges. We should expect that the Soviets would use their chemical weapons in accordance with doctrine, more or less. We should expect that the Chinese will retaliate in a manner that fits their needs. Since chemical contamination slows everything down, and since the Chinese possess the ability to respond in kind, the Soviets probably find that use of chemicals on the front lines is not to their advantage. The same probably is true in Iran, once the Iranians begin to retaliate with chemical weapons. (If the Iranians experience any technical difficulties, it's not hard to see the West or China providing needed assistance.)

The Pact probably uses chemical weapons in the Balkans. Again, how this shapes up depends a good deal on how effectively the Romanians and Jugoslavs hurt the Pact back.

Webstral