Warsaw Pact use of chemical weapons.

[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

[jester]

I would think that it would be at Corps, Army or Army Group level depots. And used as a stratiegic weapon for a special operation.

Now, once things start to breakdown and units loose their comand and control as well as cohesion as it relates to nationality and higher headquarters <Remember a large majority of the pact forces hate each other> we could find signifigant quantities of chemical weapons in the hands of the higher levels of comand or what is left of them or even the depot/forces who controlled these upper level depots where these weapons were stored. This could be a very interesting twist to a campaign for sure.

Now, we could also toss these weapons into the hands of a commander fresh from the Asian theater of operations and he has little reguard for life or no fear of the stigma associated with using chemical weapons.

And then we have the commander who has such weapons but has no desire to sink to the level of using such weapons and thus he keeps his stockpile secure.

And then we have the tactical leader who will use such weapons but only in sdmall spurts to gain a tactical advantage, but never really willing to go all out. Much like the game history says the threshold of nuclear war occured.