Chemical Weapons

[Pats]

And next we're modeling nuke weapons... ;-)

[thatguy96]

Pats said:
And next we're modeling nuke weapons... ;-)

Also been attempted. I forget by whom, but this was brought up recently too. They found the ability to generate suitable effects lacking.

[AbshireJW]

Well Chemical weapons although do suck in the real world aplications they are however part of history. There are a few examples of their use in modern warfare, most specifically the Iran-Iraq War. So yes they will destroy units that dont have NBC gear, the Iranians had NBC gear but with their tradional facial hair...alot of them died. Simply put, its no more a problem than Napalm from an Air strike, or a flame thrower, or a 155mm Artillery shell...dead is dead. Besides a green smoking hex filled with dead people would work both ways...neither side could use that hex for the entire game...Would change the way alot of battles would take place.

[hoplitis]

First things first. I would be suprised if the Camo crew included Chemical Warfare in the game. This a tactical wargame and I would, again, be suprised if someone suggested that chemical weapons are just another "capability" readily available to a battalion or brigade HQ. They must be "released" by a higher level of command. In the classical NATO vs WPact "whatifs" use of even "tactical" CWs could easily trigger a "strategic escalation" of the conflict. In any case, even for "3rd World" conflicts use of CW would be more of a strategic/operational option rather than a tactical one and as such probably out of the "scope" of the game.

AbshireJW said:
...Simply put, its no more a problem than Napalm from an Air strike, or a flame thrower, or a 155mm Artillery shell...dead is dead ...

Nope. This is an oversimplification. Impact or expolosive munitinos do most of their damage upon delivery. Chemical agents can be "tuned" both for immediate and lasting effects. One fairly common "mode of operation" is to deliver a highly potent agent in an aerosol form of medium volatility. The lowered volatility ensures that the agent (in the form of miniscule liquid droplets) will remain in the target area for an extended time and the high potency assures that the slow or "controlled" vaporisation of small amounts of the agent will have a disabling effect on the enemy. In fact you would have to "simulate" a range of Chemical Warfare agents depending on their "fugacity", "rate of dispersion" and/or overall "persistance" in the battlefield just to name a few parameters that might be important (not going into environmental parameters such as temperature, wind velocity/direction, humidity(?)/rain etc).
On the other hand you could design a scenario involving the advance of a NBC capable force in the aftermath of a CWs attack. You can "simulate" the effect of the protective suit for infantry (reduced speed, combat ability and possibly vision), select vehicles/APCs/armor with a known NBC capability, you can (seriously) reduce the strength and moral/rally ability of non NBC capable units etc. The interesting designer issue would be the moral/rally ability of the advancing NBC force, ie "I feel secure wih my protective gear" or "God help me I'm walking in the valley of chemical death!"

[AbshireJW]

Well considering all the Inaccuracies this game has to offer historically Like the Chinese having Air Support and tanks in the early 1950s (Korean War) I thought Chemical Weapons might be a nice change of pace and get people thinking outside of the box, considering they are a part of Modern Warfare. I know of an incident in Iraq in 2004 where a 155mm IED had traces of Serine gas and 2 soldiers had to get treated for exposure, luckily the IED never detonated.

[thatguy96]

AbshireJW said:
Well considering all the Inaccuracies this game has to offer historically Like the Chinese having Air Support and tanks in the early 1950s (Korean War)...

While the Chinese didn't deploy aircraft, they did deploy armor with their "volunteers" if I remember correctly, and they had an air force. If you're getting struck by Chinese aircraft in scenarios in that time period when playing as the US (or other UN forces) it might make some sense to inquire as to the state of air strikes in the picklist.

However, to say that the Chinese had no airplanes or tanks circa 1950 is simply incorrect. That would imply all the armor and aircraft they acquired during the whole of the civil war and then from the Soviet Union somehow went missing between 1948 and 1950.

[AbshireJW]

WEll keep in mind that the CPV durring that time were armed with weapons issued by the Americans to the nationalists. The supply system for the Chinese was so bad that they opted to carry American weapons captured from the GIs as they escaped south. The Chinese were armed with American, Japanese, German, and a few Soviet weapons. The Russians really didnt supply the Chinese until after the war since China was still a very new Communist Country. Later on durring Korea they were armed more with Soviet weapons, but they still lacked Armor and Air support. The Chinese simply did no use Close Air support...peroid. They did have a few bi-planes that might fly over trench lines in the later stages of the war and hand drop bombs...but most of them met their fate via a DUSTER or Quad .50

If you know some Chinese here is good photo source.
http://www.plapic.com.cn/lib/00003/200010.htm

I have a couple of Chinese sources on the korean War, but they are in Chinese and I havent had it all translated. But all the evidence ive research have supported this. The problem with research on the Korean war is that as it is in America, the Chinese view it as a Forgotten War.

Spurr, Russell. Enter the Dragon: China's Undeclared War Against The U.S. In Korea, 1950-51. New York:Henry Holt & Company, 1989.
Hoyt, Edwin. The Day The Chinese Attacked: Korea, 1950 : The Story of the Failure of America's China Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990.
Alexander, Bevin. Korea: The First War We Lost. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1986.
^ Appleman, Roy E. "South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu", pg 754
^ CenturyChina.com
^ Mossman, Billy C. "Ebb and Flow, November 1950-July 1951", pg 57
^ GlobalSecurity.org - Korean War
^ Li Tso-Peng, "Strategy: One Against Ten, Tactics: Ten Against One." Foreign Languages Press, Peking 1966, pp. 4-5.
^ Appleman, Roy E. "South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu", pg 771
^ Korean War FAQ Korean War History Korean War History Korean War FAQ
^ Appleman, Roy E. "South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu", pg 719
^ The Korean War: Years of Stalemate, pg 17
^ Operation Big Switch
^ Korean War FAQ, from CenturyChina.com
^ Chinese Question Role in Korean War, from POW-MIA InterNetwork
^ Cultural Reviews, The Lament of a Chinese POW
^ The Cold War, The Korean War: An Overview