Chemical-Biological Warfare

[AnimalAl]

At the risk of being controversial, might I throw in a bid for unconventional strategic warfare options for the air force? At the onset of the conflict, all sides had chemical warfare capabilities, at the least, mustard agent and phosgene munitions for their operational and strategic air strike capabilities. Later in the war, the Americans/Brits/Canadians researched and developed a munition that would disperse anthrax on cities/farmland. Then of course we have... the Manhattan project, but of course the Axis were also invested in research for the bomb.

Given the game's innovative approach at applying capital toward R&D specific to particular military units, may I suggest an option to invest in a special chemical warfare strike unit (using strat bombers) immediately, with research to build to a bio warfare capability as the "middle ground," and a few nukes if the research is continued long enough? Again all limited to a special strike unit so that the entire class of strat bombers don't have this capability.

I offer this as a possible solution to meet historical points of Churchill threatening to use poison gases to stop a German invasion of England, the German consideration to use gas to lift the siege at Leningrad, the discussion of whether the Germans should have used gas at D-Day and the American plans to retailate with their own gas weapons in the event the Germans did, the US consideration to use gas during the planned invastion of Japan, and of course, the Big Ones Enola Gay and Boxcars dropped.

For your consideration... BUGS AND GAS!!![8D]

Animal Al

[neuromancer]

Hitler had first hand knowledge of Gas Warfare from WW1, and it scared the crap out of him. Few believe he would have signed off on the use of the stuff.

The only really likely time gas would have been used is by Chrurchill in defense of the British Isles, but otherwise no one wanted to pull that trigger first.

Its much like nukes were after WW2. Everyone knew what they could do. Everyone knew that everyone had them. And so while there was lots of talk of using them, no one was willing to pull the trigger on that one, because no one wanted to deal with the mess that would result.

[AnimalAl]

I respectfully beg to differ, the German Army senior chemical officer said the only thing that stopped the germans from using chemical weapons at Leningrad was that they couldn't afford to divert trains from delivering conventional ammo and food etc to the Eastern Front. The only reason they didn't use chemical weapons at DDay was a fear of Allied retaliation against the German cities. The Germans thought the Allies had nerve agents like they did, since the Allies weren't held back in R&D during the 1930s as they had been.

The Soviets are alleged to have tried to use tularemia around Stalingrad during that battle, but it blew into their ranks as well. Not a well documented area, read Alibek's Biohazard book.

American plans to gas Japan were very real, especially after the casualties at Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Guam, etc. The CINCPACFLEET was against the idea, so was FDR, but when he died, plans were put forth and probably would have been implemented except that the ground invasion was called off.

Public opinion in the US to use gas on the Japs was overwhelmingly positive, perhaps not hard to understand. The idea that the military thought it was "immoral" is crap, it was just a pain in the butt, no one wanted to go to a scenario of trench-lines soaked in chemical agents that would lock down fast-moving combat units. I would say there was an understanding that the US/Brits would not use gas against Germans as long as the Germans didn't use it against them, and vice versa, but that didn't apply to US vs Japan or Germans vs Soviet Union.

Hey I know people are going to say, too hard, but it would be very cool AND very realistic. I would propose using an unconventional weapon would cause 25-50 decrement in strength with the penalty that the side it was used on gets an immediate plus-up in strat bombing assets to retaliate. While on the subject, I would love to see the Germans have an R&D track for V1/V2 rockets, but I guess they didn't have a very large operational impact. More psychological.

V/R
Animal Al

[paullus99]

The biggest problem faced with deploying chemical & biological (and probably nuclear weapons as well) is that the downside is just as big if not bigger than the upside. Look at the WWI - thousands of tons of chemical shells were used, but they did not break the deadlock, only made a bad situation even worse.

Both sides figured out how to keep fighting in a chemical environment, taking heavier losses, but really having no appreciable impact on the course of the war. If either side precipitated the use of chemical weapons in WWII or true biological weapons, there would have been heavier losses, but they would have found a way to keep on fighting - and the prospect of the RAF bomber command gassing entire German cities, was enough to have Hitler keep that particular card in his pocket, rather than deploy them.

In the same position, I probably would have made the same decision, either as Axis or the Allies....its a very bad prospect to open up that can of worms with an enemy that can retaliate in kind. Bloody business already, no real reason to make it any bloodier. Its very telling that even with Hitler being such a maniac, even in the last days, he didn't play the chemical card.

[neuromancer]

I think Paullus and I have said all that needs to be said on the 'no' side of the equation, it just gets circular at this point.

I seriously doubt 2B3 will put them in, but it is their call.


V1 and V2 weapons had almost no impact on the war. Considering what the V stood for (the German word for Vengence) I don't even think the Germans expected them to. I beleive they were intended as a response to the wholesale slaughter of German civilians thanks to 'Bomber' Harris.

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, it is a documented part of history that Harris was more interested in bombing cities than bombing industry, particularly once the Germans decentralized their industry and it became much more difficult to seriously hurt their industry.

Similarly, a 1945 to 1946 USAAF study on the impact of Strategic Bombing in WW2 came to the conclussion that while strategic bombing in WW2 in both theatres had an impact (no pun intended), it was not a major impact, and probably in the long run did not have a serious effect on the outcome. Some reports indicate that prior to Soviet and Allied troops entering Germany, German industry was still increasing in output, despite all the bombing.

USN and RN blockades of shipping of resources to Germany and Japan probably had a much, much more significant impact. Japan is noted to have had a chronic shortage of steel, and German had a serious shortage of Oil (which was why they were interested in the Middle East). So preventing resources from reaching the industry is probably better, you can have all the industry you want, but if you don't have te materials to put through it, it doesn't matter!

So anyway, that was probably the primary purpose of the V weapons. Random damage to the civilian population with the intent to demoralize. The Brits however dealt with it fairly well, stiff upper lip and all that, and it didn't prevent the US, UK, and Canada using the UK as a staging area for the invasion.

As a side note, the SCUD was an export version of a 2 stage Russian knock off of the V2. And we all know how effective the SCUD was, even if it did impact.

The only way the V1 or V2 would have had much effect is if it had a nuclear payload (which the Germans were trying for), and possibly a chemical payload. Although again, a chemical warhead would 'just' kill off a few hundred or a maybe a few thousand civilians, and just piss people off.

[AnimalAl]

[:(]*Sigh*

Yes, circular arguments about "what ifs" versus how to do damage assessments and retaliatory costs, etc. I would warn those serious advocates of wargames though not to judge chemical warfare by World War I standards - certainly the tank, machine gun, and bomber all came into fruition in WWI and no one says "oh no, the tank won't work, what a piece of junk it was, stalling on the trenches." WWII chemical warfare would have been awesome, much more refined and deadlier than its birth.

Well one can dream, can't one? There was a wargame on NATO by SSI I think that had some innovative rules for adding CBW into operational battles. Someone could do it, if they put their mind to it. I would venture to say that it could be a valuable combat multiplier that would break the unprepared defender at the right time and place, used in a combined arms setting. Iraq certainly saved their collective butts by using mustard and nerve to break the Iranian superior numbers attacking them.

BTW look close at all those D-Day anniversary pictures, those guys coming off the landing crafts are all wearing Army Chemical Warfare Service M5 protective masks.

BUGS AND GAS!
AnimalAl