Jump to content


Photo

Did Any Nations Use Battlefield Chemical Weapons In Wwii?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#41 Argus

Argus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,878 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 17 June 2017 - 0929 AM

Richard it depends on what level you're asking the question.

 

From a rational military perspective then stripping everything you want from the Australians (which amounted to quite a bit) and leaving the rest makes sense, or it could make sense. Politically it was... oh there's actually a perfect word - impolitic, horribly impolitic. Basically it managed to combine a massive snub with a devaluation of our contribution to war and cutting the legs out from under our post war position all in the one play - as a small power trying to make its way between the big boys that was existential shit to us.

 

shane



#42 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 17 June 2017 - 1430 PM

A retaliatory strike on Germany? The strategic bombing campaign was already doing well for the Allies. The war gasses of the day were hardly suitable for strategic employment and no munitions were on hand for such use. They were assigned to the US Army Chemical Corps for planning and execution by field army commanders should the need be seen. Strictly tactical and operational in scope, not strategic. This practice remains to the present day, although most nations have disarmed in CW.

As evidenced by us buffoonishly having nukes in Turkey, having somehow missed the fact that Turkey has gone Islamic, in typical bureaucratic fashion.  

 

Pull everything back CONUS, put nukes back on the USN ships if you need forward deployment.  Clowns.  S/F....Ken M



#43 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,464 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 17 June 2017 - 1842 PM

 

A retaliatory strike on Germany? The strategic bombing campaign was already doing well for the Allies. The war gasses of the day were hardly suitable for strategic employment and no munitions were on hand for such use. They were assigned to the US Army Chemical Corps for planning and execution by field army commanders should the need be seen. Strictly tactical and operational in scope, not strategic. This practice remains to the present day, although most nations have disarmed in CW.

As evidenced by us buffoonishly having nukes in Turkey, having somehow missed the fact that Turkey has gone Islamic, in typical bureaucratic fashion.  

 

Pull everything back CONUS, put nukes back on the USN ships if you need forward deployment.  Clowns.  S/F....Ken M

 

 

but but nuclear sharing!

 

 

But that is so off topic here it hurts. Luckily the Führer had experienced chemical weapons first hand.



#44 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 17 June 2017 - 1919 PM

There's only one method by which I would care to share nuclear weapons with anyone else.

 

They would not like how that works out.  S/F....Ken M






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users