Chemical Weapons

Have a feature request for SRCW? Post here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

notus
Lieutenant
Posts: 90
Joined: Dec 07 2012
Human: Yes

Chemical Weapons

Post by notus »

First of all i dont know if this is the right place to post this...


I would like that the game had chemical or even biological weapons. Its purpose its to both the military and civilian aproval rating drop in the country that was affected by the weapon. Also the affected city would loose some of its population, the city infrastructures would be affected by the contamination.

This would add a new purpose for the NBC protected Units.

Maybe its dificult or maybe it isn´t, i just think that would be fun.
User avatar
Chesehead
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 637
Joined: Apr 19 2009

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by Chesehead »

notus wrote:First of all i dont know if this is the right place to post this...


I would like that the game had chemical or even biological weapons. Its purpose its to both the military and civilian aproval rating drop in the country that was affected by the weapon. Also the affected city would loose some of its population, the city infrastructures would be affected by the contamination.

This would add a new purpose for the NBC protected Units.

Maybe its dificult or maybe it isn´t, i just think that would be fun.
Pretty sure but not 100% that the Dev's don't want to go down this path due to the issue that Chem and Bio weps are primarily effective only against civilian populations. As much as it would be nice, it probably won't happen. The other issue is that most Chemical weapons were delivered by 155mm shells, which aren't modeled in game. ( No nuclear artillary).
oaia
Sergeant
Posts: 10
Joined: Nov 26 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by oaia »

Chesehead wrote:
notus wrote:First of all i dont know if this is the right place to post this...


I would like that the game had chemical or even biological weapons. Its purpose its to both the military and civilian aproval rating drop in the country that was affected by the weapon. Also the affected city would loose some of its population, the city infrastructures would be affected by the contamination.

This would add a new purpose for the NBC protected Units.

Maybe its dificult or maybe it isn´t, i just think that would be fun.
Pretty sure but not 100% that the Dev's don't want to go down this path due to the issue that Chem and Bio weps are primarily effective only against civilian populations. As much as it would be nice, it probably won't happen. The other issue is that most Chemical weapons were delivered by 155mm shells, which aren't modeled in game. ( No nuclear artillary).
155 MM is perfectly mainstream caliber since WW1, and was massivly used in WW2.
PyongYang
Colonel
Posts: 267
Joined: Aug 23 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by PyongYang »

I think it's a great idea.
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by number47 »

oaia wrote:
Chesehead wrote:The other issue is that most Chemical weapons were delivered by 155mm shells, which aren't modeled in game. ( No nuclear artillary).
155 MM is perfectly mainstream caliber since WW1, and was massivly used in WW2.
He meant the shells are not modeled as a separate segment (like missiles) of the game. He wasn't talking about gun caliber.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
Aragos
General
Posts: 1431
Joined: Jan 13 2005
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by Aragos »

And I'd at that chemical weapons, in general, aren't as effective as most people think. Any unit with protective gear can overcome the effects, which are generally temporary (who'd want to try to advance through an area you just slimed?) and are highly affected by weather (not modeled in the game). Lastly, you'd need an entire field of tech just to address changes in chem weapons over the period.
User avatar
Chesehead
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 637
Joined: Apr 19 2009

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by Chesehead »

Aragos wrote:And I'd at that chemical weapons, in general, aren't as effective as most people think. Any unit with protective gear can overcome the effects, which are generally temporary (who'd want to try to advance through an area you just slimed?) and are highly affected by weather (not modeled in the game). Lastly, you'd need an entire field of tech just to address changes in chem weapons over the period.
Their more useful then one would think. It just depends on your delivery system as it might be fire-power prohibited to delivery them by SRBM/IRBM/ aircraft while being more useful in the artillary role. While there is gear for chem warfare, it can't last in a heavy chemical enviroment as the filters are usually only good for a short time before they need to be replaced. The other issue is that it takes time for troops to put their gear on, so if you can catch soft targets in the open, they are pretty effective. I'd argue their more of defensive weapons then offensive weapons though.
Col_Travis
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 691
Joined: Mar 09 2009
Location: CANZUK Intelligence Service

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by Col_Travis »

Chesehead wrote:
Aragos wrote:And I'd at that chemical weapons, in general, aren't as effective as most people think. Any unit with protective gear can overcome the effects, which are generally temporary (who'd want to try to advance through an area you just slimed?) and are highly affected by weather (not modeled in the game). Lastly, you'd need an entire field of tech just to address changes in chem weapons over the period.
Their more useful then one would think. It just depends on your delivery system as it might be fire-power prohibited to delivery them by SRBM/IRBM/ aircraft while being more useful in the artillary role. While there is gear for chem warfare, it can't last in a heavy chemical enviroment as the filters are usually only good for a short time before they need to be replaced. The other issue is that it takes time for troops to put their gear on, so if you can catch soft targets in the open, they are pretty effective. I'd argue their more of defensive weapons then offensive weapons though.
The Soviets were planing on using chemical weapons in the offensive role in Germany in the battle plan 7 days to the Rhein and against Austria if they allowed the Bundeswehr/NATO transit rights during the Next War. They even had a contingency plan to use them against there allies if they started to defect to NATO. China was the big one for them, in the early 1970's they ask the US for permission to launch a pre-emtive strike on China using the full range of NBC weapons.
User avatar
Lea
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 506
Joined: Aug 31 2009
Human: Yes
Location: Moscow
Contact:

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by Lea »

Col_Travis wrote:The Soviets were planing on using chemical weapons in the offensive role in Germany in the battle plan 7 days to the Rhein and against Austria if they allowed the Bundeswehr/NATO transit rights during the Next War. They even had a contingency plan to use them against there allies if they started to defect to NATO. China was the big one for them, in the early 1970's they ask the US for permission to launch a pre-emtive strike on China using the full range of NBC weapons.
Read http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 70#p117170
Col_Travis
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 691
Joined: Mar 09 2009
Location: CANZUK Intelligence Service

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by Col_Travis »

Lea wrote:
Col_Travis wrote:The Soviets were planing on using chemical weapons in the offensive role in Germany in the battle plan 7 days to the Rhein and against Austria if they allowed the Bundeswehr/NATO transit rights during the Next War. They even had a contingency plan to use them against there allies if they started to defect to NATO. China was the big one for them, in the early 1970's they ask the US for permission to launch a pre-emtive strike on China using the full range of NBC weapons.
Read http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 70#p117170
Ambio, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, N. 2-3, 1982.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a022998.pdf
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000028 ... 284028.pdf
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf

I was stationed in the Black Forest during the mid to late 1980's and where constantly briefed on the 7 Days to the Rhein scenario with an expected opening barrage of chemical weapons followed by the rapid advance of the 8th Guards Army through the Fulda Gap. It was expected to get very ugly, very fast.
Col_Travis
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 691
Joined: Mar 09 2009
Location: CANZUK Intelligence Service

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by Col_Travis »

Chesehead wrote:
notus wrote:First of all i dont know if this is the right place to post this...


I would like that the game had chemical or even biological weapons. Its purpose its to both the military and civilian aproval rating drop in the country that was affected by the weapon. Also the affected city would loose some of its population, the city infrastructures would be affected by the contamination.

This would add a new purpose for the NBC protected Units.

Maybe its dificult or maybe it isn´t, i just think that would be fun.
Pretty sure but not 100% that the Dev's don't want to go down this path due to the issue that Chem and Bio weps are primarily effective only against civilian populations. As much as it would be nice, it probably won't happen. The other issue is that most Chemical weapons were delivered by 155mm shells, which aren't modeled in game. ( No nuclear artillary).
Actually calibers varried, from 120mm, 122mm, 150mm, 152mm, 155mm, 175mm, 180mm and 203mm plus aeriel delivery systems.
User avatar
Lea
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 506
Joined: Aug 31 2009
Human: Yes
Location: Moscow
Contact:

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by Lea »

159 pages. Which one of them makes you hot?
Col_Travis wrote:http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000028 ... 284028.pdf
Yet again. Read my link.
Really hilarious book. US wardogs believed in their tales about "the Soviet's willingness to use chemical agents" in "Afghanistan and Southeast Asia". Part of that "Reports" was denied and part remained unproven. They even admitted (such a shame!) that don't know who in Soviet makes the decision of use. More talkie talkie than grounds. I argued earlier that the military tend to exaggerate the enemy capabilities even more the CIA guys.
Col_Travis wrote:Actually calibers varried, from
45 mm for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45_mm_ant ... %2853-K%29 which had to poison tank crew.
User avatar
Chesehead
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 637
Joined: Apr 19 2009

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by Chesehead »

I'd agree with Lea here. There seems to be some sort of chem weapons Taboo, since their rarely used, and are one of the few weapon's systems that pretty much every country has agreed to outlaw.

My
Col_Travis
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 691
Joined: Mar 09 2009
Location: CANZUK Intelligence Service

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by Col_Travis »

As of October 1, 1981 durring the Cold War 34 nations had not signed the 1925 Geneva Protocol on the use of poison gas, and 38 natons reserved the right to retailiate in kind during wartime, only 54 agreed to ban chemical weapons outright. The 1975 Biological Weapons Convention bans the use of biological weapons, but not the manufacturing and stockpiling of the weapons. 19 nations are non-parties to this treaty.
Col_Travis
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 691
Joined: Mar 09 2009
Location: CANZUK Intelligence Service

Re: Chemical Weapons

Post by Col_Travis »

In 1982 aTass news agency artcle claimed that the US had over 300,000 metric tons of leathal gas stockpiled, while the Soviet Union had none. Interesting eh?
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRCW”