Battleshock--the chemical dimension.

Abstract

SUMMARY: The emphasis in discussions of the impact of chemical warfare (CW) on our military forces has usually been on the lethal or severely disabling effects. Unless personnel have had sufficient and repeated practice in the use of defensive equipment and techuiqnes, the greatest part of the effect may be from partial decre­ ment of performance in all the troops rather than from severe incapacity in those directly injured by the agents. The use of chemicals to disable or reduce the effectiveness of an enemy is not a new concept. During the Peloponnesian Wars in ancient Greece, pots of boiling pitch and sulphur were placed upwind of beseiged cities so that the noxious fumes would overcome the resistance of the defenders within the cities. Later, the so-called Greek fire was used which on contact with water would ignite and set ships on fire. In a sense, gunpowder is a use of chemicals in warfare, but the term chemical warfare (CW) is usually restricted to the use of lethal or disabling gases and vapours which began in World War I (WWI) with the use of chlorine by the German Army. Some countries include the use of riot control agents (tear gas) under the heading of chemical warfare. If one accepts the position (the United States of America does not), then CW began with the French Army's earlier use of tear gas against German ·soldiers in trenches in WWI. When the Germans first used chlorine against the Allies, it was fortunate for the Allies that the German General Staff had not realized how great the impact of chemical weapons on unprepared troops would be. Consequently they were unprepared to exploit fully the break produced in the lines and what could have been a disastrous outcome for the Allies was averted.