Chemical Weapons

[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

[thatguy96]

The biplanes were Korean, Chinese air power was not committed this is true, but to say that it was nonexistent as a hypothetical for the purposes of an often counter-factual (in terms of conflicts) war game is sort of unreasonable.

I still believe I remember reports of Chinese volunteer units operating Soviet supplied tanks and assault guns at some stage during the conflict. Again, even if it was not committed by Chinese volunteers to say that it could not have is not necessarily true when talking about a war game that allows for counter factual engagements almost as a rule.

Like I said, the picklist perhaps for the Korean scenario, which is not counter factual should be revised, but these assets would have been available to period Chinese forces potentially had they been otherwise engaged.

[MarkSheppard]

Tank Wise

In October 1949 the PLA's AFV complement was:

97+ Japanese Medium Tanks (no specific Type given, probably a whole different bunch)
Unknown Number of M3 Light Tanks, captured from Nationalists
67+ "Buffalo" LVTs, captured from Nationalists
Unknown Number of US Halftracks, captured from Nationalists


1950 Parade in Beijing of Captured Japanese Tanks - found in "Red China's Fighting Hordes" - a book circa about 1953.

What really began the modernization of China's armed forces was their friendship pact with the USSR; it enabled a large scale importation of modern armor.

From early 1950 to 1955; the following amounts of armor were sent to China by teh USSR.

T-34/85: 1,837
IS-2m: 82
SU-76: 912
SU-100: 99 - Beginning in 1955
SU-122: 40
SU-152: 67

By November 3, 1950 they had recieved the following from the USSR roughly:

300~ x T-34-85s
60~ x IS-2s
40~ x ISU-122s

By June 30, 1951 the Chinese forces in Korea were employing T-34s and SP Guns in support of the People's Volunteers, and by the end of the Korean War; each Chinese CPV infantry division had a combined tank/SP gun regiment with 24 T-34-85 tanks and 16 SU-76M guns assigned to it, with the CPV as a whole having about:

278 x T-34s
38 x IS-2s
27 x SU-122s
48 x SU-76s

available in the Korean theatre.

Air Force Wise

In the time period of 1949-50; the PLAAF had a whole bunch of aircraft that they had inherited from the Nationalists following the Civil War; e.g



I couldn't definitely pin down how many actually *did* see service in PLAAF colors to a definite number to include them in the OOB.

As with AFVs, much aid was received from the USSR beginning in 1950, enabling the PLAAF to establish it's first cohesive aviation unit near Nanjing in June 1950. The unit consisted of:

2 x Fighter Regiments
1 x Bomber Regiment
1 x Attack Regiment

and had on it's rolls:

38 x MiG-15
39 x La-11s
39 x Tu-2s
25 x Il-10s
14 x Trainers

By the end of the Korean War on July 27, 1953, the PLAAF had ten fighter divisions and two bomber divisions in Korea with 800 pilots. They had flown 26,491 sorties over Korea, and engaged in 366 aerial battles; with claims of 330 allied aircraft shot down and another 95 damaged.

Losses were:

244 x MiG-15s
3 x La-11s
4 x Tu-2

151 Aircraft Damaged in Combat
168 Aircraft lost due to other causes

In comparison, the Soviets had flown 63,229 sorties over Korea, and claimed the destruction of 1,309 UN aircraft for the loss of 355 MiGs.

Why wasn't Soviet and Chinese Air Power more aggressive in the Korean War?

For the Soviets, we do have an answer. Their air force was given the mission of protecting the Yalu Bridges and the supply lines from China into North Korea; and were told to shoot down as many enemy bombers and fighter-bombers as possible. To this end, they were not equipped with offensive weapons like bombs, rockets, or napalm; and were specifically prohibited from engaging in ground support activities.

I would imagine that the Chinese had the same kind of prohibition as well; to prevent the war from escalating.

Much of the air force information is from Red Wings over the Yalu by Xiaoming Zhang, BTW.

[AbshireJW]

As far Ive I have read from actual Chinese Commanders of the battle, and from what I saw in the Chinese War Musem in Peking, and the books I have read from Historians who have talked to both sides, the CPV did not deploy Armor into battle. The only units to get armor never made it into combat, mostly due to lack of training and agian how ****ty the Chinese supply system was. Remember amatuers talk tactics but professionals talk Logistics...and the Chinese simply did not have the Logistics to support armored war fare.

As far as the air craft...note I made specific mention of Close Air Support, not Air Craft. The Planes stayed in China, and flew mostly in what was known as Mig-Alley...

So yes they did have said equipment, but it was not deployed to aid the war of US Agression as they called it. I guess when I expected to have Chineses attack a US Marine Hill Top Position...I didnt expect to have T-34s and IS-2s breaking through...although most got knocked out by Bazookamen and my 105s fireing Point blank range...but still.

[Suhiir]

Just remember that any non-scenario battle is more of a "What If" battle then a historical one.
The Picklists are a representation of the equipment available to a nation, not necessarily what it would or could actually deploy.

My example of this is the M24 Chaffee light tank in the USMC OOB, they did have some - all of five of them. They were never actually used in combat, but they existed in the inventory, thus they are on the picklist for players or the AI to select.

[AbshireJW]

Thanks