Chemical and other special warfare units

[Darman]

I put this topic in Reboot Talks because I figured its about the rules and possible changes.  Mods can swap it to Meeting Room if they prefer. 

I am reading a book about why chemical warfare is still relevant after the end of the Cold War (it was published in 1991).  So far the author's main point is that there are only two ways of managing the threat of chemical warfare: fear of retaliation in kind, or a comprehensive global plan to eliminate all stocks of chemical weapons including invasive inspections by a watchdog organization. 

Anyways, I digressed a little.  This book got me thinking about the changes in warfare that are going to be arriving soon: armored cars, trucks, tanks, anti-tank weapons, aircraft, anti-aircraft weapons, and chemical and biological weapons.  Now some things will be relatively simple to incorporate into our existing structure, like motorization, whereby you pay extra to motorize a unit and give it trucks and cars and jeeps.  But when it comes to armored cars, or tanks, we probably are looking at buying brigade- or battalion-sized units.  My opinion is that the same should be done for anti-tank, anti-air, and chemical warfare units.  Then a commander attaches one or more of these specialist sub-units to his army corps or division or army group, and the larger unit as a whole gains a level of protection against tanks, planes, or chemical attacks commensurate with the ratio of specialists to the larger unit as a whole (so an army of 1 million isn't effectively protected from aircraft if there is only one AAA battalion attached to it). 

What do you guys think?

[Kaiser Kirk]

I think if we had gone with Kworld's design-an-army scheme where you bought HQs and attached regiments to them, it would work fine.  One of the things I amused myself with last Feb was sketching out potential Austrian or Ottoman Armies under that system.

But the choice was made to go with simplistic land forces as folks felt this was mainly a naval sim.

I think under our current format, if you have an AA tech, and your army is 1915 or later, then it automatically has some pom pom guns, and if it's motorized, some are 3" automatically in the back of lorries. Likewise, your 1905 army doesn't have gas masks.  Your 1915 army without chemical warfare tech doesn't have gas masks, and your 1905 army with 1905 or 1910 chemical warfare tech does.

[Darman]

I agree that this is a predominantly naval sim, and most people would probably prefer to ignore land combat altogether.  Personally I'm a fan of both, and I thought Kworld's design-an-army idea was fascinating.  It consumed many an hour at work that otherwise would have been spent staring aimlessly off into space.  I'm simply bringing this up now before we get involved in any large land campaigns and before we start adding these new technologies to our arsenals. 

I completely agree with your interpretation of the rules.  I simply want to point that out right now before I continue further.  I would be fine if that is the path we ultimately decide to go down as well, however, I wanted to bring up the topic of complicating this issue slightly because I feel like it adds a touch of realism without much in the way of extra bookkeeping. 

The reason I think that needing a separate unit for chemical warfare (I'll use this as my prime example because this is the unit I'd really like to see, anti-tank and anti-air units we can safely decide to add as organic components of the appropriately-levelled infantry formations) is more realistic is that after the First World War many nations took different approaches to chemical warfare.  Some decided to stay abreast of changes in technology through research, but declined to manufacture the appropriate defensive and offensive equipment (the US Army had stockpiled protective gear for only 3% of its troops but had top of the line technology), some decided that mass-producing defensive and offensive equipment was more important than finding the ultimate chemical weapons, i.e. nerve gas (the British who eventually issued "all threatened" civilians with gas masks that would be effective against the chemical agents the Brits possessed but not against nerve agents, and the Soviets who had protective gear that even the Germans thought was impressive), some nations decided that research only was the way to go (Germany discovered nerve agents that were deadlier than anything else discovered up to that point, but the Treaty of Versailles forbid them from openly deploying chemical troops). 

Rather than giving all troops of a specific nation automatic protection, it would give a nation an option to research the technology and then they have to choose to deploy it.  So a nation could choose to deploy protective measures against WW1 era weapons for its entire army, while another nation could devote its resources to researching nerve agents, and not deploy them until they need to. 

Hopefully this all made sense, I can elaborate if needed. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

I believe your efforts of using elucidation to elaborate was effective.
I am not adverse to Kworld's system, and it could probably be adapted to fit such a scheme. However, I think the biggest advantage is simply the 25,000 man division is extremely inflexible.
Something like Infantry Regiment 1915 chemical antiaircaft antitank gear or I-15cat could denote a unit with Masks, HA HMGs, ATRs.

I think the biggest step towards making such a system useful....is making a simple baseline folks who are disinterested can use, and making it tailorable.
So if a "Standard" 1895 Div costs $6, pay +$0.5 for chem warfare gear...

Of course from a metagame pov, I should be adverse to anything that requires spending yet more money I don't yet have.

[Darman]

Something like Infantry Regiment 1915 chemical antiaircaft antitank gear or I-15cat could denote a unit with Masks, HA HMGs, ATRs.

I think the biggest step towards making such a system useful....is making a simple baseline folks who are disinterested can use, and making it tailorable.
So if a "Standard" 1895 Div costs $6, pay +$0.5 for chem warfare gear...

I would be amenable to such a system as you appear to be suggesting whereby individual units can can upgraded at a specified cost to have chemical warfare, antitank, or antiair capabilities. 

[The Rock Doctor]

I'm almost inclined to go other way and say that the chem weapons thing gets removed; if you've got 1915 Army tech, that'd include chemical capability.

[miketr]

Just for humor value is there a link to K world to see their rules?

[Kaiser Kirk]

I'm almost inclined to go other way and say that the chem weapons thing gets removed; if you've got 1915 Army tech, that'd include chemical capability.

Actually, that's tempting too. But since Chem warfare was important in this era, defining the haves and haves not may prove of import.

As for the rules, they are down in the archives, try this : http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6358.0.html

[miketr]

I sorta remember those rules but it was a while ago and I don't remember the arguments at all for or against.

Michael

[Kaiser Kirk]

I sorta remember those rules but it was a while ago and I don't remember the arguments at all for or against.

Michael

Can't say as I do either.
I believe a big one against was it complicated a part of the system that many had very little interest in - land warfare. So ultimately it was decided the generic units were better.
Plus, mixed units would be harder to adjudicate.
In the end, our land combat system has gone for simplicity.

[Darman]

Which is why I believe that incorporating a chemical weapons brigade, which I believe some of us already have individual brigades in our orders of battle, and then simply saying "1st Regiment of the 1st Chemical Brigade has been attached to the 1st Army corps" when you deploy units into combat is a decent system.  Its not too complicated, and it gives players a choice: invest in several low-level brigades or divisions of chemical troops, or invest in fewer but higher-level chemical troops and deploy them in strategic locations, which would greatly affect your army's ability to pursue widespread chemical warfare.  The example I will use is the Japanese Army in WW2: the Japanese made a calculated gamble that President Roosevelt's personal and public aversion to chemical warfare would prevent the Allies from deploying such weapons against them in the Pacific Islands.  So after 1943 all training in chemical warfare ceased amongst the Japanese garrisons, and all forward-deployed chemical stocks were withdrawn.  In contrast, the Japanese never really trusted the Soviets to not use chemical weapons, and they continued their training and deployment of chemical weapons and protective gear to their borders with the Soviets.  So our in game equivalent would be the redeployment of a chemical warfare brigade from the Pacific to Manchuria to boost their defensive and offensive chemical warfare capabilities. 

[miketr]

How does the mechanics work?  In this time period chemical warfare is going to be first special engineering teams to setup containers filled with chlorine and then stock piles of artillery shells filled with special nasty chemical weapon X.  It was very much in effect just specialized ammo.

Also keep in mind that once chemical weapons become wide spread they tend to just neutralize each other.  Both sides units become bogged down in the protective gear and chemical strike is answered in kind.  It really only matters if you have unanswered access to them.  Having a say 2 brigades vs. 3 brigades really isn't going to matter much IMO. 

I had wanted to have engineer / railroad construction units.  The limit of horse drawn armies in logistics terms is about 200 - 300 miles from the end of rail heads.  Outside of that they have to live off the land and the mules eat their loads so nothing can move forward.  So with specialized construction units the idea would be to repair rail lines, convert them or lay new as fast as possible to push forward the railheads as quick as possible to maintain offensive operations. 

But again how exactly do you handle the mechanics?  How small of detail do we want? 

In previous versions of the game we had talked about a number of things but they never went anyplace.

For example.

A) Flat upkeep cost; but with the current economic system I am not suggesting that.  By 1910 I am expecting some truly god damn big armies.

B) Mechanics for breaking down armies into smaller formations with specific rules for reduced effectiveness of the smaller units.

C) A more detailed land combat system in general

Etc.

None of it goes any place for various reasons.

I have no objection if people have a brigade and they call it whatever special unit and it gives a minor advantage but I am going to be annoyed if it wins a battle all by itself.  It being the tipping point in an otherwise even matchup is something else of course.

Michael

[Darman]

I'm going to start with a proposal for how a unit such as this would work in game terms (and try to compare it to real world events and non-events of the past).  You can debate the merits of the proposal if you'd like, point out any shortcomings etc, and I welcome it.  My goal is to add an element of realism to the use of chemical weapons, and some of the limiting factors in all decisions to employ or not employ chemical weapons are the threat of retaliation (usually on a strategic level, so distributing gas masks to your civilian populace would be important, and was done during WW2), the affects chemical weapons usage would have on your own military operations as well as the enemy's (generally speaking the defender has an advantage when they initiate chemical attacks because rapid movements become much more difficult, the flip side is the US debating chemical warfare against the Japanese in 1945 where it was theorized by a Japanese general after the war was over that a chemical attack on Kyushi prior to the American invasion would have only needed American decontamination crews to occupy the beachhead, the landing would have been virtually uncontested), and most importantly, your own ability to perform such an attack with sufficient stocks of not only offensive chemical weapons but also all the defensive and protective paraphernalia that is required to resist a chemical response, and then decontaminate the areas hit by chemical weapons (in 1945 apart from Roosevelt's personal aversion to chemical warfare - which would end with his death - American high command faced a decision as to whether or not to pursue chemical attacks against the Japanese Home Islands, the affects of the atomic weapons being an unknown quantity at this point, and a major deciding factor was that sufficient stocks of decontamination equipment, protective gear, and the chemical bombs and shells themselves, could not be transported to the appropriate areas within the Pacific where they would be deployed from except at a significant loss to the amount of conventional war material that was also needed). 

Proposal:
Each army corps (50,000 men) requires 1 chemical regiment (1,000 men) to provide full defensive chemical protection.  (If two opposing army corps each have a chemical regiment attached of equivalent technology level then there is no advantage to be gained by either side in using chemical weapons. If the two opposing army corps have chemical regiments of differing technology levels then the corps with a higher tech level gains an advantage during combat, if chemical weapons are deployed, of 1 shift over in the column for each level they are different.  If one of the opposing units has no chemical regiment then the most advantage that can be derived is 3 columns over.)
These chemical regiments also represent the army corps' ability to deploy chemical weapons specifically against the enemy facing them, no additional bonus or benefit is gained from stacking chemical regiments on an army corps.  A chemical regiment may be attached to a large air base or group of smaller air bases to provide similar offensive and defensive capabilities against ground targets only (we may even explore the idea of adding chemical troops onto naval vessels, but that is a discussion for another time). 

I have no objection if people have a brigade and they call it whatever special unit and it gives a minor advantage but I am going to be annoyed if it wins a battle all by itself.  It being the tipping point in an otherwise even matchup is something else of course.
Michael

I agree that it would be annoying if we had superhuman brigades. Which is why I feel that this system would be feasible.  Yes, you might have an advantage over your opponent in this particular place (presuming you have an army corps with a higher level chem unit attached), but how is your overall preparedness strategically?  Do all of your army corps have chem units attached?  No?  then you probably don't want to risk initiating chemical warfare.  It also places two costs on the player: one is the cost to research chemical warfare, to keep your tech levels up to the standards of your potential opponents; and the other is to actually train and equip the chemical regiments.  You may even be faced with a choice: do you want to keep up technology-wise with everyone else?  Or do you want to maintain a minimal protection fro your armies?  I believe I had mentioned already that in the late 1930s the US Army only had enough protective equipment for 3% of its deployable forces.  This was fairly high tech equipment, the respirators and suits were capable of resisting the nerve gases that the Germans had discovered/created in secret, but the impregnated uniforms given to the average soldier was vulnerable during prolonged exposure.  The downside to this arrangement was simply that of scale; only 3% of soldiers could be deployed with this top of the line equipment.  This would always be an issue, not having enough protective equipment to go around, and it appears that it is the lack of protective equipment in the quantities required, rather than a lack of quality in the equipment available, that generally influenced army commanders to decide against deploying chemical weapons. 


Edit: Sorry for the massive blocks of text and long-winded explanations.  The more I've been exploring this topic on my own the more fascinating I find it.  I personally have a major aversion to using chemical weapons, I think that it is inhumane but more importantly its an irresponsible strategy to use, because it opens yourself up to retaliation.  However, it is fascinating to see that so many commanders since WW1 have had to decide whether or not to use chemical weapons in vital situations.  If the Germans had invaded Britain then the British may very well have used chemical weapons, so why didn't the Germans use them when the 3rd Reich was being invaded in turn?  Why did the US decide the atomic bomb was more humane than chemical weapons?  the list goes on.  I just kind of wish we could create a system whereby several practical factors (I'm excluding morality for the time being) affect the decision to use chemical weapons. 

[Walter]

Each army corps (50,000 men) requires 1 chemical regiment (1,000 men) to provide full defensive chemical protection.  (If two opposing army corps each have a chemical regiment attached of equivalent technology level then there is no advantage to be gained by either side in using chemical weapons. If the two opposing army corps have chemical regiments of differing technology levels then the corps with a higher tech level gains an advantage during combat, if chemical weapons are deployed, of 1 shift over in the column for each level they are different.  If one of the opposing units has no chemical regiment then the most advantage that can be derived is 3 columns over.)
These chemical regiments also represent the army corps' ability to deploy chemical weapons specifically against the enemy facing them, no additional bonus or benefit is gained from stacking chemical regiments on an army corps.  A chemical regiment may be attached to a large air base or group of smaller air bases to provide similar offensive and defensive capabilities against ground targets only (we may even explore the idea of adding chemical troops onto naval vessels, but that is a discussion for another time).

I'm pretty sure that my NBC protection during my army days waw not depending on one regiment. It probably never was. I'm not sure about the chemical offensive either. You create the shells and give them to the artillery and they shoot it at the enemy. There is really no need for a unit to be added to deal with either the defensive or the offensive capabilities of a unit.

Looking around quickly, I can't really find it in our current rules but I believe that with the older version of Navalism, you were supposed to pay something in order to upgrade your units so they are motorized. I feel that with the defensive chemical capabilities it should be done the same. As for offensive, IIRC, in N3 you had to pay $$$ for a chemical attack.

They are both in the same N3 thread: http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,87.0.html

Motorization

The 1900 motorization tech represents the understanding that motor vehicles could be used for military purposes.  It allows testing of individual vehicle types in different roles, but has no noticeable effect on the abilities of a unit.

Subsequent tech levels do provide tangible benefits to the units, and may be purchased for those units:

Generation      $ Cost   BP Cost   Build Time   Effect
1910   $1.00   0.50   6 months   Artillery, HQ elements motorized; improved tactical mobility
1920   $2.00   1.00   6 months   All supporting elements motorized; improved strategic mobility

The cost of motorization is added to that of the affected army unit for determination of maintenance costs.

Upgrading from 1910 to 1920 motorization costs $1 and 1.00 BP, as the earlier generation of vehicles are junked and replaced by a greater number of more capable vehicles.

Discarded 1910-vintage vehicles can be recycled for scrap.

Chemical Warfare

Each single use of gas attack cost $0.5 per corps. Effect depends on the relative gas warfare level of the two combatants. Actual implementation is up to the GM.

... so chemical defense should be an upgrade of your unit similar to the motorization rule and chemical attack should be paid for per attack per unit. One could say that it would be more realistic to create chemical stock so it can be used in war but that would require you to keep track of another thing and it is something that may or may not have a limited shelf life. We should just keep it simple.

There is another thing with creating such a regiment. Instead of creating 4x chemical units, attach it to 4x Corps, have 4x Corps fight (whether a chemical attack occurs or not), withdraw 4x Corps, send in 4x fresh Corps and reassign the 4x chemical units to the 4x fresh Corps and thus keeping things cheap, you really should have 4x Corps that have the chemical warfare upgrade and when replaced the 4x fresh Corps should have it as well. No juggling around of any attached units.

I believe I had mentioned already that in the late 1930s the US Army only had enough protective equipment for 3% of its deployable forces.  This was fairly high tech equipment, the respirators and suits were capable of resisting the nerve gases that the Germans had discovered/created in secret, but the impregnated uniforms given to the average soldier was vulnerable during prolonged exposure.  The downside to this arrangement was simply that of scale; only 3% of soldiers could be deployed with this top of the line equipment.  This would always be an issue, not having enough protective equipment to go around, and it appears that it is the lack of protective equipment in the quantities required, rather than a lack of quality in the equipment available, that generally influenced army commanders to decide against deploying chemical weapons.

Not sure if the US is a good example due to its interwar status. Politicians may have been in some kind of denial with a 'we'll remain neutral so we don't need this stuff' attitude. Would have been a much better example if it were France or Germany.

[Darman]

I'm pretty sure that my NBC protection during my army days waw not depending on one regiment. It probably never was. I'm not sure about the chemical offensive either. You create the shells and give them to the artillery and they shoot it at the enemy. There is really no need for a unit to be added to deal with either the defensive or the offensive capabilities of a unit.

I don't know what years you were in the army, but you are absolutely right, outside of the largest formations (i.e. if the Soviets had invaded Europe during the Cold War there would have been brigade-sized CBRN units assigned to the entire theater of operations, which would have then been divvied out on an as-needed basis) it would never have been a full regiment providing support.  However, in addition to protective suits and respirators, which I'm sure you were trained to use and equipped with, there were chemical companies or platoons assigned to every division or brigade (today each Brigade Combat Team has a CBRN platoon in its organic TO&E), their job would be CBRN reconnaissance and initial and basic decontamination procedures, with the goal of retaining mobility and combat effectiveness in the face of a CBRN attack.  The size of a CBRN platoon in terms of manpower is about 1% of its parent organization's manpower.  This correlates well with the size of the Chemical Warfare Service's manpower deployed in Europe in November of 1918, which was about 1% of the total American Expeditionary Forces in France. 
Additionally, after 1980 there was a decentralization of chemical warfare capabilities, with more smaller units being attached to division and brigade-level formations.  The regimental-system I proposed would simply represent the disbursement of smaller units into the overall parent organization its attached to. 

Changes in Chemical Corps post-1980[22]	Pre-1980	Post-1980
Doctrine/training	Chemical Corps only	Army wide
Operations emphasis	minimize casualties	minimize mission degradation
Risk	no risk	intelligent risk
Control of NBC assets	centralized: Division NBC command	decentralized: Flexible
Decon	complete decontamination	partial decontamination

Looking around quickly, I can't really find it in our current rules but I believe that with the older version of Navalism, you were supposed to pay something in order to upgrade your units so they are motorized. I feel that with the defensive chemical capabilities it should be done the same. As for offensive, IIRC, in N3 you had to pay $$$ for a chemical attack.

[snipped]
... so chemical defense should be an upgrade of your unit similar to the motorization rule and chemical attack should be paid for per attack per unit. One could say that it would be more realistic to create chemical stock so it can be used in war but that would require you to keep track of another thing and it is something that may or may not have a limited shelf life. We should just keep it simple.

I would have no problem with using this as a system.  I know many of you deplore complexity for the army system because you're not here for the army systems, so the simpler the system the better, but I do strongly believe that somehow indicating chemical warfare capabilities of specific units -even if only defensive- would make it more realistic.  Whether its using a separate unit or adding an ability the way we add motorization, it matters little to me. 

There is another thing with creating such a regiment. Instead of creating 4x chemical units, attach it to 4x Corps, have 4x Corps fight (whether a chemical attack occurs or not), withdraw 4x Corps, send in 4x fresh Corps and reassign the 4x chemical units to the 4x fresh Corps and thus keeping things cheap, you really should have 4x Corps that have the chemical warfare upgrade and when replaced the 4x fresh Corps should have it as well. No juggling around of any attached units.

The US had chemical mortar battalions in WW2 whose job it was to handle chemical munitions in addition to providing smoke, white phosphorus, and high explosive munitions fire support to infantry divisions on the frontlines.  These units were in high demand and generally reassigned to the frontline division when units were rotated off the line. 

Not sure if the US is a good example due to its interwar status. Politicians may have been in some kind of denial with a 'we'll remain neutral so we don't need this stuff' attitude. Would have been a much better example if it were France or Germany.

All Soviet Divisions in 1941 had at least a chemical company attached, and yet the Soviets did not use chemical weapons when they were being overrun.  Perhaps through fear of retaliation, but its also theorized that following the virtual collapse of the initial Soviet defenses, there wasn't sufficient organization to effectively utilize chemical weapons against the advancing German columns.  Such usage would have forced the Germans to avoid contaminated ground, and to completely decontaminate all affected units, forcing a slow-down in their operational tempo.  German forces facing the Soviets had chemical decontamination battalions attached to certain corps, approximately 25% of German corps had a chemical decontamination battalion attached, possibly more, the orders of battle for some units were rather sparse.  Of units assigned to strategic reserve or garrison duties during that time none had chemical battalions attached.  A Finnish army corps attached to Germany's Norwegian forces had 3 chemical companies, one at the corps-level and another attached to each division.