1. To be Effective Chemical Weapons must be CONCENTRATED.
Any of the gases have to be concentrated on a target to be effective. Thus, when I was taught Chemical Warfare in the 1980s, we were told to look to Artillery or bombs impacting closer together then normal. The reason for the this was to keep the concentration up on the target.
Concentration can be achieved three ways, 1 by concentrated Artillery and/or Mortar fire.
2. Massive Air Attack
3. Canister attack that floats over the enemies position.
#3 was used in WWI, first by the German to support an offensive, then by the allies when in the offensive. The problem is you need to make sure the wind is blowing the way you want the Chemicals to go. In case of the First German Use of this method, they had to wait for weeks for the winds generally flow in France flows West to East. The Germans being east of the Allies had to wait several weeks till the wind blew East to West and launched their attack. It was successful, but the allies quickly copied the idea and given the prevailing wind used it effectively for the remaining of WWI. The problem of having to wait for the right wind remained and that to get the concentration needed you had to pump a lot of chemicals, and that could only be done using huge pumps and tubes. Not done since WWI for it failed to be useful during the 1918 Offensive for troops were moving further then the chemicals would go and stay concentrated.
Thus, since WWI, the preferred ways to deliver Chemical Weapons has been artillery and airplanes. They both have the advantage of bring able to drop the chemicals right on the target, but in much smaller amounts then the use of pumps and tubes. Thus massive amounts of shells and bombs were needed to do a chemical attacks. When the Germans first looked at chemicals they quickly saw that concentration was so important that they had to inform their artillery to fire shells closer together then if the artillery were firing regular high explosive shells. This knowledge was spread to Airplanes and they became an important way to spread Chemicals after WWI (Airplanes were used in WWI to spread chemicals, but it was minor compared to artillery, the planes were to small to carry enough).
Thus you have to have concentration and given the fire capacity of Syria, it does NOT sound like they have the ability to concentrate fire enough to do an effective gas attack. Syria has sufficient artillery, mortars and planes, but I doubt they can concentrate them enough to do an effective chemical attack.
2. High Explosives are more effective about 95% of the time:
Scientific American did a paper on Chemical Warfare in the 1980s. One of the findings it found was that in most situations high explosives would cause more casualties then Chemical Weapons. You also have to remember, the chemical attack must be more effective then the same delivery system dropping high explosives. Given that the Rebels are mostly light Infantry, the Syrian Army may just prefer to drop high explosive shells on them, for high explosives are just more effective. This was the main reason no one used Chemical Weapons in WWII, given their experiences from WWI, except in two cases (both explained below) it was considered more effective to drop high explosives shells then Chemical Shells. Studies have shown that if troops have gas masks on them (Not wearing them, just have the masks on the soldier's equipment belt) in something like 95% of the time, High Explosives would do more injuries then Chemical weapons. In the remaining 5% they are about even, thus why use Chemicals?
3. Chemical Weapons is best if used in the Offensive
Furthermore, until the last month or so, the Syrian Government was on the Defensive. Gas is NOT considered a good weapon from a defensive point of view. People who are attacking tended to concentrate on one point, push through and beyond. Thus where do you drop the chemical? Japan studies this and in they defensive plans for the Home Islands if the US had to invade the Islands in November 1945, strict orders were issued NOT to use any Chemical Weapons even if the Americans did. Japan was going to fight a defensive war, and chemicals are of limited help on defense.
On offensive operations, Chemical can be handy. You force defenders into their Chemical Suits, the Chemicals, being heavier then normal air, creeps into dugouts, foxholes and trenches, all defensive positions. Thus when you are on the attack dumping chemicals on a target and then moving in is the ideal use of Chemicals. This was the German Plans for Leningrad in 1942, it had been surrounded in 1941 but held out. A Chemical Attack, using nerve gas, which the Germans had invented, was planned, the shells sent to the Front and it would have lead to the quick gassing of the Defenders and the fall of Leningrad. All the Germans Needed was Hitler's orders to launch the attack, an order Hitler never issued,
Churchill had planned to use Gas on any German land invasion of Britain, through it appears this was ordered without consideration of his generals (who basically opposed the plan). The US planned not only to drop four more atomic bombs on Japan In November 1945 but to gas Tokyo and other Japanese Cities. This was to knock out as many defenders as possible as US Troops hit the beeches of Japan. The Invasion plan on Japan was simple, after the above Atomic and Gas Attacks, invade the southern most main island, but only occupy the bottom 1/3, the US planned to bomb the rest of the island and then use the island as a base to invade the Main Japanese Island In March 1946. Since neither the US nor Japan had signed the treaty against using Gas in Warfare, we planned to do so when it came to Japan.
More recently, in the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq's use of Chemical weapons was completely ineffective except against the Kurds who rose up in revolt during the war and were hit with Chemicals as a result when Saddam decided to move against them (again in an offensive operation). Now some reports state that Iran agreed to end the war when Saddam threatened to use chemical weapons against Iranian Cities (i.e. kill all of the Civilians in such cities). The problem with this threat is that Iraq did NOT have enough Missiles and planes to carry out such an attack. At the same time, Iraq had been permitted to import in a massive number of new tanks, mostly T-72s, while the US maintain the arms embargo against Iran. Thus by 1988, Iraq had over 1000 tanks, facing less then 200 Iranian tanks (and many of these were captured ex-Iraqi T-54s, called by Israeli Defense force, the easiest tank to maintain and repair). Iran had re-captured all of its former territory, but it was clear the West was NOT going to leave Iran defeat Iraq. Iran had shown it could fight Iraq to a standstill while it was being forbidden to get new parts for its planes and tanks, while Iraq had full access to new planes (and pilots) and tanks. Thus the threat of Chemical Warfare had no effect on the decision of the Iranians. Instead Iran saw itself in a hopeless situation. It could NOT defeat Iraq, the West would not permit it to, but it could defeat any Iraqi attack on Iran. Thus Iran either had to agree to a cease fire or continue the war with no possibility of anything to gain. Iran agreed to a Cease fire and the war ended.
Now, Chemical Weapons have been used successfully against Natives and other troops who did not have any knowledge on how to deal with Chemical Weapons, but again only when the user of chemicals were Attacking the Native or other troops NOT as the user of chemicals were defending against an attack from the Natives or other troops not prepared for chemical warfare.
4. For the above reasons, I doubt Syria has used Chemical Weapons:
Sorry, I have not seen a situation where chemical weapons would have been advantageous to the Syrians to use. The Syrians, until recently, were on the defensive not the offensive. Furthermore Syria appears never to have had the needed artillery or air power to provide the needed concentration. Now Syria has enough of both on paper, the real question can they concentrate them to use in a chemical attack. Given the nature of the war, I have not seen such concentration for it defeats the need of ground forces to have artillery near by for fire support, and this war is all over Syria just not in any one location.
Sorry, I just do not believe that Syria is so dumb as to use Chemical Weapons. It makes no sense for them to do so,
= new reply since forum marked as read
