How Blister Agents Changed Our Equipment
We, as CBRN soldiers, can trace our corps roots back to World War I, where chemical agents were widely used by both the allied and German forces. One chemical used was called mustard gas (H). Mustard gas is a type of blister agent that causes large blister (vesicles) on the skin, lungs and eyes of those exposed to it. According to Heller (1984), when mustard gas was introduced on the battlefield soldiers were unaware that they were even exposed. Unlike other chemicals used at that time (Chlorine or Phosgene) the effects of mustard gas were not readily apparent. According to Namazi, Niknahad, & Razmkhah (2009), those exposed did not feel the effects for 4-8 hours after exposure causing severe injuries. According to Heller (1984), the Germans were the first to use mustard gas in 1917 on British soldiers. When the British soldiers observed the gas shells going off they did not see or smell any gas; therefore, believed that the Germans were trying to trick them. It was not until several hours later did they start complaining that their eyes, throats and lungs hurt. By the time that the United States entered World War I we did not have any protection against the chemicals that were being used on the front lines. According to Heller (1984), “On 6 April 1917, when the U.S. declared war on Germany, the army not only lacked defensive equipment for chemical warfare, but also had no concrete plans to develop or manufacture gas masks or any other defensive equipment” ( pg.38). While the history of our corps is very interesting, I will show the effects mustard gas has on unprotected soldiers and how the first protective equipment has changed to what we are equipped with today.
First I will d...
... middle of paper ...
...a new branch was needed to combat these new threats on the battle field. Since 1918 the Army has done just that, we have adapted to the new technologies and techniques that today’s enemies are using.
Works Cited
Cochrane, R. C. (1960). 26th division east of the meuse, september 1918. Army Chemical
Center, MD: U.S. Army Chemical Corps Historical Office, Office of the Chief Chemical
Officer.
Heller, C. (1984). The Leavenworth Papers. Chemical Warfare in WW1: The American
Experience, 1917-1918, 10. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/pdf/chemwarfare.pdf Namazi, S., Niknahad, H., & Razmkhah, H. (2009). Long-term complications of sulphur mustard poisoning in intoxicated Iranian veterans. Journal of Medical Toxicology, 5(4), 191+.
Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA231350837&v=2.1&u=40mwrlib&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
3Brophy, L. (1959). The Chemical Warfare Service (1st ed.). Washington: Office of the Chief of
B”Heller, C.E (1984). Leavenworth papers No 10. Chemical warfare in world war I. Combat studies institute”.
“All the soldiers there were wearing NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical warfare) protective clothing. We said: ‘What’s going on here?’ And their answer was: ‘Didn’t you know? This ammunition is a bit dodgy.’” – Tim Pubrick, Gulf War veteran, British Royal Army tank commander.6
The two chemical weapons that were used were: nerve agent and mustard gas. Nerve agent has two main classes that are Class G and Class V. Class V is more new, however less fatal. The specific nerve agent used by the Iraqis is Cyclosarin. Cyclosarin is an extremely toxic substance used as a chemical weapon, which is a member of Class G. Cyclosarin is the most dangerous gas out of both classes. It is known to have a sweet smell and is also flammable unlike other nerve gases. Mustard gas on the other hand is yellow and smells like garlic. Both gases cause death in minutes and have long lasting effects. These can include diseases and other horrible problems. Many of these diseases cannot be cured, for the cells have been damaged and cannot be repaired.
Before the CDTF was built Soldiers had live toxic training, but it had to be conducted outdoors as it represented the most effective training. Since 1973 the use of training with live chemical agents stops due to environmental concerns and low safety regulations (Unknown, 2011). In 1981the US Army Chemical School (USACMLS) plan and develop a training facility to be used indoors and safer for the environment and the Soldiers. The construction of the new training facility was 14.9 million dollars and it was finished in 1986 at Fort McClellan, Alabama. (Unknown, Transition Force, United States Army Garrison-FT McClellan, Alabama) The first chemical class to utilize the new CDTF was on March 1987. Thus started the age of Chemical (Unknown, 2011) Soldier’s being able to have assurance that their equipment is more than capable of protecting them in a chemical attack. Many allied nations have used and received training from our CDTF but no other like Germany. In 1988, Germany’s decontamination trai...
Wright III, B. (1998, November). The Chemical Warfare Service Prepares for World War II. Retrieved from http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec98/MS274.htm
"Chemical Warfare Agents - Resources on the health effects from chemical weapons, emergency response & treatment, counterterrorism, and emergency preparedness.au.af." Specialized Information Services - Reliable information on toxicology, environmental health, chemistry, HIV/AIDS, and minority health. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2010.
Shalikashvili, J.M. (n.d.). Shape, Respond, Prepare Now -- A Military Strategy for a New Era. National Military Strategy. Retrieved September 14, 2004, from http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/nms/index.html#Top
...soldiers also used gases to kill the enemy. The big three gases was chlorine, phosgene gas and mustard gas. The one most widely used was mustard gas because it was less detectable. Eventually the tank was invented, the tank was almost impossible to stop so they used it to break through enemy lines especially to break through the trenches. Soldiers would also break through lines by using miners to dig tunnels to the enemy trench and place a mine to blow it up so they could attack them.
Chemical Warfare in WWI World War I was beginning to invent new ways to produce more casualties to the enemy’s force and reduce the probability of losing Soldiers from their own line of defense or offense. They did this by conducting extensive research in chemical warfare. At the same time, it will motivate the troops and win the hearts and minds of the people of their country if they had new ways of ending the war quickly. Chemical warfare affected tactics and techniques of warfare and almost changed the outcome of World War I. (LTG Carl E. Vuono) The French were the first to start experimenting on chemical agents in 1912.
In September 1917, the Germans introduced the mustard gas or Yperite which was contained in artillery shells against the Russians at Riga. Those exposed to mustard gas experienced painful blisters internally and externally and blindness.... ... middle of paper ... ... Technology in World War I laid a foundation for even more powerful and deadly weapons, such as the nuclear bomb.
Warfare was in a state of transition. Older commanders and generals in the French and British militaries were very cavalry and infantry focused. These commanders believed that cavalry, infantry, and artillery would assure victory in any circumstance, against any foe. They clung to the static tactics of the bygone World War I era. World War I had been fought primarily on French soil, and the military as well as the government never wanted that to happen again, therefore they wanted to reinforce their main border against any future German. Little did they know that only twenty two years later they would be bested by German forces in a way that would shock the world. This research will be analyzing many important assumptions, oversights,...
After twenty-five hundred years, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War still reigns supreme. In that long span of time, numerous empires have risen, expanded and collapsed. Wars have reached and ravaged almost every point on the planet. Humans have evolved from using swords and spears to using machine guns and missiles. Parts of the world have been colonized and have risen to prominence where once people thought there was no land. The Art of War has withstood all of this and stayed the most important source of military strategy for over two millennia. No other military document, and in fact few other written books at all, have come close to lasting this long. If ever asked: Can something as old as The Art of War remain relevant today, when it’s subject matter has changed so drastically in so long a time? The answer for now, and maybe forever, is a resounding ‘yes’.
This barrier to innovation was famously summarized by the former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s quote noting that, “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have...” said in context referencing development, manufacturing, and fielding limitations. An examination of two specific British decisions made in the interwar period serve to articulate the point, the first being the governments rejection of Bomber Command’s request for a new generation bomber and the second being the overreliance on their poorly tested anti-submarine detection system. In contrast Britain successfully developed its radar capacity and resourced the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters whose fielding limitations were based on an underdeveloped industrial complex, based in part to Britain’s late transition to a war footing.