NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Miku the Based]

the hardest substance known to man is average NSer's skull

We'll just make them out of NSer's skulls then.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

the hardest substance known to man is average NSer's skull

We'll just make them out of NSer's skulls then.

*Khornate throne intensifies*

[Austrasien]

Hi everyone, I've been working on the history of chemical warfare in my country. I've already gone through it with some friends with relevant skillsets to set this up, but I'd appreciate any other feedback I can get.

So, prior to 1912, Anderia was a monarchy, and the army didn't make significant investment into chemical weaponry. Without any major gas-based combat actually having occurred yet, gas masks wouldn't be readily available, so experimentation focused primarily on pulmonary agents, specifically chlorine, phosgene, and chloropicrin. It's my understanding that all of these compounds are byproducts of common industrial processes at the time, like textiles. So with that in mind, I think my compound choices are reasonable, but with its relative unimportance to the military command I'm unsure how many (artillery) munitions could have been produced from around 1905 or so.

From there, my thinking goes, what munitions did exist would have fallen into the hands of the National Republican Army (who had allied/merged with former monarchists against socialists), and been used in the subsequent civil war. After the war ended, the new government's constitution essentially mandated armed neutrality, and chemical weapons weren't picked back up until 1931. At first, I figure that they would have tried to pick up where previous research had left off, and started experimenting with diphosgene gas. With the development of mass-produced gas mask technology, though, choking agents would have been substantially less effective as a general-use military tool. My guess is that would motivate a shift to producing agents that operate on skin, like mustard gas. As the insurgency faded, the motivation for funding chemical weaponry would have faded with it, and the program would have stopped in the 1940s.

By the 1950s, though, Anderia had become a non-nuclear power in a nuclear world, and sought to use chemical weapons as a stop-gap until its own nuclear program was ready. This would involve restarting production of mustard gas, and experimentation with (relatively) new nerve agents, like tabun and sarin. A little later, I would figure that there were investigations into V-series agents like VX or VR, but given the way V agents stick around and cause continuing ecological damage, there would be hesitation to deploy them given they would be being deployed in a theoretical war on Anderian territory. Since the main benefit to using VX is its toxicity (to my understanding), I figured they would focus on sarin production and phase out of sulfur mustard by the end of the 80s for the same reasoning as not adopting VX.

So, to recap my questions:
(1) How many munitions could have been built up and stored between ~1905 and 1912?
(2) Would aircraft and missile based nerve and blister agents offered a meaningful reason to avoid starting a WMD war (as opposed to conventional weaponry)?
(3) Does the reasoning behind not utilizing VX and phasing out sulfur mustard in favor of sarin follow?
(4) Is the general timeline plausible?
(5) Is there anything that I'm failing to consider that would substantially alter any portion of this?

1. Chemical munitions are generally stored as empty cases and agents in vats. Almost all chemical agents are unstable/corrosive and so cannot be warehoused in ready form indefinitely. But shell bodies, bomb cases etc are cheap so plenty can be made in preparation for filling.
2. Nuclear retaliation for chemical attacks isn't credible if both sides are nuclear-armed.
3. All nerve agents are very similar in practice (to the extent it is known) so there isn't a solid reason to favour one over the other. They all have the same treatment protocols and are lethal in extremely small doses. Phasing out mustard is a mistake though because unlike nerve agents, there is neither a prophylactic or antidote to mustard exposure. Against an opponent with plenty of atropine to go around mustard will be more effective than nerve agents.
4. Yes.

[Gallia-]

VX can really just be considered an inferior form of HD, tbf. Same relative casualties, but more expensive and easier to treat. It even kills the soldiers instead of wounding them so it doesn't really swamp field hospitals either. ):

Who would win the world's largest fleet of bulldozers digging all the mass graves/trenches or some spicy rain.

Sarin is fairly cheap though IIRC.

[New Anderia]

1. Chemical munitions are generally stored as empty cases and agents in vats. Almost all chemical agents are unstable/corrosive and so cannot be warehoused in ready form indefinitely. But shell bodies, bomb cases etc are cheap so plenty can be made in preparation for filling.
2. Nuclear retaliation for chemical attacks isn't credible if both sides are nuclear-armed.
3. All nerve agents are very similar in practice (to the extent it is known) so there isn't a solid reason to favour one over the other. They all have the same treatment protocols and are lethal in extremely small doses. Phasing out mustard is a mistake though because unlike nerve agents, there is neither a prophylactic or antidote to mustard exposure. Against an opponent with plenty of atropine to go around mustard will be more effective than nerve agents.
4. Yes.

VX can really just be considered an inferior form of HD, tbf. Same relative casualties, but more expensive and easier to treat. It even kills the soldiers instead of wounding them so it doesn't really swamp field hospitals either. ):

Who would win the world's largest fleet of bulldozers digging all the mass graves/trenches or some spicy rain.

Sarin is fairly cheap though IIRC.

Thank you, and for 2 I mostly meant in the intervening years before Anderia became a nuclear state. Interesting about sulfur mustard though, I wouldn't have necessarily considered it among the more useful chemical agents nowadays, though that' probably just a consequence of the CWC leaving non-state actors as the main users. I'll reconsider phasing it out, though I could imagine civilian moralists using its effectiveness as a justification to not use it (whether the military would care is another matter).

[Gallia-]

Chemical weapons didn't stop WW2.

[Miku the Based]

2. Nuclear retaliation for chemical attacks isn't credible if both sides are nuclear-armed.

I don't know about that. Is there somthing written someware where it says "you can't use nukes if they are killing you with chemical and biological warfare"
They are both classified as a WMD and just as indiscriminate in relation to humans. I could see a power getting genocided through the use of chemical weapons be pressured into using nukes. Not much of a escalation of force unless one thinks property is sacred or something.

[Gallia-]

People who get genocided usually don't have nukes.

Well, at least not if they're genocided by violent means like chemical bombing.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I'll go with my dimond tip 308 pls.
Hardest substance known to man. Also make it sound like Kagome upgraded to modern times.

It's not going to help you vs body armour. Try tungsten or depleted uranium cores instead.

[Kassaran]

Inb4 my 4.5mm 300m MER Tungsten Dart Gun.

Whatever happened to that micro-caliber craze we had going on here a few years back? I can't ever seem to remember it really being shot down much, just that it was quirky and didn't really have a place in modern combat due to the ranges and armor in play. Like I noted (either here or in Infantry thread, not sure which but I bounce between them enough so do all of you so you'll remember this likely), I was actually kind of taken aback when I learned that ballistic properties of 5.56mm rounds are at their best at 200m. When fired too close, apparently the yaw inflicted on the round as it impacts a strike surface can significantly deplete it's energy and momentum causing it to fracture and break, whereas similar strike surfaces at 200m can be more easily penetrated as the round has effectively stabilized.

I guess my question here, is that do micro-calibers just not have the kinetic properties needed to penetrate near-peer adversary body armor and cover found on the modern battlefield (read cities and urban environments I guess), or does the concept of the 4.5mm Tungsten Dart actually hold weight in the discussion on future firearms' cartridges and munitions types (past a 30-year window for mass implementation)?

[New Vihenia]

1. Chemical munitions are generally stored as empty cases and agents in vats. Almost all chemical agents are unstable/corrosive and so cannot be warehoused in ready form indefinitely. But shell bodies, bomb cases etc are cheap so plenty can be made in preparation for filling.
2. Nuclear retaliation for chemical attacks isn't credible if both sides are nuclear-armed.
3. All nerve agents are very similar in practice (to the extent it is known) so there isn't a solid reason to favour one over the other. They all have the same treatment protocols and are lethal in extremely small doses. Phasing out mustard is a mistake though because unlike nerve agents, there is neither a prophylactic or antidote to mustard exposure. Against an opponent with plenty of atropine to go around mustard will be more effective than nerve agents.
4. Yes.

Num 2 is ghey... Like why i cant just nuke only his chem-storage to purify and cleanse his unholy means of war.

[Gallia-]

I mean you could but the US Army just used C4 to blow up Saddam's.

[Triplebaconation]

I I was actually kind of taken aback when I learned that ballistic properties of 5.56mm rounds are at their best at 200m

This couldn't be further from the truth. M855 from an M16A2 (this is highly dependent on the bullet and muzzle velocity) will penetrate structural materials like concrete best at 200 meters.

It's terminal effectiveness drops sharply at that range precisely because it doesn't fragment.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

People who get genocided usually don't have nukes.

Well, at least not if they're genocided by violent means like chemical bombing.

What if they’re enemies have more nukes
E.g. India’s actions in Kashmir

[Austrasien]

I don't know about that. Is there somthing written someware where it says "you can't use nukes if they are killing you with chemical and biological warfare"
They are both classified as a WMD and just as indiscriminate in relation to humans. I could see a power getting genocided through the use of chemical weapons be pressured into using nukes. Not much of a escalation of force unless one thinks property is sacred or something.

There isn't a plausible situation where escalating from chemical to nuclear would make your situation better. Chemical weapons are quite threatening to troops with no NBC equipment or training, but are mostly a (significant) annoyance for armies with access to basic NBC equipment (mask, gas alarms, atropine...) and training. Chemical attacks on civilian areas can be mostly thwarted with sophisticated techniques like "closing windows" and "duct tape"; again only completely unprepared civilians are going to suffer mass casualties from a chemical attack.

Nuclear retaliation is a credible threat against specific threats like mass surprise chemical attack on a populated area, but this has never actually happened in the context of interstate war, and even before nuclear weapons the threat of retaliation in kind was sufficient to make it dubious.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

What are better for Army logistics (equipment transport) purposes: horses, mules or donkeys?

[The Manticoran Empire]

What are better for Army logistics (equipment transport) purposes: horses, mules or donkeys?

Trucks.

[Miku the Based]

I don't know about that. Is there somthing written someware where it says "you can't use nukes if they are killing you with chemical and biological warfare"
They are both classified as a WMD and just as indiscriminate in relation to humans. I could see a power getting genocided through the use of chemical weapons be pressured into using nukes. Not much of a escalation of force unless one thinks property is sacred or something.

There isn't a plausible situation where escalating from chemical to nuclear would make your situation better. Chemical weapons are quite threatening to troops with no NBC equipment or training, but are mostly a (significant) annoyance for armies with access to basic NBC equipment (mask, gas alarms, atropine...) and training. Chemical attacks on civilian areas can be mostly thwarted with sophisticated techniques like "closing windows" and "duct tape"; again only completely unprepared civilians are going to suffer mass casualties from a chemical attack.

Nuclear retaliation is a credible threat against specific threats like mass surprise chemical attack on a populated area, but this has never actually happened in the context of interstate war, and even before nuclear weapons the threat of retaliation in kind was sufficient to make it dubious.

Well, if the Kurds had a nuke in the 80's I wouldn't be surprised if they used it on Baghdad and it would be justified in my opinion. Same with the Ethiopians and Italy. Sure, it may not make the situation better and will introduce a new dynamic to the war. But it may just as well end hosilities and cause at the very least a cease fire if your enemy is reasonable enough.
Really, Belka was justified in using nukes for self preservation in my opinion.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

What are better for Army logistics (equipment transport) purposes: horses, mules or donkeys?

Trucks.

I meant out of the options given.

[Miku the Based]

Mule

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Mule

Thank you e

[Cossack Peoples]

Is a carbine just a sawn-off rifle

[Kazarogkai]

What are better for Army logistics (equipment transport) purposes: horses, mules or donkeys?

Trucks.

Oxen

Slow as sin but vastly cheaper than the former three, hardier from a health standpoint, and capable of pretty much surviving in any terrain so long as you got a bit of grass and water. Plus they taste better too.

[Triplebaconation]

There's no "best" type of draft animal any more than there's a "best" type of truck or sandwich or anything else.

[Miku the Based]

Is a carbine just a sawn-off rifle

Yep. Made to be fired on horseback.