Home

www.history-what-if.com 


Re: Earliest chemical warfare Posted on: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:53:30 +0200

Am 08.09.2010 20:00, schrieb pyotr filipivich:
> So, "chemical smokes" - gun powder is toxic enough,what with the
> sulfur and all - are an option. I' not sure how to use one, house to
> house fighting is one idea, but there are "technical" issues to
> resolve before that tactic can become useful. "Rifle grenades" with
> smoke, toxic smoke, or just a bursting charge could have their place
> on a battle field. If you can get range and accuracy down, could be
> used to harass, if nothing else.

Just take the same amount of gun powder and make shrapnel bombs.
Half a pound of gun powder makes a nice puff of somewhat annoying smoke
while filling a larger area with deadly shards.
Think of the first instances of hand grenades or exploding cannonballs.
And don't forget about the armies that fought in powder smoke without
suffering from it.
1038323. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038324. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038325. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038326. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038327. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038328. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038329. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038330. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038331. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038332. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038333. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038334. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038335. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038336. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038337. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038338. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038339. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038340. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038341. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038342. Re: Earliest chemical warfare