What were the disadvantages of Chemical Warfare in WWI?
There were 3 main disadvantages: Firstly, chemical warfare consisted of poison gas which was released from cannisters, so it needed a reasonable wind behind it to propel it in the direction of the enemy. If the wind dropped, the gas stopped moving; worse still, if the wind changed direction so would the gas cloud, potentially even heading back towards the side that released it. So, there was no control over the gas once it was released, it all depended on the wind direction as to where, how far, and how fast it traveled. Secondly, poison gases used in WW1 were heavier than air and, given the nature of the battlefield terrain - shell holes, trenches, dugouts - it tended to sink into these hollows and remain static, so generally was only effective over a limited area which enemy troops could then avoid. Finally once both sides began using poison gas, it became necessary to equip troops on both sides with gas masks. These were uncomfortable and cumbersome to wear, effected the range of vision of the wearer, and greatly reduced the efficiency in combat of soldiers wearing them.
During the Vietnam War, Agent Orange was used as a defoliant. How effective was this chemical? How was it used?
Agent orange was very effective!In a day or two all the leaves were on the ground.Found a VC base camp in a defoliated area and they had taken netting and woven the fallen leaves in the netting and hung them over all of the hootches and bunkers for camoflage so when viewed from the air it just looked like leaves on the ground.Pretty ingenious people they were.Plus they always seem to have just left out one side of the camp when we entered the other side.I have neuropathy in my hand and feet from exposure to the dioxins in agent orange.Kind of ironic since Dow Chemical made most of it and I was born in the Dow hospital and Dow built my home town(Lake Jackson,Texas).David Hess US paratrooper ,Republic of Vietnam 1967–68–69
Why are liberals against Monsanto?
Isn't it ironic how the same liberals who trust and love government so much believe the kooks who have no scientific evidence when they say "GMOs are dangerous," but they don't trust the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the American Academy for for Advancement of Science, the European Food Safety Authority and EVERY MAJOR respected science organization in the world are shills and involved in a deep conspiracy theory run out of bunker in St. Louis.
When why and where will world war three start?
I don't think I could properly predict when a third world war will occur (some people claim the Cold War could be considered the third world war), and I'm hoping and I feel its more likely it won't, but if it had to happen I feel it could be some years, maybe 5-10 into the future, maybe even sooner. Observing the situation in the Middle East, and the US relations with China and Russia, things are not very stable. But despite what I see a few ignorants here saying, it would truly have little to do with religion- it'd be more about politics and economics than religious reasons. Even large events like the Crusades weren't truly about religion- it was simply an excuse for the European leader's greed for land and political power. Even some of the horrible dictators weren't driven by religion- a prime example is Josef Stalin, who was driven through his neurotic feelings and Communist ideologies. I also completely agree with you on war- while it makes good movies and games, in reality its just organized murder...nothing good about it. I will say that it sometimes could be deemed a necessary action, but truly I just wish humans could lose their greedy tendencies and just make peace with each other. So many problems could be solved if everyone just got along.
Britain vs germany in world war 2 with no allies?
During the fall 1940, Britain actually WAS alone. There was very little help that was coming from the US, and the Luftwaffe was bombing England mercilessly. Fighter command was losing pilots faster than they could be trained. Fighter Command was near collapse. It was only they that were keeping the Germans from invading. But Goering made a big mistake one day, and decided to bomb London instead of the British airfields, and gave the RAF time to repair airfields, get new aircraft, and rest the pilots. The next day of German bombing, the RAF was ready. The German losses were huge, and Goering and Hitler abandoned Sea Lion. The Germans were stupid, and the British were lucky. If the Luftwaffe hadn't have bombed London, the Brits almost surely would have lost the war. One day of bombing saved Britain, and without a base in England, there couldn't have been any DDay. Jerries would likely have won. They could move more resources to the East, and Russia likely would have been overwhelmed.
I need help with a question on my history assignment!?
George Washington's motivation, and his willingness to stay with his troops during the cold, harsh, plague-ridden winter months. Also, the assistance of France at just the right time. Not to mention the experience Americans got from the American-Indian war. Back in the day, military men just marched in rows and fired at each other. The last left standing won. Americans learned from the Indians that it's much more beneficial to hide behind trees, and be stealthy when firing at the enemy.
What was the reason for the battle in lexington and concord?
the british fought a band of militia men (colonists who were ready to fight in a minutes notice, and therefore also known as minutemen) in Lexington. the militia were blocking the path to Concord, because they had a small stash of weapons held there. this was the first official battle of the war. no one knows who fired upon another first, but the end is clear; the militia fled after the first few shots. they knew they stood no chance, not only because they were heavily outnumbered but because the British were much faster reloading and more accurate. the British pressed on towards Concord, but found nearly all the weapons were gone.