= new reply since forum marked as read
i.e a Rebel mortar round hit a secret plant for making Sarin and that released the Sarin that killed people? No one fighting, including the Mortar crew AND the forces defending the town, knew the plant was there. Worse, due to fighting, the plant was shut down, but the Sarin were in one huge tank, that the Mortar hit by accident. This would explain the huge number of causalities AND why it was only one "attack" at one point, and no follow up charge through the gassed area,
Sarin is a NON-persistent gas, It last about 15 minutes before it is blow away OR deteriorates to become useless as a poison. Thus a tank full of it, that is ruptured by a Mortar blast would release a huge amount of Sarin, that neither side expected. Soviet Doctrine was to hit the enemy forces with Sarin, and then send they own forces through that spot and pass through it as the Sarin dissipated. I suspect this is also US Doctrine AND Syrian doctrine. Thus dropping gas without an attack makes no sense. On the other hand an accidental discharge explains not only the huge effect of this gas attack but also the Shock reported being over heard by Syrian Generals over the Sarin "Attack" (the Syrian High Command appears to be as shock as the rebels over the Sarin "Attack"
.
I hate to say it, but it sounds like someone hit something they should NOT have. I can NOT exclude the possibility of an Pro-Assad mortar or Artillery crew being the one who fired the round the hit the holding tank.
I hate to say this, but given doctrine on the use of Gas, its effectiveness is concentrated and the lack of any follow up attack, points more to an accidental discharge of gas then any deliberate use of gas.
The last country I read about that talked about using gas on the defensive was Japan in 1945, they determined that if you are on the defensive the use of gas is worse then useless and advised their soldiers that if the US invaded and used gas, they were NOT to respond with Gas. The Allies Considered the use of gas on D-Day, determined it would not help them in the attack on the beaches, but that it would help the Germans, but only on the beaches. Once off the beaches the use of gas advantages shifted to the side on the offensives, and in June 1944 that was the Western Allies. In subsequent studies of D-Day, except for Omaha, the use of Gas by the Germans would have been ineffective. Omaha was a different story but that was due to the fact the German forces had been on anti-invasion maneuvers on that beach the day the allies hit, thus the Germans quickly shifted from maneuvers to the real thing. And at least one writer made the comment had the German just launched one attack themselves into the invading forces, they would have won, so even in Omaha Gas would only have been effective IF THE GERMANS HAD LAUNCHED AN ATTACK, instead they stayed on the defensive the entire day.
The same came out of WWI, Gas in the Defensive was almost useless, for it tended to force the defenders to put on their masks and chemical suits, and sit in the gas while the attackers moved from a gas free area to the area with Gas, and then out of the gassed area. Worse, the nature of gas was to sink down into the trenches, which forced the defenders into the open. On the other hand, these same facts favored the use of gas on the Offensive. You drop the gas on the Defensive position, your men in a gas free position, then moved your men quickly through the affected area. The Defenders get to sit in the gas, and have their movement restricted by their Masks and Chemical Suits.
I bring this all up, for the use of gas is the advantage of the side on the Offensive, NOT the side on the defensive (or even situation where NOT combat is occurring). No ground attack, no advantage to using gas. Thus I do not see any reason for Assad forces to use gas till recently when they went on the offensive (and other then this one attack, gas was NOT used). While, during the time period of the attack the Rebels were on the offensive, I just do not see them bringing with them chemicals warfare weapons,when conventional high explosives were more useful in more situations. Thus some sort of accidental discharge appears more and more likely to be the cause of this "Attack".
