又找到一篇，用坦克送上去的

https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/69-26764-page3.aspx#startofcomments

12/13/2006 2:45:07 PM

Firstly China didn't ratify the CWC until 1997, so it was perfectly within their right to use chemical weapons in 1979.  Secondly, the weapon that was actually used in the war was tank delivered cyanogen chloride, not artillery or air delivered chemical munitions.  Furthermore, the usage of it was on tunnel networks within a few specific and isolated towns. Thus, the bulk of VA bunker and tunnel networks in the hill border regions was tackled with conventional artillery.  Which was rediculously difficult to take especially since the VA adopted slanted exposed bunkers.  I'll say this again, the PLA superiority in artillery was largely offset by the VA tunnel and fortification networks along the border.

 

所有跟帖： 

• 這是扯蛋。中國當時沒有化學戰的能力。 -borisg- ♂ (191 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 13:17:27

• +， 而且，勿來4 寫的 有不實際的地方， -弓尒- ♂ (263 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 13:26:07

• 你們在內地吧，可能收到的台少 -勿來三- ♂ (107 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 13:49:11

• 地域 很大差別 -弓尒- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 14:40:34

• 既然坦克能送上去，坦克自身的火炮不能打嗎？還非得滿世界找化武？ -puyh- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 13:32:23

• + -弓尒- ♂ (212 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 13:37:59

• 不要說我來三，還是來四，我隻是個messenger -勿來三- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 13:45:39

• 水分忒大， 水貨 ～～～ -弓尒- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 14:41:30