Re:The Chemists’ War
by zeteo on Monday November 12, 2018 @09:32AM
(#18432779)
Chemical weapons, beyond their psychological effect, were not a game changer for either side in WW1. Effective countermeasures were developed rather quickly and, in any case, a breakthrough effected by poison gas could not be easily exploited.
Although not mentioned in the article, the main contribution of chemists to WW1 was almost certainly the Haber-Bosch process [1]. It allowed Germany to produce ammo and explosives even while cut off from Chilean saltpeter [2] and also sustained its agriculture in the absence of fertilizer imports. Without the Haber-Bosch process Germany could have afforded only a very short war [3]. It's still immensely important today as it produces over half of the nutrient received by the world's crops [4].
Re:The Chemists’ War
by Symmetry on Monday November 12, 2018 @03:39PM
(#18435546)
Yup. In WWI the defender had railroads and telegraphs to let them contain a breakthrough but the attacker couldn't make use of either on the attack. By WWII we had trucks and radios, making breakthroughs much more meaningful.
Although not mentioned in the article, the main contribution of chemists to WW1 was almost certainly the Haber-Bosch process [1]. It allowed Germany to produce ammo and explosives even while cut off from Chilean saltpeter [2] and also sustained its agriculture in the absence of fertilizer imports. Without the Haber-Bosch process Germany could have afforded only a very short war [3]. It's still immensely important today as it produces over half of the nutrient received by the world's crops [4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-31090757
[3] https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1920/02/03/118...
[4] http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-w...