� The U.S. Army Chemical School has completed its move from FortMcClellan, Alabama, to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The ChemicalSchool, along with the Engineer and Military Police Schools, is part of theManeuver Support Center (MANSCEN).

� For a listing of chemical components and telephone numbers, see theChemical Directory, page 41 of this publication. Most individuals here atFort Leonard Wood can be reached by e-mail by typing: last name, nospace, followed by first letter of first name@wood.army.mil.

� I am updating my mailing list and I need feedback from you. Because of theincreasing costs of printing and the downsizing of the military, we mustupdate our list to reflect your current needs. Therefore, if you need to beadded to the mailing list or have changes in your mailing address, the num-ber of magazines you receive, or any other pertinent information, pleasecontact me by phone (listed on page 10) or e-mail.

� As editor of the CML, I take this opportunity to thank you for your supportin the past. I ask that you continue to support your Chemical publication bysubmitting articles for publication.

Thank you,

Mattie KirbyEditor, CML, Army Chemical Reviewe-mail: Kirbym@wood.army.mil

Editor�s Notes

Making HistoryDepleted Uranium�the truth and nothing butMilitary Masks Animals in Chemical WarfareAdmiral the Earl of Dundonald�

the conception of chemical warfareMilitary Support to Civil Authorities�

the role of the Chemical CorpsFort McClellan CDTF Ends Chemical-Agent Training�

at the 50,000 MilestoneWhat�s Happening Here?Training BeginsThe Targeting/Synchronization Process�

you, the chemical officerChemical Research Unit Honored for ExcellenceExtreme Cold Weather Decontamination�

A Chilling ScenarioReserves Conduct IDT Lanes Training�

the 457th experienceLast Fort McClellan Soldier ArrivesNBC�A Proactive Combat MultiplierNational Guard Welcomes New Members

Commandant COL Patricia L. Nilo

Managing Editor (Acting) Shirley BridgesEditor Mattie KirbyGraphics/Layout Kathie Troxell

CML, Army Chemical Review isprepared twice a year by the U.S. ArmyChemical School, Fort Leonard Wood,Missouri. CML presents professionalinformation about the Chemical Corpsfunctions related to nuclear, biological,chemical, smoke, flame field expe-dients, and NBC reconnaissance incombat support. Objectives of CML areto inform, motivate, increase know-ledge, improve performance, andprovide a forum for exchange ofideas. This publication presents pro-fessional information, but the viewsexpressed herein are those of theauthors, not the Department of De-fense or its elements. The contentdoes not necessarily reflect the officialU.S. Army position and does not changeor supersede any information in otherU.S. Army publications. Use of newsitems constitutes neither affirmation oftheir accuracy or product endorsement. Articles may be reprinted if creditis given to CML and its authors. Allphotographs are official U.S. Armyphotos unless otherwise noted. CMLreserves the right to edit material. SUBSCRIPTIONS: Available throughthe Superintendent of Documents, U.S.Government Printing Office, Washing-ton, DC 20402-9317. POSTMASTER: Send addresschanges to Chemical Review, 320Engineer Loop, Suite 210, Fort LeonardWood, Missouri 65473-8929.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

ERIC K. SHINSEKIGeneral, United States Army

Chief of Staff

JOEL B. HUDSONAdministrative Assistant to theSecretary of the Army 9922303

Official:

PB 3-00-1 January 2000Articles

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

January 2000 1

Departments

Chief of ChemicalRegimental Command Sergeant MajorU.S. MANSCEN Chemical Points of ContactU.S. Army Chemical School DirectoryBook ReviewSubscription PageChiefs of Chemcial�Past to Present

24

1041434445

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

57

11

16

18

202226

2730

31

35363740

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

On 1 October 1999, the U.S. Army ManeuverSupport Center (MANSCEN) officially activatedas the combined training center for the Chemi-cal, Military Police, and Engineer Schools.MANSCEN�s primary mission supports theChemical School by developing the concepts,force structure, material requirements, andexperiments that ensure the continued vitalityand relevance of the corps. MANSCEN also helpstrain and prepare our soldiers and leaders tosucceed in all future operational environmentsby providing Common Leader Task training.

Now one of the most technologically advancedand sophisticated military training centers in theworld, the new Chemical School at Fort LeonardWood is poised to develop and field forces forthe 21st century. The Chemical Corps� Vision is atrained and ready force, capable of protecting thenation and its forces against all NBC threats.At Fort Leonard Wood, we will continue to trainleaders, soldiers, and units to protect the jointforce through innovations in doctrine, forcestructure, NBC defense, and smoke/obscurants.

The proliferation of technology and weaponsof mass destruction (WMD) throughout the worldcontinues to increase the pace and urgency of ourown innovations in NBC defense technology andtraining. As a capabilities-based force with aforce projection-based strategy, WMD are themost serious threat to our national security.We can no longer consider CONUS-based powerprojection platforms as threat-free. Of the 25nations with active NBC warfare programs, all

Chief of Chemical

are pursuing delivery system technologywhich is key to the WMD threat. WeaponizedWMD (Level I Threat), industrial releases(Level II Threat), and less sophisticated applica-tions of NBC substances (Level III Threat)present a multitude of uncertainties that wemust be prepared to defend against. In themidst of these threats, our challenge is to pre-serve our power projection capability and, atthe same time, develop lethal and survivableforces with the capability for rapid insertionand long-term sustainability.

In Chemical Vision 2010 (CV 2010), we statedthat the Chemical Corps will achieve full dimen-sional protection through enhanced NBCsituational awareness; the preservation ofcombat power; measures to reduce casualtieswhile maximizing OPTEMPO; identification ofthreat Reconnaissance, Intelligence, Surveillance,and Target Acquisition (RISTA); and informationdominance. Since the writing of that vision, we

COL Patricia L. Nilo, Chief of Chemical

2 CML

have steadfastly pursued an ambitious programof force modernization. The Joint Warningand Reporting Network (JWARN), Fox Block 2,the Multipurpose Integrated Chemical AgentDetector (MICAD), the Joint Service LightweightNuclear/Biological/Chemical ReconnaissanceSystem (JSLNBCRS), and the Modular DeconSystem (MDS) are just a few of the new systemsthat have or will be coming on line soon insupport of our quest to field the Chemical Corpsof the 21st century.

When the Army Chief of Staff, GeneralShinseki, directed the fielding of the InitialBrigade Combat Team (I-BCT) no later thanSeptember 2000, the Chemical Corps saw thatas a prime opportunity to increase the pace ofour pursuit of CV 2010�s objectives. For theChemical Corps, the I-BCT has resoundingimplications. Our core principles of sense,shape, shield and sustain are vital to theeffectiveness of the I-BCT. This highly mobileand lethal force must have the capabilities torespond and operate in all levels of NBC threat.For example, embedded within the fighting forceof this new combat brigade is a Reconnaissance,Surveillance, and Target Acquisition (RSTA)Squadron equipped with four single-platformnuclear/biological/chemical reconnaissancesystems. Initially, this capability will likely beprovided with a Fox-like system. Since the Foxitself does not meet the objective requirementsof the I-BCT, the Chemical Corps has newimpetus to speed the development and fielding of

the Chemical/Biological/Radiological IntegratedDetection System (CBRIDS). Originally sched-uled for fielding in 2006, this system will ulti-mately replace the Fox and BIDS that we knowtoday. The CBRIDS will conduct NBCreconnaissance, survey surveillance, sampling,and warning missions with point, standoff,drop-off, and remotely piloted detectors de-signed to reduce operational and tactical levelsurprise from WMD.

In addition, we are embarking on the develop-ment of a chemical reconnaissance unmannedaerial vehicle (UAV) squadron known as SAFE-GUARD (Scanning Airborne Emission forGaseous Ultraspectral Analysis and RadiometricDetection). This strategic reconnaissanceasset will be commanded and manned by chemi-cal soldiers. While we have a long way to go onthis particular initiative, the capabilities of thisunit will allow strategic and operational com-manders the ability to maximize theaterOPTEMPO through the refined NBC situationalawareness the SAFEGUARD system will provide.

CV 2010 is still �the way ahead� for theChemical Corps. As we continue to meet thedemands of an ever-changing Army, we willtake advantage of every opportunity to modern-ize our force so we can achieve full dimensionalprotection necessary to support our transition tothe 21st century force.

Dragon Soldiers!

January 2000 3

Regimental Command Sergeant Major

The last six months have brought manyexciting changes to our Chemical Corps.As you know, we moved from FortMcClellan, Alabama, to Fort Leonard Wood,Missouri, making the concept of theManeuver Support Center (MANSCEN) areality. On 1 October MANSCEN wasactivated, officially bringing the Chemical,Engineer, and Military Police Schools andRegiments under one umbrella, yet main-taining the uniqueness of each. Fort Leonard Wood underwent morethan 200 million dollars worth of construc-tion to make this transition possible. All ofour facilities are up and running. Students,the future of our Corps, have proven oursystems. January 2000 started our firstBiological Integrated Detection Systems(BIDS), Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC),and Advance Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC)classes here, completing the full spectrum of what we do atthe Chemical School. The reception we received from the installation and localcommunities was superb. Every effort was made to ensure thereception and integration went as smoothly as possible. FortLeonard Wood is a wonderful place to live and work. Theopportunities here are endless, and much has been done tomake the Chemical Corps and Military Police Corps feelat home. On 31 August we had our change of commandceremony where MG Ralph G. Wooten passed the regimentalcolors to COL Patricia L. Nilo. I want to take this opportunityto thank MG Wooten and his wife, Becky, for their outstandingcommitment to our Corps. The Wootens have made a differ-ence for the Corps and our Army. Not only has MG Wootenbeen our leader for the last five years, he also has been agreat friend and mentor to many of us. We wish MG Wootenand Becky many happy years to come as they transition intocivilian life. I am confident that COL Nilo, our new comman-dant, will continue where MG Wooten left off and be ourtorchbearer into the 21st century. As of 20 August our first active duty chemical brigade isnow official. The 3d Chemical Brigade is up and running withthe command team of COL Allan Hardy and CSM Larry Fisher.The 82d Chemical Battalion has had all of four companiesfilled and two graduations of new soldiers. The 84th ChemicalBattalion has already begun teaching all subjects and classes,including four Officer Basic Courses, two Chemical CaptainsCareer Courses (CCCC), and several Recon and Radiologicalcourses. The 58th Transportation Battalion AdvancedIndividual Training, our newest asset, is a part of the 3rdChemical Brigade. Planning and preparation for our Reserve and NationalGuard units� annual training is taking place across the nation.

Let us not forget that the largest part ofthe Chemical Corps lies in our Reservesand National Guard. This year most ofour Total Army School System (TASS)battalions will be coming to Fort LeonardWood for their annual training. Werecently completed training for the standup of 10 Military Support Detachment(MSD) Rapid Assessment and InitialDetection (RAID) units here also, in ourefforts to support Homeland Defenseagainst Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD). Our current challenges include work-ing within environmental requirementsin training and building a new museum.As you know our Army remains busyand we thrive on change. Like the soldiers

and personnel here at your school, you are being asked todo more each day with the same or reduced resources. We continue to have challenges in manning our forcestructure, especially at the sergeant/E-5 level. Our Army isserving the nation in 78 countries around the world, and wehave chemical soldiers in many of these locations. WithGeneral Shinseki�s new guidance on how the force willbe manned, our divisional units will soon look even better.What this will mean is yet to be realized but it could cause areduction in how Tables of Distribution and Allowances(TDAs) and Echelons Above Division (EAD) are manned. Recently we completed a task selection boardfor an NBC NCO Job Aid project. This project is beingdesigned to help the junior soldiers in NBC positions atthe company/battery/troop level. Several NCOs, Mr. MikeDonohue, and I sat down for two days and went overall the tasks that should be included in this project. We alsoworked on adding the tips, frequently asked questions,and advice that will be included. I need feedback fromthe field in the following areas: training, evaluation,readiness, logistics, administration, and field operations.If you have any tidbits, tips, advice, or frequently askedquestions that should be included under these areas,e-mail them to me at vanpattj@wood.army.mil ordonohuem@wood.army.mil. This is your last chance tobe involved in something that will benefit everyone inthe field at the company/battery/troop level. As we execute the year 2000 calendar, we will experiencemany new challenges and changes. Chemical soldiers andcivilians are working hard every day, upholding the customsand traditions of our Corps and working toward improvingit for the future. Thank you for what you do to maintain andbuild the reputation of the Chemical Corps.

�ELEMENTIS REGAMUS PROELIUM�

CSM James E. Van Patten III

4 CML

Colonel Patricia L. Nilo made military history whenshe became the first woman chemical officer to headthe U.S. Army Chemical School in a change of commandceremony at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, five monthsago. �Today marks a very important day in the historyof the Chemical School,� said Nilo, addressing thecrowd at the Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN)Plaza, 31 August 1999. �We turned the page andopened a new chapter in the history of the school.This marks for us the transfer of responsibility forthe school from Fort McClellan, Alabama.� More than 100 service members, family members,friends, guests, and residents of Pulaski Countyattended the ceremony, which officially marked theopening of the Chemical School at MANSCEN. The399th Army Band, 84th Chemical Battalion, Noncommis-sioned Officer Association joint service color guard,82d Chemical Battalion, 58th Transportation Battalion,marines, airmen, and sailors all participated in theceremony. While roughly 1,600 chemical soldiers are nowassigned at Fort Leonard Wood, they bring memoriesof Fort McClellan with them. �Although for many of us, Fort McClellan willalways be special in our hearts, we are well on our way

to transplanting the spirit and essence of the ChemicalSchool that made McClellan that special place that itis,� said Colonel Nilo in her remarks at the ceremony.�We now will foster and care for that spirit and essencehere at Fort Leonard Wood and allow Fort Wood toalso become a special place for us.� Major General Ralph Wooten, outgoing ChemicalSchool Commandant, gave welcome remarks duringthe ceremony. Major General Wooten said ColonelNilo was very knowledgeable about nuclear, biological,and chemical defense programs. �She was, in fact, the unanimous choice for mysuccessor,� he said. �I want you to all embrace andsupport Colonel Nilo in the same manner you haveembraced and supported me.� In a recent interview, Colonel Nilo acknowledgedthat she has progressed up the ranks because she wasgiven opportunities to lead and train soldiers throughouther career. Nilo said she was excited to take on thenew position. �I am very humbled by the fact I was given theopportunity to do this,� she said. �It is an awesome responsibility. There is nothingbetter than training and there is nothing better thantraining young soldiers � to be the future leaders ofthe corps.�

Chemical School�sNew CommandantMakes Army Historyas the First Woman

Chemical CommandantBy Michele Barker

Reprint from Fort Leonard Wood�s Guidon

MakingHistory

COL Patricia Nilo makes a point during her remarks asnew Chemical School commandant.

5January 2000

Colonel Nilo said that for now there wouldn�t beany great changes occurring at the Chemical School.�There has been enough turmoil with the school movinghere and with us trying to stand up again in thislocation,� she said. �Trying to keep as much normalcyas we can and keep the turbulence down to a minimumis our primary focus. I think we will grow intochanges as we go on.� Nilo has sought challenges throughout her military ca-reer. Before she joined the Army, she worked in ahospital laboratory. She left her laboratory positionbecause it didn�t offer career progression. She receiveda direct commission as a first lieutenant in the Women�sArmy Corps in 1974 and was detailed to the OrdnanceCorps in a chemical specialty and rebranched as aChemical Corps officer in 1977. �At the time I joined the Army I was looking forsomething temporary and I wanted a change of pace,�Nilo said. �I was looking for change to broaden myexperiences, to travel, to meet other people, and doother things for a short period of time.� Originally, Nilo said, she hadn�t decided to make theArmy a career when she joined. �And here I am, 25years later, and I wouldn�t have done it any otherway,� she said. Like her new position as the Chemical SchoolCommandant, Nilo has held numerous commandpositions throughout her 25-year military career. Her commands include Headquarters and Head-quarters Company, School Brigade, Ordnance andChemical Center and School; the 278th ChemicalDetachment, 1st Armored Division; Commander,84th Chemical Battalion; and recently, Commanderof Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas. Over the course of her career, she has beenawarded the Legion of Merit, Defense MeritoriousService Medal, and a host of other medals.

Michele Barker is a Department of the Army intern for FortLeonard Wood�s Public Affairs. She has a bachelor of artsdegree in Journalism. Barker is also a staff sergeant in theArmy Reserve.

MG Ralph G. Wooten congratulates COL Patricia Nilo.

MG Ralph G. Wooten passes the flag to COL Patricia Nilo,signifying the change of command.

6 CML

Dates: 19 June 2000 - 23 June 2000Location: Fort Leonard Wood, MissouriTheme: NBC Defense�Forging the Future

Conference Sponsors: United States Army ChemicalSchool and the National Defense IndustrialAssociation (NDIA)

Phone: 573-596-0131, extension 3-7352Points of Contact: CPT Cox coxg@wood.army.mil

Mr. Cockman cockmanp@wood.army.milMSG Glitz glitzd@wood.army.mil

Worldwide Chemical Conference XVII Regimental Week Information Sheetan

d

DEPLETED URANIUM�the truth and nothing but

Silver bullet! The unstoppable force! The immovable object! The best armor-piercingmunition available! The best armor protection available! All these statements have beenused to describe depleted uranium or DU. Negative statements also have been made aboutDU and the hazards associated with it. The following paragraphs relate what I believeevery soldier should know about DU. Keep in mind, I write from a training developer�sperspective and not as a scientist, so readers who are sticklers for detailed data may bedisappointed. Hopefully, those of you who just want the facts will get some satisfaction fromwhat is presented here.

Background

During Operation Desert Storm U.S. military forcesused DU munitions and armor in combat for the first time.The effectiveness of both the munitions and the armorwere unmatched by anything available to allies or oppos-ing forces. Figures available indicate that thousands ofIraqi tanks and other vehicles were damaged or totallydestroyed by DU munitions fired from U.S. tanks, fight-ing vehicles, and aircraft. Not a single U.S. tank and onlya half dozen fighting vehicles were lost to Iraqi fire. After the war, a government-sponsored report statedthat most U.S. soldiers were not fully aware of thepotential hazard associated with DU residue found on thebattlefield. To rectify this deficiency, the U.S. ArmyChemical School was tasked to assume the lead indeveloping a training program. This effort, done incoordination with the U.S. Army Ordnance Center andSchool, was completed in 1996, and training wasimplemented early in 1997. During and subsequent to thedevelopment of the DU training materials, several medi-cal and scientific studies were conducted to analyze theeffects of DU on the health of personnel wounded by orexposed to the effects of DU. After analyzing theresults of these reports and studies, the 1998 Medical/Chemical Review Conference recommended that a jointeffort be initiated to revise the DU training materials tomore accurately reflect health and safety hazards.

By Mike Sheheane

What Soldiers Should Know

Soldiers in the field need to understand two importantpoints that justify the use of DU:

� DU is the best armor-piercing material availablefor use in a variety of kinetic energy antiarmormunitions. This is because DU is a very densematerial (one and a half times the density of lead),and it �self sharpens� as it penetrates. This self-sharpening characteristic makes DU better thantungsten, which mushrooms as it penetrates.Additionally, DU is pyrophoric, which means thatas the penetrator self-sharpens, the small particlesthat flake off can ignite spontaneously in the air.The sparks produced often ignite fuel or munitionscontained inside the target, giving DU rounds thecapability to cause explosions without being an

explosive.� DU provides the best armor protection available.

This is because of the density of the material. Platesof DU are sandwiched between outer and inner steelplates on �heavy armor� versions of the M1A1/A2Abrams tank and provide greater protection thansolid steel, alloys, or laminates, and they can defeatmost currently fielded, non�DU antitank munitions.

Several weapons systems use DU. The most com-mon DU round fired by the Army is the 120mm M829-

January 2000 7

series round for the main gun of the Abrams tank. Forthose who appreciate minutia, the official terminologyis Armor�Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot(APFSDS), but most people call it �sabot round�(Figure 1). The dart-like penetrator rod is fitted withan oversized nonmetallic collar that ensures a properfit in the gun barrel. The collar falls away as the roundleaves the barrel, which allows the penetrator to travelat an extremely high velocity and retain considerable down-range energy. Older versions of the Abrams tank fire a

Figure 1. The M829-series 120mm rounds come in a variety of forms. All can be fired from the M1A2 tank.

105mm DU round. The M2/M3 Bradley fires a 25mmround in the Bushmaster cannon. Other services also use DU rounds. The Air ForceA-10 Thunderbolt uses a 30mm DU round in its main gunwhile the Marine AV-8 Harrier fires a 25mm round. TheNavy uses DU in a 20mm round fired by thePhalanx gun system. Tests and combat action have demonstrated the valueof DU as an effective enhancement to the armor of theM1-series tank (Figure 2). DU plates inserted betweenregular steel armor on the front of the turret can defeatmost known non-DU armor-piercing munitions.

The Problem

Since DU is the best weapon and the best armor,what�s the problem? DU is a slightly radioactive heavy

metal. It is 40 percent less radioactive than naturaluranium. DU is primarily an alpha emitter, but italso emits small amounts of beta, gamma, andX-rays. The heavy metal aspect makes it chemi-

cally toxic, like lead. Ingesting a large amount ofDU residue into the body by either breath-

ing it into the lungs or swallowing itinto the digestive tract is a pri-

mary hazard. Tests showthat the only time

this is likely tooccur is when a

soldier is: (1) in ornear an armored

target that isstruck by a DU

round; (2) in or neara heavy armored

M1A2 Tank

Figure 2.

Location ofDU armor

CML8

tank that is breached by any kind of round; (3) near a fireinvolving DU munitions; or (4) frequently enteringvehicles that have been hit by DU rounds or have DUarmor that was breached. Soldiers who handle bare DU penetrators found onthe battlefield also are exposed to significant amounts ofDU. (Of course, every soldier knows it is inappropriateto handle any type of battlefield debris unless directed todo so.) I do not discuss embedded fragments becausemedical personnel treat these injuries in much the samemanner as wounds from any type of shrapnel. Studiesof soldiers wounded by DU fragments have failed toidentify any adverse health effects specifically related tothe radiological or chemical characteristics of DU. In its �packaged� or unfiredform, DU ammunition presents verylittle hazard. Soldiers may hold anunfired 120mm round for 940 hourswithout exceeding the total bodyexposure limit of 5 rem per year.Once fired, DU presents a greaterhazard, but one would have to holda DU penetrator in his bare handsfor more than 250 hours beforeexceeding the exposure limit for skin or extremitiesof 50 rem per year. For DU to be a hazard to personal health, the bodymust contain enough DU to cause radiological damage tothe lungs or digestive tract or to cause toxic chemicaldamage to the kidneys. Protective measures should betaken to prevent exposure. There is not much a soldiercan do to prevent some exposure if his vehicle is hit by aDU round or his heavy armor tank is breached. Just real-izing he is still alive probably will be the most importantthing at the time. But, soldiers near a DU round strike orarmor breach can take the following protective measures.

Protective Measures

Inhaling or ingesting DU in amounts experienced inbattle does not pose an immediate health risk and mustnot prevent a soldier from saving his buddy�s life or fromcontinuing the fight. Wearing an M40 protective mask isthe easiest and most effective way to prevent inhalationof DU dust and residue suspended in the air or in smokefrom a DU munitions fire. Other types of respiratoryprotection are being evaluated for maintenance person-nel who must work for extended periods inside damagedarmored vehicles. To keep from ingesting DU residue,soldiers must keep it out of their mouths. Cover allexposed skin and wear gloves to keep the DU off andwash hands and face after being around DU to keep itfrom getting into your mouth and digestive tract.

Data show that DU is onlya hazard in very specificinstances and should notprevent actions to save livesor to continue the mission.

If soldiers must remain in an area where DU is present,wear a protective mask and cover all exposed skin.Soldiers in a confined space, such as the crew compart-ment of a tank, should decontaminate the area to removeas much DU dust and residue as possible. The new FM3-5, NBC Decontamination (to be published in secondquarter of FY00), addresses DU decontamination. Aswith other decon efforts, the intent is to remove as muchof the hazard as possible. This is best accomplished byvacuuming the vehicle with a high-efficiency particulateair (HEPA) filter-equipped vacuum cleaner. Since feworganizations have this vacuum, FM 3-5 describes a wetwipe-down procedure. The residue from that deconprocedure will contain DU, and it should be treated

like any other hazardous waste:bagged and tagged and handled inaccordance with the unit SOP. Numerous medical tests havebeen conducted and are beingconducted to assess the potentialhealth effects of DU on veteranswho were exposed during the GulfWar. To review this data, go to website (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/

library/randrep/du/cover.html) and access �A Reviewof the Scientific Literature as it Pertains to Gulf War Ill-ness: Volume 7, Depleted Uranium (RAND Report).� An extensive effort has been completed recently toprovide updated, accurate data to all soldiers concerningthe potential hazards of DU and protective measuresthat should be taken by those exposed to DU dust andresidue. Data show that DU is only a hazard in veryspecific instances and should not prevent actions to savelives or to continue the mission. All soldiers will receiveTier I�DU General Awareness Training�either duringattendance at a resident school or as common tasktraining in their unit. This block of instruction isapproximately one hour long and includes a 15-minutevideo. The new Graphic Training Aid (GTA) 3-4-1A,Depleted Uranium Awareness, supports the generalawareness training and common task testing. These train-ing materials emphasize a few basic points:

� No additional protective measures are required forunfired DU munitions or intact armor.

� Never allow the presence of DU to interfere withefforts to save lives or treat the wounded.

� Never allow the presence of DU to interfere withthe conduct of combat operations.

� Do not handle DU or other battlefield debris unlessdirected to do so.

� Wear respiratory protection (mask), cover exposedskin, and wear gloves, if you must handle or workaround DU dust or residue.

January 2000 9

Maintenance personnel assigned to battle-damageassessment and repair teams receive an additional blockof instruction. Tier II�Battle-Damage Assessment andRepair, provides soldiers who routinely work inside thecrew compartment of armored vehicles with the knowl-edge they need to take appropriate protective measureswhen required. The Ordnance Center and School isdeveloping a �DU Kit� that contains a disposable HEPAfilter mask for nose and mouth, disposable gloves, wetwipes for decontaminating interior surfaces, and plasticbags to collect and dispose of these items after use. Chemical soldiers receive training beyond the generalawareness level. Tier III�NBC Advisor, provides themost detailed technical information of the three tiers. Everyeffort has been made to ensure chemical NCOs and of-ficers know how to properly advise their unitcommanders and staffs on the impact of DU on unitoperations.

Depleted uranium is the best ammunition to defeatenemy armor, the best armor to protect U.S. soldiers, anddoes not present a health hazard when appropriate pro-tective measures are taken. The information providedabove sheds some light on the subject of depleteduranium. The controversy surrounding the use of DUprobably will not disappear any time in the near futureand research will continue. Based on current informa-tion, DU does not pose a militarily significant threat tosoldiers who take basic measures to avoid unnecessarycontact and exposure.

At the time this article was written, Mike Sheheane was servingas the Chief, Chemical Warrior Division, Warrior Department,DOTD, MANSCEN. He is a career civil servant and a retiredU.S. Army Reserve officer. Sheheane is a graduate of theArmy Command and General Staff College, and the SeniorTraining Manager�s Course. He holds a master�s degree inboth Education and Criminal Justice.

U.S. ARMY MANSCEN CHEMICAL POINTS OF CONTACT

PROFESSIONAL BULLETIN DIVISION (ATZT-DT-DS-B)

Army Chemical Review Editor, Ms. Mattie E. Kirby, 3-5267Visual Information Specialist, Ms. Kathie Troxell, 3-5270

WARFIGHTER CHEMICAL DIVISION (ATZT-DT-WF-C)

Chief, Erasmo Perez, 3-6266Training Developer, Ms. Ebbie Phillips, 3-6318Senior Training Developer, CPT Ricky Franklin, 3-6282

WARMOD CHEMICAL DIVISION (ATZT-DT-WM-C)

Chief, Mr. Mark Anderson, 3-6262Training Specialist, Mr. Melvin G. Banner, 3-6317Training Specialist, Mr. H. Andy Bobbitt, 3-6310Training Specialist, Mr. Billy B. Cannon, 3-6265Training Specialist, Mr. Michael R. Robinson, 3-6316Senior Training Systems Manager, SFC Bruce A. Baldwin,3-6312Senior Training Systems Manager, SFC Victor Alas, 3-6315Instructor Writer, SFC Calvin Wilson, 3-6306Instructor Writer, SFC Malanie English, 3-6310Training Developer/Writer, SSG Kenneth Stafford, 3-6308

WARRIOR CHEMICAL DIVISION (ATZT-DT-WR-C)

Chief, Mr. Mike Sheheane, 3-7257Instructional Systems Specialist, Ms. Heather Gunter, 3-5083Administrative Assistant, Mr. Grant Johnson, 3-7237

Functional Courses BranchChief, Mr. Mike Williams, 3-7252Instructional Systems Specialist, Mr. Marvin McFarland,3-7210Instructional Systems Specialist, Ms. Kim Hill, 3-7209Training Developer/Writer, 54B, SSG Richard Vengels,3-7171

Professional Courses BranchChief, Mr. Van Newman, 3-7176Instructional Systems Specialist, Ms. Paula Battle, 3-7208Instructional Systems Specialist, Ms. Amy McCarty, 3-7230Training Developer/Writer, SFC Anita Johnson, 3-7228Training Developer/Writer, SGT Quincy Eskridge, 3-7174Training Developer/Writer, SSG Matthew Griffin, 3-7207Training Developer/Writer, SSG Angela Booth, 3-7227

STP BranchChief, CPT Luther Morgan, 3-7203Instructional Systems Specialist, Ms. Tina Branch, 3-7173Instructional Systems Specialist, Mr. Mike Donohue,3-7212Training Specialist, Mr. E.W. Phillips, 3-7202Training Specialist, Mr. Don Martin, 3-7201

Commercial Callers: Dial the main switchboard and when asked, dial the last five digits of the telephone number. The phone numberfor the switchboard is area code 573 -596-0131.DSN Callers: If the extension begins with �3�, the DSN prefix is 676. If the extension begins with �6�, the DSN prefix is 581.

10 CML

MilitarMilitarMilitarMilitarMilitary Masksy Masksy Masksy Masksy MasksAnimals inAnimals inAnimals inAnimals inAnimals inChemicalChemicalChemicalChemicalChemicalWWWWWarfarfarfarfarfararararareeeee

By Major Robert D. Walk

Until recently, armies used animalsto succeed on the battlefield. Horseswere used for transportation, dogsfor protection and detection, and birdsfor communications. At that time, thethreat to animals included pestilenceand weapons of war. Because animalswere essential, armies used armorand other means to protect them asmuch as possible.

With the introduction of chemical warfare inWorld War I, soldiers had to protect themselves andtheir animals in order to survive and fight. Horses,mules, dogs, and pigeons all required protection fromthe effects of chemical warfare. Each animal presented different challenges in protec-tion. Horses breathe through their noses, not through theirmouths, so the respirator must only cover their nostrils.Horses eyes are not affected by lacrimators (tear agents),so eye protection initially was not required. Dogs breathethrough both their nose and mouth so their protection mustcover both. Their eyes must be protected from the ef-fects of lacrimators as well. Pigeons are so small thatseparate respirators are only envisioned in cartoons.Pigeon protection requires encasing the entire bird. Goats were used extensively to test chemical-agenteffects. Therefore, a means to protect goats also wascreated. This article describes protection devices forhorses, mules, dogs, pigeons, and goats.

Horses and Mules

The horse gas mask of World War I consisted of alarge bag that fit over the horse�s nose and mouth. Thehorse bit into a canvas mouthpiece and the mask was

held to the horse�s face by an elastic band. A canvasframe attached to the mouthpiece held the mask awayfrom the nose so the horse couldn�t suck the mask into itsnose. The carrier, a waterproof case, was strapped to thebridle or halter. The United States issued two horse gas masks duringWorld War I. One was a British mask (and the Americancopy) and the other was the American horse gas mask.The principle difference between the two was thematerial used for the filter. The British mask, noted for itshigh breathing resistance, was made of two layers of flan-nelette impregnated with komplexene. The breathing re-sistance limited its use in horses used to movesupplies and equipment around the battlefield. Thecarrier was a 5- by 14-inch canvas duck bag. TheAmerican horse gas mask was made of multilayeredcheesecloth impregnated with komplexene (six layers ofcheesecloth) and simplexene (eight layers of cheesecloth)and had low breathing resistance. Because the horsesdisliked the flavor of this mixture, oilcloth was insertedbetween the mouthpiece and the cheesecloth. The

World War I horse mask.

11January 2000

American carrier was a 10- by 14-inchburlap bag. The American Expedition-ary Forces used the British horse gasmask until enough American maskswere supplied. The British mask wasstandard throughout the war. During the war, the Fifth AvenueUniform Company of New York Citymanufactured 377,881 horse gas masksof all types. Of this total, 351,270 wereshipped overseas before Armistice Day.(See illustrations.) The American horse gas mask (ofcheesecloth) was formally designatedthe MII horse gas mask in 1925. TheBritish flannelette-type mask wasdesignated the MI horse gas mask.These masks served the U.S. Armythrough the 1920s. The MII mask wasfurther modified and became the MIIIhorse gas mask. The MIII was essen-tially an MII with a metal mouthpieceinstead of a canvas one, a fitting role toensure a good fit, and an outlet valve.The MIIIAI deleted the outlet valve. Thismask served the U.S. military throughthe 1930s. Because the horse was vitalto the U.S. military in the 1920s and1930s, continuous tests led to mask im-provements. Until the late 1930s, thedesign was based on the original �bagover the nose� type. In the late 1930s,new ideas using separate filters weretried and improved. The M4 horse gas mask adopted in1941 represented a radical departurefrom previous masks. Chemical agentswere no longer destroyed by chemicalson the mask material but were absorbedby two large cylindrical MI canisterscarried on the horse�s shoulders. TheM1 canister prevented the rifle frombeing positioned on the horse�s left shoul-der, which meant that the M4 mask wasintended for working horses. Two hoses

(Left) American horse mask, flannelette type, open for display.(Right) American horse mask, flannelette type.

The M5 and M4 horse gas masks were identical in allbut one aspect�the position of the canisters. On theM5, both canisters hung from the right shoulder of thehorse. On the M4, one canister hung from each shoulder.The M5 mask was designed for the Cavalry. The soldieron the horse carried his rifle in the cavalry standard onthe horse�s left shoulder. In World War II, 39,159 M4 andM5 horse gas masks were produced.

M4 horse mask and goggles with plastic nonfogging lenses, air-cushion seal, leather straps.

carried air from the filters to a T-connection thatcombined the airflow and sent it to the mask. The M4mask was made of rubber and completely enclosed themouth and nose of the animal. It included a rubbermouthpiece for the horse to bite. A mask carrier hungfrom the pommel of the horse. Few of these masks weremanufactured until the need for horses in the Italiancampaign created the need to protect packhorses.

12 CML

The M4 and M5 horse gas masks survived the war asstandard issue. Experience from flying animals over the�hump� in the China-Burma-India Theater in World WarII showed that horses needed supplied air to preventundue physical and nervous strain. Both horses andmules needed the air to prevent damage to themselves,the cargo, and aircraft. In 1950, the Chemical CorpsTechnical Committee determined that a suitable mask/airline adapter was required. Horses supplied with airduring the flight could be used to move equipmentimmediately after landing. Tests showed that horses need4.6 liters of air per minute at 15,000 feet and 13.7 litersper minute at 30,000 feet to prevent physical stress. The M6, adopted in 1951, was the final horse gas mask.This modification of the M4 mask includeda brazed-on Air Force bayonet adapter to attach to

M5 horse mask, stored. Both canisters of the M5 are hung from the rightshoulder of the horse. On the M4 (photo on previous page), one canisterhung from each shoulder.

the aircraft�s oxygen system. Thisallowed horses to be transported inunpressurized aircraft (usuallypropeller driven) at high altitudes with-out injuring or killing themfrom lack of oxygen as well as toprotect them against chemicalagents. The mask was adopted asthe �Mask, Oxygen and Protective,Horse, M6.� Within the next decade,horses and their associated equip-ment were deleted from the nowmechanized and motorized Army.

Dogs

The dog gas mask of World War Icovered the dog�s entire head andconsisted of eight layers of chem-ically treated cheesecloth. It hadtwo cellulose eye lenses to allow thedog to see, ear pockets for the ears,space for the jaws to work, and awide neckband with straps to tie aroundthe neck. During the war, the Bureauof Mines and the Chemical WarfareService conducted testsand experiments on the mask. Use byU.S. armed forces was limited. Littleor no experimental work was donebetween the wars. During World War II, militaryworking dogs were used in thetheaters of war. Several experimentaldog protective masks were examined.The E12R8 and the E43R3 provedthe most successful. The facepiece

of the two masks were similar except for the filterattachment. The E12R8 used a filter mounted on thefront of the mask. The E43R3 used two Navy-civilianmask canisters mounted on the sides. Ultimately, the E43R3 was standardized as theM6 dog gas mask. This mask used a reclaimed, coatedcanvas duck muzzlepiece equipped with one large, glued-in, slightly bulged cellulose acetate eye lens. The M6fitted over the face and muzzle of the dog. The outletvalve was located directly under the muzzle. It usedtwo M12 (E40R1) filters�one filter positioned oneither side of the mask under the eye lens. A three-strapharness held the mask on the dog�s head. The M8 (E10R1)carrier stored the M6 when not in use. Thus, themask was known as the Mask, Gas, Dog, M6-12-8.During the war 1,409 were produced.

January 2000 13

Military working dogs were still used during theVietnam War. The dogs needed respiratory protection,but the M6 mask was no longer useful. Dogs procured bythe armed forces could not wear the M6 mask. Even ifthe M6 masks were the correct size and proper fit, only32 were available and they were in poor condition. Newmasks were needed. This meant either procure the M6again (which was not acceptable, because of its smallsize) or design, develop, test, adopt, and procure a newmask. One requirement for a new dog detection systemincluded respiratory protection, which eliminated the stand-alone dog protective mask program. The M6 dog gasmask was declared obsolete in 1969.

Pigeons

Pigeons used during World War I were protected withthe same flannelette material used in the horse gas mask.Gas-proof covers (measuring 15 by 15 by 24 inches) ofthis material were used to cover the pigeon cages in theevent of a gas attack. If no covers were available, thepigeons were released to fly above the gas cloud toescape the effects of the gas. World War I doctrine statedthat pigeons could be used during a gas attack becausethey could quickly escape the gas. Pigeons also were used for communications duringWorld War II. During the war, 36,000 pigeons were

Early version of the dog mask, E12R4. The M6 dog mask.

deployed overseas. If chemical warfare were initiated,these pigeons had to be protected. Three protectorswere used. The M1 pigeon protective bag was largeenough to contain a small pigeon cage, and it had ahose leading to an accordion-styled air pump with afilter canister attached. The M2, measuring 65 by 22 by14 inches, had a large acetate window on the side andheld a large pigeon cage. The M3 held a smaller cageand had a window on either end. The M2 and M3 bagsused a bellows attached to an M1 training filter to supplyair to the pigeon. Of these masks, only the M2 survivedthe immediate aftermath of the war as standard issue. Pigeon cages were made a standard size in the post-war years. These new cages made the M2 pigeonprotective bag impossible to use, and it was declared ob-solete in 1948. The E7 Pigeon Protective Bag wasdesigned using the standard pigeon containers PG-103/CB, PG-105/CB, and PG-107/CB as models. During thenext five years, various revisions of the basic designresulted in a lightweight, durable 12 ¼- by 14 ½- by9-inch bag with carrying straps and a tube leading to abellows unit with an attached M11 filter canister. The han-dler pumped the bellows for five minutes every four hoursto force clean air into the protector. The largerpigeon crates PG-49 (12 birds) and PG-50 (20 birds)required a larger protective bag. This bag, the E8, openedto 33 by 19 by 9 inches to accommodate the larger

CML14

Where to find Masks

pigeon crates. Despite the unexplained nonconcurrenceof the Signal Corps representative, these bags wereadopted in 1951 as the M4 (former E7R2) and M5 (formerE8R2). Pigeons and their associated equipment weredeleted from the inventory within the next decade.

Goats

While not used extensively in war, the UnitedStates used goats to test chemical-agent effects. In1945, the United States developed the goat gas mask.Although never formally adopted, the mask wasdesignated the E46. It used the Army standard M10A1filter and was stored in the E12 carrier. At least 25 wereproduced to use in agent testing. The goat gas masklives in the minds of most chemical soldiers becauseseveral 1950�s vintage Army training films show goatsexposed to nerve agents. Tethered beside each other,one goat is protected and one is not. The cannons fire,the agent cloud rolls over the goats, and the goats areexposed to lethal concentrations of nerve agents. Theunprotected goat dies horribly from the nerve agent, butthe protected goat survives because of its E46 goatgas mask. The cessation of open-air testing ofchemical agents using goats ended the needfor this mask.

Many Army museums display horse masks�the Cavalry Museum at Fort Riley, Kansas; theQuartermaster Museum at Fort Lee, Virginia;and the Chemical Museum at Fort Leonard Wood,Missouri, for example.

Dog masks are rare but are displayed at theQuartermaster Museum, the Chemical Mu-seum, and the Medical Research Institute ofChemical Defense at the Edgewood Area of Ab-e r d e e nProving Ground, Maryland (not generally open tothe public).

A pigeon protector is at the Chemical Museum,Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

MAJ Robert D. Walk is currently assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve Command�s DCSOPS in the Weapons of MassDestruction Division. He is a graduate of Command and General Staff College and the U.S. Army Chemical School. He is a graduateof the University of New Hampshire with a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering, an M.B.A. degree from Long Island University, and anM.S. degree in Civil Environmental Engineering from the University of Oklahoma. MAJ Walk can be contactedthrough the Chemical Doctrine Net.

Conclusion

This article examined chemical-protective apparatusfor horses, dogs, pigeons, and goats. Any animals usedby the military in a chemical war must be protected toensure their continued survival. Based on need, the U.S.military has always protected its animal workers the sameas their human soldiers.

January 2000 15

I am searching for information on Company A of the 87th Chemical MortarBattalion, which I believe was assigned to the 8th Infantry, 4th Division during theinvasion of UTAH Beach. I hope to learn the following:

� Company A, 87th Chemical Mortar Battalion actions and whereabouts 3-27 June(Towns, ships, landings, or any related stories).

� Use and effect of 4.2 inch White Phosphorus mortar shell on the enemy. (Atraining manual describing the weapon and the shells in detail would be great.)

� Details regarding a white phosphorus explosion that wounded six men of Company A of the 87th on June 26, 1944 in or near Cherbourg.

If you were with the 87th or have information on the 87th, please contact:

Greg Page 7635 Torino Ct. Orlando, FL 32835 E-mail: kalpage@gdi.net

Searching

Admiral the Earlof Dundonald�

the conception of chemical warfarennnn

In 1855, the British and French were at war with theRussians. The war was fought entirely on the CrimeanPeninsula. The Crimean War is therefore noted for itsland battles. The Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava, theBattle of Inkerman, and the siege of Sebastopol were itsprincipal engagements. Unlike the Battle of Inkerman,the Russians defended the Sebastopol with such tenacityand skill that Admiral Dundonald began thinking of meth-ods to defeat them with fewer British casualties. The preparations for supporting the British Army inthe Crimea were nothing short of a crime. The woundedreceived little or no support. The horses and other ani-mals brought to the Crimea were forced to endure winterstorms with little feed or care. Most of the horses of theLight Brigade that survived the famous Charge did notsurvive the winter that followed. London did not learn ofthese conditions until the war was over. Although theBritish Army fought all around the globe, the governmentdid not have a way to replenish the army withsupplies needed to exist and fight.

The first use of chemicals on 22 April 1915 was notan accident, but a planned operation. The idea of usingchemicals for warfare first occurred to Admiral the Earlof Dundonald in 1811. He refined the idea in 1855. As a midshipman during the Napoleonic era,Dundonald spent extensive time on the Island of Sicilywhere sulfur mines were located. While there, he noticedthe serious side effects sulfur fumes had on the people,animals, and vegetation. Also, that the area within morethan two miles of the sulfur kilns was literally devoid ofany type of life. He reasoned that if sulfur gas could beblown upon the enemy, they would vacate the area asthose who lived near the mines did when the mines wereoperating. Thus, he wrote the following proposal to thegovernment.

By Burton Wright III, Ph.D. Command Historian, USACMLS

BRIEF PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS It was observed when viewing the Sulfur Kilns,in July, 1811, that the fumes which escaped in therude process of extracting the material, though firstelevated by heat, soon fell to the ground, destroy-ing all vegetation, and endangering animal life to agreat distance, and it was asserted that an ordi-nance existed prohibiting persons from sleepingwithin the distance of three miles during the meltingseason. An application of these facts immediately madeto Military and Naval purposes, and after matureconsideration, a Memorial was presented on the sub-ject to His Royal Highness the Prince Regent onthe 12th of April, 1812, who was graciously pleasedto lay it before a Commission, consisting of LordKeith, Lord Exmouth and General and ColonelCongreve (afterwards Sir William), by whom a favor-able report having been given, His Royal Highnesswas pleased to order that secrecy should be main-tained by all parties.

(signed) DUNDONALD 7th August, 1855

Admiral Dundonald, having seen the carnage on shoreand the heavy loss of life due to the Russian resistanceand the lack of proper food and support, wanted to bringa quick end to the fighting. He knew that the redoubtsthe Russians had built were too strong to be stormed byinfantry without suffering very heavy casualties. In fact, much of the British and French forces in theCrimean theater were involved in the siege of the for-tress city of Sebastopol, and suffered heavy casualties inthe process. A further memorandum written by AdmiralDundonald at the time is more specific about what neededto be done to bring the war to a conclusion with minimalcasualties. The memorandum by Lord Palmerston showsthe thinking of the upper levels of the British governmentabout new ways of war.

CML16

Crimean Peninsula

The Black Sea

SebastopolBalaklava

Admiral Dundonald�s plan might have worked, but itwas never implemented. The plan was published improp-erly in 1908 and when the Germans read it, they realizedthat Dundonald had proposed a gas cloud attack. Admiral Dundonald�s great grandson, the 12th Earl,was instrumental in developing the Special Brigade, chemi-cal troops trained by BG Foulkes to use chemicals in anoffensive manner. However, the British failed to exploitthe use of chemicals in offensive battle. TheGermans seized the opportunity and were the first to usethis new form of warfare recommended by AdmiralDundonald more than six decades before.

LORD PALMERSTON TO LORD PANMUREHOUSE OF COMMONS, 7th August, 1855

MEMORANDUM

Materials required for the expulsion of theRussians from Sebastopol: Experimental trials haveshown that about five parts of coke effectuallyvaporized one part of sulfur. Mixtures for landservice, where weight is of important, may, how-ever, probably be suggested by Professor Faraday,as to operations on shore I have paid little attention.Four or five hundred tons of sulfur and twothousands tons of coke would be sufficient. Besides these materials, it would be necessaryto have, say, as much bituminous coal, and a coupleof thousands barrels of gas or other tar, for thepurpose of masking fortifications to be attacked,or others that flank the assailing positions. A quantity of dry firewood, chips, shavings, straw,hay or other such combustible materials, would alsobe requisite quickly to kindle the fires, which oughtto be kept in readiness for the first favorable andsteady breeze.

I agree with you that if Dundonald will go outhimself to superintend and direct the execution ofhis scheme, we ought to accept his offer and try hisplan. If it succeeds, it will, as you say, save a greatnumber of English and French lives; if it fails in hishands, we shall be exempt from blame, and if wecome in for a small share of the ridicule, we canbear it, and the greater part will fall on him. You hadbest, therefore, make arrangement with him with-out delay, and with as much secrecy as the natureof things will admit of.

LORD DUNDONALD�S PLAN

Suppose that the Malakoff and Redan are theobjects to be assailed it might be judicious merelyto obscure the Redan (by smoke of coal and tarkindled in �the Quarries�), so that it could notannoy the Mamelon, where the sulfur fire would beplaced to expel the garrison from the Malakoff, whichought to have all the cannon that can be turned to-wards its ramparts employed in overflowing its un-defended ramparts. There is no doubt but that the fumes willenvelop all the defenses from the Malakoff to theBarracks, and even to the line of battleship, theTwelve Apostles, at anchor in the harbor. The two outer batteries, on each side of the Port,ought to be smoked, sulfured, and blown down byexplosion vessels and their destruction completedby a few ships of war anchored under cover of thesmoke.

January 2000 17

Military SupportMilitary SupportMilitary SupportMilitary SupportMilitary Supportto Civil Authorities�to Civil Authorities�to Civil Authorities�to Civil Authorities�to Civil Authorities�the role of the Chemical Corpsthe role of the Chemical Corpsthe role of the Chemical Corpsthe role of the Chemical Corpsthe role of the Chemical Corps

With America�s recent dominance in conven-tional warfare, there is an increased risk ofunconventional attacks against the United

States by those who are opposed to U.S. policies andactions. The U.S. military has always had a clear interestin protecting its power-projection assets located atbases and installations within the borders of the UnitedStates. However, this has become even more critical inlight of continued reductions in the number of forward-deployed units. Additionally, our increased reliance oncomputer-based technologies has increased the UnitedStates�vulnerability to covert attack. Also, internationaland domestic terrorism continues to be potential threatsto both U.S. military assets and the civilian populace. Thishas prompted both Congress and the Executive Branchto place greater emphasis on military support to civilianauthorities.

Specific areas commonly considered appropriate formilitary support include incidents involving informationwarfare (cyber-warfare), narco-terrorism, eco-terrorism,and weapons of mass destruction (WMD), as well asassistance during natural disasters. However, theDepartment of Defense (DoD) is a supporting agency inthe federal interagency response to domestic emergen-cies, including those caused by terrorist�s use or potentialuse of WMD. For example, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigations (FBI) is the statutory agent responsiblefor countering domestic terrorism. They are the federallead agency for crisis management activities�thosemeasures required to anticipate, prevent, and/or resolvea hostile situation. Similarly, the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) is the federal lead agencyfor consequence management activities�those servicesand activities designed to mitigate damage, loss, hardship,or suffering resulting from man-made or natural catas-trophe. In responding to incidents involving terrorists�use of WMD, the Department of Defense will supportthe lead federal agencies (FBI or FEMA).

By Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Hook

Among the challenges faced by agencies responsiblefor responding to these incidents is to develop an adequatedefinition of WMD. U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 40,Section 2302, Defense Against Weapons of MassDestruction, defines it as follows:

The term �weapon of mass destruction� meansany weapon or device that is intended, or hasthe capability, to cause death or serious bodilyinjury to a significant number of peoplethrough the release, dissemination, or impactof (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or theirprecursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C)radiation or radioactivity.

Yet another definition defines WMD as a deliberateor unintentional event involving a nuclear, chemical,radiological weapon or device, or large conventionalexplosive, that produces catastrophic loss of life orproperty. A large explosive event is also considereda WMD because initially the cause of the explosionhas not been determined and the resulting damagedsite may contain a radiological, biological, or chemicalagent.

The U.S. military provides domestic support throughMilitary Assistance to Civil Authorities (MACA).Support to civilian agencies can take several forms. Atthe state level, a governor can employ National Guard(either Army National Guard or Air National Guard)forces in state active-duty status in response to naturaldisasters, civil disturbances, and other extreme circum-stances. If an incident results in requirements thatexceed the state�s ability to respond, the governor mayrequest assistance from the President of the United States,who can then order the employment of federal forcessuch as the Army and Army Reserve. DoD assets aredeployed domestically through the Department ofJustice, FBI, or FEMA only when DoD assistance isexplicitly requested and approved by the President.

CML18

Within the Joint Forces Command (formerly USACOM),the Joint Task Force�Civil Support (JTF-CS) hasresponsibility for planning and executing militaryassistance to civilian authorities in response toWMD incidents.

Where does the Chemical Corps fit into this picture?Some domestic emergencies, such as cyber-warfare, willrequire little or no support from chemical personnel orunits. Other types of incidents, most notably WMD-related incidents, may require extensive support fromchemical personnel and units. One type of unit that maybe called upon for support is the National Guard MilitarySupport Detachments, also known as Rapid Assessmentand Initial Detection (RAID) teams. There are currently10 RAID detachments, one in each FEMA region,manned by active-duty National Guard personnel, and44 RAID (L) detachments made up of traditionalNational Guard soldiers.

These teams are designed to assess a suspectednuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological event insupport of the local incident commander; advise civilianresponders on sample and modeling results; and facilitaterequests for assistance to expedite the arrival of addi-tional state and federal assets. Although these detach-ments include chemical officers and 54B enlistedpersonnel, much of the equipment they are trained to useconsists of nonstandard commercial off-the-shelfdetectors and personnel protective equipment. The RAIDdetachments have a limited decontamination capability,so it is likely that additional support from Army, ArmyReserve, and Army National Guard chemical units willbe required in the event of a major WMD incident.

Other available response elements include ArmyReserve BIDS companies, the Army�s Technical EscortUnit (TEU) and EOD detachments, the U.S. MarineCorps� Chemical and Biological Incident ResponseForce (CBIRF), as well as response personnel from U.S.Army Medical Command (MEDCOM), the U.S. ArmyMedical Research Institute of Infectious Disease(USAMRIID), U.S. Army Medical Research Institute ofChemical Defense (USAMRICD), the Center for HealthPromotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM), and spe-cial medical response teams from the

six Regional Medical Commands (RMC). If a WMDincident occurs in the Washington, D.C., NationalCapitol Region, a newly-formed National CapitolResponse Force is designed to provide support tothe civilian authorities.

A joint DoD response capability has been createdby the formation of the Chemical Biological�RapidResponse Team (CB-RRT), organized under thecommand and control of the U.S. Army Soldier andBiological Chemical Command (SBCCOM). TheCB-RRT, composed of members of all services aswell as DoD employees, has the responsibility tocoordinate and manage the DoD technical responseto a CB terrorist incident. The team provides thecapability to aid in detection, neutralization, contain-ment, and disposal of WMD devices.

The entire spectrum of military assistance to civilianauthorities will require support from logistics, engineer,NBC defense, military police, signal, airlift, maritimepatrol, intelligence analysis, and other military units. TheU.S. Army�s Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN)was recently activated at Fort Leonard Wood in order tocoordinate training for engineer, chemical, and militarypolice personnel and units. This coordination, togetherwith the development of integrated MACA doctrine, willbe critical to ensuring that the military can provide timely,credible support to civilian authorities in the event of adomestic emergency. With the increased risk of a WMDattack on American soil, the Chemical Corps will be animportant part of that support.

At the time this article was written, LTC Thomas Hook was theDeputy Assistant Commandant (ARNG) of the U.S. ArmyChemical School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He has servedin numerous positions within the Chemical Corpsincluding Platoon Leader and Operations Officer of the 69thChemical Company, 1st Armored Division, Nurnberg,Germany; Chemical Officer, 1st AD Artillery, Company Com-mander of the 46th Chemical (SG) Company, 2ndChemical Battalion, Fort Hood,Texas; Chief of Operations andTraining, III Corps Chemical; NBC Threat Analyst, III CorpsG-2; and Chemical Officer, 111th ASG (TXARNG), Austin,Texas. LTC Hook has also served as S3 and Executive Officer ofthe 249th MSB, 49th AD (TXARNG). He is a graduate of theUnited States Military Academy.

January 2000 19

Fort McClellan�s unique Chemical Defense TrainingFacility (CDTF) set a major milestone in June 1999when the 50 thousandth individual completed toxicchemical-agent training. The CDTF trains militarypersonnel, civilians, and foreign NBC specialists in atoxic chemical-agent (VX and GB) environment toovercome their fear of operating in a chemicallycontaminated environment.

Opened in 1987, the CDTF has served as theculmination point in training service members fromall branches of the nation�s armed forces, from privatesto generals. As the only known indoor toxic chemical-agent training center in the world, the CDTF also playsa vital role in training first responders from federal,state, and civil authorities, including law enforcement

By Lieutenant Colonel William Linand Captain William J. Epolito

Fort McClellan CDTFEnds Chemical-AgentTraining�at the50,000 Milestone

�If there is fear in the minds of individuals in the area, the unit�s operationalcapability is degraded.�

MG Ralph G. Wooten, former Commandant, U.S. Army Chemical School

officials. In addition, the CDTF has trained foreignNBC specialists from more than 29 countries. As aresult of this training, individuals gain confidence inthemselves, their equipment, and their procedures.For most individuals training at the CDTF, completion oftoxic chemical-agent training is a graduationrequirement. Just as airborne students must jump froman actual aircraft, NBC specialists must face theiractual threat.

Training at the CDTF is invaluable, as demon-strated during Operation Desert Storm. More than17,000 personnel who participated in the operationwent through training at the CDTF. Many say that theUnited States� preparation for and ability to fight in achemically contaminated environment kept Iraq from

(Above) MG Ralph G. Wooten congratulates 2LT Troy L. Sullens,the 50,000th student to train at the Fort McClellan CDTF.(Top) Aerial view of the CDTF buildings at Fort McClellan.

CML20

using chemical weapons against allied forces. The CDTFprovides realistic and challenging training that enhancesindividual proficiency and confidence not only in them-selves but also in their equipment. Because militarymembers at every level, in all kinds of units, may one daybe subject to a chemical attack, they must know how tosurvive those conditions to be able to fight and win.

Truly a world-class facility, the CDTF uses state-of-the-art technology to provide tough, realistic trainingwhile complying with local, state, and federal regulatoryagencies. The multimillion-dollar CDTF opened on2 March 1987. It features seven negative pressuretraining bays; a toxic-agent preparation laboratory; atechnical support section to clean, service, and certifyprotective equipment; a wastewater treatment facility; andan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approvedsolid/liquid waste incinerator. Each of the seven bays issupported by special engineering controls and environ-mental monitoring equipment to ensure toxic chemicalagents remain at predetermined concentration levelsand that no atmospheric-agent release occurs. Anotherfeature is its on-site nerve-agent production andstorage capability, which was recently disassembledand transported to the new CDTF at Fort LeonardWood, Missouri. The local-scale production (less than10 kilograms per year) of nerve agent (VX and GB)is used for toxic chemical-agent training and eliminatesthe need to transport toxic chemical agents acrossthe country.

Unlike other U.S. Army chemical activities, whererelease of any toxic chemical agent is unacceptable(such as chemical munition depots), the CDTF isdesigned to release predetermined quantities ofpersistent (VX) and nonpersistent (GB Sarin) nerveagents inside the training building. No chemical agentis released into the atmosphere. Once the nerve agentsare dispersed and a chemically contaminated environ-ment is established, students equipped with fullprotective gear detect, identify, and decontaminatethe chemical agents. Only CDTF cadre produce orhandle the toxic chemical agents on site.

In 12 years of operation, with more than500,000 man-hours and 50,000 students trained, no onehas been exposed to chemical agents at the CDTF, norhas the CDTF ever missed a day of training becauseof a chemical-agent release. Also, the CDTF hasnever suffered an environmental release, as recognizedwith the Department of the Army Pollution Preven-tion Award in 1994. This remarkable achievement offlawless operation is a tribute to the dedication of themilitary, DA civilian, and contractor personnel whooperate the site.

The CDTF is subject to verification inspections bythe Organization for the Prohibition of ChemicalWeapons (OPCW) in accordance with the ChemicalWeapons Convention (CWC) Treaty. The CDTF hassuccessfully completed two inspections (in October 1997and November 1998) with no findings, which furtherdemonstrates its ability to operate safely and effectively.

With the closure of Fort McClellan, the CDTF movedto its new facility at Fort Leonard Wood. The FortMcClellan CDTF transferred to the Department ofJustice on 20 August 1999. The Department of Justicewill rename the facility �COBRA-TF� (Chemical, Ord-nance, Biological, and Radiological Training Facility),and use it to train personnel attending the Center forDomestic Preparedness classes. The facility will trainfirst responders throughout the country and eventuallythroughout the world.

Even with ongoing efforts to deter and prohibitthe use of chemical and biological weapons, intelligenceexperts indicate that the prospect of facing an NBC threatin the future is likely. Trained and ready units that arechallenged with realistic NBC training are importantto our country�s ability to protect our freedom andway of life. The CDTF meets the need for realistic toxicchemical-agent training in detection, identification, anddecontamination, and it will keep America�s armedforces trained and ready for the 21st century.�We�ve Got the Nerve�

At the time this article was written, LTC William Lin was theDirector, Chemical Defense Training Facility, and CPT WilliamJ. Epolito was the Operations Officer, Chemical Defense Train-ing Facility at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

January 2000 21

With 2LT Troy L. Sullens is MG (R) Gerald G. Watson,the first student to go through the Fort McClellan CDTF.MG (R) Watson was the Fort McClellan Post Commanderand Chief of Chemical at the time he attended CDTF.

A quick look insidethe new CDTF.

What�shappeninghere?

During the last week of July 1999, TRADOC video teams followed a group of traineesthrough the new CDTF as they simulated the training that is now in full swing. The videothey made, �Welcome to the Chemical Defense Training Facility� (TVT 3-118, PIN 711265),is available through your installation Training Support Center.

By Kathryn Troxell, CML Visual Information SpecialistPhotos by Jim Ray, TSC photographer

The CDTF compound consists of a guard house, an administrationbuilding, and the training building. This view of the training buildingis from the outside training pads within the compound.

SFC Lamar Garrett instructs students on theproper way to roll the hood of the mask.

�Buddies� check thatcollars and cuffs aretightly buckledinto place,ensuringprotection.

are

On 26 August 1999, TRADOC authorized the start of toxicchemical operations at the new CDTF at Fort Leonard Wood,Missouri. The CDTF, a key component of the U.S. Army Chemi-cal School, conducts realistic and doctrinally accurate chemicaldefense training (detection, identification, and decontamination)for attending U.S. and allied military personnel as well as U.S.government agencies upon request. The CDTF is the only toxicchemical-agent training facility in the Department of Defense.

Student training is a two-day process beginning with class-room orientation and safety and first-aid lectures. Followingthe lectures, the cadre break the class into even groups of upto ten students, then assigns each student a �buddy.� Studentsundergo medical screening and respiratory reaction andprotective assessment testing system evaluations. Upon

CML22

Testing with stannic chloride smoke is the final checkfor proper fit of the mask.

�Agent� is applied to a vehicle inside a training bay.Students must identify the agent prior to decontamina-ting the vehicle.

Students use M8 paper to check for the type of chemicalagent the vehicle was exposed to. The paper is treatedwith reagents that respond to the presence of particularchemical agents. Light stripes on the soldiers� sleevesare M9 tape, which indicates if the individual has beencontaminated.

completion of the medical screening and respiratoryevaluation, students receive personal protectiveequipment (PPE). Additionally, students receivegovernment issued undergarments. Students maynot wear any personal clothing or jewelry insidethe toxic-agent training bays.

After issue of PPE, students move to outdoor train-ing pads and conduct a series of scenario-driventraining events under simulated-agent conditions.The students rehearse all NBC defense skills theywill use inside the toxic-agent training bays. Skillsinclude use of various chemical agent detection,identification, and decontamination equipment.Additionally, students rehearse removal of PPE ina simulated doff area. Completion of the outdoor simu-lation training concludes the first day oftraining at the CDTF.

On the second day of training, students redress intheir PPE. After inspections by cadre personnel, thestudents move through a mask-check chamber be-fore entering the toxic-agent training area. Inthe mask-check chamber, students undergo a seriesof exercises under the acrylic hoods filled witheither stannic chloride or isoamyl acetate. If thestudent does not detect any odor, the maskis properly fitted.

The students then proceed into one of the eightenvironmentally controlled training bays. After agenthandlers place nerve agents GB (or Sarin) and VXon various training devices, students must detect,

January 2000 23

(Left) Students, working in pairs,learn to decon a vehicle on anoutdoor training pad. The M13DAP holds 14 liters of decontami-nating agent number 2 (DS2). Dur-ing decon, students wear toxico-logical agents protective (TAP)overalls over their MOPP4 en-semble.

(Below) SFC Garrett instructsstudents in the use of theChemical Agent Monitor (CAM)prior to the indoor portion oftheir training.

(Below) Immediate first aid is essentialin a contaminated environment. A stu-dent administers a nerve-agent antidote kit(NAAK) to a simulated casualty (a man-nequin).

At the end of the training day, buddies assist eachother in step-by-step doffing of exterior contaminatedgarments. Gear and garments are placed in storagereceptacles for complete decontamination. Battle dressovergarments are used and decontaminated four timesbefore being destroyed. Students use shower facilities inthe men�s and women�s locker rooms before redressingin personal uniforms.

An out-briefing and discussion of lessons learned com-pletes the two-day training tour.

Special thanks to MSG William Gunter and SFCLamar Garrett of the CDTF, the TSC photo lab, andthe students and instructors who participated in thistraining simulation.

identify, and completely decontaminate the agent usingequipment available to them in the field.

CML24

(Above) Students train in a toxicchemical-agent environment in eightspecially designed indoor training bays.Students wear PPE.

(Left) After a day of training,personal decon begins. Buddieshelp each other decon masksand doff their gear beforeshowering. All PPE that wasused in the training is decontami-nated, then certified forfuture training. PPE that cannotbe certified is destroyed throughincineration.

(Below) Training scenarios involve several differentsituations and vehicles for students to test anddecontaminate. A student prepares to check a heli-copter and its pilot for contamination.

January 2000 25

On 21 September 1999, four and one half years after theBase Realignment and Closure commission�s decision torelocate the U.S. Army Chemical School to Fort LeonardWood, the new Chemical Defense Training Facility (CDTF)staff trained its first student, Army Specialist Patrick Carder.Specialist Carder is a 54B assigned to HHC, 84th ChemicalBattalion. He was part of a group of Chemical School and FortLeonard Wood senior leaders led by the Chemical SchoolCommandant, Colonel Patricia Nilo, to verify the safeconditions and procedures of the facility. The group, which consisted of senior officers, civilians, andNCOs from the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps,conducted a one-day basic skills scenario that included detec-tion, identification, and decontamination of toxic chemical nerveagents, GB and VX. According to one senior leader whoparticipated in the toxic-agent training, Colonel Richard Hobbs,Commander of the Marine Corps Training Detachment, FortLeonard Wood, �I just wanted to make sure our marinesreceive safe and realistic training.� With the establishment of the U.S. Army Chemical School atFort Leonard Wood, the new CDTF continues the mission oftraining U.S. and allied military personnel as well as select DoDcivilians in a toxic chemical-agent environment. This trainingenables these NBC defense specialists to overcome the fear ofoperating in a chemically contaminated environment and givesthem confidence in themselves, their equipment, and theirprocedures. The training was a success, according to the leaders whoattended. Additionally, several Missouri news media and printjournalists captured the training and reported favorably on theoperations and facility safety systems. As for Army ChemicalSpecialist Carder, the first student and �veteran� of Fort McClellantoxic-agent training, �The training was just like another day atthe office.� The new CDTF is larger and includes several advances intechnology. Also, the new design incorporates improvementsbased on lessons learned from 12 years of operation at FortMcClellan. The new facility is similar to the previous CDTFexcept for elimination of the incinerator. A certified wastecontractor will remove all solid and liquid wastes for dis-posal off-site. The facility completed its initial OPCW inspec-tion in accordance with the CWC Treaty and conducted itsfirst toxic chemical-agent training class on 4 October 1999.

Colonel Patricia Nilo, Commandant, USACMLS, presentsa CDTF Training Certificate to Specialist Patrick Carder.

The new CDTF at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

No turning back�Senior leaders prepare to enter thetoxic chemical environment in MOPP4.

At the time this article was written, MAJ George D. Heib wasserving as the first Director of the new CDTF at Fort LeonardWood, Missouri. After successfully completion of the transferof the Fort McClellan CDTF to DoJ, CPT William J. Epolitotransferred to Fort Leonard Wood to continue serving as theOperations Officer, CDTF.

By Major George D. Heib andCaptain William J. Epolito

Training BeginsFirst Student Undergoes Trainingat New Fort Leonard Wood CDTF

CML26

The Targeting/Synchronization Process�you, the chemical officer

FM 6-20-10, Tactics, Techniques, and Proceduresfor the Targeting Process, covers actions required inthe targeting process. At the Joint Readiness Training Cen-ter (JRTC), we noticed that units conducting thetargeting process as a stand-alone process did not havemaneuver and battlefield operating systems (BOSs)representation in the targeting meeting. Thus, targetsoften did not support the scheme of maneuver. We alsonoticed that some coordination took place at the targetingmeetings without input from key players. Thisobservation led to the development of the targeting andsynchronization meeting.

The targeting and synchronization process focuses onmassing the combined combat power of the brigade andbattalions at a decisive point and time. Whenwell executed, this process allows brigade andbattalions to direct lethal and nonlethal firesand ensures that all the BOSs are integratedand synchronized.

During the normal military decision-making process, the battle staff develops anoperations order based on a snapshot in timethat reflects the S2�s analysis of the enemy�smost probable course of action. As the orderand the initiation of combat operations con-tinue to develop, the battlefield frameworkstarts to mature and develop. When updatedinformation on enemy locations, compositions,and the friendly situation is received,a mechanism must be in place to incorporatechanges. This can be accomplished duringthe targeting and synchronization meetings,

By Lieutenant Colonel Chuck McArthur

A chemical officer must stress to his chain of command the importance ofbeing an active participant. He must be able to articulate what the chemical officer bringsto the process from his unique perspective.

which must become a regular part of the brigade�s andbattalion�s normal battle rhythm.

The methodology utilized throughout thetargeting and synchronization process is simple: decide,detect, deliver, and access (D3A).

The targeting and synchronization meeting allowsthe battle staff to focus on 24-, 48-, and 72-hour timeperiods and provides direction and resynchronization ofbrigade and battalion operations. By understanding thetime periods the staff will address in the meeting, thechemical officer can allocate time to plan, coordinate, in-tegrate, and synchronize the actions of chemical assetswith those of other units and actions on the battlefield.

A brigade rehearsal prior to a combined-arms attack helps participatingunits coordinate and synchronize their missions.

Chemical assets often execute missions that arenot in synch with the remainder of the brigade and/orbattalions. This happens mainly because the chemicalofficer does not participate in the targeting and synchro-nization meeting or, even worse, does not understandthe process. Normally, the targeting and synchronizationprocess meeting is chaired by the brigade/battalionexecutive officer. He and the fuel support officer (FSO)facilitate the meeting. The executive officer must ensureall BOS elements are integrated during the meeting.

A chemical officer must stress to his chain ofcommand the importance of being an active partici-pant. He must be able to articulate what the chemicalofficer brings to the process from his unique perspective.I recommend that attendees for this meeting include:

Commander or Executive OfficerS3S2Fire Support OfficerAir Liaison OfficerSupporting Arms Liaison Team OfficerChemical OfficerEngineer OfficerCivil Affairs OfficerAir Defense Artillery OfficerThe battalion executive officer may addothers.

Executive OfficerS3S2Fire Support CoordinatorFire Support OfficerTargeting OfficerPsychological Operations RepAir Liaison OfficerAir Defense Artillery Officer (ADAO)Military Police RepresentativeAssistant S3

Air and Naval Gunfire Liaison Company (if available)Brigade EngineerS5S3 AirAviation Liaison OfficerManagement Information Control Officer CommanderDirect Support Field Artillery OfficerChemical OfficerStaff Judge AdvocateBattlefield Information Coordination Center Rep

The brigade executive officer may add others.

Battalion

Because of the nature of the fightportrayed at the Joint Readiness TrainingCenter, initially there may be no NBCthreat. In this case, chemical assets mayconduct other operations, such as con-

voy escort, security operations, or other missions assignedto support the ground tactical plan. Once the situationchanges, it is difficult for the chemical officer tochange the mission profiles for NBC assets.

Since the entire brigade/battalion battle staffs attendthe targeting and synchronization process meetings, thisis the ideal place to integrate changes. A key product de-veloped at these meetings is a brigade/battalionfragmentary order. This order is important because itallows the chemical officer to redirect the utilization ofchemical assets that are committed elsewhere.

No NBC doctrine currently describes how to integratedata into the targeting and synchronization process. Chemi-cal officers must understand that if they are not an activeparticipant in the process, they are operating outside thebrigade/battalion staff�s decision-making cycle. Further-more, they will be unable to maintain a constantlyupdated state of situational awareness regarding theenemy and future friendly operations. Chemical officersmust be actively involved in the process in order to fighta proactive chemical fight, not a reactive one.

The chemical officer must prepare before attendinga targeting and synchronization meeting. Bring all thematerials needed to participate and support your posi-tion. Understand that much coordination goes on in atargeting and synchronization meeting, but don�t waituntil the meeting to begin your initial coordination.

Prior to the meeting, meet with the S3 or FSO to verifythe time periods that will be addressed in the meeting.Additionally, coordinate with the S2 before the meeting.

Preparation for an attack at Shuggart-Gordon MOUT site at Fort Polk JRTC.

Brigade

This will help you understand the enemy�s capabilities andintentions. You and the S2 must present the same analy-sis of the enemy to the staff and commander.If there is a conflict, the commander many times isforced to take the word of the S2 since the battle isbuilt around the S2�s analysis of the way the enemywill fight. Remember that intelligence drives maneu-ver. Additional information that will aid your preparation:� Changes to the commander�s intent.� Upcoming changes to task organization.� FRAGOs from higher headquarters.� Current CBT PWR.� Status of subordinate elements.� Planned operations.� Maneuver assets available.

As a minimum, the chemical officer must bring thefollowing information to the meeting:� Current brigade MOPP status (all elements in brigade

including such attachments as Marine and Air Forceunits).

� Latest NBC intelligence from division.� Current NBC template reflecting the chemical named

areas of interest (chemical R&S plan) that you havecoordinated with the S2 and your 24- to 72-hour

outlook (be able to address possible enemy actions).� Current NBC assets task organization.� Current locations of NBC assets.� Current consolidated list of decontamination sites (selected and proposed).� Locations of CDE and status of resupply.� Changes to commander�s NBC intent.� Estimate of potential enemy delivery assets (gathered

from sources such as the S2, FSO, and ADAO).� Smoke matrix and the status of all smoke in the units.

In the past, the United States has repeatedly become complacent after a conflict. Wemust never become so content that we don�t attempt to improve ourselves and our units.

This article is not intended to be the schoolhouse orJRTC�s answer to solve the chemical officer�s woes inthe targeting and synchronization process. No writtenmanual or article can take the place of genuine concernfor your BOS in this profession of arms. No test can begiven to evaluate proficiency. The true test will come intimes of crisis or conflict.

A final note. In the past, the United States hasrepeatedly become complacent after a conflict. Wemust never become so content that we don�t attempt toimprove ourselves and our units. Understandingthe targeting and synchronization process will truly aidyou in your efforts as a staff officer to attain integrationand synchronization of your assets during operations,thus increasing your unit�s chances of success in anNBC environment.

At the time this article was written, LTC �Chuck� McArthurwas the Chief of the Warfighter and Warmod Departments,U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center, Fort LeonardWood, Missouri. His previous assignments include, SeniorChemical Observer-Controller at the Joint ReadinessTraining Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana; Battalion ExecutiveOfficer, 2d Forward Support Battalion, Camp Hovey,Korea; Deputy Division Chemical Officer, 2d InfantryDivision, Korea; and Chief, Combined Arms and TacticsBranch, U.S. Army Chemical School, Fort McClellan, Ala-bama. He is a graduate of the Command and General StaffCollege at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. LTC McArthur holdsa BS degree in political science from North Carolina A&TState University.

Annual Reunion for the 86th Chemical Mortart Battalion15 through 18 March 2000 on Jekyll Island, GeorgiaFor additional information contact:

Mr. George Murphy818 West 62nd StreetAnniston, AL 36206

Chemical Research UnitHonored for ExcellenceBy Cindy Kronman, Writer/Editor,Research Operations Division, USAMRICD(Reprint from The Mercury,U.S. Army Medical Department Publication)

The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute ofChemical Defense (USAMRICD) has won the 1999Army Research and Development Organization Awardof Excellence in the small laboratory category. This is thesecond time in the past three years that the institute hasreceived honors in the Army�s R&D Organization ofthe Year competition. �I am extremely proud and honored that the institutehas been recognized in this manner,� said USAMRICDcommander COL James Little. �We have an exceptionalorganization with devoted individuals working togetheron an extremely important mission. I really appreciateall those individuals who worked so hard to deservethis recognition.� MG John S. Parker, commanding general ofUSAMRICD�s higher headquarters, Medical Researchand Materiel Command, also commended the instituteupon its success. �The Institute of Chemical Defense is a nationalasset. This recognition as a laboratory of excellence firmlyestablishes the fact that the laboratory management,science, and products that are generated are �world class.�The scientists, engineers and administrative supportpersonnel, through this award, have been recognized as apremier team. My congratulations to each and every oneof them,� Parker said. The awards recognize the best R&D organizations,those that enhance the capability and readiness of theArmy operational forces and the national defense andwelfare of the United States. An evaluation committeecomposed of highly qualified members of the Army andthe Department of Defense science and technologycommunity, and chaired by the assistant secretary of theArmy for acquisition, logistics, and technology, judgesa written nomination as well as an oral presentationprovided by the organization�s commander or director. The organizations were ranked according to accom-plishments and impact, organizational vision, strategy andplan, resource allocation, and continuous improvement.

USAMRICD�s nomination packet noted researchaccomplishments toward providing the warfighter withmedical countermeasures to chemical warfare agents(CWAs), including:�Development of an advanced anticonvulsant thatprevents the brain damage and behavioral incapacita-tion that occurs following exposure to nerve agents hasprogressed to the concept exploration phase.�A prototype reactive topical skin protectant that actsboth as a barrier and a decontaminant was demonstratedto provide protection for up to 60 minutes from both theblister agent mustard and the nerve agent soman.�The institute�s bioscavenger program contributed to thedevelopment of a reusable decontaminating sponge andhuman mutant enzymes that can hydrolyze CWAs. USAMRICD scientists also developed research strat-egies to address previously identified major mechanismsof action of sulfur mustard. They demonstrated that bothanti-inflammatory drugs and protease inhibitors canprotect animal models against sulfur mustard-inducededema, erythema, and microvesication. Other researchon vesicants demonstrated considerable protection ofthe cornea following pharmacological intervention andaccelerated wound healing following debridement with acarbon dioxide laser. Another area of recognized excellence was trainingin the medical management of chemical casualties andsupport to U.S. agencies that oversee counterterrorismpreparedness. Since 1984, USAMRICD has trained morethan 17,000 health-care providers. In 1998, the instituteprepared for its largest training endeavor�a live three-day satellite broadcast of �Medical Response toChemical Warfare and Terrorism.� Shown worldwide inApril 1999, this satellite broadcast resulted in the trainingof 40,000 and the familiarization of approximately 2.5million people.

30 CML

Below zero temperatures are too cold for most decontaminants to react effectivelywith chemical agents . . . Chemical agents become two to five times more efficientin the cold . . . The U.S. military is not prepared to meet this challenge.

Extreme Cold WeatherDecontamination�A Chilling Scenario

By Captain Ian A. McCulloh

2LT Jones had never been more frightened and nervous in his life. It was an incredibly cold New Year�sDay and he had not quite recovered from his hangover from the night before. Now sitting in his HMMWV, theyoung chemical platoon leader could scarcely recall being awakened in the middle of the night by his com-mander. North Korea had begun its offensive. Reports of chemical contamination flooded the headquarters.Jones knew his platoon was the best-trained platoon in the company. They had spent twice as much time inthe field as any other platoon. He still worried about operations in real contamination and it was so cold, -6degrees Fahrenheit (F). They never used water in their training when it was cold because they were afraid ofbreaking the equipment. �You�re overreacting,� he thought to himself. �The agents will freeze in this weather.I can�t believe the Koreans even used them.� The platoon arrived at the decon site on schedule and Joneswas surprised at how fast his platoon was able to set up the decon site. The detailed equipment decon wasgoing well; it was textbook. About five hours after the first vehicle completed the decon, the reports reached 2LT Jones� 13 dead;11 unconscious; 21 experiencing vomiting, dizziness, and confusion. SSG Williams came running towardshim, �Sir, we have four casualties.� �How?� demanded the platoon leader. �I�m not sure. It was the guyson the detailed equipment decon in the warm-up tent. The M8 didn�t go off.Neither did the M21. Smith started pukin��� �All right. Geteveryone to keep their masks on,� ordered Jones. 2LT Jones and his platoon sergeant talked at length, butcouldn�t determine the cause of the growing number ofcasualties. �The vehicles and personnel aren�tgetting clean,� cried Jones. �That can�t be it,�replied SFC Thomas. �They�re doing a greatjob scrubbin� DS2 down there, and the CAMis reading clean. SSG Williams put twoextra CAMs at station 5 just to be sure.�The casualty reports continued to rise.Three days later, 157 dead, more than2,000 casualties, including 2LT Jonesand his platoon. The Eighth Armywas unable to decontaminate them-selves because of the extreme coldweather.

31January 2000

Below zero temperatures are too cold for mostdecontaminants to react effectively with chemical agents.It is also too cold for detection equipment to properly de-tect contamination. Most chemical agents pose a threatin temperatures as low as -50 degrees F or lower. Con-trary to popular belief, chemical agents become two tofive times more efficient in the cold. North Korea is only one of many countries that hasthe ability to employ chemical weapons in an extremecold weather environment. Many agents do not freeze;they increase in effectiveness in extreme cold weather.The U.S. military is not prepared to meet this challenge.This article identifies necessary precautions for conduct-ing extreme cold weather decon and describes twotechniques for detailed equipment decon.

THREAT

Operations in extreme cold weather will happen.During the winter months, 45 percent of the NorthAmerican landmass and 65 percent of the Eurasian land-mass are characterized by extreme cold and deep snow.These areas include Korea, China, Bosnia, Kosovo,Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the United States. Theformer Soviet Union developed procedures to weaponizea series of agents to be effective in extreme cold weather.One V-series nerve agent, VR55, does not have aknown freezing point. In temperatures from -20degrees F to -40 degrees F, agents such as GB becomelike thickened GD and GD becomes like VX. Chokingagents have increased persistency from 0 degrees F to�40 degrees F. Even AC, which solidifies at �14 degreesF, can be disseminated as fine particles, thereby increas-ing its effective time and threat. Mustard agentsemployed through pyrotechnic devices create effectivevapor hazards far below the freezing point of mustard.Numerous tests in Alaska, Norway, and the Soviet Unionindicate that chemicals pose an increased threat inextreme cold weather.

LACK OF DOCTRINE

Current U.S. doctrine does not adequately addressdecontamination in extreme cold weather. This articleaddresses four areas: Decontaminants. The majority of decontaminantshave reduced effectiveness at temperatures below0 degrees F and are useless below �20 degrees F. In areal-world situation this condition will be worsebecause of impurities in agents and decontaminants.Dr. Kirkwood, Deputy Director of Combat Develop-ments, U.S. Army Chemical School, tells of anexperiment where he mixed dry STB in a puddle of

mustard at 10 degrees F. Mixing STB and mustardnormally produces a highly exothermic reaction(explosion), but in this case there was no reaction. Itwas too cold. FM 3-9, Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and Compounds, states that mus-tard freezes at 60 degrees F, so it is apparent that agentscan remain toxic at temperatures far below theirfreezing point. While FM 3-5, NBC Decontamination,states that STB is an effective decontaminant down to0 degrees F, this is not the case. Detection. Present detection technology is noteffective in cold temperatures. An agent must be inliquid or vapor form and in significant quantities for presentequipment to detect it. Mustard agents frozen beneath alayer of ice are in a solid state, so readingswould indicate the area is clear of contamination.Relying on that reading, a soldier might erect a tentand go to sleep. A slow, steady vapor could then�off-gas� near the sleeping soldier, making him acasualty. Because the vapor would dissipate in thecold, the detection equipment would not indicate anycontamination. Transfer Hazard. FM 3-4, NBC Protection, andFM 3-5 indicate that tracking frozen contaminationinto a warmed area is a well-known hazard. Tests in Alaskashow that agents mixed with frozen wateradhere to protective clothing, making their removalimprobable. When these agents are tracked into warmerareas such as tactical operations centers, buildings, orheated vehicles, the change in vapor pressure creates ahazard. A change in vapor pressure also can occur astemperatures increase from night to day. This dangeris magnified by the limitations of current detectiontechnology. Cold Weather Injuries. The risk of cold weatherinjury increases significantly when soldiers spray wateror get wet in cold weather. Due to the risk of contamina-tion, it is not easy for soldiers to keep warm. If they sit ina warm vehicle or tent, they most likely will spreadcontamination into that area.

IMPROVEMENTS

This section identifies two techniques used to conductextreme cold weather decon�Heated Area Decon andOutside Decon. These techniques were reviewed andstaffed by numerous field-grade officers and NCOs withexperience in extreme cold weather conditions. They weretested at Fort Drum, New York, in March 1999, when the59th Chemical Company conducted decon opera-tions for 21 days in subzero temperatures. The lowsreached -21degrees F, and the average temperaturewas -15 degrees F.

32 CML

Several points apply to both techniques:� Follow the protection guidelines in FM 3-4, NBC

Protection, Appendix A. Units in Alaska createdthese guidelines in the early 1980s. The 59th ChemicalCompany at Fort Drum, NY, also uses them.

� Conduct detailed troop decontamination in a warm areato prevent cold weather injuries. Use a GP medium tentwith a heater.

� Provide warming tents for contaminated soldiers. Coldweather injuries can occur even when wearing MOPP4.Erect contaminated warming tents where MOPP4 mustbe worn. Erect separate warming tents for chemicalpersonnel running the decon site, who may not be con-taminated but must remain in MOPP4. Separate warm-ing tents limit the spread of contamination, and reducethe risk of cold weather injuries.

� Place M8 or M22 chemical-agent alarms in all warmingtents. In most cases the alarms will not detect outsideagents. The battery life will be very short. Alarmsplaced in warming tents can effectively detect any

vapor hazard resulting from entering a warmed area.� Store empty tank and pump units that are drained of all

water. Most decon sites will require water. In extremecold, however, the water can freeze, causing hoses andpumps to crack and break. In most situations, water willnot freeze while the vehicle is in motion. The hazardcomes when the vehicle sits full of water for severalhours or after the tanks have been emptied but waterremains in hoses and the pump. The 25th ChemicalCompany in Germany avoids this problem by disassem-bling the hoses on the tank and pump units and drainingthem. Planners must realize that this technique makesresupply operations more time consuming.

� Minimize digging because it increases the risk of vaporhazards. Contaminants may be trapped in frozen layersbelow the surface. When soldiers dig, the layer becomesexposed to the surface, where the temperature createsa different vapor pressure. The change in vapor pres-sure creates a new vapor hazard.

� Check a core snow sample when entering a newassembly area. Contaminants often become occludedin snow and ice. This makes detection more difficultand increases the spread of contamination. Snow maydrift for miles. Contaminants also may be trapped in alayer beneath the surface. NBC recon teams shouldtake samples of snow from several layers by digging ina few areas. Test the snow with M8 or M9 paper. If

possible, warm the snow to a liquid and test it with achemical agent monitor (CAM).

� Spray the snow surface with water. This creates a thinlayer of ice over the snow. The ice reduces the spreadof contamination by preventing agents that are occludedin the snow from drifting.

TECHNIQUE 1: DECON IN AN ARTIFICIALLYHEATED AREA

A soldier faces two major problems when conductingdecon in extreme cold weather�the reaction betweenagent and decontaminant, and the ability to check for con-tamination. To overcome these problems, move the tasksto a warm area. The 59th Chemical Company used amaintenance frame tent with heaters. Using a pre-existing building for the heated area is another option.Whatever the structure, ensure it is large enough tocontain a detailed equipment decon. It must alsohave the ability to be heated. Three concerns mustbe addressed:� Sites must allow for contaminated drainage. Establish a

series of trenches and sumps or use 65-gallons per minute(GPM) pumps.

� Masks can easily fog up when soldiers move from acold environment to a heated one. Purchase antifogcommercially to issue to soldiers. A field-expedientmethod is to spit in the inside of the eyepiece and rub itwith bare fingertips until a squeaking sound is heard.

�The final concern is carbon monoxide poisoning. Venti-late the heated area and turn off the vehicles� engineswhile waiting at each station. The maintenance frametent has a ventilation system.

ADVANTAGES

This technique has several advantages. It�� Nearly eliminates the risk of cold weather injuries, depending on how warm the area is. The only signifi-

cant risk occurs when soldiers leave the heated area.� Consumes less antifreeze. Some antifreeze is used in

equipment that leaves the heated area, such as tank andpump units or M17s.

� Reduces the risk of equipment breakage due to coldtemperatures.

� Makes decontaminants effective.� Allows detection equipment to identify any residual

hazard.� Makes decon by removal possible.

DISADVANTAGES

There are a few disadvantages:� Heated area may create a new vapor hazard. The exhaust system may spread the new vapor hazard in the area of operation. This vapor hazard can become persistent in extreme cold weather.� Erecting a maintenance frame tent is labor intensive,

unless an existing structure is available. Once decon

33January 2000

is complete, the unit no longer can use the structureor tent.

� Fogging may occur on glass surfaces.

TECHNIQUE 2: OUTSIDE DECON

In some circumstances a tent or structure may not beavailable. The unit may not want to spend the time andresources to use the first technique if the temperature isbetween 0 and 40 degrees F. If a unit must conduct deconoutside in extreme cold weather, do the following:� Use an additional decontamination apparatus at each

water blivet just to heat water. This is the best way toprevent the water from freezing. It is more environ-mentally safe than using antifreeze in the water.

� Redirect spray wands back into the water blivet whennot in use. This technique helps heat the water and, moreimportantly, it prevents water in the wand from freezingand breaking it.

� Use antifreeze in the decontamination apparatus IAWthe TM. Cycle antifreeze through all pumps after use toprevent damage.

� Use 65GPM pumps to reduce contaminated drainageon the site.

ADVANTAGES

The principal advantage of this technique is avoidance.The agents remain in their cold state, reducing the risk ofvapor hazard. It is less labor intensive to set up a deconsite outside than to erect a huge maintenance frame tent,which may take a day to complete.

DISADVANTAGES

This technique has several disadvantages:� Equipment breaks in extreme cold weather.� Depending on the temperature, it may be too cold for a

chemical reaction to occur at station 2 or for chemicaldetection to be effective at station 5.

� Increased risk of off-gassing, if the temperature risesafter the decon is complete.

� Difficult to decon by removal.� Requires larger quantities of antifreeze and fuel to run

the additional decontamination apparatuses used to heatwater.

CONCLUSION

Conducting decontamination operations in extreme coldweather is a real threat and, unfortunately, isprobably one of our greatest NBC defense weaknesses.The chemical community must stop disregarding thisthreat. Only through proper doctrine and training will ourchemical units be able to meet this challenge.

At the time this article was written, CPT McCulloh was theCommander of the 1st Special Forces Group Chemical Detach-ment at Fort Lewis,Washington. His previous assignmentsinclude Executive Officer, 59th Chemical Company, a dual-purpose Chemical Platoon Leader, and Squadron ChemicalOfficer for 3-17 Cavalry all at Fort Drum, New York.

34 CML

Wanted!Wanted!Wanted!Do you have a story you�d like to share with our readers?

Or do you have an idea on how to improve a technique or pieceof equipment?

If so, send your article to us and we�ll do the rest.

Articles can be any length. Include any photos or graphics you feel will add to the article.Article may be sent by paper copy, on disc (in Microsoft Word), or e-mail (kirbym@wood.army.mil). Hard-copyphotos are preferred. Digital photos are acceptable if saved at a dpi/ppi of 200 or more and at 100 percent of actualsize. TIFF and JPEG file formats are preferred. Be sure to include a brief biography about yourself.

Our phone number is (573) 596-0131, extension 3-5267.

Mattie Kirby, editor

Wanted!Wanted!Wanted!

Reserves Conduct IDTLanes Training�the 457th experience

By Captain John Garnsey

Chemical lanes training is typically a collectiveexercise directed at the platoon and company levels.Evaluator chemical teams from U.S. Army Reserve(USAR) Exercise Divisions DIV (EX) conduct perfor-mance evaluations based on doctrine, mission trainingplans, training evaluation outlines, and their experienceas subject-matter experts. The end result is challenging,realistic training with the added benefit of an external�take home� evaluation package. In fiscal year 1999,USAR chemical companies began the process of plan-ning and executing inactive duty training (IDT) chemicallanes training. Lanes training is not a new exercisefor these units. In fact, these exercises are routinelyconducted as an integral part of the unit�s annualtraining mission and evaluation.

What was really challenging about the conduct ofthese particular exercises was that they occurred duringan IDT or weekend drill period. Considering the timeconstraints that a Reserve Component unit faces (only39 days a year to train for its mission), lanes trainingdisplay a clear, strong determination to obtain the highestquality training possible. It also displays a serious dedica-tion of the precious resource of training time.

The question is, how do you ensure that yourcompanies are prepared to participate and succeed inthese exercises?

To ensure the success of units in these exercises,the 457th Chemical Battalion outlined a trainingstrategy that supported and enabled our units to excel inthese exercises. Our training strategy was simple andforthright and was based soundly on the trainingprinciple of �train using multiechelon techniques.�

Our challenge lay in two areas. First, develop astrategy that would orchestrate and maximize all of ourtraining resources. Second, and key to the overall effort,develop and communicate a clear vision of our strategyand our training goals. The battalion S3 recognized thatthe lanes would provide our units and staff with anexcellent opportunity to plan and conduct multiechelontraining. Chemical lanes training is no different from theregular way the battalion planned training. Our units havealways addressed and incorporated multiechelontraining into all training plans. However, our strategywas to build and integrate detailed multiechelontraining from the individual through collective levels. One

35January 2000

battalion published specific guidance for all unitsparticipating in these exercises. In addition, a series ofinformation briefings were conducted during all in-process reviews. By conducting detailed briefings on theexercise, as well as including all unit leaders involvedin the planning sessions, we successfully conveyed thecommander�s training goals to all participants and shapedthe environment for a successful exercise. At the conclu-sion of these planning meetings, all aspects of trainingand its associated resources were orchestrated.

By applying a multiechelon training strategy tothis exercise, we achieved key training goals. First, weensured that our units conducted sound training,documentation, and validation of tactical/technical skillsin our soldiers and leaders. We are confident that oursoldiers are trained and validated on key supportingindividual tasks. Secondly, by shaping the exercise, wewere able to maximize the training opportunity tobenefit all levels of the command. Through the use ofthe �train using multiechelon techniques� principle, wedeveloped a framework to ensure the success of ourchemical companies during future lanes exercises andannual training missions.

key goal was to refine the validation and documentationprocess of multiechelon training. This was no easy task,considering the different types of chemical unitsinvolved�chemical battalion headquarters, dual-purposechemical companies, mechanized smoke companies, andevaluator teams.

At the individual and leader levels, the naturallyoccurring common-task test and leader validation taskswere identified from doctrine, soldier training publica-tions, military qualification standards, mission trainingplans, and assessments. Collective tasks were selectedbased on assessments from past exercises, annualtraining missions, current battalion training guidance,and whether they supported the overall exercise. By theconclusion of the exercise, individuals and leaders weretrained and validated in key mission-oriented tasks.

The foundation of individual and leader trainingprovided numerous training opportunities at thecollective level.

By using a command post exercise as a trainingvehicle for the staff, missions were generated in supportof the overall chemical lanes exercise. Staff sectionstrained on staff-supporting collective tasks from themission-essential task list while they obtained directexperience in command and control of subordinate units.

In turn, company headquarters received valuableexperience working with their parent headquarters whilesupporting their platoons in the chemical lanes. Once thetasks were reviewed and approved for training, the

At the time this article was written, CPT John Garnseywas the Operations Officer of the 457th Chemical Battalion.CPT Garnsey has served in various chemical positions inArmy Reserve units. He has a bachelor of arts degree inComputer Resource Information Management from WebsterUniversity, St. Louis, Missouri. CPT Garnsey is currentlya Software Engineer in PERSCOM Information SupportActivity, St. Louis, Missouri.

36CML

By Specialist Kelly Whitteaker,GUIDON Staff

Fort Leonard Wood has welcomed the last soldier to transferhere from Fort McClellan, Alabama.

SSG Wanda Williford arrived 2 November and will be withthe 82nd Chemical Battalion as the unit�s personnel sergeant.

While at Fort McClellan, Williford was with the 39thReception Battalion.

�The hardest part about leaving was closing 39th, trying topush the soldiers through in time,� she said.

Williford had optimistic things to say about Fort LeonardWood, beginning with the personnel at the SoldierService Center.

�The people here have been so good and positive. They havea professional attitude,� she said. Williford added that she likedthe post and its facilities.

Maneuver Support Center CSM Robert Dils, ChemicalRegimental CSM James Van Patten III, and 82nd ChemicalBattalion CSM Peter Hiltner welcomed Williford to theinstallation and presented her with a post coin.

Last Fort McClellan soldiersigns in to Fort Leonard Wood

Williford (left) gets a warm welcome from Staff Sgt.Denise Ross at the in-processing office.

Contamination avoidance, force protection, NBC defense, vulnerability analysis, andtechnical and tactical proficiency are terms widely used throughout the Chemical Corps.These terms and many others refer to the tenets of NBC defense and the skills required ofall Chemical Corps officers. These terms and skills came to bear when the 28th InfantryDivision (Mechanized) participated in a warfighter exercise in February and March 1999.The NBC staff of the 28th ID (M) learned many lessons ranging from vulnerability analysisand intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) through NBC warning and reportingto NBC logistics and smoke operations.

NBC A Proactive Combat Multiplier

By Major Robert Karnes, 28th ID (M), Assistant Division Chemical Officer

When planning NBC support in division opera-tions, the chemical officer must obtain the divisioncommander�s intent for NBC defense and smokeoperations. Once this is received, the chemical staff caneffectively begin the ongoing task of vulnerability analy-sis and intelligence preparation of the battlefield. Irecommend posting a chart with the commander�sguidance next to the NBC situation map to keep theNBC staff focused during the planning and executionphases of the battle.

Division Commander�s Guidance for NBC Defenseand Smoke:....

Aggressively reconnoiter forward to locate and markcontamination for bypass.Fight through during the attack to avoid loss ofmomentum, if unit encounters new contamination.Conduct operational decon as far forward as possibleto maintain momentum.Integrate smoke to support corps decontamination andto conceal high-value assets (i.e., Patriot Missiles).

This article focuses primarily on those aspects ofvulnerability analysis and intelligence preparation ofthe battlefield that relate to the division close battle(the area of operations forward of the maneuver brigades�rear boundaries). Many chemical officers analyze thefriendly scheme of maneuver and terrain in the unit areaof operations to develop NBC named areas of interest,

recommend chemical unit task organization, and thenwait for the NBC 1 reports to arrive. This is a goodfirst step. However, other items also should be consid-ered to ensure total force protection.

The chemical officer must conduct aggressive,ongoing intelligence preparation of the battlefield tomeet both the commander�s intent and the NBCdefense tenet of contamination avoidance. The 28 ID (M)also used:

Chemical downwind messages and weather forecasts.Enemy maneuver unit locations (known and templated).Enemy NBC unit locations (known and templated).Enemy doctrine for chemical use.Enemy agents of choice.Engineer overlay showing known enemy obstacles.Friendly maneuver graphics.List of possible enemy chemical attack indicatorsobtained from the corps order.

By simultaneously using all of these items (manyof which are overlays), we developed numerouspossible event-driven, enemy chemical usage locationswithin the division area of operation. By continuallyupdating and analyzing these items, we could informthe commander of possible effects of chemical employ-ment at any given location/time with respect to thescheme of maneuver. This information gave himoperational flexibility to continue to fight the battle

..

.

.

..

..

37January 2000

without losing momentum�even after chemicals wereemployed against us. Here is how we did it.

We began to analyze the situation by placing allof the listed overlays on the map at once and applying ourunderstanding of the enemy doctrine for chemical em-ployment. The enemy forces overlay from G2 showedthe expected disposition of forces, including templatedboundaries between units. The engineer overlay showedthe known obstacles in the area of operation.

By comparing the two overlays, we identifiedpotential enemy counterattack routes, gaps in hisobstacles, and (by the positioning of his chemical unitscoupled with the weather forecasts) possible chemicalattack locations. We then compared the friendly schemeof maneuver in relation to the enemy positioning. Thiscomparison enabled us to determine several potentialareas where the division was vulnerable to chemicalattacks�to slow our momentum or channel us bydenying terrain. These areas became NBC namedareas of interest and were assigned to appropriateunits for reconnaissance. This information, coupledwith the commander�s intent for NBC, allowed us totailor the chemical unit task organization to best supportthe operations. The system worked extremely well.

In the after-action review in the division tacticalcommand post (DTAC), the facilitator asked for onesustain and one improve comment from each sectionrepresented. The sustain comment for NBC did not comefrom the chemical officer; it came from the G2 repre-sentative. He said, �You guys were a pain in my butt,always looking for information. That is a positive.Proactive, integrated NBC we have never had that.�The improve comment came from the chemical officer.He stated that to improve was to better understandand utilize smoke in the division attack.

We succeeded in preparing the forces to deal withthe presence of chemicals on the battlefield. As withany successful mission, we encountered problems. Wesuffered a few chemical casualties. Most of thesecasualties were caused by difficulties in using the NBCWarning and Reporting System within the division.One instance, a small unit reported a chemical attackin sector. Their report allowed the DTAC to provideearly warning and then maneuver the follow-on brigadearound the hazard area without losing any momentum.This is just one example of how the training paid off.

But some artillery units moved through the hazard,took casualties, and required decontamination.

The DTAC warned the maneuver forces early andcoordinated the avoidance. (While waiting for the NBC 3report from the NBC center, the DTAC called unitsin the immediate area of the attack and told them �Thereis a strike at �x� location, the wind is blowing in �y�direction, take ZZZZ precautions.�). This incidenttaught us two things. First, we must warn all battlefieldoperating systems supporting the maneuver. Second,redundant warnings from both the DTAC and NBCcenter are better than poorly timed or no warnings atall. The NBC center in the division main commandpost experienced delays in preparing and sending theNBC 3 report to all units. To avoid such delays, theNBC center now will prepare and send an NBC 3 reportto all units immediately after it receives an NBC 1report. We then will verify the validity of the NBC 1 re-port. We will publish a change in our tactical SOP to docu-ment this change in procedure.

In another instance, we received an NBC 1 reportfrom a brigade. The DTAC quickly warned those units(other than the brigade submitting the report) that couldbe immediately affected. This procedure seemed to workperfectly, although another battalion in the brigadesubmitting the report maneuvered through the hazardousarea sustaining casualties and contamination. Thelesson: Even though a brigade sends up an NBC report,do not assume that all of its units will avoid the area.Tell brigade what to do to minimize contamination.

Smoke operations were extensive in this exercise.Since we faced both rear-area and aerial threats, thedivision support area was smoked almost continuously withboth generated smoke and smoke pots. Thispresented three challenges: troop safety, logistics, and areacoverage. Limited smoke assets could not provide 24-hour, full-area coverage. Fog oil was in short supply andwas also required for follow-on combat operations. Ac-cording to FM 3-50, soldiers operating in Hexa-Chloroethane (HC) smoke (smoke pots) must wearprotective masks, as do soldiers operating for morethan four hours in a fog-oil smoke haze. Enemyobservation was limited because their systems operatedin the visual range of the electromagnetic spectrum.So we smoked the division support area in the morningand late afternoon to extend the hours of limitedvisibility (darkness included) without degrading troop per-formance by requiring them to wear protectivemasks for extended periods.

The maneuver also had planned extensive smokeoperations. Coordinating the use of mobile smoke,smoke pots, and projected smoke in offensive operations

38 CML

Brigades must submit deliberate smoke plans todivision NBC center early to avoid conflict with otherbattlefield operating systems (that is, Army AirspaceCommand and Control).

Four mechanized smoke platoons cannot provide amobile smoke haze across an entire division front. Wemust identify critical portions of our attack formationswhere smoke (haze/curtain) can be successfullyemployed. These areas must be coordinated withdeceptive smoke to draw the enemy�s attentionaway from our intentions and/or force him to expendassets to deal with our deception. The use of mobilesmoke to conceal attacking mechanized/armor forcescan be a good combat multiplier. However, thissmoke can also be a combat detractor. These attack-ing forces can easily outrun the smoke units andbecome silhouetted, which could be worse thanproviding no smoke at all.

Deliberate- and hasty-smoke operations must be tightlycoordinated with maneuver brigade commanders. In thisexercise, deliberate, mobile smoke was almostcompletely abandoned (due to weather and enemylocation) in favor of hasty smoke employed at thediscretion of the brigade commanders. From this pointon, division lost situational awareness with respect towhen and where smoke was used on the battlefield.

We must coordinate with division artillery to ensureadequate resources are available for projectedsmoke at critical points in the battle (especially ifwind conditions do not support the use of generatedsmoke or smoke pots). Additionally, all company-sized units had a basic load of smoke pots, manyof which were not used. Smoke pots can be used tosupplement generated smoke and stand-alone smoketo conceal high value assets.

biggest challenge for the NBC center is tracking who isusing smoke when and where, so that other battlefieldoperating system staffs know where friendly smoke islocated. We will publish a change in our tactical SOP andadd a smoke-planning template in our operational orderformat to address these challenges.

Conducting intelligence preparation of thebattlefield and organizing the NBC-task organizationto support the commander�s intent is easy compared tofiguring logistical needs and how to conduct resupply op-erations. In this exercise, fog oil and Mogas resupply forsmoke units was coordinated and took place when themaneuver units slowed down to refuel/rearm on themove. This worked well.

Water for decontamination operations was abig challenge because there was no appreciable watersource in our area of operation. We were able tosupply and conduct two operational decontaminations.However, since we were not required to conduct athorough decontamination, the engineer support, wateravailability, and chemical defense equipment resupply werenot tested.

The NBC staff of 28 ID (M) has learned the valueof proactive, integrated NBC and the importance oftimeliness in the NBC Warning Reporting System.We also recognize the challenges of coordinating smokeoperations and NBC resupply. These lessons, andothers, are being incorporated into our tactical SOP sowe will be better prepared to support winning efforts onfuture battlefields.

MAJ Robert Karnes is currently assigned as the AssistantDivision Chemical Officer (Tactical Chemical OperationsOfficer) for the 28th Mechanized Infantry Division ofthe Pennsylvania Army National Guard. His previousassignments include Battalion Chemical Officer, 10Mountain Division, Senior TAC Officer, and the Penn-sylvania OCS. He is a graduate of CAS3, Chemical OfficerAdvanced Course, and Chemical Officer Basic Course. In hiscivilian career, he is the assistant lab manager andplant chemist for a hazardous waste recycling facility.MAJ Karnes holds a bachelors degree in Chemistry fromBloomsburg University of Pennsylvania.

.

.

.

.

Use of smoke assets in hasty-defense operationsand deceptive operations worked fine in this exercise.We just need to better coordinate deliberate- anddeceptive-smoke operations to mutually support eachother, as well as the commander�s intent for smoke. The

was a challenge. Lessons learned were:

January 2000 39

The Washington Army National Guard Unitwelcomed its newest members during a ceremonyon 3 October 1999�the 420th Chemical Battal-ion and its subordinate unit, the 790th ChemicalCompany (Recon/Decon). Both units are not onlynew to the Washington National Guard, they arealso new to the United States Army.

During the ceremony at Athanum Youth Parkin Union Gap, LTC Robert L. Bray Sr., 420thChemical Battalion; CPT Alan R. Johnson,Headquarters Detachment located in Yakima,Washington; and CPT Cynthia Millonzi, 790thChemical Company located in Grandview,Washington, assumed command of the units.

Senior National Guard and active Armymilitary officials, civic leaders, and the mayorof Yakima participated in the ceremony. Addingsomething unique to the ceremony, the EisenhowerHigh School band and students from the WestValley High School Junior ROTC also parti-cipated . The band played the national anthem,the Army Song, and the Chemical Corps march.The Junior ROTC provided the color guard.

In the next three years, the battalion will beadding the 791st Chemical Company (Recon/Decon) in training year 2001, 792nd ChemicalCompany (Recon/Decon) in training year 2002,and the 793rd Chemical Company (BIDS) intraining year 2003.

National Guard WelcomesNew Members

By Major Robert J. Coy

40 CML

420th Chemical Battalion

Major Robert J. Coy is the Battalion Executive Officerfor the 420th Chemical Battalion (Washington NationalGuard). He is a graduate of the Command and GeneralStaff College. He has held assignments with numerouscommands including the 4th Brigade, 91st Division(Army Reserves), the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment(Active), the 9th Infantry Division (Active), all at FortLewis, Washington,

Photo courtesy of Major Robert J. CoyLTC Robert L. Bray Sr. salutes the West Valley High School JuniorROTC color guard.

Photo courtesy of Major Robert J. CoyLTC Robert L. Bray Sr. (back to camera) with CPT Cynthia Millonziand 1st SGT Laughery of the new 790th Chemical Company at theceremony in Union Gap.

Building 3203Commercial Callers: Dial the main switchboard and when asked, dial the last five digits of the telephone number.The phone number for the switchboard is area code 573-596-0131.

DSN Callers: If the extension begins with �3,� the DSN prefix is 676. If the extension begins with �6,� theDSN prefix is 581.

* Denotes direct line. Dial area code 573 and phone number.

U.S. Army Chemical School Directory

COMMANDANT (ATSN-CMZ)COL Patricia L. Nilo, 563-8053*

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJORCSM James E. Van Patten III, 563-8051*

NBC JOINT SERVICE INTEGRATION GROUP(JSIG) (ATSC-CMZ-JS)

Director, LTC Leslie Koch, 3-7754Project Admin Coordinator, Ms. Melissa Engelking,

3-7770Materiel Requisition, Mr. Bruce Christich, 3-7758Doctrine, Mr. Paul Short, 3-6200CB Budget, Mr. Mark Garner, 3-7773Science & Technology, Mr. John Scully, 3-7765Models & Simulations, Mr. Karl Zart, 3-7763Medical Integrator, Mr. Rick Prouty, 3-7772

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT (ATSN-CM)COL Thomas W. Klewin, 563-8054*

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ASSISTANTCOMMANDANT (ATSN-CM-DAC)

OPERATIONS (ATSN-CMA)

Deputy Assistant Commandant, COL Tom Kutz,563-8050*

Deputy Assistant Commandant Army National Guard,LTC Thomas Hook, 3-7365Training Developer, Ms. Constance Singleton, 3-7685

Chief, MAJ Sergio Dickerson, 3-7687NCOIC, SFC Gary Farris, 3-7688

Director, LTC Roger Bushner, Jr., 3-6652Deputy Director, LTC Brian Ballinger, 3-7371Staff Officer, CPT Katrisa Rich, 3-7680NCOIC, SFC Ivor Griffiths, 3-7683

DOCTRINE (ATSC-DOCT)Chief, LTC Cindy Jenkins, 3-7363DOC/SRT/SME, CPT Chet Kemp, 3-7364DOC/SRT/SME, CPT John Hanson, 3-7361EXP/TD/WTR, SSG John Rousseau, 3-7671Technical Writer, Mr. Dale Chapman, 3-7672

PERSONNEL PROPONENCY (ATSC-CM-DP)FAX 563-8063*Chief, MAJ Daniel Murray, 3-7692Proponency Sergeant Major, SGM Kimberely

Garrick. 3-7376CMF Analyst, SFC Gary Valenzuela, 3-7662Illustrator, SPC Vincent Mouzon, 3-7399Proponency Analyst, Mr. Thomas Crow, 3-7728

Executive Officer, MAJ Rodney Murray, 563-8052*Operations Officer, CPT Gloria Cox, 3-7351Admin Sergeant, SSG Pamela Alexander, 3-7348Office Services Coordinator, Ms Veronica Byrd, 3-7334Visitor Support, SFC Linda Bowe, 3-7342

DOCTRINE TRAINING LEADERDEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION MATERIAL &SOLDIERS (DTLOMS) (ATSN-CM-D)

At the time this publication went to press, the following roster represented the Chemical School listings.However, changes are being made constantly.

TOTAL ARMY SCHOOL SYSTEM (TASS)ACCREDITATION

January 2000 41

THEATER MISSLE DEFENSE (ATSN-CM-TMD)

Chief, Mr. Henry Meyer, 3-7693Analyst, Mr. Constant Craig, 3-7324

DIRECTORATE OF COMBAT DEVELOPMENTINTEGRATION (ATSN-CM-DCD)Chief, CD Integration, Mr. Jerry Bazzetta, 3-7673Expert Senior CD NCO, SFC Kevin Kruise, 3-7676

DIRECTORATE OF TRAINING DEVELOPMENTINTEGRATION (ATSN-CM-DTD)

Chief, Mr. Thomas Lennek, 3-7665Training Developer, Dr. JoJo Corkan, 3-7664Training Developer, Ms. Emily Penland, 3-7663

HEALTH PHYSICS OFFICEManager, Mr. John May, 3-6224NCOIC, SFC John Aperans, 3-6229Health Physics Tech, SSG Ronald DeGumbia, 3-6228

HISTORIAN (ATSN-CMA-H)Dr. Burton Wright, 3-7339

3RD CHEMICAL BRIGADECommander, COL Allan C. Hardy, 596-0016*Command Sergeant Major, CSM Larry Fisher, 6-2271Executive Officer, LTC George G. Coffelt, 6-2276S-3, MAJ Bret VanCamp, 6-8320

CHEMICAL DEFENSE TRAINING FACILITY(CDTF)

Director, MAJ George Heib, 596-0608*Operations Officer, CPT(P) Kent Soebbing, 6-1661Chief Instructor, MSG William Gunter, 596-0365*Operations NCO, SFC Lamar Garrett, 6-1662

82D CHEMICAL BATTALION (CML OSUT)

84TH CHEMICAL BATTALION

Commander, LTC Lewis VanDyke, 596-0342*Command Sergeant Major, CSM Peter Hiltner,

596-0342*Executive Officer, MAJ Phillip Trued, 6-7056S-3, CPT Barry McDowell, 6-7058A Co, Commander, CPT Michael Maguire, 596-0345*

1SG Angela Pitts, 6-0345B Co, Commander, CPT Todd Buffington, 6-4740

1SG John M. Burns, 6-7620C Co, Commander, CPT Erinn Hardaway, 596-0347*

1SG David Wint, 6-0347D Co, Commander, CPT Stephanie Bracero, 596-0348*

1SG William Miller, 6-2746

Commander, LTC Gary Harter, 6-2414Command Sergeant Major, CSM Winston R. Canady,

6-2415Executive Officer, MAJ James Bayha, 6-2400S-3, CPT Andrew Herbst, 596-0285*HHC, Commander, CPT Corey Griffiths, 6-7323 1SG Robert McKenzie, 6-7323A Co, Commander, MAJ Antonio Amos, 6-7589 1SG Whitfield, 6-7588C Co, Commander, CPT Mike Hunter, 6-2670 1SG Anderson, 6-0275

TECHNICAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT(ATSC-TTD)

Chief, MAJ William Steele, 3-7379OIC, BIO (B), CPT Richard Howell, 3-7322NCOIC, SFC Gregory Smith, 3-7331

Chief, RAD LAB (RL), Mr. Thomas Robinson, 3-6210NCOIC, RAD LAB, SFC Robert Derr, 3-6202OIC, TAC RAD (TR), CPT Robert Lutz, 3-7697NCOIC, TAC RAD, SFC Cynthia Evans, 3-7696OIC, RECON BR, CPT Daryl Hood, 3-7384NCOIC, RECON BR, SFC Avery Woods, 3-7389

58TH TRANSPORTATION BATTALION(TRANS AIT)

Commander, LTC Ronnie Ellis, 596-0991*Command Sergeant Major, CSM Teresa King,

596-0991*Executive Officer, MAJ Gini Guiton, 596-0991*HHC Commander, CPT Matthew Brown, 6-7792 1SG Rickey Gethers, 6-7967A Co, Commander, CPT Lawrence Woodrow, 6-7581 1SG Louis Lee, 6-1047B Co, Commander, CPT Megan Koser, 6-7765 1SG Kelly Flannery, 6-7764

42 CML

For nearly two decades, Dr. Ken Alibek workedwith the most lethal pathogens in the world. Hisprincipal job was to make them useful for weapons thatcould be used by the Soviet Union against its enemies.This book provides an insight into his mind and whyhe chose to do this type of research. Dr. Alibek is nofanatic; he�s a servant of a state. He did research withthe expectation that it would protect his nation. He wasa patriot, but soon realized that the work he was doingviolated the first and most sacred commandment that aphysician upholds�to preserve human life. The USSR spent billions of dollars on both themilitary and civilian sides represented by an organizationcalled BIOPREPARAT. Dr. Alibek, its first deputy di-rector, invented the most powerful strain of Anthrax inthe world. Most experts in biological warfare considerAnthrax to be one of the most preferred agents to use inwar because of its virulence and hardiness. The SovietUnion developed missile-nosed cones loaded withweaponized anthrax spores to put atop ICBMs to shootat any country within range of the missile. The level of sophistication of BIOPREPARATwas astonishing. One chapter is entitled �BONFIRE,�which the author tells us was the code name for one ofthe most chilling examples of biowarfare. BONFIREwas nothing less than the development of bioweaponsthat, when inhaled into the body, caused the body to killitself. The author demonstrates that the Russians are stillat work on bioweapons and have even succeededin putting several lethal pathogens into the samedisease (i.e., mixing Marburg with the plague).

The author�s journey from a faithful servant ofthe state to a defector is revealing. The final strawcame when the government asked Dr. Alibek to say inhis report to the Central Committee that the UnitedStates was still working on offensive biologicalweapons. He knew from personal visits to America�sbioresearch facilities that this was not true. As Dr.Alibek mentioned in the first part of the book, hisinitial work in the field of lethal bioweapons was based onhis view that the United States was doing the same thing.At one time this was true, but in 1969 the United Statesdismantled its offensive biological program. At the sametime, Russia increased its program. Dr. Alibekwas afraid that Russia�s biological weapons programcould be used to create a terrible weapon that could bemisused by the government. As the author notes, the United States does notneed to begin offensive research again. But we do needto look for a stronger bioweapons defense, and orvaccines that can build up the body�s resistance to thetypes of bioweapons he developed while in BIO-PREPARAT. His expert knowledge of bioweaponsresearch will help the United States and its allies developadequate defenses against the very agents he created atBIOPREPARAT. With all the information contained in this book as wellas others recently published about the extent and sophis-tication of Iraq�s biowarfare programs, the West in gen-eral, and the United States in particular, need to seriouslyaddress the development of a strong defensive program. If you read nothing else this year, read this book.

Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert BiologicalWeapons Programs in the World�Told from Inside by the Man Who Ran It,Ken Alibek with Stephen Handelman. New York: Random House, 1999.

BookReview

By USACMLS Command Historian,Dr. Burton Wright

January 2000 43

44 CML

New Subscriptions: Use the subscription form below. Costfor a subscription is $10.00 (domestic and APO/FPO) or$12.50 (foreign).

Renewal Subscription: To keep subscription prices down,the Government Printing Office mails each subscriber onlyone renewal notice. To be sure that your service continueswithout interruption, please return your notice promptly. Ifyour subscription service is discontinued, simply send yourmailing label from any issue to the Superintendent ofDocuments, Attn: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop: SSOM,Washington, DC 20402, with the proper remittance andyour service will be reinstated.

Address Changes: Please send your mailing label, alongwith your new address to the Superintendent ofDocuments, Attn: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop: SSOM,Washington, DC 20402.

Subcribe to CML, Army Chemical Review

Subscription Order Form

Credit card orders are welcome!Fax your orders (202) 512-2250Phone your orders (202) 512-1800

United States GovernmentINFORMATIONOrder Processing Code:*5907 YES, please send________subscriptions to:

CML, Army Chemical Review (ACJ) at $10 each ($12.50 foreign) per year.The total cost of my order is $________. Price includes regular shipping and handling and is subject to change.

Inquiries About Subscription Service: Please send your mailing label, along with your correspondence, toSuperintendent of Documents, Attn: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop: SSOM, Washington, DC 20402. Telephone number(202) 512-1800.

City State Zip code+4

Name or title (Please type or print)

Company name Room, floor, suite

Street address

/ /

Daytime phone including area code

Purchase order number (optional)

Check method of payment:Check payable to: Superintendent of DocumentsGPO Deposit AccountVISA Mastercard Discover

(expiration date)

Authorizing signature

Mail to: Superintendent of Documents, PO Box 371954, Pittsburgh PA 15250-7954Important: Please include this completed order form with your remittance.

Thank you for your order!

1. Major General William L. Sibert, 1918-1920

2. Major General Amos Fries, 1920-1929

3. Major General Harry Gilchrist, 1929-1933

4. Major General Claude B. Brigham, 1933-1937

5. Major General Walter C. Baker, 1937-1941

6. Major General William Porter, 1941-1945

7. Major General Alden Wiatt, 1945-1949

8. Major General Anthony Macauliffe, 1949-1951

9. Major General Egbert F. Bullene, 1951-1954

10. Major General William M. Creasy, 1945-1958

11. Major General Marshall Stubbs, 1958-1963

12. Brigadier General Fred J. Delmore, 1963-1964

13. Major General Lloyd B. Fellenz, 1964-1967

14. Major General John J. Hayes, 1967-1972

15. Major General John G. Appel, 1972-1974

16. Major General Peter G. Olenchuk, 1974-1975

17. Major General John K. Stoner, Jr., 1975-1980

18. Major General Alan A. Nord, 1980-1985

19. Major General Gerald G. Watson, 1985-1989

20. Major General Robert D. Orton, 1989-1994

21. Major General Ralph G. Wooten, 1994-1999

22. Colonel Patricia L. Nilo, 1999-

CHIEFS OF CHEMICALPast to Present

January 2000 45