又找到一篇，用坦克送上去的

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

12/13/2006 2:45:07 PM

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

 

所有跟帖： 

• 这是扯蛋。中国当时没有化学战的能力。 -borisg- ♂ (191 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 13:17:27

• +， 而且，勿来4 写的 有不实际的地方， -弓尒- ♂ (263 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 13:26:07

• 你们在内地吧，可能收到的台少 -勿来三- ♂ (107 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 13:49:11

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

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

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

• 不要说我来三，还是来四，我只是个messenger -勿来三- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/26/2019 postreply 13:45:39

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