Iraq with AT-AT's, Gulf War changes

[RedImperator]

Assuming for a moment that nothing in the US arsenal short of a nuclear weapon can destroy an AT-AT, and the US is reluctant to deploy such weapons immediately (remember in late 1990-early 1991 the USSR was still a going concern), then the Iraqi army now has more than enough offensive capability to invade Saudi Arabia immediately following the fall of Kuwait. The Saudis in 1990 did not have anything approaching the ability to stop the Iraqis without American help, and with the walkers to punch open holes in defensive lines, the Iraqis would have advanced too fast for the coalition army to assemble. Riyadh would have fallen very quickly and the Saudi oilfields would have been siezed almost immediately. The question now becomes, is there a Gulf War at all, or does Saddam present the world with a fait accompli? Certainly, nobody would really miss the Saudi royal family. Iran couldn't defeat Iraq in eight years of conventional warfare when they had rough technological parity, so they aren't going to interfere. Syria, Jordan, and the rest of the Gulf states are militay non-entities. The wildcard is Israel. If 150 AT-AT's in the hands of Saddam Hussein don't represent a threat to the survival of the Israeli state, nothing does. Considering the IDF's "shoot first, and screw asking questions" policy, I suspect the mushrooms will be sprouting early, maybe while the walkers are still in the oil fields in the eastern Gulf.

[Crazy_Vasey]

Ground battles would be an utter massacre but without air support the question is a waste of time.

[Omega-13]

Assuming for a moment that nothing in the US arsenal short of a nuclear weapon can destroy an AT-AT, and the US is reluctant to deploy such weapons immediately (remember in late 1990-early 1991 the USSR was still a going concern), then the Iraqi army now has more than enough offensive capability to invade Saudi Arabia immediately following the fall of Kuwait. The Saudis in 1990 did not have anything approaching the ability to stop the Iraqis without American help, and with the walkers to punch open holes in defensive lines, the Iraqis would have advanced too fast for the coalition army to assemble. Riyadh would have fallen very quickly and the Saudi oilfields would have been siezed almost immediately. The question now becomes, is there a Gulf War at all, or does Saddam present the world with a fait accompli? Certainly, nobody would really miss the Saudi royal family. Iran couldn't defeat Iraq in eight years of conventional warfare when they had rough technological parity, so they aren't going to interfere. Syria, Jordan, and the rest of the Gulf states are militay non-entities. The wildcard is Israel. If 150 AT-AT's in the hands of Saddam Hussein don't represent a threat to the survival of the Israeli state, nothing does. Considering the IDF's "shoot first, and screw asking questions" policy, I suspect the mushrooms will be sprouting early, maybe while the walkers are still in the oil fields in the eastern Gulf.

Do you think the nukes will be deployed via bombers? or ICBM's, with a bomber, you always run the risk of getting shot down

[Sothis]

I'm not so sure about TIES (unless you mean TIE Interceptors). Bog-standard TIEs aren't designed great for atmospheric flight, I'd sooner have an X-Wing (added bonus of torps, which really would be evil).

[Sea Skimmer]

Don't think the B-52's are going to be able to do it, Iraq had some serious anti-aircraft installations, they could hardly get in there, i doubt the big fat fighting fortress would get within 100 miles of any AT-AT's, there would be more anti - aircraft battiers than there is grains of sand. Think we are looking at bunker buster, armed with a high yield nuclear weapon, being dropped from high altitude by B2's

In the whole of the gulf war, one one B-52 was hit, by an SA-2, and it returned to base. Iraq's defences were fiarly good against targets below 10,000 feet, but had no chance against aircraft coming in from 12-15 thousand.

Those swarms of AA batterys were 80% 57mm or smaller guns.

[Omega-13]

Don't think the B-52's are going to be able to do it, Iraq had some serious anti-aircraft installations, they could hardly get in there, i doubt the big fat fighting fortress would get within 100 miles of any AT-AT's, there would be more anti - aircraft battiers than there is grains of sand. Think we are looking at bunker buster, armed with a high yield nuclear weapon, being dropped from high altitude by B2's

In the whole of the gulf war, one one B-52 was hit, by an SA-2, and it returned to base. Iraq's defences were fiarly good against targets below 10,000 feet, but had no chance against aircraft coming in from 12-15 thousand.

Those swarms of AA batterys were 80% 57mm or smaller guns.

I"m surprised it could make it back to base, considering there was probably a hole in it somewhere, i'm surprised atmosphere friction didn't tear it to pieces

[oberon]

Not AT-ATs nor TIEs can help Iraq, they lack the training and discipline, as well as the pool of decent recruits that we have. The new toys will sit and rust in airfields and motorpools, until we get around to sending a bunch of civilians to dismantle and confiscate them.

[Akm72]

A couple of questions;

Why can't an AT-ATs pitch it's cheek-cannons up to engage high-flying aircraft?

Why assume that the US sensors and communications systems are immune to AT-AT EW systems? ROTJ shows that even little SW military speeder-bikes have communications jammers, surely Imperial Walkers should be able to disrupt Gulf-War era systems?

[Omega-13]

A couple of questions;

Why can't an AT-ATs pitch it's cheek-cannons up to engage high-flying aircraft?

Why assume that the US sensors and communications systems are immune to AT-AT EW systems? ROTJ shows that even little SW military speeder-bikes have communications jammers, surely Imperial Walkers should be able to disrupt Gulf-War era systems?

the problem is that the blasters would take 20 seconds to get to them

[Sea Skimmer]

Don't think the B-52's are going to be able to do it, Iraq had some serious anti-aircraft installations, they could hardly get in there, i doubt the big fat fighting fortress would get within 100 miles of any AT-AT's, there would be more anti - aircraft battiers than there is grains of sand. Think we are looking at bunker buster, armed with a high yield nuclear weapon, being dropped from high altitude by B2's

In the whole of the gulf war, one one B-52 was hit, by an SA-2, and it returned to base. Iraq's defences were fiarly good against targets below 10,000 feet, but had no chance against aircraft coming in from 12-15 thousand.

Those swarms of AA batterys were 80% 57mm or smaller guns.

I"m surprised it could make it back to base, considering there was probably a hole in it somewhere, i'm surprised atmosphere friction didn't tear it to pieces

The 52 is a pretty tough airplane. I should not have said the missile hit, as that would have blown the bomber in half. It was actually a proximity detonation that destroyed several engines and sprayed the wings and aft fuselage with fragments.

[Akm72]

the problem is that the blasters would take 20 seconds to get to them

Really? I thought the time of flight of a blaster bolt was always 1-2 seconds, whatever the range

[Sea Skimmer]

A couple of questions;

Why can't an AT-ATs pitch it's cheek-cannons up to engage high-flying aircraft?

Why assume that the US sensors and communications systems are immune to AT-AT EW systems? ROTJ shows that even little SW military speeder-bikes have communications jammers, surely Imperial Walkers should be able to disrupt Gulf-War era systems?

the problem is that the blasters would take 20 seconds to get to them

Indeed, time of flight is what limits guns against targets at over 4000 feet.

Even heavy Anti aircraft artillery simple isn't effective against very high flying planes, anything over 30,000 feet is basicly immune, and most tactical aircraft can reach that with a large bomb and fuel load. Even at lower altitudes, 5000-15000 feet you have similar problems.

The time of flight combined with evasive action by the plane makes it impossible to hit. By the time the shot reaches up, the plane wont be were you thought it was. The blaster bolt would surely down anything short of a heavy bomber, but the bolts are no faster then conventional heavy AAA, which means they wont be any more effective.

A bunch of AT-AT's working together could likely throw up a thick enough barrage that they would hit something, but they can only engage a few targets, and the Coalition has 2800 tactical aircraft and bombers to throw at them..

[RedImperator]

Do you think the nukes will be deployed via bombers? or ICBM's, with a bomber, you always run the risk of getting shot down

It would have to be bombers. AT-ATs are moving targets, after all. Your most pressing concern, if you're the IDF, are the walkers, not the Iraqi infrastructure, and since there's 150 of them and Israel shouldn't have more than about 200 weapons, there's not an enormous margin for error.

[JohnnyRock30]

B-52's are real nice. Carpet bombing is fun.

[Master of Ossus]

I think that AT-ATs could have changed the war, because I do not think the Coalition would have been willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat Iraq. That is not saying that the Iraqi army is competent, it is merely a statement that nothing in the US/Coalition arsenals, short of nuclear strikes, could have reliably destroyed AT-ATs. Coalition tank forces would have been defeated soundly, and pincer movements are totally worthless if your enemy is able to fight its way out at any time. The only way I can see an AT-AT equipped Iraq losing the war would be if the Coalition forces had simply run straight to Baghdad and other key Iraqi cities and completely bypassed fighting the Iraqis. Unless they were willing to do this, or use nuclear weapons, they could not win this conflict. Even if the AT-ATs were unable to defeat airpower, it would have been irrelevent. The AT-ATs could have overrun Saudi Arabia, with or without Coalition support, because they are all but immune to modern weapons. Not even B-52 strikes would be able to disable such war machines.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

I dunno, an AT-AT might be able to down some planes with there medium guns. Seeing TESB we see just how rapid fire those medium cannons are.Assuming that take 20 seconds to reach there target there still is a couple things they can do.

A.) Put up lots of flak near there escape routes real fast.

B.) Seeing as Imperial computers are probably real advanced, they might be able to roughly predict the bombers flight path, although twenty seconds is plenty of time for a plane, even a B-52 to manuver, so this si sketchy.

C.) Even if they can't predict flight path, after the escape routes have been cut off, they can simply fill the area were the plane is with lots of laser fire ("filling the air wiht energy"), with a limited place to go its bound to get nailed sooner or later.

However, these are all very sketchy, and I'd say theres perhaps a 50/50 any of this could work.

[Cpt_Frank]

Not AT-ATs nor TIEs can help Iraq, they lack the training and discipline, as well as the pool of decent recruits that we have. The new toys will sit and rust in airfields and motorpools, until we get around to sending a bunch of civilians to dismantle and confiscate them.

Yep, the question is: will the iraq figure out how those things work in time?
Probably not.

[Akm72]

Didn't the original scenario state that the AT-ATs came with a crew kindly provided by the Empire?

[Omega-13]

I dunno, an AT-AT might be able to down some planes with there medium guns. Seeing TESB we see just how rapid fire those medium cannons are.Assuming that take 20 seconds to reach there target there still is a couple things they can do.

A.) Put up lots of flak near there escape routes real fast.

B.) Seeing as Imperial computers are probably real advanced, they might be able to roughly predict the bombers flight path, although twenty seconds is plenty of time for a plane, even a B-52 to manuver, so this si sketchy.

C.) Even if they can't predict flight path, after the escape routes have been cut off, they can simply fill the area were the plane is with lots of laser fire ("filling the air wiht energy"), with a limited place to go its bound to get nailed sooner or later.

However, these are all very sketchy, and I'd say theres perhaps a 50/50 any of this could work.

problem is, if you drop a GAU 2000 pounder, from 20 miles away, at 50 or 60 thousand feet, it can make it to the target, just need to paint something with the laser, and AT-AT's are so large, it wouldn't be hard,

[Akm72]

The problems with that is;
1) The walker should be able to shoot down a 2000lb bomb in-flight (weapons systems exist today that should be able to do that).
2) SW jamming systems seem to be able to effect all sensors except eyes - this might well include laser designators.
3) You need 20 miles of cloudless sky, when the weather over Iraq wasn't that good most of the time.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

I think the AT-ATs would die. If the commanders watched TESB (LOL) then they'd know how to defeat it. Just rig up some cables to some F-16's and watch them go after the AT-ATs! LOL OR.......just blow the ground out from underneath the AT-ATs and let it topple over.

[Akm72]

Blowing the ground out from under the AT-ATs is a good idea, though I'm not so sure about trying to copy the harpoon/cable attack used by Rogue squadron, there might be a few problems with that

[Master of Ossus]

I think the AT-ATs would die. If the commanders watched TESB (LOL) then they'd know how to defeat it. Just rig up some cables to some F-16's and watch them go after the AT-ATs! LOL OR.......just blow the ground out from underneath the AT-ATs and let it topple over.

An AT-AT is able to recover from falls and things like that (ref. SW Tales from the Empire). It was just incapable of doing so on Hoth because it was still tied up.

BTW, there are VERY few weapons in the Coalition's arsenal that were capable of cratering a large enough area, and they tended to create gentle craters instead of ones with steep sides. I don't think what you propose would have been either possible or feasible.

[Akm72]

I agree that most of the Coalitions weapons are inappropriate in there initial state. But it is well within their capability to dig large exposive mines under the ground, and try to tempt the AT-ATs to walk over them before they remote detonate the mines.

[Howedar]

The problem isn't shooting down a single Mk-84. The problem is shooting down dozens of them. One does not carpet-bomb with a laser designator. You do not particularly need 20 miles of cloudless sky - the -52s could probably locate the AT-ATs just through their jamming.