Iraq with AT-AT's, Gulf War changes

[Master of Ossus]

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.

How? The Iraqis are fighting a DEFENSIVE war, here, remember? There are only two ways to use such a tactic.

1. Get the Iraqis to attack Saudi Arabia in force well after the Americans arrive. This is unlikely, as a force of Iraqis with AT-AT's would have attacked long before then, possibly without even waiting for them to show up. This would also require that the Coalition knew WHERE the Iraqis would attack. This is highly unlikely, as months after the arrival of Coalition forces they were still caught off-guard by the only, limited, Iraqi offensive into Saudi Arabia.

2. Get around the Iraqis and then force them to move back into mainland Iraq, after mining the highways and other thoroughfares.

The second is the easier method, by far, but it still has problems associated with it. First, it assumes that the walkers are not protected by smaller tanks, screening them. These tanks would likely explode and alert everyone to the Coalition's trickery. It also assumes the ability of the Coalition to move completely around the Iraqi flank AND physically occupy the main highways before the Iraqis can respond. This did not even happen in the real war, and it would be even more difficult against a group of Iraqis equipped with AT-AT walkers. BTW, you are assuming that walkers cannot detect mines, when their sensor and communications packages are known to be quite good--in fact, you are assuming that they cannot detect the presence of very large amounts of explosives under an area of earth that is likely quite badly disrupted by digging. You are also assuming that the Coalition would have had time to employ this. Thus, while more possible than the first option for the employment of explosives, it is also inadequate to knock out a number of AT-ATs.

[Master of Ossus]

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.

And what would they do while carpet bombing? Their weapons are ineffective agaisnt walkers. There would be nothing they could do but sacrifice a few of their number to the weapons of the AT-AT while watching their own carpet bombs go off harmlessly. BTW, carpet bombing would not even be good for digging the kind of holes that would prevent walkers from escaping. It would create gently sloping craters on the ground that a walker would be able to escape from--assuming that the weapon was even large enough to do that damage in the first place. Also, carpet-bombing tends to level a large area. While it makes it vastly more difficult for wheeled and tracked vehicles to traverse, it would be an ineffective impediment for the towering walkers. This tactic is of no use to the Coalition.

[Akm72]

...the -52s could probably locate the AT-ATs just through their jamming.

SW jamming does not work like conventional real-world jamming. From the comments of the characters from the films it seems to blind the sensors to whatever the jamming is trying to hide, and does not provide any tell-tail signals for passive systems to home in on.
The closest real-world equivalent would be active-wave cancellation. But that appears to need the jammer antenna to be in close proximity to whatever EM emission or reflection you are trying to cancel out, which is not the case for SW jammers.
So I doubt a B52 could locate any AT-ATs using a passive receiver.

[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.

How? The Iraqis are fighting a DEFENSIVE war, here, remember? There are only two ways to use such a tactic.

1. Get the Iraqis to attack Saudi Arabia in force well after the Americans arrive. This is unlikely, as a force of Iraqis with AT-AT's would have attacked long before then, possibly without even waiting for them to show up. This would also require that the Coalition knew WHERE the Iraqis would attack. This is highly unlikely, as months after the arrival of Coalition forces they were still caught off-guard by the only, limited, Iraqi offensive into Saudi Arabia.

2. Get around the Iraqis and then force them to move back into mainland Iraq, after mining the highways and other thoroughfares.

The second is the easier method, by far, but it still has problems associated with it. First, it assumes that the walkers are not protected by smaller tanks, screening them. These tanks would likely explode and alert everyone to the Coalition's trickery. It also assumes the ability of the Coalition to move completely around the Iraqi flank AND physically occupy the main highways before the Iraqis can respond. This did not even happen in the real war, and it would be even more difficult against a group of Iraqis equipped with AT-AT walkers. BTW, you are assuming that walkers cannot detect mines, when their sensor and communications packages are known to be quite good--in fact, you are assuming that they cannot detect the presence of very large amounts of explosives under an area of earth that is likely quite badly disrupted by digging. You are also assuming that the Coalition would have had time to employ this. Thus, while more possible than the first option for the employment of explosives, it is also inadequate to knock out a number of AT-ATs.

I totally agree with you, it's not an effective war winning tactic. But IF you could dig a large enough mine, AND get an AT-AT to walk over it, AND then detonate it underneith the walker, you could probably knock it over. I was just being kind to those poor souls who think that 150 Iraqi AT-ATs wouldn't make any difference to the outcome

[Master of Ossus]

Oh, sorry, Akm72. I thought you were trying to propose that as a serious tactic.

[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.

And what would they do while carpet bombing? Their weapons are ineffective agaisnt walkers. There would be nothing they could do but sacrifice a few of their number to the weapons of the AT-AT while watching their own carpet bombs go off harmlessly. BTW, carpet bombing would not even be good for digging the kind of holes that would prevent walkers from escaping. It would create gently sloping craters on the ground that a walker would be able to escape from--assuming that the weapon was even large enough to do that damage in the first place. Also, carpet-bombing tends to level a large area. While it makes it vastly more difficult for wheeled and tracked vehicles to traverse, it would be an ineffective impediment for the towering walkers. This tactic is of no use to the Coalition.

We're talking weapons nearly as powerful as an AT-AT's weapons themselves. But fair enough, I'll be nice and assume that a 2000lb bomb won't do the trick.

Next on the list would be a laser-guided bomb under the feet or into the neck. SW has never shown an ability to jam visible light.

[Master of Ossus]

You are assuming that an AT-AT has the firepower to knock out another AT-AT. This is not necessarily the case. Almost all Coalition weapons fall WELL short of the kiloton range, anyway, with the exception being nuclear weapons. We have already established that anything less than a direct hit with a thermo-nuclear device will not be enough to destroy/permanently disable an AT-AT.

BTW, you are assuming that the Coalition would be able to accurately target the neck with laser-guided munitions, and you are still assuming that the Coalition firepower is great enough to punch through the armor around the neck area. This has not been proven (and, in fact, is likely not true). The laser-guided weapons were less accurate than most Coalition commanders attempted to claim, and it would be EXTREMELY difficult for them to reliably target such a small area, even if they were able to punch through. Further, you are talking about at least another 300 attack sorties by Coalition bombers/fighter bombers, just to knock out the walkers. That is significant, as is the number of laser-guided munitions required to do this, even if they were reasonably accurate. FURTHER, laser guided weapons are of EXTREMELY limited utility against moving targets, especially the big 2000 pound ones that you talked about earlier. Generally, missiles are used for these kinds of targets, but the tank-busting missiles available to the Coalition do not have NEARLY the firepower they would require to punch through AT-AT armor AND they are not nearly accurate enough.

[Mr Bean]

Master of Ossus fine then switch to GPS Bombs excluding Radical Manvuring (The AT-AT breaking out into a Sixty mile an hour side-steping hopping and jumping routine, lucky the never seem to be able to do this)

First those Within Five Meters accurasy are including have other planes/AA fire shooting at them

Within those things you get rougly a 40% increase in Accurasy

Now the Ossus you see the problem is this
If you want to Surrond your AT-AT's with AA equipment they must STAND STILL or move in a limited area.

If not(Like say you wanted to attack something with the AT-AT's) they have effectivly no Air Cover, Nothing Saddam Put in the Air we could not swat down easily, Thus you face unlimted Waves of B-52s which the AT-AT can't hit flying high altiude bombing runs aginst realativly slow moving targets with the additon of any near miss are going to do what? Tear up the ground toss sand in the air and generaly make things diffuclt for the AT-AT's to see and if the first B-52 Drops a nuke say a Quater Mile in front of the At-At's they have to adjust postion as walking through a recent Nuclear strike area besidses the fun large crater has lots of nice nasty radaition plus the additonal EMP style effects NOT being generaly unstable
And you don't have to drop a 100 Mega-ton, A five Kilo-ton would create a nice sized crater they would have to deutor around while still facing constant Bombing runs and being unable to relatilate

[Howedar]

Those were not available at the time.

[Master of Ossus]

Unless the B-52s were loaded with thermonuclear weapons, and the Iraqi commander was not a COMPLETE doofus, the B-52s would not be able to cause damage to the AT-ATs, even in huge numbers.

There are several reasons why the Coalition should not have used thermonuclear weapons, primarily because of the ostracism it would receive in the international community for doing so, and the likely fragmentation of the Coalition afterwards, and because of the threat of Iraqi retaliation with Chemical and Biological (and the much more limited threat of Nuclear) agents.

[Akm72]

Master of Ossus fine then switch to GPS Bombs excluding Radical Manvuring

GPS-guided bombs wern't available during the Gulf War. Early GPS-guided bombs are LESS accurate than LGBs. GPS signals should be jammable in the locality of the AT-ATs. You still need to find the AT-ATs with sufficient accuracy to drop shit on them. A big slow bomb being dropped from high altitude should be a fairly easy target to destroy.

If you want to Surrond your AT-AT's with AA equipment they must STAND STILL or move in a limited area.

The AT-ATs own weapons can provide reasonable level of air defence, esp when combined with their lack of vulnerability to late 20th century conventional weapons.

If not... ...they have effectivly no Air Cover, Nothing Saddam Put in the Air we could not swat down easily,

True, though if the walkers can disrupt US communications systems then Iraqi fighters become MUCH more dangerous to US aircraft.

Thus you face unlimted Waves of B-52s...

Still limited as they are flying from a LONG way away, and the US only has a limited number to begin with.

...which the AT-AT can't hit...

They may not be able to get a high probability of a kill, but they should still be able to shoot at them with flak bursts. The B52s arn't invulnerable in this scenario.

...flying high altiude bombing runs aginst realativly slow moving targets...

Which the B52s can't see on their radar screens, due to jamming.

...with the additon of any near miss are going to do what? Tear up the ground toss sand in the air and generaly make things diffuclt for the AT-AT's to see and if the first B-52 Drops a nuke say a Quater Mile in front of the At-At's they have to adjust postion as walking through a recent Nuclear strike area besidses the fun large crater has lots of nice nasty radaition plus the additonal EMP style effects NOT being generaly unstable
And you don't have to drop a 100 Mega-ton, A five Kilo-ton would create a nice sized crater they would have to deutor around while still facing constant Bombing runs and being unable to relatilate

Tossing sand in the air isn't going to overly concern the AT-AT commander.
Making a BIG hole in the ground a quarter of a mile in front of the Walkers is not going to make any strategic difference.
EMP effects might be interesting, though SW use of Ion cannons would indicate that SW military equipment would have 'some' protection from equipment-frying EM effects. I'd guess it might slow them down for a few minutes while they repair damaged equipment.

[Master of Ossus]

EMP weapons were not available. In fact, they are still not really available. Unless you wanted to detonate a nuclear weapon (which is obviously an incorrect choice of action) you cannot destroy an AT-AT.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Master of Ossus has brought up a good point here. Dropping nukes on any Iraqi target would envoke the use of chem/bio weapons. And the US cannot risk letting any of that spread about.

As for the EMP thing, the AOTC:ICS states that the AT-TE is "well shielded against electromagnetic pulse and ion weapons."

[Mr Bean]

Exluding EMP Effects the AT-AT are in Iraq
The B-52s would be flying from SA or Turkey,


The AT-AT has demostrate long Ground to Ground Range but relativly short Ground to Air Ranges
Keep in mind those snow-speeders where flying at the same height as the AT-AT's not a mile up


The problem the AT-AT face is threefold

They are outnumbered
They have little AA Cover
They have only two real choices

Move and attack targets but leave behind any AA cover they might have

Or sit still and thus be rendered useless

Remeber the AT-ATs have awhile to travel before they can do any damage, And face air attacks all along the way NTM the air attacks would increase as they get closer to thier targets
And they face Cruise Missle Strikes which could or not be carring W-80 500 Kilton Nuclear weapons

As for well if you used nukes then Saddam would use Bio-and Chemicals weapons
Heres a clue HE DID ANYWAY

Furthmore Bio and Chem attacks are quite useless aginst both Sides Armys while Nuclear strikes are quite effective

[Master of Ossus]

Nuclear strikes would not be effective if they fragmented the Coalition and caused a religious war by involving the Israelis after the failure of the initial Coalition. They would have vastly widened the conflict, and made the sides much less clear.

Cruise missiles that carried nuclear payloads could not have been delivered to moving targets. I don't know where you get the idea that cruise missiles can be fired as easily as you get into your car and drive to the supermarket, but it takes a considerable amount of time to plot their paths and fire them. And moving a target even a small distance would throw off their aim. I also don't know where you get the idea that airstrikes against moving AT-ATs would be effective. If an AT-AT can withstand anything less than a nuclear payload, it should be able to shrug off even very large conventional weapons, except in huge numbers. I think we can agree that an AT-AT is vastly more powerful than any Coalition AFV, and an attack by such vehicles would be nearly impossible for the Coalition to stop. Further, all of this assumes that the AT-AT equipped Iraq did not immediately invade both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, either simultaneously or taking the Saudis immediately afterwards. Remember that all of those American and Coalition forces did not crop up overnight. They had to be flown over and established in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis alone would have had NO chance against an AT-AT, or even against just Iraq, by themselves and without the SW reinforcements.

So, even if the AT-ATs could not attack B-52s, they would really just be an annoyance to the AFVs. Neither side could damage the other, but the AT-ATs would be able to hammer Coalition ground forces, and potentially even push them back into Saudi Arabia. They might even be able to launch attacks against the Saudi airfields from which the Coalition launched so many sorties. I think that a regiment (or about there) of AT-AT's would have thrown the war completely, unless the Coalition decided to use nuclear weapons on them, which would have been unlikely.