AT-ATs, Gulf War, was Re: The GZG Digest V1 #672

1 posts ยท Jan 21 2000

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:08:38 +0100

Subject: AT-ATs, Gulf War, was Re: The GZG Digest V1 #672

> dadams@parracity.nsw.gov.au wrote:

> If you are palying Imperial, buy ortillery and lots of it. There is a

There was a reason why Lord Vader had to send in ground troops to capture the
Hoth base, too... he couldn't bombard it because of the
shield generator :-/

> Unfortunately DSII has the propblem of hadling high tech weapon

In the Gulf War, the Allies had Superior FCs and COnfident
Regular/Veteran units with leadership 1-2. Oh, and massive aerospace
support, and quite a lot of artillery :-/

Most of the Iraqi forces had Basic FCs (in the cases their hardware
rated higher - ie, Enhanced - their training and doctrine didn't allow
them to use it), SHaken Green units (with a smattering of Regular) with
leadership 2-3. Mostly 3. And no effective artillery or air support, of
course.

I think DSII would get the outcome of such a fight reasonably right -
particularly if you let the Iraqi forces be as surprised by the ground assault
as they were historically (with many tank crews camping well away from their
tanks, and thus not manning their tanks when the enemy
arrived..) <g>

Regards,