quote:

What if Saddam Hussein had attacked south into Saudi Arabia during the early phases of Desert Shield, as commentators on the Gulf War unanimously say was the only opportunity to do more serious damage?

Command is not the right choice to model ground combat to the necessary degree that would show the truly most important part (the ground war). However, it is capable of modelling the air and naval war. As Iraq’s naval capability was negligible, the air engagements are the most important. However, the attack would be a monumental struggle. Two massive factors stand over any hypothetical conflict. These are:

The US-led coalition quickly deployed advanced fighters en masse. F-15Cs were among the first fighters to reach the Arabian Peninsula, and they outclassed everything in Saddam’s arsenal, whether by a little (MiG-29, Mirage) or a lot (everything else). The crews had enjoyed a decade of lavish funding and more detailed training than ever before, so even if the crew proficiency for the Iraqis is handicapped upwards, they will be facing equally skilled opponents.

The Iraqi Air Force was simply not built for sustained air control and support of an advancing ground army. The majority of its platforms, even modern ones like MiG-29s, were short-ranged. The offensive actions undertaken by it during the Iran-Iraq War involved small, comparatively-piecemeal strikes against single targets. The only real long-range assets (Tu-16s and Tu-22s) were both small in number and vulnerable.

With this in mind, if I was playing Iraq in a hypothetical staff wargame of this, my choice could very well be to not use the air force offensively except in cases of desperation. The air force would remain more useful as a defensive force to guard the vital logistics from the inevitable massive attack. The short-range platforms can be used in their element, the army is supported to a greater degree than a few high-risk strike sorties can provide, and it can perform a useful role in spite of the high losses.