Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: pjj@cs.man.ac.uk (Pete Jinks) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: U.S. Allies (???) In The Gulf War Message-ID: <1991Apr6.021231.14920@amd.com> Date: 5 Apr 91 12:34:11 GMT Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Lines: 34 Approved: military@amd.com From: Pete Jinks >From: jem3@pyuxf.bellcore.com (John E McKillop) >- Britain insisted on breaking away its armored forces from the U.S. >Marines to join U.S. Army troops on the Saudi border for the main >flanking attack. I assumed that the major allied dispositions were sensible, i.e. roughly: light, fast troops (french, airmobile etc.) as flankguard heavy troops (US & UK armour etc.) in the flanking attack lighter, slower troops (arab etc.) diversionary move into Kuwait (I realise this was also political) marines keeping contact with the coast Given allied military intelligence, was there genuine danger of the marines coming under heavy armoured attack? Would they have had difficulty coping e.g. did they get seriously bogged down at Kuwait airport? How important was this compared to ensuring the success of the flank attack? Did UK armour cause other problems (eg. mixed supply, identification) that would have been lessened if they had stuck with the marines? >-Britain had five minesweepers clearing lanes off Kuwait, but London >threatened to pull out the vulnerable wooden-hulled vessels unless the >U.S. guaranteed more protection. American radar-jamming planes and U.S. >Navy attack jets were diverted from other missions to cover the lightly- >armed U.S. and British minesweepers. This seems like a good idea, unless taken to excess - the minesweepers were both important (didn't US ships hit mines?) & vulnerable. You also mention US minesweepers - did they refuse extra cover as being unnecessary? Does anyone have any more details on these reports ?