home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.military
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!ncrlnk!ciss!law7!military
- From: robichau@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Paul Robichaux)
- Subject: Re: desert storm operations
- Message-ID: <Bxo0w9.5oA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
- Organization: New Technology, Inc.
- References: <Bwzp8H.4z3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <Bx7C34.Dv5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <BxB8oH.L4G@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <BxGrsK.776@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:36:08 GMT
- Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
- Lines: 33
-
-
- From robichau@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Paul Robichaux)
-
- In <BxGrsK.776@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gawne@stsci.edu speaks truly:
- >It is very easy now to
- >be monday morning quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight, but I know that
- >if the Iraqis had wanted to make it hard for us they could have made the
- >breaches very costly. They didn't fight back because they were starving
- >and demoralized. But many Iraqi guns were operable, and laid in to fire
- >for effect on the breach points, with plenty of servicable shells laid out
- >in the gun emplacements when we captured them.
-
- One component that most of the "Monday morning" crowd ignores is the
- network of Iraqi beach defenses. 5th MEB was used primarily as a fake
- landing force to tie up Iraqi troops/materiel along the expected
- coastal line of attack.
-
- As it turned out, no amphibious landings were necessary. However, if
- the initial phase of the ground war had been less successful, an
- amphibious assault against heavily defended beaches might have been
- necessary. Such an assault, as any historian (or Marine!) can tell
- you, is expensive in terms of men and gear, and should be avoided when
- possible.
-
- -Paul Robichaux
- Sgt., USMCR
-
-
- --
- Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG | May explode if disposed of improperly.
- Mission Software Development Div. | Printed on recycled phosphors.
- New Technology, Inc. | ** PGP 2.0 key available on request **
-
-