Subject:
|
Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Feb 2000 06:23:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
540 times
|
| |
|
|
Actually, had you read the previous replies to the message you just replied
to, you would see that most of this has already been covered.
BTW, the 82nd had considerably more than just "their M16s" when they landed,
as anyone who has had to hump a manpack Dragon launcher around the
battlefield knows. And the 101st is *not* an airborne division, in spite of
the patch they wear. They are air assault, and it takes a considerable
amount of heavy lift to get all those troop transport helicopters into a
theater.
Further, the US Marines were far from the only ones "way out in front" prior
to Desert Storm. There weren't enough Marines in theater to even *begin* to
cover a front that size. Egyptian, Syrian, French, Saudi, English, and of
course US Army forces all had their own sectors to cover, nose-to-nose with
the Iraqis.
And the Iraqis weren't worried about an invasion through Iraq *because* of
Schwarzkopf's (spelling correct) plan. Part of this plan was the Marine
amphibious unit in the Gulf, and another part was a massive shift of VII
Corps just prior to the start of the ground war.
--
William A. Swanberg
CPT, SC
Commander, 229th Signal Company (TACSAT)
swanberg@msn.com
"Troy Cefaratti" <mnementh@sbase1.com> wrote in message
news:Fq9GGA.5Iu@lugnet.com...
>
> Bill Farkas <kfar@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Fq3pFs.Cqn@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.general, William A. Swanberg writes:
> > > Having also been "in an armed conflict on foreign soil" (in fact, I was • in
> > > the middle of Iraq with the 1st Cav while the Marines were still • sailing
> > > back and forth in the Arabian Gulf playing decoy, but I digress),
> >
> > This is an incredibly ridiculous statement. While the Army Airborne were • the
> > first troops on the ground (with M16's only), everyone knows that the • Marines,
> > thanks to the maritime prepositioning system, were the first fully • equipped
> > armed contingent prepared to do precise and extensive harm. Everyone • also
> knows
> > that the Marines occupied the forwardmost positions during the entire
> > occupation. Everyone also knows why this is. Yes, there was a • diversionary
> > tactic in the beach landing scenario, but this illustrates, yet again, • my
> > point. Were the Iraqis concerned about the 1st Cav or the impending • beach
> > landing? Answer this for yourself. Regardless, this was a small decoy • force,
> > the bulk of the Marines in theater were way out in front of any other • units and
> > causing a whole heck of a lot more mayhem. I appreciate your pride in • your
> unit
> > and branch of service but, again, everyone knows the truth about who the • top of
> > the food chain is.
>
> I must point out that your statement, especially the top of the food chain
> part, is pretty ridiculous itself.
>
> We still maintain 4 branches of service because all 4 branches are still
> needed to effectively fight a war. There is not a single branch of • service
> that could fight a war on its own, no matter how much their duties • overlap.
> They are supposed to compliment each other.
>
> Marines are usually the some of the first ones in. But then so are the
> 101st and 82nd airborn of the Army. And the Navy SEALS. These units are
> DESIGNED to be the first ones in. The Marines are the only branch that • have
> a large amphibious force. The Airborn units are just that, airborn. All
> their equipment can be airlifted. And the SEALs are masters of stealth.
> I'd wager money that they were probably the first on the ground in Iraq.
> But you'll never know that, because they were doing recon for those that
> follow.
>
> First in is not always the most important anyways. A heavy armored • division
> will never be the first in, but i'd like to see you win a major war • without
> armor. Navy warships will never be the first in (Unless they just happen • to
> be in the area), but i'd like to see you win a coastal war without them.
> The air force will never be the first in, but i'd like to see you win a • war
> without their air support.
>
> Sure, the navy/marines and the army have aircraft. They are used in • direct
> support of their troops. But that leaves the Air Force to do other • things,
> like strategic bombing.
>
> As to who the Iraqi's were worried about, they WERE worried about a • coastal
> invasion or one through Kuwait. They SHOULD ahve been worried about the
> ground troops massed deeply inland along their border with Saudi Arabia.
> The fact that they weren't just proves that Gen. Shwartzkoph (sp?) had a
> good plan. A plan that effectively use ALL branches of the service to • their
> best capacity to fight the war.
>
> Troy
>
>
>
>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
54 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
