Talk:Coalition of the Gulf War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Western Asia: Kuwait Mid‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Kuwait (assessed as Mid-importance).

Who

Looking for clarification: The Afghan Troops were Taliban, Mujaheddin, or Communist?

The communist regime in Afghanistan didn't fall untill 1992, so they are communist. --Im a Socialist! What Are You (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina

Argentine Navy sent ARA Almirante Brown, ARA Espora, ARA Rosales and ARA San Blas [1] the air force sent Boeing 707 that seems much more than 300 . --Jor70 (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany?

The "Other divisions" lists Germany, but the table at the top doesn't identify what forces or armaments Germany provided?69.37.68.72 (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal it's not Spain

Please change the map, because it shows Portugal as a member of the coalition of the gulf war. Believe me, Portugal it's not Spain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.218.163 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Condense the list of equipment

Do we really need a separate category for "guided missile destroyer", "guided missile frigate", "amphibious transport dock" and etc when we can just have one "warship" category? Can probably have a single "ground combat vehicle" category as well. —Masterblooregard (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Turkey?

This article names two Turkish commanders of the coalition, but the article doesn't indicate that Turkey sent any troops at all. So, who were they leading.

There's also no indication of participation by Turkey in either of the maps of coalition forces. 68.50.227.52 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article that links to this one lists Turkey as a member of the coalition: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gulf_War#Coalition_involvement

68.50.227.52 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize I was not signed in before. Anyway, the latter article says:

The Coalition committed 540,000 troops, and a further 100,000 Turkish troops were deployed along the Turkish-Iraqi border. This caused a significant force dilution of Iraq's military by forcing it to deploy its forces along all its borders. This allowed the main thrust by the U.S. to possess not only a significant technological advantage, but also a numerical superiority.

Ileanadu (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this:

Against the advice of many of his advisors -- and the Turkish military -- Özal threw Turkey's full support behind the US military campaign to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Ankara cut off Iraq's oil exports through Turkish pipelines as part of the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq. It also deployed 100,000 troops along the Turkish-Iraqi border and allowed the United States to fly sorties against Iraq out of Turkish bases.

It just seems bizarre that Turkish coalition commanders are listed in the article. Couldn't there be an entry for the 100K Turkish forces with an explanation or footnote that their contribution was limited to its own border with Iraq? Ileanadu (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coalition of the Gulf War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

France

"The French personnel was around 18,000 and participated in Opération Daguet. It provided LTG Michel Roquejeoffre: 20,000 troops, 14 ships, one CV, more than 75 aircraft, 350 tanks, & 6th Armored Division. The prominent Michel Roquejeoffre was a leader in the Gulf War."

The numbers are inconsistent and this needs rewritten. The Vital One (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of Equipment

I've been editing this page, and have come to the conclusion that the large amount of equipment listed is unnecessary for the article. I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on if it should be deleted, slimmed down a bit, or left the same. Sgtnugg (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]