Talk:Battle of Khafji

message: I found out that most battles articles have the same standard. for example, strength should be a Number in the infobox and countries flags are included beside their names.   A M M A R  11:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that there is no reliable source which provides the strength in terms of concrete numbers, so the best alternate method of listing strength is by listing the military units would took part in the battle.  I re-added the flag icons.  If anything, the issue will be resolved during the inevitable FAC (although, it seems that most featured articles on battles have flag icons). JonCatalán(Talk) 14:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But writing divions names still doesn't provide the actual strength. We can find relible sources if we search more, Google never leaves a source in peace :)   A M M A R  17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of those online sources are reliable (I have taken seven articles through FAC, trust me).  I have used all the written sources that I could find (that were not self-published) and there really isn't any accurate accounting of strength.  The "order of battle" is fine, and it will be ironed out during the inevitable FAC process.  JonCatalán(Talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Military article standard

message: Colons were getting out of control. :) I deleted the mention of the coalition force's size as of Jan 1991. The article comes back to it in "Order of Battle." Unless you're particularly attached to it, that deletion resolves one of the organizational issues. PRRfan (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New subhead

message: Details of air sorties, models of aircraft involved, and perhaps their capabilities / armament, are rather sparse for an article about a battle which was apparently dominated and made decisive by air power. Hohum (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The battle was mostly fought on the ground.  The aircraft which sortied (helicopters and A-10s) are mentioned in the article.  Although their actions were brief and repetitive (which is why they aren't mentioned more), air support is what decimated Iraqi military power.  The ground troops just occupied Khafji (and, admittedly, a lot of the fighting in Khafji was done on the ground).  I don't think that Coalition air power had to do much to prove that they were the anchor of the Coalition's success.  JonCatalán(Talk) 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Perhaps it's just a psychological thing  about their importance being stressed but the details being glossed over in my mind. I assume it's not possible to mention what squadrons / strengths were involved in the order of battle section, since they are unknown? Perhaps it's appropriate to add key aircraft types that were involved to the vehicles table, are they at least as important? Hohum (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Air power

message: So, Road range for Iraqi tanks: 342.8 km is 300 miles but 500 km is 310.7 mi?? Tijfo098 (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the reference cited - it says 300 miles, so I have corrected the number of kilometers. (Hohum @) 12:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird transformations 

message: There is a reference Ogorkiewicz, p. 73., but no Ogorkiewicz in the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now fixed. (Hohum @) 12:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphan reference 

message: My own recollection and searches of the internet seem to suggest the coverage of this engagement was more muted than I think it should have been. This might be something the article could reflect and reflect upon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.112.160 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muted Press Coverage 

message: I'm concerned about the apparent lack of coverage in the loss of th AC-130, callsign Spirit 03. A full quarter of the Coalition servicemen killed were on that plane and I think it is worth more than a single non-descript sentence. Normally, I'd be bold and add it myself, but this is an FA and I think my inputs should be coordinated with more veteran editors. Where do you think it would be best to put in this information? Perhaps in a paragraph where it fits best chronologically? Elsewhere? It's own section? — BQZip01 — talk 02:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible source of good info: http://www.aircommando.org/?q=content/newsletters/february-2011 . — BQZip01 — talk 02:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Spirit 03

message: The UK is listed in the infobox as providing a fighting force - the only mention in the main text is a single mention of 'British aircraft'.  What was the UK's involvement?  How many troops did each of the US, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UK provide? 86.134.50.45 (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK involvement 

message: Were there any civilian casualties? If not why not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.10.147 (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  civilians 

message: I removed the following discussion / comment from the article to where it belongs, the talk page for discussion. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide published verifiable and reliable sources. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Khafji. 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:
*Added  tag to https://www.knox.army.mil/center/ArmorMag/backissues/1990s/1996/ma96/2saudi96.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225123721/https://research.au.af.mil/papers/ay1996/ari/titusj.pdf to https://research.au.af.mil/papers/ay1996/ari/titusj.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why the claim that "Battle of Khafji served as a modern example of the ability of air power to serve a supporting role to ground forces"? There was nothing unique about the role of air power here.Royalcourtier (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ground support 

message: I wanted to watch the equipment of Qatars forces and saw this... so Too small contingent or what? I would ask if there is a 4 line limit but I remember the (I guess still existing) "military intervention against ISIL" site which had like 15 allies on its side.
It is in the article for ALL ground forces, all of the 5 or 6 (I don't know yet what ISF is standing for, maybe something like a reserve of guys skilled only a bit in everything but can be used in emergency cases?!). However the Battle here is mentioned under History as 2nd sentence of "History" in a very short History part (the whole article needs updates).
However, maybe we can include Qatar?! Greetings from Berlin, Europe Kilon22 (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Qatar should be included. It appears to me that Qatar has been replaced by Kuwait throughout the article. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qatar took part but is missing?

message: Bahraini contribution to the battle with Task Force "Isa" belonging to the Bahraini Armed Forces, where Bahrain also supported using the Bahraini Airforce having 303 sorties, 181 patrols but somehow whenever i add it it heys removed 109.161.166.177 (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed from the infobox because there is no mention of Bahrain or Isa in the remainder of the article. Add something with a proper citation from a reliable source to the coalition forces section. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bahraini Armed Forces took part in the Liberation of Qaruh [a Kuwaiti Island] and there are many video tapes showing the Bahraini army returning from Kuwait after the war in 1991 109.161.168.144 (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't sound like it's part of the Battle of Khafji. Qaruh is not mentioned in this article. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

text: FWIW, this source says Bahrain Air Force had 289 fixed wing sorties in the entire war 17 Jan - 28 Feb 1991. I'm not sure where the 303 comes from, but I'd like to see the source that came from. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: atleast someone could add the 289, Bahrain took part so atleast it had to be mentioned + there is a photo of a Bahraini Patton tank taking part in the war, which belonged to the Tank Battalion "Isa" of the Bahraini Armed Forces 109.161.168.144 (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Battle of Khafji, 	29 January – 1 February 1991. The 289 sorties cited above is the entire Gulf War 17 Jan - 28 Feb 1991, it can't be added to this article because we don't know how many sorties were for this particular battle. Please provide a citation that pertains to just this battle. Maybe you are looking for the Gulf War article instead of this article about a 3 day battle? --Dual Freq (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahrain's contribution to the battle