30                                    U.S. MARINES IN THE PERSIAN GULF, 1990-1991

Proceedings: How did your equipment hold up over there--tanks, LAVs?

Hopkins: Terrific.    People ask me, "Are these kids-or the officers--any better
than they were ten years ago?" I say, "Marines are always Marines, but there
is a big difference between us and 20 years ago, and that's the weapon systems
we have." All our weapon systems worked perfectly.    The only real glitch we
had was the line charges we used to blow breaching paths through the mine
fields; we had only about a 50-60% success rate.  We just doubled up whatever
our requirement was to do that, and we had some teams come on over and work
on it.  But that's basically the only thing that caused us any problems.

Proceedings: Did you have enough night-vision capability?

Hopkins:   Not     initially for everyone, but enough for the  forward    units.
Eventually, we had plenty.   That was one of the imbalances that cost the Iraqis.
It was just dynamite. With the M60, we were taking T-72s out at 3,000 meters,
using our night vision stuff. We used it and optimized it.

Proceedings: Did the 7th MEB have M60 tanks on the ships?

Hopkins: Yes.      A lot of people said, "How can you go up against a T-72?"
Well, take [Lieutenant Colonel Alphonso] Buster Diggs, who commanded the 3d
Tank Battalion.    When this thing came down, I called him in and asked, "What
do we have to do?" He said, "The only thing we've got to do is when they
come, we've got to close with them right away and take away the advantage
they have of outgunning us.   In close, we'll have more maneuverability, we'll
have the sabot round, and we'll cause some problems." And he was right,
absolutely right.  During Desert Storm we were taking out the T-72s with M60s
firing sabot rounds because we got in close.

Proceedings: You've also got remotely piloted vehicles [RPVsj.   Did you take
the Pioneers?

Hopkins: We had one company in the fly-in echelon of the brigade.       Initially
there were some problems but then they were worked out.    They did a hell of
a job.  We used them for battlefield surveillance, for adjusting artillery. The
RPVs are here to stay.

Proceedings: Do you have any strong feelings about whether some of them
should stay with the division, some belong to the wing, who should own them?

Hopkins: No. That was a turf battle at first.  They should either be owned by
the division, and used by the surveillance, reconnaissance and intelligence guys;
and by the artillery--or the assets should be pooled under the MEF.   We've got
to resolve that. The aviators wanted to control the RPVs to preclude any chance