What is the minimum one can communicate with coauthors What are the minimal communication points with coauthors necessary for peer-review? 

I am faced with a slightly hostile and poorly trained group of coauthors (the latter is not their fault: they are MS level engineers from industry). Each communication costs time and misunderstanding. I do have a desire to do things 'correctly', in general, but especially as I suspect that at some point one may write a letter complaining to the editor. I'm hoping to steer this process to happier places, and fewer exchanges seem to be one important component of this.

Upon submission all authors ratified the draft.  Now I have a revise and resubmit. My plan is not to send the comments around (they will be taken as 'we failed' by this group, not accustomed to academic comments). Instead, I will address them and send around the revision with reply. 

Does this seem acceptable. is there a way to minimize even more?
I think that, ethically, you have reached the minimum. If their names are to be attached then they need to sign off on the result as published. But it may not be necessary for them to see how the sausage is made. So, I think you are fine in what you suggest. 

However, you should expect questions about why you made certain changes and you might, at that point, need to share something of the comments of reviewers that led you to make those changes. 

The endless arguments may still occur, but at least you will have an updated version about which to argue, rather than just a lot of disparate comments.