The Iraq thread 4

[fubarno1 0]

My heart goes out to the Fly boys its hard to recognise vehicles from hight, although there is the question of recognition on the orange panels, but they asked for confirmation of no friendlies in the area twice before engaging, there is no way they could have done a low ID check they could have got a missile in their face for trying.

Friendly fire does and will always happen in time of war, none of us like it but we all should face facts that it is going to happen, its just unfortunate that the US forces are mostly on the dishing it out end, but then again they are the majority force in a conflict but to be that they sometimes have to use personnel that maybe have not received up to date training to enable them to recognise friend from foe, remember the US train for themselves mostly for home defence so are given set targets to engage but maybe they need to include better training for targets of opportunity and if there is any doubt at all on the status of a contact then every effort should be employed to confirm that its not friendly forces before they go weapons free.

Although a blue on blue is hard for us to accept sitting on our chairs at home watching a video of it happen, but how do you think the pilots felt? you could feel their guts getting ripped out when the they were told its a blue on blue it must be the worst thing any military person from any nation could ever hear.

I'm ex-UK Forces and personally I don't like the cavalier attitude of the US forces but I can't bring myself to fully blame them that blue on blue happens, there is more to it than someone just pulling a trigger, breakdown of communications is the main problem but hopefully from these unfortunate events someone will wake-up and find something that makes the possibility of this happening again in the future a thing of the past.

I salute both those that have lost their lives and those that took them for a mistake that should not have happened but unfortunately did.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

BUZZARD @ Feb. 07 2007,02:29)]

a iraqi army getting hold of british tanks??? ill believe it when i see it.  no personal offence but i think your argumant is flawed.

I don't think the pilots ever mentioned tanks... they only mentioned riveted vehicles, green vehicles and what appeared to them as to be ZIL-157 trucks, so if they indeed were iraqi army vehicles trying to pose as british vehicles with orange chevrons on top, you would let them pass even if your ground controller would tell you there were no friendlies in the area, right?  

I've just watched the video again of youtube and it's got audio comments stating the A-10s were flying at 10,000 feet and then dropped to 4,000 feet to engage - which I find odd because normal A-10 flight altitude should be lower than either - and I don't know if I'd recognize any vehicles nor orange chevrons from an altitude of 10,000 feet, but alas, I'm no aviator...

Though why the iraqi army would have green-painted vehicles and orange-painted rocket launchers would intrigue me alot - wouldn't think that to be normal...

And here I thought that in the 21st century with GPS etc at least the ground controllers should know what the battlefield looks like... Wouldn't want to think what would have happened if the ground controller had ordered an MRLS strike on said "targets"...  

Edit: I wonder why the local FAC's accompanying the british units didn't get on the radio and checked in their positions and told the pilots exactly where all the friendly forces were before the A-10's made their run...  

Yea, but you can hear how lousy the pilot is to figure out what area he is watching. Numerious times he mistakes West from East.... That isn't very profesional.

They also report the orange roofs of the 'tanks', which should be the fist indication of friendlies - and you have to be 100% certain of the vehicles - especially when they are marked orange.

The pilots is the only ones to blaim. Of course it's a mistake - but if I was fighting down there, I wouldn't want them over my head... Pilots who doesn't know the four corners yet...

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

It's better to use air support and artillery support from your own forces.

British forces should not operate in the American sectors, and vice versa.

it was a british forces area.  but it is important to point out the british columns have US forward air observers, including the column that was hit.  

My conclusion is it was a series of mistakes, that in the end was made fatal by the pilots poor training and willingness to act without concrete evidence.

Quote[/b] ] I don't think the pilots ever mentioned tanks... they only mentioned riveted vehicles, green vehicles and what appeared to them as to be ZIL-157 trucks, so if they indeed were iraqi army vehicles trying to pose as british vehicles with orange chevrons on top, you would let them pass even if your ground controller would tell you there were no friendlies in the area, right?  

The orange markers should be enough to put off any pilot from engaging without definate evidence.  "they look like rockets" is not good enough for engagment.  Its a hunch.  Plus if all pilots thought iraqi veicles could attempt to pose as coalition forces the suspicion would cause many more friendly fire incidents.  Its just silly, these guys mudt have been breifed, "anything with orange on top, dont shoot!"

[Supah 0]

I saw the video a while back, it seems to me the FAC is to blame here. Multiple messages from the pilot indicate he isn't sure about the identity of the vehicles but he is told each time that there are "no friendlies this far north". He even mentions that they seem to have orange ID panels. I think this is a bad thing for all involved, the pilots seem quite distressed once they are told about their own mistakes, one of them appears to be crying even. Sad event for all involved. Hopefully in the future when systems like LINK32 becomes more comon place, with ground units too, these events should become less frequent.

[Heatseeker 0]

The strangest thing is that the current insurgency going on seems more just like that, hit and run, bombing, etc.

Enemy vehicles armed with rockets in Iraq just doesnt sound very comun these days, in the invasion days it would have been easier to 'understand' a mistake like this but not currently, the pilot was too trigger happy if you ask me.

On the other hand i've just read that a chinook was shot down, i believe that is the 4th helicopter brought down in the last 3 weaks?

The role of rotary wing should be re-evaluated better in these conflicts/wars, way too many of them coming down...

[Baff1 0]

It's better to use air support and artillery support from your own forces.

British forces should not operate in the American sectors, and vice versa.

it was a british forces area.  but it is important to point out the british columns have US forward air observers, including the column that was hit.  

My conclusion is it was a series of mistakes, that in the end was made fatal by the pilots poor training and willingness to act without concrete evidence.

I concur. British forces should not be dependant on foreign air support, it should have/use it's own, and foreign air-support should stick to it's own sector.

While British and American troops have a good history of co-operation and friendly fire is a factor in war, there are some operational problems that keep recurring.

This by no means the first friendly fire accident involving the U.S. and Great Britain.

This is clearly a tradegy both for the pilots and the victims. There are lessons to be learned from this.

Unfortunately, there were lessons to be learnt last time. But they weren't learnt then either.

The withholding of evidence from the British (America's greatest ally) enquirey is nothing short of disrespectful.

Are we all batting for the same team here?

Is our goal to find out what happened and take steps to ensuire it never does again?

Apparently, not.

In fact, these lessons are never going to be learnt.

The Pentagon policy of refusing to let their troops face foreign enquiry simply means that not only will their pilots never face the book, but their operation systems will never face stern review whenever they include foreign forces.

Their troops don't have to look twice, they might feel guilty, but that's as far as it will ever go. Short wonder that these accidents keep occouring.

American troops are neither trained to the highest standards or held up to them by process of law.

Short wonder that British service personnel are so unhappy to serve with them.

[Balschoiw 0]

One of the pilots involved in the blue on blue was promoted to Colonel with the Air National Guard’s A10 tankbuster training wing at a top US base and is today teaching other pilots. Both pilots were cleared of charges and not court martialled. The findings of the internal pentagon investigations are still not public and the denial of the existance of the video just adds up to the long line of US blue on blue coverups.

While it´s debatable who´s supposed to take the blame in this case they should have at least confirmed their targets first and then attack. One had doubts but those doubts didn´t make it into the deciding process.

Bad thing.

[Tovarish 0]

in the invasion days it would have been easier to 'understand' a mistake like this but not currently, the pilot was too trigger happy if you ask me.

This happened during the initial invasion, the video was just leaked now.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

One of the pilots involved in the blue on blue was promoted to Colonel with the Air National Guard’s A10 tankbuster training wing at a top US base and is today teaching other pilots. Both pilots were cleared of charges and not court martialled. The findings of the internal pentagon investigations are still not public and the denial of the existance of the video just adds up to the long line of US blue on blue coverups.

While it´s debatable who´s supposed to take the blame in this case  they should have at least confirmed their targets first and then attack. One had doubts but those doubts didn´t make it into the deciding process.

Bad thing.

thats an old trick all armies use.  If somones incapable or an ass hole, promote them.  (ie.  Sobel in BoB.). it is a bit disrespectful. This needs to be goten to the bottom of and simply saying it was a mistake is not good enough. The US needs to co-operate with the Brtitish enquiry alot more. Firstly for the Widow of the soldier who burnt alive in his tank, and secondly to improve communication between gorund and air to prevent further incidents.

[Thunderbird 0]

It would have been much better for both sides (US and british) if the US pilots would have not shown zeal far beyond, and if they would have simply reported the "suspected" vehicles to another ground-source that might certainly have been more 'efficient' in clearly recognizing the concerned vehicles, plus the vehicles haven't shown any threat to warrant such an action, unfortunately the lack of experience, lack of competence, lack of judgement and misunderstandings always tend to cause such kind of 'avoidable' accidents.

Regards,

TB

[ran 0]

Baffling, what are these guys taught ?

Orange rockets ? Sniffed too much paint fumes and feeling like you're in a Looney Tunes cartoon with big bad red/orange rockets and dynamite sticks? Let me guess, WB's Coyote contributed to the iraqi army's debacle.

The only thing I could think of on an armored vehicle other than an oldschool IR/IFF panel in those color tones is the yellow paint of some training missile containers on former WP SAM systems or some third world military carnival they call parade where they show off vintage BM 13's painted in funky colors.

So we apparently got flatbed trucks moving around orange rockets... I could think of training ammunition once again, but would you carry that kind of cargo on an open flatbed truck ? What made this convoy so important (bear in mind that it was mostly made of soft vehicles in the eyes of the pilots) ? Especially considering the area of operations and the forces in presence ?

I'd say that while it's a blatant show of incompetence on the side of the pilots and the FAC, it's bound to happen in such conditions. That is no excuse on the side of the pilots though.

Guess who's who.

Seems like a bad habbit on the american side. No excuses to be found there. Friendly fire is bound to happen during intensive combat and/or rapid advance but there are certain limits. I remember the british tornado downed by a patriot SAM back in 2003 (and possibly an F18 too) and the bombing of a US-Kurd convoy in Kurdistan in april that year by an american plane. A small saying : "US air power ? Duck and cover !"

-edit-Had a look at the vid, those A10's look like they're flying pretty high for what they're tasked with, this may have already been pointed out though.

[sanctuary 19]

I remember there were some articles during an US friendly fire bombing on Canadian troops in Afghanistan about how the US air force provide a kind of amphetamine to their pilot, so they can stay awake longer, by stimulating them.

Are the US national guards pilots provided with the same drug ?

[Balschoiw 0]

Maybe they should make it easier to recognize them ?

or

and just in case they still don´t get it it´s always good to have some power under the pedal if you need it...

I think it is disturbing that noone actually took blame for what had happened. It´s not even about court-martialling, it´s about respect that none of the persons involved ever excused for what happened, at least to the wife. It´s a shame that it once again ended up in a coverup with noone guilty but one dead.

To be honest, a guy who managed to fuck up like that should not be the one teaching others how to attack targets in comparable situations. He should not be in a cockpit of a warbird anymore.

Quote[/b] ]Are the US national guards pilots provided with the same drug ?

Maybe when he was reffering to his "fuel" at 3.6 he was talking about the steroid injection running out...

[Major Gripe 0]

I think it is disturbing that noone actually took blame for what had happened. It´s not even about court-martialling, it´s about respect that none of the persons involved ever excused for what happened, at least to the wife. It´s a shame that it once again ended up in a coverup with noone guilty but one dead.

To be honest, a guy who managed to fuck up like that should not be the one teaching others how to attack targets in comparable situations. He should not be in a cockpit of a warbird anymore.

I agree that the pilot responsible should not be teaching as his warfighting skills appear to be less than high quality ( ! ) but there isn't a compelling reson why one pilot should be hung out to dry when it seems that the real issue is the lack of adequate initial training and continuing practice for the pilots involved.

Changes should be established within the National Guard squadrons to make sure that the errors that occurred in this instance cannot happen again.

[Heatseeker 0]

in the invasion days it would have been easier to 'understand' a mistake like this but not currently, the pilot was too trigger happy if you ask me.

This happened during the initial invasion, the video was just leaked now.

Thanks for passing the coffee, i only watched the trailer and skip read a little, my bad.

Its wrong to throw all the guilt at the pilot imo (we chat about this in a forum for a few days, he lives with it).

Shouldnt he be aware that friendlies were in the area?

That orange paint meant friendly forces? Didnt he ask for confimation and described the targets the best he could?

Its easy to put the guilt on the guy who pulled the trigger without putting some more serious thought about this.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] Its easy to put the guilt on the guy who pulled the trigger without putting some more serious thought about this.

In the end he´s the one with the gun and he´s the one who´s gotta be sure of what he´s shooting at. No ground controller, FAC or anyone else has his sight and the responsibility to identify the target before he attacks it.

That´s what you always have when you are at the trigger. Either you´re sure, or you don´t fire.

This was no threat situation, they were not traced and there was no indication of hostile behaviour, but indications and clear signs (poppy orange markings) of friendlies. Orange rockets is really ridiculous...

Quote[/b] ]Changes should be established within the National Guard squadrons to make sure that the errors that occurred in this instance cannot happen again.

That would be the optimal outcome, but you don´t get such by covering up such incidents, promoting the responsible ones just to show the declining number of volunteers for the armed forces of the blessed that you are actually taken to court if you shoot up friendlies.

Politics and military standards mix in a dangerous way in the USA.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

to me it just they took the US approach of "shoot first ask questions later". Its obvious it wasnt on purpose. But like L/Cpl Chris Finney says, they were rogue pilots (uncontactable by British according to some sources) who acted like cowboys.

[ran 0]

to me it just they took the US approach of "shoot first ask questions later". Its obvious it wasnt on purpose. But like L/Cpl Chris Finney says, they were rogue pilots (uncontactable by British according to some sources) who acted like cowboys.

The main problem IMO is the concept of reserve pilots as after all the National Guard is a reserve force.

[Supah 0]

Amazing how many of you suddenly turn out to be seasoned fighter pilot's with loads of experience flying CAS missions and ID-ing ground targets .... o wait ..... perhaps some of you should try taking some introductory flying lessons and then ID-ing ground vehicles by make and model from a mere 1500 feet let alone 10.000 feet. Even with EO sensors its a bitch.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

if its so hard to see, how can he make that assumpiton that there rockets???  The pilot seem pretty sure there flatbeds. Your point makes our arguamnt stronger if anything.  If hes that experianced he should have known that its too hard to identify the orange panels as 'rockets'.

[ran 0]

Amazing how many of you suddenly turn out to be seasoned fighter pilot's with loads of experience flying CAS missions and ID-ing ground targets .... o wait ..... perhaps some of you should try taking some introductory flying lessons and then ID-ing ground vehicles by make and model from a mere 1500 feet let alone 10.000 feet. Even with EO sensors its a bitch.

We may not be fighter pilots experienced with CAS duties but some of us are or were among the ones walking under the skies those are flying in. You might understand the concern some ground troops have when heavily armed planes fly over their heads

It's a fact that mistakes were made, deadly ones.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

just to reflect on supah's point, for either side of the discussion, here's San Francisco 10,000 feet up. Click

[Supah 0]

Amazing how many of you suddenly turn out to be seasoned fighter pilot's with loads of experience flying CAS missions and ID-ing ground targets .... o wait ..... perhaps some of you should try taking some introductory flying lessons and then ID-ing ground vehicles by make and model from a mere 1500 feet let alone 10.000 feet. Even with EO sensors its a bitch.

We may not be fighter pilots experienced with CAS duties but some of us are or were among the ones walking under the skies those are flying in. You might understand the concern some ground troops have when heavily armed planes fly over their heads

It's a fact that mistakes were made, deadly ones.

Crucifying the pilot wont get the brit his life back. Besides, if this was anyones fuck up its the FAC who keeps telling the pilots there are no friendlies this far up north. Also the guy who made the decision these pilots (warthog pilot of all people) didnt need ground target recognition training might need a good going over. .

[ran 0]

yup, but in the end it's the pilots who had the hands on the red button/trigger/whatever.

I find it astonishing yet that a pilot made a mention of flatbed ZIL157's.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Amazing how many of you suddenly turn out to be seasoned fighter pilot's with loads of experience flying CAS missions and ID-ing ground targets .... o wait ..... perhaps some of you should try taking some introductory flying lessons and then ID-ing ground vehicles by make and model from a mere 1500 feet let alone 10.000 feet. Even with EO sensors its a bitch.

We may not be fighter pilots experienced with CAS duties but some of us are or were among the ones walking under the skies those are flying in. You might understand the concern some ground troops have when heavily armed planes fly over their heads

It's a fact that mistakes were made, deadly ones.

Crucifying the pilot wont get the brit his life back. Besides, if this was anyones fuck up its the FAC who keeps telling the pilots there are no friendlies this far up north. Also the guy who made the decision these pilots (warthog pilot of all people) didnt need ground target recognition training might need a good going over. .

according to the BBC the FAC believed the a10's were in a completly different area than where they were. Its just a big ugly mistake from all i feel.