Us aircraft may have bombed us soldier

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (§nake @ April 19 2002,15:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm still looking for official news to back it up..<span id='postcolor'>

Here's your official news source to back it up

...really now, this is already in two other threads, i'm surprized you haven't spotted it.

[USSoldier11B 0]

We held a memorial ceremony today for Staff Sergeant Daniel A. Ramero. He is one of the Special Forces soldiers that was killed. He was not only a member of my unit, but was one of my mentors. He was a great soldier who really knew how to bond with the indiginous soldiers that he trained. He truly understood the mission of U.S. Special Forces. Please pray for him.

R.I.P. SSG Daniel A. Ramero

B Co. 5/19th Special Forces Group (Airborne)

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 02 2002,07:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Yep well, that's war, friendly fire does happen, it's sad but just immagine how often the "bad guys" must be killing each other also"

To be honest, it is probably less friendly fire incidents on the Taliban and Al Queda side. Why? No heavy ordanance dropped from far away. No "automated" attacks performed against "possible" targets. Its more down to eart, man vs man incidents. Any friendly fire there is more likely to be discovered quickly and less likely to take out several guys in one blow.<span id='postcolor'>

well both sides did have artillery and other well sized cannons that im sure could have easiely caused friendly fire

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

R.I.P. SSG Daniel A. Ramero

[Shabadu 0]

Nothing new. Yanks A-10 (well a variant) managed to take out an entire british squad and tank/apc supporting it during the gulf.

[madmike 0]

Thats right the A10 killed 9 british troops in their warriors, here are the guys that were killed:

fusilier Lee Tompson aged 19

Private Niel Donald aged 18

Private John Lang aged 19

Fusilier Stephen Satchel aged 18

Conrad Cole aged 17

Martian Ferguson aged 21

fusilier Richard Gillespie 17

fusilier kevin leech, 20

fusilier paul atkinson, 19

After this happened the guys around them were so angry with the A10s that an order was nearly given to shoot down all US aircraft operating in the area to avoid it the twats doing it again.

I wish it had been, if I had seen 9 of my mates get killed by someone I would do anything for revenge.

[scout 0]

put your head into an ice bucket, hot shot!

blue-on-blue happens in war, that what happens when you're operating multi-national force in hostile enviroment.

revenge isnt profesional! and if everyone would revenge the fallin of their mate in accident, then there is no need for enemies.

think a little bit about what you said.

[madmike 0]

Im only saying what they were going to do and I dont blame them, the US have probably the worst history of blue on blue in the last 50 years.

Even before the Brits went out to the Gulf there was alot of concern expressed about the US forces freindly fire "problem".

It isnt proffesional to shoot the wrong troops that had big fcuk off dayglow panels on their warriors designed to stop freindly fire. They also had the black peace chevrons painted on the sides.

[red oct 2]

do you honestly think its that easy? when your 3 miles up in the air your only gona see a black dot. its not exactly easy to tell the difference between the tractor and a tank

[scout 0]

believe me, as an ambush patrol we would be so cautious not to fire one on another and still had blue on blue.

there is no way to prevent it totally, other then not operating one with another.

the fact that personnel from TWO armies complicates it more.

believe me its hard enough to coordinate a regiment in peaceful times, not to mention war time and the fact that they belong to different militaries.

as they say "shit happens" and to the best of them.

i agree that it may have been avoided but until we'll know the full details we just cant know for sure.

BTW those stripes and flags arent worth a damn if u cant go below 11000 feet. in that high alttitude all u r is just a dot on the radar screen.

this procedure aint worth a damn for airplanes.

[madmike 0]

Its a lot lower than 3 miles matey, the A10 is a low and slow flying aircrat so there is no excuse.

Also they should be trained to be able to make the right dicissions quickly. Anyone medicaly fit can be trained to fly an aircraft just like anyone can be taught to march or drive.

[red oct 2]

it wasnt the a10 that i was using for the example it was something like a b52 or b2 that was involved in past friendly fire

[scout 0]

well, AFAIK no aircraft other then choppers arent allowed to fly lower then 11000 in order to minimize hits by small calibre (14.5 mm) guns.

so thats a thing that should be checked. again i dont know about the incident so i cant really make any conclusions.

do you know if it had flown lower? what weapon it used?

we had a saying : "the risk of having a blue-on-blue incident is exponential to the amout of armed men in the situation!"

[Guest]

It is bloody hard to distinguish friend or foe on a distance of less then 100 meters in terrain. Imagine then how hard it is for a pilot, traveling pretty fast. Considering the scale of the NATO operations accidents are inevitable. The only solution as I see it is to develop better FF detection technology.

[madmike 0]

Sorry to be a bugger but I disagree, better training and new SOPs could solve the problem. Its much better for blue on blue to happen when everything can be stopped and the very best aid to be given than it to happen on the real battlefield when every man is needed.

I dont know how low the A10 was flying on this incident but I know that almost 80 SAS guys were close to being killed by a A10 as they were lying low in a wadi.

I read this in a book but it says the A10 was low enough that the pilots face could be seen. The A10 went over them and then came back and straft the area with the cannon dystroying a landrover but then they managed to radio the US air control base and stop it from wiping them out.

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 22 2002,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is bloody hard to distinguish friend or foe on a distance of less then 100 meters in terrain. Imagine then how hard it is for a pilot, traveling pretty fast. Considering the scale of the NATO operations accidents are inevitable. The only solution as I see it is to develop better FF detection technology.<span id='postcolor'>

this is the exact point i was trying to make, so maybe 3 miles was (and btw 3 miles could also mean distance not just heigth) off but this is what i was pretty much talking about. in the air you have less time to react and is amlost impossible to tell who is friend or foe on the ground. the briefing isnt goin to be exact all the time. we are human beings not a freaking computer and even computors are capable of error. its pretty foolish to expect perfection from everything if you ask me. every military group is capable of friendly fire.