Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

[CaptainChewbacca]

Even untrained yo-yos know better than to stroll around in the middle of the street when there's gunfire in the vicinity. There's only one sort of person who acts that way: Someone who has every reason to believe he or she won't be attacked (journalists and relief workers).

Because muslims extremists never harm Journalists, or cut off their heads.

[Siege]

Yet. RPGs can and have taken down helicopters. And you're just cheerfully ignoring the fact that flyboys in WW2 were just as well trained, and they sound like Abbott and Costello when it comes to target ID. Should get Stuart in here to explain in some detail, but really, before you yap on like this, get in a small plane and fly at low altitude over a highway and try to identify the make and model of cars, because that's really the kind of level of differentiation required to tell a camera and an RPG apart in those circumstances.

I don't need to get in a plane to do anything, you're doing my work for me. You've just established yet again that guys in helicopters are basically crap at identifying targets on the ground... And for some reason we're letting them do it anyway, despite the fact that they're not fighting the Battle of the Bulge in the middle of a forest, but are in fact combating an insurgency in the middle of a giant city where, as Coyote so thoughtfully pointed out, targets look very much like innocent civilians. So how is this a good idea again?

A lot of people, yourself included, seem very much hung up on this idea that it's difficult for even trained professionals in flying contraptions to properly identify people on the ground as targets or not. The thing is, I don't think that anyone is arguing otherwise. What a whole bunch of us are arguing instead is that if it's so bloody difficult to differentiate between tangos and random passers-by, don't rely on gunships to do your target identification for you.

The quicker you kill the enemy the safer your buddies are.

And, apparently, the less safe the 6,5 million civilians surrounding your buddies are. Which is interesting, considering your buddies and you are supposed to be there to protect those civilians and bring them democracy and all that good shit. Except the ones who are dead, I guess.

The ROE follows the Geneva conventions: Winning with the minimum possible civilian casualties. It would be impossible to use air support with an ROE which prevented this kind of mistake.

Really, so the ROE couldn't possibly be changed so that "this kind of mistake" is less likely to happen? Would the war be lost somehow if that helicopter hadn't opened fire within two minutes after making eye contact with the 'insurgents'? I'm no military expert, but I'm calling bullshit on that. There was plenty time for the gunship crew (or whoever) to double-check their findings, rather than eagerly radio for permission to engage.

[Elfdart]

Even untrained yo-yos know better than to stroll around in the middle of the street when there's gunfire in the vicinity. There's only one sort of person who acts that way: Someone who has every reason to believe he or she won't be attacked (journalists and relief workers).

Because muslims extremists never harm Journalists, or cut off their heads.

I'm talking about gunfights, not kidnapping.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Standard RPG-7, but there's others, we had an incident in August of '03 where an Abrams had it's frontal armor penetrated and the projectile went and buried itself 2-3 inches in the rear of the tank. The culprit is thought to have been a more advanced Russian weapon, specifically the RPG-22.

[Ritterin Sophia]

what's the new favorite term for all people on the other side? "Hajis"?

I wasn't aware 'new' included seven years old, we've been using it since shortly after the invasion. It's a Muslim honorific for those who have completed the Hajj, the anual pilgrimage every able-bodied Muslim is expected to make to Mecca once in their life. IIRC it comes from where most of the insurgents we picked up have the honorific in their name (Ex Hajji John Smith). And it's a title reserved specifically for insurgents, not Muslims in general.

[Commander 598]

No, but I have seen this:

There's these too:

Compare it to pictures of the RPG above, it looks a bit too thick to be an RPG

All that would mean is that it isn't an RPG-7. As has been pointed out, the -22 looks like a LAW and it probably fits the description of most portable non-RPG-7 anti-tank weapons, so even a closer inspection probably wouldn't change the identification of it as a threat.

[Vympel]

Standard RPG-7, but there's others, we had an incident in August of '03 where an Abrams had it's frontal armor penetrated and the projectile went and buried itself 2-3 inches in the rear of the tank. The culprit is thought to have been a more advanced Russian weapon, specifically the RPG-22.

I think you meant the big 105mm reloadable RPG-29 Vampir. The RPG-22 is a very old weapon, capable of no significant armor penetration over the modern rounds for the RPG-7. Its long obsolete in Russian military service, though still available. It's been supplanted by the RPG-26 (72.5mm), RPG-27 (105mm) RPG-28 (125mm) and RPG-30 (105mm w/ secondary missile to defeat APS) in its role- i.e. disposable anti-tank weapon - in Russian service.

[Alyrium Denryle]

All that would mean is that it isn't an RPG-7. As has been pointed out, the -22 looks like a LAW and it probably fits the description of most portable non-RPG-7 anti-tank weapons, so even a closer inspection probably wouldn't change the identification of it as a threat.

Gee whiz. Seeing as they were obviously not RPGs, perhaps it would be wise to start using higher resolution cameras, or spring for optical binocs.

[dragon]

On CNN they have the video as well as a commentary from their pentagon liaison. They say that the pentagon acknowledges that yes it's an authenticated video and that it was fully investigated and the pilots were to be found not at fault. Even Reuters agree saying that in war journalists die. Whats interesting is they say that over 100 journalists have died in Iraq since the start of the war.

[Mr. Coffee]

Gee whiz. Seeing as they were obviously not RPGs,

And you're basing that off of your vast experience as a gunship pilot or gunner? Oh, right, you've never been either, and you're seeing what you want to see. Look at those three pictures again. They're grainy, black and white, and I can't tell what the fuck those guys are holding with any certainty. Now, can you honestly tell me that there is absolutely no way at all that those objects can be anything other than photoequipment. Because if you say "Nope, no way at all" I'm going to call you a goddamned liar.

First image, all you can see if the first few inches of something tube-like. Second image, you've got a longish object with something boxy sticking out. Third image, longish object from a different angle and you still can't tell what the fuck it is. This is why I keep laughing my ass off at everyone in this thread that keeps asserting that there's no way any of that could be mistaken for weapons.

perhaps it would be wise to start using higher resolution cameras, or spring for optical binocs.

Maybe they cannot afford higher resolution systems or do not have the space to put them in the aircraft. Also, have you ever tried to hold on to a set of binocs steady on something in a moving car? If you've ever done that then you know just how fucking difficult it is to see anything using them from a moving vehicle like that.

Here's a fucking idea though... How about you write your congressman and senator and demand that they ask the Army to actually investigate what happened. Probably be a damned bit more productive than posting here about grainy fucking pictures.

[The Spartan]

Maybe they cannot afford higher resolution systems or do not have the space to put them in the aircraft.

Note that those photos say "TADS" on them. That's the IR targeting system mounted in the Apache's nose. Can you even get a higher level of detail out of an IR camera without it being a delicate piece of equipment?

Would a stable visual system even have made a difference in this case? At a distance, even with magnification, something can look like something else.

[Thanas]

I do not really mind the mis-identification. That stuff can and will happen in wartime.

No, what is really the thing that gets me is that they took less than a few seconds to make up their mind. Combine that with the obvious trigger-happiness of the guys and it paints a pretty damning picture.



Also, Marina, your argument that this is how pilots always sound is ridiculously false, considering that when Air Force pilots were asked to bombard some trucks in Afghanistan, they not only asked for confirmation several times and then did numerous identification attempts before bombing.

[Mr. Coffee]

Would a stable visual system even have made a difference in this case? At a distance, even with magnification, something can look like something else.

Pretty much what I've been saying all along, homie. Problem is, half the assholes in this thread are more interested in the spectacle of the situation and another chances to yank out the "RAR FUCKIN' AMERICANS" bandwagon then they are in figuring out what the fuck happened. And of course, everyone in the thread is suddenly an expert military and photographic analyst... It's fucking hilarious how full of shit this thread has been in general.

[Serafina]

At the risk of me-tooing:

I am pretty much with Thanas here.
Considering the sensitivity for civilan losses and the effect of them on the local population, it should really be in the best interest of the military to minimize such behaviour.

If that means more training or better equipment, so be it.

[Mr. Coffee]

Also, Marina, your argument that this is how pilots always sound is ridiculously false, considering that when Air Force pilots were asked to bombard some trucks in Afghanistan, they not only asked for confirmation several times and then did numerous identification attempts before bombing.

Actually, I think the reasonw hy a lot of Army helecopter pilots sound like rednecks is probably due them going to flightschool here in Alabama at Fort Rucker. You'd be fucking amazed at how easy people can pick up a southern drawl.

[The Spartan]

Pretty much what I've been saying all along, homie. Problem is, half the assholes in this thread are more interested in the spectacle of the situation and another chances to yank out the "RAR FUCKIN' AMERICANS" bandwagon then they are in figuring out what the fuck happened. And of course, everyone in the thread is suddenly an expert military and photographic analyst... It's fucking hilarious how full of shit this thread has been in general.

All things being equal, I can certainly see an argument for taking at least a few more seconds to check their targets, but I can still see how it would be easy to misidentify something even after staring at it for a while. I can't tell you the number of times I've been in the field and seen an odd arrangement of grass/bushes or a branch and wondered, "Is that a deer," and then stared at it trying to decide until I finally saw what it really was. And then still had to blink a couple times when I looked back.

I've done the same thing bird watching on day hikes.

[Thanas]

Also, Marina, your argument that this is how pilots always sound is ridiculously false, considering that when Air Force pilots were asked to bombard some trucks in Afghanistan, they not only asked for confirmation several times and then did numerous identification attempts before bombing.

Actually, I think the reasonw hy a lot of Army helecopter pilots sound like rednecks is probably due them going to flightschool here in Alabama at Fort Rucker. You'd be fucking amazed at how easy people can pick up a southern drawl.

That's not it. I am not arguing accents, I am arguing behaviour.

I know how easy people can pick up a southern drawl. I lived in Lousiana for 1.5 years and in Floriday for half an year.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And you're basing that off of your vast experience as a gunship pilot or gunner?

I am referring to the obviousness of the MisID after the fact. In other words, perhaps they should not be relying on equiopment designed for one task (Identification of threats in a set-piece battle) for another (identification of threats in an occupied city)

Maybe they cannot afford higher resolution systems or do not have the space to put them in the aircraft.

Then they should not be using helicopter gunships for urban warfare.

[[R_H]]

I do not really mind the mis-identification. That stuff can and will happen in wartime.

No, what is really the thing that gets me is that they took less than a few seconds to make up their mind. Combine that with the obvious trigger-happiness of the guys and it paints a pretty damning picture.

Wasn't there a patrol nearby? If there was, that is a possible explaination as to why they engaged so quickly.

Also, Marina, your argument that this is how pilots always sound is ridiculously false, considering that when Air Force pilots were asked to bombard some trucks in Afghanistan, they not only asked for confirmation several times and then did numerous identification attempts before bombing.

The Kunduz bombing, right? Perhaps this incident had an effect on McChrystal's RoE change in Afghanistan?

[Gil Hamilton]

As discussed above, it seems that the hellis were actively looking for insurgents, which were why they were called in to this area specifically.

Again, Baghdad is a big city and you've failed to cite the logical connection between these guys and any insurgents.

No, but I have seen this:



Screencap, from as high a resolution as you can get on youtube. Compare it to pictures of the RPG above, it looks a bit too thick to be an RPG, but this isn't something you'd notice in the 2 seconds the gunner got to look at the thing. I have no idea if that's a camera or whatever, but it does, as I said, look like an RPG minus the warhead. Even without that though, they'd already been given permission to engage prior to this on the grounds that the rest of them had "Ak47's".

Bullshit, I can tell that's a telephoto lens with a flare protector even in that shot. A trained soldier in the army, even if he isn't familiar with camera equipment, should be able to recognize that isn't a weapon.

I watched it three times, I never noticed that. I'm not saying it isn't there of course, but it may not be immediately obvious to somebody who isn't familiar with those things and looking for it.

Look shortly before that screen cap when you see the crowd walking down the side of the courtyard and specifically look at the guy with the, uh "RPGs". You can see his camera bag there.

Yes he did. There were about 3 people who looked like they were holding guns, then the 1 guy who kind of sort of looked like he had the RPG around the corner. I'm guessing he just assumed the rest were armed too. Something he shouldn't have done, but I doubt they would have denied his request to engage even if he hadn't spotted weapons on the others.

There is a word for that when you report something that isn't reflected in what you are seeing. It's called "lying".

Eh, the dude clearly had it in his head that they were bad guys. This wasn't a justified opinion, but as far as he's concerned they deserve what they're about to get. The guy may not have been a "sane person", as you say, but it doesn't really seem that farfetched a thing to do. The army statement from the New York times article before claims that the US combatants who called in the heli had been taking AK and RPG fire (which also might have been a contributing factor to the "they have AKs and OH LOOK AN RPG!), so if he thought they had already shot at his comrades and countrymen, his eagerness to open up on them is plausible. I'm not sure if this is a regular thing for gunners to be acting like of course, since I'm not one. But I'm sure the army attracts it's fair share of people who are just there because they want to kill people...

Even though they have no logical reason to think that these guys are insurgents and haven't made a positive ID on the things they declared weapons? Baloney. State anywhere there there is evidence that this lot was the people they were looking for.

Ballocks. I've outright stated I don't think it's justified, and that they ought to be held accountable.

Then why are you in this thread trying to justify their actions if you don't think they are justified? If you don't think they are justified, you should concede the debate and back off.

Or they were justifying it to themselves so they didn't feel horrible about it later? Bringing children to a firefight isn't unprecedented, I've heard of instances where they've actually brought women and children to fights deliberately to get shot up by the opposing military as a propaganda thing.

They may well have been racist pricks of course, but I'm not going to assume that they are when alternate explanations exist.

State where there was any evidence the people in the van had any connection whatsoever with the group that was shot up and that they had brought the children there as human shields or concede the point. I don't see where the gunners had any evidence whatsoever that their side was true.

Besides, people who beg to shoot other human beings, openly hope that a wounded person goes for a weapon so they can justify shooting them, and then joke about shooting children don't feel bad; they are clearly too badly damaged if they are that sociopathic.

[Big Phil]

And you're basing that off of your vast experience as a gunship pilot or gunner?

I am referring to the obviousness of the MisID after the fact. In other words, perhaps they should not be relying on equiopment designed for one task (Identification of threats in a set-piece battle) for another (identification of threats in an occupied city)

Maybe they cannot afford higher resolution systems or do not have the space to put them in the aircraft.

Then they should not be using helicopter gunships for urban warfare.

On what are you basing these assertions? Is this just your gut feeling about how urban warfare should be fought, or do you have any experience or supporting evidence that justifies your arguments?

[Gil Hamilton]

Standard RPG-7, but there's others, we had an incident in August of '03 where an Abrams had it's frontal armor penetrated and the projectile went and buried itself 2-3 inches in the rear of the tank. The culprit is thought to have been a more advanced Russian weapon, specifically the RPG-22.

OK, fine, how does THIS look remotely like a should mounted video camera? I linked a picture of what a professional video camera looks like, please tell me how they look remotely similar.

[Thanas]

I do not really mind the mis-identification. That stuff can and will happen in wartime.

No, what is really the thing that gets me is that they took less than a few seconds to make up their mind. Combine that with the obvious trigger-happiness of the guys and it paints a pretty damning picture.

Wasn't there a patrol nearby? If there was, that is a possible explaination as to why they engaged so quickly.

Maybe. However, neither is the patrol in immediate danger nor is there any confirmation by them that they are engaged by the journalists.

Also, Marina, your argument that this is how pilots always sound is ridiculously false, considering that when Air Force pilots were asked to bombard some trucks in Afghanistan, they not only asked for confirmation several times and then did numerous identification attempts before bombing.

The Kunduz bombing, right? Perhaps this incident had an effect on McChrystal's RoE change in Afghanistan?

Indeed.


So IMO the gunners should be strung up - not for making the misidentification, but for being so damn quick to gun down people. They took, what, a total of 2 seconds to go "AK-RPG-Kill all - enemy van - kill it".

[Alyrium Denryle]

And you're basing that off of your vast experience as a gunship pilot or gunner?

I am referring to the obviousness of the MisID after the fact. In other words, perhaps they should not be relying on equiopment designed for one task (Identification of threats in a set-piece battle) for another (identification of threats in an occupied city)

Maybe they cannot afford higher resolution systems or do not have the space to put them in the aircraft.

Then they should not be using helicopter gunships for urban warfare.

On what are you basing these assertions? Is this just your gut feeling about how urban warfare should be fought, or do you have any experience or supporting evidence that justifies your arguments?

Reason dumbass.

If it is that easy to use this equipment to mistake non-weapons for weapons, then it is unsuited for urban warfare where all manner of people carry around objects on shoulder straps, and objects on belt loops. In the first few seconds the guy monitoring the gun cam mistook a camera for a gun on a holster. That could also easily happen with a fucking cell phone in a case etc. That level of uncertainty is not acceptable for urban warfare unless you are willing to kill a fuckton of innocent civilians.

[Mr. Coffee]

I am referring to the obviousness of the MisID after the fact. In other words, perhaps they should not be relying on equiopment designed for one task (Identification of threats in a set-piece battle) for another (identification of threats in an occupied city)

Relavent bit bolded. Hind sight is always 20/20. We can say after the fact it was misidentification. When the shit was happening though, we can't say because we weren't there, we don't know what the ROEs were, or why they were called in, ect. All we have is grainy black and white video and knowledge of what happened after it was already over and done with.

Maybe they cannot afford higher resolution systems or do not have the space to put them in the aircraft.

Then they should not be using helicopter gunships for urban warfare.

And we should also make a point to never fight people who make a habit of not wearing easily identifiable uniforms, should only fight if it's in an open field, if a civilian is present in five miles of where a fight may occur we should disengage immediately, blah blah blah... See how fucking stupid that sounds? They brought the helicopters in because they needed to find where the fire was coming from, and then someone made the decision to fire on what the helicopter crews thought were armed insurgents.

Let's flip this shit around though, let's say that the situation was that the guys really were armed and that they were the people the ground forces thought was firing on them. Would they still be in the wrong for using the helicopters to engage them? Or should the ground forces just walked in blind and dumb and get ambushed? Would you still be as fucking indignant about it if a bunch of soldiers had died because the helicopter pilots misID'd armed insurgents and thought they were journalists with cameras?

Fact is, they fucked up and thought they saw weapons, people got killed because of that fuck up. It wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened, and I really doubt it will be the last.