A-10 Wastes British Convoy

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-31 06:52am

Edi wrote:snip. On this score I actually know a lot better than you do what exactly you're talking about.

Edi

Well said Edi.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-31 06:55am

Looks to me that idiot was looking to shoot anything,he could have even shot a 5 year old Iraqi kid.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-31 06:56am

Edi wrote: This bullshit is almost not worthy of commenting, really. Yes, you do have well-trained, well-organized and willing personnel who have motivation. Those alone can do a lot, so why the hell risk them unnecessarily? As for the comment of who cares and that's just the price, let's just say if some Finn civvie who'd never been in the army said something like that, I'd kick the shit out of him (or her). Sure, I was in the army to defend their right to spout shit like that, but it doesn't mean they get to say that shit without consequences (just as my kicking the shit out of them has consequences to me as well). But here you're just being fucking offensive to those who actually serve and are required to risk their lives. On this score I actually know a lot better than you do what exactly you're talking about.

Edi

Is it unnecessary, however? We've done what has been previously impossible. We have deployed our aircraft on strategic assaults at ranges, and requiring durations of endurance, which are unprecedented in history. At the end of those flights our aircrews must then proceed to carry out attacks, and then they must return home safely. We may indeed be going beyond the limits of human endurance - unenhanced, that is - in attempting such feats. The U.S. Military thinks so, at any rate. So your saying its unnecessary is just an opinion, one differing from what the military has concluded by offering such substances. That's hardly poor ground for me to defend.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-03-31 06:57am

I have already posted on SB.com that all the articles I've read so far make this pilot out to be as thick as pigshit to not have noticed these were friendlies given all the warnings like, oh, the Union Flag, the lack of return fire, the guy signalling to stop and the fact that British IFVs look nothing like Russian ones.

The "cowboy" pilot should be busted.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-31 07:01am

Edi wrote: This bullshit is almost not worthy of commenting, really. Yes, you do have well-trained, well-organized and willing personnel who have motivation. Those alone can do a lot, so why the hell risk them unnecessarily? As for the comment of who cares and that's just the price, let's just say if some Finn civvie who'd never been in the army said something like that, I'd kick the shit out of him (or her). Sure, I was in the army to defend their right to spout shit like that, but it doesn't mean they get to say that shit without consequences (just as my kicking the shit out of them has consequences to me as well). But here you're just being fucking offensive to those who actually serve and are required to risk their lives. On this score I actually know a lot better than you do what exactly you're talking about.

Edi

Further, I'd add that I don't entirely understand what the level of anger you show is about. I'm not being offensive to anyone - Certainly not to military personnel, who understand what sacrifice is, or else they would not have volunteered for their duties. I'm stating a fact. Western armies are brilliantly lethal engines of destruction, and by that lethality they protect their component parts - The living and breathing individuals that are within them. But that lethality, of course, can quite casually crush some of those individuals if even slightly misdirected.

Would you want to reduce that lethality, however? Most assuredly not - For that is what saves lives, far more lives than are cost by it among your own forces. That was the intent of what I had said, and your slander in this case is pointless.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-31 07:20am

I was going to make a similar picture post to Ando's, but he beat me to it.

Honestly- wtf.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-03-31 07:21am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Further, I'd add that I don't entirely understand what the level of anger you show is about. I'm not being offensive to anyone - Certainly not to military personnel, who understand what sacrifice is, or else they would not have volunteered for their duties.

If you'd actually been in the military, you wouldn't need to be told just how offensive it is when some civvie just casually tosses around comments like who gives a damn about friendly fire casualties because the military's so well trained that the enemy can't hit them so FF accidents are acceptable. I mean:

!!! WTF is wrong with you?! That's how your comment comes across, and it's offensive in the extreme.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I'm stating a fact. Western armies are brilliantly lethal engines of destruction, and by that lethality they protect their component parts - The living and breathing individuals that are within them. But that lethality, of course, can quite casually crush some of those individuals if even slightly misdirected.

Yes. I'm not disputing this.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Would you want to reduce that lethality, however? Most assuredly not - For that is what saves lives, far more lives than are cost by it among your own forces. That was the intent of what I had said, and your slander in this case is pointless.

Not pumping your pilots and other personnel full of drugs as a matter of policy does not appreciably reduce their combat effectiveness. Once they do engage in combat and have to remain so for sustained periods of time is when stimulants become acceptable and even a necessity. Those aircraft that fly from bases in the US and elsewhere that it takes 6+ hours of flight time one way tend to be big bombers with a crew of several people, and during that flight it doesn't take more than one or two people to keep the plane flying while the others hit the sack (and this can be done in turns if flight time is 8 to 10+ hours), which results in having a rested, non-drugged crew that should be quite operational over the actual combat zone if they're as well trained as you claim. Besides, we're talking short range fighters here, the A-10 does not have enough range to make possible the 'limits-of-endurance-and-beyond' deployment you're talking about. Unless of course the same pilot is required to fly three or four missions straight on top of one another, which makes for another fuckup at the command level, because it's easier to have spare pilots who fly the same machine in rotations. The machine does not tire like the pilot does, so switch pilot between sorties. Not beyond US military capabilities, is it?

I don't really care what your intent was when you posted that comment, the fact remains that it comes off as crass, inconsiderate, belittling and offensive in the extreme to anyone who actually sees the troops as people instead of statistics. I'm not some lily-livered coward or unreasonably optimistic idiot who can't stand the sight of blood or expects no casualties, I know what the deal is, but I damn well will keep getting angry about FF casualties. Sometimes they happen and are the mistake of unfortunate accidents that couldn't be helped, but if they result from piss-poor policies and command incompetence, I've no sympathy for the perpetrators and less for their apologists.

Edi

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-31 07:41am

Edi wrote: If you'd actually been in the military, you wouldn't need to be told just how offensive it is when some civvie just casually tosses around comments like who gives a damn about friendly fire casualties because the military's so well trained that the enemy can't hit them so FF accidents are acceptable. I mean: !!! WTF is wrong with you?! That's how your comment comes across, and it's offensive in the extreme.

I'm just saying that if we have to run the risk of friendly fire to maintain the level of combat capability we have, that must be accepted. And what, exactly, is wrong with saying that? Killing the enemy is what gets soldiers home alive.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Besides, we're talking short range fighters here, the A-10 does not have enough range to make possible the 'limits-of-endurance-and-beyond' deployment you're talking about. Unless of course the same pilot is required to fly three or four missions straight on top of one another, which makes for another fuckup at the command level, because it's easier to have spare pilots who fly the same machine in rotations. The machine does not tire like the pilot does, so switch pilot between sorties. Not beyond US military capabilities, is it?

It may be. We suffer from continued personnel shortages that have in recent years become quite severe in some cases. (For that matter, we also suffer from aircraft shortages).

I don't really care what your intent was when you posted that comment, the fact remains that it comes off as crass, inconsiderate, belittling and offensive in the extreme to anyone who actually sees the troops as people instead of statistics.

Well, I'm sorry the way I approached it came across as offensive to you. I'd just assume not offend you; it happens rather far too often.

I'm not some lily-livered coward or unreasonably optimistic idiot who can't stand the sight of blood or expects no casualties, I know what the deal is, but I damn well will keep getting angry about FF casualties. Sometimes they happen and are the mistake of unfortunate accidents that couldn't be helped, but if they result from piss-poor policies and command incompetence, I've no sympathy for the perpetrators and less for their apologists.

Edi

I'm not trying to apologize for what happened. I genuinely think it was caused by the fact we're having to run our forces ragged, not due to poor command decisions, but due to the requirements of this war on our current forces. We need more pilots and we need more planes. A lot more in both cases. We probably need entirely new kinds of planes in some cases, though that can wait.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-31 07:42am

My apologies about the quote confusion there.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 07:44am

weemadando wrote:[img]http://www.jedinformation.org.uk/fulltr ... 04.jpg[img]

This is a British Army Scimitar light tank.

[img]http://www.jedinformation.org.uk/tanks/ ... 10.jpg[img]

This is a T-55.

[img]http://www.jedinformation.org.uk/fulltr ... p1.jpg[img]

This is a BMP.

Please, can someone tell me how this was mis-identified?

Whole sqaudrons of bombers have attacked friendly warships, which stand out far more so then small armored vechicals.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-31 12:31pm

The situation is horrible, down right horrible. I hope the situation is investigated and the pilot is brought to justice. Ragged or not, the pilot should have had a better target identification than what he appearently did. Proper identification, training and time to properly do this, needs to be stressed in the military and has been slacked off IMHO in recent years do to technology brought in to replace the basic skill of target reconition.

FLIR and advanced RADAR can do alot, but in a CAS and/or CIFS mission, absolute certainty in target identification is cruicial to limit FF. There is no excuses, it must be done. I lament any loss of allied troops.

Akm72 · Post by **Akm72** » 2003-03-31 02:32pm

It is necessary to point out that without US air support the ground forces would suffer FAR worse casualties from the enemy. The occassional mistake is understandable under these highly stressful circumstances.

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » 2003-03-31 03:10pm

Akm72 wrote:The occassional mistake is understandable under these highly stressful circumstances.

But that doesn't justify this particular incident. Heck one of the tanks had a huge Union Jack raised! The A-10 Pilot seriously must have been blind.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-31 04:01pm

Strafe wrote:
Akm72 wrote:The occassional mistake is understandable under these highly stressful circumstances.
But that doesn't justify this particular incident. Heck one of the tanks had a huge Union Jack raised! The A-10 Pilot seriously must have been blind.

Or not very trusting. The Iraqis have been playing awfully loose with the rules of war after all. It's possible he simply didn't believe that it really was british.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-03-31 04:35pm

Having never been in the military at all, let alone in a war, I wouldn't dare presume to judge split-second combat decisions.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-03-31 04:45pm

Knife wrote:The situation is horrible, down right horrible. I hope the situation is investigated and the pilot is brought to justice. Ragged or not, the pilot should have had a better target identification than what he appearently did. Proper identification, training and time to properly do this, needs to be stressed in the military and has been slacked off IMHO in recent years do to technology brought in to replace the basic skill of target reconition.

FLIR and advanced RADAR can do alot, but in a CAS and/or CIFS mission, absolute certainty in target identification is cruicial to limit FF. There is no excuses, it must be done. I lament any loss of allied troops.

I've been thinking the same myself. Granted it can be tough to identify your foe because they aren't all exclusivly packing Russian equipment like they were during the Cold War but that should mean more study and practice.

The bit about relying too much on technology was what I thought when the Patriot battery shot the Brits down last week. I don't know much about Patriot but I have known people to get squirrelly when they don't see U.S. IFF on their screen.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-03-31 05:40pm

Am I the ONLY person here to feel sorry for the A-10 pilot? That man shot up a friendly convoy not knowing what it was and killing allies. He is going to have to live with that for the rest of his life. Yes, he *MIGHT* have screwed up. However we do NOT have all the facts and it is the height of arogance to judge someone based on faulty and incomplete information.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-31 05:49pm

Alyeska wrote:Am I the ONLY person here to feel sorry for the A-10 pilot? That man shot up a friendly convoy not knowing what it was and killing allies. He is going to have to live with that for the rest of his life. Yes, he *MIGHT* have screwed up. However we do NOT have all the facts and it is the height of arogance to judge someone based on faulty and incomplete information.

I guess you are the only one,i think he was too obsessed in finding Iraqi tank that the first group of armored vehicle he saw,he decided to shoot it.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-03-31 05:54pm

I guess this particular A-10 driver was never taught: "Iraqis had round turrets, American and British tanks don't!"

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-03-31 05:56pm

There is also the question as to who authorized the attack. Was it a combat controller on the ground, or was it an airborne command center? Were they aware of the British presence? Were the British where they were suppost to be? There are many questions which must be answered before we can start assigning blame.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-03-31 06:31pm

Alyeska wrote:Am I the ONLY person here to feel sorry for the A-10 pilot? That man shot up a friendly convoy not knowing what it was and killing allies. He is going to have to live with that for the rest of his life. Yes, he *MIGHT* have screwed up. However we do NOT have all the facts and it is the height of arogance to judge someone based on faulty and incomplete information.

I'd like to see what's faulty about the tank commanders telling how their mate was shot up by their own air support.

No might about it, he screwed up, big time, and he isn't going to get off easily what with the glaring errors in his decision and second attack. A first attack given the convoy coming out of the blue and returning fire, maybe, but a second sweep, I don't buy it.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-03-31 06:33pm

I should also add that whoever ordered the attack if anyone, should be brought to justice also given that they too may have brought on this sad incident.

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2003-03-31 06:44pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:There is also the question as to who authorized the attack. Was it a combat controller on the ground, or was it an airborne command center? Were they aware of the British presence? Were the British where they were suppost to be?

Was the A-10 where everybody thought it was? There was that infamous friendly fire case in 1991 where a flight of Apaches was in a completely different position to where their pilots or the controller thought they were, resulting in absolute confusion (with the Apache crews audiably unhappy about firing, despite several direct commands to attack) and the deaths of several American soldiers.
I'm not saying that that was what happened here, but similar things have happened before in many wars to many armed forces.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 07:08pm

Lonestar wrote:I guess this particular A-10 driver was never taught: "Iraqis had round turrets, American and British tanks don't!"

You really can't tell from the air. As I've pointed out, 10000 ton cruisers steaming on the open ocean have misidentified as hostile and attacked by aircraft.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-31 07:18pm

IMO, we need a thorough investigation of all circumstances pertaining to this event. If it is found to be pilot error, he needs to be hung out to dry IOT set an example. We can't afford those kinds of mistakes.