A-10 Wastes British Convoy

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-31 07:26pm

The pilot will probably get a slap on the back and a medal.

It's happend before, and it will happen again.

I KNEW this would happen, damn American cowboys out to get some "Gooks". The bastard should be shot by the victims.

Relating to WWII, the RCAF flew CAS missions for the US Army during the battle of the bulge. USAAF P-51's attacked them so often that the Typhoons would jettison bombs, rockets, drop tanks and fly away. Got so bad that they took out a third of one of the P-51 squads in one go, after loosing two-three tiumes that number.

Around D-Day, an American destroyer attacked a Canadian Destroyer and a British cable laying ship, killin most of the crew on the cable laying ship. They only stopped after the RCN DD returned fire and hit the USN DD, and it finally listend to orders from port telling it to cease fire.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-31 07:28pm

jegs2 wrote: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.

He wont be in trouble, no matter the outcome of the investigation.

Look at the ANG pilots who DELIBERATELY ATTACKED Canadian troops in Afganistan. The guy presiding over the hearing suggested that they NOT get courts martial. That probably was what told the A-10 pilot that is was okay to attack allies, you wont get in any trouble for that if you do.

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

Sea Skimmer wrote:
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.

10,000 ton cruisers tend to look the same, especially at high speed.

A 5 vehicle convoy around civilians is not to be attacked, and considering Scimitars are British and look incredibly different from Iraqi vehicles, there is no comparison, especially considering the A-10 pilot was flying low, slow, and made atleast TWO passes overhead.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 07:34pm

Ted wrote:The pilot will probably get a slap on the back and a medal.

It's happend before, and it will happen again.

Once again Teds anti American bullshit shows its self, if it ever bothers to hid.

Ark Royals 100 knot Swordfish mistook HMS Sheffield for the battleship Bismarck four times her size and attacked. In 1942 three British Hudson bombers attacked an American tanker, inflicting more damage then several hours of pervious attacks by IJN aircraft had. The pilots even saw the Japanses aircraft attacking, but supposedly thought they where an escort.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 07:36pm

Ted wrote: 10,000 ton cruisers tend to look the same, especially at high speed.

Except the pilots where looking for a battleship at one forth an A-10's speed that had four times the displacement of the cruiser they went after.

Armored vehicles also look very similar from above, much like warships, thank you for supporting my position.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-31 07:44pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Ted wrote:The pilot will probably get a slap on the back and a medal.

It's happend before, and it will happen again.
Ark Royals 100 knot Swordfish mistook HMS Sheffield for the battleship Bismarck four times her size and attacked. In 1942 three British Hudson bombers attacked an American tanker, inflicting more damage then several hours of pervious attacks by IJN aircraft had. The pilots even saw the Japanses aircraft attacking, but supposedly thought they where an escort.

HMS Sheffield happend to have a fair resemblance to Bismarck, and they had not been briefed on any British ships in the flight line. With no means of ID, they took it as the Bismarck. They atleast realised after one attack run that it was friendly.

An American tanker would not normally be sailing by itself, but in convoy. It is LOGICAL to assume then that ships sailing singly would be Japanese. If the pilots only saw the damage, and not the bullets flying through the air, then it would be logical to assume that they were escorts, come to protect a ship that had been attacked by enemy aircraft.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-31 07:48pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Ted wrote: 10,000 ton cruisers tend to look the same, especially at high speed.
Except the pilots where looking for a battleship at one forth an A-10's speed that had four times the displacement of the cruiser they went after.

Armored vehicles also look very similar from above, much like warships, thank you for supporting my position.

An A-10 would NOT be at max. speed on it's attack run, and the A-10 pilot would be looking through scopes to target the convoy.

Swordfish only had bino's for scopes.

Vehicles may look the same, but when they have ID equipment on them that if the A-10 pilot was thinking and checked his thermal imaging, would have realised that they were friendly vehicles.

It does not defeat the fact that civilians, including CHILDREN were only METRE'S from the vehicles, attacking vehicles that close to civilians is against the claimed RoE.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-03-31 07:53pm

Ted wrote:The pilot will probably get a slap on the back and a medal.

It's happend before, and it will happen again.

I KNEW this would happen, damn American cowboys out to get some "Gooks". The bastard should be shot by the victims.

Relating to WWII, the RCAF flew CAS missions for the US Army during the battle of the bulge. USAAF P-51's attacked them so often that the Typhoons would jettison bombs, rockets, drop tanks and fly away. Got so bad that they took out a third of one of the P-51 squads in one go, after loosing two-three tiumes that number.

Around D-Day, an American destroyer attacked a Canadian Destroyer and a British cable laying ship, killin most of the crew on the cable laying ship. They only stopped after the RCN DD returned fire and hit the USN DD, and it finally listend to orders from port telling it to cease fire.

Go fuck yourself Ted. We don't award medals to our pilots who screw up and fire on allies.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 07:59pm

Ted wrote:
An A-10 would NOT be at max. speed on it's attack run, and the A-10 pilot would be looking through scopes to target the convoy.

In a gun attack he would be looking through the HUD, which is not what I'd call sophisticated.

Swordfish only had bino's for scopes.

The A-10 uses the Mk1 eyeball

Vehicles may look the same, but when they have ID equipment on them that if the A-10 pilot was thinking and checked his thermal imaging, would have realised that they were friendly vehicles.

Except the A-10 doesn't have thermal

It does not defeat the fact that civilians, including CHILDREN were only METRE'S from the vehicles, attacking vehicles that close to civilians is against the claimed RoE.

Look little specks that might be infantry support!

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-31 08:09pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Ted wrote:An A-10 would NOT be at max. speed on it's attack run, and the A-10 pilot would be looking through scopes to target the convoy.
In a gun attack he would be looking through the HUD, which is not what I'd call sophisticated.
Swordfish only had bino's for scopes.
The A-10 uses the Mk1 eyeball

It may use the MkI, but it has a lot of other, sophisticated targeting systems.
They only use a HUD for ground attack the whole time?

Vehicles may look the same, but when they have ID equipment on them that if the A-10 pilot was thinking and checked his thermal imaging, would have realised that they were friendly vehicles.
Except the A-10 doesn't have thermal

What systems DOES the A-10 use that the British were provided with ID measures to avoid this, because if the A-10s have no thermals, then the provision of the Armies with thermal ID systems is a waste of money then.

It does not defeat the fact that civilians, including CHILDREN were only METRE'S from the vehicles, attacking vehicles that close to civilians is against the claimed RoE.

Look little specks that might be infantry support![/quote]
At less than one klick?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-31 08:10pm

Shep, we have a "Breaking News" thread for this kind of stuff. Stop starting new threads for every story you run across. I won't bother merging this thread because I think it's gone on long enough that it should be on its own, and if Ted's pointless and stupid flaming continues, I'll lock it anyway.

Differing in opinion is one thing, but suggesting that commanders actually told their pilots it was okay to fire on allies is just trolling flame bait. If you actually believe that, Ted, then you're just a fucking retard who's trolling for attention.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-31 08:15pm

Durandal wrote:Shep, we have a "Breaking News" thread for this kind of stuff. Stop starting new threads for every story you run across. I won't bother merging this thread because I think it's gone on long enough that it should be on its own, and if Ted's pointless and stupid flaming continues, I'll lock it anyway.

Differing in opinion is one thing, but suggesting that commanders actually told their pilots it was okay to fire on allies is just trolling flame bait. If you actually believe that, Ted, then you're just a fucking retard who's trolling for attention.

I never claimed that commanders told the pilots that it was fine to attack allies.

Anything close to that would be the pilots taking the ruling from the hearing in such a light, that if they thought that the target could possibly be an ally if they attacked and it turned out to ba an ally, they would not be severly reprimanded.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-03-31 08:17pm

Ted wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: The A-10 uses the Mk1 eyeball
It may use the MkI, but it has a lot of other, sophisticated targeting systems.
They only use a HUD for ground attack the whole time?

Gee... I wonder where the sights for the gun are? The HUD maybe?

Except the A-10 doesn't have thermal
What systems DOES the A-10 use that the British were provided with ID measures to avoid this, because if the A-10s have no thermals, then the provision of the Armies with thermal ID systems is a waste of money then.

Is it? *points to the wide spread use of thermal imaging systems on other vehicles.*

The A-10 is one of the least wanted aircraft in the AF. I wonder why it's last in line for getting upgrade? The AF doesn't like it, so it doesn't get the stuff that fighter get. It's a fact of the AF. Anything that's not a fighter gets shafted.

It does not defeat the fact that civilians, including CHILDREN were only METRE'S from the vehicles, attacking vehicles that close to civilians is against the claimed RoE.
Look little specks that might be infantry support!

At less than one klick?[/quote]When was the last time you looked at people from a long distance? Try going up a skyscraper and looking down. How big do they appear? And that's only a couple hundred feet.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-31 08:22pm

The A-10 has a very low-resolution thermal sight: the Maverick missiles attached to it. It probably isn't good enough to distinguish the various types of vehicles on the ground other than from general shapes (here's a tank, an IFV, an APC...).

In the 1980s, there was a planned upgrade for the A-10 that would greatly increase its capabilities, but it was cancelled. One of the capabilities was that it could carry the LANTIRN pods with it's high-resolution IIR viewer.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 08:24pm

Ted wrote: It may use the MkI, but it has a lot of other, sophisticated targeting systems.
They only use a HUD for ground attack the whole time?

On a gun attack, its up to the pilots eye looking through the HUD with a fairly simple gun sight displayed. There is CCIP for bombing and a small TV display a couple inches across for Mavericks.

What systems DOES the A-10 use that the British were provided with ID measures to avoid this, because if the A-10s have no thermals, then the provision of the Armies with thermal ID systems is a waste of money then.

The A-10 is only one of many planes and helicopters flying around. It is however one of the most basic when it comes to sensors.

There are large orange panels, which are used for visuals though IIRC they are also part of the thermal ID. But they don't have very good contrast against an armored vehicle painted for desert fighting, and from the news footage I've seen, few British vehicles seem to have them. Actually, I've only seen them on the roofs of AS90's.

At less than one klick?

You'd likely see them as being persons, but beyond that you're not going to know anything more. Telling if they are armed or not or how they are clothed would be hard when your stationary.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-31 08:24pm

Beowulf wrote:
Ted wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: The A-10 uses the Mk1 eyeball
It may use the MkI, but it has a lot of other, sophisticated targeting systems.
They only use a HUD for ground attack the whole time?
Gee... I wonder where the sights for the gun are? The HUD maybe?

No, I meant in that the entire time, from first siting a possible target to the actual attack they onl use the HUD.

Except the A-10 doesn't have thermal
What systems DOES the A-10 use that the British were provided with ID measures to avoid this, because if the A-10s have no thermals, then the provision of the Armies with thermal ID systems is a waste of money then.
Is it? *points to the wide spread use of thermal imaging systems on other vehicles.*

The A-10 is one of the least wanted aircraft in the AF. I wonder why it's last in line for getting upgrade? The AF doesn't like it, so it doesn't get the stuff that fighter get. It's a fact of the AF. Anything that's not a fighter gets shafted.

It is the MAIN anti-tank plane in the USAF, so any methods for use on vehicles to discourage attacking allies SHOULD be applicable to the A-10, otherwise it should not have been deployed to the region.

Look little specks that might be infantry support!
At less than one klick?
When was the last time you looked at people from a long distance? Try going up a skyscraper and looking down. How big do they appear? And that's only a couple hundred feet.

Thats with a naked eye, a ground attack plane should have magnification scopes on it to identify targets, allwing people that look like ants to become people who look the size of cats or dogs.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-03-31 08:27pm

ALso the question of speed.

Couple hundred feet, 5, 6 hundred mile per hour, adrenyln hot in your blood, and shoddy piece of crap optics because your flying a plane with the oldest set of gear in the Air Force, Hell most A-10s are like in the NATIONAL GUARD!!!. Pretty hard to do. There was a typical mongolian cluster fuck has taken place. Considering how much the Air Force wants to ditch the Ground attack jet, despite the fact it does it's job so well despite thier dislike for it & hindrences. They probably WILL use it as a justification for doing what they want to do, no matter WHAT the oversite & courts martial decide.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 08:27pm

phongn wrote:The A-10 has a very low-resolution thermal sight: the Maverick missiles attached to it. It probably isn't good enough to distinguish the various types of vehicles on the ground other than from general shapes (here's a tank, an IFV, an APC...).

The Maverick's field of view is around 2.5 degrees off boresight, and the trick is only used at night when the only other option is flares. Theres no reason why a pilot making a gun attack would have a missile powered up, if he even had any. Given the low quality armor and mostly soft targets being attacked, it's far more likely he had bombs.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-31 08:29pm

Look, are people forgetting that he made THREE FUCKING PASSES AT THE COLUMN!!!

THREE!

One run might be a genuine mistake, but GODDAMN? THREE FUCKING ATTACK RUNS AND NOT ONCE DID HE NOTICE THAT THEY WERE BRITS?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-31 08:33pm

weemadando wrote:One run might be a genuine mistake, but GODDAMN? THREE FUCKING ATTACK RUNS AND NOT ONCE DID HE NOTICE THAT THEY WERE BRITS?

Which certainly calls for a join investigation but I've got to say it's still possible it was a mistake. I doubt a british column under attack looks much different from an iraqi column under attack.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 08:36pm

Ted wrote: No, I meant in that the entire time, from first siting a possible target to the actual attack they onl use the HUD.

No, the pilot would mostly be looking out the windows, for gun attacks A-10's often come in upside down so the pilot has a better view of the target through the cockpit canopy. In the last seconds the plane is then rolled back and the HUD used for a finnal line up just before firing.

It is the MAIN anti-tank plane in the USAF, so any methods for use on vehicles to discourage attacking allies SHOULD be applicable to the A-10, otherwise it should not have been deployed to the region.

Bitch to Klinton, the airforce wanted all sorts of upgrades for the A-10 after desert storm but none got funded. Eventually they lost interest in anything beyond and autopilot and GPS, which did get added and began working on the next generation of aircraft.

As for why it was deployed, your just an idiot. The F-16 generally bombs useing CCIP, so should it also have remained stateside, along with all heavy bombers which use radar or INS/GPS for there runs?

Thats with a naked eye, a ground attack plane should have magnification scopes on it to identify targets, allwing people that look like ants to become people who look the size of cats or dogs.

Which would give the pilot an extremely limited field of view. Then you'd have a pilot correctly attacking a T-55, but never seeing the school bus next to it. Seeing incoming AAA or SAM's would be near impossibul.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 08:40pm

weemadando wrote:Look, are people forgetting that he made THREE FUCKING PASSES AT THE COLUMN!!!

THREE!

One run might be a genuine mistake, but GODDAMN? THREE FUCKING ATTACK RUNS AND NOT ONCE DID HE NOTICE THAT THEY WERE BRITS?

The additional smoke and explosions would make things easier why?

I'm in favor of an investigation and punishment if the pilot did fuck up in some other way. The simple fact that friendly fire happened isn't enough to justify the actions so many call for. So long as humans are in the loop at some point, and even once there totally gone screw-ups will happen.

So far the numbers have been quite low, and demands for no mistakes with eight thousand plus sorties flown are just fucking stupid. We'd have alot more dead men without them.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-31 09:04pm

Well if pilots can`t make the difference i think its time to add bright colors on the armored vehicle,or may some beacon that will say to the dumbass flying overhead,don`t shoot me jerk.