British Apache crews 'lack extreme aggression'

[Lazer-Hound]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg29.xml

"But Capt Staley said he had no qualms about pressing home such attacks until no one was left standing and claimed that American pilots were more effective than their British Apache counterparts, who he said flew higher and were less ruthless in finishing off their targets. "The Brits are good but they don't have the extreme aggression that we do."

[Fg Off Max Stout]

When will it dawn on them that extreme aggression is not always the best policy. Each to their own. Ho hum.

[teeteringhead]

Yeah......

....and the Brits probably waste loadsa time making sure it really is the enemy.......:ooh:

[Wyler]

Words fail me.............:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[brickhistory]

I don't know the guy, but why, based on a newspaper article, do you willingly go along with what was written?

How many threads exist where you give the RAF service member the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps the journo got the story wrong, perhaps the guy was misquoted or taken out of context? Or not, it could be dead accurate reporting, but how often does that happen?

Or is it just because it quotes an American that it must be taken at face value?

If the latter, please carry on.........

[the_flying_cop]

telegraph - "The aircrew hesitated. "It seemed a little premature," said Lt Denton. "We didn't have hostile intent or a positive ID from the ground commander." But the special forces soldiers were adamant that, although they could not themselves see the men on the boat, they must be the Taliban who had attacked them. That, said Lt Denton, was good enough for the Apache crews."


If this is how the Americans do it, then im fully behind the UK guys (as always). I'd like to think that you guys would make sure before you pulled the trigger if i was stood there on the ground that i was actually a bad guy. As has been posted above this, perhaps this aggressive stance will lead sadly to more friendly fire casualties.


And yes, i know its easy for me to pontificate sat in my office millions of miles away from the hot stuff.


Keep up the good work chaps

[Ron Fenest]

I take it these are the same AH crews that will happily strap blokes to the side of their aircraft and fly straight into an enemy held area, then jump out to give directions ?

If just one innocent life has been saved by being a tad cautious now and again then I say it's worth it.

[Capt H Peacock]

I'm sure we get out dander up, but only after we've finished out game of bowls;)

[wokkameister]

Having worked closely with the Apache crews closely in the stan, and having them provide top cover, I can honestly say I would feel safer with one AAC Apache, than the whole US Army flying shotgun. I may be safer from the Taliban with the yanks flying shotgun, but chances of surviving a halfwit airline pilot with an itchy trigger finger and the worlds supply of weaponry is slim.

I'll take the AAC every time thank you!

[Truckkie]

Hear Hear!
(From a big slow truck driver who needs professional,competent topcover!)

[JHC Wilton]

The fact that the AAC video all engagements, download them, examine them to ensure all is iaw the rules of engagement and then store them as evidence for any future legal action may have a bearing on their behaviour.

[SilsoeSid]

Reading the pages of that article absolutely amazes me. Is this for real?


As the helicopters came in to attack, Lt Denton said, one of the men turned to face him and dropped to his knees. "I think he knew that there was no hope," he said. "He was making his peace."
Or trying to surrender! http://www.degrassi-boards.com/images/smilies/icons/surrender.gif

Using its cannon and then its rockets, the Apache finished off all the Taliban fighters it could find, then launched nail-filled rockets and dropped white phosphorous to destroy the motorcycles and the machine guns.

Nail filled rockets and white phos!!! :eek: http://skinheads.net/forums/images/smilies/NewSmiles/nono.gif
What rules are they playing under?

"The odds are on our side. I really enjoy it. I told my wife, if I could come home every night then this would be the perfect job."

I guess the children must be really proud of you!

[brickhistory]

Reading the pages of that article absolutely amazes me. Is this for real?

Exactly my point. How do any of you know this is an accurate piece of reporting? Again, I point out how outraged many of you have been about poor, even misleading, reporting regarding military aviation in past threads.


Yet here it's taken as gospel.

From the Prince Harry deploying thread, posted by S. Sid:
As far the press are concerned, if past incidents are anything to go by, Sky will make up where he is,

Pot to kettle, over.................

Nail filled rockets and white phos!!!

Hmm, perhaps proof to the lack of accuracy in the report? A lot more sexy and gory than writing 2.75 in. FFAR.

[foxtrot tango]

The AAC is not the only service to review the video download upon completion of missions. The downloaded data has many uses in addition to the legal aspects and is stored in case of future need.

As for the "halfwit airline pilot" comment the overwhelming percentage of US Army Apache pilots are full time Army aviatiors.

The individuals quoted in the story are junior members of the US Army aviation community and are probably prone to the exuberance of youth.

[Blacksheep]

...and is stored in case of future need.For several years with denials that it even exists, should it be needed as evidence in an inquest... :rolleyes:

[phil gollin]

IF the story is correct, then :

"..... The individuals quoted in the story are junior members of the US Army aviation community and are probably prone to the exuberance of youth."

means their elders and betters aren't leading them properly.

[brickhistory]

means their elders and betters aren't leading them properly.

Perhaps the US Army should seek advice from the Royal Marines and Royal Navy, they did well recently.









(Note: it's sarcasm and I do not tar all RM or all RN. Anymore than you should tar all US servicemembers. But that's different, I guess.)

[endplay]

There was a link to a related story that is of perhaps greater significance as it appears to highlight a radical difference of approach between the outgoing Brit commander and his US replacement.
I can't seem to do a link so its cut and pasted below.

US 'halted Taliban' by ending British ceasefire
By Gethin Chamberlain, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:02am BST 29/04/2007



American forces in Afghanistan claim they have blocked the Taliban's planned spring offensive by overriding British deals with the insurgents and launching an aggressive air and land campaign.

American officers said they could no longer stand by and watch as the Taliban picked off British soldiers who had been left "isolated" in their bases in Helmand province.

The British Army denies that it was forced to abandon its previous approach by the Americans, but Dan McNeill, the US general who was recently given overall command of Nato operations in Afghanistan, has made no secret of his dislike of the ceasefire agreements struck under his British predecessor, Gen David Richards.

advertisementBritish commanders made ceasefire deals with local leaders in a number of areas of Helmand last year, arguing that a halt in the fighting would strengthen the hand of the tribal elders.

But America believed that the ceasefires merely allowed the Taliban time to re-arm and reinforce its positions, and American commanders and diplomats criticised the deals.

The American ambassador to Afghanistan, Ronald Neumann, criticised the British decision to pull out of Musa Qala in northern Helmand last year and he appeared to be vindicated when the town was taken over by the Taliban in February.

Lt Andrea Anthony, the intelligence officer for the 82nd Airborne Division's Task Force Corsair - which includes the Apache helicopter gunship force - said last week that American commanders had adopted a more aggressive approach, out of concern for what was happening on the ground.

"It was difficult for the Brits to have the support they needed," she said. "The ground elements in Helmand were so isolated that they would get shot at and mortared.

"That has changed now. It was a case of having friendly guys there, and we needed to go out and take care of them. You can only lose so many guys before you say, 'This is ridiculous, we are going to do something about it'."

The US airborne task force consists of six Apaches, based at Kandahar, in the neighbouring province to Helmand. Although the British now have a similar number of attack helicopters in Helmand, pressure is such that the Americans felt it necessary to intervene.

Lt Col Dan Huggins, the commanding officer of the airborne task force, said: "Helmand was at a point where the Taliban got too comfortable. They had too much freedom of movement."

Yesterday, Lt Col Charlie Mayo, a spokesman for British forces in Helmand, accepted that the Americans might have been concerned that British troops had been left isolated. He said he did not know who took the final decision on the change of tactics, but said British commanders had agreed that the time had come to mount more aggressive operations.

The British force in Afghanistan has been boosted to 7,700 troops, although only a small proportion are involved in frontline fighting.

[brickhistory]

What has the RN got to do with the AAC?

I make no arguement. I am asking why most press reports concerning British service personnel and aviation are taken with a grain of salt if not openly scoffed at, yet this one is taken at face value. Recent examples being the C-130 co or the 'utterly, utterly useless' RAF threads.

The point in using the RM and RN was to highlight the error in tarring all members of one service or component, as in this article and some of the posts do about all US Army aviation. As it is fallacy to imply that all RM or RN were represented by the recent 15 Iranian guests.

Also to point out the very real possibility of press hyperbole or just plain inaccuracy in the report.

As in this:

http://www.kommersant.com/p-10639/r_500/radar_defense/

[Hill Walker]

brickhistory,

At the risk of appearing unfashionable in agreeing with an American, I appreciate the point you are trying to make.

Tin helmet on.

HW

[Lazer-Hound]

Why is it when it's Brits having a go at the Spams and the Spams say it's unfair, they get told it's just 'banter' and to get a sense of humour, but when it's the other way around the Brit's get all uppity and display a comlete sense of humour failure. Just wondering...

[The Helpful Stacker]

Because we said so and as a country are your elders, so get back in your box junior.

:}

[brickhistory]

Because we said so

Now that kind of rejoinder I understand and respect. :ok:












My reply would, of course, have to be stamped NOFORN.

[BEagle]

"British commanders made ceasefire deals with local leaders in a number of areas of Helmand last year, arguing that a halt in the fighting would strengthen the hand of the tribal elders.

But America believed that the ceasefires merely allowed the Taliban time to re-arm and reinforce its positions, and American commanders and diplomats criticised the deals."

Perhaps the wiseheads amongst those Americans remember what happened during a similar ceasefire some 39 years earlier?

The Tet offensive.

The US learned a lot from that.

[Two's in]

As we have narrowly avoided a "George Bush ate my Baby" thread, thanks to Brick, (always room on JB for that though) I do have to ask; what on earth was the point of that article in the Telegraph?
Just to stir the crap; to make the USA look like baby killers compared to our own steely-eyed ROE indoctrinated Aircrew; drive another wedge between international Military co-operation; provide a bit of comfort to the enemy, act in a seditious manner and undermine good conduct and military discpline, be a fifth columnist in general, or just to be another self-opinionated Journo who hasn't got the balls or intelligence to go out and find or accurately report some real news - I'm just curious you understand.

[Mick Smith]

The article not only reported what was happening where the reporter was, on the ground in among the **** that was going down, it raised serious issues which everyone knows exist. Why is it that whenever a thread goes quiet on here, some idiot throws a brick at a journalist. In this case, the journalist was putting himself in the line of fire and reporting what he saw. What exactly do you think is wrong with that Twos In and where do you get off accusing him of not doing his job properly or reporting it inaccurately when you patently werent there?

[brickhistory]

some idiot throws a brick at a journalist

Nicely done................


As the 'idiot' who first raised the question about a lack of journalistic accuracy, what makes you think he did get it right?

There have been many, many threads here regarding media buffoonery and sensationalism. I simply ask why does the inaccuracy stop when applied to US forces?

For all I know, the reporter could have been absolutely, 100% spot-on. Or, judging from too many examples given in this forum of 'sexing up' a story to sell papers or gain ratings, not. I fall on the skeptical side personally.

[Two's in]

My dear chap, if Gethin Chamberlain wishes to continue his well documented and endless anti-US rhetoric using the sensationalism of a bloody and thankless military task, that's entirely his affair. But when he purports to report this as "news" he can expect to be challenged. Finding a quote from some red-blooded and loud mouthed adolescent who still gets a buzz from taking out the bad guys is hardly the pinnacle of journalistic integrity or even difficult (in any Army), but reporting it in a manner to deliberately undermine the confidence of Joint US/UK Operations and further his personal and long running agenda of America bashing is seditious and provides comfort to those who would harm us.

In over twenty years of Military service it was an honour to work with a small number of reporters who had a clear understanding of the responsibilities of journalistic integrity, and fully understood the impact that lazy, opinionated, Murdochesque reporting could have on Military morale. My guess would be that number is even smaller today.

And just a minor distinction, getting his ass shot off is entirely his choice, a choice that the deployed Military personnel currently do not enjoy.

[West Coast]

The only judgment on the differing levels of aggression should come from those that the Apaches provide support to. Those opinions are not offered in defense of the flag but rather in defense of their own arse.

[Mick Smith]

Chamberlain was embedded with the Americans. He quoted them. He did not put his own opinions into the piece. Indeed, one of the chilling things about it was that there was virtually no analysis of the situation, just one line pointing out the differences in UK and US approaches. The carelessness and aggression in targetting came out in the words of the US airmen themselves. Since he was embedded with them they will no doubt have been reading his copy on the internet, it seems unlikely he will have misquoted them. They were frankly damned with their own words. That sort of attitude and behaviour is not going to win us any friends in Afghanistan, indeed it has already lost the Americans friends across large tracts of southern and eastern Afghanistan. Now they have come onto our patch using the same methods. The ordinary Afghan will not differentiate between UK and US forces. The attitude exhibited by the US airmen in that article was disgraceful and will only ensure failure for coalition forces in Afghanistan.

As for what was the point of that article. It is his job to report what is going on. He did that. Maybe, just maybe, someone will have read it and maybe, just maybe, things will be moderated. If they aren't we might as well pull out now.

[owe ver chute]

A quote from West Coast "The only judgment on the differing levels of aggression should come from those that the Apaches provide support to." :ok:
I think that for the US Army pilots to quote about the level of aggression displayed by UK Army Air Corps pilots is a little naïve.:uhoh: I wonder how many times they have actually flown with UK Apaches supporting troops in contact. It is interesting that there are no quotes from any CW rank, who, traditionally are there more experienced pilots in command.
Having listened to two UK Apache pilots at CFS recently :D I think that those who have seen the aggression at first hand, both UK and US ground troops have no complaints about the AAC pilots. Maybe CO 3 PARA could give his opinion!:ok:
I think it might also be worth noting that none of the AAC AH pilots have given this story so much as a sniff, good on'em.:D

[MrBernoulli]

"US aircrews show Taliban no mercy" says the headline! The silly buggers don't even show their allies mercy, paticularly when they are sitting behind a big thing that goes bang (or bang repeatedly at a rapid rate). "If it moves it MUST be the enemy - kill it!" :ugh:

[WhiteOvies]

I know a couple of people who, while being quoted accurately by the embedded journo, were quoted out of context (i.e. long into the night after a beer call and allegedly off the record). This led to a sensationalist story being produced. Sound bites are all very well but do not give the full picture. Brick and the rest of our brethren across the pond make a good point and West Coast's point is spot on.

Maybe we should not be so quick to spam bash because of the actions of a few?:confused: Could this just be harsh banter from US Apache pilots to the AAC?

There is a significant difference of approach between Brits and Spams but which is the more correct - probably only the history books will let us know.

Awaiting inbound......

[scopey]

Well, our colonial cousins did win their independence by being more ruthless than the wishy washy loyalists/Crown Forces...