View Full Version : Afghani friendly fire incindent
tony draper
20th Mar 2003, 23:16
Think there was a thread on this a while, back, sorry if its allready been posted
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/20/friedfire030320
They've got to be kidding!!
"Investigating officer Col. Patrick Rosenow says there is sufficient evidence to try Majs. William Umbach and Harry Schmidt on charges of involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and dereliction of duty.
But he says their punishment could best be addressed by sanctions determined by a higher-ranking officer."
What's he supposed to do, put a letter of reprimand on their files? :confused:
West Coast
21st Mar 2003, 04:57
I dont have the evidence here, but the case against them seemed awfully compelling.
OFBSLF
21st Mar 2003, 17:21
I hate to be the cynical type, but the timing of this announcement sure is interesting. Well timed in order to not be noticed in the flood of war news.
LA Times:
HOUSTON -- An Air Force hearing officer on Thursday recommended dropping charges against two U.S. pilots who mistakenly bombed and killed four Canadian soldiers training in Afghanistan last year.
Col. Patrick Rosenow, who presided over a military hearing in January, concluded that there was enough evidence to court-martial both pilots. But he said that administrative sanctions ranging from a letter of reprimand to the loss of pilots' wings would maintain "the interests of good order and discipline."
The futures of Majs. Harry Schmidt and William Umbach now rest with Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, who will make a final decision. If the Illinois Air National Guard fliers are tried in a military court on charges of involuntary manslaughter and assault, each could face a sentence of up to 64 years in prison.....
There is no timeline for Carlson to make a final determination on a court-martial, said Capt. Denise Kerr, a public information officer at Barksdale Air Force Base. Carlson is not bound by Rosenow's recommendation. The general could order a court-martial, impose administrative sanctions, or dismiss the charges, Kerr said.
Woff1965
21st Mar 2003, 23:30
What was "mistaken" about the attack on the Canadians?
It seemed to be pretty bloody deliberate if you ask me.
SASless
22nd Mar 2003, 01:42
The Zoomies in my country have an unhappy ability to escape their just deserves when it comes to these kinds of things.....recall the two UH-60's that got shot down with all hands in Northern Iraq shortly after the end of the first Gulf War. My feeling upon hearing the cockpit tapes of the incident in Afghanistan left me with but one thought......they cocked it up and knew it at the time. Everything since then has been a fight by the Air Force from doing the right thing and admitting the truth.
These two can in no way convince me of the fact they felt threatened from small arms fire ricocheting from the ground when they were at the altitude they were flying at. I have seen more than a few tracers coming my way......and never more than 2500 feet AGL while watching the show.
Even .51 Caliber rounds with an effective height of 5,800 feet seem a bit puny to scare these Jet Jocks cruising around 10,000 feet or better. I know they are sure impressive at less than a 1000 feet.....and are absolutely mind boggling when you are dragging an AH-1G around through the treetops with a CH-47 Chinook just before dark.....the muzzle flash alone will weaken your bladder.....the sound of the report really has a telling effect on your lower intestinal tract. I know what "threatened" feels like....and these two Zoomies were not.
I can only hope the General will ignore the Article 32 Officer's recommendation.....and take the two pilots to courts martial.
Woff1965
22nd Mar 2003, 02:45
I am prepared to take bets they will be nominated for a medal !
Closely followed by a MASSIVE claim for damages against everyone and anyone, for the "psychological stress" they have no doubt been subjected to.
Mad_Mark
22nd Mar 2003, 11:36
Disgraceful!
I am no expert, but from what I have read and heard they were guilty as hell!!
1. Operating above the hard-deck for their perceived threat.
2. Requesting clearance to engage and having it denied.
3. Descending below the hard-deck to engage regardless of the request to engage being denied.
4. Their comments after the event, along the lines of 'Did we do the right thing?'
How can anyone say that their reckless, trigger-happy actions did not lead to the manslaughter of the Canadians?
The American justice system is amazing!!
MadMark!!! :mad:
SASless
22nd Mar 2003, 12:16
Mad Mark.....it is a commentary on the difference between the standards of conduct required by the various services. The Marines and Army would have hung the two....the Navy would have asked what the question was.....and we can see the Air Force doing whatever it takes to avoid admitting their guilt.
An example....per USAF guidelines....only USAF controllers (ground or air) can authorize release of precision munitions. In Afghanistan.....when ground units were split into platoon sized formations searching for....and coming into contact with hostile forces....many times requests for Close Air Support was denied because the platoon in contact did not have an Air Force controller present....they normally stay at Company and Battalion level commands.
Also....just to rub salt into a wound....in the matter under discussion....the minimum height allowed for Close Air Support Missions by the Air Force in Afghanistan was 10,000 feet. That is until Donald Rumsfeld, SecDef, kicked the Zoomies back into reality.
Our Air Force continues to believe all the other services are unneccessary for modern combat.....and that aerial bombing is the only way to win modern wars. Thus...if you happen to drop a bomb in the wrong place or on the wrong people.....oh, well! Fog of war and all that old chap! So terribly sorry....can we move on...steak night in the mess you know.
At least in the Army....we were taught...and believe...our mission in aviation is to support the guys on the ground who are the only reason for our being.
Some very revealing After Action Reports can be found if you do a websearch on Google or your favorite search engine. Special Operations Group is one that I have found to be a good source. Of course.....as any web source....one has to look for confirmation by other sources before taking such information as the truth.