A10 strikes again [Archive]

FJC

31st Mar 2003, 13:43

It goes without saying that warfare is a tense and dangerous situation in which we try to kill the enemy without getting shot. As a result we try to use our weapons first, and therefore at close to maximum ranges. Whilst British (and all coalition) forces have markings that are designed to identify them as friendly, they only work if the aggressor a) looks for them and b) sees them. There are many reasons either of the 2 criteria are not met, and this is an inevitable consequence of all warfare throughout the years.

As for the Americans getting a bad reputation for their recent blue-on-blues, we need to make sure we don't immediately blame them for being gung-ho without any firm evidence. Flying over enemy territory with a significant surface-to-air and AAA threat would make anybody a little twitchy. Frat has always happened and will continue to happen, and in the dynamic and dangerous environment of warfare we should not be in the least bit surprised.

airsound

31st Mar 2003, 14:01

I'm normally a Warthog fan - and I agree that
"we need to make sure we don't immediately blame them for being gung-ho without any firm evidence."

Well, here's the evidence:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-629644,00.html

It's in The Times of 31 March, and I think the article says it all. Especially considering that the British Army doesn't normally speak like this in public, whatever they may say in private

Wedge

31st Mar 2003, 20:02

One of the survivors of this incident, and friend of the British Cpl who was killed, has accused the A-10 pilot of having "no regard for human life" and accused him of being "a cowboy" who had "gone out on a jolly".

The pilot also killed two Iraqi civilians who were waving a large white flag.

The A-10 was well out of position. It was broad daylight. While 'Blue on blue' is inevitable in war, this was unforgivable. I have read all about it from several sources before making this judgement. This is just the kind of gung-ho behaviour that the US command can do without.

One unnamed source from D squadron said "As far as I am concerned, these two pilots should be done for manslaughter. There's no way on the planet that they couldn't see two vehicles, that they couldn't see the dayglo panel on the top."

Apparently, senior British officers are privately furious about this.

Read more here: Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/31/nfire31.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/31/ixnewstop.html) Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-629644,00.html)

Chimbu chuckles

31st Mar 2003, 21:29

I guess anyone can accept that accidents happen due 'The fog of War'...even the families of the lost....BUT day after day?

How many US troops have been killed accidently by RAF/RAAF aircraft so far?

I have not heard of any save accidents such as midairs/CFIT etc...none actually attacked that I'm aware of.

It was reported in the last few days in Australia that RAAF Hornet pilots refused to attack a target which, presumably, they were not convinced was legitimate.

While it would be grossly unfair to label all the US Forces as gungho one must wonder whether the point is being pushed hard enough by the commanding officers of various units!

"Guys we have killed xx of our own in the last week!!! This is not good enough....if you're not ABSOLUTELY certain don't shoot, if you get shot as a result of your own uncertainty TOUGH!!!"

Thoughts with the families always.

Chuck.

814man

31st Mar 2003, 22:15

From the BBC web site today:

Three wounded UK soldiers have described how they survived an attack by a US A-10 Thunderbolt anti-tank aircraft that killed one of their troop and destroyed two armoured vehicles.
One of the survivors criticised the US pilot for showing "no regard for human life" and accused him of being "a cowboy" who had "gone out on a jolly".
Another survivor said he stumbled out of the burning wreckage of his light tank and waved frantically to the American pilot to try to halt his second attack.
The so-called friendly fire incident, 40 kilometres (24.8 miles) north of Basra, left one soldier missing, presumed dead, and another in intensive care on RFA Argus, the UK forces' hospital ship in the Gulf.
Nursing shrapnel wounds and burns, the three injured soldiers, Lieutenant Alex MacEwen, 25, Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard, 33, and Trooper Chris Finney, 18, spoke of their bewilderment and anger.
They said the US pilot apparently failed to recognise that their tanks were a British make, with special coalition identification aids and even a large Union flag on another machine in the five-vehicle convoy.
Lance Corporal Gerrard said: "All this kit has been provided by the Americans. They've said if you put this kit on you won't get shot.
"We can identify a friendly vehicle from 1,500 metres [4,921 ft].
"You've got an A-10 with advanced technology and he can't use a thermal sight to identify whether a tank is a friend or foe. It's ridiculous.
"Combat is what I've been trained for. I can command my vehicle. I can keep it from being attacked.
"What I have not been trained to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me."
The two Scimitars, followed by two armoured engineers' vehicles and another Scimitar light tank, set out on a "recce" of a road north west of Ad Dayr, north of Basra in southern Iraq, on Friday.
After coming under fire from Iraqi artillery, they were instructed to investigate a shanty town.
Troop leader Lieutenant MacEwen, 25, with special plastic bags now tied around his hands to treat his burns, described how the convoy tensed as villagers waving white flags approached from behind a large bank on the marshland by the Shatt al-Arab river.
"You could see the white flags above the bank but you didn't know whether they had any intention of surrendering or ambushing us," he said.
Lance Corporal Gerrard said he suddenly heard the distinctive, relentless roar of an A-10's anti-tank gunfire.
"I will never forget that noise as long as I live. It is a noise I never want to hear again," he said.
"There was no gap between the bullets. I heard it and I froze. The next thing I knew the turret was erupting with white light everywhere, heat and smoke.
"I felt I was going to burn to death. I just shouted 'reverse, reverse, reverse'.
"My gunner was screaming 'get out, get out'. How I got out of that hole I don't know. Then I saw the A-10 coming again and I just ran."
Lying on his hospital bed, he said the A-10 circled and made a return attack run.
"On the back of one of the engineers' vehicles there was a Union Jack," he said.
"For him to fire his weapons I believe he had to look through his magnified optics. How he could not see that Union Jack I don't know."
The front two Scimitars, packed with hundreds of rounds of ammunition, grenades, rifle rounds and flammable diesel fuel tanks, exploded into flames.
One of the soldiers' colleagues, Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, did not escape the explosion.
Lance Corporal Gerrard also criticised the pilot for shooting when there were civilians so close to the tanks.
"There was a boy of about 12-years-old. He was no more than 20 metres [65.6 ft] away when the Yank opened up. There were all these civilians around.
"He [the pilot] had absolutely no regard for human life. I believe he was a cowboy. He'd just gone out on a jolly."
He added: "I'm curious about what's going to happen to the pilot.
"He's killed one of my friends and he's killed him on the second run."
Trooper Finney, who was hit in the leg when the A-10 made its second attack, said all the British soldiers and their families joked about "friendly fire".
He said: "I got a letter off my dad the day before the attack and it said 'Be careful, come home soon and watch out for those damn Yanks'.
"Looks like he tempted fate a bit there."

saudipc-9

1st Apr 2003, 00:12

Ahh, he'll just hire the same lawyer the two F-16 pilots did and get off with murder-----again!!

terryJones

1st Apr 2003, 03:36

The A10 jock is probably already back Stateside having therapy for the terrible shock to his system.....
I wonder if he was a full time USAF pilot, or another of the 'Sod patience, let's go and kick some @rse before we go back to selling real estate' brigade.

Arkroyal

1st Apr 2003, 03:39

I've tried to keep an open mind on the Blue-on-Blue situation so far.

After all, it does happen, and is sometimes understandable. But this one really does stink.

On BBC news 24 (not likely to be 100% accurate, then) it has been said that A10 crew do not study British AFVs in their recognition syllabus. WHAT!

One might have thought such lessons rather important when they belong to your allies in theatre.

In GW1 the only threat to my life came from the USN, and I wonder if having an aircraft called Thunderbolt has any bearing. In WW2 my father was attacked by P47s in Italy. Enormous white stars on their vehicles too.

I hope this is fully investigated; but more, that it doesn't happen again.

Huron Topp

1st Apr 2003, 03:42

I was gonna say the same thing Saudi. I hope nobody actually believes that the yanks will do anything. No point in getting your hopes up like we did on this side of the pond, north of the 49th.

solotk

1st Apr 2003, 03:50

No of course he won't be prosecuted. I heard the armed forces minister , the weasel Ingram say tonight, after being asked if we were making representation to the States over this incident

"Well, um ahhhhhh m, errrrr, well you see the thing is.... mmmmm"

However, this fine upright civil servant, did promise an urgent investigation into why the victims comments were allowed to be released to the media.

Well hooray.

Jackonicko

1st Apr 2003, 05:04

Oh dear. Isn't this more terrible anti-Americanism/Yank-bashing? Shouldn't we be fighting the real enemy (no not GWB and Tony) - the Iraqis, and sarcastic, cynical, wearied journos?

Now will some of those who reacted so badly to mild criticism of these gung ho, unprofessional, whooping cowboys have the grace to admit that those of us concerned by the extent of US blue on blues had a point?

I'm just waiting for the first post sympathising and commisserating with the family of the tank gunner AND the traumatised A-10 pilot and his family. (In fact I do feel enormously sorry for the poor so-and-so, and am increasingly inclined to blame the system, not individual aircrew - but it's not a good time to say so).

kbf1

1st Apr 2003, 06:12

I deliberately didn't post anything earlier because I wanted to see what the general reaction was first. My instincts proved me right, the feeling is no longer "well, it's just one of those things we have to accept".

The facts as we know them at the moment are:

1. The AFVs were in the location they were supposed to be in at the time they were supposed to be there.

2. They were flying the Union Flag

3. They had orange ID markers

4. They displayed Allied Cheverons

5. The pilot took 2 passes, shooting on both with civilians close by

6. After the 1st pass British soldiers in British uniforms waved and tried to warn the pilot

7. The optical scope on an A10 can id a target at 1500m. The pilot was flying at no more than 50m on each pass. Visibility has been described as "excellent".

8. The tank crews adjacent fired the colour of the day smoke marker to warn the A10 pilot

9. The pilot had not been engaged or shot at by either British forces, or Iraqis.

10. The pilot was out of his designated Limits of Exploitation.

In spite of all of this, the pilot still engaged, not once, but twice.

I am going to say nothing about what I think. Instead I will leave it for you, the reader of this thread to draw your own conclusion as to whether this incident was caused by the "fog of war", or culpable negligence.

The words of the soldiers are above for all to read. They represent views commonly held within the British army at present. More views of more soldiers can be found here, please do take a moment to read them:

Military City (http://www.militarycity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=130764#130764)

When I represented some of these views in another forum I was pilloried as being rabidly anti-American. I was insulted as being a fool and din't know what I was talking about, and not representative of the feelings of the British army. I was told I was a wind-up merchant . I was told my views were held in contempt because I hadn't faced "combat" and as such that my views were irrelevant. I was told that the views of certain contributors on this forum were the norm not only of PPRuNe, but of all right-minded people.

Would those individuals care to read the above and the linked thread, and then step up and say the same thing to me now?

SPIT

1st Apr 2003, 06:29

As I have stated on another web site the Yanks do not seem to recognise any allies only TARGETS:mad: :mad: :mad:

solotk

1st Apr 2003, 07:30

Why has it gone so quiet from the "America First, we never make mistakes" crowd?

Is it because the story hasn't been reported? Cnn don't seem to have any mention of it

ABC haven't either http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/IraqIndex.html

I guess if you don't report it, it never happened hey? There's some pretty effective suppresion going on in the US media right now. Fox News "We report, you decide" hahahahaha I decided a long time ago that organisation was full of kaka, and it hasn't reported it either. It's amazing, it's like it never happened.

Well it did. We won't forget it in a hurry either

Ali Barber

1st Apr 2003, 10:22

One of the US networks (can't remember if it was NBC or CNN) reported the "friendly fire" incident this morning. It included the report from the 18 year old on the hospital ship; a computer generated reconstruction including the coalition markings, Union Flag and smoke colour; the comments made by the other wounded soldier about the pilot being "out for a jolly" and "a cowboy"; and a brief summary of the British "friendly fire" incidents from GW1.

It was well reported and didn't attempt to make any excuses for the US pilot. Don't know if the other US networks will pick up on the same story.

Lu Zuckerman

1st Apr 2003, 11:36

Maybe this American pilot sold real estate in real life or maybe he was a commercial airline pilot and then again maybe he was a newly assigned pilot and he had no previous combat experience and maybe he was a highly experienced combat pilot. In any case he made a mistake. I have talked to a lot of combat pilots and they have all stated that when the IOP (intensity of pucker) increases it has a direct effect on visual acuity. Whether he was not being shot at he may have had a perception of maybe he would be shot at so he acted first and then again he may have been a cowboy having his jollies. If the American Air Force feels he did a bad thing they have a court martial proceeding to take care of the offense. It doesn’t do anyone any good to crucify him in the British press and especially on this forum.

:sad:

Gainesy

1st Apr 2003, 14:38

Slogan on the USAF News Web Site:

"America's Air Force... No One Comes Close"

Fukcing good advice.

griffinblack

1st Apr 2003, 14:58

Having served on exchange with the US army as an IP, albeit some years ago, I can assert that they were very specific about vehicle recognition. They had their list of 40 or so vehicles that they had to know. furthermore they had some realy good flash cards of a number of other vehicles. The problem was that the only mandatory vehicles were those of US types and soviet block types. Most of the other stuff was "nice to know". As I recall this included all or the vast majority of Brit stuff. That may have changed but probably not, thus they owuldn't hve a clue what a scimitar looks like.

Neverthess, the ROE should be robust enough that all targets, particularly targets of oportunity, are identified as red prior to engagement. As previously mentioed the Aussies have not engaged targets unless certain. 90% certainty does not cut the mustard.

kbf1

1st Apr 2003, 18:55

Again, all quiet from:

SASless
T_richard
JetII
Danny
HAL Pilot
DESPERADO
Scud-U-like

I would invite you all to reiterate your comments on the theme of all criticism being levied at the US as anti-American and "yank bashing". SASless in particular, I would invite you to defend the actions of the USAF in this instance.

You were all quite happy to attack me personally on 2 other threads for suggesting that there are some members of your armed forces who have a disregard for the safety of their allies. You attacked me personally for suggesting that confidence in the US forces amongst the British is low. You attackd me personally for suggesting that the perception of some in the British forces is that some of their US counterparts are gung-ho.

I hear nothing but silence from you in the face of what has happened. I hear nothing but silence from you when the voices of british Servicemen in this thread resound with anger. I hear nothing but silence from you when you know your attacks and insults will be met with a harsh response. I hear nothing but silence from you when others feel the same way I do. I hear nothing but silence from you when it is British lives that were lost!

In light of what has been written about the circumstances of this incident, in light of the views being expressed by servicemen in the media, in light of the views expressed by british servicemen on this forum...... Would you like to re-appraise your comments? Would you like to share in our anger? Would you be willing to admit you may have been wrong? Would you be willing to admit we may have had a point? Would you admit that something urgently needs to be done to stop this from happening again? Would you join us in calling for a full enquiry? Would you join us in calling for the pilot to be Court Martialled and punished if his actions are found negligent?

Or will I hear your silence?

Radar Muppet

1st Apr 2003, 19:26

Without wishing to 'bash', I refer to my post re the GR4 shoot down - cowboys.:confused:

Danny

1st Apr 2003, 19:37

kbf1, some of us are away on a trips at the moment but I can let you know that I'm making a special effort to reply thanks to the internet service provided by Grimsby library.

Your comments were attacked by me because you applied a blanket condemnation of the US for their blue on blue attacks. Specifically, you applied your condemnation on the Patriot attack on the Tornado and then associated it with the the previous B on B attack from GW1 which bore no connection.

Again, in this instance you have drawn your conclusion based on immediate and emotive responses without the benefit of any inquiry which makes you a 'knee jerk' reactionist and I would have expected a bit more professionalism from you. Yes, each case has to be taken individually and this one 'appears' to be one you can notch in your campaign based solely on comments written by a news reporter. Understandably, the victims are going to be angry. As has been stated though, the full details are not yet available. For example, can you say in all honesty that the UK patrol were indeed exactly where they were supposed to be? Can you assure us that the recognition markings were indeed visible and not hidden under a layer of desert dust? Have you read the US pilots report of the incident? Have you seen the gun camera film? THere are hundreds of questions that must be answered before you apply your kangaroo court rules.

I am not drawing any conclusions at this stage except to reassert that you obviously have a problem with having to deal with our allies. As to the other poster making the uneducated argument that you don't see our troops making B on B mistakes against the US troops, well, have you ever considered the ratio difference in numbers between our forces and the US ones? I believe that it must be atleast 5:1 in which case you would expect incidences of B on B to be more likely from US forces. As for B on B by UK forces, wasn't there one last week by our tanks on one of their own.

B on B is a fact of war. There will be some that are put down to negligence or even worse, unprofessional 'gung-hoism'. Many though, will be tragic mistakes but people like kbf1 and Jackonicko will revel in the tragedy to provide ammunition to their anti-Americanism and will use the opportunity to 'point score'.

We do not know ALL the facts of this latest B on B incident and our thoughts go out to the family and friends of the dead serviceman and to his colleagues injured in the incident. Using the incident to gain brownie points for a personal agenda without knowing all the facts is rather depressing.

So, before jumping to conclusions kbf1, remember that I am away from my base for four days and any delay in replying is due to internet access and not lack of desire to enter into the argument. Remember that for the future please.

northernmonkey

1st Apr 2003, 20:35

Well thats one out of the list spoken for.

I think we all know what the result of this enquiry will be, unless of course it is covered up and pushed to the bottom of someones in tray like last time.

Two passes in broad daylight....etc...etc (we all know the circumstances.) No excuses, not this time. A line has to be drawn!

I except that there will always be an element of Blue on blue. This one was completey avoidable. It simply isn't good enough this time that the poor old pilot will have to live with his action for the rest of his life, I'm sure that gives little comfort to thier families.

HAL Pilot

2nd Apr 2003, 01:57

kbf1,

Until I read it on this board, I did not know of this particular blue-on-blue incident. I don't stayed glue to the news 24/7. In fact, I probably see less than 30 mins a day of it. Same with the internet.

The interview I read with the Brit soldier who was wounded was lacking in a lot of basic facts. From a young, traumatized and pissed off soldiers point of view, it was probably very accurate. From a ground-attack or other tactical pilot's point of view, it was very lacking in understanding of what is happening in the cockpit and in the capabilities of the aircraft. There will be an investigation of the incident. The pilot did not just "hotdog" on his own. He was talking to a flight controller somewhere that knew his position and that he was attacking a target. He will not be summarily hanged just to satisfy public opinion. In a combat situation, mistakes like this happen and often it's a chain of small mistakes by a lot of participants that result in an overall big mistake by the final link in the chain. Even if the pilot is found at fault, part of what will be judged is his intentions. Was it a bad mistake from a pilot trying to do a good job, or was it a stupid mistake from a "glory hound" trying to win medals. I think you will find that 99% of the blue-on-blue incidents happen from the first type, not the second. There is a reason people talk about "the fog of war".

Even if one of the tanks was flying a Brit flag, it is impossible when travelling at 300 KIAS to tell what an 18 by 12 inch piece of cloth is. Same with the uniform. I've actually seen about 3 different styles of uniforms on Brits on the news coverage. I've seen at least 5 different style on the Americans.

As fas as having optical systems that could identify targets at 1500 meters...well in a jet at 300 KIAS and 50 meters altitude, I would be only glancing at those screens especially if I was conducting a visual attack (i.e. gun). Once I made my initial target ID, I would probably not even look there again. And, by the way, in far less time than it has taken to type this sentence, that A-10 covered the 1500 meters. At 300 KIAS, figure about 15 seconds for the 1500 meters. Further, if the vehicles were moving, sanding being blown up by the treads could easily obscure some of the identification features on the vehicles.

I flew P-3s equipped with electro-optical reconnaissance systems. According to the manufacturer and the manuals, I could count your buttons from 25 miles and 25,000 feet. In actuality over Bosnia and Kosovo while doing strike targeting, I had a hell of a time distinguishing between a tank and an APC at 5 miles. It all depends on the environmental conditions. My system was light years more advanced than those on the A-10.

I also flew Maverick missile equipped P-3s during Desert Storm. the IR and TV targeting systems for these weapons left a lot to be desired when it came to identifying targets. I believe this is the same optical system the A-10s have.

There has been a lot made on this board about Americans not recognizing Brit tanks. Seems that one Brit tank crew could not even recognize one of their own while traveling at 15 MPH versus 300 KIAS.

I do not know the facts, no one on this board does. My earlier post in the Senior UK Officers thread was not about the blue-on-blue incident but rather about the pompous attitude of the posters. I still stand by that post. There is nothing wrong with letting out a "rebel yell" after smashing the **** out of an enemy target. War is emotional, it generates high tention and high stress. Actions like yelling and "high fiving" relieves that tension and stress. Part of the emotions generated and celebrated after surviving a battle are elation that the enemy died, not you. The need of one Brit poster to comment on my spelling is typical of this pompous "holier-than-thou" attitude I see on this board.

I have worked with the Brit armed forces in many exercises and operations to include strike operations in Bosnia. I have always found them to be extremely professional, well trained and motivated. But many, especially the senior officers, are pompous. Prime example, calling your non-commissioned or enlisted personnel "other ranks". To an American, that sound very much like they are considered to be lesser beings and insignificant. While I know from experience this is not true, that's the first impression an American has upon hearing this term.

kbf1, I have no doubt the British public is upset over the blue-on-blue. I'm upset over it and all the others. They are all incidents that in a perfect war would not have happened. However things get messy in war. From what I've read, you haven't experinced combat. After you have, than you might be in a position to judge those who make mistakes in battle. Until than, you come off, at least to this American, as a pompous ass.

northernmonkey

2nd Apr 2003, 02:10

HAL

Points taken, however, vehicles also displayed Orange panels, supplied by US, vehicles were static and has been for a while, they were on a metalled road, there was also a crowd of Iraqis around holding high the white flag.

I do agree that we should perhaps we should await the board of enquiry but I think we've been down that road before.

As for what a target looks like at 300Kts ............. what does a scimitar and a convoy of Landrovers look like..... Nothing in the Iraqi Arsenal!

I hear what you say but this happens frighteningly too often.

sparkymarky

2nd Apr 2003, 02:29

In this sort of scenario, as several people have said, the rule has to be don't shoot til you are sure what you are shooting at.

With this in mind, surely someone should be asking the A-10 pilot what he thought he was shooting at? What did he mistake the Scimitar for?

If he can't give a plausible answer to that question, he should be in big trouble.

Flatus Veteranus

2nd Apr 2003, 02:45

The assertion in The Times that one vehicle in the convoy was carrying a union jack of about 18x12 ins does not impress; one might as well wave a handkerchief. But Kbf1's statement that the A10 was "out of his area of exploitation" does impress. Presumably this is the same as being on the wrong side of the "bomb line" in my day. If so, in this age of GPS, it is unforgiveable. These sort of procedures are the only reliable means of preventing BoBs; but even they did not prevent a section of Wyverns writing off most of a platoon of RM at Suez. Rage at the Yanks over this tragedy is very understandable, but we shold try to contain it because one day we may need their CAS very badly. :(

mutleyfour

2nd Apr 2003, 03:05

Not sure that many of the brits would agree about having US CAS at the moment....give me a UK Harrier Squadron any time..and if none are available I'll take a few mud movers!

Jackonicko

2nd Apr 2003, 04:18

One can disagree with US policy re Iraq without being 'anti-American'.
One can think that GW Bush is a lightweight who seems to be in hock to oil interests without being 'anti-American'.
One can be in favour of gun control without being 'anti-American'.
One can deplore troops whooping at the death of Iraqi conscripts without being 'anti-American'.
One can question the procedures which allow (and perhaps question whether there are gung ho attitudes which contribute to) blue on blue incidents without being 'anti-American'.

You accuse KBF of 'jumping to conclusions' about your willingness to enter this argument. I'd suggest you take your own advice before being quite so quick to accuse: "people like kbf1 and Jackonicko" of "revelling in the tragedy to provide ammunition for their anti-Americanism and will use the opportunity to 'point score'."

"In fact I do feel enormously sorry for the poor so-and-so (the A-10 pilot), and am increasingly inclined to blame the system, not individual aircrew."
My my. What superb 'point scoring'.

kbf1

2nd Apr 2003, 06:31

Danny:

To answer some of your points:

For example, can you say in all honesty that the UK patrol were indeed exactly where they were supposed to be? Can you assure us that the recognition markings were indeed visible and not hidden under a layer of desert dust?

It has been confirmed that the British contingent were operating where they should have been inside their TAR.

To take the second point to its logical conclusion, if the recognition markings were not visible, then the secondary marker is the colour of the day flare which emits a stream of coloured smoke. This was fired before the second approach according to witness accounts. Had the pilot missed the flag, cheverons, and orange day-glo markers on the first pass, it would have been all but impossible to miss the smoke. Had visibility been impared to such a degree that he could not see the smoke he probably wouldn't have been flying, certainly not at the low level he was.

Also, in theatre the pilot will have been likely operating weapons tight in that environment. It is possible, but unlikely, that he may have been auth'd weapons loose. He will not have been auth'd weapons free in a British TAR. Depending on whether he was weapons tight or loose, he will have had to establish positive id on the target to be certain he was within his RoE. The only difference will be the degree of certainty and confirmation required and agreed by magic before being allowed to fire. This is the point that the pilot must answer: what was his RoE state, how were they applied, and were his actions reasonable in the circumstances?

On the prima facie evidence any defence looks weak.

I do not accept that the ratio of US to UK forces should exhonorate either side. I have stated all along that if the tables were turned and American casualties were taken from British FF, and the British servicemen involved were found after a competent tribunal such as a BoI to be negligent that they should face a court martial. In the case of the Challenger FF, that is what is likely to happen, but that is not my point here. My point is that US servicemen involved with FF incidents involving British casualties should face a competent tribunal, which currently they do not.

Danny, I used to consider you a friend who I would defend even if I disagreed with you, today I am disheartened. I doubt you really care. In fact I think the only one who is really bothered about this is me. Agree to disagree by all means, but you have got needlessly personal and vindictive.

You talk of me having a personal agenda. I suppose I do. My agenda, such that it is, is to get to the root cause of the issues and discuss them as openly as we are able under the circumstances. I would wish to see some gaping holes in US SOPs addressed so that interoperability becomes more streamlined. I would wish to see a return of confidence in the US military by British troops on the ground. I would also wish to see accountability for the actions of trained and responsible servicemen when things go wrong, to punish rash deeds where they are committed and learn the lessons from genuine mistakes to ensure they don't happen again.

I should make the point that it is your friends who tell you where you are going wrong so that you can fix it, not your enemies. I have no anti-American sentiments. I can disagree with policy and be voice concerns over the practices of the US armed forces without either hating America or Americans.

HAL: I accept the points you make and do not dispute them as mitigation. See my point above though about methods of identification. If the pilot was operating outside of his LoE, and the AFVs were in the TAR then the pilot should have checked this before engaging. If he didn't see the Union flag, he should have been looking to make a positive ID of coalition markings knowing that he was in a BritBat TAR. If all that had failed, on seeing the smoke on the second run he should have aborted. The questions that need to be asked is why this didn't happen. If it didn't happen because the pilot neglected to check, for whatever reason, he should be brought to book.

As a point of note, A&C recounted differences in the understanding of language. Many of our senior officers are the finest you will meet, as are yours. Don't let the language we use or the accents they talk with lead you to believe that they don't care for the men they command, or lack the ability to do so effectively. As for combat, I have never been in a situation where the UK has declared war, which is our definition of "combat". I have been tactically deployed on operations and shot at, and taken decisions under duress. You come accross to me as arrogant, defensive, and unwilling to accept any form of criticism. I am confident that you are not in reality, and that you probably don't come accross that way in person.

West Coast

2nd Apr 2003, 08:06

KBF
I will say your last post was much more metered and professional than a few of your others.

RatherBeFlying

2nd Apr 2003, 12:49

If this keeps up, some desperate Brit might just hose off a Milan. It would definitely throw off the Warthog driver's aim.

Danny

2nd Apr 2003, 17:54

kbf1, I still consider you to be a friend and whilst we may disagree with some of the emotive language used in our arguments I would have thought you were made of sterner stuff than that. My invocation of your 'apparent' anti-Americanism is based not only on what I read into your comments but also what others read into them. You appear to have made up your mind that the A10 pilot was a maverick and acting purely on gung-hoism and lacked any professionalism. In reality you do not know anything about the pilot, what his orders were, who he was talking to at the time or anything. You have drawn your conclusion and shroud it in language that has a pre-determination and nothing else matters.

Yes, it is a tragic incident and if the pilot was acting alone and in contravention of orders and with total disregard for laid down RoI then he should be dealt with. Under the circumstances though, we do not know his side of the story and until such time you should perhaps refrain from making judgements.

As was pointed out by HAL, making decisions at the speeds and altitudes mentioned is not easy and the equipment in the a/c is not quite as all singing and dancing as the manufacturers advertising brochures would have you believe.

I note that spotting something at 300kts is dificult. I know that trying to spot another heavy jet 2.5 miles in front of me when on approach at only 150kts can be almost impossible so applying that concept to trying to spot somthing at twice that speed which is camouflaged and blends into the surrounding terrain must be many more times more difficult. The expectation that the pilot is going to spot an 18 x 12 inch flag or a similar sized dayglo panel, assuming it is not covered by dirt or faded is also one that those making the criticisms obviously have little understanding of. I have seen on many of the news footage shots of our vehicles, the dayglo panel is either partly obscured, faded or covered in dust.

Also, you have not answered my or HAL's question about the British BoB incident. As HAL mentioned, that one was made at a lot closer range and at less that 10% of the speed of the A10. Will you be as quick to come to a conclusion about that incident? I doubt it and it is because of your haste and vehemence in condemning the A10 pilot that I accuse you of being anti-American. I won't even get into your private email which you have decided to reveal to everyone. It is not just me who senses your frustration at the US forces methods of dealing with their BoB incidents. It is your continued jumping to conclusions that I and quite a few others have noted that causes me to assume that you are anti-American. As you say yourself and pointed out by Jackonicko, just because you don't like something American doesn't mean you can't be proi-American can be twisted just as easily and read 'just because you like something American doesn't mean you can't be anti-American. My concern is for the amount of undermining some people try to do at the wrong time. When the conflict is over then there will be time for recriminations.

I am not defending the A10 pilot, but I will not condemn him at this stage either. The same goes for any of our servicemen or women and those of our allies involved in BoB incidents. In due course I have no doubt that they will all be investigated and lessons learnt. Trust the free press to give us the balanced picture... NOT! :rolleyes:

(This report was made from Newcastle Library and is subject to military restrictions.)

BlueWolf

2nd Apr 2003, 19:03

Gentlefolk

Why, in this technological age, does this phenomenon of Blue-on-Blue continue to happen?

Statistics quoted in threads related to this one suggest that anywhere between 25 and 40% of casualties sustained by military forces in the past century may be atributable to "friendly fire."
Such a state of affairs is worse than appalling, it is insane. With rates like that, who needs an enemy?

Statements to the effect that such occurences are "inevitable" are, frankly, amongst the weakest cop-outs I have ever heard.

We can (supposedly) put a man on the moon, we can invent PlayStation 2, microwave ovens, Viagra, and glow-in-the-dark chewing gum, we can climb the highest mountains, plumb the deepest oceans, winter over in the Antarctic and send probes to the far planets, but we can't avoid shooting our own people in conflict?

We can transplant organs, and even limbs, from dead people to the living, we can build TVs with picture-in-picture, we can video people's dreams, and create robots which eat meat and have a sense of smell, but we can't find a foolproof way for our warriors to determine who they are firing at?

We can map the far reaches of the universe, and spectrally analyse its composition; we can acurately (!) predict solar eclipses 2000 years into the future, we can bombard nucleii with subatomic particles in accelerators 80km long, but we can't tell who's on our side from 150 feet away?

It occurs to me, good people all, that the problem lies not with technology, but with motivation, application, and the acceptance of a prevailing attitude.

Life is not cheap, and incompetence cannot be acceptable, regardless of who is responsible for it.

A tiny redirection of resources towards the technologies of identification and communication, and a big dose of wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee with regards to prevailing attitudes towards the inevitability of "accidents of war", would, I humbly submit, go a long way to curtailing this ridiculous, unnecessary, and almost completely avoidable waste of the finest of human life.

Just a thought.

steamchicken

2nd Apr 2003, 19:24

Hmmm....a huge balloon shaped in the likeness of General Jackson, tethered to a vehicle in the UK area of ops? Not so much as a barrage balloon, but the sheer Mana (one fer you, Bluewolf) ought to keep the A10s away....

Chalkstripe

2nd Apr 2003, 20:41

At the risk of sounding morbid (and this may have been mentioned earlier), but the high proportion of coaltion casualties attributable to Blue on Blue (and accidents) has been disproportionally inflated due to the low number of casualties at the hands of the Iraqi forces. This has to be a positive reflection on the careful planning of the campaign. If there had been (God forbid) casualty figures in the triple figures would everyone be so fired up about this?

Obviously, if you happen to be related to a B-o-B victim, then any talk of disproportianately inflated ratios is just so much sophistry.

Before I receive a torrent of abuse I deplore all of these incidents, but, as Danny has said, perhaps we should withold our condemnation until after they have been investigated fully. It does seem that the A-10 incident will be hard to defend, particularly with the colour of the day smoke being used. But let's keep a cool head until we know all of the facts.

However I do hope that if these incidents do prove to be negligent that the guilty parties do not get "lost in the machine".

CS

Arkroyal

3rd Apr 2003, 16:41

Nice one, Bluewolf.

I spent the last gulf epic flying around relying on an obsolete mode 4 transponder, which had been gathering dust in a hangar in Germany for years, to save my ass from the yanks; and all because NATO standard means anything but standard. Can't even agree on a standard Jack-plug, for goodness sake!

If as much money was poured into this problem as on the Doha TV studio from which to relay the bad news, it would be a start.:mad:

BOBI.TECH

3rd Apr 2003, 17:07

Had the politicians listened to our digretion after the first conflict in which so called friendly fire to place then maybe the chances and risks of the happening may have been somewhat reduced.

As both a serving avionics engineer and a liceinced civil electronics engineer, to equip road going vehicles such as APC's and Tanks with a small (Black)box giving out IFF/SSR encrypted information would would cost very little to develope and to install on all frontline hardware- and at what price of that of a human life.

As serving members we are all taught the need of survive to fight, maybe then just maybe isn't it about time that those of a higher power were taught the same redeeming factors. That way they might have more people lapping at they're ankles to fight, protect and servre what once used the finest and most feared combat elite on this MORTAL COIL.

Warthog 01

3rd Apr 2003, 17:52

This A-10 thread has been both fascinating and depressing. I'm a retired USAF type with over 2000 hours in the 'Hog (and a couple thousand previously in Phantoms). My last tour was as Commander of a training Group (Air Warrior) at Nellis which offered TDY Aircrew (a'la Red Flag) the opportunity to provide CAS to TDY armored Battalions going against "Red Forces" at the National Training Center, Ft Irwin, California.

Pretty sophisticated, it was (and this was 9 years ago) as we instrumented both aircraft and armor and could replay the engagement to the troops who fought it both at Nellis and Ft Irwin. I've no doubt it's miles better than I left it, but the point I want to make is that BoB was demonstrated graphically from time to time without anyone actually getting killed. The "fault" could be attributed to the Aircrew (USAF/RAF/USN/CAF A-10/F-16/F-14/FA18), the FAC, the Tank driver, and anyone in between, but the bottom line was always the same--confusion and/or loss of situational awareness combined with increased adrenaline flow resulted in tragic mistakes. In three years, I never saw a BoB incident which resulted from a Cowboy mentality or a cavalier attitude and, unless our pros are a lot less professional than they were in the early '90s, it isn't happenining in Iraq either. The reaction of the aircrews we trained when their BoB engagements were played on the "big screen" was also consistent--shock and awe was evident even then and I've no doubt that the 'Hog driver involved in the referenced incident was devastated by the results of his engagement (and, as we know, the investigation isn't completed. The devastation will apply no matter WHO was at fault).

A news media which interviews a young troop who has just lost a buddy to fratricide, then ensures the interview is pumped up and splashed over front pages and the airwaves does no favors to the professionals-- on the ground and in the air--who are doing their damndest to get it right.

tony draper

3rd Apr 2003, 18:29

Surely something as simple and low tech as a Veri Pistol could be used as a back up,different coloured flares changing daily, might not help in a attack out of the blue, but could prevent a second run at a friendly target at least.
To simple I suppose.

kbf1

3rd Apr 2003, 22:29

Quick replies..danny, I'll respond to the Challenger issue when I have more time.

Draper:

They had the "colour of the day" smoke marker which is what we were referring to and which does exactly what you describe.

Warthog:

I have a number of questions for you, but I don't have enough time to go through them. One question of importance though, is it still the case that A10 drivers are not given any significant NATO AFV recognition tuition and examination?

MarkD

4th Apr 2003, 01:14

Ratherbeflying
If this keeps up, some desperate Brit might just hose off a Milan. It would definitely throw off the Warthog driver's aim.

RBF - I'd say a SAM rather than an antitank might scare him even more... is Starstreak the standard SAM used by HM ground forces?

RatherBeFlying

4th Apr 2003, 12:40

MD -- If somebody's flying towards you with what looks like malevolent intent, you might just grab whatever's closest.

Now if the rocket smoke was the color of the day, he might get the message -- if not, you could aim closer with the second round.

If it can stop a tank...

S76Heavy

4th Apr 2003, 16:03

Wouldn't it be possible to come up with an IFF responding to laser ranging? I'm thinking about the MILES combat simulator technology, that could perhaps be adapted for these kind of operations. It would not be 100% foolproof, but as a lot of direct fire weapons use laser ranging, it might just prevent more casualties.

Warthog 01

4th Apr 2003, 18:59

kbf1--

Remember, I've been a civilian (Ptooie!) for nearly 10 years now. I can't answer your question about current armor recognition training for US (or any other) pilots. In my day, there was armor recognition training (and aircraft regognition training and SAM site recognition training), but the emphasis was on bad guy equipment.

To be fair, it's one thing to identify a vehicle through a pair of binocs when you're stationary on the ground; quite another to perform the same task at 100 feet, 350 knots (or much more, depending on which noble steed you're riding).

The idea that a 12" X 18" Union Jack is recognizable under the same conditions is ludicrous (remember trying to read that number plate across the parking lot during your driving test?). The smoke color of the day is a different story and should do the trick. Why didn't it?? I'll reserve judgement until the investigation's complete.

WhatsaLizad?

5th Apr 2003, 07:48

I'm a US civilian airline pilot.

I have tend to wonder if my former military co-workers spent much time in the recognition training room.

In the 1990's as a Flight Engineer on the 727 I was somewhat suprised the former F15 driver, now First officer, ask what type of business jet was off to the right. It was midsize type like a Hawker. It suprised me that a guys who job was to intercept possibly anything didn't have a clue what the jet was.

If I remember right, he said while they spent alot of time on ID-ing Mig29s, anything else was ignored.

It wasn't a suprise to me later when the Blackhawk was blasted by an F15 in Northern Iraq.

I'll let the more informed make a call in the air vs. armor debate.

Naafi VanDriver

7th Apr 2003, 23:01

Thought I'd share a little something. It strikes me that the British take the time to think about what they are looking at.

Experts with newscaster on CNN 24th March.

3 yank experts including a former 2-star general from delta force, 1 ex SAS and the network's anchor.

Footage of iraqis giving themselves up.

anchor: We have no verification as of yet if they are british or
american troops taking these POW's

yank 1: Only americans wear boots like that, they're american

yank 2: I agree, and they appear to have american camouflage jackets.

yank 3 (delta force bloke): I'm not so sure, there's not enough
up-close detail to tell 100%, we'd need some close images to tell make of boots and jackets and maybe the shape of their kevlar headgear.

Ex SAS man: Call yourselves experts? Since when did US forces use an SA80 as a standard issue rifle? Their DPM's can be bought, as can the boots so you're chasing rainbows if you want to identify them from their clothes.

anchor: I think you're right.

Ex SAS man: Course I'm bloody right. Any one with half a brain and basic military training worth their salt should be able to identify a British soldier by his rifle. Not to mention the fact they're covering all points properly, not shouting "woo yeah" randomly, and haven't raised a flag in direct contravention with orders.

At this point 1 of the yanks walks off stage tearing his mic off, and the anchor says "I think we can safely say the soldiers on your screen are British. Now for these messages".

Fade to ad break!