In the Line of Fire (BBC 9/11/03)
Thread Starter
In the Line of Fire (BBC 9/11/03)
In John Simpsons superb programe on Sunday he stated that to help recognition by FRIENDLY AIRCRAFT he had a large ORANGE (DAYGLOW ??) patch on the roof of his vehicle. After the attack by AMERICAN F14's he was told that these were NO GOOD as the Computer Screen only showed up in B/W.
If this is so and the aircraft were very low anyway What is the Use of these squares. Do the USN AIRCREW need WHITE STICKS to tell them if a target is friendly or not.
If this is so and the aircraft were very low anyway What is the Use of these squares. Do the USN AIRCREW need WHITE STICKS to tell them if a target is friendly or not.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lincs.
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you watched the programme more closely you would have heard the explanation given at the end by John Simpson as to why the TV convoy were targeted. He said It was down to the inaccurate description of the location of the Iraqi tanks given, by a US Special forces man, whom "didnt have the time" to give co-ordinates for the attack from his hand held GPS. It appears that he was in a state of panic due to the close proximity of the Tanks and gave a description of the enemies location along the lines of:
"See the interchange to the south?"
"Afirm, Interchange with vehicles?"
"Yes, With vehicles! Thats your target!"
There were two very similar interchanges within a short distance, one with obvious vehicles and one with cammed up tanks, probably almost invisable to the eye.
Hardly the fault of the F14 Driver!
Although It is a tragic loss, on this occasion it looks like it was the Special Forces Guy who F d up!!
"See the interchange to the south?"
"Afirm, Interchange with vehicles?"
"Yes, With vehicles! Thats your target!"
There were two very similar interchanges within a short distance, one with obvious vehicles and one with cammed up tanks, probably almost invisable to the eye.
Hardly the fault of the F14 Driver!
Although It is a tragic loss, on this occasion it looks like it was the Special Forces Guy who F
d up!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you looked closely you'd have seen that the American Special Forces' "pinkies" also had an orange ident on their roof, so somebody, somewhere, must think they serve some use. Maybe IRR?
(Panorama repeated at 01:50, Friday 14th)
(Panorama repeated at 01:50, Friday 14th)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly it was a F15 that loosed of a maverick at the convoy, the F15 does have colour displays,(as well as a clock)however the camera in the Mavericks nose is either monochrome or outputs a greenish IR image.
Err I think.
Err I think.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, definitely not F-15s but F-14s of VF-31 'Swordsmen' off the USS Truman. Not sure about the weapon used but I thought that the F-15 and F-14 didn't use Maverick?
Agree that the programme was excellent viewing, being dramatic, thougt-provoking and balanced. Also thought the footage of tehe USN CAS and the accuracy of the weapons delivery was staggering.
Reg
Agree that the programme was excellent viewing, being dramatic, thougt-provoking and balanced. Also thought the footage of tehe USN CAS and the accuracy of the weapons delivery was staggering.
Reg
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't see the program you chaps are talking about but I remember when it happened I am sure it was a Maverick, I don't think anybody standing 12 yards away from the impact would have survived a iron bomb.
Just googled it to reshresh me memory, nearly all the reports state the attacking aircaft as one of a pair of F15 Strike Eagles,
John Simpson reported seeing the incoming munition and reported it as painted white and red, sounds like some kind of Guided munition.
Just googled it to reshresh me memory, nearly all the reports state the attacking aircaft as one of a pair of F15 Strike Eagles,
John Simpson reported seeing the incoming munition and reported it as painted white and red, sounds like some kind of Guided munition.
Last edited by tony draper; 11th Nov 2003 at 18:19.
Supercalifragilistic
expialidocious
expialidocious
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They remember differently...
Just googled it to reshresh me memory, nearly all the reports state the attacking aircaft as one of a pair of F15 Strike Eagles,
An explanation is also given as to how you can stand within 12ft of a 1000lb HE bomb blast and still tell the story, it's called "bug splat" apparently.
Programme transcript:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...lineoffire.txt
Edited to add transcript link.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The guys on the ground did indeed say at the time that the 'bomb' was 'white with a red nose. which I agree would not make it an iron bomb. That said, bearing in mind the speed of the incoming munition one has to treat the eyewitness accounts as suspect.
Anyway, I thought that all the CAS in the North came from the two carrier air wings in the estern Med?
Reg
Anyway, I thought that all the CAS in the North came from the two carrier air wings in the estern Med?
Reg
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the articles it was Simpson himself who reported them as F15's perhaps the mistake was just passed down the line,supprises me, Simpson unlike most of the kiddies program presenters who were given a flack jacket renamed war correspondends and shipped out to the Irag, Simpson had a bit time under his belt.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did anyone not think the prog was in a little poor taste, broadcast on Rembrance Sunday? I thought it focussed in very heavily on the journos who were there, after all because they chose to be, unlike the fighters who had to be.
When the incident happened, I was very impressed by the actions of the American troops who rushed in to get people out, give first aid, etc. Not so much by the media who were very quick to film the dead and dying, but appeared to be offering very little help.
Maybe it is a good example of why these people should think so carefully about going so close to the front line. Trooper Finney, who recently received the George Cross at 18 years of age, had to endure a similar incident, and I'm sure he and many like him had then to continue to fight and didn't have the option of going home.
Bit of a rant, I found the BBCs coverage of the entire campaign very negative and somewhat frustrating!
When the incident happened, I was very impressed by the actions of the American troops who rushed in to get people out, give first aid, etc. Not so much by the media who were very quick to film the dead and dying, but appeared to be offering very little help.
Maybe it is a good example of why these people should think so carefully about going so close to the front line. Trooper Finney, who recently received the George Cross at 18 years of age, had to endure a similar incident, and I'm sure he and many like him had then to continue to fight and didn't have the option of going home.
Bit of a rant, I found the BBCs coverage of the entire campaign very negative and somewhat frustrating!
Have to agree with you there Fin.
The Journos were there for a completely different reason to the rest, who had no choice. Maybe it was a stoical desire to report to the masses at home, the great injustices that occur during war. Or maybe, when I put my cynical head on, it was a desire to increase their self importance.
Either way they become a burden to those who are trying to carryout orders and meet objectives.
How many lives do they put at risk in order to get a story? With no training and no eqpt, there were not enough flack jackets never mind helmets to go round; they leech onto a convoy with a hope of getting a big story.
Why was the radio Op stressed? Was he baby sitting the journos, rather than concentrating on his primary task?
Was he concerned that the proximity to the other 3 tanks may become a severe risk?
Was it recognised that there was a tank close to their current position?
Was it shown with 20/20 foresight?
Did he consider the enemy were very close and the danger was imminent?
When confusion reigns those that add to it must accept some responsibility for the consequences. I would say they were the Mavericks in this situation.
Slopjockey
The Journos were there for a completely different reason to the rest, who had no choice. Maybe it was a stoical desire to report to the masses at home, the great injustices that occur during war. Or maybe, when I put my cynical head on, it was a desire to increase their self importance.
Either way they become a burden to those who are trying to carryout orders and meet objectives.
How many lives do they put at risk in order to get a story? With no training and no eqpt, there were not enough flack jackets never mind helmets to go round; they leech onto a convoy with a hope of getting a big story.
Why was the radio Op stressed? Was he baby sitting the journos, rather than concentrating on his primary task?
Was he concerned that the proximity to the other 3 tanks may become a severe risk?
Was it recognised that there was a tank close to their current position?
Was it shown with 20/20 foresight?
Did he consider the enemy were very close and the danger was imminent?
When confusion reigns those that add to it must accept some responsibility for the consequences. I would say they were the Mavericks in this situation.
Slopjockey
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My overwhelming memory of this conflict was the absolutely disgracefull anti war bias of the media, bordering on the treasonable in my book, also of the dire quality of the journalism overall.
Yes, disgraceful indeed, Drapes.
How dare they question the wisdom of going to war when experience has shown that attacking Iraq has done so much to end the terrorist threat to the West and to Western interests?
How dare they question the political leadership (and in doing so reflect a huge segment of public opinion) as to the moral legitimacy of going to war for the reasons stated, when post war experience has so clearly demonstrated the clear and present danger we faced from Saddam's WMD?
How dare they query GWB's motives when post war experience has shown that the US would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people, and would be 'home by Christmas'.....
etc.
If the media was guilty of anything, it was of asking uncomfortable questions, whose legitimacy has been vindicated by everything that has happened since. In a free society, the Press must be allowed to present both sides of the story, and to ask questions which we might feel uncomfortable.
How dare they question the wisdom of going to war when experience has shown that attacking Iraq has done so much to end the terrorist threat to the West and to Western interests?
How dare they question the political leadership (and in doing so reflect a huge segment of public opinion) as to the moral legitimacy of going to war for the reasons stated, when post war experience has so clearly demonstrated the clear and present danger we faced from Saddam's WMD?
How dare they query GWB's motives when post war experience has shown that the US would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people, and would be 'home by Christmas'.....
etc.
If the media was guilty of anything, it was of asking uncomfortable questions, whose legitimacy has been vindicated by everything that has happened since. In a free society, the Press must be allowed to present both sides of the story, and to ask questions which we might feel uncomfortable.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Predictable enough that Jackonicko would see red here! IMHO the media should report the news, not make it. Also IMHO, the reporting I saw was far from balanced and was very much anti war - how many stories did you see about a formation of aircraft successfully engaging an enemy target with or without precision weapons and therefore assisting the advance? Plenty of stories about 'collateral damage' though.
In the height of the conflict, it seemed to me that there was no end to the 'the advance has stalled' 'look how many civilians have been injured' stories. My point is that a lot more went on that was known to the media and went unreported perhaps because it wasn't so sensational. Also, at my location, the vast number of media often got in the way and on several occasions we delayed briefings for sorties because the journos were filming in our briefing room, and several people unexpectedly found their faces on TV at inopportune moments. (there are many more examlples). I think there were too many and they were too close. I wouldn't dream of stifling the public's right to know, but at what cost does this come?
As a final thought, how many 'embedded media' were there with the SAS?
In the height of the conflict, it seemed to me that there was no end to the 'the advance has stalled' 'look how many civilians have been injured' stories. My point is that a lot more went on that was known to the media and went unreported perhaps because it wasn't so sensational. Also, at my location, the vast number of media often got in the way and on several occasions we delayed briefings for sorties because the journos were filming in our briefing room, and several people unexpectedly found their faces on TV at inopportune moments. (there are many more examlples). I think there were too many and they were too close. I wouldn't dream of stifling the public's right to know, but at what cost does this come?
As a final thought, how many 'embedded media' were there with the SAS?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lichfield UK
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video footage shot actually at the time DEFINITELY shows F14s - impossible to determine if its more than 1, but F14 CAS ops have used solo outings. Previous footage shot shows an F14 dropping 2 Paveway LGB type 1000 pounders.Dont think maverick is in the F14s usual ground attack arsenal.
Programme seemed to show the F14 and its crews in a poor light- t certainly was the spec ops crews who called in the strike and lets face it the description of the target was very lacking as dscribed by Div Phug earlier. Vis wasnt too good either and there was even a dead Iraqi tank close by - fog of war?........
Programme seemed to show the F14 and its crews in a poor light- t certainly was the spec ops crews who called in the strike and lets face it the description of the target was very lacking as dscribed by Div Phug earlier. Vis wasnt too good either and there was even a dead Iraqi tank close by - fog of war?........
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti Americanism
There is an obvious anti American agenda bordering on the hysterical. Blue on Blue is not a particularly American habit, but I figure if you commit several hundred thousand men and women at arms in unfamiliar terrain with all natures of live ammunition then such incidents will happen. After incidents in the Falklands, we were stressing the "urgent" need for an Ident system which had to be infallible and immune to countermeasures and what have we got so far ? Dayglo patches and an inverted "V" !
I don't see much sympathy expressed in the extensive UK media coverage for the US service personnel involved in such incidents and scant reference to our very own home grown variety of blue on blue. There is a quite understandable silence on those due to the concern for the casualties families and friends and indeed the statistical few involved at the trigger end.
The media seem to think that they should have some kind of God given immunity from battlefield clag - well, if you walk across Salisbury Plain during a live fire exercise it's dangerous enough. Drive into a war zone with only your Toyota 4x4, journalistic derring do and a press card then you take your chances.
Have they also all forgotten the 9/11 atrocity ? I figure the Americans are due some understanding of the psyche at work which demands action against regimes like Saddam. Nobody out there seems to want to cut some slack for a bemused nation under constant attack. The USA is hardly the evil Empire some sections of the UK media would have us believe.
The same chattering class elite who describe Bush in such derogatory terms seemed to be quite happy with the existence of the Iraqi regime, as was ("Sir, I salute your strength, your courage, your indefatigability......." George Galloway ex UK MP), and really seem quite happy too at the current level of violence there now since they mistakenly believe this vindicates their anti war stance. That level of violence always existed there but was insidious, state driven and directed at the Iraqi people to keep them in check, but behind closed doors. Where is the media reporting on the brutal truth of the Iraqi regime ?
I don't see much sympathy expressed in the extensive UK media coverage for the US service personnel involved in such incidents and scant reference to our very own home grown variety of blue on blue. There is a quite understandable silence on those due to the concern for the casualties families and friends and indeed the statistical few involved at the trigger end.
The media seem to think that they should have some kind of God given immunity from battlefield clag - well, if you walk across Salisbury Plain during a live fire exercise it's dangerous enough. Drive into a war zone with only your Toyota 4x4, journalistic derring do and a press card then you take your chances.
Have they also all forgotten the 9/11 atrocity ? I figure the Americans are due some understanding of the psyche at work which demands action against regimes like Saddam. Nobody out there seems to want to cut some slack for a bemused nation under constant attack. The USA is hardly the evil Empire some sections of the UK media would have us believe.
The same chattering class elite who describe Bush in such derogatory terms seemed to be quite happy with the existence of the Iraqi regime, as was ("Sir, I salute your strength, your courage, your indefatigability......." George Galloway ex UK MP), and really seem quite happy too at the current level of violence there now since they mistakenly believe this vindicates their anti war stance. That level of violence always existed there but was insidious, state driven and directed at the Iraqi people to keep them in check, but behind closed doors. Where is the media reporting on the brutal truth of the Iraqi regime ?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets get down to the truth here lads. Reporters report about the things that people dont want to be reported, thats their job. Papers like the Sun and the Daily Mail may take that to extreme's sometimes but thats life. Whoever said that the British media was anti-war was obviously not in the country at the time the war was on. Of the 10 national papers and the TV news channels only one the Daily Mirror was anti-war.
The reason why there was still lots of anti-war focus was because the people in these organizations decided to go against the "offical pro-war line" and report what they thought was right. And they did a good job in my opinion.
Piligrim you must of missed the blue on blue that the RM's did and a BBC newsreporter documentated. That the MOD put down the deaths due to Iraqi fire when all evidence pointed to an accidently fired British milian anti-tank missle goes to show what these people are about. Its not about being anti-war or bogus reporting its about presenting the truth as they see it rightly or wrongly. Its about the fact's not the fiction, its about the truth not the lies.
The reason why there was still lots of anti-war focus was because the people in these organizations decided to go against the "offical pro-war line" and report what they thought was right. And they did a good job in my opinion.
Piligrim you must of missed the blue on blue that the RM's did and a BBC newsreporter documentated. That the MOD put down the deaths due to Iraqi fire when all evidence pointed to an accidently fired British milian anti-tank missle goes to show what these people are about. Its not about being anti-war or bogus reporting its about presenting the truth as they see it rightly or wrongly. Its about the fact's not the fiction, its about the truth not the lies.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Civilian
I certainly didn't miss any of the UK Blue on Blue incidents believe me
What I'm saying is that the media hysteria which accompanies the US incidents is usually much more muted at home when we admit we get it wrong too !
I have seen enough to assure you that the effects are quite devastating, and the finger pointing doesn't usually help much. The unfortunate few who squeeze off or call fire down (usually under fire themselves) at friendlies are gutted, no matter their nationality, but you would have to agree that the UK media focus on the US incidents is microscopic in detail and tends to gloss over most of our own.
I certainly didn't miss any of the UK Blue on Blue incidents believe me
What I'm saying is that the media hysteria which accompanies the US incidents is usually much more muted at home when we admit we get it wrong too ! I have seen enough to assure you that the effects are quite devastating, and the finger pointing doesn't usually help much. The unfortunate few who squeeze off or call fire down (usually under fire themselves) at friendlies are gutted, no matter their nationality, but you would have to agree that the UK media focus on the US incidents is microscopic in detail and tends to gloss over most of our own.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely there's another level to this whole thing. As has already been said, JSs team weren't embedded, weren't invited and weren't involved in anything whilst up with the Kurds. They consciously decided to head south, despite the advice of their Kurdish escorts, to get involved. It's a great shame, but I guess they got that!!
The embedded media were nothing more than a coallition propaganda tool, but surely a line must be drawn. There are some things that remain behind enemy lines. We go to war when political means have been expended (remember Klauswitz?) It's not pretty, and accidents happen. It's just that our government is too weak to stand up to the press and say "Stay away" when required and to allow the war to happen. There are some things that the tree-hugging Human Rights greenies should be told to "dry their eyes with", rather than bow to their pressure,
Rant over, off to the bar
Uncle G
The embedded media were nothing more than a coallition propaganda tool, but surely a line must be drawn. There are some things that remain behind enemy lines. We go to war when political means have been expended (remember Klauswitz?) It's not pretty, and accidents happen. It's just that our government is too weak to stand up to the press and say "Stay away" when required and to allow the war to happen. There are some things that the tree-hugging Human Rights greenies should be told to "dry their eyes with", rather than bow to their pressure,
Rant over, off to the bar
Uncle G
Don't know about "babysitting the journos" - the journos were travelling in their own vehicle and didn't seem to have anything to do with the US special forces people until after the attack.
PS, JS described the weapon as a 250kg bomb.
PS, JS described the weapon as a 250kg bomb.