Blue on Blue.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Herk, I share your concerns about all this possibly affecting combat capability. New Labour's idea of warfare appears to be to swamp the theatre with military police and legal warnings. I have heard of military cops actually being sent on ops in Helmand province. In theatre briefings of ROE have been accompanied by MoD lawyers. I don't see any probs with the coroner knowing ROE. He will probably request that the 2 A10 pilots give evidence in person. He cannot subpoena witnesses. He requested TC Hoon to give evidence at Sgt Roberts' inquest. Hoon refused, as is his right. I would like to see the coroner's powers beefed up. I think he should be able to subpoena witnesses.
Have to say I agree with Chug, we need all the info on the table. We don't want this to happen again. Fratricide is the most senseless way of all to die.
Have to say I agree with Chug, we need all the info on the table. We don't want this to happen again. Fratricide is the most senseless way of all to die.
US Herc, well it would seem that Mr Walker must have watched a lot of Quincy also! He is rather the exception to most Coroners, who seem more willing to tow the "party line". For all their power, their purpose, as with yours, is to bring in a verdict as to the cause of death. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide if legal proceedings are subsequently called for. By the way, if this one results in a finding of Unlawful Killing, it would not be the first in the present conflict resulting from a blue on blue.
We (the Brits), seem to be concerned on two levels here. We are outraged that Mrs Hull should have been treated with such careless disrespect by the MOD for the 4 years since her husband's death. That is not the responsibility of the US authorities, but of ours. We also want to make sure that the chances of this happening again are greatly reduced. That is the responsibility of all the coalition authorities. Just saying that in war stuff happens is frankly not acceptable. If we are to fight together we must work together to prevent us fighting one another!
Whoever was in the wrong here, Brit or Yank or both, we have to determine what happened, why it happened, and what we (Brits and Yanks!) can do to reduce the chances of it happening again. That is what our inquiries should have achieved. AFAIK they did not. That is an indictment of them both. At the moment the ball is in Mr Walker's court (sorry, unintentional pun!), who has I believe already viewed the video with Mrs Hull, in closed court. Now he wants the pilots involved to give evidence. Of course they don't have to (it seems our extradition treaty with the US is a one way system only, rather like our overall relationship? All this would have been avoided if the US and UK had done a proper job in the first place!
We (the Brits), seem to be concerned on two levels here. We are outraged that Mrs Hull should have been treated with such careless disrespect by the MOD for the 4 years since her husband's death. That is not the responsibility of the US authorities, but of ours. We also want to make sure that the chances of this happening again are greatly reduced. That is the responsibility of all the coalition authorities. Just saying that in war stuff happens is frankly not acceptable. If we are to fight together we must work together to prevent us fighting one another!
Whoever was in the wrong here, Brit or Yank or both, we have to determine what happened, why it happened, and what we (Brits and Yanks!) can do to reduce the chances of it happening again. That is what our inquiries should have achieved. AFAIK they did not. That is an indictment of them both. At the moment the ball is in Mr Walker's court (sorry, unintentional pun!), who has I believe already viewed the video with Mrs Hull, in closed court. Now he wants the pilots involved to give evidence. Of course they don't have to (it seems our extradition treaty with the US is a one way system only, rather like our overall relationship? All this would have been avoided if the US and UK had done a proper job in the first place!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 10th Feb 2007 at 17:52.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: lahr germany
Age: 84
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will not comment on this latest blue on blue as it has been covered quite
extensively on this thread,however I have noted that most of these
regretable incidents seem to involve USAF aircraft,almost non by the
US navy and never by Marine air, there seems to be an institutional problem
with CAS in the USAF.Historicaly the USAF were never comfortable with
the CAS tasking,during the Korean war they initially tried to avoid CAS
and concentrated on interdiction missions,striking enemy supplies 20+
miles behind the FEBA,.However the easy targets soon dissapeared and
the were forced into the CAS role, the result being a rash of blue on blues,
ask the Argyles,. In Vietnam most ground troops seemed much more
confident in CAS supplied by the Navy or Marines.
The USAF did not want the A 10 and only took it to avoid it going
to the Army and a loss of budget funds and when they took the aircraft
into service were reluctant to spend money to do the upgrading required
to turn into a viable CAS platform.This and the abovementioned points
may explain the apparent low level of skill and trg. of SOME USAF pilots
in the CAS mission.
Regards
extensively on this thread,however I have noted that most of these
regretable incidents seem to involve USAF aircraft,almost non by the
US navy and never by Marine air, there seems to be an institutional problem
with CAS in the USAF.Historicaly the USAF were never comfortable with
the CAS tasking,during the Korean war they initially tried to avoid CAS
and concentrated on interdiction missions,striking enemy supplies 20+
miles behind the FEBA,.However the easy targets soon dissapeared and
the were forced into the CAS role, the result being a rash of blue on blues,
ask the Argyles,. In Vietnam most ground troops seemed much more
confident in CAS supplied by the Navy or Marines.
The USAF did not want the A 10 and only took it to avoid it going
to the Army and a loss of budget funds and when they took the aircraft
into service were reluctant to spend money to do the upgrading required
to turn into a viable CAS platform.This and the abovementioned points
may explain the apparent low level of skill and trg. of SOME USAF pilots
in the CAS mission.
Regards
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell it to the Argyles.
plus ça change ....
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1950
BOMBING ERROR 150 BRITISH CASUALTIES
Strafed & Firebombed by U.S. Aircraft
hundred and fifty Britons were killed or wounded to-day during accidental bombing and strafing by American planes on tbe south-east Korean front.
The troops of the 27th Brigade, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were hit with napalm (jellied petrol) incendiary bombs.
Fighter-bombers going in with bombs and machine guns blazing, straffed the British by mistake. A First Corps officer said British forward troops had called for an air strike on a hill about two miles south-east of Songju.
The mistaken raid was on high ground which two companies of the Argylls had just captured. The planes dropped their bombs too far back in spite of huge recognition panels laid out by the Scots.
A half-hour after the raid the Communists themselves attacked.
Before the Communist attack, the Argylls called for artillery support, but none was available, the Americans having already withdrawn their guns
BROADCAST
New York radio stations broadcast a despatch from South east Korea saying a News Agency photographer saw American planes inadvertently strafe and firebomb elements of the British 28th Brigade with napalm jellied petrol, apparently with heavy casualties.
The photographer, Gene Herrick, said he saw the attack from forward command post 400 yards away.
During the air strafing and the Communist attack, supported by artillery fire, the number of dead and wounded in the British force were believed to have risen in 30 minutes to well over 150 .
Though earlier reports of the bombing mentioned the Middlesex Battalion, it later became clear that only two companies of the Argylls were involved
BOMBING ERROR 150 BRITISH CASUALTIES
Strafed & Firebombed by U.S. Aircraft
hundred and fifty Britons were killed or wounded to-day during accidental bombing and strafing by American planes on tbe south-east Korean front.
The troops of the 27th Brigade, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were hit with napalm (jellied petrol) incendiary bombs.
Fighter-bombers going in with bombs and machine guns blazing, straffed the British by mistake. A First Corps officer said British forward troops had called for an air strike on a hill about two miles south-east of Songju.
The mistaken raid was on high ground which two companies of the Argylls had just captured. The planes dropped their bombs too far back in spite of huge recognition panels laid out by the Scots.
A half-hour after the raid the Communists themselves attacked.
Before the Communist attack, the Argylls called for artillery support, but none was available, the Americans having already withdrawn their guns
BROADCAST
New York radio stations broadcast a despatch from South east Korea saying a News Agency photographer saw American planes inadvertently strafe and firebomb elements of the British 28th Brigade with napalm jellied petrol, apparently with heavy casualties.
The photographer, Gene Herrick, said he saw the attack from forward command post 400 yards away.
During the air strafing and the Communist attack, supported by artillery fire, the number of dead and wounded in the British force were believed to have risen in 30 minutes to well over 150 .
Though earlier reports of the bombing mentioned the Middlesex Battalion, it later became clear that only two companies of the Argylls were involved
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by time expired
however I have noted that most of these
regretable incidents seem to involve USAF aircraft,almost non by the
US navy and never by Marine air, there seems to be an institutional problem
with CAS in the USAF
regretable incidents seem to involve USAF aircraft,almost non by the
US navy and never by Marine air, there seems to be an institutional problem
with CAS in the USAF
Pure numbers are all but worthless w/o context - Frat per XXXX sorties/bombs/bullets/etc. is a far more meaningful number that we sadly don't have much access to.
Additionally, numbers can be twisted to mean near anything - we have a saying, "Figures lie & liars figure", so my insistence that these frat numbers be compared in some sort of uniform manner rather than total numbers may fall on deaf ears.
In no way am I saying there is not room for improvement, but the A10 community calls CAS, "God's Work", and they're not overly reliant on technology (as they haven't got much!) - they take very seriously their role and importance to ground troops. To say they need to train more may be disingenuous.
In today's ever more litigous societies, one dead person carries the weight of hundreds in times past (just look at the Argyles) & individual lives lost make headline today where before it had to be a significant incident - because it was expected the people were lost in conflict. It seems we no longer accept that & pounce on nearly any loss looking for where we can place blame.
Sadly, it's a game of numbers. High risk activities carry a higher risk - combat is an extremely high risk activity. The margin for error, narrower & with greater consequence. Somewhere along the way, we decided we didn't want anymore risk, so when bad things happen, we want to blame someone.
I blame CNN.
Last edited by US Herk; 11th Feb 2007 at 04:25.
There's statistics and theres damn lies....
Found an interesting article about stats and related calculations of Blue on Blue.
. If allied forces kill 1000 people for each one lost to enemy fire, that's very good. If they are 99.9% successful in avoiding 'friendly fire' deaths, that's also very good. But the combination of these two good things has the perverse result that fully half of their deaths will be from 'friendly fire'.
Suppose that in a given week Iraqi soldiers kill 10 allied soldiers in battle.
Assuming a 1000:1 ratio and 99.9% accuracy, that would mean that coalition forces would kill 10,000 people in the same week, 99.9% of whom are not allied soldiers -- say 99% Iraqi soldiers, 0.9% civilians, 0.1% allied soldiers.
The result of our hypothetical case is that the Iraqis lose 9,900 soldiers and 90 civilians to Allied fire, while the Coalition loses 10 soldiers to Iraqi fire, 10 more to 'friendly fire'.
The very competence of coalition troops, as shown by (a) the huge disproportion in casualties and (b) the very high accuracy in targeting, produces a shockingly high percentage of deaths from 'friendly fire'.
Since coalition forces take good care to determine and publish the cause of each allied death, 50% of relatives in our hypothetical case have the added misery of knowing that their loves ones died at the hands of their fellow soldiers.
Suppose that in a given week Iraqi soldiers kill 10 allied soldiers in battle.
Assuming a 1000:1 ratio and 99.9% accuracy, that would mean that coalition forces would kill 10,000 people in the same week, 99.9% of whom are not allied soldiers -- say 99% Iraqi soldiers, 0.9% civilians, 0.1% allied soldiers.
The result of our hypothetical case is that the Iraqis lose 9,900 soldiers and 90 civilians to Allied fire, while the Coalition loses 10 soldiers to Iraqi fire, 10 more to 'friendly fire'.
The very competence of coalition troops, as shown by (a) the huge disproportion in casualties and (b) the very high accuracy in targeting, produces a shockingly high percentage of deaths from 'friendly fire'.
Since coalition forces take good care to determine and publish the cause of each allied death, 50% of relatives in our hypothetical case have the added misery of knowing that their loves ones died at the hands of their fellow soldiers.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the source, SASless?
This is what I mean about figures lying & liars figuring - this is an invalid comparison. This article is comparing percentage of total friendly losses to total frat losses - a wholly irrelevant comparison in my mind, but it makes good news, I'm sure.
Doubly troubling is the "made up" percentages designed to provide the necessary shock factor that sells "news."
In my mind, frat stats can only be compared on basis of rounds down range/targets serviced/iron dropped/etc. How many times do we pull the trigger & kill one of our own in comparison to the total number of times we pull the trigger?
the very high accuracy in targeting, produces a shockingly high percentage of deaths from 'friendly fire'.
Doubly troubling is the "made up" percentages designed to provide the necessary shock factor that sells "news."
In my mind, frat stats can only be compared on basis of rounds down range/targets serviced/iron dropped/etc. How many times do we pull the trigger & kill one of our own in comparison to the total number of times we pull the trigger?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"How many times do we pull the trigger & kill one of our own in comparison to the total number of times we pull the trigger?"
Reading Lon Mores post and several others on here I would regrefully suggest far too often US Herk
Reading Lon Mores post and several others on here I would regrefully suggest far too often US Herk
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
All when and good with the stats, but how do they work out if say the coilition forces kill 100 000 Iraqi civilians?? We certainly didnt kill 10 million Iraqi soldiers in the process. I guess our percentage for accuracy isn't as good as the statisticians think.
All when and good with the stats, but how do they work out if say the coilition forces kill 100 000 Iraqi civilians?? We certainly didnt kill 10 million Iraqi soldiers in the process. I guess our percentage for accuracy isn't as good as the statisticians think.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Digression - Military Police in Helmand
NigelGib you said
This is more or less true. In the 'utterly, utterly' email a member of the RMP was, together with other non-teeth soldiers, involved in offensive ops against the Taliban.
He had been in the forward area to investigate an accidental shooting (or something similar) when the situation turned hot. I don't recall the exact details but there was a number of soldiers who would not normally have been in the front line who willing joined the Paras.
I have heard of military cops actually being sent on ops in Helmand province
He had been in the forward area to investigate an accidental shooting (or something similar) when the situation turned hot. I don't recall the exact details but there was a number of soldiers who would not normally have been in the front line who willing joined the Paras.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lon More's quote:
While this was tragic, it actually reinforces the odds that any air to ground 'blue on blue' would be from the US. With the exception of 77 Sq RAAF with F-51s/later Meteors, I don't know of ANY RAF/Commonwealth fighter/ground attack aircraft committed during Korea. Apologies if I'm wrong.
Even the RN's one carrier on station with A squadron of 12-ish Fireflies and A squadron of 12-ish Sea Furies (Seafires in 1950) were numerically insignificant.
Interesting read from a Princeton University paper, dated 1993.
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/dis...351/935105.PDF
Tell it to the Argyles.
Even the RN's one carrier on station with A squadron of 12-ish Fireflies and A squadron of 12-ish Sea Furies (Seafires in 1950) were numerically insignificant.
Interesting read from a Princeton University paper, dated 1993.
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/dis...351/935105.PDF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose
Reading Lon Mores post and several others on here I would regrefully suggest far too often US Herk
From the human perspective, once is too many.
From a realistic perspective, it's impossible to prevent 100% of the time until we quit warring.
Originally Posted by Tigs2
All when and good with the stats, but how do they work out if say the coilition forces kill 100 000 Iraqi civilians?? We certainly didnt kill 10 million Iraqi soldiers in the process.
Thanks for the article, Brickhistory. I disagreed with some of the "how we count it" type stuff, but that wasn't the thrust of the paper & it was relatively concise & probably very useful reading for the non-mil types...
Couple pertinent clips from the article:
Avoiding fratricide is never the sole objective of a military force; it must be balanced with other military goals and efforts to hold down overall human costs. Combat is inherently dangerous and casualties are inevitable, and some of those casualties inevitably will be due to fratricide. Moreover, some measures to reduce fratricide could be so stringent that they would reduce military effectiveness and, in the end, increase the casualties inflicted by enemy forces.
Even the most straightforward technique, looking at a potential target with human eyes, is neither simple nor reliable; combatants need training to identify forces quickly. Even with training, mistakes that appear egregious in the calm of peaceful retrospection are all too common in the confusion of combat.
Cures for the fratricide problem deserve serious, continuing attention, but fratricide is not a cause for panic and will not lose the next war.
Today, the military R&D community is pursuing several antifratricide developments. Existing efforts to coordinate with sister Services and allies should be vigorously maintained.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know when it became the practice to hold coroners' inquests into the deaths of British servicemen in battle, or on active service? There must have been a mighty host of coroners around during the two World Wars!
Were there, for example, inquests into the deaths of all hands on the British cruiser (HMS Curacao??) when she was escorting one of the Queen liners in WW2 and was cut down by her "charge"?
To my mind the Oxford coroner seems to be a rather pompous official who seems unable to get his mind around the tensions and difficulties facing the A10 pilots. The vindictive tone adopted by much of the press comment seems unlikely to encourage the USAF to help out the British army when it finds itself in tight spots in future.
Were there, for example, inquests into the deaths of all hands on the British cruiser (HMS Curacao??) when she was escorting one of the Queen liners in WW2 and was cut down by her "charge"?
To my mind the Oxford coroner seems to be a rather pompous official who seems unable to get his mind around the tensions and difficulties facing the A10 pilots. The vindictive tone adopted by much of the press comment seems unlikely to encourage the USAF to help out the British army when it finds itself in tight spots in future.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 85
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flatus Veteranus
The following might help:-
http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/60605-30.htm
Scroll down to 5 June 2006 Col WS270.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/60605-30.htm
Scroll down to 5 June 2006 Col WS270.
FV, the reason that the Oxford Coroner's office is so involved with our dead in Bliars wars, is that their remains are repatriated into his area, ie via BZN. The practise in WW2, and indeed nearly all previous conflicts, has been to bury the remains of our dead in the IWCs, later CWCs, abroad. My Dad for instance is buried at the one near Yokohama. The requirement for a Coroner's Inquest thus did not exist. What provision was made for those killed in the UK, both civilian and military, was presumably a somewhat simplified version of the present arrangements. One thinks of the Coventry blitz for example.
As to Assistant Coroner Walker being pompous, I wouldn't know, not having met him. Perhaps you have, in which case perhaps he might say the same about you, who knows?
As to the Press, I couldn't agree more!
As to Assistant Coroner Walker being pompous, I wouldn't know, not having met him. Perhaps you have, in which case perhaps he might say the same about you, who knows?
As to the Press, I couldn't agree more!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Chugalug, anyone less pompous than FV I have yet to meet.
Wanting a light for his cigarette he crouched down and drew the flame from someone else's fag - he didn't want to interrupt their conversation.
Rather than 'pompous' one could say pernicity but more probably precise and exact. I wonder what a coroner is 'charged with' in the way that those with commissions are required to discharge their duties?
Wanting a light for his cigarette he crouched down and drew the flame from someone else's fag - he didn't want to interrupt their conversation.
Rather than 'pompous' one could say pernicity but more probably precise and exact. I wonder what a coroner is 'charged with' in the way that those with commissions are required to discharge their duties?
PN, I take your reprimand on the chin. The point I was trying to make was that Walker's pomposity, or lack of it, is no more relevant than FV's, hence the smiley! As to commissioned officers in the Armed Forces, senior ones of various shades on either side of the pond were indeed charged, with investigating the circumstances and causes of L/Cploh Mulls death, and to publish findings that might lead to a reduced chance of a similar tragedy in the future. AFAIK they failed to do so, for by now we would be in possession of some reassurances re training and operational procedures to that effect. To that extent I say that Mrs Hull, and her husband's colleagues have been failed by the military, both Brit and Yank.
Then enter stage left the Oxford Coroner, as though in a G&S opera. One is reminded of the sudden appearance of the "Official Solicitor" some time back, to solve another legal dilemma (I don't even remember which one). If Mr Walker can attend to the business that commissioned senior officers were charged with and do what they failed to, to any extent, then he has my vote whatever his personal traits!
Then enter stage left the Oxford Coroner, as though in a G&S opera. One is reminded of the sudden appearance of the "Official Solicitor" some time back, to solve another legal dilemma (I don't even remember which one). If Mr Walker can attend to the business that commissioned senior officers were charged with and do what they failed to, to any extent, then he has my vote whatever his personal traits!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
As to commissioned officers in the Armed Forces, senior ones of various shades on either side of the pond were indeed charged, with investigating the circumstances and causes of L/Cploh Mulls death, and to publish findings that might lead to a reduced chance of a similar tragedy in the future. AFAIK they failed to do so, for by now we would be in possession of some reassurances re training and operational procedures to that effect.
I cannot presume to speak for the MoD's BoI in this instance.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once more I agree with Chug. The families have been failed by
the military on both sides of the Atlantic here. The open US inquiry concluded that all procedures had been followed correctly and in an interview, the base commander at Idaho has said that no changes to training arose out of this incident. The pilot concerned has been promoted. Over here the MoD treated the relatives with disdain and arrogance. Thankfully, it only takes one good man to make a difference. (And an unofficial copy of the video). This same man, also found fault with the way the BoI into the death of Sgt Roberts had been conducted. In this case, it appears that the only friend of the family's has been the coroner. Bearing in mind the families of the bereaved are not given legal representation, the role of the coroner has been critical for truth to prevail.
the military on both sides of the Atlantic here. The open US inquiry concluded that all procedures had been followed correctly and in an interview, the base commander at Idaho has said that no changes to training arose out of this incident. The pilot concerned has been promoted. Over here the MoD treated the relatives with disdain and arrogance. Thankfully, it only takes one good man to make a difference. (And an unofficial copy of the video). This same man, also found fault with the way the BoI into the death of Sgt Roberts had been conducted. In this case, it appears that the only friend of the family's has been the coroner. Bearing in mind the families of the bereaved are not given legal representation, the role of the coroner has been critical for truth to prevail.