Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Replicant on March 30, 2003, 03:05:16 AM
-
Anyone got any information on the A-10 attacking a British vehicle? All I know is that one British troop died and four or five were injured. Haven't seen hardly any converage of it.
-
Yup. It happened and is being investigated. Again.
-
Last Gulf War an A-10 fired on two Warrior tanks. Can't remember how many were killed. They were members of 3 Bn Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (3 RRF). We've recently had 1 & 2 RRF stationed near where I live and many were involved in that incident. (3 RRF disbanded to a TA Bn, all Regular Army joined 1 or 2 RRF).
Although tragic in all circumstances, I just hope this vehicle wasn't part of 1 RRF (who are out there) as this would bring just too many memories back.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
...Again.
Hate to say it but thats the first thought I had. :(
Gatso
-
It just brought the incident from the first gulf war, to the fore.
9 died in that incident, Nexx, IIRC.
-
it was a damn shame in 1991. the UK armored guys were making such rapid progress that they penetrated deep into a kill box before they could be warned or the guys patrolling the kill box could be warned.
-
There should be a better form of target recognition, an IFF for vehicles too.
-
wow! friendly fire incidents in a.....war? how can that be?
really grasping at straws here boys.
lazs
-
with iff and proper procedures . it shouldent be . somone screwed a pooch.
-
:(
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
with iff and proper procedures . it shouldent be . somone screwed a pooch.
There isn't IFF on ground vehicles. Even if there was it is only an indicator and not infallible. Any electronic device can fail. The other factor to consider is that the frequency (or response code if you will) must be entered on each change of code time frame, be it a 24 hr code or on breach of security. IFF can also be jammed. Sender and receiver must have the same code for it to be a valid indicator.
Stop worrying about screwing pooches unless it's you avocation, and I don't mean the worrying part.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
There isn't IFF on ground vehicles. Even if there was it is only an indicator and not infallible. Any electronic device can fail. The other factor to consider is that the frequency (or response code if you will) must be entered on each change of code time frame, be it a 24 hr code or on breach of security. IFF can also be jammed. Sender and receiver must have the same code for it to be a valid indicator.
Stop worrying about screwing pooches unless it's you avocation, and I don't mean the worrying part.
LDV just talkin out his "other orifice" again.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Anyone got any information on the A-10 attacking a British vehicle? All I know is that one British troop died and four or five were injured. Haven't seen hardly any converage of it.
the only thing I've seen
http://au.rd.yahoo.com/n/nw/030331/19/rdvp.html
Tronsky
-
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."
Victims describe 'friendly fire' terror (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2901515.stm)
I would have thought they would have prevented the survivors from commenting at all, before an investigation is carried out.
-
I heard that the light tanks were displaying all recognition equipment as provided by the USA, to supposedly prevent friendly fire. They even had a Union flag flying on one of the vehicles.
Not sure exactly what the 'recognition equipment' consists of, but I believe it includes:- chevrons painted on the vehicles, high illuminious material (like high visibility reflective clothing) that they can put up if they're wary of airstrike, national flag.... anything else?
-
I don't have too much of a problem with the A10 strafing the convoy once - mistakes happen - but he turned and strafed again. This showed that he had evaluated the situation and made a conscious decision to return.
There needs to be an immediate court-martial and the pilot better have some extremely good reasons.
-
You need to be in combat sometime. You have no clue about the distances involved and what is actually visible even frm the air.
A courts marshal is done AFTER an investigation is concluded, not as an investigation. Try letting the system work before you pass judgement from your nice safe living room. :rolleyes:
-
How about those passing judgement from the seat of an APC as the cannon shells rip into their vehicle?
-
Dowding, if you are referring to the quotes posted earlier, it was speculation on the part of the trooper as to the pilots state of mind. I would expect him to have fairly strong feelings about the incident but he does not have the information the pilot was operating with. Please understand I am NOT excusing the pilot. If there was an egregious violation of ROE (rules of engagement) or malicious act I expect the pilot to be held accountable. I do not know, and neither does anyone else here including you, what instructions the pilot was given on his mission briefing. If he was given information that indicated no friendlies were supposed to be in his "kill box" what do you expect him to do on seeing an armored vehicle there?
My post was for the instantaneous judgement of the little arm chair generals who have no clue about combat or the conditions that existed at the time.
I have posted before on other "friendly fire" issues that there will be an investigation and to those whose job it is to find out the truth take care of it. Friendly fire incidents are more noteworthy now than in the past because they happen less often now than in past conflicts. My feeling is to wait for the investigation THEN be all rightous about it. Perhaps after both sides are aired. Getting only the version of one side of the incident is not necessarily what really happened.
-
That just plain sux!!
We need to be way more carefull.
-
if your a a10 ace pilot and you cant tell what a british apc and a iraqi apc looks like you need to be in a new line of work. especially when the british apc has a big ole union jack on it and you are makeing multiple pass's on it.
-
its pretty damn tough to id various apc types from 500 feet up as a helo passenger at 150 miles an hour, and different flags and such look alot alike as well. its gotta be tougher when you are flying CAS. if the dude was negligent hell be punished. theres no "ten brits equal one american" rule when it comes to negligent manslaughter. but it takes an investigation to find out what happened. i gurantee you guys that negligent or not that a10 driver has come close to sucking on a pistol more than once since it happened.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
if your a a10 ace pilot and you cant tell what a british apc and a iraqi apc looks like you need to be in a new line of work. especially when the british apc has a big ole union jack on it and you are makeing multiple pass's on it.
Frogman,
You need to try and learn what it is like to identify which apc / tank you are looking at in a plane moving more than a couple hundred miles an hour from a distance of over 3 miles. It's bad enough on the ground looking at one from 2000 meters away. There are SIGNIFICANT distance involved that make it extremely dificult to determine just exactly what it is you are seeing. Not excusing the pilot, just trying to correct a misconception that it is easy to tell the difference. It isn't.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Frogman,
You need to try and learn what it is like to identify which apc / tank you are looking at in a plane moving more than a couple hundred miles an hour from a distance of over 3 miles. It's bad enough on the ground looking at one from 2000 meters away. There are SIGNIFICANT distance involved that make it extremely dificult to determine just exactly what it is you are seeing. Not excusing the pilot, just trying to correct a misconception that it is easy to tell the difference. It isn't.
This morning when they were interviewing wounded marines, a reporter asked them how he felt about the accusation that there weren't enough troops there now.
He answered something to the effect that they were so many there they were tripping over each other as it was.
Those of us that have been in engagements know that while it is comforting to have more than enough people to safely accomplish the task, too many opens up more dangers.
While these accidents are unfortunate, they are a part of every large scale battle.
-
This reminds me of an incident that happened in Serbia/Kosovo a few years back. A Squadron Leader I know was telling me about a particular sortie. The USAF had just attacked a large column and had run out of bombs and had requested RAF CAS. The RAF went in and did a few circuits and looked through a special vibration free binoculars. They soon noticed that it was a civilian convoy and broke off without even engaging. It was later confirmed as a civilian convoy.
So, do A10 pilots look through binoculars before engaging (or imaging device)? (the RAF Harriers have a zoom camera built into the aircraft (on throttle switch and displays on MFD), plus FLIR, plus the binoculars as a last resort). Do they use aircraft/tank recognition?
I think one problem might be that everyone knows what US vehicles/aircraft look like, but are the US fully familar with all of our variants?
The vehicle recogniton equipment supplied by the US was supposed to prevent friendly fire incidents. A US Spokesman even went as far as saying 'if you display these you won't get shot at'.
-
Reminds me of the comments made by Canadian air units in WWII, flying Typhoons over Europe in '44. Whenever they saw USAAF Thunderbolts in the area, they immediately aborted the mission, because they'd been attacked so many times by them. It got so bad that finally the Canadians attacked a P-47 after it made multiple passes, shooting the Yank down.
My sympathies, and personal apologies, to the Brits :(
-
That sucks. I hope if it was a "cowboy" act the proper measures are taken.
On another note... where did you get that quote? I just cant see a US plane opening up w/civilians near it. Was it at night, or daytime?