US plane blowing up an UK convoy footage.

[Sydax]

This happened in 2003 in Iraq. Somehow, The Sun newspaper got a copy of the video, so now the UK wants that video. How a newspaper got hands on that?
How come that UK didn't realised that it was an US plane who blew up the convoy? Or is that just now, that a newspaper made public what happened, all the sudden UK is interested in what happened?
Link

[ February 13, 2007, 14:54: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

[DarkStrider]

No, Sydax you have it wrong we've known all along that the americans killed the convoy but it was classified by the military and governments as "friendly fire" i.e. an accident. There is an inquest into their deaths going on, the US has up till now refused to release the video footage, somehow the Sun gas fot a copy which casts doubt on the "friendly fire" theory, the family of one the dead wants Justice, ie the pilots to stand trial.

[Erod]

How does that cast doubt on the friendly fire theory? According to the transcript, the pilots were told that there were no friendlies in the area before the attack, only after the first attack was there new information regarding any friendlies. Seems like a clear situation to me. The boy knew the risks well enough when he signed up.

[The Shaman]

I doubt that they tell them "Well, the enemy may kill you and, believe it or not, so can our allies." That can't be good for the morale.

[Ragusa]

Considering their performance it could hardly have been the Iraqi air force.

No seriously, the Bush men are obscessive about US troops, or horrors, they themselves, being held accountable. For some comprehensible reasons. And for some sinister reasons. They are stonewalling because of that. They fear 'political instrumentalisation' of such cases. And of course, see inferior legal standards everywhere else, like at the ICC. Probably that's why they set up the Gitmo tribunal the way they did. To set a shining example.

The accident is an example for how important visual ID of a target is. An A-10 usually can do that, an AV-8B probably, too. F-15, F-16, F-18 are simply too fast. And when you use stand-off weapons you're just too far away to see what you're really hitting. The curse of relying on high-tech. And they you have an Alliance and the issue of communication.

[ February 07, 2007, 01:19: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

[Dinsdale]

Erod's right on this. I don't see how it casts any doubt at all on what was apparently nothing but a terrible accident. Friendly fire casaulties are an unfortunate reality on the battlefield.

[Abomination]

I don't see how it casts any doubt at all on what was apparently nothing but a terrible accident. Friendly fire casaulties are an unfortunate reality on the battlefield.

I have no idea even how anyone could comprehend America intentionally attacking an UN convoy. There are no advantages, the pilot would have to be one seriously nefarious individual and accidents DO happen.

Certainly everyone (well, mostly everyone) mourns the loss of the UN forces and wishes such a thing never happened but it's a warzone. Friendly fire has been in every war known to man.

The pilot made an error. He did not intend to kill those UN forces. Placing him on trial will do nothing constructive save bring some sense of vengence to the families of the people who were killed.

[Rawgrim]

It was an accident plain and simple.

[AMaster]

The pilot made an error. He did not intend to kill those UN forces. Placing him on trial will do nothing constructive save bring some sense of vengence to the families of the people who were killed.

If he followed procedures, he has nothing to fear from a trial. If he did not, he does.

I don't see the problem.

[Ragusa]

Abo,

The pilot made an error. He did not intend to kill those UN forces.

Of course a fighter jock wants to kill what he's shooting at, get real. He only didn't know what he was hitting.

[Cúchulainn]

When you go hunting in the US you have it drilled in your head that you should be sure of your target before firing. Surely stricter policies should apply to the military?

Wonder what happened to this one.

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.

and

"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 Iraqi's more or less had wheelie bins for tanks, so its a strange mistake to make.

[ February 07, 2007, 09:51: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

[Daie d'Malkin]

Major David Small said the military did not mind declassifying the tape for the inquest, but did not wish everyone to be able to see it because it could help America's enemies.

'Don't worry, you're quite safe. You're not wearing COALITION uniforms!'

"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."

[Ragusa]

Well, cosidering how much the US rely on air power one has to say such incidents are pretty rare when compared the number of sorties flown, to allied troops that is.

The aiming generously part applied to civvies is much more frequent, especially in urban combat. It may not be the intent, to miss or hit bystanders, but that's somewhat beside the point (literally) for those hit instead of or with the intended target. I mean, the Marines used artillery barrages in Fallujah. Not exactly a discriminate weapon. Just like airstrikes using ordnance like a 908kg Mk.84 bomb.

Average hit probability of such a thing under perfect conditions is within 40 feet of programmed target. Blast and heat radius is 110 feet, fragmentation radius 3000 feet. That means anyone within a half mile of such a perfectly delivered munition would be at risk. As said, this assumes that all goes well and does not even allow for errors such as target location, weather, jamming, pilot, GPS, mapping, intelligence errors.

'Surgical' is a very euphemistic term. Why you hear much less of that than of the Brits killed is because the Brits as allies have a lobby.

[AMaster]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060131,00.html

The transcript of the cockpit chat. Interesting timing on the recorder being turned off.

[Ragusa]

What I don't get is that the silhouette of the Scimitar is unique. Well, from the ground at least.

Seems to me that the pilots believed to be in a free fire zone, where everything was supposed to be hostile, and the Brits were engaged as a 'target of opportunity'. It seems, that in a free fire zone the suspicion of hostility and fitting the general target pattern justifies an attack -- fire first, ask questions later. That's the whole point of a free fire zone, to eleminate the need for elaborate target identification.

To work it calls for close coordination between ground forces and the air force. The blue on blues hitting allies are easily explained by the likely coordination and communication gaps. The A-10s had most likely never trained with the British. There probably were no established procedures, and no US air force compatible radio with the Brits.
One thing I heared from a German naval officer serving in the Indian Ocean in a JOINT NATO-US task force was that he thought NATO would have made the US Navy standardise with NATO. Not true. NATO is just a small bit of the US armed forces world. The units he had to cooperate with were from the pacific and initially not NATO compatible. They eventually improvised a way around it. Means the US have at least two communication standards in their fleet. In Germany they just had to scuttle a project that was aimed on generating full interoperability between Army, Navy and Air Force for the hip 'JOINT' missions. It failed. Seems it is not at all easy.

There was that old joke in the Army about the artillery: 'Artillery knows neither friend nor foe, only inviting targets!' I guess that goes to the flyboys doubly. Artillermen have less ego, too. Airheads think they're god. And probably the carrier pilots in the Navy are worse. The only thing still worse would then be an astronaut.

EDIT: Good comment from the guadian:

The pilots themselves evoke some sympathy: the recording conveys a wholly different emotion from the transcript. In the familiar phrase of soldiers in combat, they were doing their job. Their glee at finding a target is followed by their all-too-human horror at committing a "blue on blue". I also have sympathy with the reluctance of their commander to hand over tapes to the coroner, Andrew Walker. Soldiers risking their lives in battle are not driving formula one cars or skiing downhill. Their commanders must offer them some protection in the event of error.

He's absolutely right. What the US government did afterwards is something else entirely./EDIT

[ February 08, 2007, 12:42: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

[Barmy Army]

Too many of these 'accidents' from American bombers for my liking. Anyone got figures on how many 'allied' soldiers have been killed by the Yanks fooking up? Too trigger happy, that's their problem, always has been.

[AMaster]

OTOH, things are much better now than they were, say, in WWII.

This time around, you don't get American ground pounders saying things like "if it flies, it dies" and shooting at anything in the air after the umpteenth bombing by 'friendly' aircraft.

[Sydax]

@Darkstrider: the article I read was misleading. It is in Spanish and says almost what I wrote. My English isn't too good so I didn't read everything in the English link, so is my mistake for not dig more on the news.

But, I still don't understand this 'US justice' for themselves. An US soldier can do whatever he likes around the world and he won't get a trial by, let's say, killing some innocent people, let's say, by mistake. In 2003 a tank blew the Palestinian Hotel killing an Ukranian journalist and a Spaniard cameraman. ( http://www.counterpunch.org/hollander01082004.html )
US decide if their soldiers stand trial in the USA and can't be judged in other countries, but if John Doe from X country kills an American, US can ask for for John Doe to stand trial in America?
I know I probably didn't express right, and I hope you get the idea.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

I have to agree with others that this was a horrible accident. The pilots asked if their were friendlies in the area, they got a message back that there wasn't, and they attacked. Obviously, there was no intent to fire on allied vehicles. The one pilot was crying at the end for God's sake.

[Cúchulainn]

Here is a more recent incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6346901.stm

[AMaster]

I have to agree with others that this was a horrible accident. The pilots asked if their were friendlies in the area, they got a message back that there wasn't, and they attacked.

The first sentence is correct, the second is not.

Popov never asked about the British convoy. They asked if A: the flatbed trucks were Manila Hotel's (artillery) target and B: if Manila 34 was still in the area. They did not ask Manila Hotel about the convoy they strafed.

'Course, given that the conversations (one between P-35 and P-36, the other between P-35 and MH) are intermingled, it's perfectly understandable.

[Erod]

Popov never asked about the British convoy. They asked if A: the flatbed trucks were Manila Hotel's (artillery) target and B: if Manila 34 was still in the area. They did not ask Manila Hotel about the convoy they strafed.

What is this then?

1336.57 POPOV36:

Hey, I got a four ship. Looks like we got orange panels on them though. Do we have any friendlies up in this area?

1337.03 MANILA HOTEL:

I understand that was north 800 metres.

1337.12 MANILA HOTEL:

POPOV, understand that was north 800 metres?

1337.16 POPOV35:

Confirm, north 800 metres. Confirm there are no friendlies this far north on the ground.

1337.21 MANILA HOTEL:

That is an affirm. You are well clear of friendlies.

Of course it may be that I cannot properly interpret it but it certainly looks as if he is asking about frendlies...

[ February 12, 2007, 01:47: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

[AMaster]

You didn't start the quote early enough. It looks like:

1336.30 MANILA HOTEL:

POPOV from MANILA HOTEL. Can you confirm you engaged that tube and those vehicles?

1336.36 POPOV35:

Affirm Sir. Looks like I’ve got multiple vehicles in reverts at about 800 metres to the north of your arty rounds. Can you switch fire, and shift fire, and get some arty rounds on those?

1336.47 MANILA HOTEL:

Roger, I understand that those are the impacts you observed earlier on my timing?

1336.51 POPOV35:

Affirmative.

1336.52 MANILA HOTEL:

Roger, standby. Let me make sure they’re not on another mission.

There were two targets.
1) the 'multiple vehicles in reverts'; these were not the British convoy, nor were they near the British convoy.
2) the British convoy.

MH asked if 'friendlies in the area' meant 800 m north. He was told it did. He answered--accurately--that there were no friendlies in the area. Popov never asked MH about the British convoy. Popov did ask MH if M34 was in the area and was told, again correctly, that M34 was not in the area. The Brit convoy was not M34.

Which actually illustrates my point; he didn't ask, but given that the conversation was intermingled, it's perfectly understandable how he thought he had. Even with the transcript, people get confused. It's hardly surprising that the A10 pilots got confused when they were flying in hostile airspace without the benefit of things like transcripts.

[Erod]

Yes, there are two targets, that is clear. However, I still think he meant those Brits when he asked about the frendlies. But it does not really matter anymore, now does it.

[AMaster]

It may have been what he meant, but it wasn't what he said.