The 'Cowboys' killing allies, is this why Canada didn't turn up for the war?

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps the Canadians have had enough of 'friendly fire'. Looks like the British will have now had enough of it too.



British troops hit out at American 'cowboys'
March 31 2003

General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, apologises for the deaths of British soldiers.

British soldiers injured when an American "tankbuster" aircraft attacked their convoy, killing one of their comrades, hit out angrily at the "cowboy" pilot today.

Troops wounded in Friday's attack accused the A-10 Thunderbolt pilot of "incompetence and negligence" while others privately called for a manslaughter prosecution.

The comments came as America's most senior military official vowed to make it his quest to stop future "friendly fire" tragedies.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, apologised for the deadly error by the A-10 in southern Iraq.

He told BBC1's Breakfast With Frost: "It's the absolute saddest tragedy that any of us can experience.

"I don't think we have to live with situations like that, and one of my jobs has to be to ensure that we get the resources and the technical means to ensure that in the future this never, never happens again."

But the crews of the two British forward reconnaissance Scimitars attacked by the A-10 could not contain their anger.

Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard, speaking from his bed on the RFA Argus in the Gulf, said: "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."



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/31/1048962677393.html

[LTC8K6]

He'd better look out for British challenger crews too, apparently they can't recognize their own vehicles. :rolleyes:

Another two British soldiers were killed when their Challenger 2 Main Battle tank was engaged by another British tank west of Basra.

I say they first prosecute their own. :rolleyes:

Again, this is just ignorance. Friendly fire always happens in battle. Always. It is always tragic.

What is the pilot's story? Why don't they ever print both sides? Wouldn't be as interesting, I guess. Wouldn't stir anybody up as much. :rolleyes:

A whole 12 X 18 inch flag? Wow! The pilot's supposed to see that! Probably covered with engine soot and dirt too. Did anyone tell them there was a battle going on?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Obviously we have some anti-Americans on the battlefield over there. We're in a war folks, these guys need to shut up and support their fellow troops. You can disagree with being on receiving end of friendly fire, but you need to keep quiet about it.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Obviously we have some anti-Americans on the battlefield over there. We're in a war folks, these guys need to shut up and support their fellow troops. You can disagree with being on receiving end of friendly fire, but you need to keep quiet about it.

I agree.

However I note that some of the troopers held no anger towards the American pilot. (On the televised interview)

Comments like this tend to be made "in the heat of the moment", I suppose a price we pay for some "embedded" journo stuffing a mic in a guys face while he is being taken to the hospital ship on a stretcher.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Obviously we have some anti-Americans on the battlefield over there. We're in a war folks, these guys need to shut up and support their fellow troops. You can disagree with being on receiving end of friendly fire, but you need to keep quiet about it.

there are fire fights in the fog of war, and these have happened. No one has complained about them. But a clear shot at vehicles that can be easily visually identified is something else.

recognition of enemy and friendly units is combat 101. this was clear daylight, from an a10, which is a relatively low speed aircraft, not a supersonic jet.

The canadians in afghanistan were attacked by pilots who disobeyed clear orders.

[crocodile deathroll]

I can hack this blue on blue somewhat if ememy troops and allies intermingled of the battle field but that recent incident of the two Brits beings shot down by a Patriot missile that smacks to me of pure trigger happiness.

I would be really pissed off if that was an Aussie pilot that was shot down.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
I can hack this blue on blue somewhat if ememy troops and allies intermingled of the battle field but that recent incident of the two Brits beings shot down by a Patriot missile that smacks to me of pure trigger happiness.

I would be really pissed off if that was an Aussie pilot that was shot down.

Not to pipe in without checking my facts, but IIRC, the current Patriot model is an almost entirely automated system. Whatever caused that terrible and tragic SNAFU was quite different from some Ft. Bliss PFC firing a stinger at them.

[Jon_in_london]

Thers a difference between 'fog of war' incidents, Automated weapon system accidents and Failure to spot the difference between enemy armour and friendly armour.

Were I in the gulf, and had I an appropriate weapon, Id open fire on any American aircraft that came within range. Better him then me.

[Jon_in_london]

Also, and I may be wrong here- As far as I know the incident with the challenger tank is the only non-American friendy fire incident to occur. So far as I can google- all friendly fire inccidents in GW1 were American as well. Not even a Frenchy killing his friends.

[richardm]

Thing is, on most recent battlefields where the US has been there have been many more US soldiers than from any other country, so you'd expect more of them to be involved in friendly fire.

I would wonder whether there might be a training issue there - do American servicemen mainly train against US equipment - would they necessarily recognise a Scimitar if they saw one?

On the other hand one would imagine that a Challenger 2 crew would recognise another Challenger 2, so the conclusion appears to be that in the heat of the moment, people make mistakes. Unfortunate, but it should be obvious that it'll happen.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by richardm
Thing is, on most recent battlefields where the US has been there have been many more US soldiers than from any other country, so you'd expect more of them to be involved in friendly fire.

I would wonder whether there might be a training issue there - do American servicemen mainly train against US equipment - would they necessarily recognise a Scimitar if they saw one?

On the other hand one would imagine that a Challenger 2 crew would recognise another Challenger 2, so the conclusion appears to be that in the heat of the moment, people make mistakes. Unfortunate, but it should be obvious that it'll happen.

Like I said above. there is a difference between getting shot in the heat of a confused battle- thats inevitable. The tank that got shot- it might not even have been the intended target, it might just have been in the same place as a stray round at the same time.

But this just doesnt seem to be the case here- and in the first gulf war where a similar thing happened. It wasnt some frenetic confued attack- it was quite deliberate and was pressed home at least twice.

Obviously, you would expect the amount of friendly fire incidents to be proportional to the number of troops contributed by each country in the coalition. However, from what I can see, the number of friendly troops killed by Americans is disproportionalty high.

Obviously, US forces train against US kit just as Brit forces train against Brit kit etc etc... but we are trained to recognize all NATO and ex-soviet bloc stuff and I would assume (hope) the US does the same.

Which brings us to the conclusion that there is either something wrong with the way they teach armour recognition in the USAF or that there is something horribly wrong with the attitude of USAF pilots to the persons on the ground- seems even more likely since there were apparently civillians very close to the tanks.

[Jon_in_london]

Also, Scimitars dont look similar to any pieces of ex-soviet bloc armour that I can think of.

[Drooper]

Maybe the Americans are doing it on purpose?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Obviously, you would expect the amount of friendly fire incidents to be proportional to the number of troops contributed by each country in the coalition. However, from what I can see, the number of friendly troops killed by Americans is disproportionalty high.

Is this that obvious? It seems to me that certain battlefield missions would have a higher chance of resulting in friendly-fire incidents, wouldn't they? It also seems to me that other missions would have a higher chance of coming under friendly fire.

Doesn't the US have a disproportionate amount of the allied airpower? Aren't we using a disproportionate amount of the slow aircraft that are usually called in for close air support?

In Basra, for instance, the British ground assaults have been supported by British and American helicopters. This offers up an opportunity for Americans to accidentally kill Brits, (since the helicopter pilots must distinguish friend from foe) and almost no opportunity for the opposite, since everyone on the ground knows that all the choppers are friendly. Are there any British helicopters are supporting the American assault on Nasiriya?

MattJ

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by richardm
Thing is, on most recent battlefields where the US has been there have been many more US soldiers than from any other country, so you'd expect more of them to be involved in friendly fire.

I would wonder whether there might be a training issue there - do American servicemen mainly train against US equipment - would they necessarily recognise a Scimitar if they saw one?

On the other hand one would imagine that a Challenger 2 crew would recognise another Challenger 2, so the conclusion appears to be that in the heat of the moment, people make mistakes. Unfortunate, but it should be obvious that it'll happen.

Jon, I first became aware of the Scimitar in the early 80s during Fauklands. I was like 14 and the memory has stuck with me to this day. To be honest, to me, it looks similar to the Bradley and nothing like anything in the Iraqi inventory.

As far at the Chellenger goes, it's very similar to the M-1 Abrams and the Isreali MBT the nomenclature of which escapes me at this time. All 3 are somewhat similar to the T-80/82 Soviet/Russian series, but nothing like the T-72 and prior series.

When I went through artillery officer school in '91 we trained to attack what clearly were T-72 and prior series Soviet/Russian tanks. I would disagree with your conclusion about training with solely American eqipment and any friendly fire attacks on British forces due to the fact that the Challenger looks so similar to the Abrams, I have to look for details to discern between the two.

My earlier sarcastic comments about "non-team players" notwithstanding, the tradgedy of friendly fire incidents should not be diminished as a failure of training. :(

[richardm]

Well, you'll have to ask the pilot what he thought he was shooting at. But they might look like BMPs (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/bmp-2-pics.htm) from some angles.

Edited to add: We presume that he misidentified it, since it was apparently shot at in clear conditions, and came back for a second go. So that has to be a gap in training, surely - the pilot didn't recognise it as an allied vehicle. I'd be much faster to believe that than believe that the US Military is full of gung-ho maniacs who'd shoot at anything not flying the stars-and-stripes.

[Drooper]

Is it true that some US pilots are only reservists?

Wasn't the pilot that killed those Canadians soldiers a reservist who was a little too, let's say, enthusiastic?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Drooper
Is it true that some US pilots are only reservists?

Wasn't the pilot that killed those Canadians soldiers a reservist who was a little too, let's say, enthusiastic?

Do you believe that reserve pilots would be inferior? I had heard the opposite. Reserve pilots generally have more flight time and more experience, and are more likely to be veterans of a previous conflict.

MattJ

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


there are fire fights in the fog of war, and these have happened. No one has complained about them. But a clear shot at vehicles that can be easily visually identified is something else.

recognition of enemy and friendly units is combat 101. this was clear daylight, from an a10, which is a relatively low speed aircraft, not a supersonic jet.

The canadians in afghanistan were attacked by pilots who disobeyed clear orders.

War fighting advice from a cowardly pacifist :rolleyes: !! The very definition of worthless! :mad: You are a despicable piece of excrement...you are no one's expert. Anyone stupid enough to accept your biased critique of anything to do with this war likely gets legal advice from hot dog vendors....and gets medical advice from their local car mechanic. :rolleyes:

-z

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Drooper
Is it true that some US pilots are only reservists?

Wasn't the pilot that killed those Canadians soldiers a reservist who was a little too, let's say, enthusiastic?

Agreed with aerocontrols. "Only" reservists are actually a misnomer. Reserve pilots have, on average, more time in training with a particular aircraft and with a more cohesive unit than with active duty pilots.

[Alaric]

The Challenger 2 looks a lot like the M1A1 and NOTHING remotely like the Merkava. The closest thing to that Israeli puppy is an M60A2 "Spacey"


As for the A10- its hard to tell who is who on the battlefield. A10 pilots have a slightly easier time of it but mistakes still happen. Remember the A10 is a simple machine. The pilots often rely on eyeballing it. Its brutal but thats just how things work.

As a canuck, I dont blaim the US pilots for dropping on our boys-mistakes happen and thats just how it is. Hopped on amphetamines and flying in an area renowned for its anti aircraft abilities<from the war on the Russkies..> im not suprised it happened. Its unfortunate but....

I have some US servicemen friends in Britian right now and I wouldnt be suprised if this sort of stuff REALLY hurts the war effort though. They tell me the press is really keeping it up talking about blue on blue casualties. It took me a few minutes to learn what blue on blue meant.
Apparently even the term "friendly fire" is used contemptuously

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
What is the pilot's story?


I think the pilots have a lot of explaining to do in this case. If they had been where they were supposed to be, I would be more inclined to take their side, but the reports indicate that they weren't where they were supposed to be and they weren't paying enough attention to details.

--- Argo


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926204,00.html


Coloured smoke signs were sent up to indicate that they were friendly troops but it didn't stop the attack.


The attack took place within the Household Cavalry's battlefield control line which means that everything in the air should be controlled by them and their embedded American air controller. The A10s were well out of their area and the matter is now being investigated amidst calls from some of the British troops that the pilots be prosecuted for manslaughter.


All of D Squadron's vehicles are clearly marked, with fluorescent panels on the roofs, flags and other markings. It was something that the soldiers kept saying, over and over. "We spend all this money marking out our vehicles so this doesn't happen," one said. "If it was the heat of battle, **** happens. But it was clear daylight."
Another said: "As far as I am concerned, those 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."

[Supercharts]

Isn't there a USN Seal-like group in the Canadian armed forces? Called the "Pats" or something like that? Where are these troops now?
Also, isn't Canada supplying frigates to intercept ships at sea looking for contraband?

[Alaric]

PPCLI is the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry. SOmetimes called the Pats. Our special forces group is called JTF-1. In Afghanistan, snipers in the Pats earned a rep as extremely proficient from the yanks who appreciated their support. That might be where you are getting it.

Yes. Canadian frigates are being used to search for bad guys in the region.

[aerocontrols]

Plus about 30 Canadian military men who are in some sort of exchange program with the Brits.

I would have thought that they wouldn't follow them into war, but apparently they have.

MattJ

[Alaric]

I heard there wwere also a number of them on exchange with the US military. Which ALSO means that you have some US servicemen in Winnepeg wondering whats going on since they are stationed with a canuck unit.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Isn't there a USN Seal-like group in the Canadian armed forces? Called the "Pats" or something like that? Where are these troops now?
Also, isn't Canada supplying frigates to intercept ships at sea looking for contraband?

The Frigates have been in the region for some time and were sent to help in the war on terrorism. They continue to do the duty they were doing prior to the war. They are not active in the war but are still stopping ships and searching for weapons etc.

Granted, if they were not there the US would have to redeploy some assets, but not many.

ANyway, it is ironic how many countries are supporting the war without sending troops while we don't support the war but have troops in the area.

Sigh.

[LTC8K6]

The Guardian is way anti-American anyway, and I still haven't heard the other side. The story keeps changing. The story is clearly told from a biased point of view, imo. They are just looking to stir the anti-war, anti-American pot.

Those dirty Americans purposely blazed away at our boys and then baled out, cowardlike, when the murderous rampage was over! They left their deadly DU remnants behind as well, further ruining our lovely boys' lives!

I think Rumsfeld sent the A-10's out on purpose.

Maybe he wants the Brits to leave, but they won't take the hint?

Foo!

The FF incidents are what you would expect when you consider the mix and distribution of forces.

They are still tragic, and the reporters use of the incidents is even more so.

The total misread of America is odd as well. Bloody cowboy? What TV shows are they getting over there? Does anyone really think they just hand you the keys to an airplane in anyone's air force?

[LTC8K6]

Did the Guardian print the undoubtedly horrific tale of the Challenger crew that was fired on by their own?

[LTC8K6]

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq/pmx13712_20030322.htm

CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar -- Two British Royal Navy helicopters collided Saturday over the Persian Gulf, killing all seven on board including a U.S. Navy officer, military officials said.

I don't know why those damn Brits let anybody and their brother fly their helicopters. Haven't they heard of training? Stupid gits! Bloody stupid hot shot pilots!

I think we should demand restitution immediately!

If they can't fly the damn things, then they should get other jobs, dammit!

How the hell can two giant ***** helicopters not see each other!

Unbelievable!!!!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


War fighting advice from a cowardly pacifist :rolleyes: !! The very definition of worthless! :mad: You are a despicable piece of excrement...you are no one's expert. Anyone stupid enough to accept your biased critique of anything to do with this war likely gets legal advice from hot dog vendors....and gets medical advice from their local car mechanic. :rolleyes:

-z

obviously, since all you can resort to is ad hominem, you cannot argue with the facts of the case.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Did the Guardian print the undoubtedly horrific tale of the Challenger crew that was fired on by their own?
you still don't get it. the 'fog of war' incidents are one thing. I have heard no complaints about them.

Yet we do have a clear pattern of 'cowboy' behaviour in conditions that are ideal for level headed consideration, with rules of engagement that have been clearly broken. This cowboy behaviour is also apparent in training 'accidents', like the killing of the people in the ski lift in Italy. Once again, a clear breach of rules. The US will also not be a part of the War Crimes Tribunal, again, another piece of the pattern. Rapes and crimes around military bases in foreign countries are not handled justly.

Clearly, the US values it's own services above that of it's allies. It applies one rule for itself and another rules for everyone else.

Also, once the A10 pilots realised their mistake, they took off. Ethically, they were required to stay to provide air cover for the evacuation of the wounded.

[LTC8K6]

You don't have a clue. The fog of war is where the A-10 incident happened. You still have not heard the American's side, and appear not to want to hear it.

So be it. That's what you want. Have at it. I really don't care anymore.

It's so easy to be an armchair combat pilot.

This afternoon at work I was listening to people discuss the war. I wondered aloud, "Is there anything more worthless than an armchair general?" ... and caught a lot of dirty looks.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
You don't have a clue. The fog of war is where the A-10 incident happened. You still have not heard the American's side, and appear not to want to hear it.

So be it. That's what you want. Have at it. I really don't care anymore.

It's so easy to be an armchair combat pilot.

i am just going on what those attacked had to say. Like I said before, maybe that is a part of the reason the canadians haven't turned up again.

[Skeptic]

Of course, it wasn't really an "accident". It was a deliberate massacre of innocent British troops, on orders of the American high command, to stop them from discovering the awful truth about American war crimes committed in the area.

Oh, wait. That sort of conspiracy theory is only the truth(tm) when the israelies are inovlved in "friendly fire" incidents, e.g., the USS "Liberty" nonsense. Everybody else can just make mistakes; we all know that sort of thing never happen to jews.

Never mind...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Of course, it wasn't really an "accident". It was a deliberate massacre of innocent British troops, on orders of the American high command, to stop them from discovering the awful truth about American war crimes committed in the area.

Oh, wait. That sort of conspiracy theory is only the truth(tm) when the israelies are inovlved in "friendly fire" incidents, e.g., the USS "Liberty" nonsense. Everybody else can just make mistakes; we all know that sort of thing never happen to jews.

Never mind...

there are no parallels, this was a two pass swoop, that would have been over in a matter of minutes, in which they realised their mistake and took off out of there as fast as possible, due to their disregard of orders.

the Liberty involved repeated, waves of attack over a period of hours, on a ship that was clearly identified.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


there are no parallels, this was a two pass swoop, that would have been over in a matter of minutes, in which they realised their mistake and took off out of there as fast as possible, due to their disregard of orders.

It sounds like stupidity, perhaps brought on by fatigue and the fog of war, to me.

It's a bad mistake. I have no idea how to avoid mistakes when human beings are involved, however.

[LTC8K6]

a_u_p, it is clear to me that this is something that you believe, and something that you want to believe. I am old enough to know not to argue with a belief system.

Hopefully, other people will listen to both sides, investigate the incident, figure out how and why this tragedy happened, and act to prevent it in the future.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
a_u_p, it is clear to me that this is something that you believe, and something that you want to believe. I am old enough to know not to argue with a belief system.

Hopefully, other people will listen to both sides, investigate the incident, figure out how and why this tragedy happened, and act to prevent it in the future.

if this investigation is like any of the investigations in the other cases I have referred to, they will get a slap on the wrist.

[LTC8K6]

It's more important to figure out what happened than to punish the pilot, imo.

Assuming that it was the pilot's fault, what punishment would fit the crime anyway?

He's probably a young man who got confused during the battle and made a tragic mistake, like many others in all armed services have done, and will do in the future.

I think we should stake him out in the desert and run over him with a scimitar.



Then again, maybe he was vectored to this "target" by his commanders, and therefore he "knew" for sure that they were the enemy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
It's more important to figure out what happened than to punish the pilot, imo.

Assuming that it was the pilot's fault, what punishment would fit the crime anyway?

He's probably a young man who got confused during the battle and made a tragic mistake, like many others in all armed services have done, and will do in the future.

I think we should stake him out in the desert and run over him with a scimitar.



Then again, maybe he was vectored to this "target" by his commanders, and therefore he "knew" for sure that they were the enemy.

if you read the link, the sector was run by the british, they were in command of it. The air control for the sector was run by embedded americans. They had not authorised the strike. Once again, like the attack on the Canadians, I would suspect the pilots were on drugs.

[zakur]

No Charges Vs. Pilot Who Bombed Canadians (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040624_1059.html) The Air Force announced Thursday that it will dismiss all criminal charges against a U.S. fighter pilot who accidentally dropped a 500-pound, laser-guided bomb that killed four Canadians in Afghanistan in 2002.

Maj. Harry Schmidt, 37, has accepted an offer to face administrative punishment in exchange for dismissal of four counts of dereliction of duty, the Air Force said.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
It's so easy to be an armchair combat pilot.

Of course, it's not that easy for AUP to do so; he has only limited practice time, being also an armchair economist, general, president, psychiatrist, historian...

Here is an exclusive drawing of AUP at home (http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=PLVDJGG8T2M79P281HDXB4 NJ7KF1FVG1&sitetype=1&did=4&sid=66429&pid=&keyword=military&section=cartoons&title=undefined&whichpage=143&sortBy=popular)