BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 11:22 AM

Mudguards, not mudflaps. And they vary in size. The apparent louvres have always been closed.

Some more recent footage of Abrams tanks has shown turrets with some of the panels missing, but what look like mounting brackets welded onto the outside of the armour, no evidence of any air inlet. Still puzzled.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 03:36 AM

louvred panels approx 20x30 inches - Land Rovers mudflaps? Land Rovers must have got a lot bigger than when I used to drive them.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 11:34 AM

I don't think so, Teribus. They seem to be external fittings, they're in funny places, tacked on to the external armour of armoured vehicles, but as I recall they're also even attached to what effectively are the rear mudguards of landrovers.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 06:24 AM

"louvred panels" - possibly air intake filters, for engine and crew compartments.

Engines on most Brit armour apart from Challenger are front mounted.

Had a look at some photographs of the British stuff deployed in Europe and these panels are not visible. When the possibility of the UK deploying armour to the region first came up MoD said it would take four months to fit desert filter systems to the vehicles - so these could be them.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 04:54 AM

A Tech question:

Are the louvred panels (generally approx 20x30 inches) on the front, sides and rear of US and British vehicles in the area part of a friend-foe identification system? If so, anyone know how they work?

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 02:29 AM

Hille,

"..the American pilot was in a British controlled zone where he was not supposed to be"

The southern sector of operations is a British controlled zone - air support within that zone is provided predominently by the US Air Force, US Marine Corps and US Navy. To say that he was not supposed to be there is patently ridiculous.

".. the tanks give out specific identitity radio signals"

That was one of my questions, were they actually fitted with the kit that would allow them to do that. Ian Duncan-Smith, interviewed by Tim Sebastion on Hardtalk last night was asked what, if anything, would he have done differently to what the current UK Government has done. One of the things he mentioned was that he would have ensured that British Troops and their equipment was fully prepared and ready for combat, he also mentioned that the pieces of kit you refer to (radio identifier and infra-red identifier) are not fitted to all our vehicles - the UK's blue-on-blue between two Challenger Tanks was caused by this deficiency.

".. they also have "Coalition" visual signals .."

Just because you are displaying a visual signal, does not necessarily guarantee that an aircraft approaching at low level, at attack speed will see it.

"So, three out three automatised safety procedures .. 3/3 and he missed all three .. obviously on drugs then, thinking he's bloody Top Gun."

Too much - not known or reported - to support your contention.

Forum Lurker,

For a single aircraft to attack an armoured formation the following are the pilot's priorities in attack:
- SPAA (They are the only things that can respond to his attack)
- Tanks
- Command vehicles (You can normally identify those by the number of aerials)
- SP Artillery
- Troop carriers

To say that the pilot of the A-10 had, "...no reason for him to have started strafing, since he could neither identify them as Iraqi nor as a threat." Is ridiculous, what do you think he is there for - and a great deal depends on what his briefing was. If he was told to patrol a certain sector, and if he has been told that there are no friendly units operating within that sector, then anything within that sector must be considered hostile. But as I have said - nobody knows any of this at present for certain - as DonM, previously pointed out, it may be a case of an error of judgement being just an error of judgement, it would not surprise me, however, if one of the major contributing factors turns out to be a failure in communications on the part of those controlling the aircraft and those controlling the armour.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Gareth
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 06:22 PM

Mmmmm ! - Cock ups do ocour - The trouble is those on the recieving end tend to die - unpleasently.

Its not confined to the USA vide the attack of HMS Ark Royal's Swordfish on HMS Sheffield.

Howerver a true story as related by my father.

1945 - XXX Corps advance on Hamburg. A mixed column of Gaurd's Armoured Churchills, interspresed with 93rd RA(Anti-tank) to provide the heavy support, M10's and AA Crusaders.

Now the Churchill had no AA defence capability. The M10's had a 0.5" Browning on an AA Mount. And the AA Crusaders were equiped with twin power driven mounted 20 millimeter Oerlikons - Still in use by the Royal Navy today.

USAAF P-47's (Thunderbolts) started straffing the column - recognition pannels out, coloured smoke fired. Still they attacked.

Enough was enough - Over the radio came the command from the Battery Commander - "Open fire" (not the exact words used by my old man)

Result One P-47 down as a "flamer". - The rest climbed away.

He put in a claim for one P-47 kill, but for obvious reasons it was not allowed.

Which was a bad day for the P-47 pilot - but his squadron commander should have known better.

Does this make my late father a war criminal ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 05:29 PM

Teribus-You mention that the purpose of the overflight is to determine whether or not anti-aircraft weapons are present. Given that what he strafed were light reconaissance tanks, very different from SPAA at any profile, don't you think he might have made at least a small mistake? As Hille mentioned, there were a number of very good reasons for the pilot to have realized that they were British tanks, and no reason for him to have started strafing, since he could neither identify them as Iraqi nor as a threat.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Nemesis
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 04:26 PM

The news here reported that the American pilot was in a British controlled zone where he was not supposed to be .. the tanks give out specific identitity radio signals .. they also have "Coalition" visual signals ..

1) he wasn't supposed to be there ..
2) he was ignoring the radio signal code - which his in-flight equipment should have recognised ..
3) As he came in he should have seen the infra-red identifier signals .. which again his in-flight equipment should have picked up
So, three out three automatised safety procedures ..

3/3 and he missed all three .. obviously on drugs then, thinking he's bloody Top Gun.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 09:09 AM

Sometimes people flare up and write posts that they would be better not posting. It's a very good idea to leave those alone and not to respond to them.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 09:07 AM

Hi there Ard Mhacha,

I have taken your advice and gone and read your comments in order to get my head around it. The following is the result.

1. In my original posting to this thread I was actually addressing the topic of the thread and that I believe is fairly obvious - novel idea I know, but sometimes it does good to buck tradition. My post served to indicate that, as reported, all relevant facts are currently not known - in which case I am hardly in a position to twist them or any others.

2. Both your posts basically hold the message that you can't believe a word the army says - although you were talking about a completely different incident that you introduced to this thread. You could of course be implying that the soldiers that were fired on must not be believed simply because they are army, but I somehow doubt that even you could make contention hold water in this instance.

Fionn,

OK, good, you have flown light aircraft, so the following may make some sense to you.

Another couple of unkowns - what was the pilots briefing prior to take off, and what updates did he receive while he was airbourne?

Couple of others - In sending out this armoured unit, did their HQ inform Central Command or Local Air that they were putting this patrol out?, once out did that patrol keep their HQ informed of their position?, were they maintaining a listening watch on the local air support net? (their comms sets should have been monitoring, their own net, their own command net, local air support net, local artillery support net)

If the A-10 pilot has been told to patrol a certain sector, search out and destroy enemy armour. At that time it may have been known that there was no friendly units operating in that sector. A-10 pilot either sees the targets, comes across them accidentally, or is vectored onto them by an AWACS aircraft.

The pilot makes his first pass, now as someone who has flown light aircraft at low altitude (i.e. coming in to land), do you mean to say the relative position of the sun does not affect your ability to make out details?, that you have never encountered the masking effects of ground haze? You could fly over a 32 ton truck with Stobart painted down the side of it in eight foot high letters, but if you over fly that truck from head on or stern on you won't see those letters. Your low level flying experience is based on an aircraft flying at about 80 knots, now imagine all this happening at around five times that speed.

Now, as I have said, first pass:

- Did the pilot call in his targets?

- Did the Commander of the armoured formation call in that an A-10 had over flown his area?

The A-10 was flying on its own, purely in the interests of self-preservation, the objective of the first pass is to identify if there are any anti-aircraft units within that formation, by the time he is over the formation he is at extremely low level. He returned to make his firing runs, so it is fairly obvious that he has not identified the armour below him as being "friendly". Second run, he will attack the units below that have turrets first, subsequent runs he will engage the remainder for as long as his ammunition lasts, which at 3,900 rounds per minute will not be long.

All of this is done at low level at speeds ranging from 360 to 420 knots, the pilot selects targets and flies his aircraft - he does not fixate on his target, otherwise he flies into it (I have seen that done three times, believe me it does happen).

You asked me:
"...let's assume that all those unknowns stack up in a way that suits your argument(A), meaning that the pilot was able to deduce precisely nothing from his first pass (B). A good basis to start killing people?(C)"

(A) What arguement? I am merely suggesting that as reported there are far too many unknowns to draw any firm conclusions. - Yes?

(B) The pilot possibly in accordance with his pre-flight briefing deduced that the armoured formation below him was enemy - otherwise why attack?

(C) As a pilot flying a combat mission in a forward area, who may be unaware of friendly units within that area - Yes, that is his job, his sole reason for being there.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Ireland
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 07:39 AM

Bandit country man, eh ard! Bandit country where they support the IRA, does that make you an IRA man Ard eh!

Your a perfect example of the scum that gives credence to the various IRA crowd. Suppose your peace loving now after supporting a crowd of scum that killed and maimed innocent people. Spots never change ard, still the bigot who does not want to let go.

I'll say it again I have no time for terrorist of any colour and their supporters and excuse makers, that as you should figure out includes you.

One point though that has to be taken into consideration, Saddam was and is the supporter of terrorists,among them the IRA. Is it not interesting that we do not hear from the SF/IRA crowd any condemnation of Saddam and the violence he supported?

Wonder why? Would not want to condemn those who supported their own terrorists, would you ard? You know the boy and girls that blow people apart,maybe your comrades ard, eh!

Slabber all you want bandit country man, I will not be part of dragging Ireland into this, Slabber on if you want.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 06:54 AM

Doktor, You forgot Third Millenium.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 05:37 AM

Teribus, let's assume that all those unknowns stack up in a way that suits your argument, meaning that the pilot was able to deduce precisely nothing from his first pass. A good basis to start killing people? And don't start whining "self defence" because he didn't need to do a second pass, never mind a third.

About 20 years ago I had flying lessons and got to flying light aircraft unsupervised - only out of interest, knowing I would never go solo (glaucoma in both eyes). What's that got to do with anything? I'm sue you fly jumbos. Or maybe A10s.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 03:44 AM

Fionn,

Do you fly? and if so what is your flying experience? From your response above - I deduce that - You don't and that your experience is minimal.

Do you know - where on each vehicle the recognition panels were placed?

Do you know - what the aspect of each vehicle was to the angle of approach of the aircraft?

Do you know - what the attack profile of the aircraft was?

You of course don't need to know any of those - Automatically presumed guilty before all facts have been completely established - purely because, in this instance, it happens to suit you.

Ard Mhacha - you are asking me to compare apples to oranges - you are wrong to do so - but have not got the guts to admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:26 PM

My God, that's a stunning feature in the Sunday Times, McGrath.

For anyone not already registered, McG's link will require you to register before you can see it. Well worth the effort, just for that.

One thing it shows clearly is how quickly the dynamics change, and attitudes polarise, when hostilities begin. Already for some US troops the only good Iraqi is a dead one. I'm sure that many Iraqis think the same about Americans, in spades. What a wonderfully peaceful place it's going to be under US occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 02:10 PM

Here's a song I wrote after reading about a similar kind of incident in the Vietnam war. Not much changes:

The Little Family

A story in the papers,
just a paragraph or two
but it kept on running through my mind,
so I pass it on to you.

A family going to market,
in a little cart they ride,
the father and the mother,
two little children by their side.

And they're off to sell the food they've grown,
and when the day is done
maybe spend a little money,
maybe have a little fun.

And they're talking and they're singing,
planning what they'll do tonight,
and the mother's telling a story,
to keep the litle children quiet.

And they're going along so steady -
when there's shooting all round,
and it lays that little family
all dead upopn the ground.

And the shooting's quickly ovewr,
just as soon as it's begun.
And the soldiers rise from the bushes
"Oh God, what have we done."

A story in the papers,
just a paragraph or two
but it kept on running through my mind.
Seems there's nothing we can do

(Tune - more or less "Pretty Boy Floyd")

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 12:27 PM

The ironic thing is that, largely thanks to their experience in Northern Ireland, and lessons learned the hard way over the years, it appears that the British seem to be coping with this kind of situation a lot better, and with more appreciation of the devastating effect episodes like that checkpoint tragedy are likely to have on any hope of getting ordinary Iraqis to see the invaders as liberators.

Here is a (long) piece in today's Guardian reporting on this from the Gulf: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,926929,00.html - "Coalition divided over battle for hearts and minds":

Senior British military officers on the ground are making it clear they are dismayed by the failure of US troops to try to fight the battle for hearts and minds.

They also made plain they are appalled by reports over the weekend that US marines killed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, as they seized bridges outside Nassiriya in southern Iraq.

"You can see why the Iraqis are not welcoming us with open arms," a senior defence source said yesterday.

And it is clear that the checkpoint killings were not an isolated example. Here is what Sunday Times reporter Marc Franchetti's sent back - and incidentally, the Sunday Times has been consistently in support of going to war.US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death:

THE light was a strange yellowy grey and the wind was coming up, the beginnings of a sandstorm. The silence felt almost eerie after a night of shooting so intense it hurt the eardrums and shattered the nerves. My footsteps felt heavy on the hot, dusty asphalt as I walked slowly towards the bridge at Nasiriya. A horrific scene lay ahead.

Some 15 vehicles, including a minivan and a couple of trucks, blocked the road. They were riddled with bullet holes. Some had caught fire and turned into piles of black twisted metal. Others were still burning.

Amid the wreckage I counted 12 dead civilians, lying in the road or in nearby ditches. All had been trying to leave this southern town overnight, probably for fear of being killed by US helicopter attacks and heavy artillery...

...One man's body was still in flames. It gave out a hissing sound. Tucked away in his breast pocket, thick wads of banknotes were turning to ashes. His savings, perhaps.

Down the road, a little girl, no older than five and dressed in a pretty orange and gold dress, lay dead in a ditch next to the body of a man who may have been her father. Half his head was missing.

Nearby, in a battered old Volga, peppered with ammunition holes, an Iraqi woman — perhaps the girl's mother — was dead, slumped in the back seat. A US Abrams tank nicknamed Ghetto Fabulous drove past the bodies...

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 12:01 PM

Sure looks to me like a clear case of military blunder by the Warthog pilot. Thanks for the links. Our local papers just don't provide this level of coverage.

Glad that most of the British soldiers involved survived this stupid attack.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 11:33 AM

Aye the soldier of Ireland has arrived, or should I say the Lisburn UDR=UDA man, remember to tip-toe past the parked lorries.
Teribus and the Irish soldier laddie wil twist and turn all of the facts.
Smart-ass Teribus read my comment on McGraths blue clicky and get your head around it Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: DonMeixner
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 10:32 AM

I have heard every bit of the news stories that some of you are saying were covered up by the US government on the major, minor, and alternative news programs. I have watched the briefings and when asked about these incidents at the briefings the officer in charge has said, " W have heard these reports but we can't confirm them at this time." Very often by the end of the press report the OIC has had them conformed or they are confirmed by the next news briefing.

The military has been very good about covering friendly fire and collateral damage reports as I watch the news. One pilot is not military policy, one loony Sargent with a hand grenade is not a wave of dissention in the ranks, one person with a placard, pro or con, is not the vanguard of public opinion.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 10:17 AM

Dave Bryant - LOL!

Teribus, yes, your excuses are indeed pretty lame. According to the UK troops their machine was clearly marked, flying a flag and carrying US-issue target-protection kit. And visibility was perfect - they could see the pilot's face. The plane made three passes, firing on the second and third, with Iraqi civilians in obvious close proximity.

Of course if visibility seemed hopeless to the pilot, and he couldn't be sure where he was or what he was aiming at, and thought the civilians were Scuds, or he'd been asleep, then obviously it was safest to kill everything in sight.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Ireland
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 10:09 AM

What a load of friggin experts, why waste your time Teribus,did not take too long for some to bring Ireland and their version of the truth into the discussion.

I have to disagree with you on one point Teribus,some things just have to be marked up to sheer negligence on that pilots behalf rather than the US air force.

I think that there will be a row bigger than a fight if the UK keep getting friendly attacks from the US. If it was not so serious it would be funny.

As for Mc G of H his post illustrates that we cannot automatically believe all the statements put out by the US military.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 09:02 AM

Ard Mhacha,

What on earth has the article that Kevin supplied the link for got to do with the subject of this thread ????

The two incidents are completely seperate - Yes?

Jon,

With what the RAF have down there at the moment, they could not supply the close ground support required in terms of type or extent. So the question, you suggest becomes meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: JudeL
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 08:57 AM

AM: I live in the UK, and through digital cable get BBC news 24, Sky news, CNN, ITN and CNBC. I also get the UK terrestrial channels news.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 08:49 AM

Thanks, Jon. I hadn't heard what drug it actually was.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't this offically start on my mom's b-day, the 19th?

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 08:32 AM

Teribus, You do rattle on, just hit McGrath`s blue clicky and read Reporter Branigans eyewitness account.
I have lived through 30 years or so of Army versions and also been an eyewitness to the same events and believe me their concocted stories were amazing. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 08:15 AM

Teribus, a more interesting question would be to ask if they would feel safer if the air cover was provided by the RAF.

Whatever, this is a war and like it or not, accidents will happen and people will do stupid things. Unfortunately the cost of such happenings are the loss of life and horrific injuries to both civilians and members of our own forces. Any such life is one to many but I think that realistically, all one can hope is that every effort is made to minimise this is made.

I really wish we could pull out of this mess but I don't see how.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:55 AM

Too many factors relating to this tragically, unfortunate incident are still not known, or more likely were not reported. Until they come out, as they will do in the debriefing and investigation, I think I am with DonM and Blues=Life above.

Some comments on things stated in some of the posts above:

"a clearly identified UK tank" -
The clarity of the markings may have been obvious to the soldiers on the ground, but not necessarily clear to the pilot of the aircraft. That may sound pretty lame, but believe me, from personal experience there are things that are blindingly obvious to someone at ground level that are invisible to the pilot of an aircraft. Especially if the attack profile is such as described by Blues=Life in his post.

"One of the guys who was shot at said he could see the pilot's face, but the pilot couldn't see the Union Flag painted on the scimitar light tank, or the guys waving at him. He made three passes at them in perfect visibility." -

The BBC article said the A-10 made two firing runs, things like actual attack profile, time of day, light conditions, ground haze, vehicle positions, aspect of vehicles, turret positions - all unknown, so it is pretty difficult to make any informed judgement.

"I thought that one of the major electronic systems on an A10 was target recognition - it's supposed to be able to recognise any model of armoured vehicle instantly." -

Probably works well on a "clean" vehicle, not one cluttered with all the bits and pieces crews like to drag along with them.

One thing I am fairly sure about though is this. That if you asked the guys of 7th Armoured, 16th Air Assault, 40 & 42 Commando Royal Marines if they would feel safer if US air cover was withdrawn, they would tell you to bugger off in no uncertain manner - the presence of US air support has meant that fewer UK lives have to be put at risk to achieve mission objectives, than if it was absent.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:35 AM

I don`t know which country Jude live in but here in Ireland Satellite shows Sky News, BBC,ITV[British],Euro News,CNCB, CNN, FOX, and the most reliable CCTV 9,[not Hull] China. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:31 AM

Thanks Kat, (and sorry to forget to name my previous post).

As far as I can make out, the drug he took was dexedrine.

I don't know much about drugs but I believe a side effect of amphetamines (or speed if you like) can be aggression. I knew a few people on speed (at on time quite a few of the younger ones in a pub I used in Llandudno were on it) and they could get pretty irritable at times. They used to say it was coming down off the drug that did it. Whatever, the thoughts of an irritable person in charge of person in charge of that weaponry is really frightening.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:08 AM

Do any of the weapons that the US are currently using in Iraq (excluding B52s) have a range long enough to hit the UK if they go off target...........?

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:18 AM

Here's the Guardian story about the slaughter at that checkpoint Seven women and children shot dead at checkpoint - indicating that the Wasington Post version of what happens differs quite sharply from the official army version. No surprise there.

And it's turned out that the killing of 60 civilians in a market the other day was definitely the result of an American cruise missile, and not an Iraqianti-aircraft rocket, as had been suggested - a piece of wreckage found by a British reporter with a code number indicates it was built in a plant in Texas owned by the Raytheon Company.

And this is just the beginning. It's going to get much worse.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: JudeL
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:02 AM

We don't get Murdochs Fox news over here, so I cannot comment.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Doktor Doktor
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 05:52 AM

Just been brought to my attention that the war started
on the 3rd day
of the 3rd week
of the 3rd month
of the 3rd year
of the 3rd century.
Is this the start of the 3rd world war?

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 05:45 AM

Jude, I hadn't seen your post. CNN is a beacon of probity compared with Murdoch's Fox news.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 05:41 AM

Cluin, you're probably right, just like so much else isn't happening in this unequal war.

Ard Mhacha, latest reports are putting the fatalities (women and children) at seven in that latest incident. I hope this doesn't take the edge off the victory and cost those US troops their medals. It was still a neat piece of self-defence.

Americans in their millions were outraged when British troops behaved like this in Belfast, and rightly so. I just hope the US admin is big enough to deal with such catastrophes properly, but I fear they'll follow the UK example there too.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: JudeL
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 05:38 AM

Almost all the reports from there are starting with the disclaimer that "this report is subject to security restrictions". I'm wondering if in the US they have gone even further and gagged all reports that may not show the actions of some troops in a good light? I have noticed a distinctly jingoistic flavour to the reports on CNN as compared with those of the ITN or BBC news service.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:58 AM

Cluin, The "cowboy" story was reported on ALL of the British and Irish News bulletins.
And just in this morning another tragic shooting by US troops.
William Branigan Washington Post reporter says that 10 Iraqui civilians fleeing in a Toyato, near Karbala, were shot and killed by US troops, without warning.
This was a direct contradicition of the US Army, stating that a warning was given.
Please dont EVER take the Army version of events,and this latest "War" walkover, is by far the worst ever for propaganda . Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: JudeL
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:48 AM

The "big" news services may have stopped reporting it, (possibly under pressure) but it was originally on one of the "big" news services that I heard it as I have not read the papers or listened to radio for days but I have watched the news on TV and I heard it.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere)
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:41 AM

Here's the BBC News story

BBC News

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere)
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:36 AM

The story was also in the Guardian - I know this has been knocked as biassed, but the Guardian and Telegraph agreeing tends to support its accuracy. It was also reported on BBC Radio 4 news broadcasts over here.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:27 AM

The A10 "Warthog" is for "Close Ground Support" - the problem seems to be, do they know which side they are supporting ? I thought that one of the major electronic systems on an A10 was target recognition - it's supposed to be able to recognise any model of armoured vehicle instantly. Mind you, I have heard that the "Avenger" cannon which is the basic ordnance, makes so much noise and vibration that the pilots are punch drunk after even a short burst.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 03:54 AM

Funny this incident isn't covered by the BIG news services... no mention on the CNN, BBC, CBC sites. Did it really happen?

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 09:54 PM

Judge for yourself, guest. I missed the part where he actually identified what they were, but I thought I heard the term "speed:" listen to interview from this page.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 07:11 PM

What kat, pilots on amphetamine?

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: BanjoRay
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 06:27 PM

One of the guys who was shot at said he could see the pilot's face, but the pilot couldn't see the Union Flag painted on the scimitar light tank, or the guys waving at him. He made three passes at them in perfect visibility. Phew!
Ray

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 01:42 PM

Yup... it's up to the wo/men themselves to determine if the pills should/must be taken to stay awake. As far as pilots go, I can't see it, but I'm not there. Surely they have enough pilot rotation ? It's not like being a grunt where you might spend days awake, like what the 7th Cavalry (the Garryowen, to keep a musical note to the thread) just went through.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 01:31 PM

There is a pilot on Fresh Air, right now, on NPR talking about his experiences in the first Gulf War. He's written a book about it called Vipers in the Storm. His name is Keith Rosenkratz or Rosencrans (not sure the way Terri Gross said it wasn't clear.) I am sure one oculd access this interview at www.npr.org.

He said that they were *issued* controlled substance pills to help them stay awake on a mission. He said they were issued them, first on a weekend, to check for any adverse reactions. Then, they were issued them before a flight and after, is one had not used them, they had to be turned back in.

Subject: RE: BS: A10 pilot was 'cowboy on a jolly'
From: Blues=Life
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 01:20 PM

A-10 pilots are (normally) targeted by AWACS, because due to their relatively slow speed they cruise very low to the ground, popping up to attack a tank while diving at it. They need to find out where the target info came from, an AWAC or from a quick spot by the pilot. Haven't seen any reports on this incident yet, I'm sure we'll hear more.