BS: Friendly fire coverup

Subject: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Grab
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 06:02 AM

Pretty sick news about the MoD and/or US military clearly covering up the truth about a friendly-fire attack on a British convoy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6333853.stm

Pretty bloody shameful that some red-top rag has to out them about this.

It's not just Matty Hull's family either - I feel so sorry too for the pilots who were let down by their people. The thing is, the point of having inquests is to see whether anything can be done to stop it happening again. In this case it clearly could - better information to the pilots would have stopped this happening in the first place, and that's something that's definitely within the military's power to sort out.

And the worst bit: The US government would view whoever leaked the video as "criminally responsible". Whoever leaked the video is the only responsible person involved here.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 06:14 AM

This goes back to 2003. What must the families, the pilots and others in the convoy have gone through in that time? Any hindrance to finding the truth is shameful.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 06:41 AM

All governments, particularly the US government it appears, have a tendency to hide their cock ups. It's all part of the 'My country right or wrong' mindset, and has nothing to do with truth or justice, unfortunately!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: ard mhacha
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 06:55 AM

john`Giok` McKenzie you have said it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Leadfingers
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:41 AM

The Gung Ho attitude of President Bush , with a total disregard for any one elses point of view , OR What May be Right or Wrong has percolated down to the lowest echelons of the American Armed Forces
to the extent that they give damn who they are shooting at , as long as they are shooting at Something !

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Penny S.
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:44 AM

The Americans they've had on the BBC sounded pretty reasonable about how they've been trying to find a way round dealing with the clash between different systems.

My response on hearing clips on the BBC - now they weren't published in the Sun - was "poor guys", for the pilots. Not gung ho, them, not careless of their target. They need support as well as the families of those who were killed.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Deckman
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:54 AM

This story has now made it to "open" american TV. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jimlad9
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 08:21 AM

There is nothing new about 'friendly fire'. In Italy during WWII my uncle Joe was shot in the leg whilst laying a telephone cable in no-mans-land. A subsequent enquiry showed that the bullet removed was of a calibre that was neither German/Italian/British the only other combatants withi 100 miles were Americans.

It is no wonder that during the war it was said:

When the British flew over the Germans ducked,when the Germans flew over the British ducked,but when the Americans flew over everbody ducked.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Grab
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 08:41 AM

Yeah, that's the thing. In spite of people saying the Americans are all trigger-happy, these pilots saw the vehicle ID plates, checked back (because the other side could kill your guys and nick their trucks) and got confirmation that they weren't legit before they attacked. They did everything right. No wonder the poor bastards were crying on the way back.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 09:02 AM

As long as there have been weapons, there have been tragic accidents and people heartsick who don't come forward. There's no surprise to me when someone tries to keep it quiet, given the stakes. I am NOT condoning it-- of COURSE we need to know, for many reasons. But it is possible to view the whole mess as a tragedy, with compassion-- who among us has never tried to keep a mistake from getting about?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 09:24 AM

I think some above are being too soft on the pilots.
They were not in danger. It was not an urgent " him or me" situation.
They had doubts about the target. They should not have fired.
British servicemen have been prosecuted for far less.
They saw the orange panels. One said that perhaps they were orange rocket launchers.
Orange rocket launchers?!
You have to suspect that the recording was witheld because it betrayed a lack of training and professionalism.
Trigger happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 09:52 AM

So far from what I have read there has been no attempt to cover up anything. The "classified" cockpit video and recordings were given to the MoD by the US Forces in order that the MoD could carry-out it's own investigation. The MoD quite rightly stated that it could not release "classified" material to the Coroner. That would be the same if the "classified" material belonged to the UK, in this case it belonged to the US Department of Defence.

The situation and events were appallingly tragic, such things have happened before and unfortunately, they will happen again.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 10:00 AM

I think Keith's hit the nail on the head - these pilots come across as ill-trained and unprofessional; not keeping to SOPs and behaving like children. Whatever the FAC says, it's up to the pilots to make the final decison before they open fire, and they did the wrong thing.
I do wonder what, if anything, has happened to them as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jimlad9
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 10:35 AM

During the first Gulf War a US fighter pursued a British Armoured Troop Carrier for over 5 miles before finally opening fire and killing 11 (don't quote me on that) British soldiers.

On the other hand our newspapers,UK,carried a report that some years ago the US military had Osama Bin Laden in the gunsights of an unmanned aircraft over Afghanistan. The local commander asked HQ for permission to eliminate him. The request was sent to the Pentagon who consulted lawyers on whether it was legal to send him to Paradise. Of course by the time the permission was given Osama was safely tucked up in his bed.

Isn't it a pity that the same caution was not excercised in the cases of L/Cpl Matty Hull and the first Gulf War incident,

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere)
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 10:58 AM

If the pilots were untrained or poorly trained, the buck goes up the line, doesn't it?

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 11:03 AM

The obvious answer is to have the convoys 'colour coded' or GPS coded in future so as to avoid this kinda shit. Blame don't change nothin'. Action does.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 11:11 AM

Not just Bush. This kind of thing isn't new.

Remember the incident on July 3rd 1988, when the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an Iranian civilian airliner, inside Iranian territorial waters, and killed all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children.   It was explained the airliner was misidentified as a fighter plane and that it was thought to be planning to attack the cruiser.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: ard mhacha
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 12:29 PM

On his returnn home the Captain of the USS Vincennes was given a heroes welcome, trigger happy is an apt description.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 12:43 PM

Care to inspect your own skirts?

I understand the impulse to all pile on but I also understand that the impulse is a juvenile one.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 12:52 PM

It all goes back up the line to the Commander in Chief which is why the U.S. should never have allied troops under their command. Time and time again, it has been demonstrated that communication and training is not what it should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 12:55 PM

Worked pretty well in the European Theater in WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 01:04 PM

Here is the Sun site with the tape, and a transcript.

I think that sympathy for the pilots and those involved in this tragic incident is indeed appropriate. Watching and listening to the video it clearly wasn't their fault - they kept on questioning whether the targets might be "friendlies", and being reassured that they couldn't possibly be. But I don't feel it is appropriate for the people in charge of the system who have tried to clamp down on the facts. Keeping the tapes under cover was certainly not doing anything to help those unlucky pilots.

"..who among us has never tried to keep a mistake from getting about?" And if we have and have failed we have paid the penalty for it. The officials and politicians, British and American, who have sought to keep this tape under cover will not have to pay any penalty.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 01:08 PM

Thinking that the pilots who killed friendly forces will sleep well at night is short-sighted. However, it would be nice for a change if someone would step forward and say, "We fucked up."

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 01:38 PM

The lawyers won't allow it. "Never admit liability."

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 01:42 PM

Lawyers can't allow or disallow anything. They can only give advice, which their clients or employers are free to put aside.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Folkiedave
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 01:54 PM

Someone probably both governments are culpable.

Both denied the recording existed.

One it was found to exist the USA have moved heaven and earth to stop it being shown. They said they were examining it for secret or classified material Now we have seen the video where is the secret and classified material they were examining? There isn't any.

They did not want it shown because it showed the USA to be incompetent.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 01:55 PM

Talk to anyone in a corporation. You disobey the lawyers at your own peril.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 02:13 PM

So life is about knowing when you can and should take risks. But it's not the law courts they are scared of, it's the public. "Lawyers" would just be an excuse, and a pretty unconvincing excuse at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 02:23 PM

Sure, you can disobey your lawyers. You can even disobey your parents or the law, for that matter. Just be willing to take the consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 02:42 PM

Didn't we kick this to death three years ago when it happened?

There isn't, and never has been, any coverup of the incident and the responsibility for it. The A-10 pilots followed all of their procedures and had permission to fire; the ground control people who told them there were no friendly forces in the area gave this incorrect information and a tragedy occurred. The refusal of the US military to release the guncamera video is consistent with its long-standing (if shortsided) policy of not divulging any "how we know what we know" information.

As a matter of information, since I don't know what the law says in the UK, if there is no question of when, how and by whom this soldier was killed, why is a coroner's inquest being held?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 03:20 PM

The refusal of the US military to release the gun camera video is consistent with its long-standing (if shortsighted) policy of not divulging any "how we know what we know" information.

That's what precisely what the cover-up consisted of - a refusal to release important evidence. The fact that that may be normal practice doesn't mean it's anything other than an attempt to conceal evidence.

All that was known was that the soldier was killed by American air-fire. The inquest is there to find what happened and the reason it this happened - culpable homicide, negligence, some mechanical error. There were a lot of possibilities. No way of knowing who if anyone was to blame - in the absence of the tape it would have been easy to assume, mistakenly, that it was the pilots. And that is what would probably have been the most convenient explanation of all.
.....................
And now the coroner who complained about the failure to let the court have the evidence has been sacked. "Will not have his contract renewed" is how it's been put.

The powers-that-be can get away with that kind of stuff in England. Well, they think they can, anyway. I suspect it might blow up in their face.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 04:04 PM

Reading the article cited, it appears that the coroner in question was brought on, along with two others, to help clear a backlog in military inquests. That backlog is now expected to be cleared away by the end of May, so all three of the special coroners will be let go.

Put that way, it seems a bit less ominous, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Gizmo
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 04:53 PM

This as already stated is not a new thing by any means.

Throughout history, many wars fought with the Americans have had them firing at the Brits also.

On the news today, there was a list of british service men who had died from 'friendly' fire in the last 10 years. The deaths have been astounding. And certainly not reciprocated.

Further findings report that the Americans have asked the British troops for advice in recognising ally trucks, and other machinery, and what the enemies look like, as they themselves have not had enough training.

It is disturbing to know that the Americans are under trained and not nearly disciplined or competent enough as soldiers as the British army is.

I don't think it was a gun-ho reaction, just a poor display of technical incompetence displayed by officers who should know better.
The pilots are quite literally the pawns in this case.

Yes, mistakes happen, but we live in an age of technological know-how to be able to avoid these instances and occurances.

And the question is why was there not more communication between the Brits and the US forces. And there have been more friendy fire deaths within the last 3 years.

It was an unecessary war, with ever increasing unecessary deaths.

Unfortunately the whole set-up has been a bodge job, from Afghanistan to Iraq. The people who hit first then think later are the ones to be tried, yet Tony B-liar and his puppet Master Shrub, will manage to weasel their slimy way into a high paid pension instead.

The true cost will be paid by the servicemen and women, who in most cases did not agree with the war either, and the deaths of innocents, whose tragic lives were bad under an appaling dictator, now under dictatorship by the United States and Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Gizmo
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 04:54 PM

I'm sorry for the rant.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 04:59 PM

Quite alright, IMO. Canucks felt that way when our troops were hit by friendly fire in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 05:07 PM

Gizmo, serious question here: If, as you say, British troops have repeatedly been fired upon by American troops, surely it must follow that the Brits are remiss in communication? Surely there is incentive in doing one's own part in notification as to troop movements? Surely someone somewhere has thought of a method of swift identification?

In previous eras when smoke signal and semaphore were the epitome of technology, lack of communication was forgivable. That is no longer so.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: GUEST,Cruz
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 05:14 PM

Another result of Bush's policy:

Bring It On!!

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 05:21 PM

I don't think it does follow Ebbie- clearly identified patrols fired upon are somehow to blame????- part of standard British military procedure is to include regular identification training-the same is not so in the U.S. military I am led to understand - I do not think the pilots are to blame, but in an international theatre of war, there must surely be minium levels of training given in areas like these - these guys went off mission to pursue this patrol and they were let down by the system with disasterous results.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 05:36 PM

What do you suggest the targets could or should have done different, Ebbie?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 06:20 PM

This is hardly a uniquely US on Brit phenomena. It happens all too often, and always has. For example, the first RN ship to be sunk in WW2 was the submarine HMS Oxley, sunk by another British submarine, HMS Triton - how could that have happened? In 1982 in the Falklands, the battle between Company A and Company C of the 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, caused least 8 casualties - who messed up there?. And when British soldiers Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke were killed in 2003 when their Challenger II tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, what did they do wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 06:24 PM

radio? mobile phones? I don't know. And I don't know why the US military has had such frequent lapses of judg(e)ment or training or whatever it is. I would be interested, however, in knowing the incidence of occurrence in other countries' militaries. As far as American troops not having "regular identification training" goes, that sounds odd to me. Like doctors not having training in resetting bones because they are not surgeons.

I'm not blaming the victim here. I'm just saying there is such a thing as 'defensive driving'. The stakes are so high that anything one can do to make oneself and one's comrades safer should be part of everyone's training and experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 06:43 PM

You mean get on the blower: "Please would you tell those planes to stop shooting at us..." I think they probably did that, and that was why the order came through to "Abort, Abort", but unfortunately rather too late.

I suppose they could have looked up in the sky and said "Aren't those American planes up there - we'd better get on to their controllers pretty damn quick, before they start attacking us." But I think they might have been a bit busy looking out for enemies on the ground.

And they'd have assumed, correctly enough, that the pilots would see their identifying marks on their vehicles. They couldn't have been expected to know that the pilots would be overruled by their controllers, and told that the vehicles were definitely Iraqi. And nor coudl anyine have known that bit if the authorities had succeeded in keeping the video record under wraps.

Which would have meant that it would have all been seen as the fault of some trigger-happy pilots. The kind of scapegoating which they evidently expected to happen, from what they said in that tape about "We're in jail."

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Folkiedave
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:02 PM

Coroners are there to establish all causes of sudden death.

This includes road accidents etc. If someone dies young or even old when it was unexpected then there is an inquest. If someoneblike my mother who was 91 and had been in and out of hospital dies then there is no inquest. If I suddenly pop off then there would be. Their jurisdiction extends to British citizens who die abroad.

Reverse the position. If American soldiers were killed by UK forces do you think the USA would be happy to sit back as the UK refused to allow evidence to be given in court?

And the band played "Believe it if You Can".

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:20 PM

The drivers are not to blame and neither are the pilots. The lack of training here is apparent. It would seem our pilots are not trained to look for these orange panels. None of them on these tapes seem to know anything about orange panels being a sign of friendlies. How could that be? How can it be justified that our pilots have not been given this information and trained to recognize it from the air? It would seem to me to be pretty fundamental and extremely important knowledge to have when flying missions, right?

Apparently, these pilots were trained to depend utterly on intelligence received from a dispatcher and were given no visual training whatsoever. So the poor bastard on the ground is showing his orange panels thinking he's safe and doesn't realize the pilots in the jets heading towards him have never heard of orange panels being the sign of a friendly and just been cleared to open fire.

It's the same astonishing incompetence our military leadership in the Pentagon have exhibited since this misery began 4 years ago. Inexplicable breakdowns in communication along the military chain of command such that the average soldier doesn't know if harassing and torturing a prisoner is wrong or against regulations or whatever. Vital information is being left out of the training. Obviously, because the military is stretched so thin that it can't be bothered to take the time to properly train someone. Hence the more incompetent our military, which is already lowering intelligence test score requirements just to get enough bodies.

Trouble is, if the Pentagon orders more training, that keeps more boots off the ground and out of the skies for longer and it costs more to train them and they're not quite as smart at absorbing the info as before Bush decided to run the military into the ground. So it is not looking good for America just now. You can bet friendly fire incidents are not at all rare or isolated. Look at Pat Tillman and the way the Army lied to his family saying he died leading a company into enemy fire when he actually died screaming that they were shooting at a friendly just before being capped by a fellow soldier who had just had eye surgery and was already in the field with his vision still blurry because our units are stretched so thin now that they needed him out there when he should have been recuping.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:28 PM

My Grandfather fought in the Army in both WWI & WWII. My Dad was in the RAAF in WWII. Both told me that the biggest danger when involved in action was to NOT know where 'the bloody Yanks' were...

Friendly fire has been happening for ages - and with a military with such an overwhelming capability (which they always boast about!) the amount of potential damage is high.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:45 PM

Hey. Is no one going to respond to artbrooks' information? Or is it more fun to chase Yanks?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Grab
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:56 PM

Art, that's what I was getting at. The video makes it clear the pilots did all they possibly could to get it right. The failure is all at the ground control end, so somewhere along the line, procedures got screwed up. The coroner's job is to identify what the screw-up was that caused the person to die. Since it's a certainty the US military will be working with other armed forces now and in future, figuring out how this went wrong and how to fix it would be a good plan.

Might they have already fixed the procedural problems? Maybe. In which case, why not tell the coroner how? But hiding the video just obscures the fact that there was some procedural screw-up, and if there wasn't a procedural problem (or cynically, if no-one knew there was a procedural problem) then fixing it is not required.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 08:06 PM

I don't want to place artbrooks at the pillar but this is information I had asked for previously, i.e. do other militaries have the same problems and in what way is the US more culpable?

Here it is again:

1: For example, the first RN ship to be sunk in WW2 was the submarine HMS Oxley, sunk by another British submarine, HMS Triton - how could that have happened?

2: In 1982 in the Falklands, the battle between Company A and Company C of the 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, caused least 8 casualties - who messed up there?.

3: And when British soldiers Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke were killed in 2003 when their Challenger II tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, what did they do wrong?

Were these questions satisfactorily answered? Do the military AND the populace know how these incidents came about? Have they ensured it will never happen again?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire cover up
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 08:56 PM

Mistakes get made, accidents happen. It may well be impossible to avoid that. But what is possible is to be open about it, and to reveal all the evidence and not try to suppress it and tell lies about it not existing.

It shouldn't be a matter of pointing fingers at the Yanks and trading insults. The British Government was just as complicit in this effort to suppress the evidence, and telling lies about it.

People talk about zero tolerance sometimes. There should be zero tolerance of attempts to suppress the truth about incidents like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 09:42 PM

Yup, sounds like communications at ground control are definitely in need of a fix. Same problem when the F-16 couldn't identify the Canadian soldiers awhile back. Should have fixed the problem then. Doesn't seem they are able to tighten up procedures, either that or they have the 'shit happens' attitude. Makes you wonder about accountability.

Ebbie - World War II was a long time ago. Technology has changed quite a bit since then and George Bush was not Commander in Chief.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Gurney
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 12:32 AM

Dianavan, it could also be communications TO ground control! If the ground controllers didn't know allied forces were in the area.....

We'll probably never know who to point the finger at.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 10:04 AM

One thing that is not clear from the video and from the transcript is who was "netted-in" to what. That begs the question, were the British troops on the ground listening in to the same TACAIR channel as the pilots, they should have been. If they weren't then that could possibly be down to the piss poor comms system that is used by the British Armed Forces, poor performance (clarity and range) and lack of channels.

The assumption that you can just chatter away on radio in a combat situation and automatically be heard by someone is also slightly naive. In the transcript there appeared to be confusion as to the number of vehicles making up the intended target group. One minute it was five vehicles "revetted" (stationary and hidden in a temporary earthwork), the next it's four strung out along a road, clearly two different groups. That indicates very poor, if any, ground control. "Target Ident" calls and information passed to the pilots also seemed to be very vague compared to what we used about thirty years ago.

dianavan's parting comment in her post of 06 Feb 07 - 09:42 PM, speaks volumes:

"Ebbie - World War II was a long time ago. Technology has changed quite a bit since then and George Bush was not Commander in Chief."

You see if you can't hammer Bush with it it's not worth discussing.

Recognition - In my time in the military (cold war era), during training, irrespective of course subject, we had what were called "Threat" Lectures. These were always accompanied by a snap test at sometime during the course. The lectures were dull and repetitive and consisted of photographs/partial photographs of enemy/friendly, ships, aircraft and vehicles. Fail the "Threat" Lecture test and you failed the course. I would imagine that the same thing is done today, particularly if you are actually putting troops into a combat situation. I know for certain that they go on a very comprehensive OPTAG before they deploy.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 01:28 PM

Very true, Teribus. Unless things have changed a great deal since I was on active duty (not unlikely, since that has been a while now), people/vehicles on the ground and aircraft operate in different radio frequency ranges and, of course, different units have always operated on different radio frequencies and rarely know who is on what setting. It has always been hard enough to get all of the information together in one place about who was operating where, so that "blue-on-blue" incidents could be minimized, and I expect that it would have been even harder when more than one nation's army was involved.

BTW, I can also recall long lectures involving recognizing US/British/Soviet/German/Polish/French armored vehicles. Also BTW, the Iraqi army was equipped with whatever they could buy (or had given to them by their erstwhile "allies", including us), but I don't know if they had any British-made armored vehicles. Some of their neighbor certainly had some. I don't think, were I in that situation, I would automatically go with the "that's a British tank, don't shoot" idea based on visual recognition alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 01:39 PM

The thing was they were categorically told that there were no "friendlies" in the area, and naively thought that that was good enough information to rely on and to override what they actually saw below them.

Maybe one reason for the attempt to suppress this evidence was embarrassment. That is supposed to be a highly competent professional organisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jeffp
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 01:47 PM

I'm sure they could tell the difference between british troops and enemy troops at altitude. If you are told that there are no friendlies in an area, you are to assume that anyone you see is unfriendly, regardless of how they appear. This is to guard against undercover operations, such as those conducted by our own special forces with captured equipment.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jimlad9
Date: 07 Feb 07 - 03:39 PM

A simple solution to the 'friendly fire' problem may be to let the Europeans do the actual fighting (not the French and Italians of course) . Let the US act as a logistical support force.
They could let the French do the cooking and the Italians do the singing if they feel left out.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: GUEST,John Gray in Oz
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 09:52 AM

Unfortunately its human beings making human mistakes. We wipe out a couple of thousand people every year in Oz due to human error. The cause is car accidents. We don't have national enquiries about it.

JG/FME

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: JeremyC
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 11:08 AM

jimlad9 posted:
A simple solution to the 'friendly fire' problem may be to let the Europeans do the actual fighting (not the French and Italians of course) . Let the US act as a logistical support force.
They could let the French do the cooking and the Italians do the singing if they feel left out.

You are awesome.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: bubblyrat
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 12:07 PM

I really fail to understand why armoured vehicles cannot routinely be fitted with IFF (Identification Friend or Foe ) transponders.These are used extensively by military aircraft : the codes are changed daily to avoid security being compromised by the enemy.Surely,if the two A 10 pilots had had a correct IFF response,even if they continued to have any lingering doubts,they would have told ground control about this,& asked them to double check about "friendlies" in the area ?? Having said that, the version of the report that I read said that both pilots were low on fuel,and "itching to get a kill " before they had to return to base . And also that US pilots are routinely given Benzedrine or other drugs to help combat fatigue . In which case, NOTHING could have saved ANYONE !! It's American policy & procedures that are to blame, not the pilots. Give excitable young men stimulants,put them in charge of a formidable fighting machine, and allow,if not actually encourage a reckless,macho ,top-gun culture of "itching for a kill " & Blue-on Blue will ALWAYS be a very high risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 12:13 PM

I've heard that too, bubblyrat.

I wonder if there are any credible reports about the use of stimulants for pilots of U.S. military aircraft. This might explain alot of friendly fire incidents.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: GUEST, Grimmy
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 12:35 PM

Whilst there was undoubtedly a failure in communication on both sides, one thing still puzzles me: the British vehicles carry orange panels to identify them as friendly (when all else fails), the US pilots saw those panels........

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire cover up
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 12:38 PM

Maybe they were "itching to get a kill ", though one of them sounded as if he would sooner have gone off home. But the basic lethal mistake, and the reason Lance Corporal Matty Hull was killed, was that of the bloke in air control, who assured the pilots that there were no "friendlies" in the area, in a casual way, without apparently making any serious effort to check exactly what area was under discussion.

While it has been reported that an internal US inquiry cleared the pilots of any wrongdoing, I haven't seen any report as to whether anything happened to the air control people who gave the pilots the red light to attack the British unit.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 12:43 PM

I haven't seen anything that definitely establishes that the forces on the ground followed protocol for alerting headquarters of their location. That would explain the certainty of ground control as to the status of the area.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 01:39 PM

I googled pilots stimulants and found quite alot of information about it. Here's a pretty good article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1270902,00.html

Its beyond my comprehension why the military thinks they have the right to pressure pilots into taking drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 02:02 PM

I haven't seen anything that definitely establishes that the forces on the ground followed protocol for alerting headquarters of their location.

I don't think there has been any evidence that they did not do so, That's the kind of thing that this inquest can perhaps find out, if the military authorities cooperate with it, as they are legally obliged to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 02:07 PM

For IFF to work (IIRC) the target has to be painted by radar, the transponder on the target then responds to that radar signal and a series of dots, or bars, appears behind the target on the radar screen.

Radar is seldom if ever used for target acquisition in flying close ground attack/support missions. Operating radar within a combat zone increases the chances of SAM strike against the attacking aircraft.

Either on radio or on radar it is generally accepted that it is not a good idea to transmit anything unless absolutely necessary. It tends to give away your position and makes you a target. I am surprised that not one single radio in the British convoy was tuned to tactical air net for the area in which they were operating.

I would be interested to know what form of control was being employed during this attack. It would either be a "Forward Observer" on the ground, or possibly a airborne controller (AWACS). At the moment I would think that given the situation on the ground at the time (highly mobile) a controller on the ground would be unlikely. There also seemed to have been two controllers, the second one (Callsign "Lightning") cut in to announce that there were "friendly" forces in the area. It is therefore likely that the A-10's were being directed from another aircraft. Electronic intelligence gathering capability today is astounding, the weak point in the system, which US forces as overcoming with the AEGIS concept, is that all this data has to be processed by a human being.

The dialogue does not suggest anyone being "hopped-up" or "trigger happy".

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 03:37 PM

While it has been reported that an internal US inquiry cleared the pilots of any wrongdoing, I haven't seen any report as to whether anything happened to the air control people who gave the pilots the red light to attack the British unit.

My point is that if the British forces failed to follow protocol, then the air control people were not at fault and nothing should have happened to them. You seem to have assumed that the air control people were at fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 03:48 PM

Equally, your assumption, jeffp, is that the British forces had failed to follow protocol.

My point was that there have been no reports about whether the internal inquiry looked into the question of whether the air control people were at fault or not, and if they did, what they determined as the cause of the breakdown in communication which led to false information being given to the pilots.

The inquest should be able to clear these things up, if the military authorities, British and American, cooperate with it, and tell the truth. Mind, that is quite a big "if".

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 04:01 PM

I assumed nothing. I merely noted that there was no evidence shown. You are the one calling for punishment. I want the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: bubblyrat
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 04:06 PM

Yes Teribus, I guess nobody wants to announce their prescence by any kind of "painting".My experience of IFF transmitters is limited to 944 (1) ( 965 radar) and 944(2) ( 264 radar)----Old technology !!But surely something could be done ?? It surely cannot be beyond the wit of military science to come up with an electronic identification system, active OR passive, that could resolve some of these problems ?? I submit that there is a disproportionate difference between the amount of money spent on developing weapons systems, and the amount of money spent on protecting the people that use them !!

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: folk1e
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 06:07 PM

Here is a fact for you..... The MOD have stated that the tape that you are all talking about "does not exist"!
If they said that in court it is perjury and could involve a prison sentance for the transgressor.
The most accurate quote that I have herd is "They (MOD) have not coverd themselves in glory"
Indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 06:28 PM

It is only perjury if the speaker is under oath and knows that the statement is false. If the speaker was him- (or her-) self lied to and believed the statement to be true, there is no perjury. It is merely an erroneous statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 06:49 PM

You are the one calling for punishment.

Where did I say that?

Where there should definitely be punishment is for anyone who authorised or instructed that the family should be told that there was no cockpit tape of what happened, knowing that this was not true. That would very likely include Geoffrey Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence at the relevant time, and presently Minister of State for Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 06:58 PM

You didn't specifically call for punishment, but this statement:

But the basic lethal mistake, and the reason Lance Corporal Matty Hull was killed, was that of the bloke in air control, who assured the pilots that there were no "friendlies" in the area, in a casual way, without apparently making any serious effort to check exactly what area was under discussion.

While it has been reported that an internal US inquiry cleared the pilots of any wrongdoing, I haven't seen any report as to whether anything happened to the air control people who gave the pilots the red light to attack the British unit.

definitely seems to imply that there is blame to be attached to the air control people.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I drew a conclusion about your intent from your words.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Gulliver
Date: 08 Feb 07 - 08:06 PM

IMHO, neither of these forces should have been there in the first place. So one of them killed one of the others? What about the tens of thousands of Iraqi victims?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 02:55 AM

"the British vehicles carry orange panels to identify them as friendly (when all else fails), the US pilots saw those panels........"

In what was played here on Oz TV, the pilots referred to "the orange rockets" on the vehicles... so they definitely saw SOMETHING orange...

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 03:17 AM

If one can believe what has been reported, it would seem that the pilots were not versed in vehicle recognition and did not appreciate the significance of the Dayglo panels.
That would imply a fault in training. What we can't know is whether or not that fault is institutional - that no pilots in that unit were aware of such crucial matters - or individual - that the instructors did teach this but failed to discover whether these pilots had grasped the lesson.
As Teribus says, in the UK forces there are (or have been until very recently) snap silhouette recognition tests all the time, and Fishbeds, Foxbats and sundry Warsaw pact kit became a part of one's life. For anyone expected to undertake an active, forward role in the infantry not to be able to recognise any AFV or military aircraft would have been unthinkable. At the very least the bollocking would be little short of nuclear.
As for the radio chatter, I know US forces have different protocols, but to me it was unprofessional.
All of which suggests that the pilots were ill-trained and should not have been on that mission. As to whose fault that was is another matter, and one which I doubt will be aired publicly.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: GUEST, Grimmy
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 06:24 AM

I agree Captain. Whatever the failings in communication, ATC, vehicle recognition etc etc, bad though those seem to have been, the orange panels were a 'last-ditch', 'when all else fails', 'simple enough for a trained chimp to understand' sign that those vehicles were friendly.

At least one pilot saw them. The system 'worked' in that respect. But the fact that he assumed them to be 'orange rockets' leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the aircrew were not told about the panels. I find this bizarre in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 12:32 PM

The correct conclusion, jeffp, would be that I thought that air control had a serious case to answer. There'd been no mention of what happened about this in reports about the internal US inquiry which evidently cleared the pilots of any blame.

The UK military inquiry evidently came to rather different conclusions, it has now been revealed: Guardian today:

An official British inquiry into the friendly fire disaster in Iraq which killed Lance Corporal Matty Hull of the Household Cavalry contains scathing criticism of the actions of the American pilots and ground crew involved, it emerged yesterday...
..............................
And now comes the news of a fresh "friendly fire" incident in Mosul today, where a lot of Iraqi Kurds were killed in a botched air attack - US air strike kills 8 Kurd soldiers in Iraq

And so it goes...

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Les from Hull
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 03:50 PM

It's very difficult to ascribe blame for this tragic event, and it's really the job of the various people investigating. But there are a couple of points (perhaps) worth making.

Perhaps Iraqi 'insurgents' would notice orange panels on allied vehicles, realise the significance and equip their vehicles accordingly.

The vehicles involved were Scimitar light tanks, quite a distinctive vehicle, used only by the UK. There is a similar vehicle, the Scorpion, which has a number of users in the region, not including Iraq. The chances of Iraqi insurgents getting hold of a troop of these vehicles seems unlikely.

Accidents and mistakes happen in war, and in armed forces training. Some examples have been given and you could find dozens more incidents involving both own and allied forces. Deadly weapons have deadly results.

The reaction to this tragedy has been enhanced by the feeling that many people in the UK have - that the UK armed forces have become dragged into a long-term conflict by our support for the USA, based on faulty intelligence. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case, but that many people here think it is.

Matty Hull held the rank (or appointment) of 'Lance Corporal of Horse' which is unique to the Household Cavalry. It is the equivalent of Corporal.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 04:48 PM

Wikipedia says: FV107 Scimitar is an armoured reconnaissance vehicle, although sometimes classed as a light tank used by the British Army. It is very similar to the FV101 Scorpion but mounts a high velocity 30 mm L21 RARDEN cannon instead of a 76 mm cannon. The Jordanian and Iranian armies both have Scorpions.

Les, many/most of us in the US also feel that the US armed forces have become dragged into a long-term conflict based on faulty intelligence...not to mention the arrogance of our political leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Les from Hull
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 05:08 PM

Yes but I think that if Jordan or Iran were invading, they might want to use something a little more effective!

I wonder who might provide such intelligence (other than the USA and the UK who didn't seem to do such a good job). I consider that the war was more in the interests of oil companies and Israel than of world peace. History tells us that Iraq (with three incompatible factions) is basically ungovernable unless by an iron hand in an iron glove.

I also notice that the A10s were lead by an Idaho National Guard Lt Colonel on his first combat mission. Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 12:30 AM

"I also notice that the A10s were lead by an Idaho National Guard Lt Colonel on his first combat mission. Discuss. "

Quote
"We're in prison Dude!"

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 06:03 AM

"I also notice that the A10s were lead by an Idaho National Guard Lt Colonel on his first combat mission."

The above is a "red-herring", and is irrelevant. A large number of servicemen, regulars and reserves, deployed to the region would probably be on "their first combat mission". The US Air Force does not operate dual standards, there is not one standard for regulars and another, lower standard, for Air National Guard. If you are passed out of an OTU as "combat capable" on any given type of aircraft, then you have met the required standard, so please do not imply that "in theatre" these pilots were part-timers, or poorly trained, they did after all carry-out a text book attack - unfortunately against the wrong target. But they had been assured by their controller on the ground, who must have been in a position to see the targets, that there were no friendlies in the area.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Les from Hull
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 03:35 PM

I did not suggest that Air National Guard pilots were any less capable, but I would be interested to hear any opinions from people with more knowledge of the 'reserve' forces of the USA. I have a number of friends who have served with the 'reserve' forces of the UK and I have always been impressed with their professionalism.

I think I was mildly surprised at somewhat holding quite a high rank (equivalent to our Wing Commander) in this situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 04:54 PM

Les, pilots in the US Air Force get paid more ("flight pay"), but they have to fly live missions in order to be eligible for it. And, BTW, I served in the US reserve forces for 18 of my 23 years in the Army.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: Les from Hull
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 05:49 PM

Thanks for the explanation.

Les

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 06:46 PM

I'd have thought that there'd be a policy that the first time a pilot was sent out on a combat mission, if at all possible, they'd be in the company of someone who had been out before. Sending out a two pilot mission with it being the first time in combat for both - is that really normal practice?

It apears that not everyone in the US military was at all happy about the internal inquiry finding that no one was to blame - here's a piece in today's Independent - Fratricide: That's what the military calls 'friendly fire':

"The Government faced a call last night for a full inquiry into the issue of "friendly fire" after it was revealed that one of America's top generals had disputed his own side's finding that two US pilots were not to blame for the death of a British soldier...."

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 06:56 PM

"Sending out a two pilot mission with it being the first time in combat for both - is that really normal practice?"

It is if your resources are stretched to breaking point - in The Battle of Britain in 1940, Spitfire pilots were regularly sent up 'unescorted' into the front line with only 6 -8 hours 'Spit Training/Combat Training' in a whole assorted bunch of whoever was there to fly that day - for many it was their first and last mission.

At least the US Allies aren't rude enough to shoot back - yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 07:34 PM

On the one hand, the Battle of Britain, with Britain desperately trying to survive an assault by a triumphant Germany equipped with a massive air force, was a slightly different situation.

On the other hand, the Iraq war - the mightiest nation on earth is engaged in attacking a relatively small country which doesn't have any air force whatsoever.

Well, I can't put my finger on it, but somehow the parallel doesn't sound all that close...

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:00 AM

Except the mightiest military force on the planet has a backlog of about 5 years of repair work on broken fighting vehicles - saw the footage on SBS...

oh, and heard something about the endless stream of willing volunteers drying up to a trickle...


"Well, I can't put my finger on it,"

"OOOOOooo, Don't touch me there!"

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire coverup
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:02 AM

Oh, and something about Georgie Porgie ranting on about Terrorists trying to destroy "the American Way of Life"....