• Welcome to the Land Rover UK Forums

    You are currently viewing the site as a guest and some content may not be available to you.

    Registration is quick and easy and will give you full access to the site and allow you to ask questions or make comments and join in on the conversation. If you would like to register then please Register Now

That video. Friendly fire 2003.

seen this on the news this morning.
something went very wrong there. probably why they didn't release the tape as evidence.
 
bahamarover said:
just a bunch of cowboys, they talked themselves into it......keith
Click to expand...


That's how I saw it. Command and control wasn't up to speed - they told the pilots 'there were no friendlies this far north' - end of. Then the pilots saw orange, didn't make the connection and talked themselves into thinking they were 'flatbeds with orange rockets on'.:rolleyes:

We can't blame the pilots entirely, its the culture that was backing them up that made that mistake. How many Americans have been killed by Tornado, Harrier or Jaguar strikes? Going back to the first world war, Americans had a reputation of being dangerous allies to be near.:(

Roger.
 
Going on from my previous, can any of our military and ex-military forumeers confirm that the 'orange panels' they were talking about, is not only visual light bright, but designed to radiate strongly at infra red frequences?

Roger.
 
perhaps the tanks weren't supposed to be there in the first place.
and the fact that they had no electronic identification devices operating would suggest they didn't want any one to know they were there either.
it all smells a bit fishy to me , accidents dont just happen.
 
nobber said:
perhaps the tanks weren't supposed to be there in the first place.
and the fact that they had no electronic identification devices operating would suggest they didn't want any one to know they were there either.
it all smells a bit fishy to me , accidents dont just happen.
Click to expand...

Oh, but they do Rob, they do and in war they happen all the time. It could be argued that our troops weren't equipped properly, with IFF devices on our leading armour.

There are two theories of history; 'The conspiracy theory' and 'The c*ck up theory'. The conspiracy theory is much less likely in any given situation, than a good, old fashioned, human c*ck up.

Roger.
 
still seems strange that they didnt have iff devices though roger.
perhaps they were black opps , perhaps they were robbing a bank , perhaps they were even going to score a crate of beer.
or perhaps they were just somewhere they shouldnt have been.
 
Systemic failure.

The fliers were in a war zone, under pressure at the end of a mission. They were told no friendlies in the area so doubted their own eyes. They requested confirmation but were not given it. BUT, they were the ones there, they could see. If they failed to see correctly then hang them out to dry.

Our special relationship with the Americans should ensure those culpable for this, and any other similar events should be brought to justice.

Now, in WW2 what percentage of American casualties were self inflicted?
 
seems fair , i suppose they could have been shooting at civie vehicles just as easily.
people do own and drive green cars and vans.
 
No matter who's at fault my heart goes out to the people killed, injured and the pilots as well who will be haunted for ever.
 
those two orange rockets on the top of my micra are a dead giveaway to my true intentions in asdas car park.:eek:
and anyway , there is no laws to stop you from driving around in a green car with big orange rockets on the roof , is there?
 
nobber said:
still seems strange that they didnt have iff devices though roger.
perhaps they were black opps , perhaps they were robbing a bank , perhaps they were even going to score a crate of beer.
or perhaps they were just somewhere they shouldnt have been.
Click to expand...

Trouble is if you "radiate" you stand a better chance of being detected thats why transmissions are kept to a minimum, also yes they were somewhere they shouldn't have been IRAQ, don't mean that in the way you will read it, the type of vehicles that were shot up, are, essentially forward reconaissance vehicles and probing for the enemy is what these light tracked vehicles are good at, yes they were going to get shot at but not B on B........keith
 
I watched the video at lunch but am slightly confused over the relevance of orange. What actual vehicles did they attack, and what did they think they were hitting?
 
The 'Orange' refers to BRIGHT orange air recognition flags draped over some part of the vehicle.

The tanks?apcs were where they were supposed to be. The confusion appears to have been over the dug in trucks some 800m away which were in the bandits area.

The problem was that the A10s were getting near to the point were they would have to return to base to refuel and they wanted to take something out first. Hence they didnt wait for comformation from the forward control officer that they were not friendlies. Gung ho glory hunters with no excuses. They saw what they wanted to see and not what was there.
 
Hmmm.
So, if you were Iraqi and running away bravely, and you knew (from all the TV coverage) that the coalition wouldn't shoot at anything with an orange panel on it's roof...what would you put on your roof?
ID panels are only one aid to recognition and visual cues are usually a last resort so saying "The vehicle wore orange panels, why did they shoot? Bloody cowboys" is a little convenient. The conversation clearly mentions intelligence stating there were no friendly forces in the area of the attack, which contradicts the visual cues.
So, (at 600 knots, inverted, pulling 6g) your eyes are telling you it's friendly but your ears are hearing they're not, and all the time you're under immense pressure to "do the right thing".
Assume they're friendly, let them go, and then they turn out to be a convoy squirelling Saddam away somewhere. Then what? Would that be any less unforgiveable?
Although the tape gives the impression the A10 drivers had all the time in the World, flying in combat involves split second yes/no decisions (trust me, it does). It was very, very tragic but my view is that this was a genuine case of the fog of war and there was also a gross break down in communication, not just visually between the aircraft and the ground.
This whole issue about the orange marker panels is just one aspect of a much bigger scenario. Needless to say I'm not going to disclose how CAPs are allocated targets. Suffice to say it's a lot more complex than just "Orange = goodies. Anything else = baddies".
In this case the two A10s chose to ignore the positive cues and follow the negative ones, that was their decision, one they have the authority to make as aircraft commanders and one they will now have to live and die with. Choosing the other path could've been deemed to be equally unprofessional.

Sadly, this is just another case of trial by media.
The Sun/BBC/Sky hate our involvement in Iraq or anything else to do with the US so they're hardly gonna be full of understanding are they? For what it's worth I've come face to face with Scum reporters in a warzone. Along with the worthless rag previously edited by Pierced Organ they really are a wart on the ar$e of journalism and care nothing for the real details and just want easy-to-read soundbites to throw at all the instant experts watching at home on satellite. :rolleyes:
I recall when we went Taliban-bashing last summer the Sun were all over it, and who do you think was providing CAS for that and in what aircraft type? On that occasion they were absolutely outstanding....something the Sun appeared to ommit from their report.
 
Back
Top Bottom