This is what I find amazing. In Iraq 1 the ground war was over in 100 hours, and the US lost just 147 troops during the hostilities. Tens of thousands of Iraqi Military were killed, however.
Pretty sure it wasn’t him, although he never came and introduced himself when I arrived. He was a Lieutenant General in charge of whichever Corps Multi National Division (SE) comes under.
"Former British Gulf War commander Andrew Larpent recently accused the Ministry of Defense of “serious negligence” in failing to produce an “identification friend or foe” system to prevent such accidental casualties. Lt. Colonel Larpent commanded a unit in the Gulf War that saw nine soldiers killed and 12 seriously wounded when they were mistakenly attacked by a US Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt tank-buster aircraft.
In a letter to the Daily Telegraph last week, Larpent wrote: “Our chiefs of staff and politicians should consider very carefully … how they will answer to the nation if yet more British soldiers become casualties in similar circumstances.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0114/p03s01-usmi.html
It would seem that the British are or have been partly to blame for their own friendly fire deaths. In war, chit happens, Everyone makes mistakes. British, US, everyone.
Friendly fire is unfortunate, but it’s a symptom of war. The British have been doing it too you know. That could be turned around too. Get over it. Didn’t you say that 8 times you were observed but not bombed? I guess that dissapoints you.[/quote]
1 - You misquoted me, I was not the one that said Id been bombed at all.
-
You never even attempted to answer my question.
-
I fully understand that friendly fire is a symptom of war, but that is not the point of this discussion is it.
and finally 4
You are obviously a complete DimWalt who cannot enter into a debate and take any information on board. You have no 1st hand knowledge of any of the subjects you are pontificating about. I give up! Please tell us who you really are!
One of the ironic things about friendly fire is that the advanced technology of weapons systems actually helps in creating friendly fire sometimes. Perhaps one day the technology will be so good that friendly fire never happens anymore. I bet they have the technology to do it today, if they really wanted to, at least when it comes to friednly fire from airplanes.
Human judgement in the confusing environment is still what accounts for friendly fire. I suppose if someone is flown over but not targeted 8 times someone did something right 8 out of 8 times. But that’s not always the case in warfare, unfortunately. It can even be difficult for one force to identify their own tanks, such as with the incident where a British tanks was destroyed by British friendly fire in Iraq. In the confusing environment of the battlefield, the British soldier did not recognize the M2 Challenger, and fired upon it. Recognizing your own is one thing, but recognizing the friendlies of other forces is probably more difficult. Even so, it happens.
One thing that is not as hard to recognize however, is someone who is shooting at you from less than 70m, such as when you see someone shooting at your vehicle from a window in a building to your right. You see him, you see his weapons flash, the smoke from the barrel, you hear the bullets hitting your vehicle. That’s a very dangerous situation right there. Perhaps that is why friendly fire typically takes place at greater distances than that. Recognition of the target is the key, and that seems to be something that people have difficulty with. Hopefully technology will help everyone reduce friendly fire incidents. We cannot rely on the human being to be able to always correctly identify a target from a plane or across hundreds of meters of hot desert. We need technology that is more capable that our sences and less distracted than our minds.
Just out of curiousity, does the US Army field IFF on their ground vehicles? EDIT : and did they in 1991?
While I don’t know about ground vehicle IFF, use of IFF on aircraft is widespread, but like any aircraft system can be unreliable. And I think there might be some basis for saying the USAF has shown over-reliance on it in the past - particularly F-15’s downing two Black Hawks over the Northern No-fly zone because IFF was not working. Positive identification of the target was required, but provision to make that visual identification was found severely lacking. The pilots could not tell the difference between a Hind and a Black Hawk at the distance involved, and unlike the US Navy, no optical aids were available to make the job easier. The US Navy was to be applauded - their F-14’s carrying a TV system which enhances the process of visual identification.
Which somewhat links into someone else mentioning from their own experiences, USAF pilots repeatedly prepared to make a bombing run on his position until warned off by someone on the ground: that isn’t how it should work and deep down you must know it. The pilot is responsible for the release of his ordnance, and he’s responsible for positively identifying his target. It isn’t a case of “well if it’s there, and unless they say otherwise, I’m smoking it”. Or at least, it shouldn’t be.
In the case of the 1991 A-10 destroying two Warriors, while the British Army would probably love to turn the clock back and have some form of IFF developed for armoured vehicles for the occasion, ultimately the responsibility rests with the pilot who demonstrably failed to make a proper identification of his target before firing. If Coalition armoured vehicles are not equipped with IFF, then surely the burden is on him to identify his target?
"Tommy Ray Franks KBE, (born June 17, 1945) is a retired General in the United States Army, previously serving as the Commander-in-Chief of United States Central Command, overseeing United States Armed Forces operations in a 25-country region, including the Middle East. Franks succeeded General Anthony Zinni to this position on July 6, 2000 and served until his retirement on July 7, 2003. He is an alumnus of University of Texas at Arlington. He was succeeded by General John Abizaid.
He was the U.S. general leading the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan in response to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon. Franks also led the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and was commander-in-chief of the American occupation forces.
General Franks’ awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal; Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal with Valor device and two oak leaf clusters; Purple Heart (two oak leaf clusters); Air Medal with Valor device; Army Commendation Medal with Valor device; and a number of U.S. and foreign service awards. He wears the Army Staff Identification Badge and the Aircraft Crewmember’s Badge. He is a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. In late 2004, he was presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom."
In that case it clearly isn’t the same general - he wasn’t a Lieutenant General at the time, and wasn’t in charge of MND(SE).
BTW, which Telic were you on BDL (if that doesn’t give you OPSEC problems)? I suspect Gen. Franks may well have retired by the time you got out there…
If the highly unconfirmed rumours I’ve seen are true, only the very top of the tank was visible behind a berm, which explains the identification problems.
In any case, what’s an “M2 Challenger”? The M2 is the US designation for the Bradley IFV, while I’m not sure if the Challenger 2 even has a numerical designation - if it is, it’ll probably be along the lines of FVxxxx.
Err… how do you make that one out? What exactly did the guys in those Warriors do to mean they had to be shot up, not buy US armoured vehicles?
Was on Telic 4 mate, we had a Brit General in charge of MND(SE) and a Yank General in charge of the Corps (not sure what they called the Corps, I forget now).
Challenger 2 is known as CR2 for the acronym obsessed - presumably to fit in with the American military’s love of TLAs.
BTW Can anyone explain to me why most US military kit is known by letter/number acronyms but the Mazda MX-5 car has to be called the “Miata” (or similar) in the US because car buyers there prefer cars with names. It seems perverse, they love their TLAs but not for cars.
Could be worse… they don’t feel constrained to just 3 letters for their acronyms… :lol:
e.g. the US Navy and their “CINCUSNAVEUR”
IRONMAN the quote you have held up shows american troops being attacked by american A10’s what is your point? that it is ok for the US to attack the brits becasue all is fair and they attack their own as well?
arghhhh. I hope never to have to serve in a hotchpotch of troops in which I am informed that the USAF, are providing my air cover! and it would appear that those serving members of the military agree with my sentiments. Your sanitised perception of the scenario doesnt seem to cater for the experiences that may have shaped the cynicism and rhetoric on this thread.
I love america, jsut despise the attitudes you expound consequently you have presumed I hate you. Tough break, its not a nation I despise, its all concentrated on your puny shoulders your gimp
you really are a prat aren’t you?
did I once say with what weapons we were targeted? NO!
did I say we knew at the time we were being targeted? NO! (we in fact were informed some days later, as this trickled down the chain of command)
Find someone else to misquote you sad misinformed mong
OH. That explains the fukup. There’s gotta be some reason to excuse it. They were British! They sht lillies! :roll:
OH. That explains the fukup. There’s gotta be some reason to excuse it. They were British! They sht lillies! :roll:[/quote]
Bit of a difference between only being able to see a very small part of a tank and two Warrior APCs flying 10 foot by 6 foot Union Flags though.
you really are a prat aren’t you?
did I once say with what weapons we were targeted? NO!
did I say we knew at the time we were being targeted? NO! (we in fact were informed some days later, as this trickled down the chain of command)
Find someone else to misquote you sad misinformed mong[/quote]
The bombs I names are the unguided bombs used on the A-10. Now you’ll say they weren’t bombs at all. You think you were targeted 8 times and not fired upon 8 times and because they didn’t fire you are here biotching about it. :roll: Prat you say? I’m not the one in here posting as much negative bullshiot as I can about the other guy’s military. That’s you kiddo.
OH. That explains the fukup. There’s gotta be some reason to excuse it. They were British! They sht lillies! :roll:[/quote]
Bit of a difference between only being able to see a very small part of a tank and two Warrior APCs flying 10 foot by 6 foot Union Flags though.[/quote]
As you’ve seen, the British are at each other over not doing better at making sure thewy are identifiable. They damned well better. The USAF rarely misses.
Isn’t a 60 foot square flag identifiable enough then? Are your pilots so poorly sighted that they can’t tell the difference between a Union Flag and the Iraqi Flag?
Why are you so hateful then? Why do you spend all of your time biotching about the US and spewing hypocritical chit in a forum about the US? Do you honestly think it’s going to somehow make me believe bullchiot? Do you honestly believe that the more hateful and the more hypocritical garbage you spit in here it will somehow change anything about my love of my country or make me think negative thoughts about it? Do you actually believe, any of you, that if you post 50,000,000 posts slandering the US military that it will make me dislike the US military or think that they are anything less than the best trained, best equiped, and most effective military in the world?
You are fighting an unwinnable battle if that is your goal, and all you are doing is making the people of your country suspect of being like you. You do yourselves in.