Friendly fire video released.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6334769.stm

I found this of particular interest-

Quote:

---

It also emerged L/CoH Hull's family had been assured no such tape existed.

---

On this count, I am appauled by our american 'allies.' Regardless of what was in the video, to even deny its existence is a huge show of disrespect to the family of the British soldier.

(Perhaps someone with more aviation knowledge could confirm-I would imagine in this day and age most/all? military aircraft have flight recording/video systems etc?)

Even more worrying- If our allies cant be straight with us on something like this- what else will they sail us up the river for...?

Not cool America, not cool.

Yes, the lying and the fact that the pilots were not diciplined is very bad. IRRC an Apache Pilot in Desert Storm nailed an Abrams, he was the the squadron leader, Major I think. In any case he got busted and his OX had to take over. I don't know what happened long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Yes, the lying and the fact that the pilots were not diciplined is very bad. IRRC an Apache Pilot in Desert Storm nailed an Abrams, he was the the squadron leader, Major I think. In any case he got busted and his OX had to take over. I don't know what happened long term.

---

From what I understand (which may be incorrect), the pilots are not at fault here. On the news this morning, they said that the pilots were concerned that the troops on the ground might have been friendlies, so they called it in to HQ but were told that there were no friendlies in the area and that they should destroy the target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Yes, the lying and the fact that the pilots were not diciplined is very bad. IRRC an Apache Pilot in Desert Storm nailed an Abrams, he was the the squadron leader, Major I think. In any case he got busted and his OX had to take over. I don't know what happened long term.

---

Incorrect - it was not an Abrams tank - it was a Gound Survilence Rader from the 1st Infantry Division's Intelligence Battalion. THe track was fired on by the LTC battalion commander of the Attack Helicopter Battalion for 4th Brigade (Aviation) 1st Infantry Division.

He got busted, cashiered from the military. His family was removed from the post immediately after it happened. Charges were filled but dismissed if I remember correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

From what I understand (which may be incorrect), the pilots are not at fault here. On the news this morning, they said that the pilots were concerned that the troops on the ground might have been friendlies, so they called it in to HQ but were told that there were no friendlies in the area and that they should destroy the target.

---

Which episode are you talking about? From your writing I am assuming the 2003 friendly fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

On this count, I am appauled by our american 'allies.' Regardless of what was in the video, to even deny its existence is a huge show of disrespect to the family of the British soldier.

---

Standard policy is to not release any classified information to the public. That does not excuse the statement of "no such video exists." The American Military should of simply stated that if the video exists it can not be released to the public, but we will provide the information needed for any offical investigation by the British Military/Government agency. That is how allies should function in my opinion.

Quote:

---

(Perhaps someone with more aviation knowledge could confirm-I would imagine in this day and age most/all? military aircraft have flight recording/video systems etc?)

---

As far as I know this assumption is valid.

If that's the respect we get, we should leave Iraq. :furious3:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Standard policy is to not release any classified information to the public. That does not excuse the statement of "no such video exists." The American Military should of simply stated that if the video exists it can not be released to the public, but we will provide the information needed for any offical investigation by the British Military/Government agency. That is how allies should function in my opinion.

---

I concur. I certainly understand not releasing the information to the general public, but denying the fact that said information even exists is unacceptable. One simply should not treat allies this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Which episode are you talking about? From your writing I am assuming the 2003 friendly fire.

---

Correct.

The news said today that the attack was carried out by A-10s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Incorrect - it was not an Abrams tank - it was a Gound Survilence Rader from the 1st Infantry Division's Intelligence Battalion. THe track was fired on by the LTC battalion commander of the Attack Helicopter Battalion for 4th Brigade (Aviation) 1st Infantry Division.

He got busted, cashiered from the military. His family was removed from the post immediately after it happened. Charges were filled but dismissed if I remember correctly.

---

Sorry, read it several years ago. The point was that in that case action against the pilot was swift and unilatteral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Sorry, read it several years ago. The point was that in that case action against the pilot was swift and unilatteral.

---

Well it only sticks in my memory because I was in the 1st Infantry Division at the time. Most of us were really pissed off about the violation of the Rules of Engagement that LTC pilot conducted in his eagerness to get a wartime kill. The requirment was that there was to be two different ships to confirm that the target was an enemy vechicle. The LTC went got in a hurry and did not get a confirmation on the target.

Heard it happen on the Fire Support Net. To bad the knucklehead didn't spend 10 years at Fort Leavenworth as a E-0.

I think what the pilots did was correct in asking if there was any friendlies in the area... it was those further up the chain who got the information wrong who should be dealt with.

The pilots were pretty upset with what happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I think what the pilots did was correct in asking if there was any friendlies in the area... it was those further up the chain who got the information wrong who should be dealt with.

The pilots were pretty upset with what happened.

---

'Uh oh Dude, we're in jail'

Not exactly full of grief and remorse now is it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monkian

'Uh oh Dude, we're in jail'

Not exactly full of grief and remorse now is it ?

---

A trifle unfair. The full recording demonstrates a remarkable degree of distress on the pilots' part, to the extent of being in tears.

They made an appalling mistake and when it dawned on them, they were extremely upset.

There appears to be some degree of fault on their part, but primarily, it appears that the mistake happened because they were told there were no friendly forces in the area, and most crucially had not been trained to recognised the British insignia of orange marks. They are heard on the tape identifying the orange marks, but not knowing what they stood for. They were also apparently extremely tired from flying many missions.

The incident is less the pilots' fault and much more a failure of liaison between UK and US forces - a not unusual failing which should have been addressed long before 2003. It's too convenient to allow the pilots' to get the blame.

As for the release of the tape, it depresses me that the US government saw fit to deny its release to a legally constituted court of inquiry and classified a tape of marginal security threat. I'd be interested to know if the pilots underwent a board of inquiry in the States, and whether the "friendly fire" incident was properly reviewed and lesson learned, rather than being swept under the table as a "classified" embarrassment.

UK Forces (and other coalition partners)need to be reassured that the US military takes these incidents very seriously and tries their utmost to stop them happening. Hiding tapes from legal inquiries does not increase confidence in what is supposed to be an ally.

The US Gov is claiming it would have released the tape if the British had asked the correct people. The plot thickens.

I think the pilots must have been shattered. They correctly identify friendly markings, say they are friendly markings, then hazily attack anyway. Either that or badly trained.

I’ve watched the tape the sun said the got some how, and i have to say it doesn’t look to me that it was the pilots fault.

Also I think the A10 pilots method of identifying friend or foe is there Mk1 eyeball (i think) probably with some assistance. There’s only so much detail you can see when flying around in a jet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Well it only sticks in my memory because I was in the 1st Infantry Division at the time. Most of us were really pissed off about the violation of the Rules of Engagement that LTC pilot conducted in his eagerness to get a wartime kill. The requirment was that there was to be two different ships to confirm that the target was an enemy vechicle. The LTC went got in a hurry and did not get a confirmation on the target.

Heard it happen on the Fire Support Net. To bad the knucklehead didn't spend 10 years at Fort Leavenworth as a E-0.

---

:bow:



Upon reflection Banquo probably has the right of it. The lack of liason between forces is shocking, especially when one considers that British tanks, IFVs etc are already built to look more like American than Soviet gear.

Regardless the ultimate issue is the American denial of the Tape's existance.

Quote:

---

As for the release of the tape, it depresses me that the US government saw fit to deny its release to a legally constituted court of inquiry and classified a tape of marginal security threat. I'd be interested to know if the pilots underwent a board of inquiry in the States, and whether the "friendly fire" incident was properly reviewed and lesson learned, rather than being swept under the table as a "classified" embarrassment.

---

They did have an inquiry , the tape was used at that inquiry , what is strange is that the MOD had people at that , so they had seen the tape already .
So how does this denial of the tape from both sides come about ?

So to the opening post .....

Quote:

---

Even more worrying- If our allies cant be straight with us on something like this- what else will they sail us up the river for...?

---

......what is more worrying is how the British MOD cannot be straight with its own people.

They asked a few times if any friendlies were in the area, and each time they were told that there was nothing there.

As in all things in life, mistakes are made and bad things happen. In war these mistakes sometimes cost lives, however the fault seems to lie with the forward air controllers.

Quote:

---

Popov36: Hey, I got a four ship. Looks like we got orange panels on them though. Do we have any friendlies up in this area?

Manila hotel: I understand that was north 800 metres.

Manila hotel: Popov, understand that was north 800 metres?

Popov35: Confirm, north 800 metres.Confirm there are no friendlies this far north on the ground.

Manila hotel: That is an affirm. You are well clear of friendlies

Popov35: Copy. I see multiple revetted vehicles. Some look like flatbed trucks and others are green vehicles. Can't quite make out the type. Look like may be Zil157s (Russian made trucks used by Iraqi army).

.....

Popov 36: OK. Right underneath you. Right now, there's a canal that runs north/south. There's a small village, and there are vehicles that are spaced evenly there.

Popov 36: They look like they have orange panels on though.

Popov35: He told me, he told me there's nobody north of here, no friendlies.

.....

Popov36: They've got something orange on top of them

Popov35: Popov for Manila 3, is Manila 34 in this area?

Manila Hotel: Say again?

Popov35: Manila hotel, is Manila 34 in this area?

Manila hotel: Negative. Understand they are well clear of that now.

Popov35: OK, copy. Like I said, multiple revetted vehicles. They look like flatbed trucks. Are those your targets?

Manila hotel: That's affirm

Popov35: OK

.....

Popov36: I want to get that first one before he gets into town then.

Popov35: Get him - get him.

.....

[Sound of gunfire]...

Lightning 34: Roger, Popov. Be advised that in the 3122 and 3222 group box you have friendly armour in the area. Yellow, small armoured tanks. Just be advised.

Popov35: Ahh ****.

Popv35: Got a - got a smoke.

Lightning 34: Hey, Popov34, abort your mission. You got a, looks we might have a blue on blue situation.

Popov35: ****. God, bless it.

.....

Manila 34: We are getting an initial brief that there was one killed and one wounded, over.

Popov 35: Copy. RTB (return to base)

I'm going to be sick.

.....


Popov35: Did you hear?

Popov36: Yeah, this sucks.

Popov35: We're in jail dude

.....

Popov35: They did say there were no friendlies.

Popov36:Yeah, I know that thing with the orange panels is going to screw us. They look like orange rockets on top.

---

They were even told that the vehicles they were looking at were targets to be destroyed by the forward air controller 'Manilla Hotel'.

A very sad transcript, Grey Fox. :no:

Like the pilots at the end, though, I do wonder about the orange panels going to "screw them".

My reading of the transcript is that the pilots did know that orange markings on the roof indicated friendlies. That's implied by (a) before the attack, one mentioning the orange and the other countering that they have been told there are no friendlies in the area; and (b) after the attack, one realising the orange panels were going to screw them.

They chose to believe their forward air controllers rather than their own eyes. They screwed up.

Got to agree. I don't think the pilots themselves should be punished, at least not severely. They made a major mistake, but such happens in war. More importantly there was no malicious intent behind the action. I'm also not sure how to feel about the US military withholding the tape. I certainly wouldn't want it getting out, in their shoes. Though not all that damaging, it is sort of an embarssment. :no:

its about time someone came up with a transponder in all military tanks/trucks that transmits a given code (to be changed daily or some such) that broadcasts said tank/truck as a Friendly - anything else is just too weak to work in every case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

its about time someone came up with a transponder in all military tanks/trucks that transmits a given code (to be changed daily or some such) that broadcasts said tank/truck as a Friendly - anything else is just too weak to work in every case

---

Wouldn't the siganl give away your position to the enemy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

I don't think the pilots themselves should be punished, at least not severely.

---

I agree. My saying the pilots screwed up does not imply I want them punished. I rather like the airline industry "no blame" model of dealing with errors. It encourages accurate reporting of problems and learning from them. It's seems especially appropriate in wartime when this kind of screw-up is inevitable, but nonetheless lethal and essential to minimise. I just don't like the whiff of a cover-up with this kind of episode - it's unseemly and, while it may save someone's ass in the short run, is harmful in the long run.

Quote:

---

They were even told that the vehicles they were looking at were targets to be destroyed by the forward air controller 'Manilla Hotel'.

---

Possibly not. there is a full transcript in the Times, which suggests that the FAC was indeed looking at a legitmate target 800m north, but the pilots were describing a sighting 800m west. No one seems to have realised they were talking about two different sightings.

Popov35 is also recorded as asking the FAC to have artillery put a round on the target he (the FAC) was referring to, to confirm they were looking at the same thing. Unfortunately the A10s then attack without waiting for this. I don;t know why they did that but it does seem odd.

I'm inclinded to put it down mostly to system error, not that that makes it any more excusable. (Also I think it is very unfair to concentrate on the "we're in jail, dude" comment. Its obvious from the transcript as a whole that the pilots were genuienly very upset at what had happened.)

What I can't understand is how, if british armour was using orange panels as a recognition symbol, the rules of engagement didn't flag that as requiring 110% certainty before attacking anything with orange on it.

The worst thing about this is that the media coverage over here has tried to portray the whole thing as an intentional attack by "rogue" aircraft.

The arguably remorseful sounding "We're in jail, dude," was previously published in multiple newspapers as the rather premeditated sounding "Someone's going to jail for this.". The more complete transcript is much more revealing.

The alleged cover up hasn't helped much of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zerg

I’ve watched the tape the sun said the got some how, and i have to say it doesn’t look to me that it was the pilots fault.

Also I think the A10 pilots method of identifying friend or foe is there Mk1 eyeball (i think) probably with some assistance. There’s only so much detail you can see when flying around in a jet

---

Where on the net can this video be found? I haven't seen the whole thing...

I think it was clearly not the pilots fault. He was told there were no friendlies in the area etc he had reason to believe they were not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Standard policy is to not release any classified information to the public. That does not excuse the statement of "no such video exists." The American Military should of simply stated that if the video exists it can not be released to the public, but we will provide the information needed for any offical investigation by the British Military/Government agency. That is how allies should function in my opinion.

---

What he said.

It's a very sad episode but unfortunately things like this can happen in a war.

The pilots, from what i can tell, acted appropiately, and while there is a question of bad training (in not recognising the markings) the fault seems to lie mainly with the controller.

The fault lies with both the controllers and the pilots .
The pilots didn't clearly establish where they were and where their "targets" were .
The controllers didn't clearly establish where the planes were and where the friendlies were .
The problem was that the planes were no longer over their original target .

Plus of course not waiting for the marking rounds was very stupid of the pilots .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Wouldn't the siganl give away your position to the enemy?

---

probably but it has to be better than orange panels to let your air forces know who to shoot...

there must be a better way say uv paint or something that the aircraft cameras could pick up... i dont know but surely there has to be something better than orange panels (which of course if we the public have been told you can bet the insurgants etc know and will use)

Actively broadcasting an IFF signal sounds to me like a Bad Idea as far as the modern battlefield goes. Wouldn't that be like yelling to the other guy "hi it's us here, please shoot us!" ? Plus I'd imagine it was suspectible to electronic warfare anyway, making it kinda unreliable.

Some sort of reactive system that responds to queries ("Are you USMC XYZ123? No ? Eat missile then.") would to my layman's thinking appear like at least somewhat safer alternative, if one still suspectible to all kinds of interference.

Which kind of leaves the tried-and-true method, some sort of "field-sign" and Organic Eyeball 1.0(tm) as have been used since men first started trying out this newfangled organized warfare thingy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Wouldn't that be like yelling to the other guy "hi it's us here, please shoot us!" ?

---

You dont even have to go to that much trouble with americans as your allies!


Did anyone just see the UK ITN news a few minutes ago? They had a bit of footage of the next door neighbour of the pilot.

He considers the pilot a hero, then went on to criticise the UK and europe's lack of action in the war on terror and then implied it was somehow all being left to the americans like it was in WW2!

What a prick! :furious3:

So we have an ally killing 'hero', the Uk not doing enough on the war on terror (er...arnt we there in Iraq with you...getting shot at by you?) and a profound misunderstanding of history...

What a genius...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

So we have an ally killing 'hero', the Uk not doing enough on the war on terror (er...arnt we there in Iraq with you...getting shot at by you?) and a profound misunderstanding of history...

---

And a neighbor who, while representative of an unfortunately large number of Americans, is by no means representative of us all.

I agree with what most here have said. Friendly fire is a tragedy, and one that we must do all we can to prevent, but one that is all but inevitable in the chaos of an actual war. The pilots were a little too hasty in my opinion. Since they noticed the orange panels (even if they may have somewhat resembled rockets) and they gave them pause, they should have waited for a stronger confirmation and erred on the side of caution. How much stress and fatigue may have inhibited their good judgment I don't know. More responsibility seems to lie with the controllers who assured them there were no friendlies in the area. I'm sure neither had any desire or intention to harm friendly troops, and the ground controllers were probably just as horrified by what happened as the pilots were.

The concerning part, again, is the denial of the tape. I think Redleg expressed that best, and I can't even see why it would need to be classified except to avoid embarrassment. The pilot is neither a hero nor a villain, but a soldier who made an unfortunate mistake in the line of duty. The important thing is how we respond to situations like this: whether we come together and learn from them, or whether we lie about it and divide ourselves further.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The fault lies with both the controllers and the pilots .
The pilots didn't clearly establish where they were and where their "targets" were .
The controllers didn't clearly establish where the planes were and where the friendlies were .
The problem was that the planes were no longer over their original target .

Plus of course not waiting for the marking rounds was very stupid of the pilots .

---

The fault lies with more then just the controllers and the pilots.

What was discussed in the mission briefing prior to departing for the mission? Did the British and the American's coordinate with each other where the units in the field were expected to be? We the combat graphic passed between all the headquarters involved? Why wasn't a NFA or RFL established to protect the british convoy from just such a possiblity? Why wasn't the friendly unit markers for british units included in the briefing? Why wasn't the british using the same control panel techniques of the American Army? (This is suppose to be the same for all Allied units in the combat area)

There is a lot more to combat coordination for a Close Air Support Mission then the simple placing of blame that your attempting here. The only part that you are 100% correct is the not waiting for a marking round. All parties screwed up in that regard.

In otherwords the whole damn chain of command involved on both sides screwed the pooch on this event. To much information does not seemed to have been passed between both the American's and the British. The American Military has the greater share of the blame because of the failure to mark the target and proper target identification by the pilots - but there is a whole lot more to this particlur espisode of friendly fire then what is being reported in the papers.

Attempting to paint this tragic event as anything other then what it is - a tragic event by individuals that have been in combat for some time, probably flying at the limit or beyond them that were established in training. Poor coordination by all concerned as anything other then what it is - a tragic mistake on the battlefield - Anything else borders on a false conclusion.

Focus on the stupidity of the Chain of Command at the Pentagon that attempted to deny the existance of the video and the recording of the cockpit to FAC communications that is pretty much standard fare for the military. Focus on the stupidity of the British MOD who knew the tape existed in the first place - since the British Military also functions in a very similiar way to the United States in this regard.

Excellent analysis, Redleg. I agree.

:2thumbsup:

Yeah, no one likes an incompetant, ill-advised and ineffective cover-up like the dear old MoD!

In the old days it was easy - you just said "killed in action" and nobody would speak up who knew any better. These days you have accountability, video tapes, nosey journos and the like and the MoD hasn't quite caught up.

I say the primary fault on the day lies with the pilots. The radio records suggest that they did everything right up until the last moment, when they made a bad call. They failed to identify the targets but did identify what looked like friendly markings. So they called their controllers for confirmation. The controllers mistakenly (it seems) confirmed the target. Still in doubt due to the markings the pilots requested the targeting round. Then they made their mistake: eager to catch the vehicles before they got to the village they attacked before the arty had marked the target.

The strange thing is that they seem almost certain that the target is friendly and that there is some difference between what the controller is saying and what they themselves are seeing. They ask for one final confirmation and then don't wait for it.

Edit:

Redleg's analysis of the situation leading to such events is very good.

Hmm sad things.
But soldier must know that "if :daisy: is firing at you - don't be worse"