Friendly fire video. A10/British unit. - Page 3

baggygreen · 02-06-07, 11:04 PM

well thats good at least. If they'd been punished for this, well there'd be something wrong. As far as im concerned it was not their fault, but the other two - i've already forgotten the callsigns tho.

nelson1985 · 02-06-07, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

well thats good at least. If they'd been punished for this, well there'd be something wrong. As far as im concerned it was not their fault, but the other two - i've already forgotten the callsigns tho.

i mean they did get the info at the last minute so i dont think they need to go to jail.

nelson1985 · 02-06-07, 11:26 PM

any one know what they was flying?

baggygreen · 02-06-07, 11:32 PM

A10s, apparently - warthogs, the specialised ground attack aircraft with a rotary cannon bigger than a vw beetle

flintlock · 02-06-07, 11:32 PM

A-10s

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/

Enigma · 02-06-07, 11:47 PM

Gizzmoe · 02-07-07, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

A10s, apparently - warthogs, the specialised ground attack aircraft with a rotary cannon bigger than a vw beetle

flintlock · 02-07-07, 12:46 AM

Nice shot Gizzmoe. Provides a nice reference point. Now if only I could figure out how to mount that monster on the little VW. Could definitely come in handy with all the insane drivers on the loose in my city.

robbo180265 · 02-07-07, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Im more angry at that britsh newspaper for releasing this video. (The sun) From what ive read on both CNN and BBC is that this video was declassified and was meant to be released ONLY to the inquest. Instead, this jackass newspaper (however the hell they got ahold of it) uses it as an opportunity to increase their ratings. I guess lawyers really arent the scum off the bottom of a barrel after all.

From the way it was reported over here on Radio 2 (a BBC radio station)the American military were not going to release the film at all , in fact the attack happened 4 years ago and our (English) law courts have been fighting since then to see it. Yes the Sun is a rubbish paper, but had it not been given the clip and threatened to release it, I honestly believe those two pilots would have walked away scott free.

The Avon Lady · 02-07-07, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbo180265

From the way it was reported over here on Radio 2 (a BBC radio station)the American military were not going to release the film at all , in fact the attack happened 4 years ago and our (English) law courts have been fighting since then to see it.

Specifically:

"The leaking of the tape strained relations between the Department of Defense and their British counterparts, who were previously given a DVD of the classified video." - AP news article.

robbo180265 · 02-07-07, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbo180265

From the way it was reported over here on Radio 2 (a BBC radio station)the American military were not going to release the film at all , in fact the attack happened 4 years ago and our (English) law courts have been fighting since then to see it.

Specifically:

"The leaking of the tape strained relations between the Department of Defense and their British counterparts, who were previously given a DVD of the classified video." - AP news article.

"Last week, when the existence of the tape came to light, L/CoH Hull's widow, Susan, described it as an "absolute disgrace" that she had been assured by the military no such tape existed."

"The Pentagon is understood to have a longstanding position of not letting US servicemen appear before foreign tribunals."

I'm just telling like it is, remember the incident happened 4 years ago! - taken from the BBC website

You can read the story in full - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6333853.stm and then make your own minds up. I'm sorry but I think that the military was protecting those pilots by keeping the tape under wraps, and had the video not been leaked to that paper we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

The Avon Lady · 02-07-07, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbo180265

"Last week, when the existence of the tape came to light, L/CoH Hull's widow, Susan, described it as an "absolute disgrace" that she had been assured by the military no such tape existed."

Simple question: Is there any case where such aircraft attacks are not recorded by the plane's camera?

robbo180265 · 02-07-07, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbo180265

"Last week, when the existence of the tape came to light, L/CoH Hull's widow, Susan, described it as an "absolute disgrace" that she had been assured by the military no such tape existed."

Simple question: Is there any case where such aircraft attacks are not recorded by the plane's camera?

In all honesty I don't know for sure, but I doubt it.

badhat17 · 02-07-07, 06:38 PM

I don't understand how some of you are finding blame with the ground controller's in this incident. You do realise that the pilots are using at least two chanels on the radio ? Most of the recording features talk between the two pilots so much of what is said will not have been heard by the FAC's.

The A-10s have just attacked a position(target 1) prior to the begining of the transcript and have then indicated to the FAC that they can see further targets 800 yds north of target 1 which are described as multiple riveted vehicles which the FAC acknowledges so this can be known as target 2.
The pilot confirms to the FAC that there are no friendlys at target 2 and the FAC gives an affirm reply.
The pilots then proceed to attack target 3 which is three miles to the west of target 1 despite having never informed the FAC of this target or having received any clearance to fire at target 2.
The FAC had no idea that target 3 even existed, and did not know that they were moving vehicles which were showing coalition identification panels.

And yet some of you think the FAC was to blame ?

TteFAboB · 02-07-07, 11:49 PM

badhat17 we have as much information as the pilots themselves. It is their chatter we listened to afterall.

Since this is a military inquiry, let me know when the witnesses will testify, I want to listen to the testimonies and read the reports.

02-06-07, 11:26 PM	#33
nelson1985 Gunner Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: chicago il Posts: 95 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	any one know what they was flying? __________________ Trust but verify. Ronald Reagan Power tends to corrupt absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Adolf Hitler it is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. Joseph Stalin

02-06-07, 11:47 PM	#36
Enigma The Old Man Join Date: May 2005 Location: At comms depth, obviously. Posts: 1,476 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	__________________ "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

02-07-07, 06:38 PM	#44
badhat17 Navy Dude Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Derbyshire La La Laa Posts: 176 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I don't understand how some of you are finding blame with the ground controller's in this incident. You do realise that the pilots are using at least two chanels on the radio ? Most of the recording features talk between the two pilots so much of what is said will not have been heard by the FAC's. The A-10s have just attacked a position(target 1) prior to the begining of the transcript and have then indicated to the FAC that they can see further targets 800 yds north of target 1 which are described as multiple riveted vehicles which the FAC acknowledges so this can be known as target 2. The pilot confirms to the FAC that there are no friendlys at target 2 and the FAC gives an affirm reply. The pilots then proceed to attack target 3 which is three miles to the west of target 1 despite having never informed the FAC of this target or having received any clearance to fire at target 2. The FAC had no idea that target 3 even existed, and did not know that they were moving vehicles which were showing coalition identification panels. And yet some of you think the FAC was to blame ? __________________

02-07-07, 11:49 PM	#45
TteFAboB Admiral Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,247 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	badhat17 we have as much information as the pilots themselves. It is their chatter we listened to afterall. Since this is a military inquiry, let me know when the witnesses will testify, I want to listen to the testimonies and read the reports. __________________ "Tout ce qui est exagéré est insignifiant." ("All that is exaggerated is insignificant.") - Talleyrand

02-06-07, 11:04 PM	#31
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	well thats good at least. If they'd been punished for this, well there'd be something wrong. As far as im concerned it was not their fault, but the other two - i've already forgotten the callsigns tho.

02-06-07, 11:32 PM	#34
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	A10s, apparently - warthogs, the specialised ground attack aircraft with a rotary cannon bigger than a vw beetle

02-06-07, 11:32 PM	#35
flintlock Ace of the Deep Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,177 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	A-10s http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/

02-07-07, 12:46 AM	#38
flintlock Ace of the Deep Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,177 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Nice shot Gizzmoe. Provides a nice reference point. Now if only I could figure out how to mount that monster on the little VW. Could definitely come in handy with all the insane drivers on the loose in my city.