Friendly fire video. A10/British unit.

[3Jane]

In case anyone hasn't seen this.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,11021-2006410749,00.html?channel=Sun%20Exclusive&clipID=1347_SUN1131

[nelson1985]

In case anyone hasn't seen this.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,11021-2006410749,00.html?channel=Sun%20Exclusive&clipID=1347_SUN1131i have not seen this yet hey what anime that girl from under your sig?:)

[3Jane]

In case anyone hasn't seen this.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,11021-2006410749,00.html?channel=Sun%20Exclusive&clipID=1347_SUN1131i have not seen this yet hey what anime that girl from under your sig?:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urd_%28Oh_My_Goddess%21%29:p

[Oberon]

Looks like a Fubar on the intel weenies/lack of communication, coupled with what sounded like a possible time limit on the mission. :damn:

Feel sorry for the guys on both sides, what a kick in the teeth....man...

(I wondered what anime that was from too, must get round to watching AMG sometime)


BTW: COSTA58 sounds British...was there a Brit jet in the area? Or is it the ground troops on the airband?

[nelson1985]

In case anyone hasn't seen this.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,11021-2006410749,00.html?channel=Sun%20Exclusive&clipID=1347_SUN1131i have not seen this yet hey what anime that girl from under your sig?:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urd_(Oh_My_Goddess!):p (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urd_%28Oh_My_Goddess%21%29:p)oh that yeah i seen it good anime :p

[DanCanovas]

listen I know you guys are gonna tell me that friendly fire happens in all these situations and I completely agree, but as a Brit that is feircely pro-American I gotta say this really isn't doing things any good. Anti-american feeling over here is rife and people are becoming fed up with these friendly fire incidents. They have jokes here now about US friendly fire incidents although this evidently isn't the time for such things. I think its going to create a lot of problems for our government and trouble for our alliance. its a very emotional video to watch and its a terrible mistake. but im afraid the public here won't think about that.

[DanCanovas]

in fact I'm finding myself increasingly isolated socially with people my age for my pro-american and dare I say it, pro-Bush stance. it was only on saturday in the pub that i found myself on the defence through no choice of my own. its hard!

[TteFAboB]

"Warning: contains bad language"

Yeah right, that's the worst it contains. How about: warning, contains DEATH?!

True. Death is not as bad as living when guilty of murder. I hope we get to find who's guilty for appropriate punishment to be applied, together with further anti-FF measures. Oh well, you all know Stalin. One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. Soon Iraqis will die again by the dozen, none will have a name.

Anyone noticed how long it took for the pilot to announce "Aborting" (aborted, abort, whatever he said)? From the HUD it looks like he had aborted some minutes before. Must've been the British voice on the radio. It's impressive how everybody else are calm though. Just a little more professionalism and a life would've been spared.

[sonar732]

I would like to know what unit they were talking to when they kept asking if there are friendlies in the area and were told 'no'. Granted, they admited multiple times to seeing the 'orange' paint on the tops that concur they are friendly regardless...come on...orange colored missle launchers:roll::roll::nope::nope::down::down:.

[STEED]

The one thing that got me :x was the news readers said the airmen have no combat experience. How the hell are they to get if not in combat. OK, it was a regretful incident but these things will happen there is no such thing as the perfect smooth running war.

[Oberon]

TBH I really wouldn't have put it past the Iraqis to cotton onto that and paint their rockets orange to try and deter being bombed. I hope that wherever the finger points about this incident, it doesn't point at those pilots, their intel was bad, way bad.

As a Brit, I don't hold the US responsible for this, accidents do happen in war, and intel is well known for being screwed up at times, unfortunately in this case, it lead to a blue on blue and lives were lost. Unfortunately, I dare say most of the Brit rags will make it out to be "another incident of outrageous American aggression" and create comments from "They can't bomb the enemy but they can bomb their own." etc, etc.

Hell, no-one's perfect, we've sunk our own subs in WW2...and...it looks like the RM commando unit my grandfather was in got bombed by carrier based UK aircraft with heavy casualties in Suez in '56...heck, as recently as 2003, a Challenger II opened fire on another Challenger II and blew the turret off it, killing two.

So, it's not just the US doing it, unfortunately, that fact is lost in the rapidly growing anti-US stance in Western Europe, (A stance that, despite some disagreements with US policy in recent years, I'm NOT a part of.) which the media seems to love. Particularly ****-stirrers like The Sun. :damn:

[Tchocky]

Transcript here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2006914,00.html)

True. Death is not as bad as living when guilty of murder

Really?

If guilty of murder, you can atone and have a chance to live a normal life. Dead, you don't get that.

[3Jane]

TBH I really wouldn't have put it past the Iraqis to cotton onto that and paint their rockets orange to try and deter being bombed. I hope that wherever the finger points about this incident, it doesn't point at those pilots, their intel was bad, way bad.

As a Brit, I don't hold the US responsible for this, accidents do happen in war, and intel is well known for being screwed up at times, unfortunately in this case, it lead to a blue on blue and lives were lost. Unfortunately, I dare say most of the Brit rags will make it out to be "another incident of outrageous American aggression" and create comments from "They can't bomb the enemy but they can bomb their own." etc, etc.

Hell, no-one's perfect, we've sunk our own subs in WW2...and...it looks like the RM commando unit my grandfather was in got bombed by carrier based UK aircraft with heavy casualties in Suez in '56...heck, as recently as 2003, a Challenger II opened fire on another Challenger II and blew the turret off it, killing two.

So, it's not just the US doing it, unfortunately, that fact is lost in the rapidly growing anti-US stance in Western Europe, (A stance that, despite some disagreements with US policy in recent years, I'm NOT a part of.) which the media seems to love. Particularly ****-stirrers like The Sun. :damn:

To my mind this is one of the worst aspects of this whole issue. Even though the Sun had the actual footage, the journalism written around it seems to have had the intent of portraying the pilots as being trigger happy. When clearly they were not.

[STEED]

To my mid this is one of the worst aspects of this whole issue. Even though the Sun had the actual footage, the journalism written around it seems to have had the intent of portraying the pilots as being trigger happy. When clearly they were not.

What do you expect for a toilet rag of a paper, the gutter press work for that pile of you know what.

[robbo180265]

I think what happened is an awful accident, I feel sorry for the soldier who died and even worse for the two pilots who will have to live with the guilt of this for the rest of their lives.

I just wish that Blair had stood up to Bush, and maybe we wouldn't be in this mess now.

[Tchocky]

I think what happened is an awful accident, I feel sorry for the soldier who died and even worse for the two pilots who will have to live with the guilt of this for the rest of their lives.

I just wish it had all happened for a true and just war, and not this one:down:

I see what you're getting at , but it hardly happened for anything..

[robbo180265]

I think what happened is an awful accident, I feel sorry for the soldier who died and even worse for the two pilots who will have to live with the guilt of this for the rest of their lives.

I just wish it had all happened for a true and just war, and not this one:down:

I see what you're getting at , but it hardly happened for anything..

Worded it better I hope - no disrespect meant

[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.

[badhat17]

Worth noting that the pilot never told his FAC that the vehicles had orange panels on them, if he had then I am certain the FAC would have called them off. The pilots failed to relay some basic information to the ground controller, it was very confused and I suspect that the controller thought they were asking about another target, probably the target they had actualy been tasked with attacking and not the new targets these gung ho bozo's had gone chasing after. If I was looking for a guilty party here I wouldn't look much further than the guy with his fingers on the trigger, what was he thinking ?
He suspected they were friendly right from the begining and let his FAC bring the situation round to what he wanted to see instead of believing what his own eyes could see. His controller did not have ' eyes on ' but the pilot did.

[ASWnut101]

The one thing that got me :x was the news readers said the airmen have no combat experience. How the hell are they to get if not in combat. OK, it was a regretful incident but these things will happen there is no such thing as the perfect smooth running war.


All American Airmen in the USAF go to a "wargame" in Nellis Air Base, Las Vegas, Nevada. These are considered their first ten missions and as actuall combat experience. If they were in the USAF, they had experience.

[nelson1985]

I think what happened is an awful accident, I feel sorry for the soldier who died and even worse for the two pilots who will have to live with the guilt of this for the rest of their lives.

I just wish it had all happened for a true and just war, and not this one:down:
I see what you're getting at , but it hardly happened for anything..there has not been a just war in a long time now.

[ASWnut101]

heh, really?


Anyway back on topic:

It was a VERY unfortunate incident, but fractocide is (sadly) a part of war. In fact, I can't remember any war where there was none.

[nelson1985]

heh, really?


Anyway back on topic:

It was a VERY unfortunate incident, but fractocide is (sadly) a part of war. In fact, I can't remember any war where there was none.if you know some name a few :D

[ASWnut101]

What, wars where their WAS fractocide, or where there was not?

[nelson1985]

What, wars where their WAS fractocide, or where there was not?both if you want :D

[flintlock]

I read both the transcript and watched the video -- I felt sick. Can't even begin to imagine how the A-10 pilots felt. Horrible accident that should never have happened.

[ASWnut101]

Wars that had cases of Fracticide:

(only a few here)

Iraqi Freedom
Afghanistan
Gulf War/Desert Storm
World War II
Korea
Veitnam
Grenada


Wars Without Fractocide:

I can't think of any.

[nelson1985]

Wars that had cases of Fracticide:

(only a few here)

Iraqi Freedom
Afghanistan
Gulf War/Desert Storm
World War II
Korea
Veitnam
Grenada


Wars Without Fractocide:

I can't think of any.even i cant think of none un less we go back 1000 years lol

[baggygreen]

Even then i think its unlikely nelson.

Does anybody know what actually happened to the two pilots in the aftermath?

[flintlock]

Does anybody know what actually happened to the two pilots in the aftermath? "The Pentagon said no disciplinary action had been taken towards the two American pilots involved in the incident.
It said an official US investigation in 2003 concluded the pilots' actions were not reckless and that they reasonably believed they were engaging an enemy target."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6334769.stm

[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.

[nelson1985]

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]

any one know what they was flying?

[baggygreen]

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

[flintlock]

A-10s

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

[Enigma]

http://www.photohome.com/pictures/aircraft-pictures/fighters/a-10-thunderbolt-1a.jpg

[Gizzmoe]

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

http://www.cursor.org/images/avenger.jpg

:rock:

[flintlock]

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. :arrgh!:

[robbo180265]

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]

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 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_re_eu/britain_friendly_fire_video;_ylt=Amz7LR.9qKrM659_4 W1v_4us0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-).

[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 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_re_eu/britain_friendly_fire_video;_ylt=Amz7LR.9qKrM659_4 W1v_4us0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-).

"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]

"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]

"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]

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 ?


(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/The%20local%20time%20is%204.36pm,%20or%201.36pm%20 Greenwich%20Mean%20Time%20which%20is%20what%20the% 20military%20use.)

[TteFAboB]

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.

[badhat17]

This is not a military inquiry, it is a coroners' inquest. These are held in the UK in the event of a death with unusual circumstances. I believe it is mandatory if the death occured overseas. The bodies of British service personnel are always returned through RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, this has led to a backlog of cases hence the four year delay.
The purpose of the inquest is to establish how, when and where a person died. At the end of an inquest the coroner may make recommendations which could include starting criminal proceedings.

[The Avon Lady]

I heard a clip on the local radio yesterday taken from a BBC interview with a very candid RAF pilot who said events like this are bound to happen. He was very sharp in his response to the BBC interviewer, who was trying to play pin-the-tail-on-the-Yanks.

[Konovalov]

This is not a military inquiry, it is a coroners' inquest. These are held in the UK in the event of a death with unusual circumstances. I believe it is mandatory if the death occured overseas. The bodies of British service personnel are always returned through RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, this has led to a backlog of cases hence the four year delay.
The purpose of the inquest is to establish how, when and where a person died. At the end of an inquest the coroner may make recommendations which could include starting criminal proceedings.

Just read in the Times this article: The official British board of inquiry report blames US for 'friendly fire' death. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1350417.ece)

It seems that the UK and US hold different positions on this sad and tragic incident.

For those that have the time I would suggest read the report itself here: Board of Inquiry Report into the death of the Late Lance Corporal of Horse Matthew Richard Hull. (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/BoardsOfInquiry/BoardOfInquiryReportIntoTheDeathOfTheLateLanceCorp oralOfHorseMatthewRichardHull.htm)

[robbo180265]

The one thing that got me :x was the news readers said the airmen have no combat experience. How the hell are they to get if not in combat. OK, it was a regretful incident but these things will happen there is no such thing as the perfect smooth running war.


All American Airmen in the USAF go to a "wargame" in Nellis Air Base, Las Vegas, Nevada. These are considered their first ten missions and as actuall combat experience. If they were in the USAF, they had experience.


Yeah I was checking the news as we speak and it would appear both pilots have experience, which is why I deleted the last message.

I am mistified as to how the two of them could have been cleared by an American millitary tribunal though having seen the video. Neither of them calls in the exact location of the targets, and they go in before the artillary markers are dropped around the target. One wonders that if they'd have waited would that soldier be alive today?

[Konovalov]

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 ?


(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/The%20local%20time%20is%204.36pm,%20or%201.36pm%20 Greenwich%20Mean%20Time%20which%20is%20what%20the% 20military%20use.)

Indeed. :yep: I think that you are spot on there badhat17. :up:

From section 5 'Findings of the Board' the report states, "However when considering the events that led to this tragic loss of life the Board found that procedures were not followed in that, without having been authorised by MANILA HOTEL, POPOFF Section engaged the UK Recce Patrol believing it to be hostile."

[ASWnut101]

I am mistified as to how the two of them could have been cleared by an American millitary tribunal though having seen the video. Neither of them calls in the exact location of the targets, and they go in before the artillary markers are dropped around the target. One wonders that if they'd have waited would that soldier be alive today?


Probably unlikely. It takes some good eyes to spot a ~4x4ft. orange square against a tan background in the sun while at 3,000ft altitude and ~340kts. And you really won't need the exact location of the targets. The FAC calls in the general location in reference to what is called the "bulls eye," an imaginary, constantly changing refernce point on a battlespace. The FAC planes do carry White Phosphorous and smoke rockets, but they don't ALWAYS use them.

[Boris]

I got teary eyed from this video... the pilots must have felt so low. Poor bastards, all of them, both victims and the pilots.

[STEED]

I have a complaint to make to our American friends, last night on the ITV News a American gentlemen was interviewed and he made the remark that we Brits were sucking our thumbs in WW2, well excuse me who went to war with Germany in Sept 39 and our city's fell under air attacks as we stood alone in 1940. I find that kind of remark offencive and a bloody insult, don't get me wrong I know not all Americans hold that view point and probably think that gentlemen was wrong to say that.

[robbo180265]

As it's reported in todays Guardian, which is my paper of choice.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2009301,00.html

I know you guys have tried to explian why the pilots were not at fault, but a lot of us over here are seeing this as a bit of a whitewash (not helped by the US refusing to de-classify the film in the first place)

[DanCanovas]

I have a complaint to make to our American friends, last night on the ITV News a American gentlemen was interviewed and he made the remark that we Brits were sucking our thumbs in WW2, well excuse me who went to war with Germany in Sept 39 and our city's fell under air attacks as we stood alone in 1940. I find that kind of remark offencive and a bloody insult, don't get me wrong I know not all Americans hold that view point and probably think that gentlemen was wrong to say that.

ignore the loser. we were one of the only countries who fought for the full duration.

[badhat17]

One newspaper is now reporting that the original US inquiry was highly critical of the pilots and recommended a court martial. However the pentagon overuled the findings and had the report changed.

[TteFAboB]

The pilots are guilty alright. They pressed the trigger. Even if they had received a direct order from the CinC, they still pressed the trigger. There's no excuse. Somebody has to press the trigget. They're the ones who did it. That's their responsibility.

The question is: are the pilots being used scapegoats?

Does anyone else shares the blame? From the Guardian link itself:

The inquiry also points to some British failings. It says that luminous orange panels attached to the armoured vehicles may have contributed to the confusion - the US pilots mistook them for "orange rockets". It says that some UK liaison personnel, as well as American, suffered from lack of training.

Three examples from the report:
11. The Board found that in an attempt to increase the CVR(T) Scimitar's visibility from the air, the crews of the HCR had fitted additional day-glow panels to the tops of their vehicle turrets. This additional measure was noted by the Fitting Advisory Team and thought to be an enhancement. The Board further found, that whilst all of the individuals concerned were acting in the very best of interests, that this 'enhancement' contributed to the misidentification of the "orange panels" as "orange rockets".

...sufficiently. the Board agreed that FFIE generally minimized the risk of fratricide but that in this case, in the visual spectrum, it was not adequate. The Board found that whilst technical solutions are being sought for fraticide avoidance, more work must be done in R&D of visual identification markings.
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3186/report91pd7.jpg

Now let's contrast the Guardian with the report.

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.

The part before "however" that Konovalov omitted, an example of scathing criticism:
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/476/rep6ad5.jpg

Now this is interesting. It's not scathing criticism (there isn't any) but apparently the British equipment is a potential factor of disaster:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7236/report2mu0.jpg

More scathing criticism of US pilots. Ooops! I mean, UK liaison personnel:
b. UK FACs were generally well prepared but some UK liaison personnel had been brought into the Air Support Organisation with very limited training prior to deployment. That they were integrated at very short notice and in a testing operational enviroment.

More on it:
d. Communications equipment issued to the UK Air Support Organization was limited. This is unlikely to have altered the events immediately prior to the incident but did impose a restriction on the overall effectiveness of the liaison organisation.

More criticism on US pilots:
e. In general ground commanders had only limited awareness of Close Air Support procedures and the implications of the different types. This resulted in reduced direction and guidance as to who within the UK chain of command could authorise Type 3 CAS.

Ultimate criticism, also known as a compliment:
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/584/report9wu0.jpg

There is ONE PARAGRAPH and nothing more about the US Pilots, stating that the level of communication turned out to be worrying. Now unless this is a joke, how does "worrying" qualify as scathing criticism?!

...it became clear that the conclusions of the British board of inquiry were very different from the official investigation carried out by the US military authorities.

Its report contrasts markedly with the US inquiry into the disaster. America's own investigation concluded the pilots "followed the procedures and processes for engaging targets", a Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said this week

Oh really? The UK understood the system as effective and mirrored it:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/835/rep3br4.jpg

In complete agreement with the Pentagon souce:
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6087/rep7kv0.jpg

Here's a clearly different conclusion:
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7083/rep8ua6.jpg

Proving the absurdity of the media's cynicism here's a contrasting markedly different conclusion:
15. The Board's findings on the standard of communication closely matched that of the US FFIB: there were a number of 'stepped-on' or incomplete transmissions, non-standard terminology was used, important information was omitted and net discipline was poor.

I can't copy the first line so I'll write it up:
16. The Board found that the use of UHF radios for
http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/9357/report1part1dc9.jpg

In reality none of the different highlited factors from the report are believed to have contributed to the disaster:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6789/report3sw6.jpg

The report believes that procedures and processes for engaging targets were followed to the point of the accident:
c. Ground/Air liaison was sufficiently robust that ground formations were able to call for air support when they required it and could assume that the ground situation was known in sufficient clarity from divisional level down to FAC level. Prior to the incident there is no evidence that UK/US liaison procedures failed and that MANILA 34 or MANILA HOTEL were unaware of the ground situation.

There is a BIG confusion being made and I have no doubt it's done on purpose. There are two procedures. UK/NATO procedures and Coalition procedures. UK procedures differ from Coalition procedures. That's the difference. It is OBVIOUS that British procedures were not followed, but Coalition procedures. The recommendations of the report are aimed at Coalition procedures and failure to integrate.

It is dishonest to single out the pilots when this report not only bothers with British faults:
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/7149/report7co9.jpg

But takes pride that UNLIKE THE US FFIB THAT FOCUSED ON THE PILOTS(!!!) this one has a wider scope. The media inverted it! And the whitewash is where again?!

The conclusion is that there wasn't enough training time to integrate before hostilities commenced. Poor training, insufficient integration. That's all there is to it.

Who forgot to give the pilots binoculars? Who forgot to tell them about the non-standard TIPs? Why were they limited to UHF and why didn't comms included Bde Air Cell?
http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/5608/rep9ew3.jpg

Pilots don't fly to kill friendlies and allies. Pilots don't hope, dream and pray to get a chance to shoot at British Recce patrols. Proof that these pilots are not blood-thirsty nutters, they stopped as soon as they saw the red smoke, the sign for FF:
http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/6537/rep91le4.jpg

And we don't measure their efficiency by the number of FF casualties. All FF casualties are an unintended abberation. The pilots screwed up terribly. They are guilty. But they're not the only ones.

Thanks for posting the report Konovalov, it is obvious that by your post you haven't fully read the report to elucidate that the differences are of scope and nature, not of conclusions. More than that, this report intends to embrace a wider scope instead of focusing only on the pilot's guilt. After reading it and posting some of it here it is well clear that most of this thread and 100% of the media coverage is pure professional disinformation and scape-goatism at their finest. The media inverted the two reports and created a massive spin-job out of it and everybody fell for it. This thread is living evidence of how well informed you can be when your only source of information is the press.


One newspaper is now reporting that the original US inquiry was highly critical of the pilots and recommended a court martial. However the pentagon overuled the findings and had the report changed.

After my exposition of the media's spin-job I highly recommend that you don't accept these things at face-value. Unless you are willing to serve as an unintentional disinformation agent.

[Konovalov]

Thanks for posting the report Konovalov, it is obvious that by your post you haven't fully read the report to elucidate that the differences are of scope and nature, not of conclusions. More than that, this report intends to embrace a wider scope instead of focusing only on the pilot's guilt. After reading it and posting some of it here it is well clear that most of this thread and 100% of the media coverage is pure professional disinformation and scape-goatism at their finest. The media inverted the two reports and created a massive spin-job out of it and everybody fell for it. This thread is living evidence of how well informed you can be when your only source of information is the press.

I did read the whole report. I'm not sure where you get the impression that I'm of the view that the two pilots are entirely to blame because I am not! I neither said explicitly or implied such. Chill out and don't get your knickers in a knot. :up:

The pilots screwed up terribly. They are guilty. But they're not the only ones.


I completely agree. :yep:

[TteFAboB]

Thanks for posting...

I did read the whole report. I'm not sure where you get the impression that I'm of the view that the two pilots are entirely to blame because I am not! I neither said explicitly or implied such. Chill out and don't get your knickers in a knot. :up:

Here:
It seems that the UK and US hold different positions on this sad and tragic incident.

They investigated differently alright but the conclusions seems to match. Instead of just "blaming the pilots", this report seeks to point the necessity of better integration, training and comms, which actually spreads more blame around, even if these factors did not necessarily contribute to the disaster but shaped the enviroment that allowed it to happen.

EDIT: I've read your Times link and it suffers from the same problems of the Guardian's article. Where can I read the American report?

[Konovalov]

One newspaper is now reporting that the original US inquiry was highly critical of the pilots and recommended a court martial. However the pentagon overuled the findings and had the report changed.

Probably this: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060633,00.html

To be treated with caution in my view and not just because it is the Sun.

[TteFAboB]

Apparently this is a classic case of Jean-Francois Revel's "Blame America First" phenomenon.

Look how interesting is the difference of the media's attitude from the past and present. Blowing with the wind?

Brits, before throwing accusation overseas how about keeping your MoD in check? Look what I found from wikipedia, you can't say you haven't been warned. You knew of the risks:

Lt-Col Larpent argues that defence chiefs should make the fitting of an effective Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system to front-line army vehicles "a pre-condition of the commitment of British troops to close combat operations involving the US air force".

The ministry's failure to introduce a technical protection system that would guard against a repetition of friendly fire incidents was "difficult to excuse", he says.

"There has been plenty of time over the past 12 years for a solution to this problem to be found. The MoD answer that 'we are working on it' is unacceptable."

"That the same soldiers are now preparing to undertake operations in the same theatre with nothing more to protect them from their allies than the same fluorescent marker panels we carried on top of our vehicles smacks of serious negligence on the part of the MoD," Lt-Col Larpent says.

"Our chiefs of staff and politicians should consider very carefully the risk that they could be imposing on our troops and how they will answer to the nation if yet more British soldiers become casualties in similar circumstances."

I know how they will answer! Scapegoatism! The **** hits the fan? Blame America First and forget that YOU WERE WARNED! Knew of the risks and did nothing to remedy in over 12 years.

Despite highly critical reports in 1992 and 1994 by the committees, it was not until the 1998 strategic defence review that the ministry admitted it could not produce an effective system because the three services had different equipment procurement procedures.

Different procedures!!!


Although the procurement system has been reorganised and work is going on to incorporate combat identification into the tactics and procedures of the three services, there is still no firm date for its completion. The audit office warned the ministry last March that modern weapons had left "few safe sanctuaries within the battle space", making friendly fire incidents much more likely.

Last August the public affairs committee said that, a decade after its first report, the MoD had just approved a policy paper on combat identification. Implementing that policy could be years away.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/06/nirq06.xml&page=3

I cannot confirm the veracity of this information. Perhaps with a Google research I could find the committees, the reports and the public statements but that would take too much time.

You seem to have problems with friendly fire at home aswell:

The Ministry of Defence is failing to protect military personnel from friendly fire accidents, MPs said yesterday.

The Commons public accounts committee said it had not implemented a full "combat identification" capability more than 10 years after nine British soldiers died in a Gulf war air strike by the Americans.

The committee criticised the ministry for only recently producing a policy paper and said that there was a "dearth" of relevant data.


The MPs said the delays were impeding the effectiveness of weapons systems. The £2 billion Rapier air defence missile system operated at 25 per cent of capability to minimise the risk of friendly fire casualties.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/21/nfire21.xml

I cannot confirm the veracity of this information either. Could be true or it could be just the opposition's political game.

By no means do I intend to remove or lessen the pilot's guilt with this (or the FACs, or whoever set up the comm system, etc.). I've already said that they pressed the trigger so they're guilty. It's just that if any of this is true then the context changes a little bit. As the Brit report said, these things help "shape the enviroment" which allows for the blue-on-blue casualties to happen and in this regard Brits and Americans share responsibility on equal grounds as neither has yet devised a reliable IFF system.

Patriotism: the last refuge of the scoundrel. The cultural arguments I found on the newspapers are simply the most scapegoated, disgusting and lame excuses to a real problem that needs addressing and has nothing to do with culture, but with technology and equipment. Communication would've been better had the Coalition forces trained longer and had more time to properly integrate. Unsatisfactory training and rushed integration is not exactly the Pilot's fault, is it?

[badhat17]

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/584/report9wu0.jpg



One newspaper is now reporting that the original US inquiry was highly critical of the pilots and recommended a court martial. However the pentagon overuled the findings and had the report changed.
After my exposition of the media's spin-job I highly recommend that you don't accept these things at face-value. Unless you are willing to serve as an unintentional disinformation agent.
Had the newspaper report been the only source for my post on this matter then I would most likely not have posted it but there is a somewhat oblique reference to this contained within the BoI which you have partialy quoted.
The remainder can be found at the foot of page 25 in the report, I would paste it here but I have no idea how to copy from the pdf.
Do not worry about myself accepting these things at face value, one would have to be blind to miss the political agenda in the reporting.

Where can I read the American report.
The American report has never been made public.

[STEED]

I have a complaint to make to our American friends, last night on the ITV News a American gentlemen was interviewed and he made the remark that we Brits were sucking our thumbs in WW2, well excuse me who went to war with Germany in Sept 39 and our city's fell under air attacks as we stood alone in 1940. I find that kind of remark offencive and a bloody insult, don't get me wrong I know not all Americans hold that view point and probably think that gentlemen was wrong to say that.

I see on the ITV news tonight the gentlemen in question who is a neighbour of one of the fighter pilots has apologised for his remarks.

[robbo180265]

I think what happened is an awful accident, I feel sorry for the soldier who died and even worse for the two pilots who will have to live with the guilt of this for the rest of their lives.

I just wish that Blair had stood up to Bush, and maybe we wouldn't be in this mess now.

First of all I don't entirely blame the pilots, the whole thing is a series of c#ck ups and I think my first post does still give that impression. But I drive for a living and if I run someone down and kill them by accident , then it would be quite reasonable for the family of my victim to want to see me in court and see justice done. Even if the judge says there is no case to answer

What I don't like is the fact that the American millitary has sat on that tape (with the help of our MOD) for four years - Why?

I own "Lock on" and everything that you see in that video you can see on my screen when I play it. Surely the Russians have HUD's too?

There is something fishy going on.

Add to that Iraq has been an unmittigated disaster and we want our troops back(a great many of us didn't want them out there in the first place), and maybe you can see why this is leaving a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

I'd like to finish this rant by saying that I don't hate Americans at all - just Bush, his policys and his party.