You sure they're dead?!
 

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the chopper used a wee bit too much firepower on it's targets? By the looks of it, it seems to be a town or a city. :o

Apache firing missile on two suspected insurgents, comes around and fires another missile to a mortartube the two suspects were carrying. (Titty ad warning!!)
http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/12...g_2_Insurgents

Now, I do understand that the 30mm isnt the most accurate weapon, but surely it does less damage to the surrounding area than a farking missile, ow sorry, 2 missiles.

Where was this? Afghanistan? It's good that they put up the pressure of the Taliban with this new offensive and all, but I must say, that was a wee bit overkill, wasn't it?

I find that a bit exaggerated as well. First there is no telling how many civilians are around and second just think of the costs of a guided missile.

What was the firing distance? The missiels took some time to reach the target. I see the possibility that they fired from a distance where the 30mm maybe was not reliable, and did not wish to put the gunship at risk when approaching that complex area with buildings (with maybe some nasty surprises waiting for them to come closer).

That second shot they were just shooting at corpses! Government waste at all levels:nope:

Actually, they destroyed the mortartube. But still, waste. :yep:

I found some of the comments on the linked site rather disturbing. :nope:

Looked like a thorough job to me :hmmm:

Good to see some insurgents getting what they deserve.

A missile hit its target a burst of 30mm some will hit some will keep going maybe hitting innocent people(it is very accurate 30mm but dont forget that the shells will keep going right through a human body and then hit someones house or what ever behind the hell fire will hit the tube blow it to bits and kill anyone within a few meters but no further.).What do you think is better?Also as FLIR quality is reduced by the military so that you cant see the true details there should be a read out on the screen somewhere a read out that shows the range someone with an anti-war view could also have scrubbed this out to further thier veiw.
Destroying the insurgetnts abilty to destabilze is worth the missile it damn sure would be if you might be on the reciving end of that mortor.

Take look at the 20mm of a SuperCobra here:(the clip name is wrong this is a SuperCobra gun sight):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuHcI...eature=related
And some apache 30 mike mike(this clip is very clear but not what an un scrubbed viedo would look like also note that the chopper is hovering being a very stable gun platform):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIjci...eature=related
This one at the end will show you that in a moving Apache the 30mm will have a high scatter:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzktR...eature=related

It's going to keep going all of about 3ft before it hits the ground at that angle.

I see little wrong with the use of missiles here.
I imagine that the 30mm would give enough time for at least one of the
targets to run, even if they didn't notice the heli after it closed in to use
the cannon.

The risk to civilians seams minimal. Especially in the case of the second
missile as I expect any one in the area has ducked or run after the first.

I see that you did not look at the clips in several it very clear that the 30mm shells go far past a mere 3 feet.
And you are not going to "duck" a 30mm burst come on.Run run run! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkODv...eature=related
As you can see stuff is not as accurte as hollwood will lead you to belive but they still got let down by ducking and running.

Check the last target he goes 30 ft in the air I bet!:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QnM8...eature=related

You are right the roofs in the area do have shell holes and such emplying that any civilains have vacated.Though if you look around you can find viedos
where Apache crew will not attack a knwon target if he should go into a structor to which occupancy is unknown.They have taken advantage of that in the past and forced people to stay in homes so we cant use airpower.

So was this before or after the long sought after directive from the US military about not blowing stuff up in built up areas with missiles even when there is a positive ID on insurgents.
By long sought after I mean from before the actual invasion of Afghanstan.
Ok this footage is from Iraq , but that is after the invassion of Afghanistan and the recomendation was before Afghanistan.
You gotta love those comments on that website though.
It makes you wonder if certain people on this forum have the same dictionary

Who might you be addressing? I and others are saying that the hellfire is actualy the weapon in some cases that is less likely to cause innocent people to get hurt.And the US military has had a goal to try to avoid collertal damage for some time well before any of the current wars but it does not mean that you dont fight the enemy at all. you seem to not know what you are talking about and just trying insult others who have posted if you dont like this threads topic dont post in it.I think the fact that we dont just blow some home to bits when there are innocent people inside to be a good thing you jerk.i was in the military and therefore went threw all LOAC and I dont know the exact ROE for the chpppers in these vids but as far as LOAC they are within the bounds.
Well this thread is going south see you guys.:salute:

Sorry Stealhead the last part was directed at someone who likes to use the word fact but doesn't seem to know what it means.
So onto your post, given the clan/tribal situation in Iraq/Afghanistan what are the recommendations about air strikes if there is any chance of collateral damage even when there is a clearly or almost positively identified target ?
Yes they do mean that you are fighting with one hand tied behind your back and it can and will be exploited by the enemy....but can you understand why the recommendations were made given the nature of the conflict?