Friendly fire video. A10/British unit.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Just read in the Times this article: The official British board of inquiry report blames US for 'friendly fire' death.

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.

[robbo180265]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

Indeed. I think that you are spot on there badhat17.

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]

Originally Posted by robbo180265

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.


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:


Now this is interesting. It's not scathing criticism (there isn't any) but apparently the British equipment is a potential factor of disaster:


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:


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:



In complete agreement with the Pentagon souce:


Here's a clearly different conclusion:


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


In reality none of the different highlited factors from the report are believed to have contributed to the disaster:


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:


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?


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:


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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

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.

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

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

I completely agree.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.