It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Originally posted by Flyer
It seems to be an American thing, I dont recall a single error being the other way round.
Might want to read this...
Two members of a British tank crew were killed and two critically injured after their Challenger 2 tank was fired on by another Challenger tank in southern Iraq. A single tank round took the turret off the tank in the misdirected attack, which happened on Monday in pitch darkness.
"The soldiers were tragically killed in a 'friendly fire' incident during a period of multiple engagements from enemy forces on the outskirts of Basra," Colonel Chris Vernon, a British military spokesman, said.
Link
Now was that because those British troops were "poorly trained or trigger happy idiots."? Of course not! It's because, as the UK commander put it, ..."Regardless of the careful planning and measures taken in the type of operations in which we are engaged and in the heat of battle there is always a risk that incidents such as this might happen.".
Perhaps if you can get your head out and manage to post without hatred for the US you would see that. But then again, maybe some of us are just that ignorant.
[edit on 7-2-2007 by WestPoint23]
Originally posted by Jimmy1880
The law of averages works both ways;
The USAF flew the most, ok. How many planes were shot down by UK forces none!
Originally posted by Jimmy1880
The UK flew alot less but still one of the RAF's tornado's get blown out of the sky, why? because it was mistakenly ID'd as an Iraqi missile
As a result of the accident, the RAF is speeding introduction of a new successor Identification Friend or Foes system onto 40 Tornado GR4 aircraft and 27 Tornado F3 fighters by the end of the year, with all RAF aircraft fitted by 2007.
Among its 12 recommendations are that closer coordination is needed on planning and operations between the United States and the UK in the use of airspace and that the two nations work more closely in combined air operations centers.
The senior RAF official denied suggestions that there might be cultural differences between the way the British and Americans operate, or that the Americans' had a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude than has not much improved since the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iranian Airbus with 270 passengers over the Persian Gulf in 1988.
Source, UPI
Originally posted by Jimmy1880
For the people on this thread who are saying they followed protocol, you are wrong, wrong, wrong! You are arguing with sentimental, blind love of your country and will not accept that the incident this thread is about was caused due to incompetance.
Originally posted by Jimmy1880
The USAF flew the most, ok. How many planes were shot down by UK forces none!
The UK flew alot less but still one of the RAF's tornado's get blown out of the sky, why? because it was mistakenly ID'd as an Iraqi missile
For the people on this thread who are saying they followed protocol, you are wrong, wrong, wrong! You are arguing with sentimental, blind love of your country and will not accept that the incident this thread is about was caused due to incompetance.
If you ran over a pedestrian because of dangerous driving, you are likely to do prison time! This incident is not much different.
Originally posted by missed_gear
[teries etc…
Originally posted by Jimmy1880
The UK flew alot less but still one of the RAF's tornado's get blown out of the sky, why? because it was mistakenly ID'd as an Iraqi missile
The entire article does not allow blame to fall on one side…as you suggest.
Nor does the RAF lend itself to even recognize your secondary accusations which follow:
Originally posted by Jimmy1880
For the people on this thread who are saying they followed protocol, you are wrong, wrong, wrong! You are arguing with sentimental, blind love of your country and will not accept that the incident this thread is about was caused due to incompetance.
Ironically, the blindness displayed in your post is…well…very visible as well.
mg
Originally posted by 27jd
Who ID'd it as a missile? Was it a computer system or a trigger happy American idiot visually ID'ing the plane? When we rely on electronics, crap is gonna happen and that crap can be reduced if ALL the allies are completely on the same page with computer systems and command structures instead of communicating through two or three middlemen.
Originally posted by 27jd
Blind love of my country? I am totally against this war and I despise my government, but I'm positive those soldiers didn't mean to attack their allies and there was a competency issue but it was with the entire communication system and it seems you're arguing with blind rage which I guess since it was one of your men it's understandable but keep in mind many US soldiers are killed by their own, does that anger you equally?
Originally posted by 27jd
That's totally different and you know it, we don't rely on orders coming through several channels before reaching us to make driving decisions, if we did and we were told a light was green and to proceed and after we hit somebody we were told no wait it's red, it would not be so cut and dry...
Originally posted by C ROBERTSON
Westopoint thats not what he meant and you know it - he means Brits attacking Yanks, Please find an article about that if you want to challenge him.
Originally posted by C ROBERTSON
Also i suggest you quit playing the "your bashing the US" card it wont work, i am clearly not - maybe if you gave a simmilar example we might listen to you.
Originally posted by C ROBERTSON
Its because of the attitude that the US is infallible that you get flak.
MOD
Thursday 24 November 2005 16:35
Ministry Of Defence (National)
FINDINGS OF BOARD OF INQUIRY INTO CHALLENGER 2 INCIDENT
The findings of the Board of Inquiry (BOI) into the incident in which Corporal Stephen Allbutt and Trooper David Clarke died in Iraq have been made public today. The Board has identified a number of contributory factors and has made recommendations to minimise the chances of a reoccurrence in the future.
The Board concluded the soldiers died when the Challenger 2 tank (CR2) they were in was hit by "friendly fire" from another CR2 in the early hours of March 25, 2003. Two other soldiers were severely injured in the incident.
The second tank fired two high explosive rounds from its main armament. One hit the open hatch of Cpl Allbutt's tank, triggering an explosion inside.
The BOI was an exhaustive internal review which sought to establish the facts of the incident, and identify any lessons for the future. BOIs are not designed to apportion blame.
Under Secretary of State for Defence Don Touhig said the Board of Inquiry had been an in-depth investigation of the incident:
"This was a shocking loss of life which has caused great pain and distress to the families of those who died. My thoughts are with the families and with the injured soldiers. I hope that the inquiry's findings will give them a much better understanding of this awful tragedy.
"The Board of Inquiry is not there to apportion blame, but to establish the facts and make recommendations in an attempt to stop such a tragedy happening again. Those recommendations have been accepted and are being implemented."
The incident occurred on the outskirts of Basrah, at a time when the main threat was believed to be T-55 tanks and infantry armed with rocket-propelled grenades. It was in the war fighting phase, with all the pressure and difficulties associated with an operational environment.
As well as the Board of Inquiry, an investigation was carried out by the Royal Military Police's Special Investigation Branch. The case was referred to the independent Army Prosecution Authority, which concluded that no-one should face charges in connection with the incident.
The BOI concluded that factors which may have contributed to the incident included:
* Boundaries between units and arcs of fire should have been better briefed and disseminated.
* The location of the friendly tanks and the dam should have been more generally known.
* The brief for the handover of a tactical position should have been more structured with the troop and platoon acting in a more co-ordinated and unified manner to ensure adequate liaison and communications.
* The crew of the tank which opened fire should have "displayed more inquisitiveness" about the details of the task over the bridge.
* The crew of the tank which opened fire was not orientated accurately and so placed the potential target on the wrong side of a nearby canal.
The Board's recommendations, which are in the process of being implemented, include improvements to training, target recognition and fire control. They include training for crew commanders to exploit Bowman digitisation situational awareness capability, upgrades to the Unit Recognition Trainer and the reinforcement of fire control and discipline in training.
ENDS
Originally posted by C ROBERTSON
In anycase that chally 2 example is completely different - close quarter, heat of battle, night fighting, kill or be kill senarios are a whole world away from cruising arround in a heavy armoured A-10 with rookie pilots taking pot shots at vehichles which would have little/no way of returning fire. In broad daylight might i add, after having regognised allied markings. Oncemore i post the question of - who has large luminous orange rockets in the desert? Answer that please.
[edit on 7/2/07 by C ROBERTSON]
Originally posted by Jimmy1880
I just wanna add AGAIN, no US blood has been spilt at the hands of British forces in Iraq (Apart from a few bloody noses in the bar )
Those pilots clearly found it funny, cant say thats too proffesional.
Originally posted by Jimmy1880
Yes all accounts of carelessly taken lives angers me, I don't do my job because it pleases me to kill. It upsets me to see the amount of blue on blue that happens in the US areas, it's normally the privates and other low ranks that die because they are following a cowboy superior officer.
Also when I've met US soldiers alot of them seem to be young guys pulled out of some poor part of town, given a rifle and shipped to Iraq! The poor buggers were terrified, this amount of inexpirience in the ranks is asking for problems. Moral must be rock bottom for an US infantryman.
As for my own countrymen being killed yes that get's me down being killed by the enemy is an accepted risk but being killed by you ally is like being killed by a brother.
Originally posted by C ROBERTSON
US forces do cock up - all forces do. However , those pilots do apear to have been poorly trained and have poor moral character, either that or they were just plain stupid and could'nt follow orders. Someone should pay for this incident...
If this is true then it does show something, youd think with the amount of brittish forces accross there that we'd have at least a couple of FF run-ins with the yanks. But no...
Those pilots clearly found it funny, cant say thats too proffesional.
Originally posted by carslake
The tornado was identified as a Anti-Radiation Missile did the commander of the patriot battery not think hold on I've got a ARM that has just appeared from nowhere. Intelligence indicates there is no enemy air activity, AWACS and JSTARS aircraft report no contacts and neither does the combat air patrol.
The Patriot Battery crew were monitoring for Iraqi Tactical Ballistic Missiles when ZG710 was tracked by their system. The symbol which appeared on their radar indicated that an Anti-Radiation Missile was coming directly towards them. The track was interrogated for IFF but there was no response. Having met all classification criteria, the Patriot crew launched the missile, and the Tornado, mistaken for an "Anti-Radiation Missile", was engaged in self-defence. The Patriot crew had complied with extant self-defence Rules of Engagement for dealing with Anti-Radiation Missiles.
www.theregister.co.uk...
And also do the Iraqi's have anti-radiation missiles and if so how did an Iraqi plane launch a ARM from cruising altitude with in the missiles strike range(lets say 80 miles) with out being detected. Also why is a high-speed missile(2000mph) travelling at the cruising speed of a combat aircraft(400+mph?).
Patriot System Anti-Radiation Missile Classification.
9. The Patriot system identifies hostile missiles through their flight profile and other characteristics, including the lack of an IFF response. The criteria programmed into the Patriot computer were based on the many different Anti-Radiation Missiles available worldwide, and were therefore very broad.
ZG710's flight profile met these criteria as it commenced its descent into Ali Al Salem. The Board considered that the criteria should have been much tauter, based on the known threat from Iraq, and concluded that the generic Anti-Radiation Missile classification criteria programmed into the Patriot computer were a contributory factor in the accident.
originally posted by 27jd
As for the orange panel issue, is it really impossible to believe that the Iraqis wouldn't be above spray painting panels or rocket launchers on their vehicles in order to fool allied forces into coming in for a closer look and firing a rocket at them? Orange spray paint isn't exactly hard to come by.
Originally posted by Chris McGee
The problem I have with this is that the orange panels should have at least given them pause for thought. If you know that friendly forces in the area will have something orange on top then you have to be 100% certain before going after something that fits that description.
Originally posted by 27jd
At the same time though, it would then be too easy for enemy forces to create ALOT of confusion and hesitation on the battlefield that would likely also cost allied lives by painting all their armor with orange,
I think the orange paint is an extremely flawed idea and instead of a color, more (I'd shoot for 100% if I ran things) technical and command coordination is needed to avoid this type of incident.