The Sun releases friendly fire video

[Ian McC]

I expect many of you have seen this by now,

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060133,00.html

Without having this descend into the usual US v The Rest mess what are your thoughts after seeing the video?

[Eki]

That "smart" and "precision" weapons are still used by stupid and erroneous people.

[luvracin]

Here's a transcript.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/06/video.transcript/index.html

Sickening stuff......

[jim mcglinchey]

The telling bit was right at the end when it was obvious that the pilots knew the significance of orange ID panels, yet they had attacked knowing that there were orange objects atop the APCs.

[oily oaf]

Sadly this type of tragic "blue on blue", I refuse to use the term "friendly fire" disaster has been commonplace ever since mankind emerged form the primordial soup and decided that murdering each other en masse would be the way forward. It's just that with the awesome destructive power of contemporary hi tech weaponry such blunders are destined to have far more serious consequences.

As to the incident itself. It would appear that a combination of blunders contributed to the tragedy.
First and foremost a great deal of blame must lie with the US Marine forward air controllers who were calling in the strikes. They are twice heard advising the 2 USAF pilots that no friendlies were in the proposed target area.
Having said that I would have thought that when the 2 guys in the A10s observed the orange Coalition markings on the armoured vehicles below they would have immediately ruled out an attack due to uncertainty over target ID.

Despite the fact that one of my countrymen and 2 Iraqi soldiers lost their lives it's difficult for me not to feel some compassion for the 2 airmen who were clearly in bits when they realised the enormity of their blunder to the extent that one of them actually vomited in the cockpit.

At the end of the day it was clearly a combination of intelligence errors and extremely poor judgement with perhaps a sprinkling of Gung Ho thrown into the mix which resulted in this tragic aberration.

What can you say other than "War Sucks"

[TOgoFASTER]

^Pretty well covers it all.

[DonnieDarco]

And yet, they never felt compelled to come forward, did they. And at the end, one is hinting to the other about the tape.

[CarlMetro]

Sadly this type of tragic "blue on blue", I refuse to use the term "friendly fire" disaster has been commonplace ever since mankind emerged form the primordial soup and decided that murdering each other en masse would be the way forward. It's just that with the awesome destructive power of contemporary hi tech weaponry such blunders are destined to have far more serious consequences.

As to the incident itself. It would appear that a combination of blunders contributed to the tragedy.
First and foremost a great deal of blame must lie with the US Marine forward air controllers who were calling in the strikes. They are twice heard advising the 2 USAF pilots that no friendlies were in the proposed target area.
Having said that I would have thought that when the 2 guys in the A10s observed the orange Coalition markings on the armoured vehicles below they would have immediately ruled out an attack due to uncertainty over target ID.

Despite the fact that one of my countrymen and 2 Iraqi soldiers lost their lives it's difficult for me not to feel some compassion for the 2 airmen who were clearly in bits when they realised the enormity of their blunder to the extent that one of them actually vomited in the cockpit.

At the end of the day it was clearly a combination of intelligence errors and extremely poor judgement with perhaps a sprinkling of Gung Ho thrown into the mix which resulted in this tragic aberration.

What can you say other than "War Sucks"

Can't add anymore than that really :up:

[oily oaf]

And yet, they never felt compelled to come forward, did they. And at the end, one is hinting to the other about the tape.

Look Donnie I'm not going to sit here comfortably ensconced in front of my computer and launch into wild conjecture as to the thought processes of these 2 men who had just emerged from a combat situation numb with shock and horror at the realization that they had in all probability just fired on and killed a number their own comrades in arms.
To do so would be totally wrong and speculative in the extreme.
Suffice it to say that they were investigated by the US military and found to have been completely innocent of any breech of procedure.
To further hound the 2 airmen in question would be futile and erroneous IMHO.
They and they alone have to live with the terrible knowledge that their actions led to the deaths of a number of their own brothers in arms.
Punishment enough I would suggest.

These are not evil men who committed a callous or cavalier war crime merely 2 guys who were ill advised and ultimately ill led into a situation that will no doubt haunt them unto their dying day.

[Daniel]

That "smart" and "precision" weapons are still used by stupid and erroneous people.
The GAU-8 gun used on those A-10's is neither smart nor precise in the sense of an LGB or a air to ground missle.

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/weapons/cannons/gau8/gau8_en.htm

I think as Oily said it was bad intelligence that caused this mix up. To try and demonize these men is completely unfair.

[janneppi]

I remember at the time i was rather critical about the A-10 pilots actions at the time and the video confirms some of my suspicions how little time pilots took to identify targets properly, even when they saw orange markers in the right places.
That said i know can't put the blame solely on the pilots, it's a bigger issue involving training, better equipment for automated recognision and pilots with less flying and more sleeping to avoid bad decisions.

[bowler]

Nice summary Oily.

I am with you 100%.

[Daniel]

I remember at the time i was rather critical about the A-10 pilots actions at the time and the video confirms some of my suspicions how little time pilots took to identify targets properly, even when they saw orange markers in the right places.
That said i know can't put the blame solely on the pilots, it's a bigger issue involving training, better equipment for automated recognision and pilots with less flying and more sleeping to avoid bad decisions.
Yes but if they are told that there are no friendlies in the area then what are they to do? I'm sure in war there are a lot of non-friendlies masquerading as friendlies.............. IMHO the pilots followed what seems to be reasonable procedure. They asked for confirmation that no friendlies were in the area and only then too action.

[Tomi]

[quote="oily oaf"] I refuse to use the term "friendly fire" /QUOTE]

yes wonder from whatkind of brainstorm the term is from, pathetic.

[janneppi]

Yes but if they are told that there are no friendlies in the area then what are they to do? I'm sure in war there are a lot of non-friendlies masquerading as friendlies.............. IMHO the pilots followed what seems to be reasonable procedure. They asked for confirmation that no friendlies were in the area and only then too action.

And that's where visual regognision of vehicles should come into play, but as i said, i don't hold all the blame on the pilots.
In retrospect(yes, i know hindsight is hindsight) they should have opted on the side of caution.

[DonnieDarco]

The trouble is, that they knew friends had orange panels on their vehicles. I know they were told that there were no friends in the area, but they did clearly see those orange panels. If in doubt, don't fire. I don't wish to demonise anyone, but there is friendly fire and then there's stupidity.

If they had been in the middle of a ground to air attack, then it would have been understandable. However its not just their responsibility, for sure.

[inamo]

Transcript suggests that they repeatedly asked for confirmation that there weren't any friends in the area and they were told there weren't. Horrid situation to be in and I question the appropriateness of this being in the public domain.

[Dave B]

It seems that the pilots were badly trained and poorly briefed with bad intelligence. They had seen the orange panels, and refer to them several times, but didn't seem certain what they were looking at.

If they believed they were in immediate danger then they were correct to fire. However it appears that they were not, and that they chose to attack rather than check what they were aiming at.

I'm certain that the pilots will be haunted by this for the rest of their lives, but the line "we're in jail, dude" seems to indicate that their first thoughts were for their own futures rather than the poor innocent soldiers they'd just fired on.

As to the tape being in the public domain, well I guess that it's not a legal trial as such, and therefore not subject to the usual sub judice rules. But the real question is why the USAF wanted to hush the footage up in the first place.

[inamo]

So far as I know, footage of military operations isn't usually released? I don't think that's a bad thing really, certainly not something I'd want to see.

It seems this was a tragic mistake. Though you'd hope that by now with technology available it would be possible to identify vehicles with some sort of tacking devices that would remove the need for visual clues only.

[BDunnell]

So far as I know, footage of military operations isn't usually released? I don't think that's a bad thing really, certainly not something I'd want to see.

It is when it suits the military and politicians to do so. Remember all the combat footage from the 1991 Gulf conflict — missiles going into air vents, that sort of thing?


It seems this was a tragic mistake. Though you'd hope that by now with technology available it would be possible to identify vehicles with some sort of tacking devices that would remove the need for visual clues only.

It is. The trouble is that it's expensive, and even then not infallible. Neither can human error ever be removed from the equation.

Other than that, I can add no more to what Oily said, with which I agree wholeheartedly.

[Daniel]

The trouble is, that they knew friends had orange panels on their vehicles. I know they were told that there were no friends in the area, but they did clearly see those orange panels. If in doubt, don't fire. I don't wish to demonise anyone, but there is friendly fire and then there's stupidity.

If they had been in the middle of a ground to air attack, then it would have been understandable. However its not just their responsibility, for sure.
I don't get what you're saying. On the battlefield you go for what's there. The battlefield is not a relaxed office style environment where you can pick and choose what you do and when you do it. Those pilots have a responsibility to each other and to their fellow soldiers to get rid of the enemy. They conferred with whoever was directing them as to whether there were friendlies in the area because they'd seen the red panels. Then when it was "confirmed" that there were no friendlies in the area they went for it. In hindsight it was the wrong thing to do but they did the right thing given the information they were supplied with.

I have to say that given the power of the weapons they were using it's extreeeeeemely lucky that only one man was killed........

[DonnieDarco]

I'm not stupid, thanks. The pilots were not under fire at the time, and they had the time to come to a reasonable decision. If they had been under attack, then I could appreciate how a mistake could be made.

Given that they knew orange panels signified friends, then the decision was a wrong one, regardless of the fact they'd been told there were no friendlies in the area.

[Eki]

The Italians have currently a bit similar case going on:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Feb07/0,4670,ItalyIraqUS,00.html

U.S. Soldier to Be Tried in Italy

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

By MARTA FALCONI, Associated Press Writer

ROME — A judge Wednesday ordered a U.S. soldier to stand trial in absentia for the fatal shooting of an Italian intelligence agent at a checkpoint in Baghdad, the prosecutor said.

Spc. Mario Lozano is indicted for murder and attempted murder in the death of Nicola Calipari, who was shot on March 4, 2005, on his way to the Baghdad airport shortly after securing the release of an Italian journalist who had been kidnapped in the Iraqi capital, prosecutor Pietro Saviotti said.

Another agent, who was driving the car, and the journalist, Giuliana Sgrena, were wounded.

"This looks to me like the first step on a long road toward truth and justice, and I hope justice will come in the end," said a visibly emotional Rosa Calipari, the agent's widow.

Lozano was not at the hearing and his whereabouts are not known. Judge Sante Spinaci set his trial date for April 17.

According to prosecutors, the judge said in his ruling that Lozano can be tried for "political murder," because Calipari was a civil servant and his slaying damaged Italy's interests.

Italian law does not allow foreigners charged with killing Italians abroad to be tried in absentia unless the murder has political connotations, prosecutors have said in the past.

[AndySpeed]

In many respect I feel sympathy for those involved in causing the 'friendly fire'. But the most shocking thing to me is near the end when one says

"I know that thing with the orange panels is going to screw us."

There was a doubt, a highly plausible one and the shots really shouldn't have been fired.

It's a difficult situation to simplify in words or a few paragraphs

[oily oaf]

For me one of the most disconcerting aspects of this whole business is the attempt by the US military to suppress publication of the cockpit video and indeed to go so far as to deny it's existence.
I must admit I was rather surprised at their reticence to allow the facts to come to light as I have always been impressed with the way the Americans have proved themselves to be a truly open society through their diligent and in depth investigations into perceived corruption and subterfuge no matter how exalted the person or persons in the spotlight. Messrs Nixon and Clinton being prime examples.

This "openness" contrast starkly with the paranoid secrecy of my own government whose reluctance to furnish the proletariat with even the most banal piece of information borders on the risible.

Having said all that I hope a swift conclusion can be brought to this tragic affair and that the families of the victims both British and Iraqi can achieve a degree of closure.

As a father of 3 boys myself all around the same age as Lance Corporal Hull I would just add that were one of my sons taken from me in this most dreadful and ultimately futile manner I should be satisfied just to meet the two airmen face to face, ask them why they acted as they did before shaking them by the hand and trying to move on.

[Daniel]

I'm not stupid, thanks. The pilots were not under fire at the time, and they had the time to come to a reasonable decision. If they had been under attack, then I could appreciate how a mistake could be made.

Given that they knew orange panels signified friends, then the decision was a wrong one, regardless of the fact they'd been told there were no friendlies in the area.

I never accused you of being stupid. As I said before war is not just about making sure you're safe. Any other vehicle on the battlefield could potentially be a threat to yourself or your fellow soldier so you can't say that just because they weren't threatened that they don't need to neutralise. Put the boot on the other foot and imagine that he'd let an armoured column through or a few trucks full of soldiers through and they'd overrun a coallition position? There would be no one to blame but him. As has been pointed out before the pilots noted the orange panels and understood the significance of the panels just fine. Just because someone wears the same uniform as yourself or has an orange panel doesn't mean they're obviously your friend. Vehicles get captured and enemies try to disguise themselves.

AndySpeed pointed out that the pilot had reservations. It's not his job to have gut feelings or in fact to have feelings at all. He did as he was commanded to and in hindisght it would have been great for him to have said "Nope this doesn't seem right at all I'm not doing it" but he didn't and that's that innit?

It's very simple for us to say what should have happened. But that pilot did his job as well as could be expected given the intelligence he was given.

[Eki]

It's very simple for us to say what should have happened. But that pilot did his job as well as could be expected given the intelligence he was given.
I remember reading news about Israeli fighter pilots who deliberately missed a target in Lebanon because they believed there were civilians. I think the pilots in this case should have believed their own eyes instead of information from the radio. Even if they had been Iraqis instead of coalition troops, I don't think they were such a threat the pilots couldn't afford to hold fire and monitor the situation.

[Daniel]

I remember reading news about Israeli fighter pilots who deliberately missed a target in Lebanon because they believed there were civilians. I think the pilots in this case should have believed their own eyes instead of information from the radio. Even if they had been Iraqis instead of coalition troops, I don't think they were such a threat the pilots couldn't afford to hold fire and monitor the situation.
Eki.... how long was it from when they first sighted the targets till they actually fired upon them? The pilots were in no doubt as to whether there were orange panels on top the vehicles. So it's silly to talk about trusting their eyes because they knew what they saw and relayed it back to command and were told that they weren't friendlies......

As I said before. As a member of the armed forces you have a responsibility not only to yourself but to your fellow soldier. If those were Iraqi's and they overran a coallition position then it's their fault. They did the only thing they could have done in that situation.

[Quattroporte]

Haven't really had time to toroughly read everything, but does anyone know how long these pilots had been in the Air Force for?

[schmenke]

Eki.... how long was it from when they first sighted the targets till they actually fired upon them? ...

If it's the incident that I saw televised recently, the pilot had released his smart bomb and was guiding it on target using the crosshairs. He manouvered the bomb, literally, at the last second to deliberately miss.

[Daniel]

If it's the incident that I saw televised recently, the pilot had released his smart bomb and was guiding it on target using the crosshairs. He manouvered the bomb, literally, at the last second to deliberately miss.
I was talking about the incident that's being discussed in this thread :)

[Gannex]

From the edited transcript I saw in today's Times, this seems to me to have been almost entirely the fault of POPOV36. He spots an Iraqi group of vehicles and, following standard procedure, gives the controller the group's precise location: 800 metres north of the artillery. POPOV36 later spots another group, the British group, and tells the controller and his wingman that he has seen them. But, inexcusably, he never gives the location of this second group, nor does he even make clear to the controller that the second group is indeed a second group, separate from the Iraqi group and distant from it. Instead, he hears the controller ask, and lets his wingman confirm, without contradiction, that the area they need to have clear of friendlies is 800 metres north of the artillery. The wingman, at this point, has not even seen the British vehicles, and POPOV36 is unable to give his wingman their precise location, but POPOV36 nevertheless lets the wingman tell the controller that the only area of interest is where the Iraqis are, just north of the artillery. It appears to have been a classic case of poor communications and less than complete situational awareness on the part of the lead A-10.

[oily oaf]

That's an interesting and indeed thought provoking take on the incident Gannex.
Now although you have based your surmise on the unimpeachable source of voracity which is "The Thunderer" and I for one would shrink cravenly from taking issue with anything which lies within it's hallowed pages I will say this:
On Tuesday evening I listened carefully to a BBC interview with Flight Lieutenant John Nicholl who you may remember was a Tornado pilot shot down and captured during Gulf War 1 and who is invariably wheeled out by the media at times such as these.
His informed opinion was that the plots, although not entirely free of blame were the unwitting victims of poor intel and even poorer directions from the forward control positions.
Now whether he was merely flying to the defence of his brother aviators or was giving an informed opinion based on his own expertise is of course a matter for conjecture and not something I would care to address myself given that my knowledge of military gobbledygook and USAF call sign parlance is not all that it should be.

I would say however that it would appear that the lay person is forever consigned to be blinded not only by reports of the fog of war but by the swirling mists of journalism also.

[jim mcglinchey]

Phew, I believe you' re the inspiration for the John Cleese character in the cheese shop sketch, Oily.
" .....so I curtailed my Walpoling activities, sallied forth and infiltrated your place of purveyance to negotiate the vending of some cheesey comestibles"
" Come again "
" I want to buy some cheese."

[oily oaf]

Phew, I believe you' re the inspiration for the John Cleese character in the cheese shop sketch, Oily.
" .....so I curtailed my Walpoling activities, sallied forth and infiltrated your place of purveyance to negotiate the vending of some cheesey comestibles"
" Come again "
" I want to buy some cheese."

Behave yerself Jimbo :mad:

I'm much more like the Viz character Mr Logic :D

I always remember an occasion when he was waiting for a bus to take him to hospital to visit his mum.

(bus arrives)

MR LOGIC - By means of public omnibus I am desirous of perambulating myself.My destination the general infirmary.

BUS DRIVER - You what?????

[Gannex]

That's an interesting and indeed thought provoking take on the incident Gannex.
It's good of you to say that, oily, but I do want to add that my criticism of the lead A-10 pilot does not lead me to disagree with what you said earlier in the thread, namely . . .

Despite the fact that one of my countrymen and 2 Iraqi soldiers lost their lives it's difficult for me not to feel some compassion for the 2 airmen who were clearly in bits when they realised the enormity of their blunder to the extent that one of them actually vomited in the cockpit.
I agree with that completely.

[luvracin]

Unfortunately, it's very easy for us all to sit here at our respective desks in our quiet comfortable abodes or workplaces and talk this issue to death and pick to pieces every action, thought and word that took place in this incident.

Sofar this thread has run for almost 48 hours. Based on the transcripts, the incident in question took about 6 minutes to unfold. The pilots were at the time also maintaining an aircraft in flight in hostile airspace.

The only useful thing that can be done is to ensure that lessons are learned and actions put in place to try and prevent it happening again.

[Gannex]

Unfortunately, it's very easy for us all to sit here . . . and talk this issue to death . . . the incident in question took about 6 minutes to unfold. The pilots were at the time also maintaining an aircraft in flight in hostile airspace.
Very true, luvracin. And these were A-10's, which are slow, unmanoeuvrable and very vulnerable, therefore. They are tough as hell, being able to be riddled with bullets and keep on flying, but that is little comfort to an A-10 pilot.

I hesitate to say this, because I could easily be misinterpreted, but the truth is that the very best pilots and most gifted students rarely end up in A-10's. Nor do the A-10 crews get the best training or the most attention: that is reserved for fighter pilots. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Which is all a roundabout way of saying that these guys shouldn't be judged too harshly, even if their performance on this particular day was less than one would hope for. The slating the pilots are getting in the British press is completely unfair, I think, and reflects more badly on us than it does on them.

[Daniel]

A-10's are extreeeeemely tough beasties :) If I was going to be in an aircraft over Iraq or Afghanistan I'd rather be in one of these than anything else.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Originshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Trivia

[janneppi]

One thing has bothered me a bit, the pilot saw the orange panels on the vehicles, how far was he from the column?
AFAIK the vehicle he attacked was a FV107_Scimitar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV107_Scimitar), a light reconnaissance tank.

The closest thing Iraq has to the Scimitar were BMP-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP_1) and -2, which are rather different in size and shape.
IMO if the pilot was able to see orange thingies, he should have been able to regognize the tank as a friendly, or at least as something he wasn't told to expect.

[Gannex]

I still think the critical mistake occurred right at the beginning, when POPOV36, apparently slightly disoriented, dithers and fails to communicate. He reports seeing a "four-ship" (group of four vehicles) and, in the same broadcast, asks whether there are friendlies "in this area". He does not, as he should have done, specify by grid reference or co-ordinates where the four-ship is, but merely enquires about friendlies in "this area", whatever that might mean. The controller, alert to the sloppiness of the communication, immediately does the right thing and asks for confirmation whether the area being asked about is the same area that had previously been discussed: the point eight hundred metres to the north of the artillery. When the controller asks this, POPOV36 does not reply, and I think from my own experience, and from watching the cockpit recording, that I know why.

POPOV36 is circling left, his bank angle and rate of turn are constantly changing, as is his altitude. It is dusk, he is low on fuel, and as he circles raggedly, he is having trouble catching sight of the vehicles on each turn around. Under those circumstances, when he can't even get a consistent view of the target, he cannot possibly give a precise location for them, which is what he very obviously ought to be doing.

This is an embarrassing situation that is familiar to any pilot. A controller is asking for precise information and you simply cannot give it; you are not sufficiently well oriented; you are thrashing around the sky, frantically trying to get your precise bearings. So you keep quiet until you have something intelligent to say that will not betray to your colleagues your state of temporary confusion.

POPOV36 kept quiet, and probably felt a sense of relief when the answer about the location was given by POPOV35, the wingman. But the wingman had not even seen the British group at this point and was, in his mind, answering a different question, namely the location of the Iraqi group that he, POPOV35, had previously discussed.

Confusion abounds at this point. The controller believes the "four-ship" is 800 metres north of the artillery, the wingman believes there are no friendlies in the area, and the lead aircraft, POPOV36, believes the same thing as he sets about trying to explain to his wingman where exactly the British group is. His confusion is evident, as he tells the wingman to look up, down, west, east, ten o'clock, two o'clock, by a canal, near a village (unnamed, of course), until finally the wingman locates the group. By then, however, both pilots have moved beyond the task of precisely locating the group for the benefit of the controller and the issue only rears up again when the pilots receive the ominous information that there are friendlies in sectors 3122 and 3123.

[viper_man]

All I can say is I felt almost sick reading the transcripts. Shocking and absolutely tragic for all concerned.

I dont want to go on too much as Ill end up going into a rant, but I have to say that in my opinion it was completely inexcuseable and should never have happened.

The A10s were not coming under fire, they had not been locked onto, and the convoy was moving slow.

A10s are not supersonic, and are the slowest of ground attack aircraft, a few passes to identify the targets would have been simple as the plane is not the sort that is thrashed around the sky.

The pilots should know the difference between a Scimitar or its Iraqi equivalent, of which there isnt really one.

The orange markers are there to identify friendlies, they should have recognised this.

With all the incidents of friendly fire, and the amount of troops spread out over the area, when the pilots got completely confused, they should have waited until they were 100% sure before firing.

The British and American forces should have liased as to where each others forces were.

Admittedly the pilots will of course be guilt ridden, but there was also an element of something else there, 'were going to jail dude' and 'is your tape still running' left me wondering where there priorities were.

Im not trying to lay blame, but after reading the transcript there simply is no excuse.