Triumphrat

doodledog · 02-06-2007

I see that the media are making a massive amount of fuss over the blue on blue incident from the gulf war, do they really have to have a target to pin the blame on for every thing, I am sad for the British soldiers families who lost loved ones, but strangely I was more upset listening to the pilots of the A10 Thunderbolts, their reaction when they realised what they had done was so sad they were devastated, especially to hear they had killed a British soldier whist still in the air, I know they will live that day for the rest of their lives, and I hope they are left alone to get on with it and not dragged through the courts, if anyone thinks for a second that trying to reconise a target from a jet in a warzone is easy thier mad even in a relativly slow moving A10. I and welshrob were both on the same type of vehicle as those attacked and I know how lightly armoured they are we all knew the risks and war is a piece of sh!t, pease media let it drop.

wonderdog · 02-06-2007

Too many stations, too much time to fill, too few stories. No, you'll hear about it for the next month at least.

Since eliminating cable it has been quite an eyeopener watching network news instead of cable. Suddenly the news is reported in a calm manner not YELLING BECAUSE THIS IS EARTH SHAKING AND SOMEONE NEEDS TO CONTINUE TALKING ABOUT IT AND MAKE SURE SOMEONE PAYS!!!!

war - the total annihilation of innocence.

Dennis

Tbirdnz · 02-06-2007

Blue on blue's will always happen in the close proximity of warfare, however training does not appear to sufficiently emphasise other allied armies vehicles, this happens all to frequently in warfare.

This is further complicated when the enemy could be using similar equipment. This though was not the case.

The first rule of shooters "Identify your target" we don't want opportunist cowboys roaming the battlefield.

I can sympathise with the pilots but it is a gross mistake and they need more than a rap over their knuckles.

The media, well that's a typical response from a bunch of parasites.

-----------------
Ride on !

Nickwiz · 02-06-2007

Agreed. War is ****e and things like this will happen. Those pilots had a split second to make a decision which turned out to be based on duff info and led to the deaths of more young British troops at the hands of their Allies.

However it seems a tad much that the US govt kept the tape from the UK. US politicians would've been jumping up and down demanding the heads of the pilots if the situation was reversed. Plus its not the first time our troops have been targetted by US forces accidentaly. I don't recall any blue on blues by Brits on US forces. (have there been any?) Its things like that that leave a sour taste in the mouths of us Non US citizens and that is making America and Americans pretty unpopular in the rest of the world. Sad realy as its the Govts that***** things up not you the people. Theres nowt Wrong with Americans but theres something going wrong with America and its image is how I'd put it.

Realy sad. A man died needlessly, a wife lost her husband, two men will have to live with their mistake all their lives and America's relationship to its Allies is tarnished again. Its realy sad.

[ This message was edited by: Nickwiz on 2007-02-06 20:39 ]

Tbirdnz · 02-07-2007

This is interesting, just read it.

Fog of War

------------------
Ride on !

bovefrankj · 02-07-2007

Speaking to an ex-soldier (British) a few years ago we were talking about casualties from 'friendly fire'. I asked him about the number of incidents involving UK casualties of US friendly fire and why they seemed so one sided. He replied with one word - TRAINING, It seems from comments on this latest incident that nothing has changed.
My heart goes out to the pilots involved, they, if anyone, will carry the can for the failings of their superiors.

Nickwiz · 02-07-2007

The incident was a sad mistake and no one should be punished War is War.

What was wrong was the way the inquest was handled and the refusal of the US govt to fully cooperate.

We are supposed to be allies. Though to be honest US Govts have a long history of treating their allies shoddily so we shouldn't be suprised!

[ This message was edited by: Nickwiz on 2007-02-07 05:25 ]

welshrob · 02-07-2007

Quote:

On 2007-02-06 13:50, doodledog wrote:
I and welshrob were both on the same type of vehicle as those attacked and I know how lightly armoured they are we all knew the risks and war is a piece of sh!t, pease media let it drop.

Yes, just like Doodledog, I used to be a commander on one of the Scimitar light tanks in question and that was over 20 years ago. They were old, even then. In fact they have been in service since 1972 and are probably too outdated to give reasonable protection in modern warfare conditions. Bad news being inside one when it gets hit. Ditto everything that`s been said so far. It would seem that the pilots involved were national guardsmen, not regular airforce and it was their first mission and there was a whole host of communication errors, from both sides, that led to this tradgedy. No amount of 'finger-pointing' will bring Matty Hull back but let`s hope to god that there was some sort of a lesson learned here that will prevent this happening again.

cully · 02-07-2007

Having the wrong equipment or lack of suitable kit in the first Gulf War when there was a coalition of multi national forces is just about understandable. The World was caught on the hop, and we all rushed off to war. There was a "blue on blue" when a warthog straffed a British troop carrier which resulted in several dead and injured.

The question that nobody has yet to ask is what happened to the IFF (Identification Friend or Foe), the transponders that emit seure radio signals to other "blue" units. Matty and his mates should have "lit up like christmas trees" on the warthogs radar.

I should imagine that the IFF transponders were never fitted/didn't work or were next to the body armour left in the U.K. together with the proper desert boots,kit and food!!!!!!!!!

Politicians? I've flushed better down the toilet, and they are all the same, Maggie Thatcher in the Falklands (in which she won her next election, at the cost of 255 British Forces lives) and Phoney Tony, nuff said about him!!!

The MOD & the American Goverment don't come up smelling of roses either, with both LYING through their teeth about the existance of the warthogs tapes, then being "forced" into admittance when The Sun newspaper revealed all. Its no wonder that 14500 left the British Forces last year, you can only LIE for so long!

I've said it before, LIONS LED BY DONKEYS!

Phil

----------------------------------
Sorry Mate I Didn't See You
----------------------------------null

themaster · 02-07-2007

As I understand it (from the news), the British didn't use IFF because the system was unreliable (I don't know if that's the system as a whole or its implementation in British kit). Their argument was that if the system was unreliable, better not to use it and risk being misidentified than use it and risk becoming a viable target.

My thoughts on the incident in question? Tragic and shouldn't have happened. Pilots not to blame - they were given the all clear by command. Therefore command had faulty or out of date information, and presumably aren't to blame either, in which case it's just communication of information, i.e. infrastructure of the operation.

In either case, an accident, and not unlawful killing in my view.

Condolences of course to all soldiers lost in battle. I trust you will all be wearing poppies this year. It's important.