0
nigel99

Video of friendly fire

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think?




Please post where you confirmed these findings.



Here's info from a recent story:
Quote

In the first Gulf war, nine out of the 47 British combat deaths were due to friendly fire,



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2007019,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think?




Please post where you confirmed these findings.



You are in the military - how come you are unaware of stuff like this. Sleep through your training?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think?




Please post where you confirmed these findings.



You are in the military - how come you are unaware of stuff like this. Sleep through your training?



Look who is ducking another question. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

why will my knowledge of those make any diference to the fact you can hear those arseholes saying they can see orange markings and STILL attacking them when they were not sure if they were friendly or not...?

how many more british troops have to run the gauntlet of American fire before the world sees american troops for what they are?

while we're on the subject, how many wars have American troops won on their own? American troops got their arses kicked in korea,

This is factually and historically incorrect. The US Military won every major battle of this war but one and that was when 8th Army was pushing north towards the Yalu River was engadged not by North Korean but by the Chinese Red Army. Gen Macarthur would not listen to the Marines who had reported that the Chinese had indeed joined the war. Gen Macarthur choose to listen to his G-2 (intel) Gen. Willoughby who didn't believe the Chinese would enter the war. For the US to achieve total victory we would have attacked bases inside of China which likely would have escalated the conflicted possibly leading to WWIII. The US was unwilling to do this and this is why Truman replaced Macarthur and ended the war where it started. Call it a loss if you like but I call it smart. The world was only just recovering from a world war and the UN and the US's policy of containing the war to the Korean landmass saved millions of lives. The death toll...North Korea 520,000, China 900,000, US 54,000. You do the math...

they got them serverly kicked in Vietnam,

Again you show historical ignorance. The US never lost an engadgement that involved a element larger than a company. Had the US choosen to bomb the north the war would have ended in weeks. The reason they choose not to was again the chance of starting WWIII. Vietnam deaths US 58,000, North Vietnam 1,100,000...

they made fools of themselves at the bay of pigs...

You need to read alittle more as the US Military had nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs. It was a CIA operation exicuted by 1,500 to 2,500 Cuban exiles.

the less said about Somalia the better,

Ok there is a company of Rangers reinforced with assault elements made up from CAG (about 200-250 US personnel) surrounded in an urban setting by thousands. That they only lost 18 people is a testament to there training and courage.

need i go on about the quality of American troops?

Yes please do go on......

it seems america needs its allies, yet can't seem to stop themselves from killing them.... guess it's just the price we must pay isn't it [:/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think?




Please post where you confirmed these findings.



You are aware that the most deadly attack in that war was by two A10s rocketing two British Warriors killing 9 and wounding 11 right? You don't do that and not make the shortlist of causes, it would be surprising if the percentage were any less.

Here's some information a little closer to home. My earlier figure was on the low side, the U.S. on U.S. fratricide percentage was higher in that same conflict.
http://nucnews.net/2000/du/91du/910814wp.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think?




Please post where you confirmed these findings.



You are in the military - how come you are unaware of stuff like this. Sleep through your training?



Look who is ducking another question. :o



Your response borders on the offensive because it reflects an ignorance of the biggest military disaster of the first Gulf War inflicted by another pair of American A10 pilots on British troops (heck it could be the same pair of pilots, we have no way of knowing).

The question can't be evaded, it is seared into the British consciousness, even if it doesn't register on the American conscience. I just wonder what you're doing posting noise to a thread about a subject you're so ill-equipped to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think?




Please post where you confirmed these findings.



You are in the military - how come you are unaware of stuff like this. Sleep through your training?



Look who is ducking another question. :o



Your response borders on the offensive because it reflects an ignorance of the biggest military disaster of the first Gulf War inflicted by another pair of American A10 pilots on British troops (heck it could be the same pair of pilots, we have no way of knowing).

The question can't be evaded, it is seared into the British consciousness, even if it doesn't register on the American conscience. I just wonder what you're doing posting noise to a thread about a subject you're so ill-equipped to discuss.



Depends on the cut off date and definition of KIA for total Brit KIA fatalities as to whether its 47 or 24 (also here and here. 9 were due to fratricide from the A10 incident. 9/24 = 38%
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think?




Please post where you confirmed these findings.



You are in the military - how come you are unaware of stuff like this. Sleep through your training?



Look who is ducking another question. :o



Your response borders on the offensive because it reflects an ignorance of the biggest military disaster of the first Gulf War inflicted by another pair of American A10 pilots on British troops (heck it could be the same pair of pilots, we have no way of knowing).

The question can't be evaded, it is seared into the British consciousness, even if it doesn't register on the American conscience. I just wonder what you're doing posting noise to a thread about a subject you're so ill-equipped to discuss.



You seem to infer a great deal that is unstated. I meant no disrespect to British soldiers killed in combat. I was merely pressing Kallend to back up his claim.... which he has done.

Can anyone explain why some sources claim British combat deaths were 24, while others claim a higher number of 47?

What is it about those other 23 soldiers killed (47-24=23) that makes the cause of their deaths uncertain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New Friendly fire incident

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6346901.stm

seems that they mistook Iraqi Soldiers for an al-Queda Cell.

Regarding the discrepancy between the 24 and 47 I found this list - maybe the one figure does not include "accidents" of which there are quite a few - road and air.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/british_casualties/html/default.stm
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You are in the military - how come you are unaware of stuff like this. Sleep through your training?



:D:D Nice try Professor, you're avoiding the question! :D:D

I respectfully request that you please post where you were you confirmed these facts. By the way, my military training was naval avionics, not the speculated percentages of British fatalities killed by US forces during the first gulf war. I guess the Department of Defense felt is was erroneous content to teach their newly recruited avionics technicians as it appeared to be useless information on the proper maintenance procedures of US naval aircraft.;)

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

New Friendly fire incident

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6346901.stm

seems that they mistook Iraqi Soldiers for an al-Queda Cell.

Regarding the discrepancy between the 24 and 47 I found this list - maybe the one figure does not include "accidents" of which there are quite a few - road and air.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/british_casualties/html/default.stm



That's sad!!!![:/] Another "blue on blue" is a horrible thing!!

I'm surprised that the conspiracy theory fanatics haven't been calling shenanigans thus far in this thread to claim all this is intentional.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Can anyone explain why some sources claim British combat deaths were 24, while others claim a higher number of 47?

What is it about those other 23 soldiers killed (47-24=23) that makes the cause of their deaths uncertain?



As best as I can tell (and DON'T ask for confirmation of this) it is a difference in definition between "killed in action" and "killed in theater". Someone killed in a traffic accident on base in Kuwait counts as "killed in theater" but not as KIA.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those who wanted to wait for an official report, here's a UK inquiry, taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2009301,00.html

Quote

UK inquiry criticises friendly fire pilots

· Report says pair ignored basic procedures
· American investigation had cleared servicemen

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.
As the US pilot who attacked the convoy shortly after the invasion of Iraq nearly four years ago was named for the first time, 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.

The pilot of the A10 aircraft who twice attacked the British patrol was named by the Sun as Colonel Gus "Skeeter" Kohntopp. He was a lieutenant colonel reservist in the Idaho Air National Guard when he attacked the convoy in his first combat mission. He is also a commercial pilot.

The British board of inquiry criticised the pilots of the two A10 aircraft for ignoring basic procedures. "Without having been authorised by Manila Hotel, [their US forward ground controller]," the pilots "engaged the UK recce patrol believing it to be hostile", the report said.

Col Kohntopp's call sign was Popov 36, and his wingman's was Popov 35. Manila Hotel twice told the pilots they were "well clear" of friendly forces. The board says that "the ground situation information given by Manila Hotel to Popov section [the two pilots] was scant [and] insufficient friendly positional information and control measures were passed or requested".

It adds that "neither target description nor location of the final target was passed by Popov 35 to Manila Hotel".

It continues: "The aircrew did not receive clear authority from the GFAC [ground forward air controller] for Popov 36 to engage."

The board's report goes on: "At no stage was Manila Hotel advised of the new target ... Popov was not clear to engage."

It said that British psychologists noted that Popov 36 showed a "single-minded pursuit of the UK vehicles". He was "not sensitive" to the workload of his wingman, a major. The problem was compounded, it suggests, by the wingman's exaggerated respect for his senior colleague, Lt Col Kohntopp.

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.

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. Neither was disciplined.

The inquest into Lance Corporal Hull's death is due to resume on March 12.


Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to know which Iraqi military vehicle had ORANGE rockets mounted on top of it, and bright enough to be visible from altitude.

For fucks sake.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously - what frikin' combat vehicle has orange (orange!) missiles on top of it - orange enough to be visible from altitude?

Sorry - the two fuckstick A-10 pilots were hell bent on some trigger time.

Utter bellends.

edit to add:

>Taking into account the frustration of the coroner in obtaining evidence from the US military, the obstructiveness of HMG and the obvious desire not to rock the boat by pressuring our Cousins. Further taking into account the completely unfair stance of the US that her brave boys have immunity as criminals whatever their actions yet other nations will have to account for their men before US justice.
Their stance shows an absolute disrespect for the men who fight alongside them.
I see that to date no US serviceman has been shot in blue on blue by British servicemen.
Perhaps one way for this to stop and to make our point would be to do so.

Or is there a better solution?

PEACE THROUGH FIRE SUPERIORITY? - JUST GIVE ME A BIG AXE!<

>What makes this particular incident so galling is that despite the experience of 1991 nothing was learned, following on from the death of Matty Hull , nothing was learnt, as evidenced by the killing of three PPCLI soldiers in A'stan.

What really pIsses me off is that the 'Cousins' do not appear to be bothered about 'lessons learnt'. It has been said that the Yanks were 'weapons free' on that mission, further its has been stated that they were not operating in their 'designated area, hunting ground'. This begs the question why then did they feel they were still operating under 'weapons free' ROE?<

>I love the Spams, I'd be a citizen in a vindaloo s*** if they'd have me, I just do not care for their approach to allied forces and their place in the Battlespace. <

>I'm not a yank basher but while this sort of thing happens with no recourse then it will happen again and again. There has to be some consequences for actions commited in war regardless of hwow good the intention.

The fog of war excuse is purely that an excuse when people mess up! <

>watched the footage leaked by The Sun newspaper on CNN at lunchtime today (1800GMT).

The pilot clearly identifies 'orange markings on the top of the vehicle' and then request permission to engage. The reply requests more info; 'what do they look like?' to which the pilot replies; 'orange rockets'. He is told to confirm and after acknowledging, is then given clearance.

Also, the soldier killed is pictured as a household cavalry Staff Corporal, so I assume he would be forward recce? <

>fog of war my bollocks. go and watch the video and then come back and tell me how it was fog of war. they were a pair of gung-ho cunts (36 more than 35) who were keen to get a kill. at least 5 times i heard them mention orange on top of the wagon - that should say STOP!!! to anyone up there.

pair of assholes and they deserve to be in prison for manslaughter. <


>Surely the idea of a trial is to actually find out whether they are guilty or not?

The fact that this incident was declared an "unavoidable accident" by your investigations means nothing, was the investigation done in an open and impartial manner or was it all done in house and covered up?<

>The fact that the very existence of this tape was denied for so long and then had secret stickers plastered all over it when it was discovered make any investigation suspect.<

>Collateral damage (that seems to be the phrase that all the defenders of these guys seem to want use but use the coy "fog of war" etc instead) when it includes your allies is or should be investigated in the open where every one can see. <



>They were out for a kill, were badly trained and cocked up bigtime. The Popov c/s should have been 'Inept Cowboy.'<

>What makes this even worse is the MoD's lies and deceit to support the Pentagon.

According to the Sun there was an inquiry in the US behind doors but both pilots were cleared of any wrongdoing, neither pilot being Court Martialled.<

>I think I'll nip over to the Imperial War Museum and see if I can find any orange coloured dayglo rockets. Second thoughts it's blóódy obvious I won't, I'll stay here instead. <

>Blue on Blue has always happened,

My Father in Law (1 Field RA at Cassino) remembers being involved in a number of these incidents....

That is being bombed by the USAAF.... <

>anybody have any comment on the remarkably coincidental "oh my tapes run out" *end both tapes* shortly after one of them mentions going to jail?

I though it was too convenient when I heard it.<

>On the existence of the tape John Nichol [For the septics: Ex RAF shot down in the first Gulf War] says in the Sun, "Everybody in the military knew this tape existed. These things are always recorded. To be told it didn't exist was a lie and to be told you can't hear it because it's secret was ridiculous. There's nothing in the transcript that endangers life or gives away secrets. What it shows is two men making a mistake."<


>POPOV 36 has been named in the Sun as Col Gus KOHNTOPP

They quote a couple of short statements from the cowboy too:

“You have to live with your actions so make them worthwhile to your loved ones and this great nation.”

But this sums the shíte up completely:

“My best piloting experience has been flying the A10 in Iraqi Freedom.” <

>Did anyone else see the ITN news interview today with the Vietnam veteran who is a neighbour of the pilot?

Basically he says the pilot is a hero. We are useless, just as we proved to be in WWII and the USA does not need our help...just our co-operation.

cnut...I am fuming,. <


>Quote::
You guys had better get on board in that whole damn country of yours and along with the rest of Europe" "You gonna go merrily sucking your thumb like you did in WWII" "We dont need your damn help, we need your co-operation. We know its hard to get that. We know you guys cant shoot, move and communicate

How to make friends and influence your allies.<

>I think ITN showed it on purpose to be honest.

ITN are a posh version of The Sun in moving pictures. <



>Blue on Blue and the TV News

I have just watched the ITV news, where they interviewed a resident from the Idaho home town of the pilot who killed Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull. I’m so angry that I find it hard to type this post. The man interviewed said words along the lines that we should get on board and support the war on terror, and basically not hang back like we did in WW11! Basically, he wanted us just to comply with the USA.<

>Sorry if this is a rather incoherent post, I’m just so freaking angry to think this is what grass roots Americans think of the UK’s efforts this war on terror. For Christ sake, we are the only true allies they have! <



> boggled when this guy was identified. Sort of blows out of the water the party line of a couple of days ago:

"These were inexperienced pilots on their first mission".

Strikes me A10 pilots have only two things to learn. Fly the damn thing and AFV recognition. Remember John Simpson's report from Northern Iraq during the original phase of the war? Was in a column of civvy vehs which included US Spec Forces FAC. FAC called down fire on a single Iraqi tank at a crossroads some way ahead of them. A10 shot up the column with the FAC in!

As I read it this pair reported CVR(T)s as flatbed trucks! Summat's not right with their training or their eyesight, and they did make a low pass before the shoot-up run.

Aussies won't have US air or arty support. 2 RAR went through Vietnam with half the casualties of any US bn-sized unit. Says something to me. <


>I'm sure this dunce that was interviewed does not represent the average American. (At least I would sure hope so!)

I am also always sickened, by some of the interviews of Americans on the street by people like Jay Leno TV host. Mostly young people, some in college, etc. They come over as REALLY stupid!

They don't seem to have a grasp of history (WW II) and many subjects, personalities and and/or currant events.<

>This really disturbs me; however, I wonder if someone was to interview the average person on the street in any country, to include the UK if the results might not be the same. People tend to be that way.

I think most american veterans, as individuals, would express their condolences and apologies, anytime our forces were involved with a blue on blue incident, where other soldiers were killed or wounded.

If you don't hear it from anyother American, please accept my sincere apology and condolences on behalf of the American veterans for our Blue on Blue incidents.<

>>We all need to work towards eliminating such incidents; however, IMHO they will always be a factor in modern warfare. <<

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



Can anyone explain why some sources claim British combat deaths were 24, while others claim a higher number of 47?

What is it about those other 23 soldiers killed (47-24=23) that makes the cause of their deaths uncertain?



As best as I can tell (and DON'T ask for confirmation of this) it is a difference in definition between "killed in action" and "killed in theater". Someone killed in a traffic accident on base in Kuwait counts as "killed in theater" but not as KIA.



That's correct

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See the attached images from from UK newspapers showing the pilot and what he did.

No courts marshal for the pilots in fact "skeeter" got promoted to Colonel, and get this; from The Times:

"Colonel Gus “Skeeter” Kohntopp, who was a lieutenant-colonel at the time, now trains other American pilots in ground-attack skills."

Who better!

You know guys, the "Peter Principal" is a fucking ironic observation, it's not something you're supposed to strive to implement. I hope he starts his class with that guncam footage and doesn't pretend he followed procedures like the DoD whitewash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L/Cpl Hull's widow, Susan, 30, from Wiltshire, said: "I always knew there was a cover-up and this proves it. All I wanted was the truth about what happened to Matty. I've waited four long years to see this footage. Finally here I am seeing my husband die at the hands of two imbeciles."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Colonel Gus “Skeeter” Kohntopp, who was a lieutenant-colonel at the time, now trains other American pilots in ground-attack skills."

Who better!



Well hey, he did hit them didn't he?:S
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060633,00.html

The cover-up has been uncovered, from the article:

Quote


THE Pentagon stood accused of an alarming cover-up last night over hero soldier Matty Hull’s “friendly fire” death.

A senior American general in charge of a US probe into what went wrong recommended two airmen face court martial, The Sun can reveal.

But defence chiefs over-ruled his findings into the Iraq war tragedy to clear both A10 tankbuster pilots of any wrongdoing.



Quote


The unnamed US 4-star General felt so strongly about the need for charges he even urged the US defence chiefs to reconsider their call to admonish the airmen.

In a previously secret document seen by The Sun, the general spells out the errors made on the day.
He insists: “The findings that cognitive and physical task overload, ineffective communication and failure to recognise identification panels that contributed to the terrible loss of life are difficult to square with a finding that no procedures were violated”.

He recommends: “The Commander, Coalition Forces Air Component Command should reconsider the actions of subordinate personnel for possible administrative or disciplinary action as he may deem appropriate”.

Yet just three days ago, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the pilots “followed the procedures and processes for engaging targets” and as a result, neither was disciplined.



So it looks like internally at the highest levels the Pentagon agreed with the UK inquiry's conclusions, but did nothing. Unless you count the promotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

See the attached images from from UK newspapers showing the pilot and what he did.

No courts marshal for the pilots in fact "skeeter" got promoted to Colonel, and get this; from The Times:

"Colonel Gus “Skeeter” Kohntopp, who was a lieutenant-colonel at the time, now trains other American pilots in ground-attack skills."

Who better!

You know guys, the "Peter Principal" is a fucking ironic observation, it's not something you're supposed to strive to implement. I hope he starts his class with that guncam footage and doesn't pretend he followed procedures like the DoD whitewash.



That was pretty fucking tasteless shit to post, Dorbie.

How about this: Good fucking shooting by American pilots.

The guncam video showed no evidence of trigger-happy attitudes.

Get the hell over it!

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

See the attached images from from UK newspapers showing the pilot and what he did.

No courts marshal for the pilots in fact "skeeter" got promoted to Colonel, and get this; from The Times:

"Colonel Gus “Skeeter” Kohntopp, who was a lieutenant-colonel at the time, now trains other American pilots in ground-attack skills."

Who better!

You know guys, the "Peter Principal" is a fucking ironic observation, it's not something you're supposed to strive to implement. I hope he starts his class with that guncam footage and doesn't pretend he followed procedures like the DoD whitewash.



That was pretty fucking tasteless shit to post, Dorbie.

How about this: Good fucking shooting by American pilots.

The guncam video showed no evidence of trigger-happy attitudes.

Get the hell over it!



There is nothing tasteless in what I posted and nothing that isn't on the front page of every newspaper in the UK.

Perhaps you had the audio turned down when you watched the video, there was clear evidence the A10s saw and recognized friendly markings at the start.

Perhaps this would have gone away and we'd all have gotten over it 4 years ago if the phoneys running the show over at the Pentagon hadn't covered this up and promoted the pilot who did it, in defiance of the investigating General who recommended disciplinary procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0