US air strike on UK troops.. film footage on GMTV
anyway thats not the point they couldnt tell the difference
07 February 2007, 02:07 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
^ Are you nuts? They aren't airfix kits you know....They are accepted to have a max sea level speed of about 420mph and as far a Max G I have no idea but I believe its fairly high. If they didn't pull G why would the pilots wear G suits?
Slightly off topic but at least get half a clue before posting. Obviously the soldiers and families are going through **** right now but the pilots don't have it easy either.
Edit to add...Bad taste I know but I lol'd at the paras returning fire story!
Slightly off topic but at least get half a clue before posting. Obviously the soldiers and families are going through **** right now but the pilots don't have it easy either.
Edit to add...Bad taste I know but I lol'd at the paras returning fire story!
The point I was trying to make was, the A10 is basically a 35 year old tank with wings, not a state of the art fighter jet, which was implied in the post I quoted. In fact in terms of speed and maneuverability, it would be out-performed by a last-generation piston-engined fighter. Obviously in armaments and armour terms it's in a completely different league.
I am fully aware that the soldiers and their families are going through **** right now
But honestly, I really couldn't give a flying **** about how the pilots feel, if they had acted a bit more like trained professionals and a bit less like John Wayne this situation would probably not have occurred
Re: your last comment though, I must admit I had a bit of a chuckle too
And the 'HIND' and 'NOT HIND', that's just class
07 February 2007, 03:54 PM
#93
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watched it last night, to me the whole thing was very reminiscent of the incident involving the Canadians on the bridge in Afghanistan. The only difference being that in Afghanistan the pilots were told there were friendlies in the area
In both cases I got the impression that the pilots were just itching to 'blow something, anything, away'
That's all well and good, except:
1/ They were in A10s which aren't capable of 300mph even going downhill with a good tailwind.
2/ The A10 isn't capable of pulling 'significant' G forces without it's wings falling off either.
3/ As Simon has already pointed out, they were not under fire, more likely they were bored and itching for some action, and, most importantly,
4/ Why the **** shouldn't we be critical of them, it's their job, it's what they are trained to do (allegedly). If I fcuked up at work to the extent where I killed colleagues, my **** would already be in prison
In both cases I got the impression that the pilots were just itching to 'blow something, anything, away'That's all well and good, except:
1/ They were in A10s which aren't capable of 300mph even going downhill with a good tailwind.
2/ The A10 isn't capable of pulling 'significant' G forces without it's wings falling off either.
3/ As Simon has already pointed out, they were not under fire, more likely they were bored and itching for some action, and, most importantly,
4/ Why the **** shouldn't we be critical of them, it's their job, it's what they are trained to do (allegedly). If I fcuked up at work to the extent where I killed colleagues, my **** would already be in prison
2) See 1.
3) As I said to Simon, they may not have been under fire at that moment, but with the ambiguity about the status of the ground units this may have been an imminent possibility in their minds AND you clearly hear one of them say at the start, if they are hostile we need to deal with them before they get to the town.
4) If you f*cked up at work your superiors would judge and deal with you -who are best placed and in authority to do so, NOT the general public who might not have clue 1 about procedures, appropirate conduct, standards etc...
As I said to Simon, this is a matter for the military to deal with. Most people coming on here and criticising the pilots -with a few exceptions- have NO IDEA about relevant protocol, nor do they have a full grasp of the circumstances and I'm also willing to bet that few , if any, have ever flown a fighter plane or even experienced any kind of combat!!
These peope are human beings that have made a terrible mistake under very difficult cirumstances. I do not know the extent of their culpability, nor do the vast majority of the UK public. We can only watch in horror as a genuine mistake costs a man his life. IT is for the experts (people who fly combat aircraft and have first hand experience of protocol and war) to pass judgement on this matter, not the GP.
07 February 2007, 03:59 PM
#94
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) I think you'll find your technical data on the A10 is incorrect
2) See 1.
3) As I said to Simon, they may not have been under fire at that moment, but with the ambiguity about the status of the ground units this may have been an imminent possibility in their minds AND you clearly hear one of them say at the start, if they are hostile we need to deal with them before they get to the town.
4) If you f*cked up at work your superiors would judge and deal with you -who are best placed and in authority to do so, NOT the general public who might not have clue 1 about procedures, appropirate conduct, standards etc...
As I said to Simon, this is a matter for the military to deal with. Most people coming on here and criticising the pilots -with a few exceptions- have NO IDEA about relevant protocol, nor do they have a full grasp of the circumstances and I'm also willing to bet that few , if any, have ever flown a fighter plane or even experienced any kind of combat!!
These peope are human beings that have made a terrible mistake under very difficult cirumstances. I do not know the extent of their culpability, nor do the vast majority of the UK public. We can only watch in horror as a genuine mistake costs a man his life. IT is for the experts (people who fly combat aircraft and have first hand experience of protocol and war) to pass judgement on this matter, not the GP.
2) See 1.
3) As I said to Simon, they may not have been under fire at that moment, but with the ambiguity about the status of the ground units this may have been an imminent possibility in their minds AND you clearly hear one of them say at the start, if they are hostile we need to deal with them before they get to the town.
4) If you f*cked up at work your superiors would judge and deal with you -who are best placed and in authority to do so, NOT the general public who might not have clue 1 about procedures, appropirate conduct, standards etc...
As I said to Simon, this is a matter for the military to deal with. Most people coming on here and criticising the pilots -with a few exceptions- have NO IDEA about relevant protocol, nor do they have a full grasp of the circumstances and I'm also willing to bet that few , if any, have ever flown a fighter plane or even experienced any kind of combat!!
These peope are human beings that have made a terrible mistake under very difficult cirumstances. I do not know the extent of their culpability, nor do the vast majority of the UK public. We can only watch in horror as a genuine mistake costs a man his life. IT is for the experts (people who fly combat aircraft and have first hand experience of protocol and war) to pass judgement on this matter, not the GP.
07 February 2007, 04:30 PM
#96
For the A-10 stuff - the pilots are known to get loads of stick from true 'fast jet' pilots because their plane goes faster with the engines off than on (the speed it needs to restart its engines in an emergency is faster than the aircraft can acheive in normal flight).
An A-10 is designed for close air support, as previously stated. Now being someone who as been *extremely* grateful for CAS fairly recently, these guys are expected to be able to deliver ordanance against targets in close proximity (the close bit) to friendly troops in contact (to use the american phrase - the support bit).
Now, the idea that the pilots couldn't tell the difference between a ZIL and anything else basically disgusts me; if they had any doubt, which they obviously did, they should have ensured they had correct eyes on recognition of the possible target. Not knowing EXACTLY what you are engaging is unforgivable. Also, I would love to know exactly which 'Penguin My First Recognition Handbook' they learn from - because I've never seen an orange rocket launcher outside of Toys'r'us.
Oh, and the attempt to blame anyone else in the targeting chain is wrong. The bottom line is the decision to engage rests with the pilot, it is their finger on the trigger, it is their ultimate decision. Its what they get paid the big money for. Simple fact is they cocked up. I'm not saying it was intentional, I'm not saying they in any way meant to do it, but I am saying its professional incompetence, and that they should never fly a military aircraft again.
There is a very good vehicle tracking system that the Americans use. Why don't we have it? Because, surprise surprise, the Labour government is great at sending us to wars, less great at sticking their hands in their pockets and paying for them.
Oh - one last thing - the comment about "intelligence failures" about telling the pilot that friendlies were in the area. That is NOT an intelligence failure. That is an Operational failure. Please leave those at the door of the J3(Ops) office. J2(Int) gets enough accusations thrown at them already.
An A-10 is designed for close air support, as previously stated. Now being someone who as been *extremely* grateful for CAS fairly recently, these guys are expected to be able to deliver ordanance against targets in close proximity (the close bit) to friendly troops in contact (to use the american phrase - the support bit).
Now, the idea that the pilots couldn't tell the difference between a ZIL and anything else basically disgusts me; if they had any doubt, which they obviously did, they should have ensured they had correct eyes on recognition of the possible target. Not knowing EXACTLY what you are engaging is unforgivable. Also, I would love to know exactly which 'Penguin My First Recognition Handbook' they learn from - because I've never seen an orange rocket launcher outside of Toys'r'us.
Oh, and the attempt to blame anyone else in the targeting chain is wrong. The bottom line is the decision to engage rests with the pilot, it is their finger on the trigger, it is their ultimate decision. Its what they get paid the big money for. Simple fact is they cocked up. I'm not saying it was intentional, I'm not saying they in any way meant to do it, but I am saying its professional incompetence, and that they should never fly a military aircraft again.
There is a very good vehicle tracking system that the Americans use. Why don't we have it? Because, surprise surprise, the Labour government is great at sending us to wars, less great at sticking their hands in their pockets and paying for them.
Oh - one last thing - the comment about "intelligence failures" about telling the pilot that friendlies were in the area. That is NOT an intelligence failure. That is an Operational failure. Please leave those at the door of the J3(Ops) office. J2(Int) gets enough accusations thrown at them already.
Last edited by Prasius; 07 February 2007 at 04:34 PM.
07 February 2007, 06:14 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Croydon - returned to democracy! Yay!!
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prasius, spot on all the way through.
Though I'd still lay a hefty chunk of responsibilty at the door of the controller who confirmed there were no friendlies in the area as that must have been a massive influence on the pilot's decision to engage... To be honest, listening to the comms the whole thing seemed like a complete clusterfcuk from the off. I've heard minicab drivers with better R/T than that
SB
PS LMAO at 'Penguin My First Recognition Handbook'
Though I'd still lay a hefty chunk of responsibilty at the door of the controller who confirmed there were no friendlies in the area as that must have been a massive influence on the pilot's decision to engage... To be honest, listening to the comms the whole thing seemed like a complete clusterfcuk from the off. I've heard minicab drivers with better R/T than that
SB
PS LMAO at 'Penguin My First Recognition Handbook'
07 February 2007, 06:20 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 February 2007, 07:08 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F
Now, the idea that the pilots couldn't tell the difference between a ZIL and anything else basically disgusts me; if they had any doubt, which they obviously did, they should have ensured they had correct eyes on recognition of the possible target. Not knowing EXACTLY what you are engaging is unforgivable.
Now, the idea that the pilots couldn't tell the difference between a ZIL and anything else basically disgusts me; if they had any doubt, which they obviously did, they should have ensured they had correct eyes on recognition of the possible target. Not knowing EXACTLY what you are engaging is unforgivable.
AFAIK they are sat in the most heavily armoured cockpit in service and an aircraft that can take an amazing amount of punishment.
If you had ANY doubt about the target then surely you would take a closer look.
08 February 2007, 02:16 AM
#100
Scooby Regular
1) I think you'll find your technical data on the A10 is incorrect
2) See 1.
3) As I said to Simon, they may not have been under fire at that moment, but with the ambiguity about the status of the ground units this may have been an imminent possibility in their minds AND you clearly hear one of them say at the start, if they are hostile we need to deal with them before they get to the town.
4) If you f*cked up at work your superiors would judge and deal with you -who are best placed and in authority to do so, NOT the general public who might not have clue 1 about procedures, appropirate conduct, standards etc...
As I said to Simon, this is a matter for the military to deal with. Most people coming on here and criticising the pilots -with a few exceptions- have NO IDEA about relevant protocol, nor do they have a full grasp of the circumstances and I'm also willing to bet that few , if any, have ever flown a fighter plane or even experienced any kind of combat!!
These peope are human beings that have made a terrible mistake under very difficult cirumstances. I do not know the extent of their culpability, nor do the vast majority of the UK public. We can only watch in horror as a genuine mistake costs a man his life. IT is for the experts (people who fly combat aircraft and have first hand experience of protocol and war) to pass judgement on this matter, not the GP.
2) See 1.
3) As I said to Simon, they may not have been under fire at that moment, but with the ambiguity about the status of the ground units this may have been an imminent possibility in their minds AND you clearly hear one of them say at the start, if they are hostile we need to deal with them before they get to the town.
4) If you f*cked up at work your superiors would judge and deal with you -who are best placed and in authority to do so, NOT the general public who might not have clue 1 about procedures, appropirate conduct, standards etc...
As I said to Simon, this is a matter for the military to deal with. Most people coming on here and criticising the pilots -with a few exceptions- have NO IDEA about relevant protocol, nor do they have a full grasp of the circumstances and I'm also willing to bet that few , if any, have ever flown a fighter plane or even experienced any kind of combat!!
These peope are human beings that have made a terrible mistake under very difficult cirumstances. I do not know the extent of their culpability, nor do the vast majority of the UK public. We can only watch in horror as a genuine mistake costs a man his life. IT is for the experts (people who fly combat aircraft and have first hand experience of protocol and war) to pass judgement on this matter, not the GP.
Point 4 - My point exactly, my superiors would not have attempted to impede the course of any investigation, nor would they denied the existence of evidence to a court.
I agree it is not for the general public to pass judgement on this matter, but equally neither is it the American Military's place to obstruct the course of proper investigation.
The other thing is, how the ******* hell did the Yahoo who started the shooting manage to attain the rank of Lt. Col in the US Air Force (OK it's only the ANG, but still) without anybody realising he was incapable of properly visually identifying a target
08 February 2007, 02:43 AM
#101
Scooby Regular
There is a very good vehicle tracking system that the Americans use. Why don't we have it? Because, surprise surprise, the Labour government is great at sending us to wars, less great at sticking their hands in their pockets and paying for them.
Oh - one last thing - the comment about "intelligence failures" about telling the pilot that friendlies were in the area. That is NOT an intelligence failure. That is an Operational failure. Please leave those at the door of the J3(Ops) office. J2(Int) gets enough accusations thrown at them already.
Oh - one last thing - the comment about "intelligence failures" about telling the pilot that friendlies were in the area. That is NOT an intelligence failure. That is an Operational failure. Please leave those at the door of the J3(Ops) office. J2(Int) gets enough accusations thrown at them already.
UK Governments of all pesuasions have been doing it for years, during the Great War the Cabinet would not authorise the issuing of machine guns in the trenches because of the belief that they would encourage the troops to waste bullets. It's just that Bliar and the Pension Thief reckon it can be done with a much thinner shoestring than has been previously usedAre you (ex?) J2 by any chance
I fully agree with you btw, Intelligence's job is to find out what the enemy are up to, too damned right it's the job of Operations to know where their own people are
08 February 2007, 06:07 AM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All that sticks in my mind is one pilot saying "were going to jail dude" Well some people are saying the pilot sounded really sorry and they must feel really bad. Seems to me all there fecking worried about is going to jail and not the person that died or his family. Lock all responsable up for life for murder.....*******
08 February 2007, 11:15 AM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 February 2007, 12:55 PM
#106
Scooby Regular
08 February 2007, 01:02 PM
#107
Scooby Regular
08 February 2007, 02:49 PM
#108
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must admit the UK goverment need to accept part of the blaim. if we equiped our troops better and with a communication/identification system thatt could stop situations like this
until then its "duck and cover" When the yanks start firing !
until then its "duck and cover" When the yanks start firing !
08 February 2007, 03:01 PM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Infractions - Scoobynet's version of the "scamera" van
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Likewise, shooting the wrong person is innapropriate conduct whatever way you look at it.
Do you realise how ridiculous your comments sound????
08 February 2007, 09:33 PM
#110
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If by ****ing up at work I killed and injured innocent people, it would most certainly not be my superiors that dealt with me.
Likewise, shooting the wrong person is innapropriate conduct whatever way you look at it.
Do you realise how ridiculous your comments sound????
Likewise, shooting the wrong person is innapropriate conduct whatever way you look at it.
Do you realise how ridiculous your comments sound????
Seems like you've missed the point!Does your job description involve killing people?? They're not carpet layers, or brickies: they're job description is to kill....preferably the other guys!!! You have a duty of care under the civil law to make sure that your civilian job under peaceful conditions doesn't kill or injure anyone else. Should you fail to observe your duty of care, you will be called to a civilian court, to answer to your peers, which will include a cross examination by people who are experts about your job and the procedures put in place to try and ensure that you don't break your duty of care. Your culpability will be determined on the extent to which you followed those procedures! People who are not experts won't be in a position to comment definitively on your culpability.
They (soldiers) made a mistake in a combat arena and attacked the wrong side. Their degree of culpability is FOR THE MILITARY TO DECIDE, NOT YOU, NOT ME, NOT THE REST OF THE GP, NOT EVEN THE ONES THAT ARE KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT MILITARY PROTOCOL ON HERE. ITS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PRIVY TO ALL THE FACTS!!!
Their actions WILL have consequences. If the MILITARY decides that this death, far from being an unavoidable accident, was THEIR FAULT they will be dealt with accordingly.
What is so ridiculous about that???
If you have a contribution to make fine, if you disagree with me, fine. But if you are disrespectful, I will simply ignore any further posts you make.
I've not got time for trolling/keyboard warriors
Ns04
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 08 February 2007 at 09:47 PM.
08 February 2007, 10:34 PM
#111
If you all want to get really annoyed - watch the ITN news in a few minutes where some gobby stupid yank (no offence WRX) mouths off about how they they need (inept) heros like him and how our "damn country needs to get on board".
Well excuse me for wasting two years of my life (so far) in stupid arsed wars for the sake of the US.
Well excuse me for wasting two years of my life (so far) in stupid arsed wars for the sake of the US.
Last edited by Prasius; 08 February 2007 at 10:38 PM.
09 February 2007, 06:16 AM
#113
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a f*cking stupid remark. Just in case anyone needed a demonstration of exactly what sort of halfwits the American military is comprised of.
09 February 2007, 06:20 AM
#114
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The late Frank Zappa
Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.
09 February 2007, 06:29 AM
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 February 2007, 06:32 AM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are checks and balances.... the only reason he got away with that is because congress and the senate was republican..... now they are mixed..... so he doesent "own all 3 branches"
09 February 2007, 06:33 AM
#117
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yay... a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!
and "duck and cover "doesent help you from 30mm hight explosive, or depleted uranium....
09 February 2007, 09:37 AM
#118
Scooby Regular
I've never seen anyone make an enemy of an entire nation so quickly as the guy on ITN last night. Been trying to find a vid of him on the net.
What a to$$er! Completely brainwashed by the "War on terror" that the US rams down the western worlds throat.
There was no need for us to go there in the first place. The US put him there and they should have sorted it themselves. We just tagged along on the basis we'd get a share of the oil.
What a to$$er! Completely brainwashed by the "War on terror" that the US rams down the western worlds throat.
There was no need for us to go there in the first place. The US put him there and they should have sorted it themselves. We just tagged along on the basis we'd get a share of the oil.
09 February 2007, 09:38 AM
#119
Prasius, I saw that report - the loon went off on one didn't he? He even managed to get in that we should have been more involved in WW2 - so the 2 years before the US got involved didn't count then - oookkaayy!
IIRC, his name was Eldon Anderson - and he was a pilot in the oh so successfully fought Vietnam war! Deja Vu?
IIRC, his name was Eldon Anderson - and he was a pilot in the oh so successfully fought Vietnam war! Deja Vu?