The perils of precision-guided advanced weaponry

samcdkey said:
Guess you did not read all the posts, as usual: "Gerrard also criticised the pilot for shooting when there were civilians so close to the tanks."
Click to expand...

Anyone can criticize anyone else, Sam ....it don't mean shit! Surely you realize that he could be lying, right?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Little, tiny ants ...or less if they ain't movin'. But being a scientist, as you claim, you couldn't work that out for yourself??? If they can barely see a big vehicle, can barely tell what it is, you somehow can't figure out what humans would look like from the same distance?????? Scientist, huh?? Yeah, right!
Click to expand...
You do realise there are different fields in science don't you Baron?

Or do you think the term "scientist" automatically qualifies that individual to know everything about every science on the planet? Would you expect a scientist in the field of geology, for example, to also be an expert in the science of psychiatry, simply because they are a "scientist"?
 
Bells said:
You do realise there are different fields in science don't you Baron?

Or do you think the term "scientist" automatically qualifies that individual to know everything about every science on the planet? Would you expect a scientist in the field of geology, for example, to also be an expert in the science of psychiatry, simply because they are a "scientist"?
Click to expand...

So a "scientist" can't even make a logical comparison between an armored vehicle and a human in comparative size at a distance of 2.5 miles?????

Three-year old children can do that, Bells!

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Anyone can criticize anyone else, Sam ....it don't mean shit! Surely you realize that he could be lying, right?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

I wonder if you would feel the same way if the dead man was your brother. Or has living in the Unrestrained States of Aggression inured you to death?
 
Baron Max said:
They, like the US, have ground controllers, Zak. That's people on the ground, close to the situation, radioing specific info to the pilots. They also have laser-guided controls as well as GPS-guided controls.

Don't make this another one of your bullshit issues of turning it all against Israel!!

Baron Max
Click to expand...


maximus, thank you for your response:D :D

oK THEN THE GROUND CONTROLLERS FUCKED IT UP in you Opinion!!! Thats all i wanted to clarify

incidentally do you always need ground controllers to bomb enemy positions?

Can you revert to the satelite images if you are bombing miles behind the front line?

I was not turning this into a thread against israel, hell i have hardly posted anything even remotely against israel in the last few weeks, so perhaps you could shut the fuck up for once and stop turning this shit into an argument about something else.

~~~~~~~~

All the best

Zak
 
Baron Max said:
So a "scientist" can't even make a logical comparison between an armored vehicle and a human in comparative size at a distance of 2.5 miles?????

Three-year old children can do that, Bells!

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Really? So you have proof of this of course? You know, since you are making such a bold claim. Have any research to back it up Baron? Because until you do, I will only assume you are pulling that little gem out of your backside.

Or are you equating the maturity or the mental age of the pilots as that of 3 year olds?

But lets see what exactly those pilots saw shall we?

I guess the fact they questioned the existence of the orange panels on the sides of the tanks kind of indicates they could see them, don't you?

L/Cpl Hull was killed in March, 2003, when two American A-10 tankbusters attacked British forces despite radio calls and smoke grenade warnings.

Colleagues fought to rescue the 25-year-old Household Cavalry soldier from his blazing Scimitar armoured vehicle but he died of multiple wounds.

The pilots of the planes are told on the video that there are no coalition troops in the area.

Nevertheless, on several occasions they appear to question the presence of orange panels, used to identify coalition forces, on top of the armoured vehicles.
Link
Click to expand...

So these pilots, who suspected they were allied forces, could not make up their own minds from what they saw themselves? Interesting. I guess like 3 year olds, they need to be guided huh?

However lets assume they merely took the orange stripes that were used by allied forces on the ground to be rocket launches. Now lets look back over the discussion that ensued when they saw the convoy. From the OP links:

The pilot can be heard in the cockpit trying to establish whether targets on the ground are coalition forces or insurgents.

One man asserts that orange panels on the vehicles could mean they are coalition forces — most are equipped with bright markers to prevent such incidents.

Another man is heard saying the orange markers look like rockets.

"I think killing these damn rocket launchers, it would be great," a man on the recording is heard saying.
Click to expand...

Now while attempting to figure out just who the tanks belonged to, they were already getting excited at just shooting at it regardless. Their minds were made up. But if they could make out the orange stripes and have enough of a visual to assume they looked like orange rocket launches, they must have had enough of a visual to make out people with white flags wouldn't you say? After all, how big is a rocket launcher compared to an adult waving a white flag?

Or were they merely interested in the orange stripes that looked like rocket launches, so much so that they ignored their own beliefs that they might just be coalition forces? I guess the conversation that took place after they opened fire and realised they'd made a 'boo boo' kind of indicates they knew then and there:

Pilot 1: "I'm going to be sick."

Pilot 2: "Ah f---."

Pilot 1: "Did you hear?"

Pilot 2: "Yeah, this sucks."

Pilot 1: "We're in jail, dude."

The other pilot then weeps, according to the transcript.
Click to expand...

Hmm interesting. Now how did they know so quickly that they had made a mistake? Or could it be they opened fire BEFORE they received confirmation on who the vehicles on the ground with the orange stripes they admitted they could see (since they were discussing their having been there)?

You can claim they didn't see squat from where they were, but they saw enough of the stripes to wonder if they might, just might have been coalition forces, but simply opened fire before it was confirmed, because after all..

"I think killing these damn rocket launchers, it would be great," a man on the recording is heard saying.​

All in good fun huh Baron?
 
SamCDKey:

Unrestrained States of Aggression, hmmm?

I.gnorant
N.oxious
D.egenerate
I.nhuman
A.based
 
phlogistician: "how many instances of insurgents in armoured vehicles have been reported? I don't know of any, they use guerilla tactics, destroying our armoured vehicles, not driving around in their own. These guys forgot what war they were fighting."

For me, this was the most salient point made in this thread so far. I think it also refutes much of the "fog of war" bluster that Baron Max, Buffalo Roam, and other apologists dissemble with. Too many have forgotten (or never understood) what war we are fighting in Iraq: We are attempting a "friendly" occupation in order to make the Mideast more secure and cooperative with American interests. But indiscriminate force cannot achieve these objectives within the present set of circumstances. Indiscriminate American force has, in this combat theater, consistently proven to achieve the opposite.

There are multiple participants in the chain of error that is evident in this incident, as anyone can discover from watching the video. Lack of basic intelligence and communication is a primary factor. No "fog of war" excuse regarding the positions of friendly armor (not to mention non-combattants) during airstrikes holds true under conditions of occupation with overwhelming technological (and communications) superiority.

An even more fundamental ingredient in this incident is common in all of America's present Mideast overreach and provocation. In the video, it is apparent that these pilots lacked a basic understanding of the theater: They were so eager for kills as to rationalize the absurd: On the video you can listen as these 2 pilots talk themselves into believing that Iraqi insurgents were traveling in an armored column, with orange missiles on display atop their vehicles. These are not the logical conclusions of men who understand whom they are fighting in this case.

Although precision-guided munitions were not used in this attack (the lead A-10 made 2 cannon runs on the Brits) the same critical error also underlies many botched American attacks that have butchered thousands of Iraqi non-combattants with guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, and that have resultantly guaranteed blowback against American interests and security for at least a generation. The most sophisticated of weaponry can become strategically ineffective -even counterproductive- lacking the necessary intelligence and force indoctrination to insure that the results attrit and do not multiply opposition to the occupation forces.

In the incident we're discussing here, the damage to the dissolving Coalition is significant. In the less-reported and common incidents of "collateral" Iraqi non-combattant casualties, the damage done is no less significant. In the Arab media, including media within our closest (but vulnerable) "ally" regimes like the UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, there has been for some years now a steady news diet of American atrocities upon Arab civilians.

This phenomena, in concert with growing regional ethnic and class tensions, are pushing the region toward a violent change sure to include retribution against popularly-perceived American tormentors and mass-murderers. In essence, our fundamental lack of situational awareness as occupiers is pressurizing the entire region with a popular compulsion and obsession, especially among millions of regional have-nots, for vociferously anti-American violence that will include not only terrorism but also regime changes that will not be advantageous to the American economy.

This war was launched in ignorance, and continues in many cases to be conducted in ignorance. Until more intelligence (in every sense of the word) is applied, we can only expect the situation to worsen.
 
hypewaders, March 2003, Iraqi Freedom? Iraqi Army? Republican Guard? armored vehicles? gather some intell before you shove your foot in your mouth.
 
I stand somewhat corrected, BR. I reflected here on the later occupation, ignoring the fact that this incident occured during the invasion. But this incident remains an example of a reckless lack of target information that continues to poison our campaign right up to the present. There were never any Orange Missile Brigades cutting through our lines in armored columns. Saddam's armor was clearly dug-in and immobile before the invasion began, and was blasted, one by one, static in their revetments.

The video shows that Popov 35/36 were not under fire. There is no indication of stress in the minutes leading up to Popov 36's 2 strafing runs. It is evident that Col. Kohntopp wanted a kill so badly that he rolled in without authorization on a group of targets that he did not bother to identify, that did not resemble Iraqi armor, and that did not behave as Iraqi armor. The result was 1 dead Brit and 5 wounded, and lasting political damage to the coalition. To the present, similar breaches of discipline, whether resulting in friendly or non-combattant casualties continue to cause severe damage to the image and interests of the United States. Such acts, and the dismissal of such acts as the "fog of war" are examples of the ignorance and arrogance that are bringing failure and disgrace to our efforts.
 
Last edited:
Yes. This was during the early part of the war.

A tragic mistake against British comrades.
 
"Tragic mistake" is a cop-out. If a drop-tank inadvertently landed on friendlies during a random fly-over, I would agree with you in dismissing it as a tragic mistake. Kohntopp lined up his pipper on those British vehicles and squeezed the trigger on the first pass, which mercifully wasn't fatal. But he didn't pay close attention to what his rounds were hitting.

Then the bastard came around, rolled in on them again, lined up his sights, and lit them up again- killing L/CoH Hull and wounding 5 other troopers. That goes considerably beyond the scale of "tragic mistake".
 
Did the Brits follow proper procedure in care and maintenance of the panels?

Currently, IFF is handled with Combat Identification Panels (CIP0 which are 24 x 30-inch panels that resist absorbing chemical weapons and are covered with a high reflectivity tape. CIPs will show up distinctly when viewed through FLIR (Infrared radar favored by aircraft) or thermal sights (used in armored vehicles). The CIP panels cost about $240 each, and you need five for a tank and three for most other armored vehicles.

But in Iraq, the CIPs tended to get covered in the fine dust, and become useless unless constantly washed.


hypewaders, foot in mouth disease. Research, Research.
 
hypewaders, but again were they kept clean?, were they fully visible?, my first three years in the Army were in Aviation, the rest of my career was in Armored Cavalry, I have seen how fast a tank can be covered in dust, and recognition panels can be obscured, and that unless you take constant care to keep them free of dust they rapidly become useless, I have seen when under constant pressure of combat, that troops forget the little things that can get them killed, like dusting off the recognition panels, and the flags and the thermal panels, all this stuff needs to be kept clear for it to work, and if there is suppose to be a combination of panels and other signs to IFF friendlys and they are not all visible, what then, could it be that the enemy is using similar IFF marking? Yes Nuke boater tell me how much you know of life in the real fighting services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top