Don't know if this news has made it big over on your side of the pond but it is certainly big time here in the UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6334769.stm



For those unaware the inquest into the soldiers death was adjurned last week when the Coroner admitted publically his frustration with the American authorities who denied the existence of the tape that has now been released, following a leak to a national newspaper in the UK, The Sun.

1) Should the Pentagon have released the tape to the coroner?

2) Should action be taken against those involved?

3) What should be done to stop friendly fire incidents?

1) Yes.
2) Probably.
3) Well you could stop having wars. Maybe there could be some beacon that positively IDed you positively as a friendly. Of course that could be used by "bad guys" to avoid getting attacked.

1) Should the Pentagon have released the tape to the coroner?
Yes with the security provisions as stated.

2) Should action be taken against those involved?

Actions have been taken as they always are in friendly fire incidents and the pilots were found to be not reckless. No doubt this was a communications screw up.

3) What should be done to stop friendly fire incidents
Better communications and, in the future, man portable secure IFF systems. Friendly fire incidents are low in this war compared to past wars but 1 is too many IMO.

By reading the article, nothing tells us that this was an intentional act, and we really have NO idea why the A-10's engaged these tanks.

The thing about battlefield target acquisition is that it relies heavily on information provided to the pilots (or any other type of officer) in the field that doesn't rely on visual recognition. A tank seen at a couple hundred miles per hour from a plane probably doesn't give visual clues easily discernable, such as a British Flag that could be seen from the air.

Friendly fire accidents are just that, accidents. If there was missing information or the pilots acted outside of military protocol, chances are that they will be in huge trouble. What I find tough is that there's a possibility that there were numerous flub ups that the article doesn't address.

Did the chain of command know that those Tanks were in that area? Were they doing live fire training? How did the A-10's decide to fire? No one knows. This is war. It's like driving down a major highway in the US. If a driver doesn't look over his/her shoulder and accidently runs into someone, isn't drunk or speeding excessively, and someone dies- should they go to jail?

I feel for the Lance Cpl's family. I truly understand loss and the nature of losing someone in this fashion. Anger and bitterness are the first emotions. The issue with it being someone from the UK turns this into a diplomacy issue. Sadly, I bet we set these pilots out to fry.

What should be done to stop friendly fire incidents? Have you ever served in a combat zone? I think the most important way and most effective means to stop friendly fire accidents (as this war has proven time and time again... with nearly no accidents of this nature) is to have real-time battlefield communication. You however, will never stop human error.

If a battle planner enters a tank company in area x, but it is really in area y, it easily could be mistaken for unfriendly forces. If the tank company doesn't report their exercises, if the pilot mistakes areas, etc. All of these things play into how mistakes happen.

Should the pilots be punished? It all depends on how it happened. If it was their fault, surely they shouldn't fly and probably shouldn't be in the AirForce anymore.

It is not so much that the incident took place, but that it appears to have been denied and the families involved were told that no combat tapes existed.

The Inquest Coroner asked to see the cockpit tapes and was told that they could not be released because the US military considered them secret and our MOD as usual rolled over to have their tummies scratched by their US controllers saying that the MOD could do nothing.

Today a tabloid newspaper got a copy of the tapes in question, which of course made the MOD and US military look absolute fools.

Now the US says it will release these tapes, which is a bit late especially after denying their existence.

It sounds as though these pilots involved were a bit green and had undergone no allied armour recognition training and you can hear them mention orange panels on the tank tops, but even then they failed to twig it was the agreed air recognition sign for allied vehicles.

I watched the tape and read the transcript this morning and several things seem to be very clear to me. First of all the pilots did see the orange panels and expressed doubt as to what they were. One pilot (POPOV35) thought they might be rockets however, so they weren't sure.
The other pilot (POPOV36) asked his superiors if there were any friendlies in the area...


According to The Sun, from whence the segments of this transcript were copied, MANILA HOTEL and MANILA 34 are US Marine Corps Forward Air Controllers on the ground attached to British units.

...so its fairly clear to me that, unless this tape has been dubbed, the pilots are in the clear. They asked and were given false information. The fault lies with MANILA HOTEL who obvioulsy did not know there were allied troops in the designated target area. The only way I can see this not being the Forward Air Controllers fault is if the British troops had wandered from a designated area into the target area in which case, it was nobodies fault at all.

I certainly do not see from this 'video evidence' that it is the pilot's fault and I find their reactions to be just as I would expect in such a situation.

You are right on here and this happened in the first Gulf War as well and Americans were killed by A-10s. The problem is that the area is broken up into sectors (or boxes) and if you are in the wrong sector or the British did not notify our guys they were to be there, you are in trouble. What the Brits apparently don’t have are IFF transponders in their vehicles. My question is why

I agree with moif and Ted. I watched the video as well. It appears that the pilots were given false information from command. I have to say it was pretty heartbreaking seeing those videos and hearing the pilots' reactions once they discovered they had fired on friendlies.

1) Should the Pentagon have released the tape to the coroner?

That said, there is absolutely no reason I can see that the Pentagon shouldn't have released these videos immediately to the families and the British inquests. There is no security concerns here...unless one considers embarrassment to be a security concern.

2) Should action be taken against those involved?

I think action should be taken against those who stonewalled the release of this video. I don't know if air command was disciplined. The pilots don't appear to be at fault though they did seem impatient as they were running low on fuel (not sure how much that plays into this incident).

3) What should be done to stop friendly fire incidents?

Friendly fire will happen. Better communication is ultimately the answer here. You can hear the confirmation of friendlies after the two strafing runs by command. If that confirmation had occurred more quickly, then the friendly fire would have been avoided.

The Sun newspaper (normally a dreadful tabloid mag more interested in right-wing rabble-rousing, Murdochian cross-promotion, reality television and the private lives of the rich and famous, but occasionally able to break genuine stories) has a link to a leaked copy of the full cockpit video.

Here is a link. The video clip lasts for 15 minutes, and contains adult language. I recommend wathcing the whole thing, for context - the attack lasts only a minute or two in the middle, but there's some preamble of the conversation between the pilots of the two A10s and their forward controller. Then there's some reaction to the situation after the attack on the British convoy.

Here's another link which (puports to ) outline the series of errors which led to the "accident", also from the Sun's website. Link. According to this, which as a layman I have to say I find quite plausible.

Others here have military experience in active service - the only relevant type of military experience - so might be able to add some context. It's also fair to say that this article doesn't say anything at all about what the British troops on the ground did or thier command chain did wrong or right.

But my tangential exposure to matters military does make me wonder how seriously the pilots took their jobs - the whole way their more or less ignore standard voice procedures (the only people to regularly say "over" are the forward command, their overseers, and the British personnel that come on the line later) makes me suspect they were a little too laid back, relying more on their armoured and heavily armed aircraft than on their own training and discipline.

Or maybe my exposure to matters military was too exclusively to stiff-upper-lipped, shiny-booted, imperial-legacy British army, and nobody else bothers as much about the military equivalent of etiquette. (Probably the latter )

But, the Sun highlights six errors:

1. The (reservist, it is suggested) pilots ask if there are friendlies near the Iraqi convoy, not to the West of it, as the British were at the time they asked about it
2. Neither pilot gave precise location references when asking for a check for friendly forces (IMO - "on the road West of village X" isn't much use without a sense of how far West)
3. The pilots convinced themselves that the organce marker squares on the rooves of the vehicles - expressly put there to signal to aircraft their friendly status - were some kind of rocket launchers. They do this without reference to their forward command
4. POPOV36 decides to attack without clearance from forward command
5. Having asked for an artillery marker to be fired, POPOV36 attacks without waiting for it
6. POPOV36 attacks again, seemingly without justification.

Also Clearly someone, inside the US military thinks that something worse than a simple case of mistaken identity has gone on here - the "secret" video has been leaked, after all, and as "senior US Military source" has taken the time to give off the record comments to a British newspaper. Of course, they could be the same person.

1) Should the Pentagon have released the tape to the coroner?

Yes.

Watching this 15 minute extract at least, there is nothing that could remotely justify the "secret" status accorded to it by the US Defense Department, except the most obvious one - i.e. that it's embarrassing.

To my mind, the British Ministry of Defence has some culpability too, though less than the DoD because it isn't really their footage to release. However, the MoD should not have denied that the footage existed, as they did.

2) Should action be taken against those involved?

If the coroner's inquest finds that Lance Corporal Matty Hull - the soldier that died - was unlawfully killed, then yes, a criminal investigation should proceed under British civil (not military, and not US) law. Perhaps if US service personnel know that if their actions are examined by an independent and (theoretically, at least) impartial body, and they are found to be more than just unlucky or let down by incomplete or faulty information, they'll think twice before pulling the trigger before they know who the gun is pointing at.

I stress here I'm not talking about a kill-or-be-killed scenario here - these two pilots are roaming under more or less their own initiative, shooting at anything they decide to shoot at. Their conversation prior to the incident indicates they are under no more stress than they might expect to be when on patrol in such an area.

3) What should be done to stop friendly fire incidents?

They'll never go away entirely.

But I have to wonder what the difference in training and attitude between US and British (and other) militaries are that US forces predictably carry out two or three friendly fire incidents in pretty much every engagement they are involved with, but (even tkaing into account the differences in deployment sizes) British forces don't put themselves in situations where they end up shooting at Americans nearly as often.

In the current engagements in Iraq or Afghanistan, I don't remember a single report of an indicent where another nationality deployed (British, Australian, Spanish (while they were there) etc.) killed American personnel by "accident".

It's possible that the whole of the British media has conspired to prevent me from finding anything out about it. Though given the leakiness of our departments of state, lots of information gets out that "they" don't want us to know about, despite of our rather anaemic freedom of information and rather muscular offical secrecy rules, compared to those in the US, so I find that hard to believe.

Ultimately, it comes down to Hanlon's Razor. The only sinister conspiracy here has been the official cover-up. The reactions of the two pilots says to me that they are ordinary decent human beings who got a bit carried away and did something that repulsed and sickened them once they realised it.

I'd be inclined to think that, of their own free will, they might have come forward themselves, but the machinery of the US Military (which, as a routine, refuses all jurisdictions except their own, even in circumstances where that might be inappropriate) swung into action and they were persuaded against it. I find that a more credible scenario than any other.

But remorse is a mitigation that influences the sentence, not whether one is guilty or innnocent in the first place. Certainly I don't think the answer here would be to secure anybody any jail time, but at the very least the results of the US Military inquiry should be made public; the two pilots should not be allowed to fly combat aircraft for the remainder of their service; and the US should carry out a root and branch review of its rules of engagement - possibly aligning them with those of other nations that don't seem to shoot their allies quite as often.

Most probably because they can't afford them. The British military has a limited budget.

During the initial attack phase in 2003 there was also an incident where an RAF Tornado fighter bomber was shot down by a US Patriot missile battery. It was claimed that the British had forgotten to turn on their IFF transponder but a US journalist embedded with the Patriot batteries reported that the Patriots were constantly identifying coalition aircraft as incoming tactical ballistic missiles.



Julian.
I'd like to address these six highlighted errors.

The two A10's were operating within a pre determined set of geographical coordinates identified in the transcript as the 3122 and 3222 group box, so when POPOV36 asks "Do we have any friendlies up in this area?", the answer ought to have been yes. Instead MANILA HOTEL replies "That is an affirm. You are well clear of friendlies".

POPOV 35 also describes his visual as resembling Russian made trucks to which MANILA HOTEL han adds, "Roger. That matches our Intel up there." In other words, the pilots have asked for validation twice and recieved it.


The actual location of the British vehicles within the parameters of the geographical zone ought not to make any difference because the pilots are informed there are no friendlies within the pre set zone at all. If MANILA HOTEL had replied to beware of British armour in the pre set zone then the pilots, already cautious of the orange markers would most probably not have fired. The mistake being made belongs to MANILA HOTEL. This is later emphasised by the other forward air controller LIGHTNING 34 who is apparently responsible for other fixed wing air craft operating in the same area. It is LIGHTNING 34 who first cuts into the traffic and tells the MANILA team to be advised.

Obviously LIGHTNING 34 knows about the British operating in the geographical target zone where as MANILA HOTEL doesn't. This does not suggest to me that the pilots are to blame or the US/UK forces do not talk to each other. It suggests MANILA HOTEL, for unknown reasons, did not know there were British troops in the area. A court of inquiry should be asking this particular forward air controller why he did not know this.


This does not make sense. How is their forward command to know what they are looking at? The forward air controller may be airborne or not, this is not clear from the video or the transcript, but no matter where he is, unless he is in the cockpit with the pilots, or looking through a camera that is strapped to the pilots helmet, he has no way of identifying what the pilot is looking at. There is no way for the forward air controller to say whether or not a vehicle he cannot see is a rocket launcher or a British light tank with orange markers.

What he can do is advise the pilots on any intel he may have on enemy vehicles opeating in the area, and this he does when he says POPOV 35's visual identification of the ground vehicles as Russian ZIL157's matches the intel.

In other words the pilot's who's job is to destroy enemy vehicles in the designated area have not only asked if the target is valid, they has also made a visual confirmation which fits with their forward commanders intel.


This is only wrong if he has express orders not to engage without a green light. If the A10's are on a seek and destroy mission, with no pre determined targets then it is the pilots final analysis of whether or not a target is valid since he is the only one who can see it. POPOV 36 can see the targets and is convinced they are rocket launchers mounted on trucks. After the first strafing run POPOV 35 confirms his partners analysis, using 'his goggles', which we may assume are some form of enhanced vision optics (Mrs P's husband may know what he means, I can only guess).


A minor detail at best. The A10's are on a time limit and this is clear from the transcript. They have only a set period of time to act before they must return to base and any attack has to be carried out within that time period. Lingering about uses fuel. They probably don't have the time to wait for the artillery crews to finish recallibrating their weapons. To do so is to allow a possible enemy heavy weapon team to escape destruction.


Naturally. One does not halt an attack half way through. There is no concievable reason to do this. In many situations it would very dangerous for the pilots.


edited for spelling

Since my husband is training in Florida, I can't knowledgeably respond to most of this. I don't know whether the radio procedure was "professional" or, not, ect.

The facts would seem to indicate (to me) that the conditions were exculpatory in this case. I would like to address the issue of "coverup", which I don't believe has been thoroughly addressed and bares mentioning. I don't think this has anything to with fear of an honest disclosure of the facts. It is likely the fear of litigation.

A couple of rough examples: Back during the Kosovo conflict, I knew a pilot whose HARM malfunctioned and flew into a house in Bulgaria (no one was injured). The president of Bulgaria wanted to know the name of the pilot so he could sue him personally. After the fatal shooting of an Italian intelligence agent at a checkpoint in Baghdad, the Italian prosecutors requested the indictment of a U.S. soldier, on charges of murder. I read over a full disclosure of the facts of that case, and I cannot imagine a reasonable person could conclude that this was either a case of murder or attempted murder....but after his name was accidentally disclosed on an investigation document that was open to the public, this man is now going to be tried in absentia, for murder, by the Italian court system.

Of course Great Britain has never acted this way, but I believe the above, rather than any desire for deception, is the reason for the less than forethecoming disclosure of the tape in this case.

(and for what it's worth, I don't think ground vehicles have IFF generally)

1) Should the Pentagon have released the tape to the coroner?

Certainly yes, out of common decency and respect for the law.

2) Should action be taken against those involved?

Not if they were properly doing their duty, though some sort of reprimand or more substantial punishment should be handed out if they weren't.

"Friendly fire" (what a term) is an inescapable part of war. Stonewall Jackson was killed by friendly fire, for heaven's sake.

My own father, who went over and volunteered for military service in Britain as soon as World War II began and served as an officer in the Royal Army, was once heavily bombed by American aircraft on the banks of the Orne River in France, shortly after D-Day. The bombs had been dropped on the wrong side of the river. Several people in his unit were killed in that incident. There was nothing to be done, but everyone was bitter that there was never an apology from the Americans.

3) What should be done to stop friendly fire incidents?

This is a question for experts in techniques of combat, not members of this forum. One highly pertinent answer is, however, fight fewer wars.

Only clearly the pilots were massively in error here. The vehicles being used by the British were 2 Scimitars (light tanks) and 2 Spartans (armoured personal carriers). The vehicles were carrying the agreed friendly signature of the orange panels and were flying union jacks.

So not like a bunch of Russian made Iraqi Army trucks then...... The visual confirmation was lousy and has been a noted failure in other friendly fire incidents.

And yes Mrs Pigpen IFF is almost entirely an aircraft based system. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...systems/iff.htm

Delvy I would like you to identify ground vehicles accurately while flying low to the ground at about 400 knots. I spent five years flying Hueys are NOE and 110 knots. Guess what you see something flash by and you hope the heck that you id'd it correctly.

I can tell you that even if the flag is 5 meters long and 3 meters high, you will not see it about 95% of the time. Flags are absolutely useless for aircraft to identify. Color panels on a moving vehicle, are about as useful.

Friendly fire isn't and it does happen in every Army.

As for the IFF that is only for aircraft and then it doesn't always work. A few years ago a couple of F-15s shot down two UH-60s over Northern Iraq. They had IFF on and the Air Force birds did not properly read the Army signals.

Delvy

Years ago I read an account of the German advance into Eastern Europe where the author, a standard German wehrmacht officer, who had participated in the blitzkrieg against Ukrania, lamented the inaccuracy of the Stuka's after they wasted one of his precious forward units. He then went on to explain how the German troops would spread out large swastika flags on the ground and on their vehicles to mark their positions. The Stuka's were very slow aircraft, about half as fast as an A10 and would have the advantage of a dive by which to fix their targets, yet they still managed to hit their own troops on occaision. This officer, who's name I have long since forgotten alas, later had recourse to speak with a Stuka pilot and asked him about the many friendly fire incidents. The Stuka pilot explained that from the air, everything looked small and indistinct and more often than not the huge big swastika's were invisible. Houses looked like vehicles, vehicles all looked alike and the constantly shifting perspective meant that it was impossible to be 100% accurate. Most of the time the pilot explained, he would make a dive based only on a guess because othewise he'd have run out of fuel long before he was certain. Most of the time, he got it right.

The A10 pilots have much more sophisticated equipment to help them identify a ground target, but it is inevitable that mistakes will be made. From what I've read, all wars have an average of 15% friendly fire casualty's, and the USA is no worse than any other nation in this regard. It appears to us that the US military is more prone to these kinds of incidents than the British, but this is more than likely due to their being ten times (or more) as many US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than there are British.

One last point, about a year and a half ago a Danish patrol near Basra was hit by a salvo from a British machine gun during a call to assist in a local gunfight. Two clans were in dispute. No one was hurt, but what made the Danes wrestless was that the British soldiers in question (there was a rumour they were drunk) were not brought to account. As I understand what happened from the scant news I saw about it, the commanding British officer refused to accept that his men had hit a Danish vehicle.
The incident quickly passed without notice by the media.

Right now we are in the band-aid stage for IFF systems for military vehicles.

http://www.special-operations-technology.c...e.cfm?DocID=610


This will change over time but other forces will have to integrate with ours. This could take much longer.

Quite. So why have a blanket ban on cooperation legal proceedings - especially at an inquest, where the objective is not to find anyone guilty or innocent, but to establish the facts - with friendly nations?

Why not treat Italy one way and Britain (which has had habeus copus incorporated into its legal system since Manga Carta, and would not therefore try anyone in absentia) another?

Well, the only reason I can think of is administrative simplicity - it's easier to just say "no" to everyone than review each case on its merits.

Since my last post, it has emerged in the British media that the officials from the British Ministry of Defence, who had all along denied that video footage of the blue-on-blue attack existed, cooperated in the internal US military inquiry into the incident last year, and were shown the footage at that time.

It might even be the case that the leak of the footage to The Sun was not intended so much to shame the US military establishment, but to shame the MoD.

After all, it was the MoD, and not the American Department of Defense, who were telling bare-faced lies to the family of L Cpl Hull.

Other governments (the victims of the fratricide) are always included in the investigation. What I suspect is that the British Defense Ministry agreed to some sort of secrecy as to what the public at large was privy to during the participation in this process.

Keep in mind that, for cases of fratricide, US citizens themselves do not usually have the privilege of viewing such tapes. Families of the 10 marines who were gunned down by A10s in 2004 in Baghdad cannot view those tapes. Certainly (God forbid, a thousand knocks on wood) if my husband were the victim of a fratricide it is highly unlikely that I would be permitted to view such a tape.

And, again, a lot of the reason is (I think) litigation. I'll talk to my husband tonight and ask what he thinks. If he can shed some light here I will post it later.

Edited to add: For what it's worth, I think the levels of fratricide are very low today by historical standards, so measures are being made. Back during WWII, so many of our own planes were shot down by our own anti-aircraft guns, the acronym for the means of identification WEFT (wings-engine-fuel tank-tail) became an acronym for wrong-every-(expletive)-time. This doesn't help the victims today, but it is an answer to the last question.

Added later:

Well, I talked to him. He said he has no idea why they wouldn't release the tape. They might not release it for any number of reasons, operational details, ect.

He mentioned that often safety issues are treated with something called 'safety privilege', which means the contractors share information to prevent future accidents, but as a result the military cannot divulge some of that information. But that wouldn't seem to apply in this case, it would be more a technical malfunction. Sorry this wasn't very informative.

1) Should the Pentagon have released the tape to the coroner?

Absolutely. And should a soul such as Mrs. Pigpen or some other party of interest ever have need or the desire to view such a tape, they should be allowed do so, provided, of course, that true military necessity might weigh against that in the particular instance [but once the necessity passes the viewing should occur].


2) Should action be taken against those involved?

What action are we talking about? A criminal prosecution would otherwise be an absurdity here. Nobody otherwise wants to be pilot if criminal prosecution is the result when, despite the observation of something orange on the top, you've twice rec'd confirmation that no friendlies are in the area. The tape doesn't otherwise show how MANILA didn't know that friendlies were in the area, so hard to evaulate any liability in that regard.


3) What should be done to stop friendly fire incidents?

This question is way overbroad and no one feels worse than those who killed their friends [it was the text accompanying that had the "weeping" and not me, which is not to say that I too didn't weep]. The military will otherwise take care of this on its own, at least if left to its own devices and without our assumedly good intentioned intervention, though the latter might have a destructive effect of its own, I mean, most of the lessons learned are negative ones, as in, someone died for no good reason and to no good purpose and so let us figure out how that happened and then make sure that it never happens again. Seems that we still haven't figured this one out, or should I say, we understand the principle, but a changing battlefield reality always means a new answer and since foresight isn't hindsight, well, once again, someone didn't know that friendlies were in the area. Maybe someone on active duty can explain, well, it's not like we don't operate with the Brits and the Aussies all that infrequently, so why isn't there a way for the fellows on the ground to inform those airborne of their presence, and I'm not asking for a direct message, as it can simply be that the code for friendlies in the area is, I'd really like to see 1001 Arabian Nights...and so why can't there be a way to cut in and say that, and immediately? I know to a certainty that those on the ground were wishing that they had an expedient way of letting those in the sky know that they are friendly, and that's been wished for since men took to the sky in the combat arms.


Edited to add:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/militar...fire-idaho.html


Edited again to add:

Julian, it must that be that conspiracy that you spoke of:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922141,00.html

Do a text search of the thread - you are the first person that has used the word "conspiracy" (now, of course, you'll find two instances!)

I didn't think there was any kind of conspiracy (except within the British MoD to cover up the existence of evidence which they knew existed).

What I did wonder is whether there are any recent examples at all of any Americans being killed in bue-on-blues by any other nationality? And how did the American authorities, and the families of the unfortunate victims, react in such circumstances?

I have to agree with Loreng, as a doorgunner- damned hard to see what you are shooting at, ESPECIALLY at night or dusk.


That being said- in the end, target identification and then shooting at that target is ultimately the responsibility of the pilot- IIRC, the 'copter pilot in Gulf 1 was relieved of duty for the very reasons shown in this thread- I believe he was court martialed and cashiered IIRC.

If the pilot saw orange, which he obviously did, he shoud not have shot, until he had 100% confidence in his target.

Tough decision though.

The other part of this question comes from the coverup- THAT is where some investigation and career ending should concentrate.

Julian:

I am not aware of any relatively recent friendly-fire incidents of the kind that you describe, which does not mean that such incidents have never occurred, and my guess is simply that since we usually make up the vast bulk of the "coalition" forces, that there is rather less chance for us to be on the receiving end of what you describe.

As bad as the incident in question otherwise was, the one described here appears even worse [I mean, at least in the case involving your troops, the situation was a bit more mobile, on both ends, but here, this post appears to be have been stationary and for quite some time]:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/10/new...b.0210.iraq.php

Lastly, while not being a pretty sight, here is the best summary or rundown that I could find on the matter of amicide:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/cs...der/shrader.asp




Edited late in the day to add:

Julian, in case you wish to avoid the better part of that last piece, well, this about says it all for the "incident" in view here:

"With regard to the type of error leading to the incidents examined, eleven cases involved friendly ground troops being mistaken for enemy soldiers. Six incidents clearly involved mechanical malfunctions, but twenty-three could be attributed to a lack of adequate coordination. The remaining twenty-three classifiable incidents could be attributed directly to pilot, crew, or FAC (human) error. These can be further subdivided into incidents attributable to navigation errors (five), disorientation (six), physical manipulation problems (five), and failure to see, recognize, or otherwise observe ground recognition markings (seven). In thirty-six incidents, the type of error could not be determined.

The striking factor with regard to air amicicide is the degree to which human error has been the chief cause of most incidents. The failure of a ground commander to mark or to report his position, the failure of a staff officer to coordinate with supporting air forces, the inaccuracy of a FAC's marking of the target, and the confusion and disorientation of a pilot have caused far more incidents of air amicicide than have purely mechanical failures or the lack of any technical aid. For almost forty years intensive efforts to solve the problem of air amicicide through the development of sophisticated technical devices have been undertaken but have failed to eliminate the problem. Electronic means of locating ground troops, positioning and directing aircraft, and improving air-ground communication have alleviated but not eliminated air amicicide. The human factor remains impervious to technological remedies."

I thought I'd just add a post to inform those who are interested that a verdict was reached in this case. Naturally, given the circumstances, it is no surpirse that a British court has found US airmen guilty, but I have to say that reading their justification for their verdict I am not convinced this was not a verdict fuelled by anti American sentiments and based all to easily upon a false assumption. The language used and the sentiments on display in the UK with regards to this case contrast sharply to those seen with regards to another friendly fire incident which involed one British tank taking out another and killing two British service men. That incident, as far as I know is still under investigation, though it took place in 2003.

Link.

Friendly fire casualties will occur in every war--unavoidable. Unless someone idenified you as a friendly and then killed you anyway, intentionally, i.e. murder, there should be no discipline. We are already doing very much to avoid it--special transponders, markings, codes, etc. It is an unavoidable by-product of war, and IMHO, only those with no understanding of war would argue the point.

War is hell.

In this case, from listening to the tape, it was clear the pilots realized they messed up AFTER they fired, but it is just as clear it was not intentional. Asking pilots to "fly lower" in a hostile zone so they'll be easier targets for ground fire is nonsense. I suppose we'll need to put a lawyer in every plane to analyze levels of negligence.

The British court is run by civies who haven't a clue.

Hmm. Interesting comparison, which doesn't reflect well on my country, but then I doubt you would have posted it if it did.

I suppose it is worthless to point out that the link you gave on "British reaction" to the A10 incident was from one of the survivors of the attack itself, who still has scars from the attack (physical and mental); while the one to the Brit-on-Brit tank incident was from the commanding officer of both crews.

And that one took place in broad daylight during a routine patrol, while the other took place in total darkness during active combat (i.e. the enemy were shooting back).

None of this, however, undermines your suggestion that the coroner's verdict was motivated by anti-Americanism as much as by attempting to find the truth.

If true, that would be a shame for justice.

But perhaps there is a more mundane explanation than the underlying nastiness of the British people you seem to have uncovered. Parhaps the coroner was just annoyed that material evidence he needed to progress his enquiry was deliberately withheld from him by the US government and military, with the collusion of the British Ministry of Defence.

I doubt very much whether this particular coroner on this particular case would have come to a dramatically different verdict in the face of such obstruction and stonewalling had the attack, in which Matty Hull was killed, been carried out by RAF pilots on patrol rather than.

Oh, and it's also worth quoting something from the widow that she said after your quote that the "right verdict" had been reached.

Here is a partial link. I heard Susan Hull's full statement on the BBC Radio 4 news last night, so I've filled in the blanks (shown in bold).



My sense is that, after the leaking of the cockpit tape, most of the British response to the Hull indicent is in a similar vein - the main frustration is the non-cooperative and high-handed nature of the American military establishment that this story has exposed, rather than any particular condemnation of the pilots in question.

You have hit the nail right on the head it was the fact that the Pentagon denied any such cockpit tapes existed, backed up by our stupid MOD, then when the Sun paper got a copy of the tape the Pentagon pretended it was so secret it could not be shown in open court.

The tapes showed that there was doubt right from the start of this attack and Orange was the coalition recognition colour, which would indicate that either these A10 pilots were unaware of the recognition signals or they chose to ignore the colour orange. For that they should have been hauled over the coals.

Interesting, this is something I hadn't heard. Orange was the coalition recognition color. Do you (or anyone else) have a link which indicates this?

Here is one link and you will come across others that state the Union flag was also clearly displayed. The crucial factor here that there was an element of doubt by the A10 pilots plus the fact that there were also civilians about in the vicinity of this attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6334769.stm

If you read the partial transcript you posted at your link, the pilots asked if there were friendlies in the area; they were told by HQ their were none several times; and they fired. It was an accident. End of story.

The pilots cannot see very well from their altitude, they heavily depend on ground intelligence for their targeting, in other words they learn to trust what HQ tells them over what their eyes tell them.

Ive tested my eyes for being a pilot and even my nearly 20/20 eyes are sketchy on the tests. The tests they gave me were very difficult and ive never had to wear glasses, there's a lot more than you think at first in looking down at such distances, and my tests were only simulated and I wasn't even moving at all. Ive flown in Blackhaws and Chinooks and even at low altitudes things start to disappear and look fuzzy. Just try looking down next time you fly just before you hit above the clouds.

As quick and other's have stated, HQ gave them the go ahead so they did. If anyone should be held accoutable IMO the pilots shouldn't even be considered because they were just following standard procedure.

That is accepted and I have no argument about that, but I would also expect that if one is any doubt about the target you are about to engage then you do not engage and certainly these A10s were not taking any fire from these ground units.

One even accepts that given the degree of Iraqi opposition the front line of allied ground units had become very fluid so it was easy for confusion to set in, but that again should therefore make the air units even more wary as to who and what they are attacking.

All this aside, what got up the Coroners nose and that of the UK press was the Pentagon denial about the existence of the cockpit tapes and then when they were caught out lying pretended they would become a security problem if shown in the Coroner's Court.

This event was not an accident, but more a series of mistakes both in the air and on the ground by the Fire Controller then compounded by a lying Pentagon and MOD.

That's my assessment as well, and my take on the underlying public position of the relatives of Matty Hull and his colleagues.

It's more cock-up than conspiracy - Hanlon's Razor in action - but I think what (most of) the people want to see here is some public transparency that lessons have been learned by whoever was responsible for the mistake, so that the same thing happening again becomes less likely. Who is at fault is less important than that the same fault is not repeated.

As things stand, that transparency is totally absent, because the military establishment (in both the UK and USA) immediately went into their well-rehearsed buttock-covering positions.

For some reason beyond my understanding, the military and othr state (and private) institutions (world-wide, not just in the USA) think that publicly admitting to a mistake, apologising for it and learning from it is much less desirable than stony-faced denials until caught out with proof, then in the face of such proof, trotting out either the old saw of "a few bad apples" or, as in this case, a confrontational defecatory variant of "Stuff happens! Wanna make something of it?"

I can see a potential reason now why this tape wasn't released. If orange panels are the method for identifying friendly forces, this is a rather important operational detail that would be helpful if the enemy didn't know. Kind of renders it ineffective if they all start to put similar panels on their vehicles. Perhaps a few caught on before, but they are spread out without a clear command and control point the news might not have gotten far. Now they all know, like we do.

1) Should the Pentagon have released the tape to the coroner?
Since the coroner needed it, and the coroner would be a witness in any trial to follow, UCMJ court martial or civil, he should have all the information he requests in order to do his job. Otherwise, the issues will come up with a negative impact on the US/UCMJ legal system. And, we have had enough of that I think.

2) Should action be taken against those involved?
Yes, further investigative action first, and only further legal action after that, if warranted.

3) What should be done to stop friendly fire incidents?
I heard a West Point staff full Colonel and Professional Engineer state that there is abundant information on all past wars, and by all participants, to indicate that friendly fire casualties/deaths usually are more than those from the "enemy".

It is indeed a tough, emotional and difficult question. I suggest that it be more formally stated as: Are there more mission failures and more friendly casualties/deaths when fire support, artillery, naval, and aircraft (close or long range support) is used in missions than there would be if it were not used? Most studies, and most soldiers say all fire support means, even with their frindly fire casualty possibilities, more than justifies itself!

What we do about it is train, train and train some more. And, we be extra careful in the requirements, design and acceptance testing of military equipment, to minimize possible friendly fire casualties effects in these systems.

I've known about the orange panels for years and im sure the insurgents have as well. This is not new information and perhaps even IF the pilots did see orange panels that DOESNT mean they are not enemies. Again they rely heavily on what HQ tells them because they have ground intelligence so Orange Panels or no panels HQ's word is your best intelligence.



From your argument I can tell youve never been in combat. In the US military you RELY heavily on pilots to SHOOT what you need them to otherwise things can get really ugly really quick. There are many stories out there about pilots that have failed to do so and it cost the lives of soldiers.

EDITED TO ADD

Just another note orange panels are not the only identifier the MNF uses. Helo's have reflective paint on parts of the blades that makes it easily visible through night vision goggles, kevlar helmets have something similar on the back part of the helmet called "cat eyes". Aircraft have certain codes they can use to identify themselves as friendly. All of this has helped cut down on friendly fire incidents but it's far from perfect and many of the enemies know a lot about our tactics and try to exploit them.

No I have never been in combat and at my age now I am unlikely as I would be more of a burden than an asset, but I can not see that second to last paragraph is acceptable especially if I was supposed to be on your team. You appear to be saying that your air support attacks all suspect targets rather than take the risk that it is not dangerous to your ground units, or put another way it is OK to sacrifice a few of your guys or that or your allies just in case your ground units become engage. That may be the way you operate, but I put it to you that is no way to conduct a military operation by hoping that what you are taking out is not your own side. If it is then you can easily see why there are all these US "Friendly Fire" incidents and becomes combat by hoping you have got it right, but what the hell.

I stand corrected. I was probably right before about the fear of litigation. I suspect that much of the problem centered around the fact that this was an actual legal inquest, which is completely different from the job description that a coroner in the US would have. Military members aren't subject to the civilian court system for actions in combat, they are subject to military law and a justice system that is suited to knowledgeably evaluate such cases. I have to wonder if the UK uses civilian coroners for similar cases involving its own troops in combat related incidences? That seems kind of odd to me.

Edited to add: I just found out that this coroner investigated another incident prior to this one and called for criminal charges against the US soldiers in that case.

Youve got this all wrong. Air Strikes are called in on specific targets. If the pilots do not fire on those targets that ground intelligence is giving them what's the point of air support?

People on the ground call in for an airstrike against a specific target to be destroyed because they came under fire. Once those pilots get there the people on the ground DEPEND on them to fire. Once again the pilots HEAVILY rely on ground intelligence and insurgents are not past using "orange panels" to disquise themselves. That's why the pilots FIRED because HQ told them there were no friendlies, looking at it from a pilots point of view you are saving the lives of your friends and if you don't fire they could die.

This was a terrible accident but instances like this also help me to understand why we do not allow US soldiers to be brought before the world court. I know I sure wouldn't want one of my buddies going up to that court as to how it seems that it's more about politics than justice.

As far as this coronor is concerned how can he make that determination anyways? Do coroners act as international war crime detectives in the UK?