US plane blowing up an UK convoy footage.

Remove all ads!

The first sentence is correct, the second is not.

Popov never asked about the British convoy. They asked if A: the flatbed trucks were Manila Hotel's (artillery) target and B: if Manila 34 was still in the area. They did not ask Manila Hotel about the convoy they strafed.

'Course, given that the conversations (one between P-35 and P-36, the other between P-35 and MH) are intermingled, it's perfectly understandable.

 

What is this then?

Of course it may be that I cannot properly interpret it but it certainly looks as if he is asking about frendlies...

[ February 12, 2007, 01:47: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

You didn't start the quote early enough. It looks like:

There were two targets.
1) the 'multiple vehicles in reverts'; these were not the British convoy, nor were they near the British convoy.
2) the British convoy.

MH asked if 'friendlies in the area' meant 800 m north. He was told it did. He answered--accurately--that there were no friendlies in the area. Popov never asked MH about the British convoy. Popov did ask MH if M34 was in the area and was told, again correctly, that M34 was not in the area. The Brit convoy was not M34.

Which actually illustrates my point; he didn't ask, but given that the conversation was intermingled, it's perfectly understandable how he thought he had. Even with the transcript, people get confused. It's hardly surprising that the A10 pilots got confused when they were flying in hostile airspace without the benefit of things like transcripts.

 

Yes, there are two targets, that is clear. However, I still think he meant those Brits when he asked about the frendlies. But it does not really matter anymore, now does it.

 

It may have been what he meant, but it wasn't what he said.

 

Considering how confusing it is even when you have time to sit down and read it, that cements it in my mind that it was a tragic mistake. The true crime would be treating this as a criminal offense.

 

Something has to be done. You can't kill innocent people and just turn around and say "Woops, our mistake, sorry about that". At least sack everyone involved or have them pay serious money to the family's of the dead. How can you turn around to the family and close friends of people you had just killed and tell them nothing will happen as it was a 'mistake'? I'd want to rip the bastards apart, mistake or not. You would have thought that the American's might have learned their lesson after past similar incidents... just don't fire unless you're absolutely stone wall positive it's a hostile! It's simple to me. Christ knows how many innocent Iraqi's and Afganistani's have died in similar incidents...

 

Well, no American soldier makes nearly enough money to pay "serious money" to the family's of the dead. Not that money would make it OK. As far as "sacking" everyone involved, that also isn't going to happen. By virtue of it being a mistake, there are no grounds for a dishonourable discharge. Given the current enrollment in the U.S. military is down so low that they can't afford any more losses, I don't see it happening.

One last thing to point out - there have been plenty of friendly-fire casaulties in Iraq. Most of them are Americans killing Americans - reference Pat Tillman as the most famous friendly-fire casualty. Is this particular incident getting more publicity because it was someone who wasn't American? That seems strange to me. It's like the pilot would have taken better precaution if it was a possible American instead of a British convoy, and I doubt that's true.

EDIT: After reading through the transcript again, it does certainly appear that the targets they were talking about were the ones with the "orange panels" on them. If you go back to the link and re-read it, I think it takes some very odd analysis to assume that they were trying to identify two seperate targets.

 

@Barmy,

Help me understand this. I'm going on the assumption that this was a horrible mistake. I've seen nothing to imply that it was done on purpose. To me it obvious that there was a lot of confusion (I may be wrong, but the impression I get is that it was a nightime engagement) and the end result was that a British soldier died. Now you are calling for the dismissal, financial ruin, and possible physical assault on the players in this tragedy. I'm not sure how any of that will help. I'm assuming the family of the soldier will receive Veteran's compensation and benefits. Why should this dead soldier be treated any different than any other dead soldier. I'm assuming that Britian had other soldiers die in the conflict. Who should those families sue?

I agree it is a tragedy for someone to die, but I'm not sure why this one is causing such turmoil. It isn't like it is the first time someone died, nevermind the first time it happened to friendly fire.

It will be a cold day in hell before any soldier, pilot, seamen, is willing to wait until they have 100% positive identification of the enemy before they commence firing. That would be just plain stupid. I think everyone is getting spoiled. I would wager that friendly fire problems are probably significantly fewer now than in the past due to increased communication technology.

Remind me to never get into a car accident with you

 

Sure, I'll help you out mate. This bit:

.. is exactly why the trigger should never had been pulled. There's a difference, to me, between an honest mistake which you didn't mean to make and pulling a trigger sending destructive missiles at a target. What did he do, slip his finger on the trigger and accidentally apply pressure? Or did he think he was waxing his carrot?

 

What about enemies? Wouldn't that have been a good question to ask as well?

 

That is the way I would have intrepreted it also. It is only when you have 20/20 hindsight you see that the controllers were answering different questions than he was asking.

 

I hope he doesn't get convicted. It's a freaky accident, but I can't really blame the guy. I mean, sure, if he wanted to be 101% certain, he could have shot a few warning shots or something, but it was a combat situation and he can't take too many chances.

 

Scouting? Patrolling? Who knows? I don't know about you, but I think I'd ask a few more questions other than 'any friendlies in this area?' before pulling a trigger that will kill people. I think I'd get more confirmation that what I was about to blow into a million pieces was a hostile. Perhaps the American interpretation of 'not friendly = enemy' is what incites a lot of the... dislike in the middle East, no?

 

So, rocket launchers are orange, other orange things include: your friendlies tanks, oranges and Netherland's soccer team. Pick one.

The transcript reveals something more than guys being easy on the trigger finger, they were just itching to kill something:

Can't you just feel the tingling in their fingers?

I also feel sympathy for the pilots, they felt guilty about it, cried and cursed.
But hey, being dead feels a lot worse, so I'm with the poor family who lost their kid.

 

My general view is that human mistakes should not be punished even if they result in the death of someone else if no serious negligence can be found and to me this seems to be an accident. Friendly fire happens in war, it's unfortunate and should allways be investigated but unless gross negligence is found there should be no greater punishment especially here where they were clearly obeying orders. I find it curious though that the US military decided not to give this to the Brittish authorities, one would expect some solidarity and cooperation between the allies. Other than that I think this thing is blown way out of proportions, there have been several other cases of friendly fire in this war and in every war before it. In the long run it just can't be avoided.

 

The 'multiple vehicles in reverts' were not the British convoy. That should clarify things.