US soldiers that bombed Canadians honored as heroes

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The fact that you compare deliberate murder of clearly unarmed civilians in a secured village in daylight by a large ground force to a possibly unauthorized or else mistakenly authorized air attack at night on misidentified friendlies reveals either incredible ignorance, or desperation for troll material. Which is it?

It is neither, DF drew a comparison - my sarcasm was to his answer. In having to elucidate I said that the book should be thrown at these pilots to the fullest legal extent if they are found sufficiently guilty. If a couple of pilots had been hung out to dry for a similar incident before My Lai, perhaps those soldiers would have thought twice about murdering innocent women and children in cold blood!

Justice must be seen to be done, so airplanes stop snipping cable car cables, submarines stop surfacing under large objects containing school children and airliners aren't shot down in mid air!

Have all of these been quietly swept under the carpet, or have these men been made accountable for their mistakes???

Maybe your indignation would be better received if you could show me that these men had actually received suitable punishments for the deaths of innocents/allied soldiers?

'Cos all I'm seeing here is an Army guy 'closing ranks'...

Piss off, you're not qualified to judge. Yes, you can have whatever ignorant opinion you want, but don't pretend it's more than that.

I think I'm more than qualified to judge! [I]I'm paying my taxes for a professional army that doesn't go in all guns blazing at the slightest sign of danger - or worse, is trigger-happy eager to kill anything that moves!

All I see is an ill-disciplined rabble with more guns and ammo than sense and a carte blanche to keep plugging away at friend or foe alike cos all they're likely to get is a slapped wrist!!!

Over 99% of close air support missions are on the target area, and an extremely high percentage are effective on the target (suppression, driving the enemy out of a position, damaging the enemy or destroying him) There were thousands of close are support sorties in the Gulf war, accounting for hundreds of Iraqi AFVs, resupply points, etc. being destroyed. The enemy to friendly casualty ratio was probably 500 to 1 - IIRC, there were about 40 killed and wounded attributable to fratricidal air support missions, compared to elimination of some 10% of total Iraqi line combat strength and destruction of resupply and rally points, command posts, communications posts, and artillery. Would you rather have all that back in action, to get back your nine fratricidal KIAs?

I'd just rather that aircraft with complete air superiority flying against an utterly shattered enemy air defence system would actually take the time ID their targets before bombing the utter crap out of them - that pilot had all the time in the World (as much as you're gonna get in a combat situation!) and still he f*cked up!!!

Despite the small percentage of ****ed up missions, close air support shortens wars and saves lives on the ground. <-- Period. End of story. It will never be a perfect process.

Once you start to admit that your pilots made a grave mistake, you're already halfway there....

So what happened to the killers of the British soldiers then?

Then you don't have any competence to make judgments.

Why? Are you telling me that I don't have the competence to say that surfacing a sub under another vessel is incompetent - just because I'm not in the military??? Wow, you're reaching...

The question is would you **** your pants under fire. Maybe even miscall coordinates for artillery or close air support. Maybe even misidentify friendly forces. Maybe move past assigned phase lines, or outside your assigned sector and into the security zone or operational zone of another friendly unit?

I honestly don't know - I know I don't freeze in potentially life threatening situations, instead I focus, as has happened several times. But, I'm not the soldier partly so I don't have to worry about those possibilities - that's what taxes are for.

My "logic" is that because the Iraqi forces you fought were effectively demoralized, suppressed, shot up (somewhere around 50-60% combat effective), and were aware that their rally points, resupply, and HQ's (all behind them) were under heavy attack from US air assets (army aviation elements from 1st ID, 1st and 3rd Armored Divs. plus USAF A-10s), they weren't in position to do much fighting back against your ground troops. About ten percent of that front line damage and ALL of the rally/resupply/HQ/coms/ damage, plus whatever was left of Iraqi DivArty for those front line divisions was taken out by close air support.

Well you were the one belittling the UK's military contribution, that's why I couldn't figure out why we had anyone near the frontline anyway...

A "routed" army doesn't retreat with it's heavy equipment.

Vans, cars, school buses - anything they could find that had an engine! Funnily enough, tanks and APCs fit that particular bill - but are few and far between in the picture! I saw plenty of pictures of charred corpses on the Highway of Death - I guess it could have been the same sod taken from a few dozen angles???

Hundreds of vehicles were incinerated in an extended attack by jets, B-52s etc in a 'Turkey Shoot' as boasted by the pilots themselves - I wouldn't be surprised if their weren't a few kitchen sinks full of napalm thrown in for good measure!!! The apologists say not that many thousands of bodies claimed were found - but then the ordnance used practically disintergrated the vehicles, so it's little surprise there were few bodies...

This armada of highly dangerous school buses was in full rout taking the quickest route home [i]and not wanting to be captured in Kuwait, fearing reprisals from vengeful Kuwaitis - they were conscripts running in fear of their lives practically on the eve of the ceasefire!!!

What I was to know is if the US was so keen on blowing up school buses - why the hell did they allow surrendered Republican Guards to return to their lines with their T-72's???

You may think this subject has been dealt with, most likely because you want it swept under the carpet - but it's not going away! It will stick to the US just as surely as the Napalm B used on the Highway of Death sticks to human flesh!

Let's see you fly a military aircraft 200 feet off the ground at 400 knots in the first place. Then once you can do that, let's see if you can identify a pink Cadillac from a green Mustang convertible on a parking lot.

I am not a pilot - I don't have to! I do however expect my pilots to - that's what they're paid for!

Besides, frankly I'm horrified that you'd send your pilots in a combat zone with a 50/50 chance of hitting the wrong target - that is what you're implying, isn't it?

Now that you're real good, try doing it under fire, in conditions of smoke, haze, and try to spot, let alone identify, camoflaged AFV's. Now you have about 5-10 seconds (10 is pretty lucky, if you've got good visibility), to acquire, identify, line up your aircraft, target and fire on that AFV. Now let's see you do it with 100% accuracy every ****ing time. That's what you're whining about in the gulf war.

What about those Canadians?

I considered it such an ignorant claim it wasn't worth responding to. Would you really like to see what the US can do if we went "trigger happy?"

I've given you plenty of examples of the US proclivity of blazing away at friend and foe alike - you just choose to ignore them because it would make you feel uncomfortable to actually address the problem. I guess that military training is coming in helpful after all, hiding away in that bunker of yours...

Actually, I already saw the US in "trigger happy" - it was called the Highway of Death... (Amongst others!)

Hopefully you're not this obtuse in other areas? Reread the first word in "close air support." See if you get the concept. You can't effectively target or engage enemy ground forces from miles away. You have to get right up their asses, both on the ground and in the air.

I understand perfectly what close air support is - it's called almost killing the future President of Afghanistan... OK, now explain the other SNAFUs...

I don't remember, weren't you one of the ones *****ing that it was going to be another Vietnam, and that the big bad tough Afghans were going to turn the place into a bloodbath, and we'd have a flood of body bags coming home? The same type of horse**** that was said about the big, bad, tough, veteran Iraqi army that was going to dust our asses?

I was the one saying that thousands of Afghan civilians were going to die. I did say it would be tough and advocated going in after winter - but I was never under any illusion that the US was actually going to put any significant number of it's ground troops in harm's way...

What you don't get is that despite the low level (yes, I said LOW level) of fratricidal casualties, integrated close air support is a key part of combined arms doctrine, and that is what puts the *******s down so effectively that they don't inflict much higher casualties on our forces.

Ask any front line troops if they'd prefer combat with close air support and the level of risk of fratricidal casualties, or combat with no close air support at all. When the poll results come back in, let me know.

Well, good. I suppose if it means most of our casuaties are friendly fire instead of the possibility that we might get greater casualties from the Iraqis is OK then. IIRC the British APCs in question weren't even in combat though, so the close support wasn't that close after all - IIRC they were parked in broad daylight, probably enjoying a cuppa...

(a) Close doesn't count. This isn't horseshoes or dancing.
(b) I'm sure we would have found another lackey in the country somewhere.
(c) Ask him if he'd rather be where he is, or still watching while the NA ineffectively fought against the Taleban.

a) He was lightly injured and a number in his party died IIRC - the US was blind lucky that their goof didn't get the wrong man!
b) Just as long as we all know that Afghanistan is just another in a long line of de facto US ruled countries...
c) He's a politician - what do you think???

Casualty numbers for civilians in Afghanistan are uncertain and unreliable. Such reporting as was done was inconsistent, and generally relied on either second or third hand reportage, or reportage made under Taleban "supervision."

Probably far higher than the US is willing to admit to...

Somalia? Sod off. What was your solution, Einstein? And what "civilians" are you referring to?

Not going into Mogadishu with a half-baked plan, getting caught in Urban warfare and blowing away everything that moved - people lived there as well you know. BTW, 'sod off' is not very polite.

Panama? A joke, except for Noriega's "Dignity Brigade" retreating into the barrios and fighting in civilian clothes.

You call thousands of civilian deaths a joke, oh dear...

Iraq? There was this little thing called a war, and the Iraqis used civilians, reporters (the sub-basement of the al-Rashid hotel where foreign journalists were required to stay was a corps level command center for Baghdad defense forces, and also a major C&C center for central Iraqi air defense) as human shields/dummy targets. That and their hundreds of thousands of rounds of indiscriminate AAA fire, yada yada. Cry me a river.

estimated 250,000 deaths in the gulf war - many thousands completely unecessary, especially when Bush snr sold the Southern Shi'ites down the river in their uprising! Or the Highway of Death.

Serbia - I ignored that one. We should have left it to you Euros. Would you have given the Sudetenland to Slobo then come back and proclaimed "peace for our time?"

Oh of course, blowing up passenger trains on a river crossing or a civilian TV station not your scene (amongst many others)

Actually, the Sudetenland is a bit far away - now Greece OTOH?

Was that smart-arsed enough for you?

Actually that was rather lame...

Look, basically you're not admitting your armed forces have a serious problem vis a vis friendly fire and general incompetence resulting in civilian casualties...

A old Washington Post article

"Accounting for more than 23 percent of the Americans killed in action and 15 percent of the wounded, friendly fire now appears to have caused about 10 times as high a percentage of U.S. battle casualties in the gulf as in any other 20th-century war.Though the military has not gathered official statistics before on such cases, a widely cited 1986 Army study by Lt. Col. Charles R. Shrader suggested that friendly fire caused "a statistically insignificant portion of total casualties" from World War I to Vietnam, "perhaps less than 2 percent."

Sh*t, Iraq was a flat desert! US forces in WWII had to contend with bitter street fighting with far more disciplined enemies...

In Afghanistan, at one point we were looking at 50% casualties...

There just seems to be an inherent lack of fire discipline in the US military - and I don't have to be in the military to see that...

PICTURE: Highway of Death, AKA OMG where did the tanks go?

[DinoDoc]

Can I get some objective info on the so called "Highway of Death"? Preferably not from any source of MOBIUS.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Theres a vast difference between operating a particle collider in a nice warm building and flying close air support.

What difference does that make? Soldiers and pilots should be trained to handle themselves under pressure. It is part of their job. If they can't do their job then they shouldn't be up there. <- Period

How well would y'all do if the sirens were blaring and the lights were flashing a meltdown?

Meltdown??

If there were some problem that set alarms ringing and warning screens flashing, then yes, whoever was on duty would bloody well handle it!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Cool, I got Rogan and MOBIUS both. Have to get to you guys later, though, but don't worry, I won't disappoint.

Funny how it's now a quarter-million deaths, when the common unsubstantiated figure is

DD - At least some AAR's and other papers for different units after the cease fire should be available as unclassified documents, but the size of the KTO and the rotation of different units means that several US and JFC units had security duties in different areas at different times.

Assessing how many vehicles were stolen by Iraqi infantry from non-mechanized units hung out to dry was never a priority, though. Known AFV types photographed after the fact include T-72s, T-55s, 2S1s, 2S3s, BMPs and BRDMs.

Most online resources that deal with it (very few), are blatantly propagandized - "the poor, innocent, peace-loving Iraqis blah blah blah" and have a nice selection of gory photos. Unfortunately, that's far from a survey of the entire length of the highway.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

Meltdown??

If there were some problem that set alarms ringing and warning screens flashing, then yes, whoever was on duty would bloody well handle it!

I think the meltdown reference was to your exageration of irradiating half of Switzerland.

How bloody well would they handle it while being shot at, though?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
How bloody well would they handle it while being shot at, though?

Since getting shot at is not part of their job, why would you expect them to handle it well?

It is part of a military pilot's job though.

Were the US pilots who bombed the Canadians being shot at at the time?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
(refering to the invasion of Panama...)

You call thousands of civilian deaths a joke, oh dear...

I don't have time right now to respond to all your points, chap, but this this one was so easy and so far off, it's ridiculous. Is it your habit to look for the worst claims of US actions and simply accept those claims with total credulity? You really need to work on your facts. Do you consider Human Rights Watch to be a CIA or DoD front organization? If not, you've a bit of a problem reconciling your claims with these two statements:

As we said in our May 1990 report, Americas Watch believes that the way Panamanian civilians died is at least as important as the issue of the number of those casualties. Unfortunately, insupportable claims about thousands of civilian casualties (my emphasis) have obscured the debate about how they died. Since the publication of our report, that muddled controversy has not been clarified, in large measure because neither the Panamanian government nor the U.S. Department of Defense has provided a fair and accurate response to those claims.

I think HRW hit one point right on the head - neither the US nor Panama responded in any detail to admittedly insupportable claims made by propagandists with an agenda.

Later in the same report:

The majority of the 139 bodies exhumed, however, remain unidentified.

and

In addition, these two exhumations account for less than half of the minimum number of Panamanian deaths admitted by the Endara government.

It's close to half, though.

By the Panamanian government's own count, issued on June 26, 1990, 47 remains are still unidentified, and there are 93 unresolved complaints about missing persons.

Presumably, some of the unresolved missing complaints would be accounted for by the unidentified bodies.

Even if you assume ALL of the bodies hastily buried were war casualties (instead of the claim some non-war dead were mixed in), and ALL of the 93 missing are unrecorded civilian war casualties who are NOT accounted for in the unidentified remains (which is absurd - missing people and unidentified bodies are not mutually exclusive), you get a maximum of about 400 civilian casualties.

Continuing from the HRW report (which is still highly critical of the US military, in general with that REMF lawyerly tone that doesn't know anything about the reality of combat):

Dr. Humberto Más, the Director of IML, said in mid-1990 that his official figures were that a total 373 Panamanian citizens had died in the invasion; he admitted that this is lower than all estimates, including the one offered by the Pentagon early on. In February of this year, he told Americas Watch that the total figure was 342 to 346; the reduction was based on information from hospitals as to the number of bodies buried in the mass graves who were not actual invasion casualties. (It is important to note, however, that Dr. Más believes that there are likely to be additional casualties that have not come to the attention of the authorities.) The IML has identified only 63 as military casualties, and an insurance company that covers former members of the Panamanian Defense Force has received only 68 claims. It would seem, therefore, that all others, including 47 unidentified and 93 "missing" during the invasion, are all civilians. These figures appear to indicate, therefore, that at least 280 to 305 civilians, and possibly more, died in Panama, which is very near our estimate of 300, and about 50 percent higher than the Pentagon originally claimed.

The figures are necessarily "soft" because some of the common graves have not been exhumed; the delays in gathering the evidence resulted in the loss of important information; the evidence from the interior of the country, some of it anecdotal, has not been gathered adequately in the capital; and some families have not come forward to identify their dead. We have no basis to conclude, however, that the actual casualty figures could be much higher than those reported, as some groups in Panama and elsewhere have stated. The graves that have not been exhumed are thought to be much smaller than the ones dug up in April and in July, and claims that other common graves exist have not been supported by evidence. Similarly unsupported are reports that bodies were deliberately burned, thrown to the sea or shipped abroad. Even if all of these things had taken place, the number of bodies affected would have had to be relatively small, or they would not have avoided detection. At the same time, if hundreds or thousands of families were still without any information on the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones, by now there would be long lists of missing persons, gathered by official and non-governmental groups. To our knowledge, no such lists exist, except for the 93 cases that the IML has been unable to solve.

This is all nice and interesting - if you take the worst case of the 93 and add it to the 305 high estimate, you've got a big problem getting to "thousands."

What all this ignores, however, is one big thing: The 18 "Dignity Battalions" in Noriega's little paramilitary brigade were NOT PDF members. They were armed thugs and Noriega's personal political enforcers, and they did represent a larger armed force than did the PDF, as well as being more motivated, and semi-anonymous. When killed, these individuals would not have been classified as military casualties, because they were not PDF personnel.

After the invasion, Panamanian citizens wanted to bring compensation claims against the US government, so the paramilitary thugs and their families had that incentive, as well as the desire to avoid arrest, reprisals and at least confiscation of assets under the new government, so they did not go about advertising that they were ex-paramilitaries or their families. The exact number of these types killed and wounded is unknown, but probably close to the number of PDF KIA's and WIA's, but they are listed as "civilian" casualties, not PDF.

link to HRW article

Since your grasp of facts is so tenuous, biased, or both, it would really make your points more of a challenge to rebut if you would stick to facts, not the most rabid anti-US propaganda claims you can find.

estimated 250,000 deaths in the gulf war - many thousands completely unecessary

"estimated" no doubt, by the same blokes who "estimated" those phantom thousands of civilian deaths in Panama.

Total enemy casualties in the gulf war (KIA, WIA, and EPW) weren't estimated that high, and the biggest claim (highly exagerated) of deaths that's been bandied about for any consistent time was 100,000. That claim was not based either on hard numbers, hasty burials or graves registration, but largely in the (faulty) assumption that AFV's destroyed and burned out were fully crewed. Iraqi AFV crews learned early on not to sleep in or around their vehicles, and IFV's in particular were undermanned, because of high desertion rates and the number of under-strength divisions fielded by the Iraqis.

More later, after you digest this meal of crow.

edit - fixed quote tag

[Ned]

This would be a "friendly fire" incident but for the fact that these were Canadians.

No, seriously, let is await the results of a court marshall. If they are guilty, they deserve to be punished. If they are not, their bosses need to be punished for not informing them of the Canadian exercise.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Oh MOBIUS, where for art thou?

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Sh*t, Iraq was a flat desert! US forces in WWII had to contend with bitter street fighting with far more disciplined enemies...

PICTURE: Highway of Death, AKA OMG where did the tanks go?

You apparently need a little help with your rhetoric, let alone your BDA and recon photo interpretation. Doesn't look like flat desert to me, and there was a hell of a lot more of a mixture of terrain than is shown here.

Unfortunately, your pic is a low res .jpg, not a real photographic print, but there's plenty in it that contradicts the whole "Highway of death" whinefest.

Where did the tanks go? You've got one front and center in your own photo. If it was any better-defined, even a ****ing civilian could identify it without help. I could spot it right off, the only think I couldn't tell without magnifying the image was whether it was a T-62 or T-72. They don't look that different.

Circled item 1 is a T-62 tank, with driver's hatch open, main gun trained about 10 degrees left, and maximum elevation. The gun training and elevation is not a "default" or necessary for escape, nor is it the travel position for the gun. Most likely, the gun was being trained for anti-air fire against slow-movers (i.e. helos)

Circled items 2, 3 and 4 are Iraqi military trucks, from the color scheme, consistent size, and bed type with canvas cover.

Circled items 5 are the only two things in the photo consistent with ordnance impacts. From the size and shape, they appear to be from 2.75 inch aerial rockets fired by helicopters.

There are no large impact craters consistent with B-52 strikes or heavy bombing, no melted asphalt and mass fire damage consistent with napalm, and a large percentage of vehicles (among those discernable in a medium quality jpg image) clearly have their paint intact, indicating little or no burning. Many vehicles also have their tires intact, indicating no burning at all. For the most part, it looks like about 80% of these vehicles were simply abandoned by their occupants who (smartly) ran like hell. That's about consistent with the reality of the so-called Highway of Death.

(edit - corrected typo "pain" instead of "paint")

[DinoDoc]

Is this part of the article I found true MTG:

To defend the highway leading north to the Iraqi border, Iraqi combat engineers had sown extensive minefields on both sides of the road. Any attackers would be channeled to and through the narrow pass. These defenses were to create the conditions that led to the scene of destruction on the evening of February 25, 1991. A U.S. Air Force F-15E fighter-bomber disabled an Iraqi vehicle in the pass, causing a major traffic backup that stretched for several miles.

With the pass ahead blocked and a continuous stream of American fighter aircraft bombing and strafing the convoy, many of the soldiers attempted to drive their vehicles into the desert, and in so doing, drove into the minefields laid by their own engineers. Those who did not get out of their vehicles on foot died on the road. Strictly speaking, the air attacks destroyed a convoy of tanks, armored personnel carriers and military vehicles—all valid military targets.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/3874/84846

[MichaeltheGreat]

I don't know the specifics in regard to all the areas that the Iraqis mined, or minefields along Highway 80.

I do know:

That there were an estimated (based on estimated extent and standard range of field densities) 10-50 million mines of all types emplaced by the Iraqis during their dig in. The real number is probably on the low end of that range, though.

These were generally emplaced all along all anticipated landing areas for USMC amphib troops, and all anticipated axes of approach for allied ground forces.

There were some minefields along the Iraqi-Kuwait border, and there was mining of at least some of the sabotaged and cooked off Kuwaiti oil fields - clearing and ordnance disposal operations had some impact on dealing with the wellhead fires.

The minefields did not extend northwest as far as the XVIII Airborne Corps sector, and they were intermittent to non-existent in the northernmost part of the VII Corps sector.

In at least some cases, APM minefields were set behind forward Iraqi positions.

With very few exceptions, non-IRG units did not have maps of the minefields in their OZ/SZ, outside of division and brigade HQs and engineering units - this was apparently to discourage desertion / defection.

Only IRG division and lower command elements seemed to have maps of minefields outside their assigned OZ/SZ's.

That's what I have reliable info on.

Most vehicles and a lot of equipment around Highway 80 were abandoned, not immediately knocked out - many of the vehicles hit were already empty. The extent and causes of destruction were pretty variable - accidental overturning, aerial attack, collision, abandonment of vehicles with empty gas tanks, etc.


Here's my general thoughts:

From a general defensive standpoint in view of Iraqi doctrine, it seems like it would make sense to mine the pass, and it is consistent with Iraqi practice of discouraging routs/retreats/desertion.

The Iran - Iraq war saw very extensive use of APM's by both sides.


One thing in the article doesn't make much sense, at least as written - one destroyed vehicle would not have blocked the pass at any part of it I'm familiar with, but the Iraqis had had months of the "get the **** out of the vehicles and run like hell when you hear aircraft" drill - the F15E would target the lead vehicle in any column, that's just standard, but it probably then started coming back, and the big "drop and run" fest started then and there - that's what would have caused the whole highway to get blocked.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Just in case MOBIUS missed my posts (or if anyone still can't identify the tank in the photo above:

BTW, MOBIUS and Rogan: In the gulf war, there were 10 incidents of air to ground CAS fratricidal attacks, accounting for 26 US and 20 UK casualties, both KIA and WIA (no other nationalities were affected). This included USAF and USMC fixed wing aircraft, and a single indident involving a US Army helicopter.

10 fratricidal close air support sorties. Horrible, isn't it? (yes it is - even one is, but that's war.)

The USAF A-10 and OA-10 aircraft alone flew over 7,500 CAS sorties. F-16's flew over 12,500. F-15's, AV-8Bs, AH-1 and AH-64's accounted for over 10,000 more.

So when you talk about "trigger happy" and "incompetent" US pilots, you're talking about a failure rate of 10 out of more than 30,000. So please excuse me if I don't get as bent out of shape about these things.

Now, here's your tank:

[Sikander]

If the information that came out in the days immediately after this incident occurred is correct, then these guys acted against direct orders from their air combat controller to not "return" fire. If this is indeed the case, then it seems like the burden falls entirely upon them, and not their superiors. They should be made an example of. It's one thing to screw up in a situation where all of the impetus is on you to make a split second decision, and quite another to ask for clearance to bomb, be denied, and do it anyway.

[Tingkai]

This is the radio transcript leaked to the Washington Times:

Major Schmidt (wingman): "Bossman [AWACS], this is Coffee 52. I've got tally in the vicinity. Request permission to lay down some 20 mike [20 mm cannon]."

Major Umbach (flight commander): "Let's just make sure it's not friendlies. That's all."

Schmidt: "When you've got a chance, put it on the spy. You've got a good hack on it." (The "spy" is a sensor.)

Later, Maj. Umbach, the lead pilot, says, "Check my sparkles. Check my sparkles. See if it looks good."

("Sparkle" is an infrared point to signify a ground target.) The pointer is visible only through night-vision goggles.

Maj. Schmidt: "I'm copying your sparkles well."

AWACS: "Hold fire. I need details on safire [surface to air fire].

Schmidt: "I've got some men on a road, and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us. I am rolling in in self-defense."

AWACS: "Boss man copies"

Schmidt and Umbach use lasers to pinpoint the target, and Maj. Schmidt releases the bomb.

Schmidt: "Shack [as bombs hit target] Can you confirm they were shooting us?"

AWCS: "You're cleared. Self-defense."


I don't know if it is clear that Schmidt disobeyed the AWACS. He gets told to hold fire and that the AWACS wants details about the surface fire. Schmidt gives the details then says he's rolling in to attack and the AWACS response could have been interpreted by him as meaning he was clear.

The big thing is no one ever says move to a safe spot and determine what is actually happening, as per the operating procedures. The planes are flying at 10,000 feet. They had the ability to move out of the danger zone, or at least that is what the investigators said.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Small arms fire won't reach 10,000 feet, but light AAA will. Without a bombload, (ie armed as a fighter), the F-16 could put itself out of range fairly quickly. With a bombload, the aircraft either has to jettison ordnance, or maneuever a lot slower and smoother, especially on a climbout. You're sure as hell not going to outrun AAA fire.

Tingkai (or anyone who might know?) - the transcript clearly shows these guys were targeting a crew-served weapon. Do you know what it was, or any info on whether it was trained in the general direction of the pilots?

What bothers me about this, and makes me tend to believe the pilots, is that the AWACs controller (from an entirely different unit, and certainly higher up on the information food chain) seems to have no clear idea that there were friendlies there. The AWACS has onboard GPS, and a plane full of people who basically watch everybody and talk to other people. The F-16's have onboard GPS and other nav systems. Everybody in the air knows where everybody is, but nobody seems to know that the Canadians are down there.

If the pilots were briefed, then sure as hell the AWACS (as their airborne controllers) should have been briefed as well.

Then the AWACS should clearly have advised the pilots that they were approaching a training area with a live-fire fieldex, and should have vectored them around the outside of that area. If they knew.

My gut instinct is that there was a definite failure of communication somewhere, but probably not two pilots and a totally independent AWACS controller (and his on-board superiors) ignoring clear briefings they were given.

I sure as hell would like to see the earlier portion of that transcript.