Message to all A-10 pilots:

[SpencerH]

The destroyed vehicles were scimitars (light recce tanks with 30mm cannon) not challengers. Although I cant swear to it, I doubt that an A10 cannon would be a weapon of choice against an MBT.

Its another example of american pilots shooting before identifying their target. I might not expect every F15 pilot to be an expert in vehicle recognition but I bloody well expect an A10 pilot to tell the difference between a scimitar and anything else, especially one with the union jack on the top. The only possible vehicle that comes to mind that a scimitar could be mistaken for (by an idiot) would be some variants of the BMP and I dont know if the Iraqi's have any.

Too many ****ing weekend warriors fly american warplanes.

[KrazyHorse]

Bingo, Spence.

A10s fly lowlevel ****ing close support.

They're supposed to be able to correctly attack enemey targets on a moving battlefield. (At least this is my understanding of their role)

This means that they should be able to identify exactly what they're shooting at. It's not good enough to simply see a vehicle and assume it's the enemy's. Given the current number of vehicles deployed by both sides that would end up with you killing more of your own than you do of the enemy's.

[Tolls]

From here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,926167,00.html

"Coloured smoke signs were sent up to indicate that they were friendly troops but it didn't stop the attack."

"Instead of providing air cover while helicopters came in to evacuate the casualties, they baled out. "

"The attack took place within the Household Cavalry's battlefield control line which means that everything in the air should be controlled by them and their embedded American air controller. The A10s were well out of their area..."

"All of D Squadron's vehicles are clearly marked, with fluorescent panels on the roofs, flags and other markings. It was something that the soldiers kept saying, over and over. "We spend all this money marking out our vehicles so this doesn't happen," one said. "If it was the heat of battle, **** happens. But it was clear daylight." "

This is not a simple case of misidentification (like the Challenger incident, or the Patriot one)...this was nothing short of criminal negligence on the part of the A-10 crew.

[CerberusIV]

Two questions.

As I understand it British practice is to tightly control tactical air support and ensure targets are positively identified before being engaged? Is US practice different and does that explain some of what is going on?

It is worth remembering that virtually all of the tactical air support is by US aviation, not British planes so there is less opportunity for British aircraft to friendly fire coalition ground forces.

I heard that most (all?) of the A-10's are flown by air national guard pilots. Are they really weekend aviators?

[TheStinger]

This might be bollocks but here goes anyway.

I heard US aviators are only taught ground recognition in relation to US vehicles. This seems like gross stupidity on the part of the commanders.

[CerberusIV]

That was reported on last night's TV. Apparently it came to light last January amongst the military that US troops were not trained to identify UK vehicles.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
That was reported on last night's TV. Apparently it came to light last January amongst the military that US troops were not trained to identify UK vehicles.

Why would they its not as if they fight together



edited for spelling

[Tingkai]

It's too early to say whether the challenger tank incident and the A-10 incidents are major screw ups or an understandable mistake. We don't know what was happening at the time, and the information on hand does not suggest a situation where it should definitely not happen.

The Patriot incident raises lots of red flags. The Iraqi air force has been grounded so the Patriot crew should have questioned why their missile systems were locking on an aircraft. I might be wrong, but the Patriot is designed to shoot down missiles, not aircraft. That should have created another warning. The US military is investigating whether there is programming bug in the Patriot system.

http://www.itworld.com/Sec/2052/030328patriotbug/

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Why would they is not as if they fight together

I suspect the A-10 pilots would routinely do low-level, high-speed passes over US vehicles to a point where they can instantly identify them. Even if they did some training over UK vehicles, it would probably not be enough.

[muppet]

Originally posted by Asher
It's telling that we didn't see one of these threads when one British Challenger tank shelled another Challenger tank and killed the crew...

That's easy to explain:

Muppet's first rule of warfare.
Do not become intimately involved with a fellow soldier's significant other. An internal matter between friends.

Muppet's second rule of warfare.
Do not engage in cybersex with an American airman's significant other. An international incident.

[Tolls]

You don't need to id the vehicle, just the large fluorescent panel on its roof...that should be enough to give pause for thought on a clear day.

[Tolls]

As for the difference between the Challenger incident and this one:

Challenger:
"The incident happened while the tank unit was engaging pockets of Iraqi soldiers and militia near a bridge over the Qanat Shatt Al Basrah canal running along the western edge of the city.

A UK military spokesman said it was during a period of multiple engagements with Iraqi forces on the outskirts of Basra. "

A-10:
"If it was the heat of battle, **** happens. But it was clear daylight."

Do we all see the difference here yet?