# Canuck soldiers fired on Yank pilots, WTF? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 27, 2002, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133 "2002-11-27T16:50:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2002, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/1 "2002-11-27T16:50:42Z")
Well it looks like those pilots might have perceived a threat due to direct fire according to [this report](http://www2.mybc.com/news/fs.cfm?source_id=CP&id=1225128). But what gets me is this comment by Canada’s favourite military commentator, retired general Lewis MacKenzie. > [@](#): > > “When you’re at 10,000 feet you don’t really have to worry about a weapons system that has a capability of going out a few thousand metres getting anywhere close to you,” Okay, lets do the math. Kandahar’s [elevation](http://www.afghan-info.com/Kandahar/KANDLOCT.HTM) is 3050 feet. If the planes fly at 10,000 feet, that means they’re only 7000 feet in the air. If the Canadians can fire a “few thousand meters”, say 3000 thousand meters (10,000 feet) , that is way more than close. Sounds to me that McKenzie is one of those Canadians who have had difficulty with the metric system since 1975. Anyway, I don’t think this new information can be easily dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2002, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/2 "2002-11-27T17:25:50Z")
So he misspoke himself, saying “meters” instead of “feet” because clearly you can’t shoot a gun and hope to hit something “a few thousand meters” away. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2002, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/3 "2002-11-27T18:23:52Z")
I dunno. MacKenzie’s comments seem somewhat self-serving: > [@](#): > > MacKenzie, who has been involved in several boards of inquiry, dismissed the threat the Canadians could have posed to the pilots from their location and armed with the type of weapons they were using to practise. > > “When you’re at 10,000 feet you don’t really have to worry about a weapons system that has a capability of going out a few thousand metres getting anywhere close to you,” MacKenzie said in an interview from Toronto. The statement is probably technically true (leaving aside the feet/metres issue)–the weapons that the Canadian soldiers were quite possibly not capable of reaching the planes. However, the sensors that many planes carry can detect whether a round is fired in the direction of the plane, but they cannot (that I am aware) detect the type of round being fired. So the pilot can be informed that someone has fired at him, but he has no way to know whether the round can reach him. It is unfortunate that politics always get into the investigations of friendly fire. I have no opinion as to whether the pilots were or were not rash (given this new information), but the fact that the actual investigative bodies are editing information means two things: - any trials that arise are suspect as to their ability to deliver justice and - the analysis to improve procedures so as to minimize the chance that such a situation will be repeated is compromised by the suppression of facts. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2002, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/4 "2002-11-27T19:26:49Z")
You’re kidding, right? This is the defence throwing mud. The standard firearm of a Canadian infantryman is the Canadian version of the of M16, which fires a .223 round, which only goes a few thousand feet, not metres. The person who said he shot in the air fired “two or three” bursts straight up (i.e., not at the planes, which were flying at several hundred miles an hour). In a standard combat load, every fourth or fifth round is a tracer round. So, two or three bursts in the air equals around fifteen rounds, max, of which three (possibly four) would be tracers (which would be the only visible rounds). The rest of the fire was ground fire, according to the person shooting upwards. So, you’re telling me that the pilots saw up to four tracers rising from a designated training area, not aimed at them, and invoked “self-defence” on that basis? Bullshit. If you reread the report without your scandal detector on, you’ll see that McKenzie was saying that ignoring it was a mistake, but it really doesn’t change a damn thing. Regarding the pilots’ ability to detect the type of round fired at them, the tracer from a .223 would be very small, and almost invisible at any distance from the planes. I find it hard to believe that the pilots sense of threat was justified. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2002, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/5 "2002-11-27T19:31:36Z")
I would be shocked if an F-16 had any device on board capable of automatically detecting the firing of a C-7 rifle from 10,000 feet in the air. I’m sure you could see it through a thermal imaging device though. The critical question, to my mind, is… why did the pilots not know they were attacking an Allied training area? Were they incompetent or negligent… or did their commanders fail to inform them? ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2002, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/6 "2002-11-27T20:07:52Z")
Was this not already shown, by the US investigators to be pilot error due to : "the failure of Major [Y], the 170th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron Weapons Officer and the incident flight wingman, to exercise appropriate flight discipline. This resulted in a violation of the rules of engagement and the inappropriate use of lethal force. Under the circumstances, Major [Y] acted with reckless disregard for the foreseeable consequences of his actions, thereby endangering friendly forces in the Kandahar area. " [snip] “also found by clear and convincing evidence that an additional cause of the incident was the failure of Major , the 170th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron Commander and the incident flight lead, to exercise appropriate in-flight leadership. This resulted in his wingman’s violation of the rules of engagement and inappropriate use of lethal force. Under the circumstances, Major acted with reckless disregard for the foreseeable consequences of his actions, thereby endangering friendly forces in the Kandahar area.” This was from a copy of the Report (you can find a copy [here](http://canadaonline.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.centcom.mil/News/Reports/Tarnak%5FFarms%5FReport.htm)) The defence that they thought they were being fired on doesn’t wash with their own Military. I think it can be dismissed as just an attempt to find the every popular “reasonable doubt” ---
**Author:** ![flyboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4da419/32.png) [@flyboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flyboy)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2002, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/7 "2002-11-27T20:42:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hansel \* > \*\*The person who said he shot in the air fired “two or three” bursts straight up > \ > So, two or three bursts in the air equals around fifteen rounds, max, of which three (possibly four) would be tracers (which would be the only visible rounds). The rest of the fire was ground fire, according to the person shooting upwards. > \ > Regarding the pilots’ ability to detect the type of round fired at them, the tracer from a .223 would be very small, and almost invisible at any distance from the planes. I find it hard to believe that the pilots sense of threat was justified. \*\* Well, I’m not going to stick up for the pilots, who I think carry a large part of the blame for this. (Personally, I think the CFACC (combined forces air component commander) carries the ultimate blame, since it was his responsibility to lay down the rules, and it seems like a mangling of the rules led to the tragedy). I’d like to ask **hansel,** though, how he knows what a tracer round looks like from the dark cockpit at night from seven thousand feet away. I’ve spent many a night in dark cockpits and planes, and I’ve seen many things on the ground. I’ve never seen tracers, but I’ve heard stories from those who have (though I have no idea what the caliber was). Also, I’m trying to match what hansel says about the tracers with this > [@](#): > > The two soldiers said there was a near-steady stream of fire during the moonless night, as they moved from one position atop a hill to another. > > The fire produced bright flashes either through ricochets or tracers from the weapons. Ford testified that the rounds could produce red and white sparks. > > Paquette also testified that there was a “steady stream of tracer fire.” This goes in my “fog of war” category. I think the pilots carry some blame, but I don’t think they should be punished in any way. If I’m in the cockpit and see tracers, I think my first instinct would be to get rid of them. Somebody somewhere should have had the knowledge that these guys would be where they were doing what they were doing. That knowledge wasn’t there to be passed to the pilots, who held their wad for four minutes before making an aggresive decision. My guess is that they were still seeing fire as they rolled into their bombing run… that’s four minutes of what could well be enemy fire gunning at you. No one told them otherwise, as far as I know. That’s a long time in a combat situation. Of course, if there was some pertinent info the pilots had access to before their mission, and ignored, then I’ll stand corrected. **tomndebb** , what are these sensors of which you speak? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2002, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/8 "2002-11-27T23:47:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*So he misspoke himself, saying “meters” instead of “feet” because clearly you can’t shoot a gun and hope to hit something “a few thousand meters” away. \*\* > [@](#): > > - tomndebb\* > the weapons that the Canadian soldiers were quite possibly not capable of reaching the planes. I would have agreed until recently but > [@](#): > > - [Sniper’s Paradise/National Post](http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/2430kill.htm) \* > During the next four days of fighting, the Newfoundland corporal set what is believed to be a record for a long-distance shot under combat conditions, hitting an enemy gunman at a distance of 2,430 metres. That’s 8,000 feet by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/9 "2002-11-28T02:53:33Z")
What model F-16’s were these? I tend to know quite an awful lot about certain models, and the avionics integral to their systems. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/10 "2002-11-28T03:26:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > \*\*I would have agreed until recently but > > That’s 8,000 feet by the way. \*\* From that link: > [@](#): > > Crawling up into a good position, they set up their .50-calibre rifle – the MacMillan Tac-50, a weapon the corporal compares to having superhuman power in your hands. “Firing it feels like someone slashing you on the back of your hockey helmet with a hockey stick.” > > When he hit his first target, an enemy gunman at a distance of 1,700 metres, he said all that ran through his mind was locating his next target. These are large caliber **sniper** rifles that are designed to shoot an extremely long distance with great accuracy. As previously noted, this is not that type of weapon that the soldiers in the friendly-fire incident were using. I’m not sure what you think your point is here **grienspace**. ---
**Author:** ![TV\_time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@TV\_time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TV_time)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/11 "2002-11-28T04:03:20Z")
Sounds like a good reason to bomb Iraq to me. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/12 "2002-11-28T04:17:27Z")
My point was a direct response to counter the perception that you “can’t shoot a gun and hope to hit something “a few thousand meters” away.” Pilots 7000 feet above the ground observing ground fire in their direction can have every reason to believe that they are in danger. Perhaps more pertinent to this case are the stats on this [M16A2](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m16.htm) > [@](#): > > Primary function: Infantry weapon > Manufacturer: Colt Manufacturing and Fabrique Nationale Manufacturing Inc. > Length: 39.63 inches (100.66 centimeters) > Weight, with 30 round magazine: 8.79 pounds (3.99 kilograms) > Bore diameter: 5.56mm (.233 inches) > Maximum range :3,600 meters Maximum effective range: > Area target: 2,624.8 feet (800 meters) > Point target: 1,804.5 feet (550 meters) > Muzzle velocity: 2,800 feet (853 meters) per second > Rate of fire: > Cyclic: 800 rounds per minute > Sustained: 12-15 rounds per minute > Semiautomatic: 45 rounds per minute > Burst: 90 rounds per minute > Magazine capacity: 30 rounds > Unit Replacement Cost: $586 That is a maximum range of **11,500 feet** , and my guess is based on muzzle velocity, that a round would take about 3 seconds to hit a plane. I don’t know if this makes sense or not, but if anything that still possessed the momentum to travel nearly a mile hit my plane, I’d be seriously worried. And considering the pilot was facing bursts of gunfire,the danger is magnified. I would expect that the pilots are aware of the latest technology in .223 rapid fire weaponry, and it doesn’t matter what the Canadians use, but what bin Laden supplied to his followers. And if you don’t know, assume the worst. I can’t see how this latest information is irrelevant in the defense of the pilots. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-soldiers-fired-on-yank-pilots-wtf/139133/13 "2002-11-28T05:29:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > \*\*I would have agreed until recently but > > > [@](#): > > > > During the next four days of fighting, the Newfoundland corporal set what is believed to be a record for a long-distance shot under combat conditions, hitting an enemy gunman at a distance of 2,430 metres. > > That’s 8,000 feet by the way. \*\* The rifle in use in this case was a .50 calibre sniper rifle, not an M16; a .50 calibre round is orders of magnitude more powerful than an .223 high velocity. To get an M16 round to go 3,000 meters, you have to plot a special arc for maximum distance; it certainly wouldn’t go 3,000 meters straight up, where gravity is directly diminishing its velocity. You’ll note that the maximum point target range is only 550 meters. “Maximum Effective Range” means only that the bullet retains enough power at that distance to injure someone if it actually hits them. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by flyboy88_ > **I’d like to ask hansel, though, how he knows what a tracer round looks like from the dark cockpit at night from seven thousand feet away.** I’ve never seen a tracer from a cockpit, but I’ve seen .223 tracers during night fighting exercises with the Canadian army, and also during firepower demonstrations at night. Quite honestly, from up close, tracers look like lasers at night: they create a red (or green) straight line to the target that lasts an instant in your eyes, and when they hit a target they can ricochet, arcing perhaps fifty or sixty feet. What the pilots saw from the air is what I saw from the ground: a lot of flashes and laserlike lines. One obvious point is that, during an exercise, all the fire is going _in one direction_ (and you can tell which direction it’s going in). I can’t imagine that what the pilots saw was much different from what I saw from the top of a hill overlooking an exercise field: a whole lot of fire going in one direction, and none coming back. To return to my original point, the pilots would have seen, at most, a few tracers going up that couldn’t be considered to be aimed at them. Do you have any idea how much you’d have to lead a jet fighter, even with .50 calibre ammunition, to hit it from 3,000 meters away?