British survivor’s account of A10 Warthog firing (without provocation) on British units and civilians
I sincerely believe that this event was a tragic exception, not the norm. But still, the person responsible for doing this, whether it be the pilot or whoever had the pilot following such lax ID proceedures before starting a bombing run on non-hostiles, needs to be found, and demoted big time.
I wouldn’t hold your breath. Remember those pilots who killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan? They still haven’t even decided whether or not to court-martial them.
Forgive me if I hope for something more than demotion; the lack of judgement sounds even worse than when Canadian soldiers were bombed in Afghanistan, and they face the possibility of court martial for involuntary manslaughter and assault.
This problem doesn’t seem to be getting better: Canada lost 4 soldiers to U.S. forces in Afghanistan, 0 to hostile forces. Right now, the toll for the U.K. is 5 dead from “friendly”, 4 from Iraqi fire.
Rightly or wrongly, it’s something a lot of people are thinking. The British lieutenant is quoted as saying
Pah.
The figure is 26, the 26th being killed “disarming ordnance”. IIRC only 7 of the 26 can be attributed to enemy fire, or the direct consequences thereof.
A-10 with advanced technology? Isn’t the a-10 the oldest fighter still being flown by the US?
Isn’t it a B-52?
The Great Unwashed, read what Nanoda wrote again.
Your figures include accidents.
No, the B-52 is a bomber. On the other hand, the A-10 is a ground-attack aircraft, not a fighter. Either way I don’t suppose the age of the model itself is wholly relevant. I presume they’ve been given equipment upgrades from time to time (just as I presume B-52s don’t use 1950s navigation technology).
It makes you want to throw your bollocks at the clock, whether you call it accident or criminal negligence. The Iraqis have got nothing that’s even looked like seriously troubling our armour to date, but American tankbusting planes can do the job, all right
Yawn.
Don’t forget the US tanks that have been destroyed. I’d say blowing up an M1A1 would be considered ‘seriously troubling’.
Yeah, it is hard work reading other posts properly…
True, of course, but wandering from the point: whether the Americans are a bigger danger to British tanks than the Iraqis are. I’m not even handing out blame or doing any name-calling, just remarking on the tragic irony.
Zzzzzzzzzz!
Oh, you betcha!
That is, if you consider the AN/AAS-35 Pave Penny pod to be “advanced”. The thermal imaging from Pave Penny is far substandard, and the equipment is really showing its age.
Mr. Cynical
Sensor Troop Extrordinaire
Let’s remember the attack took place in broad daylight on vehicles clearly marked with all the “allied” markings required to avoid this and the latest battlefield IFF and that the pilot made a second attack run after “friendlies, cease fire” smoke canisters were popped. (BBC interview with a survivor)
The question is not one of equipment it one of the actions of the pilot, who seems to merit more than the term “cowboy”.
Nitpick? I thought the Pave- series were all laser-related, and the Pave Penny in particular was just a ‘laser tracker’. Can’t get to FAS right now…
There have not been any M1A1 tanks destroyed. Two have been disabled and repaired there were no casualties.
Perhaps this pilot, like the ones who killed the Canadians, were so hopped up on Air Force-issue bennies that he couldn’t tell a Union Jack from a jackrabbit.
—There have not been any M1A1 tanks destroyed. Two have been disabled and repaired there were no casualties.—
So… is that worse or better? This pilot got two runs on a target with his tank busting rounds, and all he managed to do was possibly hit some Iraqis and lightly damage two tanks?
—Two have been disabled and repaired there were no casualties.—
I’m confused now: what does casualties imply? Deaths only? I thought it included disabling injuries also?