Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: US rules of war blamed for 'friendly fire' death
AdamB    3/12/2007 3:24:45 PM
US rules of war blamed for 'friendly fire' death By Matthew Moore and PA Last Updated: 5:10pm GMT 12/03/2007 A British soldier killed by "friendly fire" from US warplanes in Iraq would not have died if the Americans had been following British rules of engagement, his inquest heard today. L/Cpl Matty Hull died after American pilots mistook a British tank convoy near Basra for Iraqi troops during the 2003 invasion. Today his inquest was told that their error would have been spotted under the strict guidelines which govern when British pilots can engage the enemy. British pilots must read back to their air controllers the location and coordinates of their target, their direction of attack and the location of friendly forces in relation to the target, before they can open fire. The American military is thought to have no such rules in place. Asked whether the tragedy would have occurred if the A-10 pilots had followed the British procedures, Stuart Matthews, a British Forward Air Controller (FAC), said: "I don't". The inquest into L/Cpl Hull's death re-opened today after being suspended following the emergence of a classified US pit recording of the two planes opening fire. Despite high-level pressure on the US to start co-operating with the inquiry, it emerged today that the Pentagon was still refusing to provide information requested by the coroner and the Ministry of Defence. Requests for details of the US rules of engagement, the training records of the pilots, and a detailed explanation of the pit recording of had been turned down, the MoD's lawyers told the coroner. Only a heavily edited copy of the American investigation of the incident has been released, the inquest was told. L/Cpl Hull, 25, from Windsor, Berkshire, was killed and four other members of the Household Cavalry Regiment were injured in the attack near Basra on March 28, 2003. telegraph.co.uk
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT
dirtykraut       8/21/2007 6:07:12 PM
Neutralizer I don't see how you can fault USAF pilot training when they recieve considerably more flight training hours and CAS training. Perhaps get rid of some of those nifty social programs which everyone including Islamic fundis can enjoy and actually upgrade the capabilities of the RAF. And before you call the US sloppy, you must remember the hundreds of British lives saved in this war by the almost exclusive US air support.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       8/22/2007 5:35:59 AM
1.  It doesn't matter how much training time takes place if the trainees are not being trained and practised in appropraite procedures, etc.  Indeed spending time on bad training could be a major problem.
 
2.  Raw training time for aircrew is not necessarily a sensible measure.  Spending hours in the air has very little to do with training to engage ground targets under effective ground control in various realistic circumstances. 
 
3.  So the ANG now spend more time in air tactical training than RAF/RN regular pilots?  I do hope there's some data to support that assertion.  One of UK's advantages that its such a small country the airfields are all relatively close to ground training areas, wich minimises transit times. 
 
4.  Talking of data, please enlighten us as to the number of sorties flown in support of UK troops by the various air arms providing air support.  IIRC the RAAF was actually seriously underused.  Now that wouldn't have anything to do with US tasking authorities trying to boost the cbt flying hours in USAF pilots' log books would it :-)
 
5.  The training that these USAF pilots needed was ground training in vehicle recognition.  Of course that's reaaaaly boring if you're a part time air farce wannabee hero.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    RE:US friendly fire   3/6/2010 9:04:08 AM
it is entirely true that in recent years american friendly fire incidents have been very high, shockingly so, but it cannot entirely be blamed on lack of training, combat experience etc, it is partly due to A the amount of american troops present, B the now stereotypical amounts of fire power that they tend to use when engaging a target, sometimes it can be seen as out of proportion, and C it is partly due to American military doctrine.
the sheer amounts of US troops present mean that FFI (friendly fire incidences) on their behalf are going to be higher, but nontheless American troops have dissplayed a certain degree of unprofessionalism, which has incidentally led to many avoidable FFI in the past, this problem can partially atributed to the large scale of american forces and the fact that it is impossible to to train such large numbers of men to a a very high standard, it is true however that american soldiers are well trained but as i said before they cannot be trained to the same some level as the soldiers of a much smaller nation, who must rely on well trained troops rather than the numbers and firepower that america has become increasingly relyant upon.
this in turn leads to friendly fire incidences where as maybe a better trained army might cope better in some situations. in saying this every army has cases of friendly fire including the best in the world.
The american government and military is also partially to blame for such occurances by american soldiers, not entirely the soldiers themselves. This is because the pentagon has taken very little action to combat this, both on and off the battlefeild, one such example is unforgivable as the american pentagon has refused to share information regarding the incidents with the inquests, if this was the other way around America would make hell over not having information released to them. this is completely unfair to the families victims, and america should really grow up
regardless the failure of the american military to change their militray doctrine cannot be blamed on the US soldiers.
it is true that changes should be made to the way the US military conducts its wars in concern with friendly fire and the massive amounts of civilian casulties caused by US forces.
in conclusion the US army has not conducted itself in a proper fashion, and changes should be made in order to prevent this from happening over and over again and has shown itself in a bad light to other nations.
it all comes down to a lack of adequate training an professionalism on behalf of the soldeirs involved and the miltary command structure/ government compared with those of other nations who have displayed a greater degree of professioanlism and therefore have had far fewer friendly fire incidents. and im sorry to say that this is another incident that adds to the sterotypical views of the US military, that being that they are trigger happy and unprofessional, which again im sorry to say they are doing a good job at proving with their current conduct.
but this is only my opinion
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    RE:US friendly fire   3/6/2010 9:08:00 AM

Neutralizer I don't see how you can fault USAF pilot training when they recieve considerably more flight training hours and CAS training. Perhaps get rid of some of those nifty social programs which everyone including Islamic fundis can enjoy and actually upgrade the capabilities of the RAF. And before you call the US sloppy, you must remember the hundreds of British lives saved in this war by the almost exclusive US air support.



utterly dissagree with this comment, exclusive air support, i think not, Britain launched air riads ffrom practically beggining to end ,or are you forgetting that the US was 3 years late into the war when it proved most beneficial to them, and only after they were bombed by japan, other than that they had no intetions of entering the war until that point, and yes the US airforce is pretty sloppy, they havent done much to dissporve it really, they are not helping themselves.
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    RE:US friendly fire   3/6/2010 9:18:51 AM

1.  It doesn't matter how much training time takes place if the trainees are not being trained and practised in appropraite procedures, etc.  Indeed spending time on bad training could be a major problem.

 

2.  Raw training time for aircrew is not necessarily a sensible measure.  Spending hours in the air has very little to do with training to engage ground targets under effective ground control in various realistic circumstances. 

 

3.  So the ANG now spend more time in air tactical training than RAF/RN regular pilots?  I do hope there's some data to support that assertion.  One of UK's advantages that its such a small country the airfields are all relatively close to ground training areas, wich minimises transit times. 

 

4.  Talking of data, please enlighten us as to the number of sorties flown in support of UK troops by the various air arms providing air support.  IIRC the RAAF was actually seriously underused.  Now that wouldn't have anything to do with US tasking authorities trying to boost the cbt flying hours in USAF pilots' log books would it :-)

 

5.  The training that these USAF pilots needed was ground training in vehicle recognition.  Of course that's reaaaaly boring if you're a part time air farce wannabee hero.

 

 



i agree with most of this actually, but it is not fiar to brand all US forces as unprofessional. but yes the RAF demonstrate and have demonstrated a far greater degree of professionalism in air. i dont like how america bosts about its extensive simulator training scheme, well thats like saying i could join the SAS after playing 48 hours on COD4, i dont think so, soldiers need real training that offers a degree of combat experience, much like British army training that has built entire towns to practise in using a laser tag system and blank rounds, this is far more effective at training a soldier/pilot/sailor for a war, not putting them in a computer screen with infinte ammo and no viable experience of a combat situation, which is what the american military is leaning towards.
also RAF pilots must put in massive amounts of air time before they are alowed in a combat zone ,and before they advance to a new form of aircraft, making them some of the best trained pilots in the world.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Well look on the bright side   3/6/2010 11:45:17 PM
Why won't people admit that the American military is not as good as the British?  All it relies on is sheer numbers and overwhelming firepower and almost no skill.
 
 
 
 So the fact that we don't intend to help you fight off the Argies over Falkland Islands is no big deal.  Good to know, we were worried about what we thought was a mistake by the President.  But since you guys seemed to want him in office, we're glad it's working out for you.  Enjoying those DVDs?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Oh right   3/6/2010 11:55:21 PM
 i dont like how america bosts about its extensive simulator training scheme, well thats like saying i could join the SAS after playing 48 hours on COD4, i dont think so, soldiers need real training that offers a degree of combat experience, much like British army training that has built entire towns to practise in using a laser tag system and blank rounds, this is far more effective at training a soldier/pilot/sailor for a war, not putting them in a computer screen with infinte ammo and no viable experience of a combat situation, which is what the american military is leaning towards.
 
 
 Oh right, because we don't know what a kill house is, or have any MOUT training installations for live fire.  Damn! 
 
And those simulators make NO sense, because why shouldn't we spend commando training money on every man in a million man army?  Glad you have enough weapons and ammo to give every wrench turner a few days and a few thousand rounds (and the odd barrel change) to expend in a kill house.  Funny, I thought you had to beg machine guns from us because you didn't have enough.
 
Part of your desperate creativity, which we all admire, is because you have no actual money to procure solutions in a normal fashion.  If you did, however, you'd be as firepower-happy as you claim we are.
 
Whatever the merits of these actual cases, meanwhile, nothing should have ever got to the press.
 
You're all dear chaps but would you please QUIT WHINING? 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~       3/7/2010 8:07:08 AM


 i dont like how america bosts about its extensive simulator training scheme, well thats like saying i could join the SAS after playing 48 hours on COD4, i dont think so, soldiers need real training that offers a degree of combat experience, much like British army training that has built entire towns to practise in using a laser tag system and blank rounds, this is far more effective at training a soldier/pilot/sailor for a war, not putting them in a computer screen with infinte ammo and no viable experience of a combat situation, which is what the american military is leaning towards.


 

 

 Oh right, because we don't know what a kill house is, or have any MOUT training installations for live fire.  Damn! 


 

And those simulators make NO sense, because why shouldn't we spend commando training money on every man in a million man army?  Glad you have enough weapons and ammo to give every wrench turner a few days and a few thousand rounds (and the odd barrel change) to expend in a kill house.  Funny, I thought you had to beg machine guns from us because you didn't have enough.


 

Part of your desperate creativity, which we all admire, is because you have no actual money to procure solutions in a normal fashion.  If you did, however, you'd be as firepower-happy as you claim we are.


 

Whatever the merits of these actual cases, meanwhile, nothing should have ever got to the press.


 

You're all dear chaps but would you please QUIT WHINING? 

 
wrong my over arrogant friend, british infantary rely on individual marksmenship which i why all british infantary are told not to use full auto capability unless the situation really demands it, as far as us begging for machine guns from america, i really think you havent visited the real world in quite some time, the british platoon is just as heavily armed as an american platoon, and they dont have to expend all of their ammunition to kill a handfull of terrorists (like american units do). it is credit to the british armed forces that they can still operate better than their american allies, even when as you claim they are under equipped, that just makes the american forces look even worse dosnt it now?? its shocking that the worlds best equipped army cannot out do the far smaller and less funded, highly trained British Army.
have a nice day
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    JTRsquigglesquiggle   3/7/2010 11:55:12 PM
How can you be a Brit?  You can hardly write English.  What are you, twelve?
 
I would provide numerous cites on how UK forces became known to their US 'cousins' as "The Borrowers,"  could show examples throughout history of British commanders sticking with obsolete weapons out of some notion that their men would "just waste ammunition,"
 
but frankly, I can see that you are one of these invincible ignoramuses who simply cannot, will not be educated or informed. 
 
"You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reason himself into."
 
So I think I will wait for you to show a little more quality - attention to grammar would be a start - before I concern myself any further about what you think.

 
On a happier note, note this.


 
Quote    Reply

Panther    Nichevo   3/8/2010 2:48:34 AM
I don't know if it would be worth the effort to converse with JTR. Kind of reminds me of AdmaB? All accusation and no substance! Is he really what he claims he is? Sorry JTR but you need to prove yourself to me, being the internet and all!.
 
 
Anyways, i would like to second your notation by also stating the obvious in supreme historical irony for the modern US citizen support for the British Tommy. I don't think the Tommy has ever seen his popularity ride so high in the US and be such as it is with rounds of drinks bought in their honor within US bars, the like of which probably have not been seen since way back in the 1750-1760 time frame; Could i be wrong?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics