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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT
Armchair Private       3/12/2007 3:54:16 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

I'd be interested to see some stats on total friendly fire incidents caused by the US troops adjusted to take account of the vastly greater number of missions they fly. Don't think that they'd be much worse than the rest of us then.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       3/12/2007 5:08:37 PM
I can't recall any blue on blue by the RAF or FAA  in the last 20 years, can you?  The Americans have had quite a number in the last 10 years. Ask the Canadians about Afghanistan.
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       3/12/2007 5:33:05 PM
Can't recall any, no.
 
But 0% of sorties ending in fratricide isn't very much different from 0.01% of sorties leading to blue on blue.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       3/12/2007 8:23:33 PM

I can't recall any blue on blue by the RAF or FAA  in the last 20 years, can you?  The Americans have had quite a number in the last 10 years. Ask the Canadians about Afghanistan.


Oh yeah, that's right, there was one incident where USAF struck some Canadians in Afghanistan, wasn't there?  Blue-on-blue casualties certainly are among the most tragic.
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious       3/12/2007 9:10:03 PM



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.




The danger of such "if only" second guessing is that they presume the outcome.  It could easily go the other way.  What if those vehicles were really Iraqi, and in the time it took to get those confirmations of confirmations, the opportunity for a clear shot was lost and they got the jump on a British unit?
 
There are reasons for each side's policies, and it tends to be based on national experience.  The relevant US experience has been excess casualties caused by HQ's trying to micro-manage the battles at the front.  The air battles in Vietnam were an example.  American pilots had very restrictive ROE at times, but not the north Vietnamese.  The result was that the long range weapons advantage of the US aircraft was often negated by visual confirmation rules.  If you have to visually ID the target, why carry a Sparrow?
 
SGTObvious
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       3/12/2007 10:07:02 PM
"It could easily go the other way.  What if those vehicles were really Iraqi..."
 
 
We'd probably have jailed them by now.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       3/13/2007 5:32:10 AM






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.






The danger of such "if only" second guessing is that they presume the outcome.  It could easily go the other way.  What if those vehicles were really Iraqi, and in the time it took to get those confirmations of confirmations, the opportunity for a clear shot was lost and they got the jump on a British unit?

 

There are reasons for each side's policies, and it tends to be based on national experience.  The relevant US experience has been excess casualties caused by HQ's trying to micro-manage the battles at the front.  The air battles in Vietnam were an example.  American pilots had very restrictive ROE at times, but not the north Vietnamese.  The result was that the long range weapons advantage of the US aircraft was often negated by visual confirmation rules.  If you have to visually ID the target, why carry a Sparrow?

 

SGTObvious


Useful comparisons need to be like with like, comparing air air cbt over NVN with CAS is, to put it very mildly, totally irrelevant.  RoE vary with circumstances, even against ground tgts the RoE for Battlefield Air Interdiction is likely to be different to the RoE for Close Air Support.  In the first the concern is civilians, and remember attacking civilains is a war crime, in the second (CAS) its both civilains and friendly forces. Remember too that BAI is beyond the Fire Support Coordination Line, whereas CAS is inside it.  All attacks inside the FSCL have to coordinated with ground forces, failure to comply with this is disobedience of a lawful command, a court martial offence.
 
The question then becomes whether or not the UK troops were inside or beyond the FSCL.  My reading of the UK BoI report is that they were inside.  That report also makes clear that the US pilots failed to get a positive ground clearance before launching their attack, which they should have done iaw their own procedures, according to the BoI report.
 
All talk about fighting wars from the rear, etc, etc, is tosspot nonsense.  In an airforce with proper professional standards the pilots would have been court martialled years ago.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       3/13/2007 10:51:58 AM
displacedjim:
"Oh yeah, that's right, there was one incident where USAF struck some Canadians in Afghanistan, wasn't there?  Blue-on-blue casualties certainly are among the most tragic."
Two, actually. 1 US ANG F16 dropping bombs on a Canadian exercise and 1 A10 (Also ANG, I believe) running short and strafing Canadian troops.
 
Quote    Reply

AdamB       3/13/2007 2:15:21 PM

British rules would have prevented death


13/03/2007

 

 


 

A British soldier would be alive today if Americans followed the same combat rules as the British, an inquest heard yesterday.

The British regulations on identifying targets are stringent and would have protected L/Cpl Matty Hull, who was the victim of a friendly fire attack by US aircraft in Iraq.

Before they can open fire, British pilots must communicate to their air controllers their direction of attack, the location of their target and its distance from any friendly forces.

Yesterday a British forward air controller in the area near Basra in southern Iraq when L/Cpl Hull was killed by A10 warplanes, said that the Americans did not have such rules in place.

The witness, Cpl Stuart Matthews, then produced a document, understood to be used in training, to show air controllers the corresponding US operating procedures.

L/Cpl Hull, from Windsor, Berkshire, was killed and four other members of his regiment were injured in the attack near Basra on March 28, 2003.

The 25-year-old was travelling with other members of the Household Cavalry Regiment on a reconnaissance mission when the American aircraft opened fire, having mistaken their convoy for enemy forces. Later Harriet Harman, the constitutional affairs minister, said that the US military's failure to help the soldier's family in their quest to find out the truth about his death was "regrettable and disappointing".

Miss Harman said: "All I can say is that I made every effort to make it clear to them how much it would be welcomed if they were prepared to come to give information to the inquest and answer relevant questions.

"Unfortunately, they have not been prepared to give this assistance and I think it's regrettable. It's disappointing."

The hearing, before Oxfordshire's assistant deputy coroner, Andrew Walker, continues.
 
telegraph.co.uk
-----------
 
 
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.
 
Quote    Reply

AdamB       3/13/2007 2:18:07 PM
"What if those vehicles were really Iraqi, "
 
If the Americans were trained well enough then they would have known they were friendly. The flourescent markings should have told you that they were friendly.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics