h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6337137.stm

Should the two pilots of the A10 'Tankbusters' who shot up the column of British Armour, face Courts Martial?, or was it the fault of Ground Controllers. or just a tragic accident of war.

As importantly why did the MoD and The Pentagon , conceal the existence of the tape for so long?

Novo

My inclination is that this was a combination of errors and an unfortunate regrettable accident of war, primarily the lack of effective communication between ground forces of allied troops, ground and air controllers of the american fighters and probably a small peppering of the american gung ho attitude heightened by what I can only imagine is the adrenalin of all in a situation like this.

If the transcripts of the cock pit discussions ate correct it seems as if the pilots sought confirmation from their conrollers that there was no co allition troops in the area before taking action and their reported horrer and distress of their actions and so I would be inclined to say that they are not entirely at fault and should not face court martial..........I am prepared to stand corrected as I've not had time to study in detail all the bits of leaked information or if more comes to light but this is my opinion at this moment in time.

I am far more uncomfortable with the respective government/military departments concealing/even denying the exitance of the tapes in the first place.

Sam

"I would be inclined to say that they are not entirely at fault and should not face court martial."

Interesting... Now do this little game for me...

1) Replace the words 'court martial' with 'inquest',

2) Replace the soldier killed in action with a kid, killed in a schoolyard.

3) Replace the US fighter pilots with the headmaster of the school


Now, based on an incomplete picture, provided by tabloid newspapers and a kid with a cellphone video recording, would you be happy saying that the headmaster "was not entirely at fault and should not face an inquest"?

Headmasters wouldn't be expected to kill children from other schools though. Soldiers are meant to kill enemies. They asked for confirmation that they were attacking enemies. They got that confirmation. They attacked, this is how the military should behave. The command got it wrong and should be the ones that get an inestigation.

There's clearly some doubt as to whether they acted correctly, since they say in the recording

"Hey, I got a four ship. Looks like we got orange panels on them though. Do we have any friendlies up in this area?"

So they recognised that they were carrying British ID panels. Yet they fired anyway, in broad daylight on what could've been (and turned out to be) friendly troops.

Later, it is again stated:

"They look like they have orange panels on though. "


The fact that there's an element of doubts means that at the very least they should answer to an inquest, and probably a CM too. That doesn't mean they're guiltly, bu it does mean that there's sufficent doubt/probability for a trial.

Hello Whisky,

But it's not a playground incident it is a war situation, and your analogy is faulty anyway because you would replace the fighter pilots with the 'person' who killed the child! (Unless your analogy was that the headmaster killed the child! which I don't presume you meant)

I did say that in the light of further information I would stand corrected and it was a personal inclination as to what I think at this moment in time.

I do think that the fighter pilots should have attended the inquest and I do also think that the miltary controllers (air and ground) should also have been called to give evidence but that was not the question asked in the original post - that question was do we think the fighter pilots should face a court martial and I do not believe that they should.

Sam

"They asked for confirmation that they were attacking enemies. They got that confirmation. They attacked, this is how the military should behave. The command got it wrong and should be the ones that get an inestigation. "

From the transcripts of the tape it's virtually impossible for someone without _all_ the appropriate documents to figure out where and when any breakdown of communications occurred...

Did the pilots give their correct position?
Was the ground controller aware of the exact position of a) the plane b) the nearest friendly forces and c) the 'supposed' enemy forces

Without that information you are simply assuming, in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence, that they got it right... That's the job of an inquest (at the very least).


------

"o we think the fighter pilots should face a court martial and I do not believe that they should"

Are you aware of what a court marshal is, and how it's conducted? It's basically a trial - innocent until proven guilty. So why shouldn't the people stand trial? You seem to be assuming a court marshal is an automatic conviction.

For instance, if a naval captain looses his ship, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of how clear he was of blame, he _must_ face a court marshal to justify the loss... Why should this be different?

I was aware that a CM is similar to a trial but given the information we do have then the pilots are not alone in their culpribility for the outcome and so perhaps we should be saying that the pilots, the ground controllers, even the british ground troop controllers who I presume should advise positions of their men should potentially be subject to a court marshal as well....that would be a fairer stance to take?

This was a combination of things and for the pilots alone to be 'tried' for the result is merely making them the scapegoats for a very regrettable casuality of war.

The only outcome from that would be a hesitancy for other fighters to take action in a different set of circumstances which could have the opposite effect and then there would be clamours of why didn't they fire they could have prevented a massacre (or other tradgedy)etc

Perhaps a more useful lasting legacy for CoH Hull and his family would be for the military to pursue better ways of avoiding such issues in future, something which was raised according to the BBC website some 16 years ago after a similar incident in the first gulf war.

rgds

In information terms, what's the point putting orange panels on a vehicle if they have no effect unless someone already thinks you're probably friendly forces?

Considering the supposed improvements in communications over the last 15 years, maybe it's time to put the fear of god into all those involved...

As nothing else seems to work then maybe it's the only way of resolving these problems.

"In information terms, what's the point putting orange panels on a vehicle if they have no effect unless someone already thinks you're probably friendly forces?"

And there's the rub...

Were the pilots briefed that "orange=friendly" or not? If they were - it's clear from the tapes that they'd seen orange and if so, why didn't they go 2+2=4... If they weren't told then who _should_ have told them and why weren't they told - either way - someone's responsible...

If they _hadn't_ seen the orange panels then you could blame this infamous and over used 'fog of war'.

>>why didn't they go 2+2=4

From the basis of what we've heard, it seems like it went:

Pilots: "Does 2+2+4? Does that seem right?"
Control: "I'll just check if 2+2=4"
Pilots: "Because it looks like 2+2=4"
Control: "No, I'm sure that 2+2 does not =4"
Pilots: "Really? You sure?"
Control: "No, it's definately not 4"
Pilots: "Okay, not 4 it is then"

Though, and still on the limited basis of what we know, did anyone tell them to fire? Or where there standing orders to do so? There are still far too many questions to give any verdict on this, I think.


Geggs

"Were the pilots briefed that "orange=friendly" or not? "


They must've been -

The transcript runs along the lines of:

"Hey look, orange panels"

"Control, any friendlies in the area?"

They *immediately* made the link between orange and friendly.

Later again it's:

"They look like [some Russian made transport the Iraqis use, forget the name]"

"Yeah, but they've got orange panels"

"Did the pilots give their correct position?"

You mean, did their plane via GPS transmit it's location correctly? Can't see how that's the fault of the pilot one way or the other.

"Was the ground controller aware of the exact position of a) the plane"
Again, out of the pilot's hands

" b) the nearest friendly forces"
Also out of the pilot's hands


" and c) the 'supposed' enemy forces"
Also out of pilots hands.



Lastly, using an orange panel to indicate a friendly vs. enemy seems kind of stupid. Has anyone here considered the possibility that the enemy might spoof the system by applying orange panels to their vehicles?

And given the (supposed) electronic unification of battle information, wouldn't you be more inclined to listen to the central source of that information (your superior) than trust that only the British have orange panels, and the Iraqis would never, ever think of applying orange panels?

>>>And given the (supposed) electronic unification of battle information, wouldn't you be more inclined to listen to the central source of that information (your superior) than trust that only the British have orange panels, and the Iraqis would never, ever think of applying orange panels?


Unfortunately, the British army didn't all (and apparently still don't) have the appropriate equipment - it costs too much !

An accident of war, which is different to a normal accident because people do it on purpose, but then realise that it maybe wasnt such a good idea.

There are no accidents in war there are consequences people did not foresee or bother to consider but sending a bunch of trained killers to kill people then acting all shocked when people get killed is one of humanities more stupid modes of behaviour.

I dont think anyone should carry the can for this other than the two people responsible for signing the orders to send in the troops. we dont need the release of any files or tapes to know who they are.

The MoD and pentagon would in all honesty like to tell you even less than you already know. That the Pentagon and MoD who rely on the good will of troops puttting their lives on the line daily and probably occasionaly doing things contrary to law and their individual consciences for them, will hide the occassional bit of dirt for troops is no shock at all.

Its quid pro quo, one for all and all for one. Covering up for people who probably feel bad about this mistake is one of the few honourable things the Pentagon has done. Does anyone really think that the MoD applied any real pressure? Would it bring back the health or the life of the soldiers fired upon? Who would it serve to have the truth told and the airmen in question put under more pressure. Its not as if even a guilty verdict for their commanding officers would change Bushs policies or the US militaries proceduers. Blair and the Mod have made a token effort and nothing came of it till "the Sun" (a name that for me conjures up thoughts of dishonour and cover-up) managed to get hold of a tape that a Whitehall department couldnt

It saddens me that we are looking for scapegoats to sacrifice to justice over this one death but we arent making the same effort to bring to book people who are ultimately entirely responsible for the cold blooded decision to unleash a war that anyone with an ounce of sense knew would end up with deaths like this and thousands of others that could have been avoided.


one love

Damn - I hate it when you make perfect sense Blicky!

>>"Lastly, using an orange panel to indicate a friendly vs. enemy seems kind of stupid. Has anyone here considered the possibility that the enemy might spoof the system by applying orange panels to their vehicles?"

Don't ask me. Ask the geniuses running the military.

At the very least, if not under attack from the vehicles concerned, and if there was no evidence the enemy was using orange panels, it would seem to make sense to at least take the view that seeing orange means:

"Call up your base and get them to *double-check* with ground forces that there aren't friendly forces in the area".

That way, blame is shifted much more onto the ground forces information people. If they get back and say "No, we definitely don't have anyone in the area", one would be rather less to blame for attacking.
Additionally, it doesn't seem too hard to have some radio channel for short-range communication to call up and try to contact possibly friendly forces.
Finally, an IFF system would seem to be pretty easy to design so that it only squawked back if it got an appropriate coded challenge from an airborne transmitter. It's difficult to see how such a system need be particularly expensive for the ground vehicle end, and for a vehicle convoy, only one out of N would have to actually work to protect them.

Where the enemy doesn't have an air force to speak of, you could practically get away with a constantly pulsing radio beacon, or some dirt cheap box with a panic button on, so that if you see strafing ahead, you hit the button and a light comes on in the plane's cockpit.
It shouldn't need communication through a chain of people to be able to say "For ****'s sake, stop firing".

If I remember rightly (and bearing in mind I left the Army about 3 months before Sadly Insane invaded Kuwait) the problem in the war back in 1990 was that the technology that should have identified coalition troops was not working.

I'm not completely clear, but as far as I know it is/was some kind of electronic device which would identify itself to other devices of that type in the area (ie, from challengers on the gound to A10s in the air)

and with the passage of time I'm not sure if I'm remembering rightly, but in 1990 more British troops were killed accidentally by the USAF (sorry, friendly fire is a term I just can't use) than by the Iraqui army.

As soon as it became apparent that the gizmos didn't work, it was decided back then (a good 13 years before this incident) to paint orange panels on top of coalition vehicles.

That's 13 years.

Now, if the pilots weren't sure what they were firing on - and from the transcript it seems they did question it more than once - they should have made the decision to abort their mission.

They were tired, under an incredible amount of pressure and stress and yes, mistakes happen. That's not to say that courts martial (of ALL concerned, including British commanders who were responsible for liaison with the allies) should not happen - it is entirely possible for the whole thing to be ruled a tragic accident.

That said: why the need for secrecy? And will the MOD now push for a proper inquest/court martial (under British juristiction) to take place?

I am convinced we will be deafened by silence.

And many apologies if I am remembering incorrectly and that's all a load of tosh.

Morning all,

The simple original question has brought some interesting comments.

For my part I don't wish to see the pilots in a C.M, but I believe that since they _did_ identify orange panels, they must accept a degree of culpability. It is no defense to assume that the ground controllers are automatically 'right'.

If in doubt HOLD FIRE would seem ensible to me. Especially as the two pilots concerned had apparently not been in combat prevously.

I take the point that Iraqis could have picked up on orange panels, and in that connection electronic identification has been mentioned. Having done a fair bit of sailing in open seas in the past I am aware of the EPIRB units , both personal and Life Raft types, which simply transmit a signal. It doesn't have to be speech, or even radar code identified, just the fact that a vehicle with or without orange panels is transmitting on one should suffice. And they were not expensive .

Blick's post was emminently sensible, however he is addressing points outside my originl question.

What irks me is the fact that it took a leaked tape to the Coroner to bring this all out. Whislt the military have a clear obligation to find out exactly what went wrong, (without blame maybe) and to come up with technology or command structures which ensure this doean't happen again, their overriding responsibiity was to tell the grieving family what they knew ( 3 yrs ago ?), and certainly not dishonour themselves by pretending the evidence never existed.

Novo