Friendly fire' killing unlawful

[vpb]

Friendly fire' killing unlawful
Matty Hull
Four other soldiers were injured in the attack near Basra
The death of a UK soldier when a US pilot fired on his convoy in Iraq was unlawful, a coroner has ruled.

The "friendly fire" incident near Basra in March 2003 which killed Lance Corporal Matty Hull, 25, amounted to a criminal act, Andrew Walker said.

Video footage from the cockpit of the US A-10 "tankbuster" plane was shown to his family during the inquest, but was not shown at the Oxford inquest.

The coroner said the death was "entirely avoidable" and L/Cpl Hull's

widow Susan said he had recorded the "right" verdict.

He said: "I believe that the full facts have not yet come to light."

No American witnesses gave evidence at the inquest, despite Mr Walker's requests to them to co-operate more fully with his investigation.

He said the US pilots should have flown lower to confirm identities before opening fire.

"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake," he said.

Recording a narrative verdict, Mr Walker, Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner, added: "The attack on the convoy amounted to an assault.

"It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal."

The Ministry of Defence had refused to let the tape be shown, but changed its mind after the footage was leaked to the Sun newspaper.


How the attack on Matty Hull's convoy happened

How pilots fired on 'friendlies'
'Friendly fire transcript'

The deputy coroner ruled it could be seen by the Hull family, who could then ask questions, but it could not be shown in open court.

The inquest heard from another British soldier, Corporal of Horse Stuart Matthews, who said he believed the incident would not have happened if American troops had as strict rules as the British on opening fire.

'Lightly armoured'

L/Cpl Hull, who was from the Household Cavalry, died from multiple injuries inside his blazing Scimitar tank despite efforts by colleagues to save him.

Four other soldiers travelling in the convoy of light armoured vehicles were also injured in the incident on 28 March 2003 near Basra.


Still of 'friendly fire' cockpit footage

The cockpit video

L/Cpl Hull's widow Susan had said she wanted the coroner to record a verdict of unlawful killing "only if that's the right verdict".

The Hull family believes key information was blacked out of a US Friendly Fire Investigation Board Report given to the coroner investigating his death.

And Susan Hull directly appealed US President George W Bush to give the coroner the information.

Deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in London, David Johnson, said investigations into such incidents were "extremely thorough".

He added that if anyone had been to blame for the incident, "that culpability would have been pursued".

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm

they also showed on news, that these american soldiers were flying and they saw some tanks, and they thought these tanks are suspicious since they are very far from the zone they thought they should be, so without asking any permission to fire from the commander, they started firing and then while they were firing on these tanks from the plane, the received a message to stop the attack since there were british soldiers on those tanks. So one of them got killed and many others injured.


Subhanallah..

[Keltoi]

Friendly fire incidents are terrible for both parties, but obviously more so to those being shot at. I'm not sure what this is suggesting, but I gathered someone is trying to suggest the American pilot intentionally fired on a friendly target. I find that very hard to believe, as pilots must follow certain regulations and procedures before opening fire on an unknown target. I would say this pilot was given incorrect information and was given the green light to open fire on the targets. I would imagine the poor individual back at HQ who gave the green light is feeling pretty terrible at this moment too.

If they jumped the gun, then that is something they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

[Ninth_Scribe]

I would imagine the poor individual back at HQ who gave the green light is feeling pretty terrible at this moment too.

Well, it is his fault. I read the transcripts and studied the videos - the pilots acted on bad information that was provided by HQ.

See and hear it for yourselves:

Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV_16PdWnBo

Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFdJ4X_wWj0

Ninth Scribe

[England]

It's nothing new. The U.S troops have a habit in doing this. It was an often occurrence during the Gulf War.

These are the pilots errors;

ERROR ONE came when they asked the Forward Air Controller, call sign Manila Hotel, if friendly forces were around the Iraqi vehicles — not to the west. In ERROR TWO neither pilot gave the precise grid references for the Household Cavalry patrol to double check its identity.

ERROR THREE saw them convince themselves the identification panels were really orange rocket launchers.

In ERROR FOUR POPOV36 decides to attack, saying he is “rolling in” — without permission from the Forward Air Controller. POPOV35 asks for artillery to fire a marker round into the target area to clear up confusion.
But ERROR FIVE came when POPOV36 attacked without waiting for it. In ERROR SIX POPOV36 strafes the column for a second time but still doubts its identity.


More info including the FULL footage video on here http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060133,00.html

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[snakelegs]

apparently alcoholism is widespread among the soldiers, as is mental illness. this could explain a lot of these "friendly fire" incidents.

[vpb]

american soldiers during vietnam war they used to get high.

[England]

It happens alot in the US armed forces. They should adopt vehicle recognition just as our troops do. If they were able to recognise the difference between the enemy and allies it would be significant. The US military chiefs are the biggest blame.


YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[Trumble]

It's nothing new. The U.S troops have a habit in doing this. It was an often occurrence during the Gulf War.

US troops are no different from anybody else in that respect. There are just more incidents involving them because there are considerably more of them than any of their allies, especially when it comes to close air support capacity.

In war, these things happen, and the only way to avoid them is avoid war. Sometimes it's an unavoidable accident, in others its incompetence or misjudgment to some degree or other, as does seem to be the case here.

[England]

US troops are no different from anybody else in that respect. There are just more incidents involving them because there are considerably more of them than any of their allies, especially when it comes to close air support capacity.

In war, these things happen, and the only way to avoid them is avoid war. Sometimes it's an unavoidable accident, in others its incompetence or misjudgment to some degree or other, as does seem to be the case here.

Have you watched this video? There are many incidents alike and it is without doubt due to incompetence....! The US chiefs do not train their troops to do vehicle recognition. British troops can tell what's American, Iraqi, Israeli, German, Iranian etc from a mile away. This rarely happens in ANY of the armed forces other that the US. They rely too much on their technology. War is all about brains too...

[wilberhum]

Have you watched this video? There are many incidents alike and it is without doubt due to incompetence....! The US chiefs do not train their troops to do vehicle recognition. British troops can tell what's American, Iraqi, Israeli, German, Iranian etc from a mile away. This rarely happens in ANY of the armed forces other that the US. They rely too much on their technology. War is all about brains too...

I trying to figure out how you know about both British and American training.
I just can't come up with an explination.
Would you mind explaining how you come into this indepth knowledge?

[England]

I trying to figure out how you know about both British and American training.
I just can't come up with an explination.
Would you mind explaining how you come into this indepth knowledge?

My dad served in the British army. He was in the Light Infantry 2nd Battalion station in Larkhill, Wiltshire, fought in Northern Ireland, trained in the Falklands, Germany, and more places. He has trained with U.S troops during his time, late 70s until the early 90s. He talks to me about it all the time.

Anyone want pictures? :)

[vpb]

even if u see the enemy you have to ask the commander "can I take him or not"... you can't just do whatever the heck you want. but seems american soldiers sometimes think they are playing a game. there were some CNN videos where these americans would kill a wounded iraqi , and then laught "yeeeee ,,yuhuuu"...there's a huge difference between american soldiers and british soldiers. there are taught different tactics and they have different mentalities.

[England]

even if u see the enemy you have to ask the commander "can I take him or not"... you can't just whatever the heck you want. there's a huge difference between american soldiers and british soldiers. there are taught different tactics.

The pilots in this video didn't even give out the grid references or the correct location nor did they wait for confirmation to attack. From what I have been told the Americans are overwhelmed at the professionalism of British military training. I hear it alot now and apparently it was the same in the 70s/90s.

The military chiefs need to learn from their mistakes not ignore them...

[England]

even if u see the enemy you have to ask the commander "can I take him or not"... you can't just do whatever the heck you want. but seems american soldiers sometimes think they are playing a game. there were some CNN videos where these americans would kill a wounded iraqi , and then laught "yeeeee ,,yuhuuu"...there's a huge difference between american soldiers and british soldiers. there are taught different tactics and they have different mentalities.

I agree with this post. Even better than before the one you edited. That video says it all. They were treating it like a video game... listen to them.... :rollseyes

[vpb]

since Bush came on power, the commercials about Join the Army have increased very rapidly. when I was in US, in every commercial there would be one of joining the army, also they produce these fighting games, so these kids who start playing , they get so much impressed by the game, that when they grow the decide to go to the army. but I think in britain, most of the soldiers go to the army following their traditions, (ie. his father was in the army so he joins the army too)...and this makes a big difference.
you can also see that in most attacks , americans are spotted instead of british. it's all about how people work out with others.

[England]

I remember an incident prior to this where a handful of British troops were wounded, one missing and one that presumed dead from a US friendly fire. Despite the British troops waving their hands, carried a union jack flag the pilots turned around and started firing again.... :blind:

Managed to find a link for it

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0331-08.htm

It's also worth noting to look to the right of that article in the yellow caption about a 12 year old boy...

[vpb]

lol, this remind me when the french soldiers used to throw tear gas bombs, and they were acting like they are throwing that towards the protestors, and they were throwing them towards british soldiers, they were doing it on purpose, bc british soldiers were told to take only basic stuff (not taking masks or anything) except the guns, but the situation turned worse since french couldn't hold the situation. lol
it seems british soldiers allways are the vicitims in the western allies. lol

[England]

As I've been saying about vehicle recognition \/ \/ \/

“We can identify a friendly vehicle from 1,500 meters, yet you’ve got an A10 with advanced technology and he can’t use a thermal sight to identify whether a tank is a friend or foe. It’s ridiculous.

“Combat is what I’ve been trained for. I can command my vehicle. I can keep it from being attacked. What I have not been trained to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me.”


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0331-08.htm

[England]

lol, this remind me when the french soldiers used to throw tear gas bombs, and they were acting like they are throwing that towards the protestors, and they were throwing them towards british soldiers, they were doing it on purpose, bc british soldiers were told to take only basic stuff (not taking masks or anything) except the guns, but the situation turned worse since french couldn't hold the situation. lol
it seems british soldiers allways are the vicitims in the western allies. lol

hmmm something to think about! :giggling: Meh.... can't trust the French anyway....

[Keltoi]

I think another issue is the lack of coordination between the two nations when they are in a warzone. Usually we hack the warzone in two and say "We kill things on this side, you kill things on that side". Of course soldiers end up in areas they aren't supposed to be in, and that leads to confusion. I don't know why there seems to be so many friendly fire incidents involving U.S. aircraft and British patrols, but my bet would be lack of coordination between ground forces and the air force.

[mahdisoldier19]

I think another issue is the lack of coordination between the two nations when they are in a warzone. Usually we hack the warzone in two and say "We kill things on this side, you kill things on that side". Of course soldiers end up in areas they aren't supposed to be in, and that leads to confusion. I don't know why there seems to be so many friendly fire incidents involving U.S. aircraft and British patrols, but my bet would be lack of coordination between ground forces and the air force.

Exactly

[wilberhum]

My dad served in the British army. He was in the Light Infantry 2nd Battalion station in Larkhill, Wiltshire, fought in Northern Ireland, trained in the Falklands, Germany, and more places. He has trained with U.S troops during his time, late 70s until the early 90s. He talks to me about it all the time.

Anyone want pictures? :)

I'm sure not much has changed in training over the last 15 - 20 years. :? :?

[England]

I'm sure not much has changed in training over the last 15 - 20 years. :? :?

No not alot has. Everything's the same. The only things that have changed is the equipment. He's signed up to a Light Infantry forum which he's been on a few times to see what his batallion is like now and it's all the same. Although his regiment has merged up with other regiments and its name has now reverted to "The rifles" which was what they were called to start with. The Wiltshire regiment still follows its traditions of fast pace and fast marching. Everything remains the same and they're doing a great job in Iraq.

Correction. It was the 1st Batallion regiment and not the 2nd.

[Agnostic]

I have never been in a fighter jet screaming in at 400 to 500 MPH I wonder how easy it is to identify a target at that speed. I know Woodrow was a pilot in Vietnam perhaps he could give us a pilots perspective.

[England]

I have never been in a fighter jet screaming in at 400 to 500 MPH I wonder how easy it is to identify a target at that speed. I know Woodrow was a pilot in Vietnam perhaps he could give us a pilots perspective.

Watch the video and take a look at how easy it is... :rollseyes

[Agnostic]

Watch the video and take a look at how easy it is... :rollseyes

I did, all I see is a blurry road I cant even see the vehicles.:blind:

[England]

I did, all I see is a blurry road I cant even see the vehicles.:blind:

View it full screen. They were able to describe the vehicles.... :rollseyes

If they're not sure then they're not supposed to fire. They gave the wrong location out too and attacked before given the go ahead...

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Agnostic]

I would still like Woodrow's view on it.

[Woodrow]

I have never been in a fighter jet screaming in at 400 to 500 MPH I wonder how easy it is to identify a target at that speed. I know Woodrow was a pilot in Vietnam perhaps he could give us a pilots perspective.

You count on having all of the information in advance. You come in with the knowledge of where your target is supposed to be. Your appraoch depends on what your payload is. If it is a straffing run and you are going to be using guns you get your first visual view when you are about 20 miles (3 minutes) from the target, at that point it looks like a black pin dot, then you descend so that by the time you reach the target you are about 1000 feet off the ground. You then get your first actual clear visual and have perhaps 1/10 of a second in that visual contact to identify the target and decide to press the button or abort. It is a one shot deal. If you miss the target at that point and they are hostiles they are going to start shooting as soon as you begin to start to climb and you can not turn to return fire. Lots of thoughts go through your mind in that brief moment of visual contact. You depend very heavily on what your preflight info was and any updates that come from the ground as you approach your target. You are really much to busy trying to fly the bird than to be a sightseer. The view from the cockpit is a very blurry tiny view of the world.

Air to air combat is much more comfortable. You immediatly know who the hostile is, he is the guy shooting at you.

[Agnostic]

Thanks Woodrow, I kinda thought it was much harder than your average video game

[Woodrow]

Thanks Woodrow, I kinda thought it was much harder than your average video game

there is one aspect that the video games do not show and can not be simulated. It is the realization that that somebody is going to die a small error means death for you or the death of an innocent person and there is no reset button.

There really is very little visual contact with the world from the cockpit. Most of your life is spent looking at the Instrument panel. Most of what you are doing is interpreting little lights.

From a fighter plane it is a rare opportunity to actually make visual contact with your target. And when you are close enough to see it is clear only for a fraction of a second.

There is never any opportunity for a second chance or for guesses. You know that within the next second you will either die or have to live with your choice. You hope you make the right choice.

You also have the knowledge that the info you are given is telling you that it is a hostile you see and it is a legitimate target. In that brief second it is hard to determine that you were given erroneous information.

In this game of life it is a question of who shoots first.



An analogy would be have you ever been driving down the road at dusk and suddenly a child darts in front of you. You swerve and slam on your brakes. Get out shaken up and discover the "child" was a piece of paper the wind had blown.

The same thing happens to a pilot, except in that moment what he sees is a hostile that is fixing to shoot at him. Sadly sometimes it turns out to be an innocent person.

[Woodrow]

apparently alcoholism is widespread among the soldiers, as is mental illness. this could explain a lot of these "friendly fire" incidents.

There is much validity in that statement. But, much of it comes after the fact and not during combat. Some of our Vietnam era soldiers are now alcoholics and/or drug addicts. But, for most of them this came after the war and not during the time of combat.

The "friendly fire" incidents are most often the result of erroneous information. True there are human errors that contribute to some and misinformation. But, it will be very rare that it can be attributed to drug/alcohol abuse or mental illness.

The sad fact of reality is war is not fought within the terms of fair play. A target will often not look like what it really is. You have to remember, the target is going to do it's best to look like anything except the target. It is hard to determine in that brief second if what you see is actually your own people or if it is the other guy, trying to look like your own people.


Like all things I would say that unless a person was actually there at the time an error takes place, they can not know why the error took place.

In driving a car when you make a brief error you might get a traffic ticket. In the reality of combat a small error results in death for somebody.

None of the US military basis in the Mideast allow alcohol. sadly tho a persistent GI will find a local source. There are bootleggers in every country. However, alcoholism and drug abuse does not seem to be a major problem among GIs in the Mideast. When it does occur it does become a major incident.

Ironicaly, we probably have more American soldiers stationed here in Texas, then what are deployed in the entire middle east. Yet, we have no problems with maniacs running around killing innocent civilians.

At the moment we have

* Army 60,945
* Navy & Marine Corps 6,909
* Air Force 40,981
* Coast Guard 1,409
* Active Duty Military 108,835
* Reserve and National Guard 84,721
* Total Personnel 194,965

source: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...facts/bltx.htm

Stationed here in Texas. These are the very same type of people that are serving in Iraq. Yet, we do not fear them and they are not homicidal maniacs or drug addicts wandering the streets.

If I recall correctly you are in California. I believe California has even more US military forces there then we have in Texas. Yet, You have no need to fear that there are drug addicts and killers wandering the streets of California. These are the very same type of people that are being sent to Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

EDIT ADDED:

California does have more military troops assigned there then we have in Texas.

* Army 7,697
* Navy & Marine Corps 80,572
* Air Force 21,428
* Coast Guard 4,811
* Active Duty Military 109,697
* Reserve and National Guard 98,292
* Total Personnel 212,800

Source: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...facts/blca.htm

But it does not seem that US GIs in Californis are going around raping, killing etc. These are still the very same type of GIs that are being deployed to the Mideast.

[Ninth_Scribe]

ERROR ONE came when they asked the Forward Air Controller, call sign Manila Hotel, if friendly forces were around the Iraqi vehicles — not to the west.

Error dispute:
------------------------------------------------------
POPOV36: Hey, I got a four ship. Looks like we got orange panels on them though. Do we have any friendlies up in this area?

MANILA HOTEL: I understand that was north 800 meters?

POPOV35: Affirm, North 800 meters. Confirm there are no friendlies this far north on the ground?

MANILA HOTEL: That is an affirm. You are well clear of friendlies. Copy.

POPOV35: Describes types of vehicles to Manila hotel.

My commentary: They did report the orange panels, location was being monitored at this point in time.

POPOV36: I've got a four ship of vehicles that are evenly spaced along a road going north. Look down at your right 2:00, eh, 10:00 low - there is a... left 10:00 low... look down there north along the canal, right there. Coming up just south of the village.

My commentary: POPOV36 was speaking to POPOV35, who had circled back in order to maintain visual contact.

POPOV35: Evenly spaced... where we just strafed (fired previously)?

POPOV36: No. No. Further East, further West, right now! And there's four or five of them right now heading up there.

My commentary: POPOV 35 had circled back again, so East became west and POPOV36 made the adjustment for the other pilot at that time.

POPOV35: No, I don't have you visual (can't see the other pilot named POPOV36).

POPOV36: I'm back at your 6 - no factor.

POPOV35: OK, now where's this canal? Don't hit those F18s that are out there (just identified other aircraft in the area).

POPOV36: Ok, right underneath you. Right now, there's a canal that runs north/south. There's a small village and there are vehicles that are spaced evenly there. They look like they have orange panel on though.

My commentary: One comes to understand there were other aircraft to watch out for as well but despite all this, the pilot (popov36) noted the orange panels for a second time.

POPOV35: He (Manila Hotel) told me there's nobody north of here... no friendlies.

POPOV36: I know. There (the targets), right on the river.

POPOV35: I see vehicles though, might be our original dudes.

POPOV36: They've got something orange on top of them. (third comment on markings).

POPOV35: To Manila Hotel... Is Manila 34 in this area? (repeats request again)

MANILA HOTEL: Negative. Understand they are well clear of that now.

POPOV35: (to MANILA HOTEL) OK, like I said, multiple riveted vehicles. They look like flatbed trucks. Are those your targets?

MANILA HOTEL: That's affirm.
------------------------------------------------------
Summary OK. They (friendlies) were not "well clear of that (location) now (then)". It is for this reason, and the commentary from MANILA HOTEL (I've got other aircraft working this push. Not sure they're coming to me (reporting to me). Someone else might be working this freak.) that lead me to believe the pilots were not at fault. After receiving word that there were no friendlies after three inquiries about the orange panels, I would convince myself they were something else too.

Guilt would then fall on MANILA HOTEL who were monitoring the mission, unless it could be proven someone was indeed working the area freak, and failed to report their mission.

Ninth Scribe