I guess this must be the worst tragedy of wartime and maybe unavoidable given the split second decisions that have to be made. But why not release all available (non-classified) info at the inquest? Anyway, I feel sorry for these guys. But I imagine there will be a bit of a kerfuffle on ARRSE.

Video of U.S. "Friendly Fire" Revealed
Associated Press | February 06, 2007
LONDON - A U.S. pilot was heard saying "we're in jail, dude" in radio traffic during an incident in which friendly fire killed a British soldier in Iraq four years ago, The Sun newspaper reported Tuesday.

The British Broadcasting Corp. also played excerpts which it said were taken from the recording.

The United States has refused to release a video and voice recording to a coroner's inquest into the death Lance Cpl. Matty Hull on March 28, 2003.

Two U.S. A-10 jets allegedly opened fire on his tank, which was part of five-vehicle convoy engaged in combat outside of Basra. Four others were injured, including the convoy's leader, Capt. Alexander MacEwen.

The inquest was adjourned last week to give Britain's Ministry of Defense more time to try to win the disclosure of the U.S. material.

The transcript printed in The Sun records the alleged exchange between the pilots after they realize their mistake:

Pilot 1: "I'm going to be sick."

Pilot 2: "Ah f---."

Pilot 1: "Did you hear?"

Pilot 2: "Yeah, this sucks."

Pilot 1: "We're in jail, dude."

Combat is a hostile environment plenty of carnage without killing our allies too.
(If I thought the tracks had rockets and were opfors...I'd make a run too) Do you think we could send in a low flying drone to draw fire...or maybe the ANG?

quote:

THE STRENGTH OF THE WOLF IS THE PACK; THE STRENGTH OF THE PACK IS THE WOLF--Kipling

Mistakes happen in the "fog"......we must all remember that life isnt always "fair"...least of all war...

Not that this excuses the proper use of guildines and the thinking process that tactical pressure may elicit, but, given the time and place and circumstances, the Blue on Blue instances are few and far between thses days[ just more publicized and flashed about ] than in previous conflicts.. all one has to do is check out stats for WWII to compare [ though,, admittedly, that was a much bigger conflict ]..

Sh*t happens and being ' close to'/ on the wrong side of, etc.. will result in damage and death by friendlies.. Communication is key and that will always be problem when ' multi-national ' forces are involved and operating on differing frequncies and with differing protocols.. trouble is, the time to double and triple check also means the ' real' bad guys can slip away... tough all round..

and, you know what? weven when we're all equipped like the Starship Trooper Brigades, there will still be screw ups like this..

Media blows it all out and that's more of a problem than anything else as ' civvie street' doesn't understand the subtle nuances of warfare..

sorry for the losses, sorry for the guys that will have to carry the guilt the rest of the days..nop need to make a bad situation worse by harping over it.. just fix the thing and move on...

You Sir..are correct...in my opinion...

A good article on the blue on blue action/controversy:

Fratricide: That's what the military calls 'friendly fire'
The Pentagon says A-10 pilots who killed a British soldier by mistake should not be punished. But a leading US general disagrees. And now there are calls for a full inquiry
By Raymond Whitaker, Andrew Buncombe and Francis Elliott
Published: 11 February 2007

The Government faced a call last night for a full inquiry into the issue of "friendly fire" after it was revealed that one of America's top generals had disputed his own side's finding that two US pilots were not to blame for the death of a British soldier.
.......
A British board of inquiry report, released to L/Cpl Hull's inquest, found that "procedures were not followed" and that the pilots were "not clear to engage" when they attacked. It added that there were a number of failings in communications: "'stepped-on' or incomplete transmissions, non-standard terminology was used, important information was omitted and net discipline was poor".
.....
On Friday the British Ministry of Defence posted the report of the US inquiry on its website. It concluded that although the two US airmen and their ground controllers made mistakes, "no evidence was uncovered that would lead to the conclusion of criminal negligence, clear violation of procedures or reckless disregard on the part of anyone involved in this tragic accident".
.......
At the start of the 2003 war, all US military vehicles had electronic equipment called "blue-force tracker" which made them identifiable to American aircraft. Although some of this equipment was given to British forces, L/Cpl Hull's detachment was relying on fluorescent orange panels for visual recognition, mistaken by the A-10 pilots for Iraqi rockets.

Full article: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2258883.ece

I hate this on several levels. But we must admit that these occurrances are minimal. Although, a single life is very important...who knows who this young Man could have been...

That being said, I have Hull ancestry ...and one of our small town Heroes was a Hull...

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jehull.htm

1. Are these occurences rarer than they have been in the past? Most definitly yes, friendly fire during WWII and Nam' was much more commonplace.
2. Is drawing light to and punishing the perpetrators of said event bad, the answer here is not. The perpertrators of these should most definitly be punished, and the more we look into the incedents or "harp" on them as you seem to to call it, the more we can stop them.
3. They also serve as a grim (but useful) reminder that the military has many flaws.

Ain't opinions grand??

I just know this is gonna set some of you off, but consider this. Those that have never fired a shot at the enemy, or been shot at by the enemy, need to stop armchair quarterbacking. You flat out don't know what its like to be in this situation, on either end of fratricide.

Is it the pilots fault?
You would think that if your in the air, you would have clearly defined knowledge of what friendly forces are in your patrol area.

Was it those on the grounds fault?
One would think that if you were on the ground, that you would ensure that those in the air knew that you were operating in the area?

This is yet another direct result that stems from Command and Control issues while utilizing multinational forces. We do not all have the same communications equipment, nor do we all use the same protocols.

As for the specific perpertrators of this unfortunate occurrance being punished? In order to do that one would have to prove they acted with malice, gross criminal negligence, intent. From what I have seen published, none of that has been determined. A coronors personal opinion has no place in an investigation of this nature.

All we can do is what we are doing, learn from each and every occurrance of fratricide, and modify operations to minimize, reduce and manage it as best we can.

Start placing military members in prison for an accident, and you would rapidly find that you wouldn't have anyone willing to pull the trigger when they needed to or should have. That will only result in many more unneeded casualties.

Military operational procedures are developed on blood, not paper as some would have everyone believe.

But gunny, let's apply that logic elsewhere, if you are heading around a blind turn and hit someone and kill them, do you get in trouble? Of course you do. If you are in construction and you accidentally press the wrong button on a crane and you kill someone, you get in trouble. If you are going kendo with someone and you accidentally cut their throat open and they die (this can happen) are you in trouble? Yes. All of these are what is called "Involuntary manslaughter" not nearly as punishable as murder but I do believe it should be punishable.

So we are are down to comparing traffic accidents, construction accidents, martial arts accidents to fratricide?

Your response re-enforces my opening comment to this.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: thegunny,

I don't appreciate your condescending attitude towards me simply because I believe involuntary manslaughter should be a crime. Maybe even reduced past the punishment for normal accidental killings, but a punishment none the less.

Gunny do you remember the Blue on Blue about the Canadians in Afganistan where more than one was killed.I read not to long before the insident about Canadain units arriveing in Country without weapons I wonder if their equipment is up to date with ours.That sure would explain part of the problem.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SULLY1,

Hyperion: You know not of what you speak and never will when it comes to being on the receiving end of fire or the one sending it out. It really does require experience and cannot be learned from a book.

Trust me on this.

I'm sorry if I don't want to trust you too much after most people on this thread have been condescending at best.

You talk about condescending as if it were a new experience for you. I doubt that greatly and did enjoy your condescending answer because it smacks of your typical hypocrisy.

The post you made on the silent post to honor was a childish and only made to aggravate – fine. Your basic pusillanimous attitude toward war and an unwillingness to understand the people who put their lives on the line for this country has been noted.

What an uzzard.

I second the motion """"""""""

hmmm miss a couple days posting and I find that I'm what? speaking in condecending manner to FNG's? News Flash!!!!

Damn SKIPPY I'm speaking in a condecending manner to you! You do not know the meaning or impact of what you are saying, were reality to be held to your far leftist premise.

Change of tone:

Here's a gentle reminder: we already have a set of laws governing each and every military member, as well as covering wartime situations. It is called the UCMJ. (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) The men involved in this unfortunate killing of one of our allied soldiers, have been found not-guilty under the UCMJ.

Did you even factor the UCMJ into your answers before went and got your feelings hurt?

Your way would and I'll say it again, result in no-one being willing to fire a weapon at the enemy becuase they'll be dragged before a court and thrown into prison for doing so. How the hell can you win a war under those conditions?

geez, now I gotta go see what you did on our silent post page honoring our missing and fallen in action post.

quote:

Originally posted by SULLY1:
Gunny do you remember the Blue on Blue about the Canadians in Afganistan where more than one was killed.I read not to long before the insident about Canadain units arriveing in Country without weapons I wonder if their equipment is up to date with ours.That sure would explain part of the problem.

Sully.... yeah I remember that report. Also the one about conducting live fire training in a combat zone and attracting return fire from aircraft as a result. One fights in a combat zone, you don't train in a combat zone. Some lessons are never learned.

I know that some commands fall onto the gear of the command they are relieving. Perhaps that was what was supposed to occur?

The only way an allied commands equipment was up-to-date with ours is if they purchased it from us in the first place. We know that ain't gonna happen.

Pat Tillman