John, that's what I said, only a little more eloquent.

RailS, yes, but the actual terrain of Afghanistan is an issue for it, without further details, we don't know if the A10 was the suitable choice for the maneuver.

RaiLS wrote:Well, I know you may take it more personal because they are Canadian troops and all, but fact of the matter is - we don't know the whole story. We never will. Assuming that it was 100% US's fault is assanine. Rarely ever is something like this completely one sided. It could have been as simple as the identified themselves wrong, they didn't have the correct IR identifiers, a mess up in avionic targeting. It is horrible, we can all agree on that. Standing up and calling some of the best pilots in the world idiots is another. If it was two insodences now between Canadian and American forces, wouldn't you think that maybe there is something wrong with how they are identifying eachother or something? I haven't heard of this happening to Brittish, Auzzie, Italian, Romanian forces anytime lately. Just take a step back and try and see the whole picture.

I'm not assigning blame, but the matter of fact is that this isn't the first time, and this happens enough with US on US. I also understand there is a fog of war, but these incidents are happening more frequently than FOW explains. Canadian troops use more or less the same equipment (ostensibly better than Romanian forces have of their own, I'd imagine) and these things are happening.

I'm not calling them idiots either (if I come off that way, I apologise, a little too much fire in the belly). I'm saying that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

OI also never called the pilots idiots (although the guy who pulled the trigger in the first incident after being told not to fire is certainly questionable). I called the policy of using perks stupid. That's not the pilot's fault.

4 the first time and 3 this time (not 1 and 3) also, don't forget the wounded... 30 the last time.

this just in...

Quote:

Maj. Geoff Abthorpe — who commands Bravo Company, part of Canada's 2,200-strong contribution to the NATO force in Afghanistan — called the incident "a freak accident."

The soldiers were "marshalling and getting into position" when they were hit, Abthorpe told the Canadian Press late Monday.

NATO said the aircraft had engaged friendly forces during a strafing run, using cannons.

"I'm not sure who brought them in and for what reason," said Abthorpe, a member of the Royal Canadian Regiment.

"It wasn't us, of course. We were getting prepped to go out but our first air mission wasn't scheduled until 30 minutes later."

So, it seems we didn't call them in afterall. Thanks for saying things like, if they lined up for a second pass they'd all be dead.. That was really nice. Maybe you'd like it if they did line up but we returned fire downing your aircraft? Don't say crap like that, it's terribly disrespectful.


Only happens to Canadians eh?

Quote:

Three wounded UK soldiers have described how they survived an attack by a US A-10 Thunderbolt anti-tank aircraft that killed one of their troop and destroyed two armoured vehicles.

They were found not at fault, but some Italians were killed by friendly fire in Iraq as well.

45% of US troops killed in operation desert storm (gulf war I) were killed by US troops. So it's not just us Cannucks.

Quote:

During the Gulf Campaign (1990-91) approximately 367 Americans lost their lives. Of those deads, approximately 165 American casualties, or 45% (official Dept of Defense estimate), were due to "friendly fire". Of all Allied deaths during the Gulf campaign approximately 51% (UN estimate) were due to friendly fire.

I understand combat can have incidents, but don't point your fingure at the victom of the accident. Instead, try correcting the problem. In reality, I bet your brass is trying to correct the problem, but that implies people will follow orders and not fire when they are told not to fire.. Maybe keep to the schedule too.. Like I and many other said before, we'll wait and see what the investigation turns up.

1/2 of combat deaths due to friendly fire is certainly not acceptable. (not our numbers, yours). We have lost about 22% of our casualties to US fire in Afganastan.. Not exactly a shining record.

PAX

the original article claimed that the canadian forces were "fighting Taliban forces" killing one, and seriously injuring five.
now i've based my entire series of responses on an in-combat force, and the limited capacity of the A-10 Thunderbolt II in the shallow skies of Afghanistan.

I stand by what I said about all of them being dead, because in the context I stated it from, it would be true. If you paid attention, you would have noticed the subtle arrangement of letters into words and actually read them, you would have noticed that I meant the canadians would have possibly been overrun by the forces they have engaged, not obliterated by a second strafe.

The entire length of this thread, I have stated nothing other than the responsibilities lie less on the pilot or ground forces, but on the person who ordered the Thunderbolt II to strafe. Your post from the Major, supports that.

Your second quote also supports my argument of the capacity of the A-10 Thunderbolt in todays warfare.

Yes, I agree with you that people are dying, that percentages of friendly fire casualties are where they should not be (above 0, I haven't argued against that at all.

What you say about brass correcting the problem; these aircraft were ordered (as far as we know) to move on with their strafe. Like I said before, shi+ moves swiftly out there, and sometimes, schedules get changed. Maybe the strafe command was given early, or maybe the ground force movement was late, or the strafe was on time, but a delay in the comm links connecting the aircraft to the ground forces altered their movements. There are many possibilities here. And before you go spouting off about how your Major said the strafe was 30 minutes early, if he doesn't know who he has to talk to in order to get air support, I seriously doubt his ability to tell time or maintain a schedule on a battlefield.

Quote:

Maybe you'd like it if they did line up but we returned fire downing your aircraft?

lol. it's an A-10, good luck. just a little something for your ego and air of smugness; those canadian forces were doing what they do best, i'll give them that, but standing around and doing nothing won't bring down an A-10.

have a good day, hope you learned something.

KevinP--Out bishes.

The major didn't say he didn't know who to talk to, he said he didn't know who called the strike. Pretty different there. Then you imply that he can't tell time? WTF is wrong with you?

On top of that you are implying that what Canadian troops do best is stand around and do nothing. Nice, you're being a dick.. This isn't really our fight you know, we didn't creat the monster (the US did) but we're in there helping you fight it and you say some crap like that. You suck. Our people are putting their lives on the line and you insult them. It's a good thing not all yanks are like you.

Like any jet engine, the engine on an A-10 could be stalled with a baseball sized rock.. Your ego needs to be checked.

PAX