L/Cpl of Horse Matty Hulls death unlawful

Considering how we were shafted by lend - lease when they were fighting in the European civil war maybe they should give us the kit for free to fight in "their" war. i.e. fit IFF kit in all our vehicles. (Otherwise leave them to it).
 
Hellfyr wrote

You are assuming the vehicle would see the aircraft attacking them...
Nope, assuming some sort of dialogue between the Combat Air SUPPORT and the the Combat Air SUPPORTED.
 
chocolate_frog said:
Hellfyr wrote

You are assuming the vehicle would see the aircraft attacking them...
Nope, assuming some sort of dialogue between the Combat Air SUPPORT and the the Combat Air SUPPORTED.
Hi. Not sure of the point you are making here. The aircraft were speaking to Ground Forward Air Controllers (the 'MANILA' callsigns in the recording) who were TACON - basically an embedded part of - the supported British unit.
 
Hackle, aware of that. But the FACs didn't have eyes on either.

Easiest way, pilot and the ground troops he is supporting spk direct.

No wishy washy comms ladders. Just one to one.
 
chocolate_frog said:
Basically the only similarity is that...

One is a BRDM based vehicle - BRDM is generally a recce vehicle, used by Warsaw Pact and obviousl y afew other countries. Oh, yes. It has wheels, even the ones underneath to support the extra weight of the AD launchers.

The other is a CVR (T) based vehicle - CVR (T) being a recce vehilce, used soley by the British. The (T) stands for TRACKS as in NOT WHEELS.

Obviously other differences like "Lack of a sloping front", "lack of turret" etc etc. Don't really bear thinking about at this low level of recognition.
The point of the photo was not to suggest that they thought they were shooting at SA-9s, but to point out that the concept of a vehicle with orange rockets is not as daft as some are immediately concluding. What if, for example, those rockets were mounted on an SA-13? With the rockets 'stowed', all of a sudden you have a fairly small tracked vehicle with a long front and orange squares at the back. The issue I'm attempting to demonstrate is not that there are Iraqi vehicles which can be confused with a CVR(T) (Otherwise I'd have posted a picture of one), but that there are vehicles which could be interpreted as having orange rockets.

NTM
 
CT, your arguement is a fair one, and I appreciate you standing up for you boys.

But... when they first see the orange bits, they refer to them as "panals".

It takes them 5 minutes or more to decide they are "rockets".

These clowns had all the evidence needed to ID this vehicles, and the only constraints they had were their own...

1. Bingo fuel.

2. Burning desire to shoot something.
 
A serious question, if maybe naive. Does anyone here have information on the RoE that applied at the time of the incident? In particular I'm seeking information on the RoE that the two NG pilots would have been working to.

I realise that this may be a sensitive issue so if you wish to PM me I can provide a secure electronic address.

Thanks.
 
Following the ARRSE thread about Mr Morrison, the idiot restaurant owner in Boise, Idaho, and his "Britts [sic] Out!" notice and press interviews, I fired off some emails to various contacts in the US for their reactions.

The result has been a deluge of emails in very strong support of the British in both Iraqshire and Affland, and condemning the blue-on-blue that killed Matty Hull as strongly as I suppose they felt they could, while still remaining loyal to their own lads in general, and to their Commander in Chief. Many messages expressed desperate, genuine sadness at Matty Hull's death, and deep concern at how nothing appears to have been done to tighten up on rules of engagement and the clear identification of allied units in theatre.

A sad strain in many of the messages was the feeling that US public opinion is not nearly as supportive of their servicemen as they'd like. There is particular bad feeling about the mess in US services hospitals, for returning wounded - an echo of the thoughts voiced on ARRSE about the care of our own wounded
.
 
My view is that Americans are hugely supportive of their troops - with almost a religious fervour. However all of my American friends and acquaintances seem to believe that they are not caring for their troops as well as they should - and there is deep anger about that.

Many of my contacts also feel now that American forces should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan. The determination to 'see the job through' has been tempered by the recognition that there is no real clarity as to what that 'job' might be.

The trouble is that when Bush spouts off about 'restoring peace and democracy, the rule of law' etc, nobody knows what that really means - least of all, himself. So they are faced with a never-ending committment. Bush's recent plea/comment that 'this will take months, not weeks or days' has only served to reinforce that pessimism.
 
Popov 36 and companion on an AFV Recognition Course.
 

Attachments

ladyingreen

Swinger
chocolate_frog said:
Hackle, aware of that. But the FACs didn't have eyes on either.

Easiest way, pilot and the ground troops he is supporting spk direct.

No wishy washy comms ladders. Just one to one.
You would think that after so many years of joint operations we'd have something like that in place. Sadly, we don't. We as Americans are horribly bad about sharing information, though I suspect we'd accomplish a lot more if we weren't so paranoid.

When I was in A'stan, we had NATO people showing up to my intel briefs because that was the only way they could get information about what was going on in the area.

But I'm a very small fish in a big pond, so what do I know? :sad:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
robbo2347 Reports & Promotion 5
ScaleyAlbereto Royal Signals 28
TheBigUn RAC 4

Latest Threads

Top