Failed procedures = friendly fire = loss of life
 

Sad sequence of events - right up to the coroner's inquest

The inquest covered the friendly fire incident when a British patrol vehicle was fired upon by a US-manned tank-buster aircarft. Result one dead British soldier.

The coroner had requested footage and audio frrom an on-board recording of the event made in the tank-buster. He eventually got it but as it was 'classified information' he was not allowed to disclose the details to the inquest.

The coroner walked out of the proceedings in disgust and then a UK newspaper - The Sun - somehow obtained a copy of the video and published its details. The ausio has been widely heard on British news programmes as a result - plus the US have confirmed that the video is now de-classified

Overall, a sorry mess. The crew were clearly extremely distraught as soon as they discovered that they had fired on a British vehicle, but two lapses in procedures caused this event - first they were advised by ground intelligence that there were no friendly vehicles in the area where this vehicle had been spotted, second the crew of the tank-buster fired on the vehicle without obtaining the necessary clearance to do so.

That the crew had believed this to be a rocket-launching vehicle from its colouration goes some way to understanding why they may have gone for a 'fire first, ask questions later' approach, perhaps as a protective measure (fearing a rocket assault upon their aircraft), but perhaps of equal concern is the reluctance and instransigence of the authorities therefater, in their refusal to de-classify the video - until embarassed into the act of having to do so. Let's face it, exposure of ones faults is generally the best catalyst to ensuring they are remedied.

Let's hope for the improvements on the ground, in the air and in the bureacracy that this sorry tale demands take place.

God, can we please just get the hell out of there.

50 years from now, history will show that we accomplished nothing.

That was a terrible turn of events. We lost another local soldier about two weeks ago. I think they buried him yesterday. I really don't think the politicians understand what they commit to when they make war.

One president saw the same thing happening and got us out. The president: Clinton. The country: Somalia. Now all those Somalian terrorists are here coming to get us because we did not stop them there.

Its interesting to here the same story told by US and UK press. US press tends to forget those A-10 pilots did not get permission to fire. The UK reports tend to forget the A-10 pilots asked four times whether the tanks were friendly.

And both sides don't discuss another yet resolved question: two pilots new to combat and apparently lost; not where they thought they were.

hm. good to see the same folks still round here.

I think most of the Somalian 'terrorists' are currently enjoying a light sprinkling of Ethiopian munitions while hiding in the marshes because the US pulled out. They beat the warlords after a decade then effectively got told to get fucked by the rest of the population when the Ethiopians came knocking because they were irritating tightwads who didn't quite appreciate the colour local life. TO be specific they didn't like qat. The locals really, really liked qat. Qat won.

Friendly fire happens in every war...and will continue until we come up with magic bombs and bullets that only kill the enemy.






Operation Cobra 25-29 July 1944

The date for the attack was originally set for July 18. However, poor weather delayed the attack several times, and Montgomery had told Bradley that he need not rush the operation. The date was eventually finalized for July 24. However, poor weather on that day forced Leigh-Mallory to postpone for 24 hours. Some heavy bombers from the Eighth Air Force did not get the recall order and proceeded with their mission. About 335 B-17s, some hindered by poor visibility, dropped 685 tons of bombs. Some of the bombs fell on US positions, despite the planning done to prevent just such an occurrence. Bradley had specifically requested that the aircraft approach the target area by flying parallel to the front in order to minimize the risk of friendly fire. Although he believed the air commanders had committed to the parallel route, in fact only the fighter-bombers of the 9th Tactical Air Force approached the target parallel to the front. The bomber units had made no such agreement and approached perpendicular to the front line. The 'short' bomb drops thus fell on the very units that were expected to lead the assault.

Over 100 US soldiers were killed and approximately 500 were wounded. One unit, 1st Battalion, 120th Infantry Regiment, from the 30th Infantry Division, suffered 25 soldiers killed and 131 wounded. Perhaps the most notable soldier to die was General Lesley J. McNair.

Human habit of repeating previous errors - the knowldge that could prevent this all too often dies with the relevant generation.

Additional info:

- the incident actually dates back to 2003 - it's just happened to have taken 3 years to get to the inquest stage

- the tank-buster crew were subjected to investigation but no blame was attached to their actions and the ruling was that correct procedures had been followed

- the US administration denied initially that no such recording of the event ever existed - I'm not sure how it came about that the existence of a tape eventually became known

- the individual who fired on the British vehicle has advanced through the ranks since the incident - it was reported on BBC news last night that he is now a colonel - The Sun newspaper today names Col Gus Kohntopp as the pilot who fired the shots.

Pass the bong over here. Are you really saying that politicians get as far in their careers as they do without knowing exactly how to lie to themselves and anyone within earshot about what they do?

The scary thing is that they know exactly what "collateral damage" is and they have body guards to run interference from enraged parents of dead children.

The alarming absence of children of politicians on the front lines would lend credence to my theory.

Human habit of repeating previous errors - the knowldge that could prevent this all too often dies with the relevant generation.

In some professions there will always be a chance of an accident regardless of safeguards...the military happens to be one.



- the individual who fired on the British vehicle has advanced through the ranks since the incident - it was reported on BBC news last night that he is now a colonel - The Sun newspaper today names Col Gus Kohntopp as the pilot who fired the shots.

So what... if it was an accident and he was not to blame or court marshaled...why shouldn`t he be promoted. If you don`t get promoted in the military you might as well leave.

'Friendly fire' a tragic part of modern war

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 01/04/2003




The harrowing interview with the commander of the Household Cavalry Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle, telling of how his patrol was shot up by a US A10 tankbuster aircraft, was a grisly echo of the killing of nine British soldiers in the 1991 Gulf war by a similar aircraft.

It is an appallingly tragic fact of this war that the same number of British soldiers have been killed by their own side as by the Iraqis.

So far five of the 25 British servicemen have been killed in friendly fire incidents, three of those by US forces. Another 15 have died in accidents.


America's most senior military official has apologised for two US friendly fire incidents which killed three British soldiers. General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he would make it his "quest" to ensure it did not happen again.

Two RAF pilots were killed 10 days ago when their GR4 Tornado was shot down near the Kuwaiti border by a Patriot missile, while on Friday Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull died when a US A10 tankbuster aircraft fired on two armoured vehicles.

In the sanitised language of warfare, such friendly fire killings are known as fratricide or "blue-on-blue" - a reference to the colour used to mark friendly troops on maps.

But no matter what term is used, such deaths have been, and can be expected to remain, a constant feature of war, a product of the unimaginable stress and confusion that defines the battlefield.

A 1993 study conducted by the Pentagon of medical records from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War, concluded that nearly 15 per cent of US casualties were the result of fratricide.

The gruesome and bitter fighting of the First World War saw countless episodes of troops firing on their own side.

Typical of these was the experience of the Australian 50th Infantry Battalion in April 1918 during the second battle of Villers-Bretonneux.

Despite heavy enemy fire, the Australians advanced steadily towards the German trenches under cover of the darkness. As they neared the German position, several shots were fired at them from close in front, someone yelled "Bomb the b*******," grenades were thrown, and a rush of the trench was made.

The trench proved to be occupied not by Germans, but by remnants of the Devon and Worcester Battalions.

One of the worst episodes in the Second World War was the invasion by 35,000 US and Canadian troops of Kiska, an Aleutian island, in August 1943.

The allies believed the island to be held in strength by the Japanese. The assault was complicated by dense fog. Bitter fighting continued through the night, and 28 men died and 50 were wounded.

It was only later discovered there were no Japanese on the island at all.

In the 1950-53 Korean War the 1st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders where ordered to seize a key hill. They succeeded - but then an American ground attack aircraft arrived and dropped napalm on them.

The lucky ones were the 17 who died instantly. Another 76 suffered horrific burns in the inferno.

Mistakes in war are the consequence of what the great Prussian military thinker, Carl von Clausewitz, called "friction", which he identifies as "the only concept that more or less corresponds to the factors that distinguish real war from war on paper".

As he observes, "everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate, and end by producing a kind of friction that is inconceivable. This tremendous friction . . . is everywhere in contact with chance, and brings about effects that cannot be measured, just because they are largely due to chance."



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...1/nbrit101.xml

Hiya jaguar! long time no see:)

This whole incident is tragic and has been handled appallingly. I feel sorry though for the two soldiers at the centre of this. They must feel terrible.

There are also numerous accounts of British mustard gas being used which blew back in the wind and gassed our own troops in their trenches.

Did you see the man interviewed in the pilot's home town on ITV last night?

I'm paraphrasing here but he said something along the lines of the pilot was a hero, America needed more heroes like him and so did the world. America was trying to stamp out terrorism and our whole little country and all of Europe too needed to stop sucking our thumbs like we did in World War 2. America didn't need our help as they knew we couldn't communicate, move and shoot at the same time, but they needed our cooperation.....

It was deeply unpleasant to watch, but what annoyed me was the fact that ITV chose to broadcast it. I doubt they could have found a more divisive clip to show if they'd scripted it themselves. Why they feel people goaded into a knee-jerk us-and-them reaction (both the man interviewed and those watching) will help the matter I don't know.

...and it looks as though he may be leading a squadron or two in Iraq again as his unit looks set to be called up again as a part of Bush's next big push. Should be no problem there as he is known to follow procedures and, of course, there won't be any cockpit record anyway....

I think the point that this brings out is that the media always dig deeper than is necessary - opinions can be influenced by what comes out. Just shows how much better it is to be honest and open at the outset (and to actually strive to learn from mistakes rather than what we have here - procedures that have faults being accepted as satisfactory - so nothing is done to change them). In this particular case, with the media looking to 'right the wrong' both living victims of the events have now been needlessly exposed to information that may not be pertinent - that's the widow as well as the pilot.

Ronald Cherrycoke posts that because failure had happened, then failures must always happen. Same reasoning from Townsend and Richardo to run Chrysler into near bankruptcy. Same reason used by Roger Smith to claim failures are acceptable as he destroy American jobs and lives.

When GM managers went to Japan, they see assmebly lines without 25% of the products pulled aside for rework. Another Cherrycoke type claims Japan must be hiding their product failures? No. To that GM executive, failure was acceptable. Sound familiar, Ronald? It was a mindset common among WWI military commanders who would sacrifice millions to machine guns rather than admit the military commander was defective.

But again, Ronald Cherrycoke is demonstrating for all how a brown shirt thinks. It is normal and acceptable to have blue on blue? Failure is acceptable. It explains his contempt for the American soldier - as well as soldiers of NATO allies.

Clearly failure happened. The problem is not that failure happened. The problem is that a Ronald Cherrycoke mentality exists to hide the failure rather than address it and fix it. Blue on blue occurs do to human failures. The first step to avoiding it is to acknowledge it was completely avoidable. Ronald Cherrycoke, instead, assumes all failures are situation normal - SNAFU. That attitude is contemptable - explains why he also so hates the troops.

Ronald - this is the part where you learn about the world. Learn about why failure is not an option. Start by learning Deming and why failures are traceable only to those who all but want failures.

I didn't see that Sundae. That's pretty unpleasant.

C'mon tw, you can't "Deming" a war. It can't be "engineered", "5-Sed", "Quality controlled" or "Just in timed" either.
Despite all the planning, rules, procedures and rehearsals, where the rubber meets the road you're going to have humans making split second decisions under extreme pressure. Accidents will happen, wrong choices will be made, people will screw up sometimes.
You can try to minimize the occurrences and the damage they can produce from each occurrence, but they will happen as long as people are involved. :flycatch:

Everything we do is traceable to human failure. All failures are avoidable. That is Deming's principle. And yes it even applies to war. Was that blue-on-blue incident avoidable? Of course. It was created by repeated human failures. They even saw the orange markings and ignored them. They fired without waiting for permission - another violation. This death is directly traceable to human failure made even worse because another Deming principle is being violated. A cover up rather than correcting the reason for failure.

Even car crashes are not accidents. Crashes are created by human failure - avoidable events created because due caution and other 'defensive techniques' were not implemented.

Meanwhile Just in Time is not a Deming technique. But it is made possible due to what Deming taught. Quality Control circles (as so often implemented) are how MBAs pretend they understand Deming. But again, that also has nothing to do with blue-on-blue which was directly traceable to completely avoidable human failure.

I concede blue on blue could probably been prevented if they had stuck to the book. It apparently unfolded at a pace where that was possible.
That said, war is such that individuals will be put in situations where they must react instantaneously, kill or be killed in their view. Mistakes will always be made, it's a human trait that fear trumps logic or rules. :2cents:

I'm paraphrasing here but he said something along the lines of the pilot was a hero, America needed more heroes like him and so did the world.

Surely not because he killed British troops!...But maybe because he risks his life everyday but as a human was involved in an accident?

But again, Ronald Cherrycoke is demonstrating for all how a brown shirt thinks.

The only Brown Shirts I see here are the lefty Brown Shirts like you that parrot left wing propaganda talking points without checking facts. you would have fit right at home in Goebbles propaganda dept....or better yet Stalins...maybe you could get Winston Smith`s old job with the Ministry Of Truth.



Clearly failure happened. The problem is not that failure happened. The problem is that a Ronald Cherrycoke mentality exists to hide the failure rather than address it and fix it. Blue on blue occurs do to human failures. The first step to avoiding it is to acknowledge it was completely avoidable. Ronald Cherrycoke, instead, assumes all failures are situation normal - SNAFU. That attitude is contemptable - explains why he also so hates the troops.


But I do want to fix it.... and so does the military but like in life accidents are largely unavoidable.


Ronald - this is the part where you learn about the world. Learn about why failure is not an option. Start by learning Deming and why failures are traceable only to those who all but want failures.


Failures are not accidents...surely you have learned this in the world?

I thought that was what the "Whiz Kid" Robert MacNamara tried to do with the Vietnam war...and look how that turned out.

Sounds like something Mr. Spock would say or HAL....Haaaaaa.....Haaaaa...

You'll never even have the chance to learn and improve if you ignore the evidence - as tw points out there were serious lapses in procedures yet it appears that no one saw these as worthy of attention - the wrong message is delivered as a result, namely that it's OK to screw up. War scenario or not if no attempt is made to remedy the mistakes then they stand to be repeated. Not a nice thought to carry as you go into battle. It reminds me in a way of my visit to the Somme this year when we learned of the mass graves that had been dug ready for the dead the generals expected after the day's fighting, and how the troops route to the front line meant they marched right past them. Not exactly the sort of picture you want to have planted in your memory - maybe now hearing the buzz of a tank-buster overhead when you're in a personnel carrier with orange stripes on it might produce a similar effect....

No soldier ever wants to kill a fellow soldier or an allied soldier for any account...but it happens and since wars began it has happened over and over again...accidents will happen. Maybe personal GPS`s or ID`s in the future will help?

Agree with you RC that it happens and will doubtless continue to happen, but what is gruelling is the complacency within the forces - something which from your earlier postings you appear to endorse (sorry if I get that wrong, but that's how it comes across) - that there is nothing worth doing to try to improve the situation.

Not complacency...but with first hand knowledge that in the heat of combat things can go horribly wrong. Maybe in the future there will be individual "Smart bombs or bullets"...who knows?

There remains this gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about. Pilots are provided with stimulants to stay sharp during combat flights. These drugs have a nasty habit of modifying the thought process; can make a pilot 'trigger-happy'. In this case, the pilots saw the 'friendly' markings and were not given permission to attack. They let themselves be confused by one who said no friendlies that far north. Two facts say to not attack. A third only implies it may be enemy. With drugs, and long flight times (Warthogs stay out for long patrols), well, no one wants to discuss the drugs.

Their kids are not in the war... big part of it.

The Queens son is.

Besides tw's drugs, adrenaline pumped into the bloodstream in anticipation of combat has a powerful effect on, whom today they're calling, "War Fighters". :vikingsmi

Still, bad enough that our troops have inadequate combat gear and personnel carriers that aren't equipped to withstand land mine explosions, without having friendly fire incidents as well - thank god those are much less frequent (well, as far as we know they are). And still unacceptable that an event such as the T10 one here fails to generate any learning or change in combat procedures.

End of story it seems, judging by the press reports.

Shit happens. I feel very sorry for the soldiers on the ground who were hit. I feel more sorry for the families left behind. Hopefully their military will take care of them. But good God you fucks stop making this out to be something it is not. This is the Fog of War, sucks big donkey dick, but shit happens. Hopefully everyone learned from this. Someone please post how many years ago this happened? Someone please post how some fucking idiot on here is going to turn this into another Bush bashing opportunity? Give me a frigging break...

Which justifies intentional coverup and lies? Yes, shit happens. And then we admit to the 'shit' so that it does not happen again. Why does 'shit keep happening'? When those in power are too busy denying it even happened or why it happened. This would be a zero topic had the US been honest with the victims.

When does a 'blue on blue' event get reported? When symptoms of a coverup appear. It's not the 'blue on blue' event that is the newsworthy. The coverup - denial of basic facts for years - that is the scandel.

Illiinois F-16s killed some Canadians in Afghanistan. Same story. It was not the event that made news. Missing (therefore major news) was the candid admission. Also worthy of mention - drug use that result in increased deadly mental errors during 'stress'.

How many of the 'blue on blue' events got reported. Almost none because most were not newsworthy. This is reeked of a coverup. That is news.

Drug use??? please post what first hand info you have about this. You know for a fact that "drug use" was involved? Or are you just repeating some spin from a anti-government website?

Sure any cover-up is bad. Give you that one.

Why does it keep happening? because there are bullets still flying about. As long as lead is heading down range people are going to get hurt, enemy and friendly alike.

. . . USAF vs USCG . . . Vietnam
 

"Friendly Fire, isn't" has become an old saw and one used to disguise a multitude of human failings. Now called incidents, they were, and are, the direct result of the growth of weapons technology and human inability or willingness to control them. All martial conflicts are evolutionary processes where coordination and cooperation evolve from the result of disaster.
The August 11, 1966, "Friendly Fire" expended on the United States Coast Guard Cutter Point Welcome (WPB 82329) was one evolutionary link that forced a small measure operational union during the Vietnam War.

the whole story:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...Welcome2.html#

This was the worst casualty inflicted upon the USCG during Vietnam. As someone else said, shit happens. The best we can hope for is to learn something to reduce the frequency of these "incidents". We usually gain some information to help prevent the same situation from recurring. Unfortunately, each situation has its own unique causes, and it is doubtful that we will ever have total eradication of "friendly fire " incidents.

The Coast Guard went through a period of TQM which very nearly ruined it. We are, usually, our own worst enemy, and a military service cannot be run by committee.

I also would like to see any REAL evidence of ANY military members being provided with "stimulants to stay sharp during combat flights". That sounds like a bit of information generated by the 4F boys at Joe's Bar and Grill around closing time.

CWO4 Jerry Murdock, USCG (RET)

Jerry

You have no proof of that assertion.

Drug use was cited as contributing to an American attack on Canadians in Afghanistan. It was also issues to peers in Nam. If help keep pilots attentive, but has a nasty side effect of distorting the decision making process. If TheMercenary learned before having politial agendas, then he would know this stuff.

Sorry mate, that ain't proof. Original source citations please. Otherwise your are basically full of crap.

obviously all a load of garbage...the pilots fired without being100% of their target.
 

Well hello Desert Rat. Welcome to the Cellar.

fog of war,my arse! are you living in some american war movie?be professional ,accurate ,defeat ,be safe,and go home this is the future .behave mercenary ,you have a bad hero attitude.those pilots had a deadly tool in their hands and used it like novices.i hate the way that its prosumed that if you are a soldier and die its ok ,its your job.and its sucks big donkey...style...bullshit.the men in those a10s were immature kids.

whove been covered and hidden away,promoted and moved on.without an an apology.to the families of who you call limeys and look down upon .

say again? this time in engrish.

Ummmm... that would be bullshit.

I have never called anyone limey or looked down on anyone who fights with us. And why would you quote yourself? Are you pissed off at the other personality?

I'm guessing he posted (three posts!) before his thought was complete, and instead of editing, he quoted himself to keep the continuity of his thought intact through the end.

I don't see multiple personalities.


nor do I.

What the last guys said.