01-04-2003 02:55									#31
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Asher Missiles cost a lot more, and the A10s gun (depleted uranium shells, IIRC they're classified by the UN as WMD) is just as effective in ripping apart tanks.

i don't know i agree with that Asher, FROM WHAT I'VE READ the tank and the tank crew survived only because the gun was used not the missiles, like i say though, from what i've read.

	01-04-2003 02:58									#32
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by reds4ever i don't know i agree with that Asher, FROM WHAT I'VE READ the tank and the tank crew survived only because the gun was used not the missiles, like i say though, from what i've read.

The A10s gun can rip apart tanks. It gives the crew an opportunity to escape more than a missile does, but the effect is the same.

Was the Brit tank destroyed after the A10's assault?

I've seen a few TLC/Discovery Channel shows on the A10, and that gun is very deadly.

7x30mm depleted uranium gatling gun, 6000 rounds/minute...

	01-04-2003 03:02									#33
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Asher I've seen a few TLC/Discovery Channel shows on the A10, and that gun is very deadly.

then your background in anti-tank warfare is similar mine

i still think straffing is more fun though......

	01-04-2003 03:02									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Basically a dirty bomb. Now I know why the troops have chemsuits.

	01-04-2003 03:07									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher Why do we need to specify killing of Americans? The Brits have had many other Brit FF incidents already in Iraq...

And we also haven't mentioned American FF deaths due to other Americans. If we want to do a comparison that's fair we have to use cross-national FF deaths. I'll leave it to you to figure out why this is so.

If both were equally reckless then there should be an equal number on each side (the Brits should have killed 5 Americans so far to keep up)

	01-04-2003 03:09									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger If both were equally reckless then there should be an equal number on each side (the Brits should have killed 5 Americans so far to keep up)

How do you figure, the Brits don't have an equal number of troops.

	01-04-2003 03:17									#37
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Is this another one of your duh moments (think back to immigration question)

The brits have X number of troops.

The yanks have Y

The number of times American troops encounter British troops in a manner that they might want to pull the trigger is XY/c (c a constant determined by the size of the area of operations, the way the forces are deployed etc.)

The number of times British troops encounter American troops in a manner that they might want to pull the trigger is YX/c (c the same constant). They work out the same because multiplication is commutative

Take an analogy. Imagine a disease. Imagine a society in which there are white people (90%) and black people (10%)

The number of black people that catch the disease from white people should be the same as the number of white people that catch the disease from black people if the same percentage of black and white people have the disease, and both populations are equally susceptible

This is basic statistics...

	01-04-2003 03:19									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I was just thinking of it in terms of you have less British troops, so they're less frequently engaged in combat, which means they less frequently have FF accidents in terms of raw numbers compared to the Americans...

	01-04-2003 03:19									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The way they work out different is twofold:

a) The British are careless in the way they deploy troops (leading to an understandable increase of misidentifications by the other side)

b) The Americans are careless in the way they instruct their forces to attack

	01-04-2003 03:20									#40
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Asher I was just thinking of it in terms of you have less British troops, so they're less frequently engage in combat, which means they less frequently have FF accidents in terms of raw numbers compared to the Americans...

Think about it.

The British have less troops to shoot at the Americans, but also have less troops to be shot at by the Americans.

	01-04-2003 03:22									#41
	Inflate your Upload Space

This is why it's best to do cross-national comparisons.


The raw numbers should work out the same, all else being equal.

	01-04-2003 03:22									#42
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Think about it. The British have less troops to shoot at the Americans, but also have less troops to be shot at by the Americans.

Which was why I was insisting we don't count countries in specific. It's pointless to do so.

I was talking about FF accidents, not FF accidents against Brits specifically.

	01-04-2003 03:23									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

And what I'm saying is that all else being equal, the number of Americans killing allies should work out the same as the number of allies killing Americans.

Why aren't they the same?

	01-04-2003 03:25									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger And what I'm saying is that all else being equal, the number of Americans killing allies should work out the same as the number of allies killing Americans. Why aren't they the same?

Luck of the draw? War is not a science.

You should also factor in the deadlier equipment the Americans have versus the Brits.

Also, you should look at WHERE they're fighting. For the most part, the Brits are staying behind and securing some towns, the Americans are mostly pressing forward into Iraq.

It's not an accurate comparison because there's too many variables.

	01-04-2003 03:28									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

That's exactly why it's an accurate comparison.

The "deadly equipment" thing is only valid if you can show that there were an equal number of mistaken engagements by both sides, but the Americans' tended to kill more.

	01-04-2003 03:28									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The destroyed vehicles were scimitars (light recce tanks with 30mm cannon) not challengers. Although I cant swear to it, I doubt that an A10 cannon would be a weapon of choice against an MBT.

Its another example of american pilots shooting before identifying their target. I might not expect every F15 pilot to be an expert in vehicle recognition but I bloody well expect an A10 pilot to tell the difference between a scimitar and anything else, especially one with the union jack on the top. The only possible vehicle that comes to mind that a scimitar could be mistaken for (by an idiot) would be some variants of the BMP and I dont know if the Iraqi's have any.

Too many ****ing weekend warriors fly american warplanes.

	01-04-2003 03:31									#47
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Bingo, Spence.

A10s fly lowlevel ****ing close support.

They're supposed to be able to correctly attack enemey targets on a moving battlefield. (At least this is my understanding of their role)

This means that they should be able to identify exactly what they're shooting at. It's not good enough to simply see a vehicle and assume it's the enemy's. Given the current number of vehicles deployed by both sides that would end up with you killing more of your own than you do of the enemy's.

	01-04-2003 14:29									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

From here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,926167,00.html

"Coloured smoke signs were sent up to indicate that they were friendly troops but it didn't stop the attack."

"Instead of providing air cover while helicopters came in to evacuate the casualties, they baled out. "

"The attack took place within the Household Cavalry's battlefield control line which means that everything in the air should be controlled by them and their embedded American air controller. The A10s were well out of their area..."

"All of D Squadron's vehicles are clearly marked, with fluorescent panels on the roofs, flags and other markings. It was something that the soldiers kept saying, over and over. "We spend all this money marking out our vehicles so this doesn't happen," one said. "If it was the heat of battle, **** happens. But it was clear daylight." "

This is not a simple case of misidentification (like the Challenger incident, or the Patriot one)...this was nothing short of criminal negligence on the part of the A-10 crew.

	01-04-2003 16:03									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Two questions.

As I understand it British practice is to tightly control tactical air support and ensure targets are positively identified before being engaged? Is US practice different and does that explain some of what is going on?

It is worth remembering that virtually all of the tactical air support is by US aviation, not British planes so there is less opportunity for British aircraft to friendly fire coalition ground forces.

I heard that most (all?) of the A-10's are flown by air national guard pilots. Are they really weekend aviators?

	01-04-2003 16:09									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This might be bollocks but here goes anyway.

I heard US aviators are only taught ground recognition in relation to US vehicles. This seems like gross stupidity on the part of the commanders.

	01-04-2003 16:20									#51
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

That was reported on last night's TV. Apparently it came to light last January amongst the military that US troops were not trained to identify UK vehicles.

	01-04-2003 16:22									#52
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV That was reported on last night's TV. Apparently it came to light last January amongst the military that US troops were not trained to identify UK vehicles.

Why would they its not as if they fight together



edited for spelling

	01-04-2003 16:39									#53
	Get a bigger avatar today!

It's too early to say whether the challenger tank incident and the A-10 incidents are major screw ups or an understandable mistake. We don't know what was happening at the time, and the information on hand does not suggest a situation where it should definitely not happen.

The Patriot incident raises lots of red flags. The Iraqi air force has been grounded so the Patriot crew should have questioned why their missile systems were locking on an aircraft. I might be wrong, but the Patriot is designed to shoot down missiles, not aircraft. That should have created another warning. The US military is investigating whether there is programming bug in the Patriot system.

http://www.itworld.com/Sec/2052/030328patriotbug/

	01-04-2003 16:45									#54
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger Why would they is not as if they fight together

I suspect the A-10 pilots would routinely do low-level, high-speed passes over US vehicles to a point where they can instantly identify them. Even if they did some training over UK vehicles, it would probably not be enough.

	01-04-2003 16:54									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Asher It's telling that we didn't see one of these threads when one British Challenger tank shelled another Challenger tank and killed the crew...

That's easy to explain:

Muppet's first rule of warfare.
Do not become intimately involved with a fellow soldier's significant other. An internal matter between friends.

Muppet's second rule of warfare.
Do not engage in cybersex with an American airman's significant other. An international incident.

	01-04-2003 16:57									#56
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

You don't need to id the vehicle, just the large fluorescent panel on its roof...that should be enough to give pause for thought on a clear day.

	01-04-2003 17:08									#57
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

As for the difference between the Challenger incident and this one:

Challenger:
"The incident happened while the tank unit was engaging pockets of Iraqi soldiers and militia near a bridge over the Qanat Shatt Al Basrah canal running along the western edge of the city.

A UK military spokesman said it was during a period of multiple engagements with Iraqi forces on the outskirts of Basra. "

A-10:
"If it was the heat of battle, **** happens. But it was clear daylight."

Do we all see the difference here yet?