Heartland

WTF were they thinking?, "Orange Rockets!"

¿Qué?

scotty wrote:WTF were they thinking?, "Orange Rockets!"

The problem in your question is the word "thinking".

And then the f**king stupid lying bastards' government try to cover it up.

smiscandlon wrote:¿Qué?

clicky
The Pilots claimed that the Orange Panels on the front of the Tanks (for years now the sign of Allied Forces) were "Orange Rockets" and opened fire.

Yeah, just read it. What can you say?

Apparently the guy who was flying had very little experience, and they hadn't actually been informed that Nato forces are marked orange - which is a f**king disgrace for the US government as they constitute a significant proportion of ground forces.

I wish you hadn't started this topic though, Keef - it's got me singing

"US bombs cruising overhead.... there goes my love rocket red..."

You know the rest

boudicca wrote:Apparently the guy who was flying had very little experience, and they hadn't actually been informed that Nato forces are marked orange - which is a f**king disgrace for the US government as they constitute a significant proportion of ground forces.

I wish you hadn't started this topic though, Keef - it's got me singing

"US bombs cruising overhead.... there goes my love rocket red..."

You know the rest

'Its a test designed to provoke an emotional response'

Note to U.S. pilots:
On seeing a vehicle on the ground, check if it has anti aircraft weapons. Then check if it shoots at you. If not, it´s probably a friend.
Logic.[/b]

eotunun wrote:Note to U.S. pilots:
On seeing a vehicle on the ground, check if it has anti aircraft weapons. Then check if it shoots at you. If not, it´s probably a friend.
Logic.[/b]

US Pilots But why take the chance? Dude.

I remember my Granda (RIP) telling me about how, after he fought his way onto Gold beach on D-Day, he ended up getting mortars fired at him by American troops

Sadly somethings never change.

well i think we have learnt that:
poeple who fly airplanes and go to war want to blow things up
at any opportunity.

but surely we knew that already?

couldn't help but smirk at their teminology for 'friendly fire'
"blue on blue"
wrong

Having seen the footage, the exchange went something like this:

Pilot 1: There's some vehicles down there with orange on them. Any friendly traffic in the area?

Control: No. They could be hostile.

Pilot 2: Are you sure control? Orange is friendly colouring.

Pilot 1: I guess they could be orange missiles.

Control: We have no friendly forces in your area. They must be hostile.

Pilot 1: What do we do then?

Control: Attack them.

(The pilots bomb the convoy)

Control: Correction, correction, we have friendly forces in your quadrant. Do not attack.

Pilot 2: Oh f*ck.

======

From my understanding, the pilots were not gung-ho let's shoot it anyway, it was the controllers' fault.

markfiend wrote:Having seen the footage, the exchange went something like this:

Pilot 1: There's some vehicles down there with orange on them. Any friendly traffic in the area?

Control: No. They could be hostile.

Pilot 2: Are you sure control? Orange is friendly colouring.

Pilot 1: I guess they could be orange missiles.

Control: We have no friendly forces in your area. They must be hostile.

Pilot 1: What do we do then?

Control: Attack them.

(The pilots bomb the convoy)

Control: Correction, correction, we have friendly forces in your quadrant. Do not attack.

Pilot 2: Oh f*ck.

======

From my understanding, the pilots were not gung-ho let's shoot it anyway, it was the controllers' fault.

I guess my problem with their reasoning (pilots and control) can be summed up like this:

1. There are vehicles below
2. No reports of allies military forces in the area
3. The people in the vehicles therefore must be killed.

The decision to attack should be made on a positive identification (they have been positively identified as enemy military forces) not on a negative (We don't think they're US/UK military therefore we must kill them). Lots of things fit in the category of non-US/UK military - civilians fleeing a war zone in cars/trucks, ambulances, journalists...

My other huge problem is the way the US government has dealt (and is still dealing) with this.

lazarus corporation wrote:

markfiend wrote:Having seen the footage, the exchange went something like this:

Pilot 1: There's some vehicles down there with orange on them. Any friendly traffic in the area?

Control: No. They could be hostile.

Pilot 2: Are you sure control? Orange is friendly colouring.

Pilot 1: I guess they could be orange missiles.

Control: We have no friendly forces in your area. They must be hostile.

Pilot 1: What do we do then?

Control: Attack them.

(The pilots bomb the convoy)

Control: Correction, correction, we have friendly forces in your quadrant. Do not attack.

Pilot 2: Oh f*ck.

======

From my understanding, the pilots were not gung-ho let's shoot it anyway, it was the controllers' fault.

I guess my problem with their reasoning (pilots and control) can be summed up like this:

1. There are vehicles below
2. No reports of allies military forces in the area
3. The people in the vehicles therefore must be killed.

The decision to attack should be made on a positive identification (they have been positively identified as enemy military forces) not on a negative (We don't think they're US/UK military therefore we must kill them). Lots of things fit in the category of non-US/UK military - civilians fleeing a war zone in cars/trucks, ambulances, journalists...

My other huge problem is the way the US government has dealt (and is still dealing) with this.

def
"it it hasn't already got a Starts and Stripes on or is bombed into tomorrow, then KILL"!

(p.s. all hail )

Standard military practice: If it's stationary, paint it white. If not, shoot it.

lazarus corporation wrote:

I guess my problem with their reasoning (pilots and control) can be summed up like this:

1. There are vehicles below
2. No reports of allies military forces in the area
3. The people in the vehicles therefore must be killed.

The decision to attack should be made on a positive identification (they have been positively identified as enemy military forces) not on a negative (We don't think they're US/UK military therefore we must kill them). Lots of things fit in the category of non-US/UK military - civilians fleeing a war zone in cars/trucks, ambulances, journalists...

My other huge problem is the way the US government has dealt (and is still dealing) with this.

The source of the trouble for the pilots is to tell civillians from troups when they travel at 350 mph several miles away.
My grandmother could go on for hours telling storries of russian fighter bombers that were strafing the Berlin quarters where she lived during WWII.
And you may be sure that the russian pilots, if not feeling responsible for the protection of civilians, didn´t want to waste fuel amunition and time in the battlezone on uninteresting targets.
I guess it´s the nature of the strafe m*****n that endangers civilians, but as it´s a highly efficient method for knocking out ground forces, it´ll be used in the future, too. With all it´s side effects.

What really tickles me is that first the Pentagon denied ANY existence of the video tape and then secondly they then refused to publish it as enemies of the US can see its tactical capabilities
????!!!!!!!!!
if they cant tell the difference between friend and foe then it aint up to much in the first fcuking place!!!