But surely the apache would have enough time (terms of distance) to take action after seeing the projectile being launched. It just disgusts me how they chuckle in the cockpit of the apache and the gunner tone of inpatients.
Wikileaks releases apache footage.
- Thread starter Kristoph
- Start date
But surely the apache would have enough time (terms of distance) to take action after seeing the projectile being launched. It just disgusts me how they chuckle in the cockpit of the apache and the gunner tone of inpatients.
Did you listen to the recording? The guy sounds really eager to shoot at the van, it does sound like he thinks it's exciting - sounds like he is enjoying it.
edit: maybe you were trying to be funny?
Job satisfaction?
I think both parties made mistakes.
Journalists in a war zone should know the risk, it's one of the most deadly jobs in the world I would imagine next to being a soldier on the front line. The problem is when you start walking around with civilian clothed people that are armed with rifles, in no particular formation and then crouch around a corner sticking your telescopic camera lense out, well that was stupid.
There could have been some troops down the very same street advancing on that position, infact it seems the helicopter crew is linked up with some ground troops/bradly/hmmv so they were their for support. If you see someone poke his head around a corner with a black long shaped object, the first thing you think is hostile forces, then asses when under cover. You're not going to stick around and find out what happens next without getting your hind behind cover.
But, why they fired on the van that had no threat is beyond me, they were too trigger happy. Although what kind of person brings a van with people inside (I don't care if it's children, or adults, treat them the same) to a area that was showered with bullets and filled with dead bodies.
I have no doubt in my mind this happens all the time, you're just seeing one of many videos out on the internet.
Although we can never be 100% certain what they are telling us happened, actually happened, from both parties, they could all be random people and none they said in the video.
Journalists in a war zone should know the risk, it's one of the most deadly jobs in the world I would imagine next to being a soldier on the front line. The problem is when you start walking around with civilian clothed people that are armed with rifles, in no particular formation and then crouch around a corner sticking your telescopic camera lense out, well that was stupid.
There could have been some troops down the very same street advancing on that position, infact it seems the helicopter crew is linked up with some ground troops/bradly/hmmv so they were their for support. If you see someone poke his head around a corner with a black long shaped object, the first thing you think is hostile forces, then asses when under cover. You're not going to stick around and find out what happens next without getting your hind behind cover.
But, why they fired on the van that had no threat is beyond me, they were too trigger happy. Although what kind of person brings a van with people inside (I don't care if it's children, or adults, treat them the same) to a area that was showered with bullets and filled with dead bodies.
I have no doubt in my mind this happens all the time, you're just seeing one of many videos out on the internet.
Although we can never be 100% certain what they are telling us happened, actually happened, from both parties, they could all be random people and none they said in the video.
They can operate at pretty high altitudes and I can imagine there's quite a bit of air traffic over Baghdad anyway so people probably don't pay much attention to sound of air assets that much.
As for my own 2 cents, even without getting involved into legality of the action I found the attitude of the pilots very unprofessional, to a point where I'm actually scared that people like that are in charge of something as deadly as an attack helicopter. I've seen a few videos of attack helicopters in action and haven't seen anything quite like this yet, the conduct appears to be very poor and they don't seem to have respect of the fact that they are in charge of an extremely lethal piece of equipment.
In terms of legality it gets a little murky as we don't know the exact circumstances of why the helicopter is even there. For all we know the ground troops may have been attacked by insurgents (who made of long before video kicked in) and helicopter was called in to support and just happened to spot guys who fit the bill. The shoulder straps of the camera equipment could be mistaken for a weapon being carried and as mentioned at 3.38 you can make out 2 guys who are carrying what do appear to be weapons. The camera sticking out from around the corner also could've been easily mistaken for an RPG (as indeed it was in this case unfortunately).
There is, however, extremely little chance of anything happening to the pilots in question here. The US military machine does have a good record of covering up the messes their members get themselves into. They got away scott free after shooting down their own allies who had followed the safety protocols so there's a fat chance of anything being done over killing of 2 local photographers/reporters next to people who appeared to have been carrying weapons.
If the gunner who full concentration on the screen at the time. He will be doing other tasks in the cockpit as well, they were also trying to direct ground units to the target, work the radio, watch out for the helicopters and also what is closer to them. Could well have missed the side on view and then seen the head on view.
Sitting safely at my keyboard, with all the time in the world, a large TFT and the ability to review the video as many time as I desire it is very easy to make the right identification but in the heat of the moment (they may not have been under direct fire but you don't know what happened before the tape starts) mistakes will be made.
It could also be a case of scenario fulfillment where troops under pressure will default to a training scenario and carry that out rather than believe the images and data they have in front of them. This was one of the possible conclusions of when Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the US Navy.
havent red the whole thread because im on my phone but we only get a grainy video of this. The apache has state of the art optics for the pilots to use. They will have had a far far clearer view of it than us. I think its something like 120x zoom, the last book i red, apache, the author described how you could tell the colour of someones eyes from 1k+ away. So its all very well second guessing what is seen in the video but bear in mind the pilots will have had a far far better view than any of us will ever have
I'd also like to point out, not sure if this 100% accurate but air support is usually called in by ground forced for assistance, I don't think they ever go out blind without the area being assesed. Too much of a risk.
If they do go out alone it's usually for other reasons but you can hear clearly they are attached to a sqd/plt sized force. (and see later on)
I'd like to know what happened earlier on and why they were called in to that specific area, both of them in fact. You don't have them just flying about willy nilly looking for targets in random locations.
They have I think a 250mi combat radius inc 2.5hr mission time.
If they do go out alone it's usually for other reasons but you can hear clearly they are attached to a sqd/plt sized force. (and see later on)
I'd like to know what happened earlier on and why they were called in to that specific area, both of them in fact. You don't have them just flying about willy nilly looking for targets in random locations.
They have I think a 250mi combat radius inc 2.5hr mission time.
I doubt it unless it's secret hardware that isn't recorded, even if leaked.
Last edited:
The recording from an Apache will contain the TV and FLIR feeds from the sensor TADS, so what is in the video is what they could see. Although this feed looks like FLIR images and I don't believe the zoom is as powerful on that sensor (x16?).
They will also be viewing on much smaller screens than us.
The crew describes colours in there radio transmissions so they must have had the TV feed as well.
They will also be viewing on much smaller screens than us.
The crew describes colours in there radio transmissions so they must have had the TV feed as well.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Oh okay, that makes it alright then.
It does actually.
There are far too many people commenting and criticising who have never been in that situation and have no clue what they're talking about. You're one of them.
I wonder how many more incidents like this have been brushed under the carpet... and still we wonder why ordinary Afghans/Iraqis kill our soldiers.
Every time an incident like this happens Al Quaeda gain more members and support in the region and our governments just pass them off as terrorists for fighting back.
Every time an incident like this happens Al Quaeda gain more members and support in the region and our governments just pass them off as terrorists for fighting back.
Last edited:
I must admit I can see how the initial mistake was made, those highlighted pics above look like weapons being held, and pointing a longish black thing at an Apache in a war zone is like signing your own death warrant.
My disgust comes from the attack on that van - yes, I doubt the pilots could ID the 2 children in the van, or I suspect they wouldn't have fired. But surely there was enough assets nearby in theatre to stop/apprehend and search the van for weapons?
It also is a great shame that the US military still has a kind of Vietnam-era "la-la-la we dont care" mentality when it comes to mistakes. So they shot up some men carrying what looked like weapons, as the rules of engagement allows.... why not just admit it, apologies and look into what can be done to prevent it occurring again?
Warfare has come a long way from city-wide carpet bombing in 1945, but it still is not a precise art as this video proves.
Now the Yanks just look 100x worse for their actions in covering all of this up, when it eventually does leak out. The more leaks the better IMO.
My disgust comes from the attack on that van - yes, I doubt the pilots could ID the 2 children in the van, or I suspect they wouldn't have fired. But surely there was enough assets nearby in theatre to stop/apprehend and search the van for weapons?
It also is a great shame that the US military still has a kind of Vietnam-era "la-la-la we dont care" mentality when it comes to mistakes. So they shot up some men carrying what looked like weapons, as the rules of engagement allows.... why not just admit it, apologies and look into what can be done to prevent it occurring again?
Warfare has come a long way from city-wide carpet bombing in 1945, but it still is not a precise art as this video proves.
Now the Yanks just look 100x worse for their actions in covering all of this up, when it eventually does leak out. The more leaks the better IMO.
I'm not going to comment on the video directly, as I have no experience to base an opinion from.
However, I am going to agree with the latter part of matt_fsr's post, regarding the US Army/Government and their mantra of "We are great, we are great, we are great, anyone who say otherwise will be discredited (or worse) on unrelated grounds and you shall experience first hand why we are great, and that is we kick ass! YEAH!"
I also get them impression that the US Army "breed" killing machines for soldiers. Stripping out as much compassion as they can, whilst maximising the soldiers thirst for blood. Whilst it is, of course, entirely essential to teach a soldier to kill, the lengths the US Army go to scare me. If any of the scenes in Jarhead (or other recent US Army war film) is to go by, it is no wonder they have such opposition from other countries - yet they are literally dumbfounded when they are not met with open arms?!
However, I am going to agree with the latter part of matt_fsr's post, regarding the US Army/Government and their mantra of "We are great, we are great, we are great, anyone who say otherwise will be discredited (or worse) on unrelated grounds and you shall experience first hand why we are great, and that is we kick ass! YEAH!"
I also get them impression that the US Army "breed" killing machines for soldiers. Stripping out as much compassion as they can, whilst maximising the soldiers thirst for blood. Whilst it is, of course, entirely essential to teach a soldier to kill, the lengths the US Army go to scare me. If any of the scenes in Jarhead (or other recent US Army war film) is to go by, it is no wonder they have such opposition from other countries - yet they are literally dumbfounded when they are not met with open arms?!
Last edited:
Despicable.
Also, I saw some TV program which showed (UK) troops being told not to shoot at people with guns because lots of people have them in Iraq, apparently they shoot them at wedding and stuff as well... Maybe these guys were ill on that day.
If Jarhead scares you, watch or read Generation Kill:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Generation-Kill/Evan-Wright/e/9780399151934
It's a pretty accurate picture of how American forces seem to operate - and explains a lot as to why UK troops usually run a mile when they see the stars and stripes.
its hard to defend such actions it did seem all seem a bit trigger happy and over the top.. but i guess who are we to sit here in our armchairs critising army personel decisions.. we dont know whats it like to be out there day in day out, and we cant judge how they react to a killing a person, afterall they are TRAINED TO KILL
Just saw this myself, and made a thread on it... OP needs to put the name of the damn video in his post =/
It's called Collateral damage and has a dedicated website as well.
It's all pretty damn shocking and disgusting how they acted.
edit:
Just a thought, watching the videos back again the only part I really cannot excuse is the trigger happy nature and the way they went on to attack the mini van carrying the bodies. Then driving over the bodies with the tanks... and claiming nationally that they did no such thing.
The cameras could easily be thought of as guns, and it's easy to see them as guns in the heat of the moment - I would wager that showing the first video to anyone who has not read the news articles that they would believe them to be weapons.
It's called Collateral damage and has a dedicated website as well.
It's all pretty damn shocking and disgusting how they acted.
edit:
Just a thought, watching the videos back again the only part I really cannot excuse is the trigger happy nature and the way they went on to attack the mini van carrying the bodies. Then driving over the bodies with the tanks... and claiming nationally that they did no such thing.
The cameras could easily be thought of as guns, and it's easy to see them as guns in the heat of the moment - I would wager that showing the first video to anyone who has not read the news articles that they would believe them to be weapons.
Last edited:
Cheers
Stops me and any others making another thread about it!
Oh... and crap... I just realised it's called Collateral Murder not damage
Collateral Damage is a 2002 film with Arnold Schwarzenegger