Over 30 Iraqi Soldiers Killed in US Air Force Strike, 20 Others Injured

a reply to: the2ofusr1

They always manage to hit the target, the problem is when the wrong target is identified for whatever reason. Most blue on blue is misidentification of a target on the ground. Misprogramming a weapon is extremely rare, so it comes down to seeing and identifying the target on the ground. In the DWOB incident, the building was incorrectly identified, among other factors.

One of the ways used for Close Air Support during Desert Storm and the early days in Iraq and Afghanistan was to put orange banners, similar to those used to mark landing zones for helicopters, on the top of vehicles in convoy. After putting those on, the number of blue on blue incidents fell. Technology is great, but sometimes going the other way is best.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So do you think that ISIS had orange markers on their fleet of Toyota's that confused US military command ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Do you know how many people in the ME drive Toyota trucks? Including the Kurds and other groups that are fighting against Isis. In 2012, Toyota sold almost 700,000 vehicles in the Middle East. In 2013 and 14, they sold over 30,000 Hilux and Land Rover models in Iraq alone. They don't exactly paint "ISIS" on the roofs or sides of them to make identification easier. Without knowing with absolute certainty exactly who is in those trucks, they're not going to clear the pilots to fire on them. They're going to try to track them and identify who it is. Until they do, they risk doing exactly what you're talking about here, and causing even more friendly casualties.

It doesn't work both ways. Either they try to reduce blue on blue, by being certain who they are firing on, or they fire on everyone and risk it. They choose to not risk it and try to reduce incidents.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Without knowing with absolute certainty exactly who is in those trucks, they're not going to clear the pilots to fire on them. They're going to try to track them and identify who it is. Until they do, they risk doing exactly what you're talking about here, and causing even more friendly casualties.

So I guess this only applies when trucks are mounted with Big guns on them and not when it could actually be a hospital ....quite the policy dont you think ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Once again, different situations. The crew of the AC-130 had information identifying the building they hit as the target building. The actual target building was 450 yards from the hospital. So the two buildings were close, there were problems with the aircraft leading to, again, misidentifcation of the target, and other factors.

So which do you want? You want more friendly fire incidents, or do you want fewer? You don't get it both ways.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Yes it is about taking sides , and this doesn't mean that either side is the real bad guy because good people get used every day ...

Trust me when I say all sides are bad sides over there sooner or later. My point was mainly that we most likely bombed correctly but we can not know who everyone else is around there at any given time that may be on our side too.