# Annual Memorial Day Warmonger's Thread.



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

It's *good* to drive a Hog!

(The infantryman's best friend.)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

As they said in that old song by Mary Hopkins;

Those were the days, my friends;
we thought they'd never end.
We'd sing and dance,
forever in a day.
We'd fight and never lose;
we'd live the life we chose.
Oh yes, oh yes those were the days!

But sadly, they did eventually come to an end. Good video...thanks for sharing it with us. Hope you are enjoying your holiday!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> As they said in that old song by Mary Hopkins;
> 
> Those were the days, my friends;
> we thought they'd never end.
> ...


Glad you enjoyed the video!

It's a lovely gun platform.

Hope, you and yours are also enjoying yourselves! :thumbs-up:


----------



## cellochris (Dec 14, 2015)

Great video Flanderian! Are you and eagle2250 aware that the A-10 has internet fandom? Complete with memes such as this one:










Just thought I'd share.

Hope you both had a wonderful Memorial Day!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

That was my thought when I hear about ISIS nabbing all those US-sourced vehicles: those are much better targets than pick-up trucks. Easier to see. Easier to distinguish from civilians.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

cellochris said:


> Great video Flanderian! Are you and eagle2250 aware that the A-10 has internet fandom? Complete with memes such as this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A very sad post, but not unexpected. These aircraft killed more British troops in the Gulf War than the Iraqis did.




More here https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/mar/16/military.iraq https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574509/Video-shows-British-troops-under-friendly-fire.html https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_the_'friendly_fire'_incident_video_(28_March_2003)

I do find posts glorifying this particular aeroplane in rather bad taste.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> A very sad post, but not unexpected. These aircraft killed more British troops in the Gulf War than the Iraqis did.
> 
> More here https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/mar/16/military.iraq https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574509/Video-shows-British-troops-under-friendly-fire.html https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_the_'friendly_fire'_incident_video_(28_March_2003)
> 
> I do find posts glorifying this particular aeroplane in rather bad taste.


I am very sorry that you are offended by this video.

I was unaware when posting it that allegations existed that this specific aircraft had been involved in the fratricide of UK troops, and of course that is a tragedy if true. But I would think that during this aircraft's 40+ year operational history and because of the nature of its mission that it may have been involved in incidents of fratricide in different places at different times. It's a not often discussed fact of war that many, and sometimes even most casualties suffered by a force are the result of fratricide, and this has been true for centuries. But I have no reason to believe that this particular aircraft has contributed more than many other weapons, both individually, and collectively during the time it has been in service.

Of the three sources you link:

1. The Guardian
2. The Telegraph
3. Wikisource

The Guardian article does not mention where the action took place. The Telegraph identifies an action in Afghanistan. And Wikisource an action in Iraq. None of them cite The Gulf War, as in your post, and were published long after that war had ended.

It's another sad fact of war that it is common for the military, and *most other institutions* that "screw up" to try and avoid blame by many means. And while I know this is true of the American military from personal experience, I also know it is not unique to the *American* military.

That the A-10 has been involved in incidents of fratricide, *along with many other weapons*, is unquestionably possible. But that it has also saved the lives of many more American and other allied troops is a virtual certainty.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm sure Chellochris did not intend to offend anyone and I'll go as far as to bet that he was unaware of this friendly fire incident. To say that it is in poor taste is a bit of a stretch. 

Friendly fire incidents are tragic and regrettable. Unfortunately they are also part of war. 

Chouan, 
I'm sorry for the loss of your countrymen.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> I am very sorry that you are offended by this video.
> 
> I was unaware when posting it that allegations existed that this specific aircraft had been involved in the fratricide of UK troops, and of course that is a tragedy if true. But I would think that during this aircraft's 40+ year operational history and because of the nature of its mission that it may have been involved in incidents of fratricide in different places at different times. It's a not often discussed fact of war that many, and sometimes even most casualties suffered by a force are the result of fratricide, and this has been true for centuries. But I have no reason to believe that this particular aircraft has contributed more than many other weapons, both individually, and collectively during the time it has been in service.
> 
> ...


"Allegations"?
Gulf War incident, to clarify: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/190th_Fighter_Squadron,_Blues_and_Royals_friendly_fire_incident https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2901515.stm 
The A-10 has, in any case, an unenviable recors for friendly fire casualties: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-john-mccain-iraq-afghanistan/22931683/ https://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/02/sprj.irq.friendly.fire/


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

As much as I like Americans, and I really do, still there is a joke in the British military:

What's the difference between a British soldier and an Iraqi?

I don't know.

Welcome to the US Air Force.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> "Allegations"?
> Gulf War incident, to clarify:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/190th_Fighter_Squadron,_Blues_and_Royals_friendly_fire_incident https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2901515.stm
> The A-10 has, in any case, an unenviable recors for friendly fire casualties: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-john-mccain-iraq-afghanistan/22931683/ https://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/02/sprj.irq.friendly.fire/





Shaver said:


> As much as I like Americans, and I really do, still there is a joke in the British military:
> 
> What's the difference between a British soldier and an Iraqi?
> 
> ...


I respect each of you gentlemen, and out of that respect and what I believe is a mutual regard for intellectual integrity I refuse to patronize you by simply agreeing for the sake of agreeing.

First, I am very saddened by what was reported in the Wikipedia article, which I have no reason to disbelieve. The fact that there were 6 casualties including one fatality among British troops as a result of actions by Air National Guardsman and their support is a tragedy for which you have my entire sympathy. It may only be 1 KIA, and 5 wounded among the ten of thousands of men and women who died in that war, but that makes no difference to their families.

But what is lacking in the discussion are other perspectives. I have first learned of this incident today. I suspect it was a cause-celebre in the British press, as well it should be, but equivalent attention was not paid to it in the U.S. And as dreadful as this event was, to paint a weapon system such as the A-10 as somehow lacking because of it is just not factual. I know we all want villains and heroes, but the A-10 is just another weapon system, and has served heroically far more often than not.

I would not pay great attention to the USA Today article for two reasons; first, it's USA Today, and secondly, the USAF wants the A-10 dead, and are doing what they can to find reasons to do it. Why? Because they find it much more appealing to replace (Partially) it's function with aircraft *less well suited*, but which cost 10X's more. Such, sadly, is also often the nature of the military.

The nature of CAS, Close Air Support, is that by it's very intention the *only* mission of the A10 is operating in very close proximity to friendly forces. *It has no other duty.* And if you ask yourself the question, will an aircraft which operates only in close proximity to friendly forces be involved in more incidents of fratricide than many other military aircraft, the answer can only be one thing, of course! And the next question then becomes, will friendly forces be made safer by assigning the same role to aircraft that are *less* capable? The silliness of the proposition becomes obvious.

The fact is that the U.S. personnel involved in this tragedy f***ed up, a man lost his life, and 5 others had theirs irreparably harmed. I suspect that in this instance training and degree of readiness entered into it. But among all the possible causes for this incident the only one unquestionably *not* responsible is the aircraft. It is just a weapon, a tool, to be well, or in this case poorly used.

It would appear from the visceral reaction to this post likely that the U.K. press has found it expeditious to demonize what has been a highly effective and successful CAS aircraft, and no doubt with USAF blessings to aid in better pursuing the acquisition of some really expensive, fancier, new hardware. But that won't make friendly forces any safer, rather the opposite.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> I respect each of you gentlemen, and out of that respect and what I believe is a mutual regard for intellectual integrity I refuse to patronize you by simply agreeing for the sake of agreeing.
> 
> First, I am very saddened by what was reported in the Wikipedia article, which I have no reason to disbelieve. The fact that there were 6 casualties including one fatality among British troops as a result of actions by Air National Guardsman and their support is a tragedy for which you have my entire sympathy. It may only be 1 KIA, and 5 wounded among the ten of thousands of men and women who died in that war, but that makes no difference to their families.
> 
> ...


It is not the A-10 that I object to; it is a weapon, no more. It is the eulogisation of the weapon, as in post N.4 that I object to. To celebrate such a weapon, in such terms as shown in post 4, is in very bad taste, as I'm sure you will agree. As was discussed in the links given, US A-10s killed more British troops than the Iraqis did.


----------



## cellochris (Dec 14, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> I'm sure Chellochris did not intend to offend anyone and I'll go as far as to bet that he was unaware of this friendly fire incident. To say that it is in poor taste is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> Friendly fire incidents are tragic and regrettable. Unfortunately they are also part of war.
> 
> ...





Chouan said:


> It is not the A-10 that I object to; it is a weapon, no more. It is the eulogisation of the weapon, as in post N.4 that I object to. To celebrate such a weapon, in such terms as shown in post 4, is in very bad taste, as I'm sure you will agree. As was discussed in the links given, US A-10s killed more British troops than the Iraqis did.


Gents,

I am just catching up with this thread, my "new posts" indicator for some reason excludes the Interchange.

SG is correct, I was unaware of the friendly fire incident and I am sorry to hear of this.

Chouan, by posting the "meme" in post N.4, I was attempting to relate with Flanderian and Eagle. I mean no disrespect to you or the British troops. I hope this clarifies my intentions.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The words and sentiments expressed in your post above, cellochris, serve only to increase the high regard I have for you. Indeed the loss of even a single life to friendly fire is regrettable, and Chouan's umbrage, while understandable, overlooks the complexities and just plain confusion/seeming chaos that rules when such incidents are most apt to take place. With no intention of excusing the mistakes that were made or minimizing the tragedy of the losses incurred, death(s) by friendly fire have historically been an unintended and hugely regrettable consequence of combat operations.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> The words and sentiments expressed in your post above, cellochris, serve only to increase the high regard I have for you. Indeed the loss of even a single life to friendly fire is regrettable, and Chouan's umbrage, while understandable, overlooks the complexities and just plain confusion/seeming chaos that rules when such incidents are most apt to take place. With no intention of excusing the mistakes that were made or minimizing the tragedy of the losses incurred, death(s) by friendly fire have historically been an unintended and hugely regrettable consequence of combat operations.


Indeed, but, as I have indicated, it is the paean to the weapon that I take exception to, as it is in very bad taste.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Shaver said:


> As much as I like Americans, and I really do, still there is a joke in the British military:
> 
> What's the difference between a British soldier and an Iraqi?
> 
> ...


Sadly, Canadians can tell the same joke.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

