DU shells versus chobam armor?

Can I just say, that fairness is not a subject in warfare that soldiers care about.

A soldier will shoot an enemy even if they are unarmed. They will shoot an enemy without warning, they will shoot an enemy who can't defend themselves and who cannot return fire.

Sniping, bombing, ambushes, armoured mg's vs small arms infantry are all very dispicable and in some cases shocking tactics but all legitamate.

As for the video, remember that any 12 year old with a pc can doctor or a video to their own ends. Whilst the actions may look unfavourable the chances are that you are not seeing it in context and what the crew saw when they were there.

FNG

 

Jeffrey wrote:

To begin with I assumed you were a soldier in training based upon your statement "I've completed the first mond of basic army training". I think it is reasonable to assume that one is an army recruit if you are undertaking army basic training. How else would you attend basic training?
BTW I have no idea what "mond" means. It is not an English word.

#1. If these men are combatants it makes no difference whatsoever whether they "did something wrong" as you put it. Enemy soldiers are legitimate targets whenever and however you encounter them (aside from those attempting to surrender or who have already surrendered).

#2. Once again. Different standards of acceptable behavior apply whether these men are considered combatants or civilian noncombatants. It is clear that the( alleged) Apache crewmembers considered them as combatants. In order to determine whether or not they were justified in considering them combatants one needs to know more information than is presented in that brief video. Were they privy to other information that we do not know about, either from the pre-mission briefing or from other friendly assests in the area? Indisputably their vantage point was better than ours and they seem positive in their assertion that at least one of them had a weapon. What kind of weapon? We do not know that information either. If it were an RPG (very possible as they are quite common in that area) then it was a potential threat to their (alleged) helicopter and their own safety. That would be immaterial though since the possession of such a weapon would reasonably identify them as legitimate enemy targets rather than noncombatant civilians, at which point they may be properly fired upon at any time without warning.
Irregular troops or insurgents hide amongst the populace and do not willingly identify themselves as combatants thus the presence of a tractor means nothing. Just a cover if they were indeed Fedayeen irregulars.

As to whether I accept the Sgt.'s word as to what constitutes acceptable behaviour I see it as somewhat like the retired Generals' comments. Making judgements without sufficent evidence upon which to base those judgements is unwise. This particular retired General by the way is known for his involvement in political and foreign policy debates regarding the present administration not to mention that he has made remarks in the past indicating he may have a particular political agenda.
Be that as it may the fact remains that there is insufficient evidence presented in that short video segment for reasonable people to make a judgement one way or the other as to any possible legal culpabaility of the alleged Apache cremembers.
If they knowingly killed civilians then they should be punished. Even if one put the worst face possible on the case that would be a tough case to prove without more evidence. It seems to me (from what little we know) that the dialogue in the video indicates that they were convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the men were combatants and possessed a weapon. It also seems that they also possibly asked someone else for clearance to fire before they fired. We would also need to know who they asked and what specific rules of engagements were in effect at the time of this event.

 

FNG wrote:

I agree completely. It's a shame that more actual soldiers (of which there appears to be several on these forums) haven't contributed their opinions on this issue.

 

He means "month", it appears to be a mix-up between the English and the Dutch word for it (month and maand). I reckon you already concluded that the word must mean "month" since you use it in your argument, which you wouldn't if you really didn't understand what it said.

 

Roel wrote:

I didn't use it in my argument AFAIK. There was some misunderstanding about his military training. I assumed that if he had completed any basic training then he must be a soldier (recruit). When he later indicated that he wasn't a soldier (at least I think he did) I wondered if I had misunderstood what the "mond" of basic training meant.
I'm still not sure how one can attend basic training without being in the military.

 

Just to clarify I'm not a solider and never been in the armed services. They shoot at soldiers and I don't consider that a career I would ever want to do.

However like all members of the forum I have a passionate interest in the military, the battles and equipment and thus read considerable books and articles on various subjects.

Most people, me included, have no idea what it is like to be underfire and involved in warfare. However I do believe that the geneva convention is probably not in the forefront of your thoughts when people are trying to shoot your balls of.

I appreciate that the apache pilots are away from their target and most likly immune from the targets retaliation which often makes them look heartless. However the fact remains that they are instructed to deny to the enemy men and material and that involves shooting them, even whilst they are defencless.

I've seen documentarys about the road out of Kuwait and it was not a pretty sight, but it's no worse than the Falaise pocket or omaha beach. In war these things need to done. It's not personal, it's just your job, only now it's on film and will be scruitinised in tiny detail by the entire world.

What makes it worse is that todays enemy doesn't even bother with the niceties of frontlines, uniforms, names, ranks and numbers. Any man woman and child you see could be plotting your death even if it means their own at the same time.

Without having the certified original gun and cabin footage/dialogue which shows the incident and a considerable lead period up to it it is difficult to assess the truth of the situation.

What makes it worse is that each side has their own personal political agenda beyond the deaths of these poor people. Americans are evil facisits treading over the liberties of the poor muslim. However these muslims are cowardly terrorists who are enslaving populations to thier corrupted version of the koran. Therefore whilst listening to each side you have to realise that they will manipulate the evidence by varying degrees to support and protect their own position.

I hate to see such a bitter arguement going on within this thread on the forum and it looks bad for the site and people concerned.

I feel it would be best to draw a line under the thread and agree to dissagree about the actions of the pilots concerned. I myself have in jest poked fun at the US solidiers actions and I still feel that they sometimes let themselves down. However in general they are honourable but occasional individuals sully their reputation.

But I would say that there are far worse soldiers that the US who could be attacking you.

FNG

 

I agree, this discussion is becoming useless, I haven't seen any arguments from wich I could say ''hmm, he's right about that'' or ''I didn't looked at it this way'', I still think that they attacked these people without any good reason (bad reason for example: They hate the Iraqi people???) and that the end of this discussion.

About that mond and month, you say it like mond, so I'm sure you understand what it means, we are not all americans or UK

 

To me this discussion wasn't so much about the guilt or innocence of the people in that video as it was about the lack of understanding regarding what a soldier in a combat zone faces. People, in the safety of their homes and on the flimsiest of evidence pass judgements on people who are risking their lives on a daily basis. To make that judgement based on an erroneous understanding of the accepted standards of conduct only compounds that folly.
War is a brutal violent business and it can never be sanitized and made clean and people friendly. If you aren't prepared to deal with the realities of combat then you certainly should not join the military.

 

...yet on the other hand you can't say as much about Jeffrey since you don't have any idea to what extent he is currently being trained, and in what situation he is in his normal civilian life.

Personally I reckon that the Dutch army is trained and equipped, physically and mentally, to fight peace missions, and therefore they will have a more meek and PC attitude toward many combat situations, reducing their effectiveness yet also reducing the probability of mistakes made during such a mission. Therefore the training experience of Jeffrey is probably fundamentally different from yours in USMC.

 

Roel wrote:

All but my last sentence can be logically applied to Jeffrey IMO (though I didn't mention anyone by name) If he wishes to claim some first hand knowledge about military training he need only clear up the ambiguity regarding his extent of training (or lack thereof) by stating cleary how and why he acquired his training. not that I urge him to..I don't think it would add anything to this debate.

You may very well be correct about that..but ..."fight peace missions"? :lol: Isn't that a misnomer?

 

Perhaps a bit of perspective is in order on this subject of trigger-happy United States Combat Forces.

A friend of mine--whose son just returned from Iraq, serving with the Marine Corps-- sent this after a conversation with his Son, Ben, half a world away.
Most of his tour was spent as a member of a quick-reaction force whose job was to respond with deadly force whenever a convoy was attacked. (The Cavalry coming to the rescue, you might say.) He has seen much combat, including the assault on Fallujah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben called late SUN night (his MON morning) to tell us this story:

Midnight THU: They received a call that an Army vehicle had dropped out of a convoy way out in the desert. Broken U-joint. A small detail of soldiers was left behind to guard it.

Ben's team was at a Marine firebase that was the closest help, so they were dispatched in a Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) with four Marines to fix it and escort them to safety. Ben was in charge of the detail.

En route, they took a radio call from the Army detail: two civilian vehicles with 8-10 Iraqi males had stopped on the road 100 meters away. All the Iraqi men were out and waving, saying something. No threat was perceived from their body language or tone of voice.

The Marines arrived on the scene right at false dawn, and drove up to the civilians: no weapons, no indication of threat. Ten frightened men in tribal peasant clothing.

Ben told a PFC to get out, stand 30 meters down the road and keep them at bay with his rifle. The PFC replied that his M-16 was jammed, so Ben told him: Never say that out loud when Iraqis are around, and take mine. Ben took the jammed rifle and freed it up as they drove the LAV to the disabled vehicle.

They crawled underneath and started to make the repair. After a while, Ben smelled a rank odor, and saw that two of the civilians were trying to crawl under the vehicle with them: a wrench in one's hand, pliers in the hand of the other. They were babbling away.

Ben yelled to the PFC: I thought I told you to keep 'em away! and the PFC replied: What was I supposed to do, Sullivan -- shoot 'em?

Ben finally let one hold the flashlight. They would not shut up. No one understood a thing they were babbling.

After the vehicle was ready to roll, the eldest Iraqi came forward and held out several packets of Iraqi cigarettes and some oranges, babbling away.

Ben radioed in his suggestion that both vehicles should travel together to an Army supply point down the road, and the Marines would fuel up there, grab some chow and some sleep, and catch up with the next Marine vehicles headed back to the Marine firebase on the other side of the city they had passed thru. The plan was approved.

Ben told the Americans to mount up and get the hell out of there before it got light. They yelled and motioned at the Iraqis to get in their vehicles and go away.

The Iraqi vehicles also mounted up, and followed behind the Americans as they got back on the road. Ben figured what the hell - let the Army sentries deal with them.

When they pulled up to the sentries, some soldiers came running. A translator appeared. He asked the Iraqis some questions.

He turned to Ben and said: These men are tribal Kurds. They are hated by the Sunnis in this region. They want to go home to vote on Sunday. They are afraid to drive through the next few towns and the big city between here and your Marine base because of the death threats of the Sunnis who control the villages and especially the city.

After a brief conversation, Ben's guys decided to head back through those villages and the city to their own base, after taking on fuel and some MRE's.

They escorted the two vehicles thru the hostile areas, and got them to the empty highway beyond.

As the Marines pulled over to let them continue the rest of the way home, the two vehicles pulled over, and all the men ran to the LAV, wept and kissed the Marines on their hands.

Ben told me that he turned to the PFC and said: I'm glad you didn't shoot 'em.

Ben said it the single-most decent thing he has done since arriving in The Big Sand Box.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To young Jeffrey in the Netherlands especially, please take note:
War always has been a dirty. bloody, deadly and confusing business. It seems especially so in Iraq, but these young men and women are "gettin 'er done" and are to be admired for their courage and dedication to the job at hand.
I recently delivered a 1/35 scale model of a Bradley M2A3 ODS "scout variant" to a young US ARMY SSGT wounded in Iraq. I built it up as the 'track' he commanded in Iraq. He was wounded during a fierce firefight with insurgents when he stuck his head out of the hatch for a look-see, and took a bullet in the head.
Seriously wounded, he was evac'd to the States, and was personally visited and decorated by the President and Mrs. Bush.
He spent the last year at his home base at Ft Carson, Colorado working hard to pass his physical and rejoin his troop. After much work, and suffering nearly 100% hearing loss in one ear, he rejoined his K-Troop and they re-deployed to Iraq in February of this year.
He leaves a wife and 2 young children at home--and his youngest was born just last Autumn. He insisted he needed to be there for his fellow troopers, and because the job wasn't finished.

Tim

 

Jeffrey, do you think they were soldiers or civilians?

 

Hoosier, nice story, but I don't see the connection between this Apache crew/incident and the ''incident'' in your story, I'm sure IF THIS (video) apache crew would have seen a disabled Humvee and see a truck with about 10 Iraqi's pulling over at 100m away they would probably have shoot them, that would be one of the disadvantages of the Apache, you can't speak to the (Iraqi) people on the ground so you can't see what is going on.


To young Jeffrey in the Netherlands especially, please take note:
War always has been a dirty. bloody, deadly and confusing business. It seems especially so in Iraq, but these young men and women are "gettin 'er done" and are to be admired for their courage and dedication to the job at hand.

You are wrong there, I understand that it becomes mentally very difficult for ground units to respond on different situations, but note that this Apache crew is far away from the action most of the times, I think you can compare it with a General sitting far away from the action giving orders on what to do, so I think Apache crew (most airborne crew) is mentally becoming under much less stress than ground units like infantry, so the whole deal about ''mentally and phisically exausted'' doesn't count for these kind of soldiers!

Personally I reckon that the Dutch army is trained and equipped, physically and mentally, to fight peace missions, and therefore they will have a more meek and PC attitude toward many combat situations, reducing their effectiveness yet also reducing the probability of mistakes made during such a mission. Therefore the training experience of Jeffrey is probably fundamentally different from yours in USMC.

Nope, we are still trained in every aspect of war, if we don't we would probably being kicked out of the NATO, we are also not ''especially'' equipped for peace-keeping, if this was true than we shouldn't have the Leopard2a6 or the IFV's or the Apache etcetcetc...

War is a brutal violent business and it can never be sanitized and made clean and people friendly. If you aren't prepared to deal with the realities of combat then you certainly should not join the military.

Now I know that most of the times marines are bashing other units and/or people because they think they are the best (wich they aren't) but to tell me I shouldn't join the army because i'm ''not prepared to deal with the realities of combat'' is complete bullshit, I think you can't prepare yourself for war or even think of how it would be there, so I can't decide wether I am or not prepared ''to deal with the realities of combat'' so now stop bashing our Dutch Army training, because I can also start about the lack of individual capabilities of a US (regular) soldier, this also from the Sergeant First class wich has served 6 monds in Bosnia with a US infantry division/unit (in is total of 8 years carreer)

Jeffrey, do you think they were soldiers or civilians?

I'm sure they where civilians.

 

Why?

(I'm going to the basics of the case here, please don't anybody get frustrated if you realise that we have been here before - I'm after a nice simple thread of reasoning.)

 

Ricky wrote:

Lol...good luck

 

Well, it had all got too wordy, and I was losing the thread of the various arguments.

 

Ricky wrote:

Agreed.
Getting back to basics.
Either the men are :
1. civilians or
2. irregular soldiers

If 2. then nothing further need be said about engaging them. Soldiers are legitimate targets of attack at any time and without warning. If we determine they are soldiers then we can proceed to 2A - Is it proper to continue firing at soldiers after they are wounded?

Lets go back to deciding between 1. or 2.
Men who are armed in a combat zone during a war (whether convential or guerilla war) are presumed to be soldiers. If we accept that the helo crew reasonably believed that these men were armed then at worst we would have a case of mistaken identity where civilians were fired upon in the mistaken belief that they were soldiers. BTW In no civilized country in the world would that be considered murder..at worst if the crewmembers were negligent it could be manslaughter or negligent homocide..but that is getting ahead of ourselves.
I think it was entirely reasonable based on the video evidence alone (and the crewmembers might well have had more evidence from other sources) to assume that these men were irregular soldiers once they spotted one of them with a weapon.
Would Police forces in peacetime be justified in taking such actions? of course not, but that standard is the wrong one to appply. This was a war.. with Fedayeen irregulars waging a guerilla war against the US forces.

If we now accept that these were irregular soldiers and that they were legitimately engaged then the should proceed to 2A..Were the crewmembers wrong to fire on wounded enemy soldiers?
It would not appear to be an issue with 2 of the men since only one was fired upon more than once (the man who appeared to be hiding under the truck).
Even in that case we are not sure if he was truly hors de combat. Given such little evidence it isn't possible to say with certainty. He was obscured by the truck part of the time plus the gunsight was focused on the other 2 men for a portion of the time so we don't know for sure what he was doing. For all we know he may have run to the rear of the large truck and grabbed an RPG and was in the process of aiming at the helo when the large truck was engaged.
Actually we don't need to know.. for one very good reason. Despite the words of the other crewman you should note that the gunner did not place the crosshairs on the apparently wounded man (who was still moving it appears) but instead placed the aiming point on the small truck..in the process it appears that the burst may have also struck the man on the ground in front of the small truck.

We would need a lot more evidence to even consider manslaughter charges against these men and there appears to be zero evidence that could justify a murder charge. For that we would need to accept that these men knew that these were civilians and killed them anyway. Their own words on the recording indicate that they saw a weapon and believed that these men were soldiers.

No specific intent = no murder
A reasonable belief that they were armed = no manslaughter or negligent homocide

Case closed.

 

Jeffrey:
I'm not wrong and stand by every word of the statement you so kindly requoted. (Thank You by the way.)
You appear to have some real issues with the United States Armed Forces--and policy it appears--so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I realize Esprit-De-Corps is encouraged and trained into all armed forces of the world, and admire your spirit. I think you have much to learn, so keep studying.

Tim

 

If we now accept that these were irregular soldiers and that they were legitimately engaged then the should proceed to 2A..

I do not eaccept this, because I don' think its true, no ''irregular'' soldier will step in a tractor and go plow his country, that is kinda funny if they did :lol:

Actually we don't need to know.. for one very good reason. Despite the words of the other crewman you should note that the gunner did not place the crosshairs on the apparently wounded man (who was still moving it appears) but instead placed the aiming point on the small truck..in the process it appears that the burst may have also struck the man on the ground in front of the small truck.

ok, I'll show it again...

You either didn't listen good enoug to the apache crew or you are in denial, yuo just don't wanna admit they where wrong, let me put this in again:

Sound with subtitles:
"Hit him."
"Got him."
"Good."
"Second one."
"Hit the other one."
"Hit the truck."
"Go to the right, see if anyone's moving by the truck."
"Take the trucks out?"
"Is there anybody in the truck? Wait for movement."
"Have not seen any."

Commentary:
Then nevertheless, another person moves.

Sound with subtitles:
"Store that - auto range store."
"There's another guy moving, right there."
"Good. Fire."
"Hit him."
"Target 4."
"We take the other truck out?"
"Roger."
"Wait for movement by the truck."
"Movement right there."
"Roger."
"He's wounded."
"Hit him."
"He's in the truck."
"Hit the truck and him."
"Go forward of it and hit him."
"Roger."

Note this: Commentary:

Then nevertheless, another person moves.

Sound with subtitles:
"Store that - auto range store."
"There's another guy moving, right there."
"Good. Fire."
"Hit him."
"Target 4."
"We take the other truck out?"
"Roger."
"Wait for movement by the truck."
"Movement right there."
"Roger."
"He's wounded."
"Hit him."
"He's in the truck."
"Hit the truck and him."
"Go forward of it and hit him." "Roger."


This make this': ''in the process it appears that the burst may have also struck the man on the ground in front of the small truck'' a false statement by you, so you actually agree with me that they 3th one was definatly a murder, imo the first 2 are also murders

Also note that this particular 30mm cannon makes ALOT of damage, the rounda re not only coming in with a very high speed and rpm, but also explode on impact, so to kill the guy under the truck they just shot somewhat in front of the truck and on the engine-compartment, this is enough to injure him, you can see how a crawls from underneed the truck, clearly wounded.

 

Jeffrey wrote:

Of course they will. VC soldiers at night walked behind water buffalos plowing fields and working rice paddies during the day. The presence of a tractor does not convert irregular soldiers into civilians though it may be used as cover to make then appear that way.

Sound with subtitles:
"Store that - auto range store."
"There's another guy moving, right there."
"Good. Fire."
"Hit him."
"Target 4."
"We take the other truck out?"
"Roger."
"Wait for movement by the truck."
"Movement right there."
"Roger."
"He's wounded."
"Hit him."
"He's in the truck."
"Hit the truck and him."
"Go forward of it and hit him." ."

The dialogue in red is apparently the other crewmember not the one aiming the crosshairs.
Despite what the other crewmember said the gunner placed the crosshairs on the cab of the small truck rather than on the man on the ground. The fact that the rounds aoppeared to strike the man also and the fact that the other crewmember wanted him to hit the man on the ground also doesn't change that fact. he does not appeat to have ever executed the "go forward of it and hit him" instruction.
The same burst that destroyed the small truck may have struck the man in front of it also. MAY have as we don't know if that man was dead. the video does not give us that information. Even if it did it is apparent that the gunner did not move the crosshairs in front of the small truck as the other crewmember instructed.

This is all academic actually. Doesn't matter. You conviently ignore the presence of the weapon that the man laid down in the field do you not?
You ignore it because to acknowledge it would convert these so called noncombatants into irregular soldiers. At that point they are legitimate targets whether lying down, sitting up or flying about flapping their arms and singing hymns.

As I said.

Case closed.