This is just too sad.

[Kenshin]

Marine captain faulted in 'friendly fire' incident
Report details failings that led to deaths in Nasiriya



(CNN) -- A report released Monday by U.S. Central Command recommends disciplinary action against a U.S. Marine Corps captain who called in airstrikes on his fellow Marines in the deadliest "friendly fire" incident of the Iraq war.

Eighteen Marines were killed during a battle March 23, 2003, in Nasiriya. But because some of the bodies had been hit by both U.S. and Iraqi weapons, investigators could confirm only eight deaths by hostile fire.

The source of the fire that killed the other 10 Marines cannot be determined, according to the report.

That uncertainty is unsettling for Tina Cline, whose husband, Cpl. Donald Cline, was killed that day.

"Unknown, unknown, everything's left unknown. You have to come to your own conclusions -- what you want to believe," Cline said.

"This actually has brought me to a new level of grieving, and it's the angry stage," she said.

In addition, 17 Marines were wounded, 13 solely by Iraqi fire, the others by both Iraqi and U.S. fire.

Families of those killed and wounded in the incident were briefed before the report was released.

It's uncertain what will happen to the captain, who has not been identified. He could face discipline for failing to request proper authorization for the strike, which was a violation of a standing order intended to prevent such incidents.

Still, investigators noted in the report that the captain performed "admirably and with bravery" after his mistake on the fourth day of the war.

Some Marines who survived the attack are bitter.

"That was my second time being strafed by an A-10," 1st. Lt. Michael Seeley said on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered." "First Gulf War I was strafed. If I can't work with Marine air, I don't want to work with anything."

'The ground just explodes'
The incident happened as U.S. and coalition troops driving toward Baghdad fought to control a key supply route through Nasiriya.

The 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine regiment was ordered to secure two bridges, one over the Euphrates River to the south of the city and the other over Saddam Canal to the north.

As the Marines entered Nasiriya, their "situational awareness became clouded" because of deviations from the maneuver plan, the urban environment and communications problems, according to the report.

Those communication problems meant most of the battalion was unaware that a company had moved north of the northern bridge, where its troops became pinned down, taking intense fire from artillery, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns.

A Marine captain at a forward command post called two Air Force A-10s to attack targets north of the canal.

The warplanes, known informally as Warthogs, are armed with 30-millimeter, multibarrel cannons that can spit out 3,900 rounds per minute. The aircraft made several passes over the Marines' vehicles, dropping bombs, firing missiles and strafing with their tank-busting cannons.

"You hear this big, 'Waaah,' and then all you see is the ground just explodes," said Lance Cpl. Edward Castleberry of Mount Vernon, Washington.

Castleberry, the driver of an armored assault vehicle, tried to warn Lance Cpl. David Fribley.

"I'm turning around, screaming at him, telling him to get in," Castleberry said.

Fribley, 26, who enlisted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, almost made it.

"He was trying to climb in, he's got one arm trying to get in, and he just takes a huge round directly through his chest, and it blew his whole back out," Castleberry said.

Marine Staff Sgt. Troy Schielein of Peoria, Illinois, said the pilots should have recognized the tub-shaped armored assault vehicles, which only the Marine Corps uses.

"There is nothing like an AAV," Schielein said. "I mean, the biggest vehicle that the Iraqis even had was a pickup truck with a machine gun in the back."

Although the pilots of those aircraft were absolved of blame, some in the Marine Corps question why the pilots weren't better trained to spot the friendly vehicles, why flares fired by the Marines did not halt their fire, and why the cockpit videotapes of the incident were apparently recorded over.

[Salty Dog]

FUBAR......very sad

[kommando]

that is really sad
imagine though
as sad as it is for the dead soldiers (RIP)
the people (pilots and that marine sergent)
to live with the fact that they killed their own men for the rest of their lives
they are going to need some serious counselling or things liek suicide and depression come into play

[chauncy republicans]

What!? the Marine Captains fault!!??? What a bunch of BULLSH*T!!
At what altitude where the A-10s flying!? Did the Marines activate cease fire flares!?(I think they would have.) Marines fault my ass!! OOHH THIS JUST PISSES ME OFF! Lowflying A-10 piece of SH*T!!

[Johnnyringo]

Yeah, it's unbelievable that the pilots just get off on this one... no recorders either???

Just like what the LT. said.... Marines should work with Marine Air.

[chauncy republicans]

Although the pilots of those aircraft were absolved of blame, some in the Marine Corps question why the pilots weren't better trained to spot the friendly vehicles, why flares fired by the Marines did not halt their fire, and why the cockpit videotapes of the incident were apparently recorded over.
In my fit of rage I over looked this. I cant believe this! Another Airforce cover up. NOTHINGS SACRED AROUND THOSE BASTARDS!!!

[Royal]

We've been over this before with USAF attacks on British troops. It looks from the BoI that the unamed Captain was at fault for calling in the strike, but yet again it reinforces the poor AFV recognition skills of USAF GA pilots.

When will they learn? :(

[WARPIG]

It is definately a sad state when a cover up seems so obvious. Airforce pilots seem to have too much protection. Navy is just as bad. The amount of money spent on training a fly boy is to much of an investment to just throw away when they have a perfectly good Marine to pin it on.

[Fox2]

I think the problem with this type of situation (and please, anyone with more knowledge, by all means, correct me) is that when the pilot is communicating with the guy on the ground, he is less likely to double check the target, and just go on the word of the controller. I guess the mentality might be that since that guy is on the ground, the pilot would expect him to be able to see the target better than he can.

Obviously, we don't know ALL the details, nor are we privy to the results of any investigation. But, in my opinion, based on what has been posted, I think both the pilot and the Marine who was acting as controller should be punished. It's easy to blame the pilot, but I think the Marine, who probably had binoculars in his hands and wasn't moving at 300 mph, might have been able to see clearer than the A-10 pilot on call.

I am just a civvie, so if any of you former/current servicemen would like to correct me, please do so.

Just some thoughts...

[WARPIG]

That's probably a good assumption. When eys on the ground say to put fire down, a pilot is not going to double check the target if he knows he is firing on the right spot.
I think I spoke too soon earlier. There may be something stinky going on with that investigation but it would be naive to assume that it is only an effort to protect the pilot. There is a big disconnect with the pilot's ablity to ID their target and the USAF responsibility to give them ROE on the matter. There is a chain of responsibilty here and just laying blame on pilots is not going to fix it. The USAF way of operation needs to be looked at. Not to take away from the Marine Captain's tremendous mistake, but this was screwed from more than one direction.

[flickme]

FUBAR INDEED!!

[11F5S]

What!? the Marine Captains fault!!??? What a bunch of BULLSH*T!!
At what altitude where the A-10s flying!? Did the Marines activate cease fire flares!?(I think they would have.) Marines fault my ass!! OOHH THIS JUST PISSES ME OFF! Lowflying A-10 piece of SH*T!!

What really is a bunch of bull**** ...is someone who is sitting in front of a computer going off half-cocked about a stituation that they have only tibits of information about.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Is just me but I always get the feeling that the USAF get the benefit of the doubt on many occasions, they just do not get pinched for anything whether misspending their budget, $112 toilet seats ($8 in the local hardware super store), to mishaps beyond all comprehension.

[WARPIG]

The USAF is a bit teflon coated these days. The vast majority of our military budget is vested in the USAF. This trend is likely to come to an end soon.

[Truthsayer]

We've been over this before with USAF attacks on British troops. It looks from the BoI that the unamed Captain was at fault for calling in the strike, but yet again it reinforces the poor AFV recognition skills of USAF GA pilots.

When will they learn? :(

Anyone saw the documentary with the british journalists that where following the american SF-group leading the kurds from the north towards Bagdad (or Tikrit most likely)?

The americans was driving several humvees, the kurds several trucks with open backs.

There was one destroyed tank some 40-50m from the position where they all stopped and discovered several Iraq'i tanks. The SF-group called in airsupport (from an F-15 flying low-support, i.e. shooting off hand, without target confirmation, at high speed) and the bombs was dropped right on the SF-group and kurds, along with the journalists...one of the most scaring piece of documentary I have seen (since we where told before it started that they where hit by friendly fire - just like waiting for a baby getting run down by a train).

Several SF-members and more kurds whre killed, along with one of the journalists driver. Many, many where wounded. One thing that where good to see was the high level of proffesionalism by the surviving SF-members, running around giving first aid, estimating level of wounds on victims and so on. And this when their own was laing dead just beside them...

[Imshi-Yallah]

I wonder was it an ANG unit?
They provided the maestro who bombed the hell out of an SF/Kurd column in Northern Iraq, when tasked with targeting a single hull down tank.
Unless I'm mistaken it was also an ANG pilot who attacked those Canadians on exercise in Afghanistan?

[Argyll]

No US SF were killed in this incident.

This happened shortly after the action that saw several US SF awarded the Silver Star

[Yahalom]

Anyone saw the documentary with the british journalists that where following the american SF-group leading the kurds from the north towards Bagdad (or Tikrit most likely)?

Allthough quality is poor you can see here some of the videos of this accident.

http://www.*********.com/elements/usa/iraq%202003/2003%204%207/2003%204%207%20BBC%20friendfire.wmv

http://www.*********.com/elements/usa/iraq%202003/2003%204%207/2003%204%207%20friendly%20fire%20all.wmv

On contrary take a look on Saddam's regime crimes.

http://www.*********.com/elements/usa/iraq%202003/2004%20january/saddam%20execution.wmv

[Truthsayer]

Thanks, but I saw the documentary when it was broadcasted.

It just seems that...once again an fly-boy makes an mistake and the once on the ground has to suffer...AND gets the blame, as in the case of the first post of this thread.

Maybe both is to blame, maybe none is to blame, or maybe the doctrine of having airplanes doing low-altitude rapid support is all wrong...not sure what other countries that does this, ut it sure seems to open up for a lot more mistakes.

[Royal]

The incident in N.Iraq, was the fault of the troops on the ground not the USAF (you won't hear me say that very often ;) ).

The FAC on the ground called in his own grid and the pilot dropped the ordnance exactly where he was told to.

[Scrim]

Another article.

By Hector Becerra, Robert J. Lopez and Rich Connell
Los Angeles Times
Monday, March 29, 2004

As many as 10 Marines may have been killed by friendly fire in the midst of the deadliest battle of the Iraq war when a Marine air controller mistakenly cleared Air Force A-10 jets to attack U.S. positions, according to a long-awaited military investigation.

The report paints a chaotic picture of the March 23, 2003, battle in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah, as Marines fought to seize two bridges crucial to the American advance on Baghdad.

When Marine units around the city lost communication, commanders became confused about the location of U.S. troops. Two tank-busting jets were given permission by a controller to attack what turned out to be a forward Marine company. The documents describe 15 minutes of air attacks on the friendly forces using 30 mm Gatling guns, Maverick missiles and bombs, ending in the destruction of two amphibious assault vehicles that were trying to evacuate wounded Marines.

The full report, running hundreds of pages, is scheduled to be released this week.

In contrast to the descriptions of precision bombing that have come to define the U.S. military, Marine and Air Force investigators documented a chain of faulty battlefield assumptions by the Marine forward air controller and other commanders who did not know where their troops were arrayed on the battlefield and had scant means of communicating during the fight.

In all, 18 Marines were killed and 17 were wounded during three hours of intense fighting with Iraqi army troops and militiamen.

"The A-10s targeted what turned out to be" U.S. Marines, the report states, "making multiple passes against them.

"Eventually, the A-10s were told to cease fire, which they did."

Of the 18 killed, the investigation found that eight had died "solely" as the result of enemy fire. But it added, "the intensity of the enemy fire, combined with friendly fire, makes it impossible to conclusively determine the exact sequence and source of fires that killed the other 10 Marines." The Marines who might have been killed by friendly fire were not identified in the documents obtained by the Times. Of the 17 Marines wounded in the battle, four were hit by a combination of enemy and friendly fire, the investigation found.

In a carefully choreographed release, the nearly 900-page report was presented Saturday in briefings to relatives of Marines who had died that day. The emotional, and sometimes tense, sessions unfolded simultaneously in living rooms from Southern California to Connecticut.

Some relatives welcomed the briefings, saying the process would help them move on. Others said the report left painful questions unanswered.

Larry Hutchings, 52, of Boiling Springs, S.C., was told that his son, Cpl. Nolen Hutchings, had died in a Marine vehicle hit by both a U.S. missile and an Iraqi rocket-propelled grenade. "They don't know which hit it first," he said.

The A-10s are equipped with gun cameras that take pictures of what they are shooting, but Hutchings said he had been told that the film no longer existed. "They said they were recorded over accidentally," he said.

Like many other family members, Hutchings questioned why the report had taken so long to release. He said a Marine officer had told him Saturday that the investigation had "sat on somebody's desk" for four months.

"He didn't have an explanation for that," Hutchings said.

Two casualty officers delivered the news in a living room in Rialto, Calif., to Lance Cpl. Jorge Gonzalez's parents, Mario and Rosa, and the Marine's widow, Jasty Gonzalez.

Amid countless photos of Gonzalez, the Marines told the family that Gonzalez had died from enemy fire, suffering extensive damage to his legs and head. His 1-year-old son, who was born after Gonzalez left for the Persian Gulf, played in the family's living room during the briefing.

Rosa Gonzalez, the Marine's mother, expressed anger even before the briefing began. "What's insulting is that it took a year for this," she said.

Marine Capt. Matthew Bucher explained the sequence of the battle. "He had passed on at a point before the Air Force jets showed up," Bucher said. "Your son was killed by Iraqi enemy fire. He was killed by what's called indirect fire from the enemy. An enemy mortar man was the cause of your son's death, not friendly fire." Gonzalez's death appeared to have been very quick, he said.

The Marines told the tearful mother that neither her son's body, nor the position the Americans had taken, had ever been lost to Iraqis, trying to allay a fear that has haunted Gonzalez's parents since they saw televised footage that showed dead servicemen and thought they saw their son.

Between heaving sobs, Rosa Gonzalez expressed in her basic English some relief that, at long last, she was being told that her son had died from enemy fire. She asked the casualty officers why the military hadn't sent in tanks or laid down air strikes before sending her son's company to the bridge. There were still Iraqi civilians living in nearby homes who had never been evacuated by the Iraqi government, the family was told.

The Marine's wife said that, after hearing stories from Marines who had fought in Nasiriyah, she had feared that her husband had been struck by aircraft fire. "I was expecting to hear, 'I'm sorry, but he was killed by the A-10,'" she said after being briefed. "I'm glad it wasn't friendly fire. It would have made me furious if it had been."

The battle for the bridges in Nasiriyah began early on March 23, the fourth day of the war. The mission for Charlie Company, part of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment out of Camp Lejeune, N.C., was to secure a bridge across the Saddam Canal on the northern edge of the city. Controlling the span was essential to opening a route for a massive Marine Expeditionary Force to attack Baghdad.

Charlie Company, riding in a convoy of 11 amphibious assault vehicles, or tracks, ended up alone at the north bridge, with other units scattered at southern and eastern edges of the city.

As the surrounded company fought to hold the bridge, the Air Force A-10s began circling overhead. Initially, some of the Marines felt a sense of relief; American firepower was at hand. But the planes turned against them.

A Marine forward air controller, stationed with a unit southeast of the bridge, cleared two A-10 attack jets to fire upon vehicles north of the bridge. The controller believed he was with the lead Marine unit and that only Iraqis were north of the canal, according to a separate Air Force report on the incident, which was included with the military investigation.

The air controller, responsible for directing jets in support of ground troops, did not realize that Charlie Company had seized the bridge, as ordered, and assumed positions to its north, the Air Force report states.

When he cleared the jets to attack targets north of the bridge, the forward air controller could see neither the jets nor the targets.

The controller, the report states, notified the A-10s "that no friendlies were north ... of the canal."

The two jets then dropped three bombs on Marines' positions, the report states. But Marines on the ground, apparently mistaking the bomb explosions for Iraqi mortar fire, did not realize they were under attack by U.S. aircraft until the A-10s began firing at them with their rapid-fire 30 mm -guns, the report states.

"Numerous witnesses stated that they saw Marines killed or struck by 30 mm rounds" and heard or saw Marine amphibious assault vehicles struck by 30 mm rounds, the report states, adding that the Marines tried to fire "doctrinal ordnance" to alert the jets that they were attacking friendly positions -- to no avail.

Then, as Marines began evacuating wounded from the battlefield by driving four amphibious assault vehicles back across the bridge to the south, they were attacked again by both A-10s.

The pilots told investigators, according to the Air Force report, that the Marine forward air controller had instructed them "not to let those vehicles get across the bridge."

One of the jets attacked and hit one of the Marine vehicles with a Maverick missile 100 meters south of the bridge "and destroyed it." The second jet fired a Maverick at a second Marine vehicle 200 meters south of the bridge and destroyed it as well.

The engagement ended when a platoon commander from Charlie Company finally managed to get a forward command post on the radio and reported that his men were under friendly fire assault. The forward air controller then ordered the jets to "'check fire' ... and told them that there may have been Marines north of the Saddam Canal," the Air Force report states.


The tapes were recorded over accidently my ass.

[Kriz]

Do they still use Dexidrine ? Like in the first gulf war it grants the ability to stay awake longer thus pilots can fly more and longer but apparently it makes you all mellow and severly reduces your recognition, aiming, alertnes,... and has caused more off these friendly fire incidents.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I don't get it. It's like there's some kind of spell that comes over some of these guys when there's a target assigned. The visibility seems to be good - I'm at a loss to explain how the pilots were not able to ID the humvees & landcruisers with "TV" on the side (on the BBC video) and the Marine AAVs (hell, they don't look like anything else!).

If they're not sure, could they not at least make a pass to verify what they're shooting at? Considering what's at stake, the pilots are way to eager to release ordinance. I know the pilots may be afraid of MANPADS etc, but damn - mistakes like these are too costly.

"Accidentally erased" mkay....

[Royal]

I don't get it. It's like there's some kind of spell that comes over some of these guys when there's a target assigned. The visibility seems to be good - I'm at a loss to explain how the pilots were not able to ID the humvees & landcruisers with "TV" on the side (on the BBC video) and the Marine AAVs (hell, they don't look like anything else!).

As I said...


The incident in N.Iraq, was the fault of the troops on the ground not the USAF (you won't hear me say that very often ).

The FAC on the ground called in his own grid and the pilot dropped the ordnance exactly where he was told to.

all the jet jockey did was key in the coordinates to the GPS as they were given...

[chauncy republicans]

Do they still use Dexidrine ? Like in the first gulf war it grants the ability to stay awake longer thus pilots can fly more and longer but apparently it makes you all mellow and severly reduces your recognition, aiming, alertnes,... and has caused more off these friendly fire incidents. I think they still do. Sure in the heat of battle mistakes do happen, everything is split-second, but why did they keep firing after cease-fire flares were activated? Being a low flying aircraft shouldnt the pilot have identified them as friendly? I wont even comment on the cockpit tape that was recorded over. :|

[Johnnyringo]

This isn't just a case of "here's the coordinates, drop the bombs"... They strafed the target with their main gun after firing two missiles... That's really the part that pisses me off.

If there is a pilot on this forum that actually has some experiance in how well they can ID armor from the air, please chime in. I'm guessing most of us so far have never seen the inside of a cockpit anyway.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I don't get it. It's like there's some kind of spell that comes over some of these guys when there's a target assigned. The visibility seems to be good - I'm at a loss to explain how the pilots were not able to ID the humvees & landcruisers with "TV" on the side (on the BBC video) and the Marine AAVs (hell, they don't look like anything else!).

As I said...


The incident in N.Iraq, was the fault of the troops on the ground not the USAF (you won't hear me say that very often ).

The FAC on the ground called in his own grid and the pilot dropped the ordnance exactly where he was told to.


all the jet jockey did was key in the coordinates to the GPS as they were given...

Well that may be true, but isn't it still the pilot's job to ID what he's dropping ordinance on? I mean, it wasn't night time, it wasn't overcast - should have been pretty easy to orbit for 45 secs & confirm things. I'd say they at least share the blame on that one...

[Truthsayer]

I don't get it. It's like there's some kind of spell that comes over some of these guys when there's a target assigned. The visibility seems to be good - I'm at a loss to explain how the pilots were not able to ID the humvees & landcruisers with "TV" on the side (on the BBC video) and the Marine AAVs (hell, they don't look like anything else!).

As I said...


The incident in N.Iraq, was the fault of the troops on the ground not the USAF (you won't hear me say that very often ).

The FAC on the ground called in his own grid and the pilot dropped the ordnance exactly where he was told to.

all the jet jockey did was key in the coordinates to the GPS as they were given...

Do you have any source that support this claim?

We actually see the fighter come in seconds before it drops the bomb, some said it was a low as 500 feet most of the time of patroling, and shot soon after the was called. The bomb wasn't delivered on co-ordinates. The target-_area_ might be set in co-ordinates, but the acctual drop is very much manual and intended. Target was '3 tanks' and he dropped a bomb on '3 humvees, 4 jeeps(?) and some trucks'. Doesn't seem right to me.

I have seen the documentary twice and saved the tv-rip above for later reference.

[AFACadet]

:roll:


I love reading most of these responses


(and by love, I mean don't love)




(now the flames will come and I'll have to decide if I want spend the time even writing responses considering they go in one ear and out the other)

[Johnnyringo]

Great post Cadet??..... jackass

[AFACadet]

Yup, you're a WINNER!!!!!





Like most of the others on this thread were




(which was part of my point)





EDIT: Someone make an intelligent post and I'll give an intelligent response. A couple in this thread did in fact do that (at least on a couple of their posts--and you probably know who you are). I've already gone over the topic with these people so I feel I don't need to do it again--it won't do any good (not being rude, but that's just how it is).


The rest were simply more wordy versions of mine (you also know who you are).

[Johnnyringo]

so you have nothing of value to add to this thread...

experiance.....
knowledge....
training....

just wanted to drop in and flame??

STFU

[AFACadet]

See my edit above

[Johnnyringo]

Yup, you're a WINNER!!!!!

Like most of the others on this thread were

(which was part of my point)

EDIT: Someone make an intelligent post and I'll give an intelligent response. A couple in this thread did in fact do that (at least on a couple of their posts--and you probably know who you are). I've already gone over the topic with these people so I feel I don't need to do it again--it won't do any good (not being rude, but that's just how it is).

The rest were simply more wordy versions of mine (you also know who you are).

Because we have been waiting for AFAcadet to come along and explain to us how this could have happened in all his 20 plus years experiance, not to mention the real world missions he's been on. Oh please, oh please CADET enlighten us. Obviously your mocking tone implies you know something we don't....

anytime buddy....

[alphabet]

Smells like bull****.

[Royal]

Do you have any source that support this claim?

Not that I'm going to give to you, no.


We actually see the fighter come in seconds before it drops the bomb, some said it was a low as 500 feet most of the time of patroling, and shot soon after the was called. The bomb wasn't delivered on co-ordinates. The target-_area_ might be set in co-ordinates, but the acctual drop is very much manual and intended. Target was '3 tanks' and he dropped a bomb on '3 humvees, 4 jeeps(?) and some trucks'. Doesn't seem right to me.

I have seen the documentary twice and saved the tv-rip above for later reference.

I saw it on TV....

Even been in a jet cockpit orbiting at 4 or 500 knots? Seen how much you can see on clear day? No, I thought not. I have, once, when I did my FAC's course - you do it just to give you an idea what a hard job it is for the guy driving and fighting the jet.

When you drop a GPS guided bomb, you drop it where you are told to.

[mustamato]

Some Marines who survived the attack are bitter.

"That was my second time being strafed by an A-10," 1st. Lt. Michael Seeley said on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered." "First Gulf War I was strafed. If I can't work with Marine air, I don't want to work with anything."

Second time? Like wtf?


A Marine captain at a forward command post called two Air Force A-10s to attack targets north of the canal.

This part I don´t get. If they believed that there were no Americans north of
the bridge, what the fokk were the Iraqis shooting at then? This reminds me
of what happened in northern Iraq when a Kurd/US SF-convoy was hit, the
SF FAC answered "yup that´s your target" when the pilot said that he saw a
couple of vehicles on a road.


Although the pilots of those aircraft were absolved of blame, some in the Marine Corps question why the pilots weren't better trained to spot the friendly vehicles, why flares fired by the Marines did not halt their fire, and why the cockpit videotapes of the incident were apparently recorded over.

Wtf?

[Truthsayer]

Do you have any source that support this claim?

Not that I'm going to give to you, no.


We actually see the fighter come in seconds before it drops the bomb, some said it was a low as 500 feet most of the time of patroling, and shot soon after the was called. The bomb wasn't delivered on co-ordinates. The target-_area_ might be set in co-ordinates, but the acctual drop is very much manual and intended. Target was '3 tanks' and he dropped a bomb on '3 humvees, 4 jeeps(?) and some trucks'. Doesn't seem right to me.

I have seen the documentary twice and saved the tv-rip above for later reference.

I saw it on TV....

Even been in a jet cockpit orbiting at 4 or 500 knots? Seen how much you can see on clear day? No, I thought not. I have, once, when I did my FAC's course - you do it just to give you an idea what a hard job it is for the guy driving and fighting the jet.

When you drop a GPS guided bomb, you drop it where you are told to.

No, I have never been in a cockpit during a live fire-mission.

That is why I want to know more. Thanks for making it harder by denieing any or all info and instead attacking the person who ask for it to understand.