Ahh, the Gulf War. Long tactical patrols without a shot to be fired until you face contact with your own aircraft who then proceed to attempt to schwack you with blue on blue... That war wasn't a waste of time... no sir!
@JRandTanner some examples would be nice, this scene depicting a friendly fire incident appears on the level as the majority of friendly fire incidents were aircraft mistakenly attacking friendly ground forces, and I don't know of any war movie that is extremely realistic.
@22steve5150 1. They dont use the sniper fire 1 2 3 fire fire like that its 1 2 fire fire. 2. Swafford was transfered 9 times in less than ONE YEAR that says something 3. When the guy was killed at the beggining how come there was no fallout from that. 4. The christmas "party" wouldn't of happened because we were on high alert 5. None of these people swafford said he was with remember ANY of this happening
@22steve5150 6. YOU CANNOT SHOOT into the distance like in the end especcially with live rounds, THAT IS EXTREMLY ILLEGAL AND THE ENTIRE PLATOON WOULDVE BEEN SENT TO THE BRIG FOR ATLEAST 10 YRS. 7. No such thing as a wall of shame. 8. When we were sent to the border none of the Marines got artillery fire they fought ground troops and swafford woldn't be staring in the distance like a retard.
@JRandTanner searched like crazy and the only controversies with this film I could find is 1-the movie script is a bit different from the book and has elements of other marine authored books, 2-the mother of the guy who died right after the war was upset that he was portrayed as athiest/agnostic, claiming he was a believer in god. couldnt find other marines claiming bullshit, or evidence that he was a shitbag marine.
@JRandTanner furthermore, almost all of your "examples" are minor realism gaffes, and ALL war movies make those, just like every other genre of film. as for things like a "wall of shame", nobody is in position to claim true or false without asking all 700,000 US personnel involved. If something like guys firing guns in the air is worthy of all caps then I might remind you that firing on noncombatants and hazing are also things that are against laws and regulations and still happen
@22steve5150 Off course, majority of the friendly fire incidents were caused by friendly aircraft but also adding contributing factors that friendly tanks mistakenly fired on friendly forces. During the ground war in 1991, the forces are constantly moving, the battle line is constantly moving, and friendly units are in close engagement with enemy forces and occupying areas previously held by enemy forces. The moving against enemy troops with full adrenaline is also contribution to friendly fire.
@Jeffo193 yes it does sum up US forces well. A month long curb stomp that killed 35,000 enemy while losing 148 men to battle (35 friendly fire) and 145 to accidents. Yeah, I'll take those numbers all fucking day.
@Jeffo193 Hooray indeed. Much effort was used to keep civilian deaths at a minimum especially compared to virtually all warfare that ever took place before it. Look at civilian casualties for WW1 and WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Russian invasion of Afganistan, French wars in Indochina and Algeria, Spanish Civil war, ect. If you want to point the finger at someone you would be better served pointing it at Hussein for starting the war to begin with.
@22steve5150 I'm not pointing fingers, just saying that the american forces seem to have a high incidence of so-called friendly fire...I say "so-called" not because i believe it was actually intentional, but because i think "friendly" fire is a stupid name for it :P
@Jemalacane dumb ass those are A-10's they dont fire "machine guns" not even mini guns they have Gatling gun that is as big as too ford tundras lined up in front of ech other the bullet of the GAU-8 ( the "machine gune" as you call it " the bullet is the size of the length from your elbow to the tip of your finger those bullets destroy tanks "hence the name tank killers" during the first gulf war " movie time period also" they killed all of saddams tanks dead in there tracks so educate urself
@ReconSniperGuy It doesn't work that way, they know they got men out somewhere, but they dunno exactly where, which is why formations are so important. They see the formation, they know it's friendly, else they think you're the enemy.
@metalkozel The GAU-8 is for anything that does not fly, and even that's debatable. A single A-10 could probably hatefuck a helicopter right out of the sky.
A half-second burst will cover a 160m radius at maximum effective range, so whatever is in that circle is either dead, going to die soon or wishing it was dead.
@Kriegsarschmann for once hollywood explosions are underwhelming for the real thing, GAU-8 rounds hitting the ground near the marines would not throw up those tiny puffs of smoke but rather look something more like that video British troops took when an A-10 strafed too near them.
terrifying stuff, nobody wants to be on the wrong side of it.
@rexregum Wholeheartedly agree, when those 30mm rounds hit, people forget that they originally start out the size of beer bottles. It's easy to underestimate the raw volume of destructive force that comes out of the GAU-8, especially when it's using DU rounds. They're self-sharpening, light shit on fire and tear through anything.
@dandistarto "We call this friendly fucking, friendly fucked or getting friendly fucked. Sounds like finger fuck but it feels much different, I'm sure." -Anthony Swofford
@MisterPainiac 4d special effects? during a film series at UMich, the Fluorescent light cover fell at the same time the main character got thrown into a wall by a thug.
I don't know if I believe that the only reason they made a gun pass on them is because 1 guy was running around. I mean, how would they even notice that? The A-10s were damn near already past the troops before he even started running around. This scene always frustrated me.
Not entirely sure where you heard that from but the aircraft's actual name is A-10 Thunderbolt II. It's nickname was "Warthog" and in this clip it's referred to as "Warthog". "Warhawks" were WWII fighters, a Curtis P-40.
@143rdShadowARCunit No, if that happened, you would be executed. The common friendly fire is an incident like this perhaps, when a squad goes out of formation, or in general when allies are somehow mistaken for enemies and are fired upon.
@baronvonchunk Doesn't the military need confirmation before they can open fire? And aren't most terrorists or people being attacked that AREN'T US military, in something other than a uniform?
@143rdShadowARCunit If a squad is in immediate danger and need to defend themselves, or if they have had previously been given orders to fire upon (already identified targets) then they will do so. If anybody is out there, with a gun, with no uniform or ID, in the middle of a warzone, of course they're not going to be friendly.
@baronvonchunk but these guys DID have uniforms. Plus Military issued vehicles, of course I guess they could have been stolen, but they would still have to check first.
@143rdShadowARCunit i wasnt talking about this particular situation. It's just portraying the worst of the worst, the combination of bad luck, bad intel, and bad protocol. Besides, you wouldn't be able to tell a friendly uniform first try speeding past in an A10.
they should all be dead the gun on a warthog is a best it took out an air base in 2 pass ridiculous rate of fire they should have been Swiss chess when the warthogs where done man do i love that plane
ZOMG! A troll on youtube! This can't be, I must defend my honor by arguing with it- employing evidence, logic and superior reasoning skills to stop the troll from defacing this bastion of intellectual discourse we call youtube. STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS BOOTS
People like to bash the US cause of friendly fire...but the fact of the matter remains we ARE ALWAYS the ones looking out for our British allies on the ground considering we probably run 90% of air operations over there...shits bound to happen.
@blair91234 im english should probably say that first.....i know what you mean you lot run most of the airforce over there so eventuslly someting gonna go wrong. but we are quite proud of our lack of friendly fire..we are actually pretty good at not hitting our allies, i dont know why we are just really good at it. so we just kinda poke fun at you lot for it
@Sam93Brown If you look at the rates compared to 70 years ago...or EVEN 20 years ago...we are really good at not hitting our allies also. In world war 2 hundreds of people would die at a time in friendly fire incidents...theres just not hardly any FF anymore. The rates are almost nothing...and no one credits us.
@blair91234 i know what you mean its kind of a british thing to take the mick out of you for it...its a stereotype....like you taking the mick out of us because 'we all have abd teeth and talk like the queen'....when its just not true, we have good teeth and there are thousands of different accents in england. there can be a massive accent change in the north of england in areas that are abuot an hour apart, where that isnt really something that america has
@blair91234 Fair point. But that doesnt make it better though, i mean did you hear about the hostage that was killed by an American throwing a grenade into the den she was taken to? But let`s be honest, without Americans to back us up then we most likely wont be able to continue fighting. And do people really take the piss out of you for that? I dont know anyone who does it.
@DreamAway55 Yeah I did, but I guess you didn't, cause if you did, you would have known the hostage was going to be moved in a short time and they hardly had any time to plan or gear up...not to mention on the way to rescue her, they were killing insurgents on every corner...can't win em all.
@DreamAway55 I know this is an old comment but I just wanna say, they had believed she was in an entirely different part of the compound, they had just moved her there. Sad I know.
@blair91234 That's not the fact of the matter AT ALL. "considering we probably run 90% of air operations over there" You base this crap on what? Nothing. It's the British who had to rescue captured american agents, so how about you get over yourself.
@stig781 How about you shut the fuck up...you fucking pull out of your ass ONE fucking incident. Cry me a river, we killed bin laden FAGGOT NOW SHOVE A DICK IN YOUR FACE AND GET THE FUCK OFF YOUTUBE.
@blair91234 Seem a little defensive there, whats wrong with me using we're would you rather me say NATO which the United States pulled us into, and being a Royal Marines Officer Cadet means I will be going to Afghanistan commanding a Troop on the front line as a liutenent when I finish training,
@NathanAndrewLonsdale "Cadet" you havn't done SHIT for your country you spineless faggot, so shut the fuck up and don't use the word "we're" if you havn't done a single fucking thing.
@blair91234 If by "win" you mean attack Canada, fail, and then get handed your freedom because Britian lost interest in the war. Sure..
Canada doesn't need to fight wars by itself, because we don't piss everyone off, we aren't a shitty country that everyone hates, and we don't force ourselves into other people's business. We only go to war when asked to help or it's needed. Like when the US asked Canada to help in the middle east.
Stop being ungrateful cunts, and maybe someone will like you.
@ThazuaBlackarrow Dude you're talking to someone with a country that has itself aligned with more countries than Canada could ever hope to be. Not bashing Canada, but stop saying retarded things.
@ThazuaBlackarrow In most of the wars this United States has fought, they were originally coming to someone's aid, Spanish American war (which they fucked up by taking imperialist influence over the countries they liberated: "meet the new boss, same as the old one") They fought for Chinese in the pacific war (also alot for themselves) fought for the Brits in World War I,II. and probably again in III, fought for the south Vietnamese regime that couldn't run itself without some monks catching fire
@1makermovie when your flying hundreds of feet up to do an airstrike like that, doing 200 + mph, i dont think you can tell the different between friend and foe unless they're marked in some way. and a radar? this isnt fucking call of duty.
@1makermovie its vehicle. and they may have a radar, but its not like a fucking game where your men are flashing blue. and look at the comment i responded to and you'd know why i said CoD....
@1makermovie, hmmmm you really have no clue.... First off, planes are rarely used to combat each other anymore... it happens but its more of a ground game as in bombing... technology fails and friendly fire happens... I'm gunna put you in a vehichle traveling at a couple hundred knots per second and see if you can tell me and a gorilla apart... the one guy actually does run back away... and ITS A FREAKIN BOMB RUN!!! THEY DONT CARE IF YOU ARE SHOOTING THEM they have a target lock and fire...
@cloventaco54 1) iraqi soldiers could shoot the plane but not take them out im not saying they can and i think 1 soldier is equiping a RPG or something like that?
2) maybe hiding behind a car is COVER and i said also RUNNING AWAY
3) is the plane was going mach 1-2 you would get a sonic boom and you can only go to mach 1-2 at a hight around 60.000 feet FAIL or at sea
4) a rader only caught planes? hell no also vehcile's FAIL
1.no cant,the A-10 warthog is specifically designed to take shots from RPGs or other forms of AA
2.those humvees wouldnt cut it(The Thunderbolt II's 30mm GAU-8/A Gatling gun can fire 3,900 rounds a minute and can defeat an array of ground targets to include TANKS FAS.com) who would be stupid enough to try and out run a jet?
3. fine doc +200 mph you still cant tell shit from dots
4.this isnt MW2 were it literally points out friendlys
@cloventaco54 1) if it was designed to take such shots why dont they do it with other planes?
2) dude if someone is pointing a gun on your head would you stand behind some bit of cover or not?
3) you need to look how high he is speed doesnt matter if your reading and going with high speed its difficult but you can atleast see a humvee what the IRAQI soldier DINT HAD
4)im not talking about mw2 bitch you can see VEHCILE'S WITH A RADAR
1) Its very hard to do that to many air craft, the A-10 has a role; ground attack. Its made to take AA hits from 12.7mm, 20mm, and some missiles. Though the A-10 looked fast, compared to a modern multirole fighter the A-10 is slow.
3-4) During the 1990s our radar system was still very old, back then radar on air craft only showed where the object was, sadly your can mistake a Hummer for a BTR-152 which might have been in service with the Iraqis at the time.
@1makermovie keyboard warrior.thhinking he is hot shit.if you havent been to combat dont talk.and you dont know how many times A-10s and other airforce planes and choppers have caused friendly fire with advance and lowtech radar..do some research pal.
@360Nomad Hey u try to tell the difference from tanks to humvees at 400mph and 1500 ft u idiot. You cant blame the pilots, pilots follow orders. During the gulf war friendly fire was almost always the fault of AWACS and the airbases giving false info towards the pilots all the pilots did was follow orders think before u post.
@360Nomad You do realize it is really fucking hard to see shit from 1000 ft. off the ground and traveling in excess of 200 to 400 mph. And we're only human.
I've seen a real video of A-10's friendly fire. They were trying to confirm a vehicle mistook it for an iraqi armored vehicle with missile on top (Sam) and opened fire. Killed 2 british troops.
Its extremely sad situation as this happens. When the pilots receive the shocking news that the british guys on the ground were trying to tell them to cease fire, and that at the end they killed 2 guys the pilots were in tears. He couldnt get over himself.
As far as Im concerd there must be something going correct - Americans are the ones dropping bombs on friendly soldiers; but hey, I guess thats too much Modern Warfare the pilot thought they would all respawn? :{
oh shit friendly fire's on!!!
TotalyRandomReviews 2 weeks ago
Ahh, the Gulf War. Long tactical patrols without a shot to be fired until you face contact with your own aircraft who then proceed to attempt to schwack you with blue on blue... That war wasn't a waste of time... no sir!
unparallelshadows 3 weeks ago
The a-10 is actually built around the gun
DiZzEeRaScAl14 1 month ago
unrealistic and innaccurate movie
JRandTanner 2 months ago
@JRandTanner US lost 35 men to friendly fire incidents during the conflict, what is so inaccurate?
22steve5150 1 month ago
@22steve5150 If you were actually there (I was at Khafji) you'd know that over half this movie is fake and based on old Marine urban legends.
JRandTanner 1 month ago
@JRandTanner some examples would be nice, this scene depicting a friendly fire incident appears on the level as the majority of friendly fire incidents were aircraft mistakenly attacking friendly ground forces, and I don't know of any war movie that is extremely realistic.
22steve5150 1 month ago
@22steve5150 1. They dont use the sniper fire 1 2 3 fire fire like that its 1 2 fire fire. 2. Swafford was transfered 9 times in less than ONE YEAR that says something 3. When the guy was killed at the beggining how come there was no fallout from that. 4. The christmas "party" wouldn't of happened because we were on high alert 5. None of these people swafford said he was with remember ANY of this happening
JRandTanner 1 month ago
@22steve5150 6. YOU CANNOT SHOOT into the distance like in the end especcially with live rounds, THAT IS EXTREMLY ILLEGAL AND THE ENTIRE PLATOON WOULDVE BEEN SENT TO THE BRIG FOR ATLEAST 10 YRS. 7. No such thing as a wall of shame. 8. When we were sent to the border none of the Marines got artillery fire they fought ground troops and swafford woldn't be staring in the distance like a retard.
JRandTanner 1 month ago
@JRandTanner searched like crazy and the only controversies with this film I could find is 1-the movie script is a bit different from the book and has elements of other marine authored books, 2-the mother of the guy who died right after the war was upset that he was portrayed as athiest/agnostic, claiming he was a believer in god. couldnt find other marines claiming bullshit, or evidence that he was a shitbag marine.
22steve5150 1 month ago
@JRandTanner furthermore, almost all of your "examples" are minor realism gaffes, and ALL war movies make those, just like every other genre of film. as for things like a "wall of shame", nobody is in position to claim true or false without asking all 700,000 US personnel involved. If something like guys firing guns in the air is worthy of all caps then I might remind you that firing on noncombatants and hazing are also things that are against laws and regulations and still happen
22steve5150 1 month ago
@22steve5150 Off course, majority of the friendly fire incidents were caused by friendly aircraft but also adding contributing factors that friendly tanks mistakenly fired on friendly forces. During the ground war in 1991, the forces are constantly moving, the battle line is constantly moving, and friendly units are in close engagement with enemy forces and occupying areas previously held by enemy forces. The moving against enemy troops with full adrenaline is also contribution to friendly fire.
Hperman09 3 weeks ago
Smooth
Halostar101 2 months ago
@mmamarinecore3 don't be a dick fatfuck
xyzaffair12345 2 months ago
Wow how the fuck did they not see there friendlys?
Transformers much?!
indirulz1234 2 months ago
Friendly fire...isn't.
kevslf1 2 months ago
Just about sums up the american forces...
Jeffo193 2 months ago
@Jeffo193 yes it does sum up US forces well. A month long curb stomp that killed 35,000 enemy while losing 148 men to battle (35 friendly fire) and 145 to accidents. Yeah, I'll take those numbers all fucking day.
22steve5150 1 month ago
@22steve5150 And also the deaths of 3500 innocent Iraqi citizens due to the bombing alone! Hooray USA!
Jeffo193 1 month ago
@Jeffo193 Hooray indeed. Much effort was used to keep civilian deaths at a minimum especially compared to virtually all warfare that ever took place before it. Look at civilian casualties for WW1 and WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Russian invasion of Afganistan, French wars in Indochina and Algeria, Spanish Civil war, ect. If you want to point the finger at someone you would be better served pointing it at Hussein for starting the war to begin with.
22steve5150 1 month ago
@22steve5150 I'm not pointing fingers, just saying that the american forces seem to have a high incidence of so-called friendly fire...I say "so-called" not because i believe it was actually intentional, but because i think "friendly" fire is a stupid name for it :P
Jeffo193 4 weeks ago
Why is it that whenever something gets machine gunned in a movie it blows up?
Jemalacane 3 months ago
@Jemalacane dumb ass those are A-10's they dont fire "machine guns" not even mini guns they have Gatling gun that is as big as too ford tundras lined up in front of ech other the bullet of the GAU-8 ( the "machine gune" as you call it " the bullet is the size of the length from your elbow to the tip of your finger those bullets destroy tanks "hence the name tank killers" during the first gulf war " movie time period also" they killed all of saddams tanks dead in there tracks so educate urself
MMAMarinecore3 2 months ago
@MMAMarinecore3 or you couold have told him to google highway of death
iamgig9876 2 months ago
probably the AF's jets, bastards
Reallyhoopy2 3 months ago
I guess friendly fire was on?
michaelmyers96ify 4 months ago
why were the warthogs shooting at them?
ReconSniperGuy 4 months ago
@ReconSniperGuy They dropped out of formation, therefore marking them as unknown infantry to the air above.
yesiamawizardjonny 4 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny ooh ok then. but didnt the warthogs hade the intel that the man where there?
ReconSniperGuy 4 months ago
@ReconSniperGuy It doesn't work that way, they know they got men out somewhere, but they dunno exactly where, which is why formations are so important. They see the formation, they know it's friendly, else they think you're the enemy.
LiouTao 3 months ago
@LiouTao ok tanks
ReconSniperGuy 3 months ago
Do A-10 use GAU-8 against infantry? Just asking out of curiosity.
metalkozel 4 months ago
@metalkozel The GAU-8 is for anything that does not fly, and even that's debatable. A single A-10 could probably hatefuck a helicopter right out of the sky.
A half-second burst will cover a 160m radius at maximum effective range, so whatever is in that circle is either dead, going to die soon or wishing it was dead.
Kriegsarschmann 4 months ago
@Kriegsarschmann for once hollywood explosions are underwhelming for the real thing, GAU-8 rounds hitting the ground near the marines would not throw up those tiny puffs of smoke but rather look something more like that video British troops took when an A-10 strafed too near them.
terrifying stuff, nobody wants to be on the wrong side of it.
rexregum 4 months ago
@rexregum Wholeheartedly agree, when those 30mm rounds hit, people forget that they originally start out the size of beer bottles. It's easy to underestimate the raw volume of destructive force that comes out of the GAU-8, especially when it's using DU rounds. They're self-sharpening, light shit on fire and tear through anything.
Scary shit.
Kriegsarschmann 4 months ago
Comment removed
metalkozel 4 months ago
friendly fire much?
dandistarto 4 months ago 6
@dandistarto "We call this friendly fucking, friendly fucked or getting friendly fucked. Sounds like finger fuck but it feels much different, I'm sure." -Anthony Swofford
unparallelshadows 1 week ago
A10S WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING -.-! SAMS LOCK ONTO THOSE TWO DUMBFUCKS!
BobBlobOfFancyPants 5 months ago
fowler! you fuckin squishy faced dumbass
oahuboi63 5 months ago
A-10s are fuckin beast >:D
WorldChampion1 6 months ago
why did my fuckin computer freeze?
MisterPainiac 7 months ago
@MisterPainiac 4d special effects? during a film series at UMich, the Fluorescent light cover fell at the same time the main character got thrown into a wall by a thug.
wikieditspam 6 months ago
jajajaja k pendejo
chikoADO1 7 months ago
Why would you call them "warthogs"? I think a better name is "puma"
typodaemon 7 months ago 15
@typodaemon HAHAHAHAH !!!! quit making up mythical creatures LOL
Canusayblunt 4 months ago
@typodaemon They grunt like a big when they shoot :D
Pointblankhits 3 months ago
@typodaemon you mean like the shoe company?
CampinCarl354 3 months ago
@typodaemon because they're mean and ugly just like warthogs
zZG3n0ciDeZz 2 months ago
@typodaemon Because as jet's go they're pretty ugly
SomeKornfan 2 months ago
@typodaemon red vs blue right?
residentevil5681 1 month ago
squishy face
GaryisaRoach 7 months ago
lol
"Are they supposed to come back?"
Soap74205 7 months ago
What the fuck!?
Duetschgas 7 months ago
Can both y'all chill the fuck out and just enjoy the video?
sauske248 8 months ago
cant we talk about the movie jarhead? please?
cloventaco54 8 months ago
Lol "aid"...when our allies fight along side with us, we have to give them equipment....your arguing a losing battle.
blair91234 8 months ago
2 millon dollars in tax payers money lost....
AirsoftReviewerMan 8 months ago
link te movie??
alexxsmart 9 months ago
its a fucking movie so chill its made to "ENTERTAIN" people
DopeyShadey 9 months ago
when you justify with "probably" your "probably" wrong but no bash at the guys in the air not there fault they get shit intel
LuckyWhiteLime 9 months ago
Do you people know we are ALLIES so stop arguing.
Counterops34 9 months ago
In response to all the people complaining about friendly fire and British vs. American air support:
Learn your god damned facts before spurting that particular brand of verbal diarrhea that seems to populate the majority of YouTube comments.
errOHneoS 9 months ago
@carlospicywiener895 No, just got my point across.
blair91234 9 months ago
this is why we can't have nice things...
masterchief3100 10 months ago 43
@masterchief3100 hahaha xD
WorldChampion1 6 months ago
I don't know if I believe that the only reason they made a gun pass on them is because 1 guy was running around. I mean, how would they even notice that? The A-10s were damn near already past the troops before he even started running around. This scene always frustrated me.
rsmoove2000 10 months ago
Does Anyone know Pat Tilmann?
I want to greet you from him
nuennsek96 10 months ago
Lol the warhawks where like want to see something funny ? lmfao ! Bomb ! Stay in formation next time !
MrPebo445 11 months ago
@MrPebo445 They're nicknamed "Warthogs" not Warhawks
SomeKornfan 10 months ago 19
@SomeKornfan The name of the Jets are Warthogs, The Marines call them Warhawks.
DeathBlazeProduction 7 months ago
@DeathBlazeProduction
Not entirely sure where you heard that from but the aircraft's actual name is A-10 Thunderbolt II. It's nickname was "Warthog" and in this clip it's referred to as "Warthog". "Warhawks" were WWII fighters, a Curtis P-40.
GhostBetrayer 7 months ago
Four people didn't stay in formation...
360Nomad 1 year ago
@zackary00rippin Oh, and you saw them not contact HQ right? Yeah, me neither.
baronvonchunk 1 year ago
@zackary00rippin This has happened plenty of times before. Search "Iraq friendly fire incidents" on google.
SouthSurreyMilitia 1 year ago
I never got the concept of friendly fire. 'Hey buddy, can I shoot ya in the foot? I can't? well too bad'
143rdShadowARCunit 1 year ago
@143rdShadowARCunit No, if that happened, you would be executed. The common friendly fire is an incident like this perhaps, when a squad goes out of formation, or in general when allies are somehow mistaken for enemies and are fired upon.
baronvonchunk 1 year ago
@baronvonchunk Doesn't the military need confirmation before they can open fire? And aren't most terrorists or people being attacked that AREN'T US military, in something other than a uniform?
143rdShadowARCunit 1 year ago
@143rdShadowARCunit If a squad is in immediate danger and need to defend themselves, or if they have had previously been given orders to fire upon (already identified targets) then they will do so. If anybody is out there, with a gun, with no uniform or ID, in the middle of a warzone, of course they're not going to be friendly.
baronvonchunk 1 year ago
@baronvonchunk but these guys DID have uniforms. Plus Military issued vehicles, of course I guess they could have been stolen, but they would still have to check first.
143rdShadowARCunit 1 year ago
@143rdShadowARCunit i wasnt talking about this particular situation. It's just portraying the worst of the worst, the combination of bad luck, bad intel, and bad protocol. Besides, you wouldn't be able to tell a friendly uniform first try speeding past in an A10.
baronvonchunk 1 year ago
@baronvonchunk well thats true. What do the casualties range between in instances like this?
143rdShadowARCunit 1 year ago
GO AIR FORCE !!!!!
209CHAZ 1 year ago
@209CHAZ Yes.
NottheFacePlease 5 months ago
theire is no such thing as friendly fire
keffje007 1 year ago
@keffje007 Haha yeah, unfriendly fire.
Foxie1995 1 year ago
friendly fire - isn't. :D
Stalin111 1 year ago
OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER!!!!!!!!!!!
aman803 1 year ago
they should all be dead the gun on a warthog is a best it took out an air base in 2 pass ridiculous rate of fire they should have been Swiss chess when the warthogs where done man do i love that plane
fierwall5 1 year ago
a fine example of us efficiency
tollyt100 1 year ago
Are they supposed to come back???
concussion313 1 year ago
ZOMG! A troll on youtube! This can't be, I must defend my honor by arguing with it- employing evidence, logic and superior reasoning skills to stop the troll from defacing this bastion of intellectual discourse we call youtube. STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS BOOTS
muetter 1 year ago
@muetter Indeed.
MistarUpri 1 year ago
People like to bash the US cause of friendly fire...but the fact of the matter remains we ARE ALWAYS the ones looking out for our British allies on the ground considering we probably run 90% of air operations over there...shits bound to happen.
blair91234 1 year ago 48
@blair91234 who started the whole war anyway? is it the british?
k10sh1r0 1 year ago
@blair91234 Good thing Challengers are really tough to blow up.
deektedrgg 1 year ago
@blair91234 im english should probably say that first.....i know what you mean you lot run most of the airforce over there so eventuslly someting gonna go wrong. but we are quite proud of our lack of friendly fire..we are actually pretty good at not hitting our allies, i dont know why we are just really good at it. so we just kinda poke fun at you lot for it
Sam93Brown 1 year ago
@Sam93Brown If you look at the rates compared to 70 years ago...or EVEN 20 years ago...we are really good at not hitting our allies also. In world war 2 hundreds of people would die at a time in friendly fire incidents...theres just not hardly any FF anymore. The rates are almost nothing...and no one credits us.
blair91234 1 year ago
@blair91234 i know what you mean its kind of a british thing to take the mick out of you for it...its a stereotype....like you taking the mick out of us because 'we all have abd teeth and talk like the queen'....when its just not true, we have good teeth and there are thousands of different accents in england. there can be a massive accent change in the north of england in areas that are abuot an hour apart, where that isnt really something that america has
Sam93Brown 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hperman09 1 year ago
@blair91234 Fair point. But that doesnt make it better though, i mean did you hear about the hostage that was killed by an American throwing a grenade into the den she was taken to? But let`s be honest, without Americans to back us up then we most likely wont be able to continue fighting. And do people really take the piss out of you for that? I dont know anyone who does it.
DreamAway55 1 year ago
@DreamAway55 Yeah I did, but I guess you didn't, cause if you did, you would have known the hostage was going to be moved in a short time and they hardly had any time to plan or gear up...not to mention on the way to rescue her, they were killing insurgents on every corner...can't win em all.
blair91234 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hperman09 1 year ago 5
@DreamAway55 I know this is an old comment but I just wanna say, they had believed she was in an entirely different part of the compound, they had just moved her there. Sad I know.
scarface71795 5 months ago
@blair91234 FINAALLY someone gets that we are always looking out for each other not just our selves
wolfmp5 11 months ago
Comment removed
DudeWarrior55 10 months ago
Comment removed
DudeWarrior55 10 months ago
@blair91234 That's not the fact of the matter AT ALL. "considering we probably run 90% of air operations over there" You base this crap on what? Nothing. It's the British who had to rescue captured american agents, so how about you get over yourself.
stig781 10 months ago
@stig781 How about you shut the fuck up...you fucking pull out of your ass ONE fucking incident. Cry me a river, we killed bin laden FAGGOT NOW SHOVE A DICK IN YOUR FACE AND GET THE FUCK OFF YOUTUBE.
blair91234 10 months ago
@blair91234 Lol!
disturb1ng 9 months ago
Comment removed
MrWardog1234 9 months ago
@blair91234 well, We're looking out for you by helping the pathetic war effort.
-Royal Marine Officer Cadet
NathanAndrewLonsdale 9 months ago
Comment removed
blair91234 9 months ago
@blair91234 Seem a little defensive there, whats wrong with me using we're would you rather me say NATO which the United States pulled us into, and being a Royal Marines Officer Cadet means I will be going to Afghanistan commanding a Troop on the front line as a liutenent when I finish training,
NathanAndrewLonsdale 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NathanAndrewLonsdale "Cadet" you havn't done SHIT for your country you spineless faggot, so shut the fuck up and don't use the word "we're" if you havn't done a single fucking thing.
blair91234 9 months ago
@blair91234 you mean 65% of Canadian jets... lol
lucewarrior 9 months ago
@lucewarrior Sorry to break your heart but Canadian flight ops over Afghanistan are probably a minimum or little to nothing compared to US ops.
blair91234 9 months ago
@blair91234 That's probably because no one wants to be in this bullshit war the US started, and we're getting out of there.
ThazuaBlackarrow 8 months ago
@ThazuaBlackarrow The excuses never stop among our "allies". You guys could not fight a war by yourself now if your country depended on it.
blair91234 8 months ago
@blair91234 And you're any different?
When's the last time the US won a war without aid?
You guys didn't even win the war of independence.
ThazuaBlackarrow 8 months ago
@ThazuaBlackarrow Alright, you name the last time Canada has even fought a war by itself, and I will also.
Also, pretty sure we did win the War of Independence.
blair91234 8 months ago
@blair91234 If by "win" you mean attack Canada, fail, and then get handed your freedom because Britian lost interest in the war. Sure..
Canada doesn't need to fight wars by itself, because we don't piss everyone off, we aren't a shitty country that everyone hates, and we don't force ourselves into other people's business. We only go to war when asked to help or it's needed. Like when the US asked Canada to help in the middle east.
Stop being ungrateful cunts, and maybe someone will like you.
ThazuaBlackarrow 8 months ago
@ThazuaBlackarrow Dude you're talking to someone with a country that has itself aligned with more countries than Canada could ever hope to be. Not bashing Canada, but stop saying retarded things.
blair91234 8 months ago
@blair91234 We had aid from France.
wikieditspam 6 months ago
Comment removed
Hperman09 8 months ago
@ThazuaBlackarrow In most of the wars this United States has fought, they were originally coming to someone's aid, Spanish American war (which they fucked up by taking imperialist influence over the countries they liberated: "meet the new boss, same as the old one") They fought for Chinese in the pacific war (also alot for themselves) fought for the Brits in World War I,II. and probably again in III, fought for the south Vietnamese regime that couldn't run itself without some monks catching fire
wikieditspam 6 months ago
@blair91234
Then start using less air operations :P. They're horrible expensive.
JoshuatheKodiak 8 months ago
Fowler's pretty cool and funny.
"Are they supposed to come back?!"
xxthecoleman1xx 1 year ago
Like he said, this ain't MW2, Jarhead.
ElPINGAS9000 1 year ago
omfg is that pilot stupid some facts why not to shoot
1. the ground troops arent shooting at the plane
2. the ground troops are not finding cover/ running away
3. the pilot could easiely could see if it was friend or foe
4. isnt a little rader saying friendly target
5.he was bored because there wasnt any enemy tank or plane to hunt down?
1makermovie 1 year ago
@1makermovie This isn't Call of Duty.
StevenMBurns 1 year ago
@StevenMBurns you think im stupid or something?
read my comment again asshole
below here
1makermovie 1 year ago
@1makermovie yes we think you're stupid
nick191088 1 year ago
@1makermovie when your flying hundreds of feet up to do an airstrike like that, doing 200 + mph, i dont think you can tell the different between friend and foe unless they're marked in some way. and a radar? this isnt fucking call of duty.
metaknight95 1 year ago
@metaknight95 dude every vichel has an radar
but call of duty?
000oo please man
thats a compas :D
1makermovie 1 year ago
@1makermovie its vehicle. and they may have a radar, but its not like a fucking game where your men are flashing blue. and look at the comment i responded to and you'd know why i said CoD....
metaknight95 1 year ago
@metaknight95 i fucking know
but in themovie they say blue blue
(frienly fire)they could have radio contact?
or no
1makermovie 1 year ago
@1makermovie, hmmmm you really have no clue.... First off, planes are rarely used to combat each other anymore... it happens but its more of a ground game as in bombing... technology fails and friendly fire happens... I'm gunna put you in a vehichle traveling at a couple hundred knots per second and see if you can tell me and a gorilla apart... the one guy actually does run back away... and ITS A FREAKIN BOMB RUN!!! THEY DONT CARE IF YOU ARE SHOOTING THEM they have a target lock and fire...
bobcatkiller94 1 year ago
My bad... :p... i mixed 2 measurement... knots are speed and therefore I meant a couple hundred knots or mph 100 knots = 115 mph
bobcatkiller94 1 year ago
(to the A-10's) WHAT THE HELL GOD DAMMIT
Eddyisrich403 1 year ago
@1makermovie 1. a standard rifle cannot shoot down an A-10 warthog enemy iraqi troops didnt bother
2.theyre in the middle of a fucking desert plain WHAT COVER?
3. by easy like going mach 1-2 in the middle of a fucking desert were you cant tell shit?
4.this was the early 90's radar only pointed out aircraft
5.youre too stupid to reply to that
cloventaco54 8 months ago
@cloventaco54 1) iraqi soldiers could shoot the plane but not take them out im not saying they can and i think 1 soldier is equiping a RPG or something like that?
2) maybe hiding behind a car is COVER and i said also RUNNING AWAY
3) is the plane was going mach 1-2 you would get a sonic boom and you can only go to mach 1-2 at a hight around 60.000 feet FAIL or at sea
4) a rader only caught planes? hell no also vehcile's FAIL
5) to stupid to reply? sir i just PWNED you FAIL
smarter than you G-F
1makermovie 8 months ago
@1makermovie
1.no cant,the A-10 warthog is specifically designed to take shots from RPGs or other forms of AA
2.those humvees wouldnt cut it(The Thunderbolt II's 30mm GAU-8/A Gatling gun can fire 3,900 rounds a minute and can defeat an array of ground targets to include TANKS FAS.com) who would be stupid enough to try and out run a jet?
3. fine doc +200 mph you still cant tell shit from dots
4.this isnt MW2 were it literally points out friendlys
5. woman you have been served and goodnight
cloventaco54 8 months ago
@cloventaco54 1) if it was designed to take such shots why dont they do it with other planes?
2) dude if someone is pointing a gun on your head would you stand behind some bit of cover or not?
3) you need to look how high he is speed doesnt matter if your reading and going with high speed its difficult but you can atleast see a humvee what the IRAQI soldier DINT HAD
4)im not talking about mw2 bitch you can see VEHCILE'S WITH A RADAR
5) me a women im male FAIL that rimes
1makermovie 8 months ago
@1makermovie Shut the fuck up.
killu19 7 months ago
@1makermovie
1) Its very hard to do that to many air craft, the A-10 has a role; ground attack. Its made to take AA hits from 12.7mm, 20mm, and some missiles. Though the A-10 looked fast, compared to a modern multirole fighter the A-10 is slow.
3-4) During the 1990s our radar system was still very old, back then radar on air craft only showed where the object was, sadly your can mistake a Hummer for a BTR-152 which might have been in service with the Iraqis at the time.
hoy455 7 months ago
@1makermovie keyboard warrior.thhinking he is hot shit.if you havent been to combat dont talk.and you dont know how many times A-10s and other airforce planes and choppers have caused friendly fire with advance and lowtech radar..do some research pal.
AGA151994 7 months ago
@1makermovie Dude, You don't know Shit about Modern technology, Or Much else for that matter.
DeathBlazeProduction 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeathBlazeProduction i know just as much as you
1makermovie 6 months ago
@1makermovie They couldn't do it with other planes because then they couldn't go supersonic fucktard. And A10s don't have radar.
Dregkar 5 months ago
@Dregkar listen it has a radar how else could they see where the enemy is?
p.s almost every plane has a rader or something like that (exept sport planes)
1makermovie 5 months ago
@1makermovie You DO know that the A10 is an anti-ground plane right?
Dregkar 5 months ago
@Dregkar yes i know
1makermovie 4 months ago
@1makermovie /argument
Dregkar 4 months ago
@cloventaco54 Shut the fuck up.
killu19 7 months ago
@360Nomad Hey u try to tell the difference from tanks to humvees at 400mph and 1500 ft u idiot. You cant blame the pilots, pilots follow orders. During the gulf war friendly fire was almost always the fault of AWACS and the airbases giving false info towards the pilots all the pilots did was follow orders think before u post.
madvid1996 1 year ago
A prime example of why we should stay in formation.
Valles923 1 year ago 75
@Valles923 i dont get it why? do warhawks think theyre terrorists?
CrimsonRGU 1 year ago
@CrimsonRGU Yeah they weren't in proper formation so they were mistaken for the enemy.
Valles923 1 year ago
One would think the retarded Air Force could tell the difference between a couple of Humvees and Iraqi tanks.
360Nomad 1 year ago
@360Nomad You try, dumbass.
Jacko459 1 year ago
@Jacko459 Humvees are about half the size of a tank and during Desert Storm, they had orange flags to show that they were Iraqis.
360Nomad 1 year ago
@360Nomad You do realize it is really fucking hard to see shit from 1000 ft. off the ground and traveling in excess of 200 to 400 mph. And we're only human.
NottheFacePlease 5 months ago
this film sucked.
MegaLolburger 1 year ago
I've seen a real video of A-10's friendly fire. They were trying to confirm a vehicle mistook it for an iraqi armored vehicle with missile on top (Sam) and opened fire. Killed 2 british troops.
Its extremely sad situation as this happens. When the pilots receive the shocking news that the british guys on the ground were trying to tell them to cease fire, and that at the end they killed 2 guys the pilots were in tears. He couldnt get over himself.
Sad sad stuff, even during the 2003 invasion
marc15yo 1 year ago
they call that friendly fire/ friendly fuckin/ or being friendly fucked!! lol
RESPECTCALIFORNIA 1 year ago
@leeroyfan101
Did you seriously say that British pilots have "superhuman eyesight"? Give me. A fucking. Break.
NQuealy 1 year ago
@NQuealy
As far as Im concerd there must be something going correct - Americans are the ones dropping bombs on friendly soldiers; but hey, I guess thats too much Modern Warfare the pilot thought they would all respawn? :{
CraiG10021 1 year ago
stupid brits are always complaining about U.S troops......WERE ON THE SAME FUCKING SIDE
fritomonker 1 year ago
it never happened. in Jarhead book they were attacked by friendly tanks
sniperRobert 1 year ago