What he said.

[original_aj]

"This aerial onslaught is war at its most stupid"

"The images of US 'friendly fire' show how good bombers are at hurting, but how bad they are at winning"

I wish I could have said it as well myself.

Comments

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

I don't think it even shows that - they killed ONE man out of an armoured column, not exactly an impressive feat of arms even ignoring the way they screwed up.

[original-aj.livejournal.com]

Well, there is that. It's more the general principle that it's not the appropriate tool for the job.

[fizzyboot.livejournal.com]

It also shows that the British army is shit at anti-aircraft, no doubt because the last time we fought a battle with enemy air superiority was 1942.

If UK armoured vehicles were routinely fitted with fire-and-forget SAMs (such as Mistral, Stinger, Igla, etc) or with autocannon with a decent rate of fire (i.e. something better than Rarden's 40 rpm) and a targetting computer that was effective at generating firing solutions against fast-moving aircraft, then US A-10 pilots would be a lot more wary attacking them. Because their own lives would be on the line.

Alterately Britain could simply chose not to fight alongside the Americans, which would reduce freindly fire incidents by about 90%.

[nickys.livejournal.com]

New icon for you