Wanna see Iraqis blown to smeethereens? Check out this link http://www.bangedup.com/archives/apachesruletheirworld.mpeg

Apparently they didn't show the follow up pic of an Iraqi firing a 14.6mm DShK at the Apache, which later crashed.

Really, I heard that though they were quite useful, they didn't have an all-stellar performance as the sales brochure said. Despite being a flying tank, they were still quite vulnerable to HMGs to which they were supposed to be almost impervious. Something like that in Afghanistan occured where the AH-64s, after being in operation for a week, were all grounded because of multiple gunshot 'wounds', while the Marine AH-1 Super Cobras continued flying, much to the delight of the Marine pilots and the US Army personnel on the ground. Well, at least that's what I read somewhere. #:-)

That's a very revealing video!

Funny how wounded iraqis are fair game. I thought that the assets more than the personnel were the legitimate targets..."wait for movement, hit the truck, HIT HIM!" Well that's to be expected from the so called saviours of the free world.

I wonder what sort of storm this would unleash if that was an american vehicle in the sights of a Mi24

Oh well, i guess the victors write the history.

Katze

Odd how the Iraqis don't seem to react much to the helicopter, or to their comrades and trucks getting shot up.... If I was one of them and saw a flight of Apaches flying overhead, I'd either shoot back (with a missile or heavy machinegun) or run!

Or maybe you just can't see it in the video...

What was that thing the two guys were standing beside anyway?

Looked like a gulaschkanone!. Perhaps they should have hurled some hummus and fellafel at the apache!

I'm a sick f**k, i've been watching this thing in morbid fascination since this afternoon.

There you are standing with your good buddy kareem warming your hands near the old shawarma stand; Kareem walks toward the truck and KABOOM! he's gone. I'd have just stood there shaking and wet my pants. Remember these guys are standing in the dark and the apache's are probably shooting from a third of a click away! the last guy reminded me of a roach trying to crawl away after being stomped.

Sorry, i'm a bleeding heart peacenik liberal.

war is sick

nang hina ako sa video na yun, sobra. i can't imagine how that'd feel.

That was inhuman! Sad to say, if I were that pilot, I would let them surrender. Look at it!! Even the wounded was pounded to smitherins!

Very different from the GWB hollywood version eh?

Well, all wars have their war crimes. In the end, it's the grunt or grognard or the alte hasse who has to bear the brunt of the suffering and the punishment so that the powers that be get the glory and the gold. Maybe that's why military stories are so compelling. They should require american students to watch this film so they don't get their history all polished up and served on a silver plate.

Katze

One last thought...The gunner was following orders. He seemed to hesitate before blowing the third guy away.

Im not a professor on morality,, or even an expert in the field. But IMO, the engagement of the first 2 hostiles was pretty justified since they seemed to have posed a threat to pilots, having the pilots orders aside ha -- parang self-presevation. It seemed the first casualty was loading ammo into what seemed like an AA gun? And the next one was running towards the truck? which also could've contained AA guns, too. The third kill, was pretty brutal in the sense that he was already -- and was obviously wounded -- by Apache rounds pa.

My .02.

I have seen more brutal video's in the past, the most brutal video's I've seen came out from the Chechnya Civil war, which I think is still ongoing until now.

I posted this link to get some reactions from you guys & I expected something like what you said after seeing this footage. War is hell. Even those who win suffer psychological disorders. Personally, I think the action of the pilot & the gunner here was overkill, but this is war, first & foremost is self preservation.

Exactly what I wanted to say, the concept of "self preservation".

The American and Israeli concept of self preservation is go get the other guy before he gets you. unfortunately the outcome is hardly ever desirable. On many occasions it has ended in a quagmire...

Philippines 1898, Lebanon 1982, Vietnam, and now Iraq

First of all, the "bad guy" is a boogeyman; a concept...you cannot "get him". he is not one person. Look at Saddam, they "got" saddam and the roadside bombings continued. when you go after a ghost, many people who just happen to be in the way can get hurt and that's pretty much how things escalate. there's nothing like a P.O.'d civilian population to stir up dissent.

the British seem to altogether have a different approach. In 82 they waited for the falklands to be taken over and thus had sufficient moral backing ( though they seized the islands a hundred years earlier ) to attack. they did so with outnumbered, highly skilled and limited resources and won through the sheer professionalism of their armed forces. helped by the fact that most argies just wanted to go home.

Well, i digress. when someone's got a big stick pointing at you, i guess you hit him with a bigger one first. I just don't agree with all the moral justification the west dishes out for their so-called noble actions.

Well, back to modelling questions...Was that an AA gun or just a heating stove?

Katze

Ditto.

Upon careful review of the video, it seems that the 2nd casualty appeared to have unconvered something which initiated the Apache to neutralize him, parang may ghillie-blanket siyang tinanggal -- so I'm thinking could've it been that he was going to use a bazooka of sorts?

BTW -- something which could cross over to the PC Games thread -- directed specifically to people who play Steel Beasts.

There was a term: "Auto-range stored" which is pretty reminiscient of the LASER feature of the tanks in SB. Just a thought: is it the same way for the Apache helicopter?

Parang white sheet yata...to surrender? It would've been too much of a hassle to pull his white undershorts off.

Hi guys,

Are we sure that those were iraqi soldiers? I can only assume but the vehicle with the hot vertical tube looks like a tractor (it does look like a tractor). Did you notice the vertical plow marks on the ground? They could be soldiers dicking around with farm stuff or covering something up.Anyway, the video is quite gruesome even in thermal imagery.

The use of firepower (with overkill) is an american military doctine since the civil war. You see it in every conflict they were involved. Moreoften than not (except in Vienam), it proved highly succesful for them. Mainly because America is a highly industrialized nation and it reflects in their military and the way they value their manpower. Ammunition and hardware is cheap compared to the loss of one american life. (Plus, American society recoils when they see an American die or get hurt by non-americans and thus hurt the image of their politicians). Don't you wonder why they invest so much money in automated (smart) technologies and related self-preservation systems.

Now, the british army is steep in tradition and never had a days peace since it's creation. Tell me an instance when it was never involved in a conflict. I can't recall any but I did remember a Royal Marines advertisement that mentioned they had a "vacation" for one year.
Moreover, a friend's father who was a seargent major in the royal fusiliers told me that they were trained to kill a target with a maximum of three bullets. Anything more is waste of bullets and time. They used to laugh when they see americans go "rock and roll" with their rifles.

In my opinion, firepower has its own merits and United States Armed Forces (in general) have used it well in a strategic manner. Nothing kicks ass in the use of combined operations compared to the Americans. They just have to be trained more in low-intensity conflicts (They don't do well in those).

Very well said Katze. As the sole superpower its very easy to bully those who displease them.

Regarding "...the victors writing history..." somebody should tell modern-day Japan what their military really did in WW2.

Hunter

First: I was not there, I could not judge the video without feeling the sense of combat, the sense of being fired upon, I was not there as a soldier and I do not have privity with the orders or the mission. So... having said that, I CANNOT comment whether this is sick or not objectively. Yes, having seen the figure being blown to bits with an autocannon was sick, but I am here, sitting in front of the computer, not knowing the situation at the time except hearing the calm voice of the gunner, so I cannot just write this off as a simple massacre.

Second: I second Blank's query - how come the targets are not reacting? I reckon this was done at night, the bad guys are insurgents, INTEL states that the place might make Bakkhara market a playground, and so they had to take the targets away from a distance using the autocannon - now, Hellfire or Hydra would've been overkill - with an Apache.

Third: War is hell, as Sherman said. Yep, not that I'm saying I'm a sicko bastard who is 'thrilled' with seeing this video, nope, on the contrary, seeing the blown up guts' still emanating heat was pretty disgusting, but this is reality alright. There's a war in Iraq, and these targets, who without us benefitting on the assessment made by INTEL on this guys, probably needed to get smacked anyway. Who knows - that truck was supposed to be a delivery device to attack the Green Zone, or these insurgents the very same guys who are making a hell of a life for ordinary innocent Iraqis.

Fourth: This video DOESN'T TELL EVERYTHING. Again, it's like my first point - I WAS NOT THERE AND I COULD NOT OBJECTIVELY COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO.

Fifth: As Wanze said, American doctrine in combat is to saturate the enemy with firepower. Fire power is key. Only B-Movies show how a sniper can win a war. The use of an autocannon is not AFAIK not a war crime. So is the myth of killing someone with a .50-calibre a war crime IIRC. Well, tough luck for the targets, the Apache had an autocannon and one cannot simply expect the pilot and his gunner to go down and shoot them with a pistol.

Sixth: As Wanze also mentioned, the Yanks are, unfortunately, not steeped in COIN ops - well, at least their regular troops aren't. However, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're trying their best. We cannot expect that each hornet's nest in Iraq be neutralized by a "A-Team Rambo Hit Squad" because there aren't enough SPECFOR out there to do it, and using them in simple ops like these is a waist on precious resources (SPECFOR being more expensive to train and equip, let alone the required psychological background needed to enter it). Hence, conventional troops have to be used. In this case, the commander probably thought that, hey, bringing in a convoy of Bradleys and Abrams would just warn the pricks and they'd escape, not to mention make my boys easy targets for snipers. So, attack helos were used. Logical, yes. Heart-warming, hell no. Who's fault - the targets, because if they just decided to bin the money they've been offered to make potshots at the Coalition, then their families won't be needing any grieving, and Iraq would be a better place. But the reality is it's war.

Personnaly, I recoiled a bit from the gruesomeness of the video. But I figured, hell, they probably deserved it anyway being insurgents. Five insurgents dead. Five less potential suicide bombers. Call me a no-good red-neck war-freak sicko bastard (of which I'm none of the above), but that's my personal (not objective) opinion.

And yes, I typed this post under a lucid moment - judging from all the editing I've been doing to this one.

I'd like to conclude this long post of mine by reminding others again:

WE WEREN'T THERE.

All true... I think these Yanks go by the code "kill the enemy before it sees you" or was it the other way around

I second that GI.

I wish there were videos of the brutality the Americans did to the Filipino "insurgents" in the Philippine "Insurrection" in the turn of the 20th century.

Then we shall understand why Americans are not supposed to be appreciated for their doctrine.

Not to mention why too many people hate them so much.

Uhhh ok, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't really or shouldn't even hinder us from stating our reactions, or even provide some insights, right? I don't think anyone here has been going about and blaming a specific participant in the video for being too violent, stupid, or whatnot. SO yeah, we weren't there, but I think the whole concept of starting the thread was that it might be something interesting to gauge each others reaction/s to the video.

My .02. Since I take the whole WE WEREN'T THERE comment offhandedly telling me not to say anything other than mere speculation, and to let the dogs of war fight it off like that.

Not exactly...AH-64s have a variety of aqcusition/designation systems like TADS; IHADSS; DTV; DVO; FLIR; etc. Lasing a target is just one way..also can be done using radar (Longbow equipped); the other stuff would work more like TV-guidace systems.

Most modern MBTs like the M1A1 rely on the GPS/LRF; with only the GAS as backup.

Kinda forgot already...been a long while since I played Longbow 2 or EEAH...

BT6

I made the "We Weren't There" comment because it appears - to me at least - that the general trend of the responses was to blame the Americans for "bullying" and was appearing to become a "Bash America!" thread. I ain't any Star-Spangled Banner waving dude - far from it - but I sure as hell cannot blame the American soldiers in Iraq doing this sort of action as shown by the video. It's a war out there, and we cannot correctly criticize the actions of someone just because the video was remorseless - more so if the video is merely gun footage. It would've been different to see a video of American soldiers conducting abuse on Iraqi prisoners and having fun doing it. Now, you simply don't need the "We weren't there" to make an objective comment on that situation because it is totally different.

To make it clear, here's the quote:




I suggest you connect "Funny how wounded Iraqis are fair game" and "Well that's to be expected from the so-called saviours of the free world." Sounds a bit accusatory, implying - to me at least - that the Americans are simple killers, degrading the role of the American soldier in this war. The "Well, that's to be expected" phrase is an almost blanket statement that "American soldiers are gung-ho and bullies" when you put it into context.

Hence, to equalize the perceptions of people, I made the comment "We Weren't There" to make others think that although the video was violent, it doesn't tell the whole story.

Again, on a personal but not objective observation, I did say I recoilled just even a bit from the gruesomeness of the video. But I will not resort to calling or implying the Americans as bullies in this WoT just because of this single video. I wasn't there, and I hell won't say "the Americans did overkill" for this video because, who knows, had I been in the same situation as that Apache crew, I - or maybe some here - might've done the same thing.

So, comment on the video alone: Brutal, short, gruesome.

Comment on US soldiers' actions in Iraq based on the video: No comment.

BTW Jomz, I wasn't putting a gag on everyone's mouth. Everyone's entitled to their opinion in this forum, but my aim was before people comment objectively on something in which their passions have been raised, they have to think of the other side's story as well.




Well... that was afterall the early 20th century where women at the time weren't even allowed to vote yet. We cannot apply our set of morals and values to a time when the standard of morals and values back then was different, right?

The natives of the Philippine Islands weren't all exactly "enlightened people" now, right? And I reckon my forefathers would've massacred the Americans back then without remorse as well using a bolo rather than a gun. Funny how we've taken on the "victim mentality", blaming the ills on someone more powerful, when had we been in the same situation, we could've done the same thing (after all, IIRC, what touched off the Balangiga Massacre was that a Filipino contingent massacred American soldiers who were eating their meals in peace. Great act of heroism and patriotism, noh? when Americans were simply resting in peace. Who wouldn't be pissed off by that?)

As for the "not to mention why too many people hate them so much", then why on Earth does it continue to attract foreign-blood who migrate there?

The same can be said of the British, Spanish, and other colonizers. I heard the Belgians were worse in Africa. At least you can give the Americans something positive, like helping us set up a government, making us a democracy, education, things like that which made our country in the mid-20th century the envy of its neighbors - until our own guys (with Quezon's Curse) f*cked up the place.

The Americans were here in peace? They invaded our land in peace? If a guy with a gun enters your house with a locked and loaded gun but says "I come in peace", would you believe him? If that happened in my home I would gladly chop the guy to pieces if I were able to.

What I know was that the Philippines was sold to them Americans for $20 M. Essentially they just replaced the Spanish. Now if they gave us some sort of "civilization" as you would put it, it's usually because of business interests more than anything else.

Oh well, I'll not act "anti-American" here. What has been done has been done anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate America and what it stands for per se. I love American culture. I appreciate the American way of life.

However, my feelings for 9-11 are mixed. I loathe the terrorists for ramming the WTC. But if they targetted only the Pentagon, the White House, and Capitol Hill, I wouldn't have cringed, for these are valid politico-military targets.

Of course, what compounds it is the fact that the people that I really hate are the assholes in Washington that have for more than a century put the pawns, them soldiers, in the field to carry out their interests. These pricks weren't hurt in Balangiga. These pricks didn't die in Vietnam. These pricks weren't ambushed in Iraq. It is the soldiers who die, thinking they are carrying out their duties in service for their country, but actually carry out their duties in service to those dickheads.

Funny that the name of the gunship used for this is Apache. That's a name of a people the Americans exterminated so they can ransack that people's land. There can be no worse irony than that.