"Rolling Into Baghdad On An Abrams Tank " Topic

Great footage and what could be done for a game scenario.
YouTube link
YouTube link

Allons
Super footage. For those who are interested and may not know there is an excellent book by David Zuchino called Thunder Run which gives great details on the armored thrust into Baghdad. I would highly recommend anyone interested in scenario construction to get a copy of that book. H

Always difficult to say without actually being there, but the engagement of the 'technical' seemed dubious. There was no obvious sign of it trying to actively engage the convoy – unless overtaking an M1A2 is considered aggressive in Iraq?

If 'we' are going to go off into other countries, we do need to bear in mind that other cultures work differently. Just because someone has a gun, doesn't necessarily make him an enemy.

…BMP at 300 metres? That's a little scary. I believe minimum engagement range for the AT-3 is about 500 metres. I realise that a sagger may not do much at the front of an M1A2, but it still will make an HMMWV (or a tank commander's head) very unhappy.

Geoff,
I would say at some point, anyone approaching a vehicle other then your own troops is considered aggressive. I would not want to find out after they blew up my friends in front of me that they weren't just going for a Sunday ride.
Kevin

Given that you are in a big armoured vehicle (except for the apparently invincible individual with the camera willing to stick his head out while 'RPG team' and 'BMP' go by!) that very little can actually put a dent into, the reaction did seem overly aggressive.

I am acknowledging that:
1. I wasn't there (major factor!).
2. I don't know what happened before the car came into camera shot (i.e. they may have fired from behind).
3. Just because I can't seen anything aggressive (i.e. RPG being waved out the window), which doesn't mean it didn't happen.

However there is nothing quite as exciting as racing up alongside a fast moving convoy of armed vehicles.

I've just read through the Youtube comments. Apparently the driver of the vehicle was firing a pistol (At them? In the air, as they are prone to do out there? Who knows. The distinction is important if you want the people on your side…)

"I was in the vehicle behind that tank. thats the comanders tank and i was a forward observer following right behind him. i had my sights on this truck for a little bit. he got on our rt from a on ramp, passed a inf bradly behind me, passed me while i was trying to get permission to fire from my lt, and made it to the command tank. i hit it in the rear window and tailgate with 25mm.

slow the video down if you really need to and watch the 2 25mm rounds hit the truck. They do hit about the same time as the Commanders vehicle fired coax. You see Forward Observers aka MOS 13 Foxtrot aka Indirect Fire Support Teams ride in Bradleys that fire 25mm High Explosive (HE) or Depleted Uranium Armor Piercing (AP). In this particular event I chose HE. 1 round in the tailgate, 1 round in back window.

Given that a pistol isn't likely to do anything to a tank (and he may have just been firing off 'lets go for victory' rounds) a 25mm HE round into the cab does seem like overkill (I'm sure a few 7.62 rounds on the tyres would have been more than enough to remind this chap not to be there).

Going from one related video to another I found this:

YouTube link

A German news crew filming a group of Talibans trying to ambush a US tank carried on a transporter with a police escort…and keep failing. Their informant was late in calling in the news, they mixed up the remotes for their IEDs, and the RPGs missed.

Really?
You're in the middle of a war, and an unknown potentially armed vehicle drives up to you, you think shooting it is unacceptable!?

Anybody stupid enough to drive up to an armored column that is actively shooting at things deserves whatever happens to them.

People today have completely lost their minds.
-Kle.

I think if you have the chance to read Thunder Run you will understand more clearly why "technicals" were being engaged when they came too close and whether or not they seemed hostile. Same is true of samll arms fire. The books really does help put things in perspective and that includes Iraqi perpsectives too. H

Possibly works in Canada, Taskforce: "This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds"

"an armored column that is actively shooting at things"

There is a splice in the film. They were actively engaging before. In that piece of footage the only thing they actively shot at was him. This is Iraq. Tanks on the road are not uncommon.

"unknown potentially armed vehicle drives up to you"

Presumably you think this chap is also a viable target?

Just because you have the bigger gun, doesn't mean you need to use it. Threat assessment. Hearts and minds. I am hoping that are not taught to simply shoot first and think later?

I can't see anything in the comments that indicates a threat, other than "he was nearby" and "he was firing a pistol".

Remember in that part of the world (and many others) firing a gun in the air is considered macho, normal even. It does not necessarily indicate a threat.

(Terrorist or civilian? Apparently he has these guns for sport)

He had passed 2 or 3 vehicles and seemed to be heading up the road in a straight line when engaged. Note the comment that the Bradley gunner had been seeking permission to fire almost from when the vehicle first appeared.

I have acknowledged that I wasn't there, so the perceived threat may have been far higher than I am getting from that limited footage. The simplicity (and ingenuity) of IEDs, car bombs, etc, may have made this a very unwise, and seemingly lethal, decision.

However when you have this much advantage:

:-)

Geoff, if you haven't read THUNDER RUN yet, you should put it on your list (for all that spare time I know you have ;) ). The book – and several others – talk about the concern that vehicles loaded with explosives would be driven up next to an AFV and detonated by suicide bombers. Any vehicle that approached fast and disregarded signals to back off was to be treated as a potential vehicle borne IED.

The armored drive into Baghdad wasn't just tanks, either, there were less armored IFVs and APCs along for the ride (Brads and M113s – I don't have my books in front of me, but I think some Humvees, too, carrying TOWs), too – so tanks were expected to engage enemy elements that could damage them, too.

You should give THUNDER RUN a read, though – and ON POINT Vol. 1 (available as a free download from Combat Studies Institute), for a more official history. They would help put some of the video snippets in perspective – you still might not agree with the ROEs that were in place, of course.

Best,

Shawn.

Absolutely. I am very aware of the danger of car bombs. I believe that you can see Hummers ahead of the Abrams in that footage, and as I said, I wasn't there :-)

It is quite possible that the driver had disregarded signals to back off/stay away, crashed an on-ramp barrier, I don't know.

Or he could have thought it cool to drive up with the tanks firing his pistol.

ROEs are always difficult, and easy to judge from the luxury of an armchair and video replay. I respect spot judgements by the man on the moment, but I do think that they also need to be tailored to the [perceived] threat level.

This engagement may have been spot on. I don't know. Was a warning fired first? Was it necessary, or was the risk that an IED would simply be detonated? From the luxury of hindsight and distance a few 7.62 rounds across the bonnet would seem to have been effective without actively engaging the individual, who could have been just as innocent as guilty. I have seen other footage that was very suspect (don't ask).

I will make a note to get hold of Thunder Run. Looks like it is due for release as a film next year: imdb.com/title/tt2097338

As I am seeing this on the FOW page it is only appropriate to point out that based on FOW any weapons shot at the tank would be either applied to the side armor or the top armor depending on when they were fired in the assault.

Not sure a 73mm LP or AT-3 Sagger would go through the side armour of an M1A1 either. :-)

You have to wonder about the guy shooting a pistol from a vehicle driving next to a convoy of tanks.
If his cunning plan was to detonate a suicide bomb then the pistol seems rather counter productive.

I dunno.
I can see Geoff's perspective and I'm inclined to agree.
There again.
I can see why you might think it reasonable to shoot a vehicle approaching your huge great big tank.

Mainly.
I can see it's a bad idea to film yourself as you drive round in you invincible tank blowing the $hit out of anything which moves.

(except for the apparently invincible individual with the camera willing to stick his head out while 'RPG team' and 'BMP' go by.

The camera is not being held it's "fixed" in place on the top of the turret.

During this period of the campaign any vehicle that is not doing anything other than try to get away from you is a threat. Servicing that target meet the rules of engagement.

The camera is not being held it's "fixed" in place on the top of the turret

You're right, having just watched the footage again, it maintains a fixed axis in both planes all the time, traversing with the turret.

any vehicle that is not doing anything other than try to get away from you is a threat

That's a dangerous assumption, in this modern world of war crimes.

I was not there, let me be clear on that, but let's just say that I've been in similar scenarios and have a pretty good idea what the ROE was in this case and can make a pretty good judgement call that engaging that target would have been called for under the ROE.

Why is this in the FOW topic?

Bill must be watching b-ball. :)

I'm just glad that I wasn't there!

I dunno. It seems pretty dumb to drive a pick up along side a column of tanks pretty much shooting up everything in sight. People do dumb stuff every day, war or peacetime, and die as a result of it. I really feel no pity for the guy.

Maybe it was "suicide by armored column".

…pretty much shooting up everything in sight

Not going to do a lot of 'shooting up everything' with a pistol while driving. He may have been shooting up[wards]? He may have been firing wildly, excited to see tanks coming to liberate Iraq. He may have been rushing home to prayer (trust me, you haven't seen how they drive when it's close to prayer time!)

I don't know, he may have driven on and fired the first couple of rounds at the Bradley behind, in which case he was lucky he got two 25mm rounds and not a 120mm round! (not that it would make much difference one it hits you).

This is a country that was (and still is) used to seeing tank columns driving down the road so overtaking one may not be anything unusual; where carrying a gun (certainly out of the main cities) is almost as natural as carrying a bag. Not everyone who carries a gun is the enemy, and I know that makes it exceptionally difficult, and dangerous, for the boots on the street.

We know that these hot situations occasionally create slightly quick trigger fingers, although reading the above report from the gunner the engagement sounds very controlled. Permission was sought and evidently given. I was more curious about the threat assessment to a heavily armoured column from a guy firing a pistol while driving and the degree of response delivered, while being very aware that in the split second heat of the moment it can seem the exact right thing to do.

I haven't read Thunder Run, but I will. I hope it will show that this was a controlled operation run by a good chain of command making sound decisions under pressure, not a gung-ho Hollywood driven shoot the [insert word] fest…

Don't get me wrong, absolutely I acknowledge that if the threat feels sufficently real then it is necessary to take a defence, even if that is an aggressive defence, rather than risk the consequences of ignoring what may be a heavily laden suicide bomb, and soldiers should not be judged with hindsight without taking those elements into account.

But I also think the questions do need to be asked (not by the general media or the public, but by people who really understand these pressures) to ensure that the right decisions are made under the circumstances

It seems pretty dumb to drive a pick up along side a column of tanks… shooting…

Well, yes, that is really asking for someone to put a few rounds back your way, and almost certainly more of them and bigger ones. :-)

This idiot may well have crashed wildly onto the road, firing a pistol (or even just aggressively driving under those circumstances) and clearly a potential threat to the convoy, in which case he got no less than was deserved or expected.

Under any circumstances driving alongside an active convoy that is engaging military targets is really putting yourself in the firing line (from either side, or possibly both!) and in our eyes asking for trouble. However given that a pistol clearly wasn't going to do anything to a Bradley or M1 so I was just questioning the threat level.

Maybe it was "suicide by armored column"

Intentional or not, it was certainly that. :-)

You guys need to remember that this was not a typical day for our actions in Iraq. I get the sense that many are trying to mentally apply a lower intensity ROE against the back drop of a high intensity deliberate attack.

This is the "Thunder Run". It's full up war and very kinetic. It's not stability ops, it's not counter insurgency, it's not a "convoy," it's not a "parade," and it's not a "presence patrol." It is a full on armored assault to storm the city center of Baghdad/Airport.

Look how desolate the streets are. Did anybody notice there are no other civilian looking vehicles rolling around? So now right in the middle of an intense fight this lone civilian vehicle merges into the attack column reportedly firing a pistol. He's in the unit's battle space, he's not waving a white flag, he many have already engaged unit. Basically if he's doing anything other than going to ground (FoW term here for the "Topic"!!!) or trying to move as fast as he can to get away from the path of this jugernaught then he has earned the status of "target."

The Rules of Engagement aren't meant so much to tell a Soldier when he can engage a target like he gets to play God and decide who lives or who dies. The Rules of Engagement are as much to tell a Soldier when he should engage. This dude in the truck has crossed that threshold.

Fair points well made. :-)

It is a worthwile dicussion to have and it is right to call the circumstances presented into question and take a hard look at them. Lord knows the Law of War and common human decency have not always been upheld properly by our forces.

Cheers, VB

well, as a afganistan vet, i'm very surprised that truck got that close to a road marching unit. that seems crazy close to me. we most likely would have fired it up before it got anywhere near us. no brag, fact.

I appreciate how civil folks are being. Thank goodness we aren't discussing bricoles and turnbacks.

i'm very surprised that truck got that close to a road marching unit. that seems crazy close to me. we most likely would have fired it up before it got anywhere near us

I think that was the thing that threw me. If there was a real and immediate threat the ROE would have been to freely engage anything approaching the moment it appeared.

If as you say the ROE state when a target should be engaged, then evidently the ROE in effect did not say shoot on sight. There was a very cautious and reasoned consideration that this represented a clear and present dangeer.

The truck evidently went past 3 vehicles before it was engaged. Weapons were evidently on hold or strict fire conditions, yet were released for that vehicle which, other than a pistol, seemed to have very little obvious offensive capability.

Had it been carrying an IED, it could have (and most probably would have) detonated the moment it got next to the Bradley, or the Abrams. It had passed both before permission to fire was given and seemed to be clear before it was engaged.

I have qualified all of these considerations with the fact that I wasn't there. It is very easy to sit back from the relative peace (barring my 3 year old trying to play a guitar, which is mildly less than a warzone) of my living room and comment (yet still I seem to have upset someone who is closed minded enough to consider that difficult questions warrant a stifle).

I always acknowledge that the perception (real or otherwise) of the threat level may have been very different under the circumstances and I have great repsect for those who put themselves in these difficult and dangerous situations in the pursuit of freedom and democracy.

I just feel we must be careful that we do not impose 'our' freedom and democracy without consideration for the cultural and social differences of others, assuming that they must want to be like us. :-)

Geoff, as mentioned this in during the Thunder Run. ROEs were in place (and may have well allowed shoot on sight), but having civilian vehicles moving Fedaheen troops and being used as mobile 'smart guided' bombs was pretty darned new to the US troops.

Seeing a civ truck coming at you was a new experience, the gunners and TCs are still looking for T72s, BMPs, RPG teams and 'typical' threats.

That truck wasn't trying to get to the tanks for cultural and social reasons. But the crew (and the chain of command) likely were still hesitant to cap them until there was no choice (or until weapons could be made out).

This is Iraq. Tanks on the road are not uncommon.

Up until shortly before that time, American tanks sure as hell were.

"unknown potentially armed vehicle drives up to you"

Presumably you think this chap is also a viable target?

Gee, can that chap carry 1000 pounds of explosives? A Hilux sure as hell can.

On top of that, while I don't particularly think the tankers should shoot that kid, morons who throw rocks at tanks and get killed got what they deserved for being morons.

Just because you have the bigger gun, doesn't mean you need to use it. Threat assessment. Hearts and minds. I am hoping that are not taught to simply shoot first and think later?

The primary things I want people in my armed forces to do are (1)win and (2) try not to get themselves killed. Being nice to random possible enemies is a good thing too, but it's relegated to (3).

I can't see anything in the comments that indicates a threat, other than "he was nearby" and "he was firing a pistol".

"He'd have to be crazy to be nearby" is implicit. That and "he's nearby" is plenty.

Remember in that part of the world (and many others) firing a gun in the air is considered macho, normal even. It does not necessarily indicate a threat.

So are keeping women in chattel slavery, and honor killings. I don't bleeping care if it's considered normal, it isn't bleeping acceptable.

(Terrorist or civilian? Apparently he has these guns for sport)

There's nothing to indicate he's a terrorist. However, if he were pointing the shotgun at me and we weren't on his land, he's damn well better have a good reason if he doesn't want me to think he's my enemy.

However when you have this much advantage:

Not much advantage, really. Plenty of our military vehicles have been destroyed or damaged by modified civilian vehicles.
-Kle.

"So are keeping women in chattel slavery, and honor killings. I don't bleeping care if it's considered normal, it isn't bleeping acceptable."

Not sure if this relevant. But I'm not sure Iraqi women were kept in chattel slavery or if honour killings were tolerated/ that common. And neither are really as minor as shooting a gun. Plenty of American like shooting their guns at targets, animals, the air for fun so why can't anyone else.

My humble opinion, any one driving up to a tank in the middle of battle while firing a pistol in ANY direction is asking for trouble. Might look excessive to us, with time to think about it, but if your in that situation you've got a second or two to act…. This guy may have been harmless (though not all that bright) but the time it would have took to establish that for certain could have cost a life or two amongst your mates.

YouTube link
YouTube link

Remember in that part of the world (and many others) firing a gun in the air is considered macho, normal even. It does not necessarily indicate a threat.

It's not the bullet with your name on it that you need to worry about. It's all the ones addressed to "whom it may concern."

Gunfire in the direction of US troops is going to be treated as a hostile act. It's explicitly in *every* ROE that gunfire in your direction is authorization to fire.

And, as Capt Jake mentioned, this was the Thunder Run. This was not post-invasion patrolling, where you might want to think twice about someone's hostile intent. This WAS the invasion, where everyone not running away from US troops was considered to be hostile.

It's explicitly in *every* ROE that gunfire in your direction is authorization to fire…. This WAS the invasion, where everyone not running away from US troops was considered to be hostile.

And yet…

"he got on our rt from a on ramp, passed a inf bradly behind me, passed me while i was trying to get permission to fire from my lt, and made it to the command tank

Authorization to fire needed to be approved. If anything not running away was considered hostile, why was this vehicle allowed to enter the roadway and pass three vehicles before being fired upon?

i had my sights on this truck for a little bit

So this wasn't a case of delayed reaction by the shooter. This was a reasoned monitor and a positive decision to engage sought and given.

You just can't please some people. First they criticize you for being trigger happy yahoos, shooting up everything in sight on a whim, then they criticize you for requesting permission to fire and keeping the target in your sights while you review the decision.

Either way, they just want to criticize.

The primary things I want people in my armed forces to do are (1)win and (2) try not to get themselves killed. Being nice to random possible enemies is a good thing too, but it's relegated to (3).
------------------------
i think the problem is (aside from what does winning mean in supporting a foreign host govt) though when ostensible allies take the attitude as reported in this piece – where to them (3) is the most important

link

"When I called out a question at the end of the gathering, the president clearly wanted to publicly cast doubt on the US account that it was the work of one rogue American soldier who "snapped".
"These horrible activities cannot be tolerated," he declared, in a reference to night raids and other Nato military operations he has repeatedly railed against. A day earlier, he had called on Nato forces to pull out of villages and go back to their bases".

However, if he were pointing the shotgun at me and we weren't on his land, he's damn well better have a good reason if he doesn't want me to think he's my enemy.
----------------
i think in the context of all those pics, you're the one on his land

You just can't please some people. First they criticize you for being trigger happy yahoos, shooting up everything in sight on a whim, then they criticize you for requesting permission to fire and keeping the target in your sights while you review the decision.

Either way, they just want to criticize
-------------------
maybe some of this is back to differing military cultures too (and thus the comments of folk here)- from what I've read it may be that British troops have at least a slightly different attitude to such matters.

Not sure if this relevant. But I'm not sure Iraqi women were kept in chattel slavery or if honour killings were tolerated/ that common. And neither are really as minor as shooting a gun. Plenty of American like shooting their guns at targets, animals, the air for fun so why can't anyone else.

Really!?
Those bullets come down, sometimes they kill people.
Shooting a gun in the air (a few caveats, here) is ridiculously irresponsible, and generally a criminal act in the US. Yes, some people in the US do this – they are imbeciles.
-Kle.

The whole cultural thing is a real nest of vipers – I'd agree that on the one hand we shouldn't cater to medieval attitudes – but then on the other hand I know pragmatically that there are organisations working in places like Afghanistan that won't send women out to train Afgan personnel as they simply won't take any notice of female advisors – and equally same problem applies to sending out trainers of say British African or British Asian heritage.

I didn't think I had criticised it. Merely asked the question. If anything, I think it is the same thing – was the vehicle a threat to be engaged, or just a trigger happy gunner wanting to shoot something up?

As others have said, this was Thunder Run – treat anything approaching as having hostile intent and engage. I have no problem with that. It's a conscious tactical decision. Anything driving towards a military convoy that is actively operational is looking for trouble and in those circumstances it is better to take it out then risk having it go off when it gets next to you.

Only this 'technical' wasn't engaged when approaching. It wasn't engaged when it appeared at the on-ramp. It wasn't engaged when the driver was allegedly firing a pistol (either into the air or at the convoy). It was allowed to pass an infantry Bradley, the engaging vehicle and the command M1A1 and only then was it despatched with 7.62 and 2 x 25mm HE.

Without knowing the background for the decision to fire it looks like a gratuitous shooting up of a civilian vehicle for no reason.

Up until shortly before that time, American tanks sure as hell were

Half the reporters can't tell a tank from a truck. I doubt most civilians would know whose tanks they were. They were tanks. How cool do tanks look driving along a road at speed?

Those bullets come down, sometimes they kill people

Yes they do: link

Only this January "12-year-old Diego Duran was wounded in the head by celebratory gunfire while watching fireworks around 1AM in Ruskin, Florida".

Perhaps that is just an indication that imbeciles are not nationality-specific? It's hard to criticise nations for their cultural activities when your own nation is doing the same thing.

"Without knowing the background for the decision to fire it looks like a gratuitous shooting up of a civilian vehicle for no reason."

To people who know little of war, and are trying to come to conclusions based on applying irrelevant situations, yes, it could. But their conclusions are not worthy of serious discussion.

"Perhaps that is just an indication that imbeciles are not nationality-specific? It's hard to criticise nations for their cultural activities when your own nation is doing the same thing."

My nation? No, immigrants carrying out their cultural habits in my country, they'll come around soon after enough people go to prison. You're casting the net wide to make a tangential point.

Really, really pushing the trolling thing hard today, aren't you?

Really, really pushing the trolling thing hard today, aren't you?
-----------------
think thats a bit unfair as Geoff is a stauch supporter of the site and hobby and is merely advancing a different pov (probably a fairly typical British one) – is disagreeing with someone trolling

Did he just call me a troll? :-D

I don't think I am, merely asking difficult questions that people don't like to think about. :-)

immigrants carrying out their cultural habits in my country

You sure about that?

A 23-year-old U.S. Army private on leave after basic training fired a 9 mm pistol into the air in celebration with friends…striking a 28-year-old mother of two in the eye link

I know it is illegal there – Shannon's Law was brought in as a result of this very issue. I suspect you will find it is illegal in most countries (but culturally more common) and I agree that it is imbecilic to fire a gun into the air. In fact, I've commented several times to that effect already. Bullets don't stop when they miss the target.

Like I said, if this guy approached a combat active unit firing a pistol he was lucky he didn't get a 120mm back. I'm just confused why he was allowed to approach the convoy and pass 3 vehicles before he was considered a threat and despatched, perhaps especially if this was Thunder Run…?

Like I said, if this guy approached a combat active unit firing a pistol he was lucky he didn't get a 120mm back. I'm just confused why he was allowed to approach the convoy and pass 3 vehicles before he was considered a threat and despatched, perhaps especially if this was Thunder Run…?

Not to flog a dead horse, Geoff, but read THUNDER RUN. Trust me, nobody was happy that vehicles were getting close to column. Unfortunately, people in Iraq (and LA, and anywhere else with large, multi-laned, multi-level roadways with numerous on and off ramps) tend to drive a little on the crazy side and seem to appear out of nowhere.

There were also instances where vehicles got past one or two AFVs because those vehicles had their hands full with other threats.

If I recall correctly, the incident in the video is specifically referenced in the book – if not, one very much like it is. I'd look it up and quote it, but it's Sunday, I'm lazy, and I'm up to my eyebrows researching something else. ;)

Oh – and Geoff's definitely not a troll. Hell, he made the most important admission right off the bat when he said, "I wasn't there, so I don't know." In other words, he realizes that things may look one way in a video when something entirely different is actually happening. That puts him in the category of "been around the block a couple of times and learned something on the trip," at least in my mind.

On the subject of poor weapon handling and stupidity: People act stupid everywhere. The Fraternity of the Dangerously Simple has a worldwide membership. It knows no borders and rejects no creed. ;)

Best,

Shawn.

read THUNDER RUN

I haven't read the book yet, but I am aware of the operation. It was a bold charge straight up the central highway to the heart of Baghdad, taking 2-3 days, and surprised pretty much everyone involved (as far as I can tell both with the decison to go, and the relative ease with which it took place – much stiffer, organised resistance was expected).

Zucchino was an embedded reporter. Much like Bowden's book on BHD, his book is a factual observational account of the operation which doesn't seek to explore the reasons in any depth.

…instances where vehicles got past one or two AFVs because those vehicles had their hands full with other threats

Absolutely, and acknowledged in my awareness that I wasn't there, so don't know what else may have been drawing attention, or under what rules they were operating.

However it wasn't a case that this was missed. It was observed entering and tracked by the gunner as it passed 3 vehicles before permission to engage was given. That gunner was not dealing with any other threat. He was tracking the truck.

Other than 'firing a pistol' I'm not sure what constituted a threat. I would have expected the ROE for that operation to automatically grant permission to return fire on anything aggresively approaching or firing at the vehicles, no questions, no pauses, no debate. Given the nature of the operation, had that driver fired at any of the vehicles I doubt permission would needed to have been sought. Return fire on anything firing at you.

The BRDM, the BMP, both military vehicles and thus instantly targets. Shoot on sight.

This is described as a 'technical' yet what defines a technical from Abdul Bloggs in his truck? I have no doubt that the presence of a 0.50 or RCL so close would have elicited an instant and lethal response, and under teh circumstances have no problem with that. However all I can see is an empty truck with one, or possibly two, occupants in the cab. Maybe the passenger was brandishing an RPG (can't see from the camera angle) or otherwise threatening the convoy.

It is much more difficult when you are not fighting a uniformed enemy, or clearly defined front lines. Is the chap with the AK trying to kill you, or just going to the fields (and always carries a gun)? It is an incredibly difficult job. When do you wait to find out? When he stands there, when he takes the weapon off his shoulder (is he engaging you, or just putting it down?), not until he has fired at you, and possibly hit you or one of your comrades?

That is an impossible question to answer, of course. Too many influences mean that it can only be judged by the man in the moment. We hope that we do not engage those who are no threat, in the knowledge that in any time of war innocents will become casualties. We rely on superior command, training and skill to make sure that we correctly identify and eliminate targets before they can fire, which often relies on being able to react faster, harder and better once that very (very) fine and narrow line is crossed.

Whatever the threat from the 'technical' was, it was considered low enough that the gunner wanted permission before firing, i.e. it was not sufficiently high that he felt he could engage without question, which in my mind raises the question of what teh threat was deemed to be so far into the encounter.

Unfortunately, people in Iraq (and LA, and anywhere else with large, multi-laned, multi-level roadways with numerous on and off ramps) tend to drive a little on the crazy side and seem to appear out of nowhere

Yep, I've lived out in that part of the world – that is pretty much everyday normal driving. Perhaps that perception is why I question it. I've seen much worse driving than that on a daily basis (avoid the Dubai-Sharjah road in Ramadan… they drive like lunatics to get home before the sun sets!) Tanks on the road or at the roadside are an everyday occurance in many places.

We sometimes (often) forget that the rest of the world is not like our own backyard.

When will Arabs learn that you can not penetrate a tank with a rock?

Inshallah…

OK I am a veteran of OIF and was about 20 minutes behind that tank in another serial..First off Iraqis for whatever reason simply are not phased by Warnings, they constantly continued toward us despite even warning shots. (and still did after major combat operations had ceased )All it takes is one VBIED to bias you toward erring on the side of caution.
Prior to this the command specifically spread warnings in regard to VBIEDs,Also the fedayeen where in civilian clothes and drove every kind of non military vehicle you can think of ….that said I agree with Geoff it does look like overkill so give him a break he has already said he wasn't there and it looked like an overreaction …well that whole op was, (an overreaction) the dang Iraqi army went nuts they drove right onto the highway with us as they panicked and tried to get away Trucks ,APcs and tanks..The M1s and Bradley's killed every thing they saw..and yes the PU truck was in fact a good shoot unfortunate but a good shoot..I like Geoff he is good people he isn't looking to throw dirt just reacted as any normal person would who wasn't there.

I bought and read Thunder Run after reading this thread.
I strongly recommend the book to anyone even vaguely interested.

It's a strange action full of weirdness.