Article

2008-08-20 Afghanistan

Did NATO Friendly Fire kill French Soldiers in Afghanistan?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-08-20 12:45|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 Hmmm! NATO air power >/= USAF (more likely than not).

Convenient excuse as always. And if correct, will there be a thorough examination as to whether the coords. were correct or was it just a major FUBAR on our part.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2008-08-20 13:26|| 2008-08-20 13:26|| Front Page Top

#2 Le Monde? I'll wait for a second source.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-20 13:27|| 2008-08-20 13:27|| Front Page Top

#3 Always possible in the heat and fog of war, but considering the source I'll follow TW's suggestions.

Posted by DarthVader 2008-08-20 13:29|| 2008-08-20 13:29|| Front Page Top

#4 Speaking of radio communications, I wonder what the French were using. The US uses SINCGARS for ground forces and HAVE QUICK for AF airborne assets. Both of those are frequency hopping, encrypted radios. The French probably normally use a Thales PR4G radio which would not be compatible with either.

Posted by RWV 2008-08-20 13:34|| 2008-08-20 13:34|| Front Page Top

#5 True or not, this will give even more ammo to both the leftists and the pro-russian wingnuts (IE the dominant trend); pépé le pen's statement on this was sadly predictable (sarko being the poodle of the americans, french soldiers dying in vain for an unjust war that doesn't concern France, etc, etc,...) and the comments from the "base" as seen in l'immonde's forums or in the main wingnut blog were simply unbearable. Such a nice convergence, the red and the browns, allied by a mutual detestation of capitalism and the "judeo-atlantism",... a recurring trend in France's political landscape (just see WWII, during which the bulk of the collaborators actually came from the socialist left à la "le monde", 2/3 or them, and of the far-right, 1/3 or so of them).

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-08-20 13:38|| 2008-08-20 13:38|| Front Page Top

#6 The French probably normally use a Thales PR4G

This is what was being introduced as I was doing my draft, a decade or so ago, the older truly vintage 60's (?) comms being phased out, so I'd guess this is what is used now.

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-08-20 13:40|| 2008-08-20 13:40|| Front Page Top

#7 Not unlikely. Thanks De Gaulle and Chirca, if French troops were carring equipement who was uncompatible with Allied one and caused this friendly fire incident we have to tank the two bastards mentionned above.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-08-20 14:45|| 2008-08-20 14:45|| Front Page Top

#8 "judeo-atlanticism"? They aren't even pretending to pretend any more.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-20 14:52|| 2008-08-20 14:52|| Front Page Top

#9 Well, this is termed explicitely among the wingnuts ("Tel Aviv-Washington axis", "americano-zionists", "judeo-atlantists", the love for putin,...), but this is also very clear among the leftist commenters, even if the coded words like "zionists" or "neocons" are used as a negligé; you might want to email Erik Svane from NP! and Le mondewatch, he's a regular on l'immonde forums.

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-08-20 15:19|| 2008-08-20 15:19|| Front Page Top

#10 Thank you, anonymous5089. You are so often a fount of information. There is so much I don't even know that I don't know!

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-20 15:39|| 2008-08-20 15:39|| Front Page Top

#11 From Strategy Page:

A French defense reporter wrote a detailed piece on the battle here. My summary / translation:

Monday morning the French forces sent a patrol from FOB Tora into the Uzbin valley, to the north of Surobi (about 50km east of Kabul). The patrol was in VABs and other vehicles, and consisted of French paratroopers, Afghan army, and a few U.S. TACPs for air coordination. All told the patrol consisted of about 100 troops. This was only the third patrol conducted in the valley since the arrival of French troops into this sector, and the previous patrols had not penetrated very far into the valley.

At 1:30PM local time, the patrol approached a steep, rocky path through a mountain pass, and French troops in the lead vehicles dismounted to scout ahead on foot. They fell into an ambush of about 100 Taliban fighters, and nine French paras were killed and 18 wounded. The main body of the patrol engaged the Taliban and called in U.S. air support consisting of A-10 strike aircraft and apparently AH-64 Apache helicopters.

In the ensuing battle, approximately 30 Taliban were killed and an equal number wounded. The battle lasted until 2:30 in the morning, at which point the various elements of the NATO patrol had reunited and helicopters, including Caracals from the French special forces, arrived to evacuate the wounded. The only NATO combat casualties occurred during the initial ambush; one other French soldier was killed when a VAB vehicle overturned after the battle.

According to General Jean-Louis Gorgelin, commander in chief of French forces, this was a "well-executed ambush", and shows that the Taliban are capable of a certain measure of maneuver warfare and do not lack ammunition or supplies.

1. They had U.S. TACAIR controllers with them, so no translation errors.

2. The French troops were all killed before air strikes were called in, not after.

Posted by Steve">Steve 2008-08-20 16:36|| 2008-08-20 16:36|| Front Page Top

#12 "well-executed ambush"
Maybe so, but when the ambushER suffers 60% (30 killed & 30 wounded out of 100) casualties it can't have been but so well-executed.

Posted by Glenmore 2008-08-20 16:55|| 2008-08-20 16:55|| Front Page Top

#13 so just another media screwup on military matters?

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-20 17:03|| 2008-08-20 17:03|| Front Page Top

#14 Ambuscaded at 1:30 in the afternoon. Firefight 'til 2:30 the next morning. Good gravy.

Posted by Seafarious 2008-08-20 17:43|| 2008-08-20 17:43|| Front Page Top

#15 just another media screwup on military matters?

No, it wasn't a screwup. Le Monde reported bogus bad news on purpose.

Posted by Parabellum 2008-08-20 17:56|| 2008-08-20 17:56|| Front Page Top

#16 Who needs the truth when "Bush Lied, People Died" is the favorite storyline.

Posted by Skunky Glins 5***">Skunky Glins 5*** 2008-08-20 20:03|| 2008-08-20 20:03|| Front Page Top

#17 Maybe so, but when the ambushER suffers 60% (30 killed & 30 wounded out of 100) casualties it can't have been but so well-executed.

That assumes the 100 number is correct. It may be as high as 100% casualties.

Posted by DanNY">DanNY 2008-08-20 20:19|| http://www.nygoe.wordpress.com]">[http://www.nygoe.wordpress.com] 2008-08-20 20:19|| Front Page Top

#18 Re: radio compatibility, there is work being done on 'cognitive radios', i.e. software enabled radios that can adjust frequency, protocol etc. to enable coalition interoperability.

Not near deployment yet but it's coming. Goal is to spread it to emergency response and law enforcement groups in the US as well, facilitating ad hoc organization in response to attacks, natural disasters, pandemics etc.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-20 20:53|| 2008-08-20 20:53|| Front Page Top

23:58 ed
23:58 liberalhawk
23:57 trailing wife
23:56 liberalhawk
23:52 liberalhawk
23:49 newc
23:44 Sgt. Mom
23:41 trailing wife
23:26 Muggsy Glink
22:48 3dc
22:48 ed
22:43 Pappy
22:42 liberalhawk
22:41 3dc
22:41 liberalhawk
22:40 Besoeker
22:39 ed
22:38 liberalhawk
22:32 Danielle
22:31 ed
22:30 liberalhawk
22:30 badanov
22:27 liberalhawk
22:27 Shieldwolf