Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by charlie.collins on Tue, 04/01/2003 - 11:29

Tagged:

Politics

A friend sent this to me, its chilling gun camera video of an AC130 gunship engaging (what are hopefully) enemy buildings, vehicles and people (the conversation of what is clear to fire on and what is not leaves something to be desired, I know its difficult in the heat of the battle, but you will see what I mean when you hear the "square or rectangle" conversation about which building to blow up). (Also note, the video has been around awhile I suppose, but this was the first I had seen it, it may be old hat to some.) After watching this I am just sort of taken aback and reminded that all the hype on TV and all the sunset photos of the desert and the fighting men sitting on their trusty tanks are not what war is about. I know thats obvious, but its easy to be removed from it when you are so far away and you simply see the marketing style news presentations. War is about killing people, whatever the reasons for it or against it may be, its a horrific business. The AC130 is incrediibly effective as evidenced by this video. I also would say, if one is ever after you, and you arent dead before you know its after you, just dont move man, dont move a muscle. (Amazing technology to see the level of detail.) The linked video is hosted elsewhere (removed from here due to bandwidth issues). If the link stops working just Google "AC 130 Gunship video" and you will find it. AC130_GunshipMed video

Add new comment

Comments

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by jheimann (not verified) on Tue, 04/01/2003 - 12:01.

Damn, where can I get this video game? Just so you know, when you hear the screaming, they are yelling 'gun ready'. It's basically a flying tank and they have to load the round into the cannon(s). Here is a link to a page with the specs on the AC130: LINK.

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by jeepmutt (not verified) on Tue, 04/01/2003 - 13:24.

This bitch is what the local military wanted during the action portrayed in the movie "Blackhawk Down." It wasn't approved, because billy didn't want to 'escalate' the situation. I'd say it woulda made a slight difference in how that little debacle turned out. I thought they were mothballing these... 'Course I thought they were decomming the A-10, but there'll all over the place. (Really, what the hell is gonna replace it?)

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by jeepmutt (not verified) on Tue, 04/01/2003 - 13:29.

**** me.

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by jeepmutt (not verified) on Tue, 04/01/2003 - 13:30.

I dunno, they're pretty clear about what they can and can not hit. It is obvious that everyone knew what "square" and "rectangle" meant. Don't know what more you could ask for.

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Tue, 04/01/2003 - 14:28.

Well, hmmm, I dont see how the confusion is not evident to you? What is disconcerting is that they say you are clear to take it out. Which one? You see the square? Yes. You are clear to take it out. The square? No the rectangle, the rectangle, etc. I just meant with all the friendly fire and other crap that we have its surprising we dont have better identification of targets actually down to the gunners before the battle. Maybe thats impossible of course, if the intelligence is last minute and they head on over, but the ambiguity in the conversation about which one was clear and which wasnt, for a second there AFTER it was called clear, is what I meant. But as you aptly point out, they did all recognize a square from a rectangle, uh, great point.

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Tue, 04/01/2003 - 14:43.

i went back to the video, here is what i hear. "i got the square building. the uh, rectangle building to the northwest" "ok on the big square building there is a sqaure rectangular like holding pond next to it" "do you see that?" "yes, just left of it" "its on the west side" "you do see the rectangular shaped building next to it correct?" "yes sir" "that is the mosque, uh, do not engage the mosque" "roger" "the square building is the mosque?" "THE RECTANGLE" "the rectangle" So they did get it straight very very quickly, and they did a great job, I just meant its a little scary when we differentiate the targets based on "that is the mosque" "the square", "the rectangle", well its got a "square rectangle like" holding pond next to it? Its easy to see how things get confusing. "you do see the square building with the holding pond" "yes sir", "affirmative", the

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by jheimann (not verified) on Tue, 04/01/2003 - 15:31.

Yeah, but think how accurate this is comparative to even 20 years ago. Back then the common ordnance wer dumb bombs and artillery shells with calculated trajectories. You also have to compare this to just about every other military in the world - we are probably one of the very few who are so discriminate about what we hit. So yes, in an ideal situation they would have exat information and everything - but if you look at this example in comparison to the real world, it makes me damn proud of our military and the great strides we go to to prevent collateral damage. In fact, a lot of the military R&D is spent towards this goal - how many other militaries do you think actually spend millions every year researching non-lethal weaponry? I saw this awesome article on a microwave 'laser' (no, not on sharks) that causes intense pain in whoever it is pointed at but does not cause any damage. Neato stuff man. Kinda like a 'stun' setting!

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by jeepmutt (not verified) on Tue, 04/01/2003 - 17:02.

Your completely dumbass first response aside, I think you see my point. In the vocabulary that they had, the 'square' and 'rectangle' (along with the initial cardinal points) were more than enough to define the targets. One guy had to be corrected (not the gunner by the way, sounded like his commander or spotter,) and he was immediately. It wouldn't have mattered if they used 'blue' or 'red' (assuming they had colors,) the definitions were 100% clear to those involved. Now, if intel had been wrong, that'd be another story. Another thing that really impressed me is that they could identify targets based on their cardinality while the plane was going around in circles. How many people you know can point out north, then dance around in a circle, then point out southwest? [%sig%]

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by Phaid (not verified) on Tue, 04/01/2003 - 22:36.

I have a higher-res version of this same video which was given to me by someone closer to the source. Just to clarify, the footage itself was actually taken by a Predator drone. This is why the orientation of the image doesn't really make sense in some cases compared to the things they're shooting at - the video is actually shot from a different aircraft.

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by jeepmutt (not verified) on Wed, 04/02/2003 - 08:22.

Ahh, I wondered about that. I figgered that some of the shots were taken by other gunners in the aircraft. Figgered they were aiming at different things that 'our' guy.

Well the Ac-130 (spooky) dose

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 05/12/2010 - 09:45.

Well the Ac-130 (spooky) dose have three guns. The video shows the 40mm. In the video you see huge blasts, thats from the 105mm. when i was in iraq the ac-130 was a angel from the sky. That plane is a beast and really saves lives. The pilots do a great job and the gunners have every soldiers upmost respect.

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Wed, 04/02/2003 - 08:35.

what exactly is dumbassed about my response, please enlighten me? i think its obvious that there was some confusion, its a very minor point, it was a minor observation, and i said they did a great job nothwithstanding, yet YOU keep arguning this point and I respond. i am a dumbass, but not for my response, for expecting you to actually undestand something.

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by jeepmutt (not verified) on Wed, 04/02/2003 - 09:25.

"But as you aptly point out, they did all recognize a square from a rectangle, uh, great point." This gem is taken from your first response to me. As you later realized, this was not the point of my statement at all. Your sarcasm, scorn and ridicule over something that you clearly didn't understand is what I define as a 'first dumbass response.'

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Wed, 04/02/2003 - 11:39.

Uh, ok. Your statement "It is obvious that everyone knew what 'square' and 'rectangle' meant" was what I considered to be sarcastic and frankly stupid. Telling the shapes apart was not difficult, and of course they could, so, hence the sarcasm back at ya. My point, and the confusion in the original conversation, was over which building was the mosque and which wasnt and the shapes just happened to be what were used to identify them. So I responded to your statement with sarcasm, imagine that. Pretty fine details to be arguing over here, and worthless details at that. Overall, as I said before, I thought they did a good job but the video is pretty chilling. Its a fucked up business, whether you are good at it or not. Even if they are despicable terrorist jackasses, it was disturbing to watch (at least for me).

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by jeepmutt (not verified) on Wed, 04/02/2003 - 12:28.

OK, I am going on with this because, for whatever reason, I really want you to understand what I was _trying_ to say. I wasn't saying that they knew the definitions of squares and rectangles. I was saying that, in this context, the word pronounced "skwair" meant "not-mosque" and that the word pronounced "rektaingul" meant "mosque". I believe that your original misunderstanding is based on the fact that you thought I was being sarcastic when I said they knew what 'square' and 'rectangle' meant. The reason I put these words in quotes was that I was trying to indicate that the words had more meaning in this context than just definitions of the word square or rectangle. My whole point was that given context and vocabulary, there was very, very little confusion (about 1/4 second) over what was what. I think that you agree with this, and I acknowledge that, I am just trying to explain where things went awry in our discourse. Why? No clue, it's a trait of mine, I like to know how/why **** gets started, and then try to straighten it out. Lost a lot of friends that way. ;) Anyway, I'm done here and mayhaps we can let this little pony lie, its taken quite a beating. [%sig%]

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by verypleased (not verified) on Fri, 04/25/2003 - 04:49.

square/rectangle---what's the difference. Take them all out!! Way to GO!

Re: Video of AC130 Gunship engagement in Afghanistan

Submitted by rush_ems (not verified) on Tue, 04/27/2004 - 19:02.

Phaids' comments are NOT correct. I assume your reference to "orientation" is related to the slight audio/visual mismatch during small portions of the clip. I believe this to be due to editing of certain audio and /or video prior to release. The weapons crew can have a different sight picture than the FLIR image seen in the video. You can clearly hear the distinctive sounds of the c-130 props through the hotmike in this audio which is about 95% matching to the images seen. The circular rotation images and physical a/c orientation around this target is consistent to the turning radius of above said a/c. WHY operate a strategic drone in such close proximity to tactical a/c when the AC-130 has FULL video datralink (VDL) capability. The video seen is fully obtainable already from the ac-130???? [%sig%]

Screaming Penguin

- Source Does Matter