Talk:Friendly fire incident at Sangin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Update as of September 10, 2011[edit]

I was in the convoy and at FOB Robinson during and after the attacks. I agree with the writer's comments below. The article contains several mistakes and does not accurately reflect what happened. First, the convoy was a U.S. led (1/205 RCAG ETT's) convoy that originated from Kandahar Airfield. This convoy was tracked by our TOC and we maintained in constant communication with them. The convoy was attacked on route 611 (I was in the third vehicle in the convey). No coalition casualties during the ensuing firefight. We engaged the enemy forces with our gun trucks and small arms fire. We then called in close air support and continued the mission. After traveling approximately 1000 meters be were attacked by a deep buried IED, killing 6 Afghan Solders. There were no U.S. casualties during the convoy and no ground quick reaction force was launched-the only assistance we received was attack helicopter escort. The convoy firefight took place mid-afternoon and the IED attack occurred at approximately 1700-1800 hours local time. Due to the slow convoy speed we did not arrive at the FOB until approximately 2300 hours local.

The attack on the FOB occurred around 0300 hours and it happened over my location in the FOB. The FOB was on a down hill grade to the Helmond River. The ANA was at the lower most part, we ETT's were up the hill about mid-way and the SF compound was at the highest ground. The attack resulted in 2 coalition KIA.

I do agree the convey attacks and the FOB attack were two unrelated incidences.

B. West

End of Update[edit]

End of Update[edit]

Coalition victory?[edit]

I'm wavering on whether we should label this a "Coalition victory", there's no indication this was an attempt to overrun the base, was it a hit-and-fade in which case it was successful, or a failed attempt to overrun the base? There have been two Afghan attempts to overrun FOBs in the past, but this doesn't seem to fit the same standards. I'd say we remove the field right now, until we find something more definitive. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rework[edit]

This page needs a serious rework. There seems to be some lack of agrement in the sources sa to what actualy constitutes this battle. And the the death of Sgt Stone having been part of it. [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Confusing to say the least, I'm thinking since it took place overnight, perhaps it was the night of the 28th/morning of the 29th? Or perhaps the DoD says he died the 28th, which would have been the date in the United States when he was killed, even though it was already the 29th in Afghanistan? Everything says he was shot on-base in an attack by the Taliban...but there's a severe lack of information, I agree. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Icasualties lists him as being killed on the 29th, and CNN lists both Stone and Costall being killed on the 28th, but indicates it was in the same conflict. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect thats becasue its actualy two sperate actions, the Ambush, and then the attack on the base (some four hoours later, and the next day).[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
Both were killed in the attack on the base, but I think it's worth including the ambush as part of the battle, since it explains why nearly 40 PPCLI were sitting at an FOB in a city they'd never approached before. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the ambush should have a mention, but not as part of the battle. Spmething along the lines of
"four hours before the attack on the base a convoy in the area was attacked"
This is clearly two actions, and should be treated as such[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
I was actually thinking last night that we should rename and re-structure the article entirely, it wasn't really a "battle" at all; it was a hit-and-fade attack that only ended up being any more notable than the thousands of others because of the friendly fire incident which killed several Coalition members; So Friendly Fire incident at Sangin, or even Ambush of Sangin Convoy might seem like better titles. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that this does not have any real inportance as a battle then 100's of other skimishes other then the reasons you say.[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
I have taken the liberty of moving the page.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
Looks good Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington[edit]

The Burlington free press link still come up as unavailible.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Yes, the article is removed from their website, if you google you will find "illegal" pirated copies of the article floating online, but we can't link to those. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Friendly fire incident at Sangin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Friendly fire incident at Sangin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friendly_fire_incident_at_Sangin&oldid=1195319490"