The_Dunedan

You really don't have the first clue how loud those things are, do you?

Let me give you some perspective on this issue alone.

I sell, and shoot, .50BMG rifles. This thing fires a round about the size of a carrot, with a projectile 12.7mm (1/2 inch) in diameter. Effective range is about 1.25 miles. This weapon's muzzle-blast can be heard from well over a mile away, will rupture eardrums at close ranges (less than 5 meters or so), and echoes for several seconds in mountains or built-up areas. With the proper loading, it can penetrate an inch or so (20mm) of Rolled Homogeneous Armor, at a range of 100 meters, at an impact angle of 90 degrees.

The 30mm Hughes chain-cannon fires a round the size of a paper-towel roll, with a projectile the size of a potato that's designed to knock out tanks and can penetrate around 12in of RHA. Compare the size of the two rounds, and you have an idea of just how loud this weapon is. Now, the 30mm doesn't normally use AP rounds; rather it's a sort of high-velocity grenade launcher. This means that besides the noise, there's a lot of blast and shrapnel damage, at least in the immediate impact zone. Again, this thing is pretty obvious.

Now, consider that the insurgents don't use 30mm cannon, or anything even close. Bombs, rifles, light machineguns and mortars, rocket-propelled grenades...lots of noisy stuff, but nothing that produces a number of VERY loud explosions in short order, combined with an identically-spaced series of very loud muzzle-blasts. Remember, and as the video shows, this thing is a giant machinegun. The only other things on the battlefield which would produce a machinegun's distinctive cadence writ so -very- large are the Mk-19 automatic grenade launcher and the various 25mm and 30mm cannon carried by Army/Marine APCs; none of which, nor anything like them, are commonly fielded by Iraqi insurgents.

Either way, this is the kind of noise that anybody with a brain could identify as Pissed Off Yankees Tearin' Shit Up. It's not the kind of thing anybody with kids and more than two braincells runs TOWARDS. Even if you have to go (family in danger, etc), anybody half-sane would have at least gotten the kids behind some cover and told them to stay put -before- racing into the near vicinity of some sort of airborne explosive barrage in this gallant but sadly fatal rescue attempt.

Was the death of the "good samaritan" and the wounding of his innocent children a tragedy? Absolutely. Was it avoidable? Again, absolutely, but on the parts of -both- parties. Papa could have done the reasonable thing and not driven towards the sounds of Pissed Off Yankees, and the Apache crew could have been more careful about whom they shot at. More than enough blame to go around there.

As for the reporters killed with the armed men; they knew the risks and went anyway. This is why we admire combat correspondents and read their work. One should not be surprised when, if one insists upon hanging around with armed men in an area known to be a zone of conflict between such fellows and aforementioned Pissed Off Yankees, one gets killed by Pissed Off Yankees. I can't summon too much outrage over the death of someone who, fully appraised of the risks, goes into such a dangerous situation. Edited to Add: This is akin, IMO, to the deaths (likewise tragic and frequently preventable, but consensual) of not only soldiers but also of dangerous-game hunters, spear-fishers, explorers, sailors, firefighters, dissidents righteous or misguided or just plain mean. They chose to dance with death every bit as much, and just as every now and again an elephant takes his dying revenge or a building collapses onto some gallant would-be savior of life, every now and again combat reporters pay the Ferryman's price to practice their chosen trade.