View Full Version : Friendly Fire Isn't
Heibges
06-12-07, 04:44 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/us_forces_kill_.html
Friendly fire happens in every war, but there seems to be more publicity surrounding it this time around.
In WWII, the Army Aircorps dropped bombs on Army troops and inflicted like a thousand casualties. Earlier they had destroyed the Panzer Lehr Division with a similar tactic, and this may have given the planners hubris.
I feel sorry for the guys that were killed, but I also feel sorry for the guys who did the shooting. They will have to live with that guilt for the rest of their lives.
They better watch these soldiers to make sure they don't try to commit suicide.
robbo180265
06-12-07, 04:57 PM
This paragraph is quite important
"There are conflicting reports from the scene, however, over which side fired first and over whether or not an ongoing gun battle with the Taliban confused the issue".
It might not be the US soldiers fault. Either way a real tragedy.
Hakahura
06-12-07, 05:16 PM
Friendly Fire Isn't
Not wrong there.
What disturbs me more than friendly fire is when one ally attempts to cover its peoples mistakes after killing another allies people. One rule for one but not for anyone else.
Pilots on amphetamine, admiting their mistakes on the aircrafts flight recorder...
Not admissible.
By the way they were back in the USA from the Gulf in less than 24 hours.
Safe and Sound.
These things happen in war, but some governments don't like to admit their military is not quite as "precise" as they like to make out. Might make war appear unsafe and dirty. Perhaps something that should be avoided.
Yes I'm referring to a pair of A10's Vs Warrior APC.
Thanks Uncle Sam, buy some glasses and learn to take responsibilty for your actions.
Yahoshua
06-12-07, 06:32 PM
Thanks Uncle Sam, buy some glasses and learn to take responsibilty for your actions.
*sigh* If only the bureaucrats would do such an honorable deed.
robbo180265
06-12-07, 06:55 PM
*sigh* If only the bureaucrats would do such an honorable deed.
I'm with you on that one.
I remeber a few years back when the US was actually invested in Afghanistan, 4 Canadian soldiers were killed by 2 American f-16s. There was a huge outcry in my country about how that could happen. I wasn't as perturbed since I understood that in any kind of warzone friendly fire happens, especially with Joint Ops between differnet militaries. That said I was angry about it and wondered how the Americans could bumble it. With such specialized air power I wondered how they couldn't know where their allies were on the map.
Well what really pissed me off was that they went after the 2 pilots instead of the people who ordered them to do it, and who confirmed that they were enemies when the recordings showed that the pilots were unsure and repeatedly asked for confirmation. They did their job and someone upstairs screwed up. The wrong heads rolled and these Americans are now suffering a worse shame than just having to live with killing the friendlies to begin with. The politics of warfare, post-Vietnam, stink madly.
Hakahura
06-12-07, 07:01 PM
Pola*********Gticans!
Apperantly America had a friendly fire reputation in WW2 as well as Iraq.
At least it took the lime light away from the British reputation for friendly fire in WW1. :hmm:
Camaero
06-12-07, 07:12 PM
I remeber a few years back when the US was actually invested in Afghanistan, 4 Canadian soldiers were killed by 2 American f-16s. There was a huge outcry in my country about how that could happen. I wasn't as perturbed since I understood that in any kind of warzone friendly fire happens, especially with Joint Ops between differnet militaries. That said I was angry about it and wondered how the Americans could bumble it. With such specialized air power I wondered how they couldn't know where their allies were on the map.
Well what really pissed me off was that they went after the 2 pilots instead of the people who ordered them to do it, and who confirmed that they were enemies when the recordings showed that the pilots were unsure and repeatedly asked for confirmation. They did their job and someone upstairs screwed up. The wrong heads rolled and these Americans are now suffering a worse shame than just having to live with killing the friendlies to begin with. The politics of warfare, post-Vietnam, stink madly.
Amen to that. Whenever there is an incident these days, someone’s head must roll, even if he or she had little to do with it and even if they are valuable people.
Politics and war should never have been mixed!!!
SUBMAN1
06-12-07, 07:12 PM
Yeah - I agree with some of these statements. Friendly fire is a fact of war. I'm amazed however at how little friendly fire there is these days. Its a rarity.
Another thing that amazes me is how little credit the US of A and UK get for the care they take in protecting even civilians. They invest heavily in weaponry that is precise just to avoid this aspect of warfare when they don't have to. Even Israel was criticized during its campaigne recently for killing a few civilians. They did an admirable job of protecting as many as they could.
For some caparrisons of WWII like some other posts suggest, the mark of accuracy today is a few meters. In WWII, it was 5 miles. It was OK to kill 30,000 civilians if you managed to get the target you were looking for back then. Today, well, the press would have a field day if you killed even one.
-S
Even Israel was criticized during its campaigne recently for killing a few civilians. They did an admirable job of protecting as many as they could.
Oh boy... I could go crazy on that one.:roll:
I'll just say this. Cluster bombs... farmer's fields... post-cease fire...
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1616665.ece
It was OK to kill 30,000 civilians if you managed to get the target you were looking for back then. Today, well, the press would have a field day if you killed even one.
-S
The target in WW2 oftern was the civilians and killing 30,000 was considerd a great sucsess!
As for the modern press haveing a field day if one civilian was killed.....there was not a huge field day and it was a few more than one....*goes off to find civilian death toll for initial Iraqi invasion*
robbo180265
06-12-07, 07:59 PM
It was OK to kill 30,000 civilians if you managed to get the target you were looking for back then. Today, well, the press would have a field day if you killed even one.
-S
The target in WW2 oftern was the civilians and killing 30,000 was considerd a great sucsess!
As for the modern press haveing a field day if one civilian was killed.....there was not a huge field day and it was a few more than one....*goes off to find civilian death toll for initial Iraqi invasion*
Allow me.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Heibges
06-12-07, 10:33 PM
It was OK to kill 30,000 civilians if you managed to get the target you were looking for back then. Today, well, the press would have a field day if you killed even one.
-S
The target in WW2 oftern was the civilians and killing 30,000 was considerd a great sucsess!
As for the modern press haveing a field day if one civilian was killed.....there was not a huge field day and it was a few more than one....*goes off to find civilian death toll for initial Iraqi invasion*
I think Hap Arnold said to Curtis LeMay that if the US lost the war, they would be tried as war criminals. So obviously they knew what they were doing was morally questionable.
The level to which statistical anaysis could make reliable BDA and casualty predicitons beforehand, I think made it more attractive than its actual military significance. These guys took heavier casualties than the Marines for no real military purpose.
TteFAboB
06-13-07, 11:17 AM
These things happen in war, but some governments don't like to admit their military is not quite as "precise" as they like to make out. Might make war appear unsafe and dirty. Perhaps something that should be avoided.
Yes I'm referring to a pair of A10's Vs Warrior APC.
Thanks Uncle Sam, buy some glasses and learn to take responsibilty for your actions.
In regione caecorum rex est luscus. Uncle Sam should've provided binoculars to those pilots as it does for others indeed, but it will only buy glasses after you:
1. Train your personnel better.
2. Don't let crews inadequately modify their vehicles.
3. Buy passive glint tape.
4. Buy more radios and replace the outdated ones.
5. Don't send unprepared liaison personnel with limited training to war.
6. Inform ground commanders of coalition procedures.
7. Listen to Lt-Col Larpent's warnings instead of ignoring them for 12 years.
8. Admit that you could not produce an effective Friend-or-Foe system.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=105256&page=3&highlight=report
Jimbuna
06-13-07, 11:28 AM
It was OK to kill 30,000 civilians if you managed to get the target you were looking for back then. Today, well, the press would have a field day if you killed even one.
-S
The target in WW2 oftern was the civilians and killing 30,000 was considerd a great sucsess!
As for the modern press haveing a field day if one civilian was killed.....there was not a huge field day and it was a few more than one....*goes off to find civilian death toll for initial Iraqi invasion*
Allow me.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Sadly....the real victims of war are usually the civilians and not the armed combatants :yep:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.