Friendly Fire always seems to be American

Sean Reilly

I'm sure there is the odd incident where the side doing the firing isn't American, but I haven't heard of any. Is this trend due to the sheer prevalence of US forces and arms or due to a wider degree of incompetance? Even rated on a proportional basis, the Americans do seem to screw up a lot. Just goes to show - there's nothing more dangerous than a dumb user.

Jeremy Falcon

Sean Reilly wrote: Friendly Fire always seems to be American Bullshit, so you hear a story and make assumptions? What does that say about your maturity level? Where's the facts? Sean Reilly wrote: but I haven't heard of any Because nobody cares unless it's the US in the frying pan. Sean Reilly wrote: there's nothing more dangerous than a dumb user. Yeah, like one who can't even login to make a post. Jeremy Falcon

Sean Reilly

Actually, Einstein, it has been widely and consistently reported in the press - including the American press. This is the trouble with you people - you just cannot take criticism. You refuse to accept that you are at fault over anything. The facts - as clearly ststed in the press and by US military spokespeople - illuminate the fact that the vast majority of "friendly fire" incidents are caused by American troops.

Ed Gadziemski

You're in trouble now, Sean. You dared to criticize America. Did you forget "you're either with us or against us?" (Of course, Jesus said that first, so Bush & the Americans are plagiarizing.) (Uh-oh, now I'm in trouble, too. I criticized Bush!) Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Maximilien

With the huge number of planes, bombs, and missiles going on all over the place, friendly fire will happen, and since the Iraki Information Ministry will surelly never tell about that, we only hear about those that happen in the coalition; and more so, that we seem to take a very personnal human approach to the war and the casualties. I heard on the CBC french TV (or radio) that friendly fire death is quite important, but I can't find any reference of that. but here's one link. http://www.rethinkingschools.org/war/stat173.shtml Max.

Maximilien Lincourt For success one must aquire one's self

Jeremy Falcon

Sean Reilly wrote: Actually, Einstein Yeah, there's that shining example of your maturity again. Sean Reilly wrote: it has been widely and consistently reported in the press - including the American press Personally, I've only seen one story on one incident. Take the time to show the facts and provide those of us without your crafty insight and wisdom with some reference material. Sean Reilly wrote: You refuse to accept that you are at fault over anything. Know what ya get when you break down the word assume? Ass-u-me? An ass out of u and me. Sean Reilly wrote: The facts - as clearly ststed in the press and by US military spokespeople - illuminate the fact that the vast majority of "friendly fire" incidents are caused by American troops. Since you obviously have an Internet connection, I'm sure you can provide me with some links pointing to the masses of incidents to support your claim. Jeremy Falcon

Sean Reilly

I'm wondering if there is a way to compute the estimated incidence of "friendly fire" per amount and type of ordinance used or, maybe more importantly (controversially?), whether it largely depends on who is at the controls.

Paul Belikian

Sean, Maybe it's because most of the 300,000 troops are American? :wtf:

Sean Reilly

Jeremy Falcon wrote: Know what ya get when you break down the word assume? Ass-u-me? An ass out of u and me. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Yeah, there's that shining example of your maturity again. Pot calling kettle? In the last few days alone, as reported on CNNs web site and tirelessly on the television news, a British Tornado GR4 was shot down by a Patriot missile. An American F-16 pilot on Monday was forced to engage a battery of Patriot missiles after they locked onto his plane as a hostile target. A busload of Syrians (you probably care little for them) was blown to pieces by American planes. Two cruise missiles landed in Turkey - albeit without hurting anyone. Do you wish me to include other incidents - the canadians in Afghanistan, the myriad of allies in the Gulf War 1? The point is, that the majority of these incidents seem to stem from the US side. Now, clearly you are an apologist for anything that comes out of the White House - and that's fine - but to take umbrage over immutable facts simply because they seem, in your overly paranoid mind, to "blame" or "accuse" America is myopic and nesceient. From CNN:"• A U.S. F-16 fighter jet early Monday mistakenly fired on a U.S. Patriot missile battery about 30 miles south of Najaf, Iraq, U.S. Combined Forces Air Component Command said. There were no coalition casualties in the strike. It was the second friendly fire incident of the war. Two British pilots were killed Sunday when a Patriot missile shot down their Tornado GR4 as it returned from a mission over Iraq." http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

Chris Austin

Sean Reilly wrote: I'm sure there is the odd incident where the side doing the firing isn't American, but I haven't heard of any. Actualy I just heard on the radio that 2 British tanks had fired on one another. Sean Reilly wrote: Just goes to show - there's nothing more dangerous than a dumb user. Now you are just trying to start a flame war :) Weren't the two Sea King helicopters that collied being flow by british pilots and part of the Royal navy? Sounds like you are picking and choosing the media announcements that you are remembering. My take is that it is a lack of coordination due to the sheer speed at which they are trying to conduct this operation. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton

Lost User

Sean Reilly wrote: illuminate the fact that the vast majority of "friendly fire" incidents are caused by American troops. Ummm... because much of the rest of the world is busy sitting on their thumbs?? Mike Mullikin :beer:

"I'm not calling you a liar but....I can't think of a way to finish that sentence." - Bart Simpson

KaRl

About WW2, there are plenty of stories of british planes attacked by US fighters (for example the squadron leader Pat Thornton-Browne of the 609 West Riding shot down by P47s which also shot 2 others typhoons in the attack) , or in Closterman's book "the Big Show" the attack of his flight by P51s and how one of his wingman even fired back) Jeremy Falcon wrote: Because nobody cares unless it's the US in the frying pan. Perhaps.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Sean Reilly

Well, this is partly what I'm asking. If you want to include operator misuse as "friendly fire" then I'll concede the point (like the US pilot who crashed earlier), but I was referring to the term as the military use it - actively targeting and killing allied troops through lethal ordinance.

Sean Reilly

Maybe it is - maybe it is merely a linear relationship between the number of troops/weapons systems you have and the deaths via "friendly fire" that arise.

KaRl

Paul Belikian wrote: Maybe it's because most of the 300,000 troops are American? Intersting point. How many Americans are in Iraq and how many of them are fighting troops "on the field" (ie not services, intendance, HQ..) ? US Army is known to have a lot of services to follow the battle core. During WW2, Marshall hoped to make 212 divisions with 8 millions men, but finally could only make 90 (+ the armoured divisions? can't remember), because of the inflation of the services. So I wonder how many troops the US really use. Even 300 000 men seem pretty a pretty low number to take and control such a big country.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Chris Austin

Well, as I recall there have been 3 incidents in this war so far. 2 involved US forces firing on friendly targets and 1 incident involving British forces firing on friendly target. Sounds like the sample is tooooo small to make any preponderance of a greater rate of incidence. My take is still the same, everything over there must be happening at mind-numbing speeds and these people are doing all they can to survive. If you look at the incident of the Tornado being shot down, then it is not a users fault it was due to an IFF failure. Amazingly there were dozens of other planes in the area but the Tornado wa the only aircraft targeted. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton

Doug Goulden

You tell'im :laugh::laugh::laugh: Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Richard Stringer

Chris Austin wrote: My take is that it is a lack of coordination due to the sheer speed at which they are trying to conduct this operation. And the fact that they were wearing NVG which ruins depth perception and also createws tunnel vision. The guy , Sean, is an idiot anyway so don't cloud is silly little head with any facts. He probably is the type who runs from poodles or anyone over 5' tall. But he is a legend in his own mind. Richard In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. Orson Welles

David Wulff

I expect it is proportional to the size of the force, and the fact that most of the blue on blue incidents happen with precision technology guide ordinance (is it Tomahawks that have a five percent error rate? - sounds like it could be with all the stray ones falling left right and center). It's a trade off between putting soldiers in the first line of attack positions of using dumb machines, and whilst killing your own side is a major problem it probably saves more lives overall. That's not getting into the value of the lives though, and I would imagine (as chilling as it sounds) that a trained and experienced pilot is worth far more than a newly recruited infantryman, exlcuding the cost of his equipment. Overall though it probably doesn't make that much difference - war, as they say, is hell.

David Wulff

"Somebody get this freakin' duck away from me!" - Strong Bad [^]

Sean Reilly

BBC confirming that a British tank shell "...either missed its intended target or rebounded off it" and blew the turret of another British tank. So indeed, there is an incident not caused by American troops. Of course, this does nothing to asuage the earlier fact that the proportion of these incidents is heavily in "favour" of the Americans - but who cares about facts, right?