It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

friendly fire..

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Why does this happen so much in modern warefare? with the amount of technology..it sould not! candian soldiers killed today! this is,so wrong,can you imagine your son going to war to fight for our liberty,and to be killed by our allies! just terrible to me... collaterial damage.. my arse!




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
It's called Fog Of War for a reason. A pilot looking down sees armored vehicles driving along and has a few seconds to identify them. A soldier on the ground sees someone running across a road where they had taken fire from a few minutes earlier. A helicopter pilot sees flashes from the ground and thinks he's being shot at.

All of these situations contribute to friendly fire. There ARE systems out there to help fix the problem, but not all of our allies use them, and not all US units use them yet.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a few spelling mistakes there! should of read it first.was,just not happy when i found out about it!



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Friendly fire, isn't.


One factor is that it is now more readily reported - it happened in just about every war, more so since firearms were introduced, but with modern technology, investigative skills and the compariatively low death count in recemt Western armies during conflict it is more focused upon.

A good example is that in WWII there was an incidence of the Royal Navy shooting down 37 US transport aircraft (out of 144) as they flew overhead during the invasion of Scily. The incident is generally accredited to nerves on the part of the sailors who had just been attacked by German aircraft and now felt safest when firing at any thing that moved, oblivious to the fact the aircraft now passing overhead were friendly.

It was situations like that which led to Alied aircraft having the famous D-Day strips for easy visual identification friend or foe.

But even with modern IFF systems basic military equipmemt identification remains a key obstical in reducing blue-on-blue incidents. We all know how hard it is destinguishing a tank from a civilian lorry on google earth imagery, well try doing that in real-time. But still general poor skills of the individuals involved often comes to the fore.

There is an infamous incident in the Falklands war when an Argentine Mirage jet was hit by a Sidewinder fired by a British sea Harrier. The Mirage was damaged but could just make it back to Port Stanley for an emergency landing - only bad luck for the pilot - as he came in to land he jettisoned his drop tanks to make for a lighter landing and an Argentine AAA gunner mistoke this for a British jet dropping bombs. The AAA gunner finished what the Sea Harrier had started. Now we can sit here and laugh at how anyone could mistake a Mirage III for a Harrier, but when you imagine the mental pressures of war, the keeness to do your job, the fear of being attacked etc it becomes easier to see how these things can happen.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
It's all about training.

I have posted on this subject before, after the A10s destroyed a Warrior in GW1/2.

American pilots receive very little 'real time' recognition training per se than RAF pilots. US Forces also rely heavily on IVIS/IWIS and I believe that most if not all a/c and vehicles in a combat environment are fitted with this system.

Our infantry for example, have to pass recognition training on all types of AFVs, aircraft - fixed and rotary wing and believe it or not, naval ships and submarines. If that were not enough, they were also taught vehicle recognition (cars/trucks etc) for service in NI during 'The Troubles'.

However, no computer system is infallable and nothing, repeat nothing, can replace the Mk 1 eyeball.

In combat, you have seconds to recognize and engage a tgt. A very good ex oppo of mine in just outside Basra on a secondary but vital airfield. He is in charge of the Rapier 2000 Mod 3 batteries. Even though the dustbins track, identify, prioritise, acquire then lock on tgt, it is the gunner who fires the wpn after visual inspection.

Having said that, if you fly sky to mud, especially in support of friends on the ground, the pressure to fire is tremendous and if you're scuttling along at a couple of ks in height, correct tgt acquisition is sometimes very difficult.

Most friendly fire can be avoided by having the suitably qualified FCO/TAFO with forward ground troops, but they of course are usually only available in sufficient quantities on exercise areas.

By the way Planeman, nice Bloodhounds.................


[edit on 5-9-2006 by fritz]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Fritz is correct..especially about Americans receiving very little real time recognition training as compared to RAF pilots.

In the UK they tend to work closely with nationals from other nations using different equipment...more so than us Yanks. Hence the importance of this type of training. We definitely need more of this than we are getting.
Agree very much with Fritz on this.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
one of the largest terms in the english dictionary the americans are most familier with



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
A good example is that in WWII there was an incidence of the Royal Navy shooting down 37 US transport aircraft (out of 144) as they flew overhead during the invasion of Scily. The incident is generally accredited to nerves on the part of the sailors who had just been attacked by German aircraft and now felt safest when firing at any thing that moved, oblivious to the fact the aircraft now passing overhead were friendly.


A correction / clarification...

The friendly fire incident you refer happened on 11 July 1943 (if I recall) when Patton ordered the reinforcement Gela, Sicily. Of the 144 aircraft, c. 20 were destroyed (i.e. not 37) and c. 60 damaged. The naval and ground units involved were primarily US as the incident happened over the US 7th Army area, so it is wrong to attribute the incident to the Royal Navy.

Although the official investigation was inconclusive it did allude to training and discipline deficiencies, as well as poor communication as many units involved were apparently unaware of the airborne movements.

The British airbore troops suffered a similar fate.

Regards



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
one of the largest terms in the english dictionary the americans are most familier with


Yeah? Well at least we learn proper grammar in school, its One, English, Americans and familiar.

Now, fratricide in my opinion is an inescapable part of war, and modern FF incidents are quite rare when you take everything under consideration. Sure they make the headlines but everyday there are hundreds of sorties that don't. Could we train better and improve our identification system? Yes of course and I'm sure that would help reduce the already low fratricide rate but it wont eliminate it altogether.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Now, fratricide in my opinion is an inescapable part of war, and modern FF incidents are quite rare when you take everything under consideration.


I agree. FF has happened in every conlict. The incidents of FF in WW2 are well documented and in every conflict before and after. In WW1 they estimated that in an offensive attack 15% of the soldiers were killed by artilley falling short - I cannot recall where I saw that figure and I am sure it's questionable, but it sticks in my mind nonetheless.

FF incidents are lessened by visual identification, and I fear with the greater use of the technological "fire and forget" and "over the horizon" warfare increases the potentail for FF incidents.

Ultiimately training and awareness, coupled with common sense is the key, but then again I am unfamiliar with the real pressures inherent in conflict, especially the choice to shoot or not-to-shoot - often with a nano-second to decide.

Regards



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah? Well at least we learn proper grammar in school, its One, English, Americans and familiar.


nice persnal attack

oh well (my english isnt good when it comes to spelling sue me, not everyone is
)



[edit on 5-9-2006 by bodrul]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
The thing I don't understand that someone can help me with, is why were there FF incidents involving surface to air missles shooting down aircraft? I thought the Iraqis posed no risk via the air?

Although many British blame the US for the majority of FF statistics, lets not forget how a UK Challenger tank shot and blew the turret off another Challenger mistaking it as a threat.. Quite strange in my eyes

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Knights]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
This is inexcusable. This is the modern day war machine, equipped to the nines with state of the art technology and they can't even discern friend from foe. It seems like there's always some trigger happy ass clown behind the wheel and everyones set to make excuses. The worst part is the total lack of acknowledgment from that pinhead in charge Bush. Not a word from this office (as far as I've seen), unless someone resorts to using sock pockets & animal pictures to explain this to him. There's just absolutely no acceptance of error or remorse. I think the solution here is simple. Canada should just leave Afghanistan completely before more die for no reason (other than target practice). Let the americans sort our their own mess without unnecessary loss of life for others. Can you just imagine the outrage if the shoe were on the other foot.

brill

[edit on 5-9-2006 by brill]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knights
The thing I don't understand that someone can help me with, is why were there FF incidents involving surface to air missles shooting down aircraft? I thought the Iraqis posed no risk via the air?


During the early days of OIF Iraqi launched several SSM's at coalition forces, plus you don't want to be caught unprepared if there is a missile or aircraft threat that you didn't know about.


Originally posted by bodrul
nice persnal attack


Nah, just consider it a personal favor from me, I just don't want you to make the same mistakes next time you try and bash Americans.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
As a Canadian, I really wish there were some way to reduce the number of deaths from friendly fire. 15% of our deaths in Afghanistan are due to friendly fire and that's if no more of the wounded in this latest incident die.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Paraphi, thanks for the correction re Scily. I assume you are correct but I cannot edit my post - I knew of the incident from memory but looked it up on Wikipedia before posting - I was surprised to read the "Royal Navy" bit as I remembered it as Americans-v-Americans also.


Originally posted by paraphi In WW1 they estimated that in an offensive attack 15% of the soldiers were killed by artilley falling short - I cannot recall where I saw that figure and I am sure it's questionable, but it sticks in my mind nonetheless.
Good case study because this is often blamed for the reason that during the first day of the Somme the whistle blew a minute or two AFTER the artillery stopped... and that was a contributing factor to the slaughter that followed - I'm not sure of the statistics but 15% due to "friendly" artillery is probably the lesser of two evils - not that it helped that they were told to walk towards the enemy machine guns anyway.

As an aside, that's made me think how ironic the Britush advance at the Somme was - in the Nepoleonic wars the British used to laugh at how the French walked towards our "thin red line" in column making it easier for us to mow them down in droves - and 100 years later we are the ones walking into the German's "think gray line".

Anyway, there are valid concerns that IFF can act as a beacon to the enemy. This was litterally the case with RAF bomber crews in WWII where the superstition persisted that leaving the IFF on somehow deterred German attack - which DEFINATELY wasn't the case, instead some night fighters where being vectored in to targets based on IFF transmission triangulations.

A similar concern regards the infra-red beacon IFF devices used in GW1 (and 2?) by allied armoured vehicles, and to a lesser extent the dayglow tags typically attached to the backs of soldiers helmets. No doubt these devices reduce blue-on-blue but at the same time they reduce camoflage.




Originally posted by WestPoint23
Nah, just consider it a personal favour from me, I just don't want you to make the same mistakes next time you try and bash Americans.
There, fixed that for you


[edit on 5-9-2006 by planeman]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
There, fixed that for you


One of those cases where your English isn't the same as my English, case and point labor vs. labour. As such it is not the same as the above example you tried to unsuccessfully duplicate.




Link


Off topic I know, but I had to do it. Now lets get back to FF incidents.



[edit on 5-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
As a Canadian, I really wish there were some way to reduce the number of deaths from friendly fire. 15% of our deaths in Afghanistan are due to friendly fire and that's if no more of the wounded in this latest incident die.


Oooo you little.........! Hello Green Dragon Lady. Where ya been Duzie? TKA missing you like crazy.

Back on topic......I simply had no idea that you Cannucks were suffering so mucg from friendly fire in that hellhole of Afghanistan.

I am getting very worried now about that conflict. My friends from the unit I work for here in Gloucester in the UK, deploy to Helmand Province on Monday and I fear for their safety.

The 1st Battalion, the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire - LI, have already lost several men - none to friendly fire, but I'm sure that may well change, as the people they're deploying with, have the USAF and USN F18s for CAS.

I thank God that I am far too old to pick up me trusty bundook and have a pop at these buggars - they are just too bloody good at what they do.

They are not a collection of ragheads or drug crazed nutters, but a collection of well disciplined, battle hardened mountain fighters who are apparently armed with SA13 and SA18 SAMs. (I only mention that as a result of an E-Bluey from a mate in Iraq who states they were told the Nimrod was shot down!)



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I thought Canadians were there to relieve the Americans of their duties.

Didn't an American commander give the orders to Canadian troops after Prime Minister Harper started sending more troops?

Does that not imply that Americans had no business really being there anymore?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Duzey can you give me the actual number killed by fratricide and the actual number killed by the enemy, and if you can the actual number of FF incidents? I'm a little weary of percentages in this case.


[edit on 5-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join