NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: There are some on here who continue to make the libellous claims that so-called "friendly fire" among American forces account for a huge percentage of combat deaths. This is just to set the record straight and to expose these liers for who and what they are.


Friendly Fire Deaths Rare (javascript:open_window('http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,90677,00.html','news',700,400,'TR',0,5,0,'resizable=yes,scrollbars'))


Associated Press | March 11, 2006
WASHINGTON - The rate of friendly fire deaths for Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is substantially lower than in other major military conflicts, a decline that Army officials attribute to better training and high-tech equipment.

Over the past four years, 17 Soldiers have died in friendly fire incidents such as the one that killed former professional football player Pat Tillman, according to Army data.

The 17 Soldiers felled by friendly fire incidents are about 1 percent of the 1,575 Soldiers who have died overall. More than 2,500 troops from all services have died in the two conflicts.

The 1 percent rate is well below that of Operation Desert Storm when 17 percent of all service members who died were killed by friendly fire. Rates for World War II, Vietnam and the invasions of Grenada and Panama were also higher than the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

So far, the 2004 death of Tillman, an Army Ranger and corporal, during a firefight near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border has been the only one in the war to trigger a formal criminal investigation. Army officials said its Criminal Investigation Command has reviewed other incidents, and there have been some reprimands or administrative punishments handed out.

Officials said they could not provide details on those reprimands, including how many there have been.

Of the 17 deaths caused by U.S. or other coalition allies, 10 were in Iraq and seven in Afghanistan. They occurred in 11 separate incidents.

The information the Army provided Friday consisted of numbers, not names of those killed or details of the incidents. Identities of the victims of friendly fire have been previously reported.

Pentagon spokesman Paul Boyce said friendly fire deaths have declined due to increased training, better leadership and new technology that makes it easier to identify forces.

For example, a small, thumbprint-size square of reflective material is embedded into the upper portion of Soldiers' sleeves and allows others to identify them as U.S. troops.

Army officials say today's more lethal weapons, difficult battlefields and rapid-paced engagements are most often the cause of friendly fire deaths.

"Combat is highly complex and stressful," Boyce said. "Operations are conducted 24 hours a day, in all types of terrain and weather."

Boyce said that in addition to intense engagements with weapons being fired from air, land and sea, "Soldiers become fatigued and equipment can malfunction. These and other occurrences produce what is called the fog of war."

The rate of friendly fire deaths for all U.S. troops in World War II was 12-14 percent; Vietnam, 10-14 percent; Grenada, 13 percent; and Panama, 6 percent.

None of which is relevant to the 'friendly fire' cases which we Brits complain about. I haven't really heard about US on US friendly fire so I won't comment on that.

This is rather misleading I feel...

Desert Storm was almost entirely combat, with no occupation at the end. FF % should be calculated from the the same levels of combat, so until the war was "officially" over.

WWII rates will be higher because the recruits were not professional soldiers in the main part - they were volunteers with less training. Same for vietnam - the draft meant the soldiers were less well trained.

I don't know about greneda or panama, so I can't comment.

In each Gulf War there were cases of British APCs being attacked by US aircraft because they couldn't distinguish them from Warsaw Pact models. Even though they had Union Flags painted across the entire top of the turret, and an IFF beacon fitted. Then there's the British Tornado which got shot down by a Patriot missile which interpreted it as a Scud. And not forgetting the couple of dozen American soldiers who died when their Blackhawks were misidentified as Mi-24s back in the first Gulf War. So it's not a lie to say, shit happens, and when you're only losing a few hundred men here and there, a handful of cases get noticed.

Still doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the Tornado crew who got blown out the air by a Patriot missle system. :mad:

EDIT: TG beat me to it, but damn, makes me angry.

Eut, the big difference is GPS. Just about everyone in the theater can be tracked by GPS, now. In DS, it was really hard to tell where you were, because just about all the desert looked the same. It's a lot better deconfliction than the orange trash bags that friendlies taped to their vehicles. I'm not sure how much more the rate can decrease, but 1 percent is pretty darned good.

I had a friend that surveyed in artillery batteries and he had just started using GPS. Problem was that there wasn't a datum that provided good positioning for the coordinate translations to latitude and longitude at the beginning of the 'war'. Eventually, that was calculated, but it was an oversight at first.

Still doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the Tornado crew who got blown out the air by a Patriot missle system. :mad:

EDIT: TG beat me to it, but damn, makes me angry.
So what's your point? That warfare should be perfect? That's a pipe dream, if I ever saw one. Friendly fire losses are acceptable because it's better than the alternative. Sure, it sucks for the guys that get killed, but for every accident, there are multiple causes.

I can't describe the precautions that we had to take in returning to the carrier if we lost certain equipment. But it's sufficient to say that there is always a way back and there are always proper procedures to follow, even if everything is working properly. Otherwise, how do the friendlies know that it isn't just a well designed decoy?

Friendly fire losses are acceptable because it's better than the alternative. Sure, it sucks for the guys that get killed, but for every accident, there are multiple causes.
While I'd agree with your argument that war isn't perfect and when you're dealing with weapons accidents often mean death, I have to object to your language. I'm sure even the military would not describe friendly fire as 'acceptable;' 'inevitable' and 'regretable,' perhaps, but not 'acceptable.' Equally, I would say that the people killed would find it slightly worse than just 'it sucks.'

So what's your point? That warfare should be perfect? That's a pipe dream, if I ever saw one. Friendly fire losses are acceptable because it's better than the alternative. Sure, it sucks for the guys that get killed, but for every accident, there are multiple causes.

I can't describe the precautions that we had to take in returning to the carrier if we lost certain equipment. But it's sufficient to say that there is always a way back and there are always proper procedures to follow, even if everything is working properly. Otherwise, how do the friendlies know that it isn't just a well designed decoy?

And what about the armoured convoy which two attack runs by two American planes (which had been specifically ordered to keep out of the area) despite the fact that they were clearly identified and flying British flags?

As far as I know the cowboys in those planes still haven't been brought to justice.

So what's your point? That warfare should be perfect? That's a pipe dream, if I ever saw one. Friendly fire losses are acceptable because it's better than the alternative. Sure, it sucks for the guys that get killed, but for every accident, there are multiple causes.

I can't describe the precautions that we had to take in returning to the carrier if we lost certain equipment. But it's sufficient to say that there is always a way back and there are always proper procedures to follow, even if everything is working properly. Otherwise, how do the friendlies know that it isn't just a well designed decoy?


Excuse me, but the title of

"For those who have been lying about "friendly fire"

isn't exactly helpful.

Did I say that I wanted war to be perfect? No.

My point is that the report doesn't cover the U.S. shooting its allies, so the report may all be very well for the US army, but it means f**k all for the rest of the US allies. If your going to war with other forces fighting your corner, you should get your troops to recognise them and their procedures as well.

There is nothing friendly about 'friendly fire'.

There is nothing friendly about 'friendly fire'.

Aw, did you think of that yourself?

That's oh so clever. I'm just swooning over your rapier wit.

The point of my post is that friendly fire exists, talking about it does not constitute a lie, and saying "It's OK, we only inflict 1% of our own casulaties" is bullshit when you inflict higher losses on your allies.

Aw, did you think of that yourself?

That's oh so clever. I'm just swooning over your rapier wit.

No need to hit so low. That pathetic sarcasm was uncalled for.

COMMENTARY: There are some on here who continue to make the libellous claims that so-called "friendly fire" among American forces account for a huge percentage of combat deaths. This is just to set the record straight and to expose these liers for who and what they are.
Who? What liars? Who are you talking about? Who are the "some on here" you are referring to? What "libellous claims"?

Back it up. 'Cause bullshit walks. And you get waaaaaaay too many 'pass' cards for bullshit, old man.

No need to hit so low. That pathetic sarcasm was uncalled for.
In Vietnam we use to mock the whole issue by imitating a radio transmission: "Receiving friendly fire, returning same with smile."

Who? What liars? Who are you talking about? Who are the "some on here" you are referring to? What "libellous claims"?

Back it up. 'Cause bullshit walks. And you get waaaaaaay too many 'pass' cards for bullshit, old man.
( shrug ) So sue me.

Aw, did you think of that yourself?

That's oh so clever. I'm just swooning over your rapier wit.

Come on, someone was gonna say it.

Come on, someone was gonna say it.

Better sooner rather than later, right?

And what about the armoured convoy which two attack runs by two American planes (which had been specifically ordered to keep out of the area) despite the fact that they were clearly identified and flying British flags?

As far as I know the cowboys in those planes still haven't been brought to justice.
How many times have you been driving at, oh 300 mph, and had to read a complicated road sign at the last minute? One that you couldn't see until you were right there.

If you think that identifying a flag is the first thing an attack pilot is thinking about, you are mistaken. We were looking for orange trash bags. I'm absolutely serious. That was the single identifying feature that was to discriminate between red and blue forces. Most of the time, the pilot is making sure that he's ejecting flares, lining up the gunsight, not being shot at, checking his airspeed and alitude, not being shot at again...

I don't know how those targets were identified for the pilots. Whether it was a target of opportunity that they chose, or whether it was designated by one of the many targeting sources that were operating. If it was a close air support mission, I suspect that the pilots were also worried about suppressing fire on the friendly forces that called in the mission.

No need to hit so low. That pathetic sarcasm was uncalled for.

"There's nothing friendly about friendly fire"?

That's barely a step above "Chuck Noris says friendly fire sucks!", or "Kerry is a flip-flopper!!!!!".

It's a random internet phrase that doesn't mean anything, and is never taken seriously. I feel we're wasting everyone's time even talking about it, so I'm going to quit it now, unless I have something worthwhile to contribute. Which at this point, I don't.

Better sooner rather than later, right?

Yup, and unless this thread gets really really big it's not likely to come up again. Hoorah.

"There's nothing friendly about friendly fire"?

That's barely a step above "Chuck Noris says friendly fire sucks!", or "Kerry is a flip-flopper!!!!!".

It's a random internet phrase that doesn't mean anything, and is never taken seriously.

Where as scathing sarcasm is considered to be the highest form of communication.

:rolleyes:

The point of my post is that friendly fire exists, talking about it does not constitute a lie, and saying "It's OK, we only inflict 1% of our own casulaties" is bullshit when you inflict higher losses on your allies.

Eut, you haven't adressed this very good point yet. Or do only American fatalities count?

Excuse me, but the title of

"For those who have been lying about "friendly fire"

isn't exactly helpful.

Did I say that I wanted war to be perfect? No.

My point is that the report doesn't cover the U.S. shooting its allies, so the report may all be very well for the US army, but it means f**k all for the rest of the US allies. If your going to war with other forces fighting your corner, you should get your troops to recognise them and their procedures as well.
Let's see, 17 coalition soldiers were killed by friendly fire. In DS, there were 35. This is out of an pool of almost a million soldiers in both campaigns? I'd say that there isn't much to complain about.

As far as common procedures go, who was in charge of the coalition forces? US CENTCOM, right? I'd say that whatever procedures that they specified were what should have been used by all participants. It's too complex to remember a dozen separate rules for a dozen separate forces.

In Desert Storm, British tactics killed more Tornado crews than did Patriot missiles. The stupidity of low altitude bombing runs was something we avoided. We knew that guided SAMS weren't a problem, thus high altitude bombing runs were the rule of the day. The Brits are forever stubborn and continued to use tactics more suited to a SAM heavy environment. And they paid the price.

How many times have you been driving at, oh 300 mph, and had to read a complicated road sign at the last minute? One that you couldn't see until you were right there.

If you think that identifying a flag is the first thing an attack pilot is thinking about, you are mistaken. We were looking for orange trash bags. I'm absolutely serious. That was the single identifying feature that was to discriminate between red and blue forces. Most of the time, the pilot is making sure that he's ejecting flares, lining up the gunsight, not being shot at, checking his airspeed and alitude, not being shot at again...

I don't know how those targets were identified for the pilots. Whether it was a target of opportunity that they chose, or whether it was designated by one of the many targeting sources that were operating. If it was a close air support mission, I suspect that the pilots were also worried about suppressing fire on the friendly forces that called in the mission.

1. They had all of the identifying signs which had been agreed upon.
2. You completely ignored the main point: the pilots weren't even meant to be in the area!!! It was a British zone and they had been ordered to keep out.
3. They hadn't been sent on a specific mission, they were a pair of trigger happy cowboys out on a joyride.

Personally I think the UK should refuse to support any further US operations until the two pilots are handed over to the UK for trial.

How many times have you been driving at, oh 300 mph, and had to read a complicated road sign at the last minute? One that you couldn't see until you were right there.

If you think that identifying a flag is the first thing an attack pilot is thinking about, you are mistaken. We were looking for orange trash bags. I'm absolutely serious. That was the single identifying feature that was to discriminate between red and blue forces. Most of the time, the pilot is making sure that he's ejecting flares, lining up the gunsight, not being shot at, checking his airspeed and alitude, not being shot at again...

I don't know how those targets were identified for the pilots. Whether it was a target of opportunity that they chose, or whether it was designated by one of the many targeting sources that were operating. If it was a close air support mission, I suspect that the pilots were also worried about suppressing fire on the friendly forces that called in the mission.


In the first Gulf War, our (the British) "friendly fire" casualties were
about FIFTY percent of total casualties. Nearly all of them were caused by
a single American "hunter air patrol" which, while OUT of its patrol area,
and OUT of radio touch (accidental or deliberate?) with its controllers,
mis-identified two Warrior APCs as Iraqi and destroyed them.

Friendly fire is an unavoidable part of war, but when fuck ups like that occur, you can nodoubt reduce FF even further.

Let's see, 17 coalition soldiers were killed by friendly fire. In DS, there were 35. This is out of an pool of almost a million soldiers in both campaigns? I'd say that there isn't much to complain about.

As far as common procedures go, who was in charge of the coalition forces? US CENTCOM, right? I'd say that whatever procedures that they specified were what should have been used by all participants. It's too complex to remember a dozen separate rules for a dozen separate forces.

In Desert Storm, British tactics killed more Tornado crews than did Patriot missiles. The stupidity of low altitude bombing runs was something we avoided. We knew that guided SAMS weren't a problem, thus high altitude bombing runs were the rule of the day. The Brits are forever stubborn and continued to use tactics more suited to a SAM heavy environment. And they paid the price.

Agreed, the percentage is low, but it could be even lower, if procedures were followed properly, unlike the APC incident and the shooting down of the Tornado.

And the fact you consider people shooting their own allies "isn't much to complain about" is a bit heartless don't you think?

As for the tactics, I whole heartedly agree. Too many are lost with outdated or inappropriate tactics being used.

In each Gulf War there were cases of British APCs being attacked by US aircraft because they couldn't distinguish them from Warsaw Pact models. Even though they had Union Flags painted across the entire top of the turret, and an IFF beacon fitted. Then there's the British Tornado which got shot down by a Patriot missile which interpreted it as a Scud. And not forgetting the couple of dozen American soldiers who died when their Blackhawks were misidentified as Mi-24s back in the first Gulf War. So it's not a lie to say, shit happens, and when you're only losing a few hundred men here and there, a handful of cases get noticed.

I seem to recall at least one 'tank' casualty, also... a scorpion tank taken out by blue-on-blue fire - with DU ammunition.

( shrug ) So sue me.
So you don't actually have anyone on NS in mind, this really is just bullshit, and you ought to know better than to speak in incredibly broad, sweeping generalities.

Like I said already; bullshit walks.

Back it up or back off.

While I'd agree with your argument that war isn't perfect and when you're dealing with weapons accidents often mean death, I have to object to your language. I'm sure even the military would not describe friendly fire as 'acceptable;' 'inevitable' and 'regretable,' perhaps, but not 'acceptable.' Equally, I would say that the people killed would find it slightly worse than just 'it sucks.'
The soldiers and airmen that are dead don't much care. Their survivors do and it's important to find out the causes of the accidents.

I've investigated a number of aircraft accidents during my career as a Marine Corps aviator. The common thread through all of them is that there is always a chain of errors. Break the link, prevent the accident. There is never (rarely) a single catastrophic cause for any particular accident.

In any of these friendly fire accidents, I have no doubt that we can find a victim that didn't follow some established procedure, just as we can find that the one causing the damage didn't follow some other procedure.

The fact is that friendly fire accidents have been dramatically reduced and will continue to decrease. I doubt that they will ever be zero and that's because we still use humans to man our complex weapons systems.

Agreed, the percentage is low, but it could be even lower, if procedures were followed properly, unlike the APC incident and the shooting down of the Tornado.

And the fact you consider people shooting their own allies "isn't much to complain about" is a bit heartless don't you think?

As for the tactics, I whole heartedly agree. Too many are lost with outdated or inappropriate tactics being used.
Heartless? Not really, I hate like hell to lose a friend in an unnecessary accident. Any long-time aviator can run off a list of a dozen friends that died that way.

Realistic? Unfortunately, so. But we do see a substantial reduction in numbers, despite the large numbers of troops employed in a relatively small theater. It's an encouraging trend for the future, isn't it?

How many times have you been driving at, oh 300 mph, and had to read a complicated road sign at the last minute? One that you couldn't see until you were right there.

If you think that identifying a flag is the first thing an attack pilot is thinking about, you are mistaken. We were looking for orange trash bags. I'm absolutely serious. That was the single identifying feature that was to discriminate between red and blue forces. Most of the time, the pilot is making sure that he's ejecting flares, lining up the gunsight, not being shot at, checking his airspeed and alitude, not being shot at again...

I don't know how those targets were identified for the pilots. Whether it was a target of opportunity that they chose, or whether it was designated by one of the many targeting sources that were operating. If it was a close air support mission, I suspect that the pilots were also worried about suppressing fire on the friendly forces that called in the mission.

SO, your 'excuse' is that pilots are not responsible for their actions, because they are firing BEFORE they have a chance to see what they are shooting?

Not the greatest defense I've ever heard.

"Sorry, we thought that hospital was a large group of men with rocket launchers"...

I'm not really sure how much of a defense that IS in high-level bombing runs, anyway. The UK 'Warrior' APC's were taken out by A-10 fire... so it's not like they 'just popped over a dune'...

Speaking of excuses, I've yet to hear a valid one for this thread...

I mean, other than that (shrug), which validates not one parargraph, sentence, word or even letter in the OP.

Heartless? Not really, I hate like hell to lose a friend in an unnecessary accident. Any long-time aviator can run off a list of a dozen friends that died that way.

Realistic? Unfortunately, so. But we do see a substantial reduction in numbers, despite the large numbers of troops employed in a relatively small theater. It's an encouraging trend for the future, isn't it?

Fair enough, maybe I am just reading it wrong. The way it came over just seemed a little callous.

And as you say, and as is demonstrated in Eut's article, the rate of FF incidents are going down, and yeah, it can only be a good thing.

However, in both DS and the more recent conflict, it is those who don't follow procedure, such as those who destroyed the APC's and the Tornado, who will always bring it down further, and to be quite honest, they should be punished for their mistakes, as they made avoidable mistakes.

If, for example, those in the A-10's were in their area of patrol and in radio contact with their controllers, and were given permission to fire, then although the same incident would have been deplorable, but at least they would have followed the correct procedures.

As for procedures, the mission may have been controlled by US Central Command, but given the time scale in the build up to the war, training all personel in the procedures of the US was also highly unrealistic.

So, no-one has been "lying" about friendly fire here on the forums. Otherwise, Eut would presumably defend his scurrilous OP in the face of having been called on what really does amount to bullshit. But he isn't. He's done nothing to support his supposition, and from what I can see, he plans to continue doing nothing to support his supposition.

I think I'll join him in his chosen course of action.

Eut, you haven't adressed this very good point yet. Or do only American fatalities count?
Hardly! It's just that the only stats I have right now are for American on American friendly fire. Sorry.

Hardly! It's just that the only stats I have right now are for American on American friendly fire. Sorry.

Thus your unbacked claims of "lies" are highly suspect.

Hardly! It's just that the only stats I have right now are for American on American friendly fire. Sorry.

That's all right, then. Just bringing it to your attention.

Thus your unbacked claims of "lies" are highly suspect.
Oh? How so?

When some idiot raises holy hell about "thousands of American soldiers shooting each other," that's not lieing? :confused:

Oh? How so?

When some idiot raises holy hell about "thousands of American soldiers shooting each other," that's not lieing? :confused:
If that's your assertion, that people have been saying this on NS, provide proof of your blanket statement - or pipe down.

Oh? How so?

When some idiot raises holy hell about "thousands of American soldiers shooting each other," that's not lieing? :confused:

More like verbal flatulence. :p

I have been dedicated to "friendly fire" in online games since at least 1998.

Team killing is so much fun.

SO, your 'excuse' is that pilots are not responsible for their actions, because they are firing BEFORE they have a chance to see what they are shooting?

Not the greatest defense I've ever heard.

"Sorry, we thought that hospital was a large group of men with rocket launchers"...

I'm not really sure how much of a defense that IS in high-level bombing runs, anyway. The UK 'Warrior' APC's were taken out by A-10 fire... so it's not like they 'just popped over a dune'...
I'm not defending their actions. A board has already exonerated them from any wrong doing. And in the U.S., we have a exaggerated tendency to consume our own. If these folks had been guilty of any negligence, they'd have taken up residence in Leavenworth for a while.

I was trying to illustrate how many different things compete for attention, all during the same five or ten seconds. Some manage it better than others. Two people always manage it better than one. That's why I always advocate a two man crew over a single pilot ship.

Just a quick story on target acquisition. I'm a retired A-6 Intruder bombardier. I had the opportunity to be in the El Dorado Canyon raid on Libya. During the ingress to the target, I had about fifteen seconds
to turn on the radar,
watch for SAMS,
try not to watch the AAA,
figure out where we were,
update the nav system,
find the target,
watch for SAMS,
try not to watch the AAA,
correct the drift in the INS,
get the computer into the attack mode,
run a program of chaff and flares,
watch for SAMS,
try not to watch the AAA,
continue to update the bombing solution until the bombs released,
watch for SAMS,
try not to watch the AAA,

The pilot was pretty busy too.

When we got back to the ship, we debriefed with the Intel guys. It took them four hours of looking at the video tape of the RADAR to decide that I had picked the right target.

What was the American Anthropological Association doing on the El Dorado Canyon raid on Libya, anyway? What were those naughty anthropologists getting up to that was so distracting?

And what did it have to do with Sam?

1. They had all of the identifying signs which had been agreed upon.
2. You completely ignored the main point: the pilots weren't even meant to be in the area!!! It was a British zone and they had been ordered to keep out.
3. They hadn't been sent on a specific mission, they were a pair of trigger happy cowboys out on a joyride.


I'm not defending their actions. A board has already exonerated them from any wrong doing. And in the U.S., we have a exaggerated tendency to consume our own. If these folks had been guilty of any negligence, they'd have taken up residence in Leavenworth for a while

Both of these statements require proof. But so far, if Ramdom is correct, then Myrmis's point is moot

-just so Eut can have a valid argument-


ZOMG!!!! those evil soldiers hate each other! they shoot each other all day long.This was in Iraq is causing all the soldiers to go nucking fut, and they are going off on each other...:rolleyes:

-just so Eut can have a valid argument-


ZOMG!!!! those evil soldiers hate each other! they shoot each other all day long.This was in Iraq is causing all the soldiers to go nucking fut, and they are going off on each other...:rolleyes:

in euts defence, i havnt seen it so much on this forum, but i have seen alot of threads in other forums that do state that alot of troops are being shot by friendly fire.

in euts defence, i havnt seen it so much on this forum, but i have seen alot of threads in other forums that do state that alot of troops are being shot by friendly fire.
It's kind of a Catch-22. If Eut doesn't name the offenders, he doesn't have any proof. If he does call them out, then he's flaming them. But, he's used to being in can't win situations by this time in his life. After all, he's married.

Incidentally, there is a correct answer to the question, "Honey, does this dress make me look fat?" The answer is, "I really think it's time to strip the wallpaper."

It's kind of a Catch-22. If Eut doesn't name the offenders, he doesn't have any proof. If he does call them out, then he's flaming them. He could quote them and link to the thread that they said it in, unless the definition of flaming is broader than I'd think it is.

Oh? How so?

Because this is an international forum, it is pretty safe to assume that if this "lying" had been occurring, it would not be centred around intra-US military "friendly" fire, but on that which affects their allies. Not having any sort of figures on that casts a very large shadow on your ability to prove these "lies."

When some idiot raises holy hell about "thousands of American soldiers shooting each other," that's not lying? :confused:

How are we to know what is and is not lying, when you haven't presented their claims. No, your straw man doesn't count.

in euts defence, i havnt seen it so much on this forum, but i have seen alot of threads in other forums that do state that alot of troops are being shot by friendly fire.
That's no defense for his blanket statement in the OP.

I'm not defending their actions. A board has already exonerated them from any wrong doing. And in the U.S., we have a exaggerated tendency to consume our own. If these folks had been guilty of any negligence, they'd have taken up residence in Leavenworth for a while.

I was trying to illustrate how many different things compete for attention, all during the same five or ten seconds. Some manage it better than others. Two people always manage it better than one. That's why I always advocate a two man crew over a single pilot ship.


It's a nice story, and I'd love to believe it. And, if I hadn't watched the current 'regime' lie about friendly fire, claiming FIRST a victim of enemy fire, then admit there could have been an accident during a rescue mission, then finally admit blue-on-blue, then wait more than a year to REALLY investigate it... I might believe it.

April 22nd 2004 - Pat Tillman dies in Afghanistan.

May 30th 2004 - American military finally admits it was blue-on-blue.

March 4th 2006 - FINALLY, a criminal investigation.

I don't believe for ONE second, that there would have even been a correction to the initial 'story' that he was killed by Taliban fire, if he WAS NOT a 'famous footballer'.


Just a quick story on target acquisition. I'm a retired A-6 Intruder bombardier. I had the opportunity to be in the El Dorado Canyon raid on Libya. During the ingress to the target, I had about fifteen seconds
to turn on the radar,
watch for SAMS,
try not to watch the AAA,
figure out where we were,
update the nav system,
find the target,
watch for SAMS,
try not to watch the AAA,
correct the drift in the INS,
get the computer into the attack mode,
run a program of chaff and flares,
watch for SAMS,
try not to watch the AAA,
continue to update the bombing solution until the bombs released,
watch for SAMS,
try not to watch the AAA,

The pilot was pretty busy too.

When we got back to the ship, we debriefed with the Intel guys. It took them four hours of looking at the video tape of the RADAR to decide that I had picked the right target.

I have to point out that A-6 bombadiers are not the only people who have arrays of tasks to be performed in rapid succession on tight schedules... but you are definitely 'padding your resume' a little with all that stuff about what you are 'required' to 'not watch', and repetition of the SAMS thing... everyone who drives a car is familiar with the constant process of watching for hazards.

But, again.. what we arrive at is a pisspoor excuse, "sorry, I blew up your kindergarten, I had to press like 9 buttons, and watch three different outputs".

I used to get a bit on edge when training with live fire around most US troops, because you never know what's going to happen, but I never felt that way around Commonwealth troops. I heard about too many incidents of the US screwing up and killing guys and that was just on live fire ranges. A US artillery battery got their orders wrong and shelled a training area where some Canadians were practicing their field craft and four guys went home in small baggies, even after the US artillery was ordered to stop shelling.

A lot of them have bad discipline when using their weapons. I think that instead of handing out decks of cards with war criminals faces on them they should hand out vehicle and aircraft recognition cards. It was doubly criminal for them to be targeting British warrior IFV’s, since they so closely resemble US Bradley IFV’s. I think feeding pilots and soldiers caffeine pills like candy in the US is really stupid too. It has a lot to do with making bad decisions under stress. Those things mess you up. You get charged for using those in Canada because no one wants the guy next to them going psycho for the sheer joy of it.

I remember coming back from two weeks of live fire assault training and a US soldier asked as how many guys we lost. I was shocked at the question and told him none. He replied, asking if we were special forces or something.

He could quote them and link to the thread that they said it in, unless the definition of flaming is broader than I'd think it is.
You're right. That would work. But if it were me that was doing the posting, I'd find it a little tedious, when I just use this forum as a diversion. I try to participate at a lower level of competition than do a lot of the die-hard regulars.

It's a nice story, and I'd love to believe it. And, if I hadn't watched the current 'regime' lie about friendly fire, claiming FIRST a victim of enemy fire, then admit there could have been an accident during a rescue mission, then finally admit blue-on-blue, then wait more than a year to REALLY investigate it... I might believe it.

If I recall, this is just the third or fourth of several investigations into Tilman's death. It probably would have died with the first, had he not been famous. And that would have been sufficient. The latest witch-hunt isn't going to uncover any new facts, nor will it come to any new conclusions. It's just a drill to placate the press.

My only point of using the repetition in the little story was that there are some very important things that compete for your attention in an attack aircraft. Some of them need more attention than others, but it's hard to move the less-important ones off the ready queue. Like AAA, there's not a damned thing I can do about it, but it's really mesmerizing to see. Time is better spent elsewhere.

These guys in the A-10s were probably not watching AAA, but they were scanning for SA--7s or 14s, not to mention the other ten things that are hard to get right, even in peacetime. But I'm not defending them. The Air Force JAG has already done that successfully. Not much point either as nothing short of their execution would satisfy you.

If I recall, this is just the third or fourth of several investigations into Tilman's death. It probably would have died with the first, had he not been famous. And that would have been sufficient. The latest witch-hunt isn't going to uncover any new facts, nor will it come to any new conclusions. It's just a drill to placate the press.

My only point of using the repetition in the little story was that there are some very important things that compete for your attention in an attack aircraft. Some of them need more attention than others, but it's hard to move the less-important ones off the ready queue. Like AAA, there's not a damned thing I can do about it, but it's really mesmerizing to see. Time is better spent elsewhere.

These guys in the A-10s were probably not watching AAA, but they were scanning for SA--7s or 14s, not to mention the other ten things that are hard to get right, even in peacetime. But I'm not defending them. The Air Force JAG has already done that successfully. Not much point either as nothing short of their execution would satisfy you.

The pilots were in an area designated as British, not US and had not been ordered into that area. Why where they there if ordered not to?

How many times have you been driving at, oh 300 mph, and had to read a complicated road sign at the last minute? One that you couldn't see until you were right there.

If you think that identifying a flag is the first thing an attack pilot is thinking about, you are mistaken. We were looking for orange trash bags. I'm absolutely serious. That was the single identifying feature that was to discriminate between red and blue forces. Most of the time, the pilot is making sure that he's ejecting flares, lining up the gunsight, not being shot at, checking his airspeed and alitude, not being shot at again...

I don't know how those targets were identified for the pilots. Whether it was a target of opportunity that they chose, or whether it was designated by one of the many targeting sources that were operating. If it was a close air support mission, I suspect that the pilots were also worried about suppressing fire on the friendly forces that called in the mission.

As far as I know from talking with mates who where in the Gulf, there's a thing called IFF, there's a code issued that identifies you as friend or foe. You don't have the code you are foe. Turns out Americans wren't too good with the codes as Britian had more deaths from American fire then from Iraqi fire during the first Gullf War.

As far as I know from talking with mates who where in the Gulf, there's a thing called IFF, there's a code issued that identifies you as friend or foe. You don't have the code you are foe. Turns out Americans wren't too good with the codes as Britian had more deaths from American fire then from Iraqi fire during the first Gullf War.
Yup. I have a "children's" book about a really nice guy who got shot down by his own side because he didn't have IFF turned on. It's a really charming story, I must say.

As far as I know from talking with mates who where in the Gulf, there's a thing called IFF, there's a code issued that identifies you as friend or foe. You don't have the code you are foe. Turns out Americans wren't too good with the codes as Britian had more deaths from American fire then from Iraqi fire during the first Gullf War.
My steed wasn't outfitted with any of the interrogating part of the IFF system. We had the same transponder as anyone else and, of course, we used it properly to return through the MEZ. So I could not have discriminated between a friendly and a lump of coal, based on an IFF return. In my experience, attack aircraft aren't outfitted with IFF to interrogate ground targets. Are you going back to the Patriot thing? Seems there was a malfunction.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/patriot_missile/

To add a final twist to this tale, there is the matter of the Tornado's IFF system:
15. The Board considered IFF serviceability, potential IFF failures, and aircrew actions relating to the IFF. The Board was able to discount external damage to the IFF.
a. Serviceability. The ground engineering check on ZG710's encrypted Mode 4 IFF was completed satisfactorily pre-engine start, and an RAF Regiment Rapier Missile unit that regularly checked the IFF of departing aircraft did not report the aircraft or log a fault. In line with extant procedures, only Mode 4 was checked on the ground. However, there is no firm evidence that ZG710 responded to any IFF interrogations throughout the entire mission, although there is evidence that the navigator checked the IFF switches at the appropriate times. The Board concluded that ZG710's IFF had a fault and, as an IFF Mode 4 response would have prevented the Patriot Anti-Radiation Missile classification and engagement, concluded that the lack of IFF at the time of the accident was a contributory factor.
b. Failure Modes. Following initial investigation, it became apparent that certain power failures associated with the IFF may not be displayed to the crew. The most likely explanation for the absence of an IFF response was that there had been a power supply failure. The Board recommended that further work be conducted to research the failure modes, reliability and serviceability of the Tornado IFF system.

I'll bet if I cared to look into the other accidents during Desert Storm, the Brits would be at fault, too. There must be some reason why they bear heavier friendly fire casualties than the US forces do. I suspect that, much like their A-G tactics, they are unwilling to adopt theater procedures for IFF, too.

During the First Gulf War, Canadian pilots had a lot of run ins with US pilots not using their IFF. IFF was the only reason that Israel didn’t retaliate against Iraq and plunge the whole region into an Arab versus the US coalition war. Pappa Bush told the Israelis point blank that if they flew into the war zone they wouldn’t be given the codes and would be shot down as hostiles. That was all that kept the first Gulf War from escalating.

The problem was that US pilots were also having a lot of problems with their IFF or not using it. I knew a pilot who was involved in one incident with a US pilot with their IFF turned off was under armed escort back to the airstrip by Canadian F-18’s. The Canadian pilots were smart enough not to shoot down the US jet because they recognized what kind of jet it was, but they still followed procedure and told them not to deviate from the ordered flight plan back to the airstrip or they would fire. Contrary to popular opinion, Canadian pilots were doing strike missions from day one but never admitted it publicly because it wouldn’t play well with the press back home, who have a sugar coated image of our soldiers as only peacekeepers.

The Bruce

Yup. I have a "children's" book about a really nice guy who got shot down by his own side because he didn't have IFF turned on. It's a really charming story, I must say.
So what are you saying? That these don't work when they're faulty or when they're off?

I think a lot of the kids that post here don't realize that there are about a hundred things that you have to do to survive. All of them need to be done perfectly every time. The best you can hope for if you screw one up is that you will have a good sea story. The worst is that you'll be killed. There is no partial credit given in this exam.

So what are you saying? That these don't work when they're faulty or when they're off?

I think a lot of the kids that post here don't realize that there are about a hundred things that you have to do to survive. All of them need to be done perfectly every time. The best you can hope for if you screw one up is that you will have a good sea story. The worst is that you'll be killed. There is no partial credit given in this exam.

I wonder how many US soldiers/airmen were killed by British or Coalition friendly fire during both conflicts? I'd wager it's a hell of a lot lower than US figures, if there actually are any. That would seem to point to a US fault as well, notr completely Coalition.

But of course the US is never at fault...

So what are you saying? Nothing. I'm simply stating I have a story advocating that you should remember to turn on your IFF when in combat.

If I recall, this is just the third or fourth of several investigations into Tilman's death. It probably would have died with the first, had he not been famous. And that would have been sufficient. The latest witch-hunt isn't going to uncover any new facts, nor will it come to any new conclusions. It's just a drill to placate the press.


It would probably have died in April 2004, with the Talibani excuse, if he wasn't famous.... and that's the thing that SHOULD worry us all.

Because... the first story out, made it a heroes death on a rescue mission. The guy got a purple heart for it. Job done.

So - how many of our boys are actually dying in the line of fire... and how many are the equivalent of Tillman... that is, 'bad deaths', that just are not getting THAT level of investigation?

And - you might be right, THIS investigation might turn up nothing new... however, the previous, less-formal, investigations have turned up new material over and over. The 2005 investigation brought to light the previously hidden truth that Tillman's belongings had been burned.... NOT for the previously stated reason of 'biocontamination', but so that they could not be used as evidence. After all, there is a difference between shots fired at long range with AK-47s into the face of a charge... and M-16 rounds at short range, in the back.

Tillman's 'team' should face criminal charges, for tampering evidence at the VERY least.


My only point of using the repetition in the little story was that there are some very important things that compete for your attention in an attack aircraft. Some of them need more attention than others, but it's hard to move the less-important ones off the ready queue. Like AAA, there's not a damned thing I can do about it, but it's really mesmerizing to see. Time is better spent elsewhere.

These guys in the A-10s were probably not watching AAA, but they were scanning for SA--7s or 14s, not to mention the other ten things that are hard to get right, even in peacetime. But I'm not defending them. The Air Force JAG has already done that successfully. Not much point either as nothing short of their execution would satisfy you.

What a curious thing to conclude? Why would I want those pilots executed?

If something were to be done, I'd say priorities SHOULD be better training, better use of equipment... the admin LISTENING to the boys in the field telling them that there are problems.

I've never asked for the deaths of the A-10 crews involved... in my opinion, too many allied soldiers lost their lives there, already.

And while it is all very interesting, I've yet to see anybody "lying" about friendly fire here, contrary to the thread title & OP. Still haven't been provided with anything to back up the initial blanket supposition.

Meh.

And while it is all very interesting, I've yet to see anybody "lying" about friendly fire here, contrary to the thread title & OP. Still haven't been provided with anything to back up the initial blanket supposition.

Meh.
Eut NEVER backs up his blanket statements. ;)

yes, it's called a joke

So it's not a lie to say, shit happens, and when you're only losing a few hundred men here and there, a handful of cases get noticed.
Exactically! If you lose only a handful dudes to the enemy, and the same number or more to friendly fire (I believe that has been the case for some members of the coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan), then that is something pretty significant, even if the numbers themselves are quite low.

in euts defence, i havnt seen it so much on this forum, but i have seen alot of threads in other forums that do state that alot of troops are being shot by friendly fire.
I wonder whether I am one of those liars.

In the "Is the military a bigger threat to the US than the Terrorists?" thread, I said that it is possible for the US Military to have killed more Americans than the terrorists did.
I mentioned training accidents, other military-related accidents and also friendly fire.

But I suppose because Eut seems to define himself only through his military career (seriously, dude, haven't you achieved anything else in your life that you can be proud of?), and thus is bound to get all cranky if one criticises it, to the point (and beyond) of being unreasonable.

If you want incidents of friendly fire, you should read Jarhead (the movie is roughly based on it). In one incident in the Gulf War, the author is pinned down and swearing through the radio at people who won’t believe them that another US unit is killing their own troops. Some armour got lost and started shooting at the first thing it saw: another US column.

The Bruce

That's sad and hilarious at the same time.

You're right. That would work. But if it were me that was doing the posting, I'd find it a little tedious, when I just use this forum as a diversion. I try to participate at a lower level of competition than do a lot of the die-hard regulars.I suppose that it would be tedious if one doesn't enjoy that sort of thing.

I know that in my personal experience, I do recall hearing 2 or 3 news stories about troops killed in friendly fire, and this made up a small but significant portion of news stories about troops being killed. This doesn't mean anything other than the news doesn't always report things properly, but I can see how someone, like myself, might have gotten the impression that there were more Americans killed by friendly fire than actually were. (I didn't state that on here, though.)

Eut NEVER backs up his blanket statements. ;)

yes, it's called a joke
Don't have to. All my blanket statements are covered by the blanket statement that they are always true. :p

Eut seems to define himself only through his military career, and thus is bound to get all cranky if one criticises it, to the point (and beyond) of being unreasonable.
There's a germ of truth in that.

(seriously, dude, haven't you achieved anything else in your life that you can be proud of?)
Raising five children who are now all really good people might qualify, but it somehow just doesn't seem like an "achievement;" not a very personal one anyway. Getting my Masters degree against all odds? I honestly don't know ... seems like what I do best is survive. :(

Raising five children who are now all really good people might qualify, but it somehow just doesn't seem like an "achievement;" not a very personal one anyway. Getting my Masters degree against all odds?
You know, there are a lot of people (me included) who respect that a lot more than serving in a war.

Not every criticism of the military is automatically aimed at you. There just are a lot of things foul in there at the moment (also see this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472725)), and unless someone says it, and someone else accepts it, there can never be a change for the better.

Not every criticism of the military is automatically aimed at you. There just are a lot of things foul in there at the moment (also see this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472725)), and unless someone says it, and someone else accepts it, there can never be a change for the better.
I realize that not every criticism of the military is aimed at me. It's probably very difficult for someone who has never been in the military to "get inside" my feelings about these young men and women who are serving now. I tend to get very defensive of them.

Criticism of the military, just as criticism of any arm or branch of government, is largely a good thing. We need to hold their feet to the fire lest they get totally out of line. Just please don't expect me to sit on my hands when I think the criticism of the military is unfounded.

I'll bet if I cared to look into the other accidents during Desert Storm, the Brits would be at fault, too. There must be some reason why they bear heavier friendly fire casualties than the US forces do. I suspect that, much like their A-G tactics, they are unwilling to adopt theater procedures for IFF, too.
Whoa, there. Accidents happen in war, yes, but I think if you're going to make a blanket statement about the 'Brits being at fault' I have to respond with the rest of the article that you failed to quote:


"The facts provided in the RAF Report issued on May 14 raise more doubts, rather than less, about the accuracy of US Army information provided to the UK - and about the technical and operational reliability of the Patriots in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"A careful reading of the RAF Report indicates that the Patriot Fire Unit did not have its imbedded data recorder operating during the shoot-down of the Tornado, which basically means that there is no reliable information about what the Patriot operators saw and how they responded. It is not even clear to me that the IFF Mode 4 on the Tornado failed, as we do not have recorded data from the Patriot unit and can therefore not be certain that the Tornado was properly interrogated as claimed by the Patriot operators.

"In addition, the RAF Reported that the Tornado was mis-classified as an anti-radiation homing missile, which raises very serious and basic additional questions that remain unanswered.

"The only such missile in-theater was the HARM (High-Speed Ant-Radiation Homing Missile) which travels at Mach 2 (roughly 2,000+ feet/sec). The RAF reported that the Patriot crew fired on the Tornado immediately, rather than using an available one minute to further evaluate the nature of the potentially hostile target reported to them by the Patriot computer software - which was known to be unreliable. Since the Patriot unit had one minute to decide whether or not to fire on a target classified as a HARM, this would mean that the HARM was roughly 120,000 to 140,000 feet downrange, or roughly 25 to 30 miles distance when Patriot's were launched. However, we know that the Tornado had to be traveling no faster than roughly Mach 0.8 (800+ feet/sec). Since the Patriot unit fired when they had one minute to assess the approaching target, this suggests that the Tornado must have been at a range of roughly 50,000 to 70,000 feet ( 10 to 15 miles) when the Patriot interceptors were actually launched.

"If the Tornado was in fact at 10 to 15 miles range (as well as at 17,000 feet - according to the RAF report), then this indicates that a subsonic air-supported vehicle was mis-classified as a supersonic homing missile. If this was the case, the Army needs to explain how a subsonic aircraft following pre-established flight-approach rules could possibly have been mis-classified as an anti-radiation missile by the Patriot's artificial intelligence software. The Army also needs to explain why the Patriot Unit was allowed to operate autonomously when it could not directly communicate with its Battalion headquarters, and why the unit was allowed to engage any target under these inherently unsafe conditions of operations."

When The Iraqi's open Fire, The British Duck

When the British Open Fire the Iraqi's Duck

When the American's Open Fire, Everybody Ducks

When the British Open Fire the Iraqi's Duck

When the British open fire the duck owned by the Iraqis does what, exactly?

Nothing. I'm simply stating I have a story advocating that you should remember to turn on your IFF when in combat.
Actually, you turn all your emitters off. Lights, TACAN, IFF, and even the ALQ gear, unless you trust it not to beacon your position. On the other hand, one needs to remember to turn that all back on again when past the point where you expect to encounter hostile fire.

Whoa, there. Accidents happen in war, yes, but I think if you're going to make a blanket statement about the 'Brits being at fault' I have to respond with the rest of the article that you failed to quote:

I didn't quote the rest of the article because it was largely speculative analysis about why the official RAF report might have been wrong. The official report is kinda like the opinion from a court. It's the outcome that the mishap investigation board found the facts to support.

I also tend to disregard conclusions that start with "If". As in "If the crew had delayed firing, ZG710 would probably have been reclassified as its flight path changed. The crew had about one minute to decide whether to engage." The crew made the best decision, which is the one that cost the least, if made incorrectly.

Lastly, the capability to work autonomously is one of the strengths that sets the U.S. apart from a lot of other military services. It is certainly an advantage to have a missile battery continue to operate in the event comm is lost with higher HQ.

It is certainly an advantage to have a missile battery continue to operate in the event comm is lost with higher HQ.

Unless, of course, it is firing at the wrong targets...

Don't have to. All my blanket statements are covered by the blanket statement that they are always true. :p
Did you just win your own thread? :D

the Patriot crew fired on the Tornado immediately, rather than using an available one minute to further evaluate the nature of the potentially hostile target reported to them by the Patriot computer software - which was known to be unreliable.

I believe the Patriot system is an automatic system, not crew fired. It saves time, which is rather important when firing at missiles.

I believe the Patriot system is an automatic system, not crew fired. It saves time, which is rather important when firing at missiles.

So - an automated system firing on 'friendly' targets as a form of efficiency... is an argument to excuse blue-on-blue?

If I'm the pilot getting shot down by my own side's automated defences... I don't care how efficient it is. Save LESS time, and don't shoot ME down...

So - an automated system firing on 'friendly' targets as a form of efficiency... is an argument to excuse blue-on-blue?

If I'm the pilot getting shot down by my own side's automated defences... I don't care how efficient it is. Save LESS time, and don't shoot ME down...

It is war, shit happens.

It is war, shit happens.

But, surely the WHOLE point, is to make sure that "shit happens" to 'their side', not our own?

It is war, shit happens.

That's not really an argument. A system was faulty and shot down a friendly plane - and US planes attacked British vehicles when in a sector they were not supposed to be in. There's accidents and then there's reckless endangerment.

But, surely the WHOLE point, is to make sure that "shit happens" to 'their side', not our own?

In a perfect world, yes that would be true. But sadly, accidents do occur for various reasons.

In a perfect world, yes that would be true. But sadly, accidents do occur for various reasons.

However, flying out of your designated field to bomb allies, or utilising a system that sacrifices 'accuracy' for speed.... cannot honestly be described as "accidents".

However, flying out of your designated field to bomb allies, or utilising a system that sacrifices 'accuracy' for speed.... cannot honestly be described as "accidents".

It was one incident with the Patriot system, ONE! This is not a perfect world.

It was one incident with the Patriot system, ONE! This is not a perfect world.

And ONE scorpion tank hit by 'friendly' DU sabots, and ONE Warrior APC group targetted by a-10's....

When you are on the receiving end, ONE is more than enough.