Friendly Fire Stats

[Timber Loftis]

MSNBC contains a wonderful interactive on fatility information from the war. You owe it to yourself to check it out.

I noticed only the following confirmed FATALITIES from friendly fire:

3/23: 2 British pilots killed when their Tornado is shot down by a Patriot. (This is also the day that a US Captain and Major were killed by a grenade thrown into the barracks - but this is NOT counted as friendly fire).

3/25: 2 British soldiers killed when 2 British Challenger tanks exchange fire.

Now, I realize this doesn't account for the 31 marines wounded in a firefight or other casualties that are not fatalities.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MSNBC contains a wonderful interactive on fatility information from the war. You owe it to yourself to check it out. I noticed only the following confirmed FATALITIES from friendly fire: 3/23: 2 British pilots killed when their Tornado is shot down by a Patriot. (This is also the day that a US Captain and Major were killed by a grenade thrown into the barracks - but this is NOT counted as friendly fire). 3/25: 2 British soldiers killed when 2 British Challenger tanks exchange fire. Now, I realize this doesn't account for the 31 marines wounded in a firefight or other casualties that are not fatalities.

What about the Warthog?

[Timber Loftis]

I don't think there were fatalities with that one, Donut. The site seems pretty comprehensive. Dunno.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I don't think there were fatalities with that one, Donut. The site seems pretty comprehensive. Dunno.

I think Matty Hull's widow Susan would beg to differ TL.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...ml/default.stm

[Timber Loftis]

Thanks for the informative site, Donut. However, next time, you can keep the cocky attitude.

[Ronn_Bman]

I've actually been viewing that counter since the beginning and have really found it an informative source. It seemed pretty thorough, but yesterday I noticed it hadn't reflected the A-10's hit on a British column. I hope they correct that.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Thanks for the informative site, Donut. However, next time, you can keep the cocky attitude.

ROTFL. But then I wouldn't be me would I?

[Malthaussen]

You know, I've never quite understood why people single out "friendly fire" (a favorite oxymoron) casualties as deserving of some special notice. War means killing people, and regrettably some of the people killed are going to be one's own. "Friendly fire" has been with us since war stopped being face-to-face, and no amount of painting vehicles, improvements to communications, or agonizing over their irony or futility is going to change that. Such incidents rarely, if ever, are a result of incompetence on the part of the troops involved or could likely have been avoided. Sometimes, artillery fires short -- this is an Act of God. Likewise, it is quite difficult for a pilot to differentiate between one guy's tanks and another's, a problem compounded when a war is being fought by a coalition whose members all use different equipment. Casualties to civilians and one's own troops are going to be a factor whenever a country chooses to go to war.

Now, if you want to stop fighting wars... there's a concept I can understand.

-- Mal

[Donut]

Originally posted by Malthaussen: You know, I've never quite understood why people single out "friendly fire" (a favorite oxymoron) casualties as deserving of some special notice.

Is it because in some cases they are avoidable? Warthog sees tank in broad daylight. Union Jack on the back, special markings displayed that were provided by the US military. Even so he is 100% sure it's the enemy, no wait, he flies by again to double check - yeah that's close enough, it 'possibly' is the enemy!