US troops, friendly fire, UK deaths

[Bardan the Slayer]

Well, I know this is going to be a sensitive topic, so I'm going to make this small statement as an opener. I support the war, I am not anti-US, but I *am* concerned over an aspect of the war the concerns US involvment. Now, with that out of the way, let's all continue the fine tradition of acting like adults that has been established in this forum, shall we? Good [img]smile.gif[/img] Nevertheless, I get the impression this topic will make me unpopular, but i truly don't care. This is a serious issue that needs to be raised.

I see that the first friendly fire incidents have started to be reported. I don't know how much you hear about this in the US, but it seems at this point that a US Patriot missile has shot down a british fighter and killed the crew. It *also* appears that US troops opened fire on a british journalist (Terry Lloyd) and his camera crew who were being (according to various new reports) chased by iraqi soldiers/accompanied by surrendering Iraqi troops, resulting in the death of all concerned.

So far, the British deaths from friendly fire incidents outweigh British deaths by Iraqis. In other words, the US forces have incurred more casualties on us than the Iraqi forces.

This is added to the last Gulf War, where a few incidents of American troops opening fire on UK soldiers resulted in about 10 (if i remember right) UK deaths. This included one infamous incident when a US tank-buster missile was fired at UK tanks, killing 8 UK soldiers in one incident.

I realise that war is a confusing theatre at best, and is chaotic at worst, and so i would expect there to be identification difficulties. *However*, why is it that US troops seem to be the only ones who cause friendly fire deaths? In the last Gulf War, I cannot recall any incidents of friendly fire perpetrated by anyone except US forces. There have been no cases of friendly fire in this war from British or Australian forces. Why is it always the Americans?

As a brief aside, I have to note that this was actually one (though rather small) objection raised about going to war in Iraq with the USA. Some felt that sending our troops in next to the US marines would be a bad blow to their morale, because they would know there was a risk they could be targetted by both sides at any given time. As I said, this objection was lost amongst the larger concerns during the build-up, but i have seen and heard various UK troops past and present exclaiming that they had great respect for the US military machine and it's effectiveness against the enemy, but that given the choice, they would prefer to have this respect from a distance where there was no chance they would be an accidental target.

I think I have the answer, and it comes from seeing American troops on TV, as compared with British troops. Let me say again, this is not some anti-American rant, nor some inane *our soldiers are better than yours* garbage, but a genuine insight about why the USA is the friendly fire leader.

While watching footage of some of the limited street fighting occurring in places like Basra and Nasiriya, I noticed a large difference in the attitude of the forces there. Whereas British troops were serious, quiet, and went about their business, you could hear US forces in the background screaming, yelling, and hollering "Wooohoo! Yeah! Yeah!" every single time a gun was fired or a mortar was launched. Are US troops just far to eager to fire their weapons at any target? Do they view what is happening as some huge shoot-em-up, rather than a serious war? Is it right that the USA is developing a reputation (certainly in this country, maybe around the world) for being far too gung-ho about war, and for lacking proper care when selecting targets?

This is a serious issue, because nothing will erode popular support for waging this war by the USA's side than British troops coming home in body bags as the result of US fire. The friendly fire incidents have been on the news reports, often as the main story. The USA has little support globally for this war at the best of times. Can you afford to throw away more allies through killing their troops?

As I said, maybe you hear about this in the USA, maybe not. I just wanted to see how much coverage this gets in other places around the world, and your thoughts on it.

[Ronn_Bman]

It gets full coverage in the media.. trust me. As do all the accidents, which have killed more people than actual combat and friendly fire combined so far (well at least until yesterday morning).

It isn't that the US doesn't care, and it isn't that they aren't well trained, and it isn't that they are unprofessional. The truth is that it's hard to combine separate armies into one army.

The Patriot missile attack against the Tornado could very well have been a mechanical malfunction. The Patriot was on automatic, and it could have falsely ID the Tornado through mechanical failure or the Tornado's Friend or Foe transmitter could have malfunctioned. Both are being looked at, as well as other possibilities.

The friendly fire accidents aren't just about the US hitting coalition forces, sometimes we even fire on our own troops. I don't think it's happened yet this time, but it certainly happened in the last Gulf War.

As to the reporter, if I read the story correctly, he was killed when nearby vehicles filled with Iraqi soldiers were targeted by tank fire. Reporting during wartime is a dangerous business especially when a firefight is underway and the reporter near the enemy. The other reporters missing and presumed dead near Basra were not traveling with the military. Being "embedded" with the military is dangerous enough, but traveling on your own into a war zone is much different than reporting from the safety of a protected hotel in Baghdad.

The bottom line is that it is incredibly hard to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers from accidentally targeting each other occasionally.

Why is it always the Americans? As appreciated and important as the aid rendered by our allies is, it is the US force that makes up the overwhelming majority of troops on the ground, at sea, and in the sky. There is only a small percentage of friendly fire deaths(based on the damage inflicted), so it's more likely that the largest force would be the one most likely to inflict those casualties.

[ 03-24-2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Sir Taliesin]

We heard plenty about both incidents. Also about the Ch-46 Sea Knight going down as well. Wasn't Terry Lloyd on his own? I understand that he wasn't embedded in any unit. If that were the case I could easily understand that he and his people could be mistaken for Iraq soldiers, especially since they have been switching to civilian clothes adn going after allied troops. IF he were being chased by Iraqi soldiers he might even look like he was apart of a Iraqi convoy or column. I don't mean to makes this sound trite, but in the confusion of a war this is very likely to happen. I'm still trying to figure out how he got into Iraq across the Kuwait border without being stopped.

As far as the Tornado incident, I think we may all need more info. There are just to many things the could have happened, like a stray bullet shooting off the IFF transciever on the Tornado. There are just too many things that could have happened. Either way it was a tragedy.

As far as the men shouting in battle, they may have just been letting off some steam like after a close soccor match. That would be my guess. Again I'm not trying to make light or excuses. Just trying to through out some possible answers. Don't forget that these Marines are for the most part 18,19 and 20 year olds either.

[Timber Loftis]

The USA simply has a deplorable friendly-fire track record. In Afghanistan, friendly fire outweighed enemy casualties by a LOT. We kill our own, we kill our allies, and occassionally we kill the enemy. It's something that needs to seriously be addressed.

It is an expected side effect of the man-on-the-ground plus bomb-from-the-sky "combined arms" model that began in Vietnam. And, as in Vietnam, it has always had a high friendly-fire death toll.

On this issue, the USA could certainly do better. We do hear about it here, but for some reason there is no outcry.

Add to this the fact that Blackhawks don't seem to stay in the air very well (that DAMNED Bell helicopter monopoly - again going back to the Vietnam war), and you have a recipe for disaster.

[pritchke]

I am not sure why.

However there does seem to be a case of fire first ask questions later. Although I have seen some footage were US troops were fired on several time, patiently waited to identify were the fire was coming from and had a tank destroy the target. It was very well done.

In the case of the Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan who were injured and killed by a bomb when doing training. It appeared to be a case of a pilot not following orders to wait for confirmation of the target. If he had dropped bombs on the enemy after disobeying an order would he have been disciplined?

Then in GW1 a tank being operated by Canadian and British troops was fired on twice by an American tank and were almost hit. One of the soldiers interviewed said he was extremely annoyed and was thinking of firing back in not so friendly fire. So there does seem to be a somewhat trigger happy amongst at least some of the US troops. The question is why? Most of them are obviously very professional and do their jobs quite well.

[ 03-24-2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Thoran]

I think part of the problem is that the US military relies HEAVILY on technology, and tech. can increase the probabiliy for fatal mistakes. Look at the Patriot incident. Here we have an obviously beneficial platform that has no doubt saved lives in the last week, but it also requires the operators to trust that the IFF systems on friendlies is functional. The nature of ballistic interception is that fire/no fire decisions have to be made quickly, when the target is far out of sight, this leaves the door open for an accident like this. Compounding the problem is the issue of integrating two different forces.

When it comes to traditional fratricide, aircraft firing on ground forces or G-G fratricide, Is the American military less cautious than it should be? Perhaps... but I have not yet seen the statistical data to say so. In order to establablish that the US is more of a problem than other militaries you'd need to correlate the number of troops in action that are of the type that generates a significant percentage of fratricide events (basically armor/artillary and air) to the number of occurances of fratricide. Other factors would probably include the types of missions the various forces are involved in, and the amount of time forces spent in contact with other friendlies. I know that other forces DID commit fratricide during GW1 (including British forces), but I don't know if there's a statically significant sampling (doubtful) or how the event occurances relate to the overall numbers of troops deployed.

In any event, it's a problem for ALL militiaries, and especially militaries that participate in coalitions like both GW operations. While it may be a fact of military life, it's a horrible thing, especially for the guy who pulls the trigger. I'd hate to live my life knowing I killed guys who were on my side, even if it was a simple mistake.

[Larry_OHF]

I am with you all the way in worrying about what is going on with friendly-fire casualties. I pay more attention these days to which one of our guys shot one of our friends than I do any other news topic! It is on my mind, as much as it is on the minds of my work collegues. I was hoping we were better than this.

For the most part, it seems to be faulty equipment or lack of proper communication that is the key. Well...fix the dang stuff, will ya! We brag a great deal about having all this high-tech equipment,,,but I just read an article that said many soldiers from the first Gulf War complained that they knew thier chem/bio suits were faulty, and now we are saying that faulty mechanics are killing more of our friends. Maybe the problem is that Microsoft helped develop our computers! That would certainly explain alot, wouldn't it?

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Add to this the fact that Blackhawks don't seem to stay in the air very well (that DAMNED Bell helicopter monopoly - again going back to the Vietnam war), and you have a recipe for disaster.

We will trade our 40 year old Sea Kings that require 30 hrs of maintanence for every flight hour for Blackhawks. [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img]

[ 03-24-2003, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Animal]

Originally posted by pritchke: Quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Add to this the fact that Blackhawks don't seem to stay in the air very well (that DAMNED Bell helicopter monopoly - again going back to the Vietnam war), and you have a recipe for disaster.

We will trade our 40 year old Sea Kings that require 30 hrs of maintanence for every flight hour for Blackhawks. [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]And they still crash 50% of the time. And people wonder why Canada doesn't want to get involved.

As much as I hate to say this, and may receive a beat down for it, war is war. Friendly fire is just another possibility in war. The majority of the troops are US, so it stands to reason that the majority of the accidents will be US related.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the majority of US weapons technology is largely untested in the field of battle and certain bugs and problems are going to arise when you actually start using the equipment.

[Thoran]

That's true Animal... the new Patriot system that's been deployed is totally new and has not been released for use yet (but they're using it anyway). This is the first trial for the Longbow Apache too, which isn't slated for wide release for years yet I believe.

Now that's what's what I call a "smoke test".