Friendly fire details from Iraq.

[Doubt]

Iraqi friendly fire details are starting to emerge.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030516-friendly-fire01.htm


But instead of striking the Iraqi tank, one of the aircraft dropped a bomb on top of the convoy, killing 18 Kurds and injuring three U.S. soldiers.

Pentagon sources say the attack may have been caused by a simple mix-up: Transmitters worn by special operation forces to avoid "friendly fire" were compatible only with Air Force planes, and not the Navy jets that bombed them.


The article discusses several of the friendly fire incidents in the recent war. One it does not cover is the A-10 that made two passes on the British unit.

Many more details yet to come…..

[Michael Redman]

Interesting how you generally only hear about the British killed by the US. If the US does it, it's because they're cowboys:On March 28, a U.S. tank-killing A10 Warthog plane mistakenly fired at two Scimitar light armored vehicles of Britain's D Squadron, killing Cpl. Matty Hull, 25, and wounding four other soldiers.

The anger in the British media over "friendly fire" reached a fever pitch. The Times, a pro-war newspaper, quoted one survivor of the Warthog attack as saying: "The Yank opened up. He had absolutely no regard for human life. He was a cowboy out on a jolly." But when it's self inflicted, it's just an accident:After two British soldiers died when their tank was attacked by another British tank, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon told the House of Commons: "There was no technological reason that such an appalling accident should have occurred: but occur it did."

"Although they were equipped with appropriate identification equipment, unfortunately, in the heat of battle, that was not necessarily the first thought in the tank that considered it was under attack and which reacted with tragic consequences," Hoon added. http://www.nandotimes.com/special_reports/iraq/casualties/profiles/story/865126p-6044264c.html

[Frostbite]

I've always wondered about that from playing ultraviolent video games. How do soldiers tell the difference between their own and the enemy? Especially these days, it seems all soldiers are dressed in identical camo suits. I played some Battlefield 1942 (outstanding game btw) and I always shoot my allies accidentally and get called a llama.

[peptoabysmal]

But instead of striking the Iraqi tank, one of the aircraft dropped a bomb on top of the convoy, killing 18 Kurds and injuring three U.S. soldiers.

Pentagon sources say the attack may have been caused by a simple mix-up: Transmitters worn by special operation forces to avoid "friendly fire" were compatible only with Air Force planes, and not the Navy jets that bombed them.


I feel guilty now, complaining when my cell phone messes up.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Interesting how you generally only hear about the British killed by the US. If the US does it, it's because they're cowboys:But when it's self inflicted, it's just an accident: http://www.nandotimes.com/special_reports/iraq/casualties/profiles/story/865126p-6044264c.html

Considering that the first statement was from a solder that had been on the sharp end of the stick of the first incident, and that the second statement was made by a member of the British government, I don't really think it makes much sense to try and compare them.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Considering that the first statement was from a solder that had been on the sharp end of the stick of the first incident, and that the second statement was made by a member of the British government, I don't really think it makes much sense to try and compare them. Well, then, perhaps you should read the rest of the article. Or the rest of the international media coverage of the war. You find the same double standard applied pretty much everywhere.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Well, then, perhaps you should read the rest of the article. Or the rest of the international media coverage of the war. You find the same double standard applied pretty much everywhere.

I did read the article, and I couldn't see that it made any distinction between the two incidents at all - but grouped both of them together as "friendly fire." It certainly didn't make any point of the difference between a friendly fire incident caused by US troops versus one caused by British troops.

[Michael Redman]

The difference is in how the media portrays the actors.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The difference is in how the media portrays the actors.

Perhaps, but the article in question didn't make any issue of that.

[Michael Redman]

Let me requote:The anger in the British media over "friendly fire" reached a fever pitch. Are they angry at their own troops, who caused most of their friendly fire casualties? No. They're angry at the US.

[Crossbow]

The US Military has pretty good statistics going all the way back to the Civil War, and they have found that once the shooting actually starts, then one can expect about one-third of all casualties to be the result of Friendly Fire.

So the odds are one in three that a US combatant will get hurt by his one of his own.

Go figure!