View Full Version : Friendly Fire, unfortunate reality- how does it make you feel?
In war, death is a reality and one that any servicemen would have to come to terms with. However, what a terrible thought it is to think that you could be killed by one of your own? Following 30 coalition deaths from "friendly fire" in Iraq, which is more than what has been inflicted by the enemy, I was wondering how those serving in the coalition forces feel about this? Whether this makes you feel aprehensive, perhaps angry or maybe you might feel it is just another inescapable reality of war. It is just that I, a relative of a servicemen, couldn't stand to think that my loved one could be killed by "accident" and though I do not want to be morbid- I am deeply interested to know your concerns. My heart and sincere empathy goes out to all those who have lost their loved ones in this way- I pray that they may look to that which is eternal in this time for hope.
TomPierce
12th Apr 2003, 19:35
Yeah well, it happens. But why do I smell a journo? We have had enough of journos for the past three weeks thanks. :*
G.Khan
12th Apr 2003, 21:09
Not a journo, spelling and grammer not up to 'o' level standard, ('more than what', 'aprehensive' sic).
Or could it be a journo in disguise?:}
SASless
12th Apr 2003, 21:59
Absolutely "chills" the recipient....would suggest you join the mob...put on yer desert togs....and get a first hand view of what war is all about! Hands on research is the only way to arrive at the answer....or you might try standing at the butt end of a rifle range while the troops are training. You could save the MOD the price of a target....
It's also a load of garbage, see here (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/index.html). The majority were caused by enemy action. Accidents, road and helicopter, make up most of the rest. Friendly fire is a very small percentage.
But, no doubt, some will hear only what they want to hear and the "fact" that friendly fire caused most deaths will be repeatedly endlessly.
SunderlandMatt
12th Apr 2003, 23:13
Let's imagine you are one of the US A-10 pilots who has just dropped it's load on allies. :ooh:
Are you grounded? If so for how long? Will you ever be sent to war again? Will you ever be promoted again?
Basically, I just want to know if these 'Cowboys' are reprimanded for their carelessness. :mad:
Do you think they should be? :*
P.S. I realise I've missed an 'r' off the title, but haven't a clue how to change it :hmm:
reynoldsno1
14th Apr 2003, 06:55
From another perspective, my uncle was killed on the Cherbourg peninsular during the D-Day landings in August 1944. He was a radar nav in a Mosquito that suffered a total electrics failure at night - so no lights and no radio. They came under "friendly fire" and were hit. They expended all their identification flares, but were able to recover to Picauville and landed safely. Unfortunately no-one knew they had landed, and another Mosquito collided with them as it landed after them. My uncle was the only fatality, a few days after receiving his second DFC...
I was born some years later, so I never knew him.
These things happen...
No journo here...just a christian university student who likes to look deeper into realities of life than most people. Sorry for alarming you...it is just when I read about 30 coalition forces being killed in Iraq, which is more than what have been killed by enemy fire, it just really got me thinking
Friendly fire is an inevitable consequence of any warfare. It's always happened and always will. There is nothing you can do to stop it. Even with the smartest weapons you'd have to remove the 'unsmart' weapon user who makes an occasional error-of-judgement and fires on what they consider to be hostile. Modern warfare makes killing less personal and more distant to the extent we can kill people many miles away who we can't see. Identifying which of the people we can't see (because they're wisely hiding!) are hostile and shooting at us, or friendly and shooting at somebody else, is nearly impossible.
During Operation Telic there were many measures in place to stop blue-on-blues and these measures no doubt saved many lives. The unfortunate failures in the system are the ones you hear about.
Generally thougg, the more men you have on your side in theatre, and the more stuff you fire at the enemy and the more you progress towards them, the more likely you are to kill your own. If you don't accept this as a risk you shouldn't go to war.
OFBSLF
15th Apr 2003, 03:41
It seems to me that "smart" weapons make friendly fire fatalities more likely. With "smart" weapons you are much more likely to hit what you shoot at and with more lethal results. 20 years ago, there was more time for the shootee to tell the shooter to knock it off, because the first shots probably missed. Not anymore.
ftrplt
15th Apr 2003, 10:34
SunderlandMatt,
its not always the pilots fault, i.e Cowboys. Just because friendlies get hit, why automatically assume that the friendlies were the intended tgt. Bomb fins fail, LGB's lose the spot etc etc.
You dont here anything when bombs miss the tgt and it explodes in the desert, its only when good guys happen to be under the miss that it is a problem.
Farfrompuken
15th Apr 2003, 13:30
Well, in my experience of Op Telic, Blue on Blue is the least of your worries.
How we haven't clapped wings with anyone is a matter of luck as far as I'm concerned.
Would be a very sad day to see that one happen. As in Op Oracle, I'm sure it was the balance of probabilities that ensured crews' safe returns.
As for Blue on Blue, it has happened since the Stone Ages, yet it still sickens.
Here's for everyone's safe return, and for them to get some decent leave in (D'ya reckon that'll happen???:bored: ).