British Troops Gunned Down by US Army Apache NEARLY 3 YEARS AGO!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you supply the lion's share of the hardware and explosions, simple mathematics will gift you the lion's share of the accidents.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
PTT, I am sure they exist. I did see one set of 'stats' a few years ago, probably up to the mid 20th C or even '70s, that itemised the number of pieces of ammunition to achieve particular kills.
In WW1 the number of .303 bullets per kill was in the millions. Shells lower etc etc. In WW2 the number of bullets was in the hundreds of thousands. And so on, I imagine with modern logistics accounting and body counts that the figures for Vietnam will be available.
I know there was a deliberate attempt from GW1 to avoid the macarbre body counts of previous years.
In WW1 the number of .303 bullets per kill was in the millions. Shells lower etc etc. In WW2 the number of bullets was in the hundreds of thousands. And so on, I imagine with modern logistics accounting and body counts that the figures for Vietnam will be available.
I know there was a deliberate attempt from GW1 to avoid the macarbre body counts of previous years.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Hampshire, England
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VX275
The extracts were cut & paste from
Friendly fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then edited for the benefit of those that assume "our poo doesn't smell".
The extracts were cut & paste from
Friendly fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then edited for the benefit of those that assume "our poo doesn't smell".
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Just a point, when posting information cut from another source it is only proper that that source is identified and credited.
Has the UK MOD done the same.....got you lot all on the same page communication wise.....can the RAF, Army, Marines, and Navy chat like family or you all still using your own messaging format for the relay of tactical information, fire mission requests, control of air attacks, artillery, naval gunfire....or is it still like so many years ago....say Wellington's time?
But it is also a well known fact that, until the mid 00s to my certain knowledge, it was NOT MoD UK policy for their Services to be interoperable with each other, never mind with Allies. If it does happen, it is usually down to a feature of the kit that is there anyway.
An attempt was made in 2001-03 to include this interoperability in a major Tri-Service (Army-led) programme but orders came down from London that the word "interoperability" was to be removed entirely from any documentation, tenders, plans, specifications etc. (It is still not mentioned in the programme). The programme Risk Register noted this would increase the probability of "friendly fire" events (in a programme where the sole aim was to reduce casualties), but the attitude was "so what" and mitigation was not permitted. I recall one Bidders Conference where the (****wit) MoD chairman jumped on the bidders when they pointed this out, refusing to allow the subject to be discussed.
-re JTIDS, a properly integrated system has a warning to tell you when you are using up too much of the allocated bandwidth - usually activated when you switch on voice channels.
Last edited by tucumseh; 23rd Sep 2012 at 11:43.
Has not communication been the weak point of all military operations since time began?
As the pace of operations grow...with sudden advances, movement of troops in sometimes very small numbers, does it not make sense such situations make coordinating Fires, Gunfire support, air support, very difficult?
Add in the inability of some units to communicate, various layers of commands to completely scramble messages, lose messages, and generally wander lost in the fog of war....even the best of efforts can be lacking.
Combine that with the efficiency of modern weapon systems....and the end result can very tragic as the attacked personnel be they friendly or enemy get killed all too well.
Ever was....ever shall be. Rather than point fingers and assess blame...as almost invariably there is no criminal negligence or evil intent....learning what caused the event and then DOING what needs to be done to prevent another event is the key. Putting more and more restrictions on the application of combat power is not the right answer....finding a better way to identify, locate, and communicate with friendly units in the target area is the right way.
If we are to remain in NATO....we need a NATO Standard....one where all participants...ground, sea, air....of all Nations can effectively coordinate combat action.
Until then....everyone bears direct responsibility for these tragedies....not just the folks that pull the trigger!
As the pace of operations grow...with sudden advances, movement of troops in sometimes very small numbers, does it not make sense such situations make coordinating Fires, Gunfire support, air support, very difficult?
Add in the inability of some units to communicate, various layers of commands to completely scramble messages, lose messages, and generally wander lost in the fog of war....even the best of efforts can be lacking.
Combine that with the efficiency of modern weapon systems....and the end result can very tragic as the attacked personnel be they friendly or enemy get killed all too well.
Ever was....ever shall be. Rather than point fingers and assess blame...as almost invariably there is no criminal negligence or evil intent....learning what caused the event and then DOING what needs to be done to prevent another event is the key. Putting more and more restrictions on the application of combat power is not the right answer....finding a better way to identify, locate, and communicate with friendly units in the target area is the right way.
If we are to remain in NATO....we need a NATO Standard....one where all participants...ground, sea, air....of all Nations can effectively coordinate combat action.
Until then....everyone bears direct responsibility for these tragedies....not just the folks that pull the trigger!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It took years before the Nimrod got marine band VHF. The Navy used to cadge aircraft UHF sets as they were more adaptable on warships.
I am sure the Army can find an equal number of incompatibilities between other armies and probably even other British units.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 23rd Sep 2012 at 15:24.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to tempt fate - touch wood and all that, but if wiki is to be believed (big if) then the RAF have only been guilty of one friendly fire incident since WWII (unless I missed something). And as that was a Harrier strafing friendlies in Afghan which I've never seen any other evidence/report of and the harrier didn't have a gun so is questionable, that's a pretty good effort. Big up to all those involved in the killchain!
One of the problems for friendly fire is that the technology exists for an extensive blue force tracker system, which would make a big difference, but they would all need to be compatible (the UK army chose one that wasn't compatible with the extant US system) and everyone would need to carry it. You give that much kit to people and it causes a huge logs tail and is heavy to carry so the troops lose mobility. Its all a trade off.
One of the problems for friendly fire is that the technology exists for an extensive blue force tracker system, which would make a big difference, but they would all need to be compatible (the UK army chose one that wasn't compatible with the extant US system) and everyone would need to carry it. You give that much kit to people and it causes a huge logs tail and is heavy to carry so the troops lose mobility. Its all a trade off.
Last edited by Backwards PLT; 23rd Sep 2012 at 16:31.
Is not Step One....the acceptance a problem exists?
Step Two....define the problem.
Step Three....design a command standard to cure the problem.
Step Four...FULLY implement the Standard.
Step Five...ENSURE the standard is complied with to the very smallest detail.
Yep...and that means buying the batteries and getting them to the troops for their portable devices....making sure the devices are issued in the quantity needed...maintained in a serviceable condition....and are carried by the Troops at all times when in a combat zone.
Infrared Strobe lights, signal panels, smoke grenades, Lasers, and Comm gear compatible for communication with Air Assets, and Signal coordination so everyone knows where to find the other guys to talk with them.
Nothing beats being able to talk to the guys on the ground who need the help...and being able to understand exactly what the situation is before you go to shooting and dropping things.
Of course...if you are restricted to staying way....way...way up on your flight....and not allowed to get close to the target before doing your thing....then all the gucci kit is made ineffectual isn't it? Perhaps tactics need to fit the need of the guys on the ground and less on minimizing the risk to the aircraft to the point it harms effectiveness of the delivery of weapons. You cannot hit what you cannot see.....talking CAS of troops in contact when Danger Close is still not close enough.
Step Two....define the problem.
Step Three....design a command standard to cure the problem.
Step Four...FULLY implement the Standard.
Step Five...ENSURE the standard is complied with to the very smallest detail.
Yep...and that means buying the batteries and getting them to the troops for their portable devices....making sure the devices are issued in the quantity needed...maintained in a serviceable condition....and are carried by the Troops at all times when in a combat zone.
Infrared Strobe lights, signal panels, smoke grenades, Lasers, and Comm gear compatible for communication with Air Assets, and Signal coordination so everyone knows where to find the other guys to talk with them.
Nothing beats being able to talk to the guys on the ground who need the help...and being able to understand exactly what the situation is before you go to shooting and dropping things.
Of course...if you are restricted to staying way....way...way up on your flight....and not allowed to get close to the target before doing your thing....then all the gucci kit is made ineffectual isn't it? Perhaps tactics need to fit the need of the guys on the ground and less on minimizing the risk to the aircraft to the point it harms effectiveness of the delivery of weapons. You cannot hit what you cannot see.....talking CAS of troops in contact when Danger Close is still not close enough.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Lack of Stability Augmentation System":
I think everyone is pretty happy with steps 1 and 2.
Step 3: Ever tried to get the whole of NATO to agree to anything, then add likely coalition partners? Close to impossible.
Step 4: Ever tried to get the whole of NATO to pay for something? Especially if it didn't support their industry? Ever tried to persudae Army commanders that carrying 80lbs of kit per man everywhere is a good idea - many currently believe that we have gone to far with our current set-up for Afghan and that lighter and more mobile individuals mean less bullets hit them. Plus it now gives them a more mobile, flexible and effective dismounted patrol.
Not quite how this strayed into weapon employment heights?
I think everyone is pretty happy with steps 1 and 2.
Step 3: Ever tried to get the whole of NATO to agree to anything, then add likely coalition partners? Close to impossible.
Step 4: Ever tried to get the whole of NATO to pay for something? Especially if it didn't support their industry? Ever tried to persudae Army commanders that carrying 80lbs of kit per man everywhere is a good idea - many currently believe that we have gone to far with our current set-up for Afghan and that lighter and more mobile individuals mean less bullets hit them. Plus it now gives them a more mobile, flexible and effective dismounted patrol.
Not quite how this strayed into weapon employment heights?
I suppose it is fairly well known BOWMAN was meant to provide much of what is mentioned.
But what is NEVER mentioned is;
1. A programme was endorsed before the BOWMAN contract was even let to replace the personal and VHF radios. (Intra and Inter-Section). In fact, TWO programmes were endorsed to replace PRR, which illustrates the disconnect in MoD.
2. Ditto, to replace/enhance the HF (long range) radio (pretty useful in AFG!). This was delivered BEFORE the BOWMAN contract was let and was described by GOC AFG (proper title?) as the “Comms system of choice” at a press briefing in 2005. What he didn’t elaborate on was the fact it was not BOWMAN he was talking about, so the press hacks assumed it was and MoD perpetuated the myth.
3. When BOWMAN was eventually delivered, about a decade or two late, much of it was chucked in the bin, because it was one or two generations OLDER than kit that had been bought under UORs to replace Clansman in the late 90s. Hence, recent audit reports talking of “missing” radios. They’re not missing; they’re in land fill sites.
The point here is that duplicate and even triplicate programmes were running concurrently, with money ****ed down the drain on all but the successful one (the HF replacement of 2003, which was specified, trialled, delivered and in-theatre inside 6 weeks – and it wasn’t a UOR, because London didn’t want it delivered before BOWMAN due to potential embarrassment. The PM said balls to that and delivered anyway). At the same time, our troops were critically short of body armour, batteries that worked (again, something no-one mentions, because so many died as a result) and other capability that was salami sliced to protect the sacred and very expensive cow called BOWMAN.
But what is NEVER mentioned is;
1. A programme was endorsed before the BOWMAN contract was even let to replace the personal and VHF radios. (Intra and Inter-Section). In fact, TWO programmes were endorsed to replace PRR, which illustrates the disconnect in MoD.
2. Ditto, to replace/enhance the HF (long range) radio (pretty useful in AFG!). This was delivered BEFORE the BOWMAN contract was let and was described by GOC AFG (proper title?) as the “Comms system of choice” at a press briefing in 2005. What he didn’t elaborate on was the fact it was not BOWMAN he was talking about, so the press hacks assumed it was and MoD perpetuated the myth.
3. When BOWMAN was eventually delivered, about a decade or two late, much of it was chucked in the bin, because it was one or two generations OLDER than kit that had been bought under UORs to replace Clansman in the late 90s. Hence, recent audit reports talking of “missing” radios. They’re not missing; they’re in land fill sites.
The point here is that duplicate and even triplicate programmes were running concurrently, with money ****ed down the drain on all but the successful one (the HF replacement of 2003, which was specified, trialled, delivered and in-theatre inside 6 weeks – and it wasn’t a UOR, because London didn’t want it delivered before BOWMAN due to potential embarrassment. The PM said balls to that and delivered anyway). At the same time, our troops were critically short of body armour, batteries that worked (again, something no-one mentions, because so many died as a result) and other capability that was salami sliced to protect the sacred and very expensive cow called BOWMAN.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Interestingly Blind Pru's list of blue on blue from wikipedia missed one that was in today's obit for Commander Bill King. Some time in 1939, before December, his submarine was attacked and suffered a direct hit from RAF aircraft off Harwich.
BPLT....you cannot get it done within your own MOD.....so what say you start there and if your system is compatible with say......ours....then would that not be a good start? Generally, the minority moves towards the majority don't they?
Anyone can find excuses.....accomplishment is what we are seeking.
Anyone can find excuses.....accomplishment is what we are seeking.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Indeed they do. From our POV, while you may have the most kit and the biggest stick, you are in the minority where each member has an equal vote.
Of course there are back channel means to get others to vote with you but everyone is more keen on getting more out of the NATO pot than they put in.
Of course there are back channel means to get others to vote with you but everyone is more keen on getting more out of the NATO pot than they put in.
I have reached the point where I would advocate withdrawing from NATO....close down our bases overseas, and bringing all of our troops home. In place of maintaining a physical presence....perhaps just entering into treaties that would provide joint defense committments in time of WAR.
As the Bear is much more tame and had a pretty good muzzle placed upon him....maybe we just do not need to have the presence we did in the past.
If Romeny wins and we do move towards Energy Independence....our need to be forward deployed decreases....and in time could be eliminated completely.
Then Europe could pay for its own defense and we could spend our money on defending our own borders rather than Western Europe.
My almost foster Daughter would be shattered to miss out on a three posting to Germany.....so it would be at some cost.
As the Bear is much more tame and had a pretty good muzzle placed upon him....maybe we just do not need to have the presence we did in the past.
If Romeny wins and we do move towards Energy Independence....our need to be forward deployed decreases....and in time could be eliminated completely.
Then Europe could pay for its own defense and we could spend our money on defending our own borders rather than Western Europe.
My almost foster Daughter would be shattered to miss out on a three posting to Germany.....so it would be at some cost.
My grandfather, an 8th Army veteran, occasionally told the story of being bombed at Monte Cassino, by the 'Bloody Yanks in their Marauders'.
Of course, it could just have easily been the 'bloody RAF or SAAF' in THEIR Marauders.
Blue-on-Blues have always happened, even with UK armed forces (Gazelle in the Falklands springs to mind).
Of course, it could just have easily been the 'bloody RAF or SAAF' in THEIR Marauders.
Blue-on-Blues have always happened, even with UK armed forces (Gazelle in the Falklands springs to mind).
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Tuc, excellent. Reminds me that in one exercise we managed a blue-on-blue against a 'friendly' sub. Problem in exercises of course is that the 'enemy' do look like friendlies 
.
In this case the submarine was almost 100 miles out of his patrol area - a not uncommon feature of our dark blue brethern and either slow communications or even a reluctance to communicate.
.In this case the submarine was almost 100 miles out of his patrol area - a not uncommon feature of our dark blue brethern and either slow communications or even a reluctance to communicate.