YAFFI (Yet Another Friendly Fire Incident)

[nutball]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2921743.stm

Sorry guys, but all these blue-on-blue incidents are starting to look like imcompetence and negligence rather than pure accident. At this rate we'll come out of this war having killed more of our own troops than the opposition manage!

I know friendly fire happens in any war, but I think some serious questions are going to have to be asked about the attitude of US forces. You can't blame technology, or look to technology for a 100% solution. It's also about training, and attitude, and frankly the US military is starting to look like it's seriously lacking in both of these areas.

 

[DemoCoder]

Before posting, why not do some research on historical friendly fire.

The are three reasons things seem worse.

#1 These FF incidents seem worse is that modern media magnifies any incident, no matter how pedestrian or minor, to front page news

#2 . The other reason is that as the number of casualities from enemy fire goes down, the total proportion of those killed by FF increases.

#3 Weapons are more precise, training is more precise. US soldiers and equipment "don't miss" very much, and generally kill what they are shooting at. There's not much time to get on the radio and say "hey, stop shooting, it's ME!" when the first bullet got you.

49% of US casualities in Desert Storm were FF. Now, do you really think that the soldiers in DS were trained worse than conscripted vietnam soldiers, sent through basic training and onto the frontlines?


The technology doesn't help much at all. Most ground weapons do not have friend-or-foe anti-FF capabilities. Ground controllers calling in airstrikes do not have any software that prevents them from relaying their own coordinates, or the coordinates of friendly troops.

In fact, only the 4th infantry division has any technology to let troops know the location of all other troops in their division (via WIFI network and GPS)


In modern warfare, combat occurs many times "beyond visual range" Despite what you've seen in the movies of people engaging at close range, often you are not even seeing what you shoot at, for example, with indirect fire, or airtstrikes.

Moreover, in the desert, with dust storms occluding your visibility, it is quite easy to get lost, and once you are in the wrong place, it is quite easier to be assumed hostile.


Take 50,000 troops. Have them drive around for 2 weeks in the desert, with little sleep, food, or rest. The number of casualties will be less than 50,000 people driving to work for 2 weeks on the highways.

Statistics can lie, the the idea of the higher (40-50%) FF statistics represent a degradation in training is ludicrous. What it really represents is a large reduction in the number of casualties taken from enemy fire, so even if the accident rate remains the same, the figure goes up.

 

[epicstruggle]

one of the best post ive read democoder. . Totally agree with what you said DC.

later,

 

[nutball]

Thought it might touch a nerve.

 

[DemoCoder]

Yes, posting nonsense touches my nerve to refute it. Care to post any hard data that backs up your contention on the training level and attitude of US troops?