Planesdragon's Journal: Friendly Fire

I've heard more than a few times the claim that Americans are especially prone to friendly fire. The claim is most often attributed to a friend who happened to serve in the Canadian or British military services, and I'm willing to take uncontested the fact that Americans have this REPUTATION.

But I don't believe it, and I won't believe it until some real statistics are shown.

Such as, how do these friendly fire incidents add up when you normalize for the size of the military? How about when you seperate the rate of inter-army and intra-army friendly fire?

It's an horrible event when any soldier dies at the hands of their allies. But if a country that fields 100,000 men and women DOESN'T have ten times the friend-fire incidents of their 10,000 strong ally, then I'll get worried.

Until I hear the numbers, I'm not convinced that the greater number of American friendly fire incidents is due to anything more than the greater number of American soldiers.

Numbers and ratios

[miu]

I'd think that to even keep it increasing at a liner rate would be doing well. Those 100k men are not in a single mob, they are often strung out all over and tragic communication slipups are going to happen, I imagine that actual combat is a chaotic and terrifying mess. The Army's Command and General Staff College has released a research document, but it only covers WWI-Vietnam era statistics and I can't find any documents covering modern conflicts other than reports on individual incidents or the oft repea

Does DU count?

[js7a]

If we are counting depleted uranium [bovik.org] inhalation poisoning.... My sig used to mention that 10 years after Vietnam, only 10% of that war's veterans were listed as disabled, whereas 12 years after Gulf War I, 56% of combat veterans are listed as disabled. Granted, the definition of "disabled" has changed, and the V.A. is handing out disabilities a lot more liberally, but still, a large proportion of those are "Gulf War illness" which has the same symptoms as uranium inhalation poisoning.

I'm waiting for a FOI

Even more confusing now

[TheConfusedOne]

The number of friendly-fire deaths as a ratio of all combat deaths has increased due to the dramatic drop in overall combat fatalities. This makes it harder to judge. Additionally, along with the number of troops you have to look at the ordinance being deployed by the troops in question. A small contingent with small arms can't inflict the same damage as a single stray/mistargeted missile or tank round. Also, the more highly disciplined the group the easier it is to determine friendly-fire incidents.

The Reputation Isn't All That New

[crawling_chaos]

My high school physics teacher served in Normandy and used to relate to us this piece of wisdom: When a plane is overhead and the British duck, it's Luftwaffe. When the Germans duck, it's RAF. When everybody ducks, it's got to be USAAF.

He served in the US Army, by the way. It does seem that our airmen, in particular have a reputation for shooting at anything that moves.

Re:The Reputation Isn't All That New

[Planesdragon]

He served in the US Army, by the way. It does seem that our airmen, in particular have a reputation for shooting at anything that moves.

Which is why I doubt the current view. It makes about as much sense as claiming that the French always surrender, or that the British army never loses.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is nothing more than an urban legend that dates back to the Civil War.

Re:The Reputation Isn't All That New

[crawling_chaos]

Those Canadian soldiers who got blown up by a US Pilot might criticise the classification of the phenomenon as an Urban Legend, if they were still alive to do so. Pat Tillman might also want to put a word in edgewise, if he were still capable.

I think some of the problem comes from the US military's traditional reliance on firepower as an equalizer for numbers. You can't afford to lose people, so you are rather freer with the expenditure of ammo.

And let us not forget that Stonewall Jackson was accidentally

Re:The Reputation Isn't All That New

[Planesdragon]

Those Canadian soldiers who got blown up by a US Pilot might criticise the classification of the phenomenon as an Urban Legend,

The phenomenon is not an urban legend. The fact that America is especially prone to it is.

I think some of the problem comes from the US military's traditional reliance on firepower as an equalizer for numbers. You can't afford to lose people, so you are rather freer with the expenditure of ammo.

To be blunt, if that were all it is then I'd be fine with it. Better them than us

Re:The Reputation Isn't All That New

[crawling_chaos]

Let's also not forget that the same European / Commonwealth powers that spread this myth are also the same counries that invented "meat grinder" warfighting.

• Pickett's Charge?
• The Bloody Angle?
• Cold Harbor?
• The siege of Petersburg?

The real shame was that the European military academies didn't believe that there was anything important to be learned from the American Civil War, when the seeds of Ypres, Verdun, and the Marne were clearly visible to those who would see.