Video Of Us Soliders Shooting

**hobbes** · 12-16-2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by MagicNakor@16 December 2003 - 08:53
I hadn't seen that post. Looking back on it though, it seems to me that he chose the Gulf War to illustrate the point of the American army having a higher percentage of friendly-fire incidents than other armies.

The number I have for the Gulf War is around 24% of casualities was due to "friendly-fire," and during the 100-hour Operation Desert Storm alone there were 27 seperate cases. The Pentagon's stance was (and may still be) "We're working on it."

From the Gulf War onwards, the American army has had a relatively low casualty toll (understandable, as "meat grinder" battles aren't terribly common anymore), so deaths from "friendly-fire" represent a significant proportion of the casualties.

Exactly my point, that is a good thing. It means you have a very low chance of being killed, period.

It would be more relevant to examine "friendly fire" deaths/ per sortie or mission. This would indicate whether it is the total volume of missions that effects the chance of a mishap or whether there is an extremely high incidence, regardless the number of missions. The US controlled the sky, this is where the bulk of friendly fire deaths come from. Impersonal missles hitting targets never seen by the pilot.

A new way of engaging the enemy, leads to a new profile in how casualties will be incurred. If I were to tell you that more accidents occur on busy city highways in inclement weather than on isloated country roads, you would have no problem believing that.

Analogously, we now fight wars with wave after wave of simulataneous air attacks, occuring in a foreign land, often times in blinding dust stoms, so it is expected that some miscommunication/miscalculation is going to occur. Most targets are not ever seen by the person launching the weapon.

The point is that Lamsey wanted to blame all this on "gung ho" mentality. I pointed out that proportion of friendly fire deaths were higher due to the nature of engagement and the high degree of complexity in coordinating simulateous air attacks. When you run 100's of thousands of missions, some shit is going to happen.

So Magic, is friendly fire a "gung ho" phenomenon or perhaps it is more complex than that?

We are fighting a new type of war, with very low casualties on our side, it therefore makes the friendly fire death proportion stand out. As the Pentagon says "we are working on it". Compare 150 deaths in this war with 300,000 in world war 2, this is a good thing if you are a US soldier.

**J'Pol** · 12-16-2003, 05:57 PM

A reasonably sensible post (whether I agree or not). Then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like ....

Originally posted by hobbes@16 December 2003 - 16:42
Compare 150 deaths in this war with 300,000 in world war 2, this is a good thing if you are a US soldier.

**3rd gen noob** · 12-16-2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by J'Pol@15 December 2003 - 11:33
Before anyone gets on too high a horse. When dealing with terrorists, the SAS strike teams do not take prisoners. Armed or wounded, they are not taken alive. To do so would be considered a major failure (the last for boab).

only when hitting a certain embassy do they take hostages then? :-"

**3rd gen noob** · 12-16-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by hobbes@16 December 2003 - 14:42
Analogously, we now fight wars with wave after wave of simulataneous air attacks, occuring in a foreign land, often times in blinding dust stoms, so it is expected that some miscommunication/miscalculation is going to occur. Most targets are not ever seen by the person launching the weapon.

would it not make some sense at least to delay firing when visibility is low (even though there are capabilities for certain degrees of accuracy in poor conditions?

would it not make sense to have less friendly soldiers in a general area you are bombing?

**DanB** · 12-16-2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by J'Pol@15 December 2003 - 13:24
The SAS specialise in covert incursion, providing intelligence back to the main forces. They will be installed long term and will avoid contact with the enemy. They have some units who specialise in counter terrorist strikes etc, but from a military perspective they are primarilly an intelligence gathering service.

Have a read of this.

**MagicNakor** · 12-16-2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by hobbes@16 December 2003 - 16:42
...So Magic, is friendly fire a "gung ho" phenomenon or perhaps it is more complex than that?...

Most likely a combination of varying factors, although a "gung ho" mentality is certainly prevalent among them.

I'd contribute it to the way the soldiers are trained, as well. I've had a few friends join the US military (Marines, Navy (although the Marines are part of the Navy...), and I *think* Army), and the psychological reprogramming really did a number on one of them. He probably wasn't the best candidate to begin with, but it doesn't seem there is too much in the way of screening. It really would be interesting to know the psychological profiles of the soldiers who shoot their comrades.

Bombs and missiles are a different matter, although I really have to question the judgement of someone who gives pilots speed and sends them up into the air rather than letting them sleep a few hours.

**Alex H** · 12-17-2003, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by MagicNakor@16 December 2003 - 23:18
I really have to question the judgement of someone who gives pilots speed and sends them up into the air rather than letting them sleep a few hours.

You get the full force of the law when you're driving a semi-trailer on speed! What do you get when you do it in an $18m chopper? Loss of licence? "Sorry officer, I only had a couple of lines, I thought I was ok to fly".

**J'Pol** · 12-17-2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Alex H+17 December 2003 - 02:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 17 December 2003 - 02:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@16 December 2003 - 23:18
I really have to question the judgement of someone who gives pilots speed and sends them up into the air rather than letting them sleep a few hours.

You get the full force of the law when you're driving a semi-trailer on speed! What do you get when you do it in an $18m chopper? Loss of licence? "Sorry officer, I only had a couple of lines, I thought I was ok to fly". [/b][/quote]
$18m seems a bit low for a decent, fully armed combat helicopter.

Are they getting them on the cheap somewhere.