Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Just been reading about another 'friendly fire' incident involving trigger-happy Americans and came across this article...totally astonishing incompetence! Anyone got any military stories on this subject? My father's in the navy and he says that British soldiers are more worried about being killed by Americans than the enemy!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 27,00.html

Good old Fiona. Yet another poll winner.

'Friendly fire !'

'Collateral Damage'

'Green on Green'

What the fck ??

In soldiers terms, it's a 'Major Cock-Up' !

You want to speak to one of my older cousins about American support from when he was fighting in Korea in the 50's.

Even at his advanced years, he won't speak to an American. He reckons they couldn't find a target from a map reference if you gave them a week to do so !

The whole article is very enlightening (and terrifying to one considering the military as an occupation, even if only temporarily!). I can't think of many countries with a big cross on the flag with which the US has any sort of negative relations... it also begs the question of how serious the situation in Iraq is, if there really is a risk that convoys of armoured vehicles are the enemy...

I think it was the final paragraphs though, with the English dry wit coming through, which left me rolling on the floor with laughter...

British troops have been given warning against approaching American convoys because of the risk of being shot at. They are ordered to slow down to a snail’s pace as they pull alongside a convoy. They are told to display the Union Jack and shout that they are British. “The problem is that most of these incidents happen in the dark,” a military source said.

A British officer in Basra said: “The Americans can be pretty pumped-up. Sometimes they fire in broad daylight when we are travelling at two miles per hour, shouting that we are British out of the window and waving the Union Jack. If they shoot, our drill is to slam on the brakes and race in the opposite direction.”

(but shocked...)

Sadly incidents of this sort are inevitable during war and the only way to ensure that they never happen is not to go to war in the first place! Whilst there is no doubt that the Americans tend to be more 'gung ho' than other militaries, the simple reason that they have more 'blue on blue' incidents is that there are far more of them than anyone else in any particular area of operations. Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, in this forum and elsewhere, most US Serviceman care very deeply about taking and inflicting casualties. Whilst there were stories in the press about US soldiers going out to Iraq 'to kill someone' this is not the view of the vast majority of US Servicemen with whom I have lived and worked in the past. I would agree that from the President downwards there is a school of thought in the States that sees everything in terms of good and evil, but this is far less prevalent in the US Military now than it was in 2003. Most US Service personnel are just trying to do as good a job as they can in often impossible circumstances. The tragic deaths of members of Coalition forces (and their own troops) from friendly fire is just one of the terrible consequences of getting embroiled in what are almost certainly unwinnable wars.

Loringa - it's not that the US military deliberately sets out to kill their allies but it's a fact that they are more gun-ho and more prone to shooting first and asking questions later.

I disagree that there are more blue-on-blues committed simply because there are more Americans out there. By that argument there are far less Brits/Canadians so they should really find themselves being targeted less. The Brits are outnumbered by at least 10 to 1 by Americans which means there are far more Americans with the potential to be hit than there are Brits. Surely the bigger the target the bigger the risk? Time and time again the Brits find themselves being targeted far more, despite being in the minority.

I believe this is a cultural issue as well as one of training. The American pilots simply put are not trained properly to a) recognise their allies' vehicles and b) to exercise restraint when unsure of their potential target - if in doubt - don't fire!

marty wrote:I believe this is a cultural issue as well as one of training. The American pilots simply put are not trained properly to a) recognise their allies' vehicles and b) to exercise restraint when unsure of their potential target - if in doubt - don't fire!

Upon what do you base this statement? There are undoubtedly cultural differences between Brits and Americans (or between any 2 different countries), of course there are, but I do not believe that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the way the US trains its aircrew. Maybe you have more experience of this than I do in which case I apologise for my assertion. Nonetheless, I maintain my earlier position: in war, mistakes happen and the tragic death of LCpl Hull was one of those mistakes. If you want to avoid the consequences of errors made within the fog of war then don't go to war in the first place. There is nothing neat and tidy about warfighting and the only thing that is wholly predictable is that people will die.

The film currently being shown on TV seems to indicate:
a) poor eyesight - they thought large orange squares almost fovering the forepart of the warriors was a rocket warhead; proportion is wrong
b) the pilots are not trained to icentify UK vehicles
c) they asked forward controller who stated that there were no friendly forces in the area.
d) two green pilots were sent up together on their first ever combat missions; they should have had an experienced pilot with one of the pilots whose first mission this was.

Going back to immediatel after the first Gulf War there was a similar situation regarding a UN aircraft near the northern border; air traffic control didn't ID the aircraft so they ordered it be shot down. There was a case of ground troops being hit after the ceasefire - againt the facts have not emerged.

In all cases they don't allow the people responsible to be interrogated by UK MPs to determine the truth. In this case the pilots expected jail sentences but apparently no action of any type was taken against them.

Faults all round.

loringa wrote:

marty wrote:I believe this is a cultural issue as well as one of training. The American pilots simply put are not trained properly to a) recognise their allies' vehicles and b) to exercise restraint when unsure of their potential target - if in doubt - don't fire!

Upon what do you base this statement? There are undoubtedly cultural differences between Brits and Americans (or between any 2 different countries), of course there are, but I do not believe that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the way the US trains its aircrew.

Haven't you seen the video on the news?!! It's obvious, even to civilians, that these pilots were unsure of their target and that they should have checked properly. Basic stuff. Americans may well be the best equipped but they are poorly trained - too much technology, not enough common sense (despite what you might see in films they are not 'the best of the best'). I agree that the best way to avoid casualties is not to go to war in the first place but that's a bit of a false argument - they are at war and so you cannot run round the facts simply by saying they shouldn't be there. They are! If the story in the news was an isolated incident I might agree with you a bit more but it's not. This keeps happening and it's all one way traffic. They even managed to shoot a hostage negotiator dead after he'd just successfully rescued his fellow Italian - sheer incompetence!! I'm told the British army are as frightened of Americans (perhaps even more so) than they are of insurgents/terrorists.

As for cultural differences everyone knows about Americans and guns. They grow up being told it is their right to bear arms and like it, or not, I think their attitude and their approach is affected by this. They have less compunction about firing because to them it is 'more normal' - if you see something everyday it's more acceptable.

Again I'll say that I don't think Americans set out to kill their own side deliberately but that is what keeps happening. Until the reasons are properly addressed it will keep happening. You can't just blame it on numbers.

I think that Marty and I will simply have to agree to differ on this matter. My experience of the US Military remains that they are extremely well trained on the whole and, whilst there are undoubted gaps in their capabilities, aircrew training on the whole is not one of them. Whilst serving alongside them I have often felt moved to criticise aspects of the way they conduct operations, counter insurgency ops in particular, and have heard their criticisms of their allies, including us. Nonetheless, they are basically well trained and highly capable overall and these types of incidents will, I am afraid, continue to happen in the 'fog of war' with or without the involvement of the Americans. It makes a good headline to say that the British Army is more afraid of the US Military than the enemy but I doubt it. Perhaps a serving soldier would like to comment?

loringa wrote:I think that Marty and I will simply have to agree to differ on this matter. My experience of the US Military remains that they are extremely well trained on the whole and, whilst there are undoubted gaps in their capabilities, aircrew training on the whole is not one of them. Whilst serving alongside them I have often felt moved to criticise aspects of the way they conduct operations, counter insurgency ops in particular, and have heard their criticisms of their allies, including us. Nonetheless, they are basically well trained and highly capable overall and these types of incidents will, I am afraid, continue to happen in the 'fog of war' with or without the involvement of the Americans. It makes a good headline to say that the British Army is more afraid of the US Military than the enemy but I doubt it. Perhaps a serving soldier would like to comment?

There are none left - they've all been killed by Americans! Sorry a crass joke but I couldnt' resist. Think we'll have to agree to disagree as you say, Loringa. It's clear your experiences with the US forces have not left you with the same opinion so I must respect that. Would love to hear from some soldiers - Greg Colton where are you (never thought I'd say that)!!!

British Army Rumour Service forum:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/
Will tell you everything you want to know.

What I don't understand is why when the majority of Americans showed by voting that they didn't agree with what was happening/had happened in Iraq, does Bush continue with his plans, and prepare to send more troops out, rather that bring them back?! Argh- Stupid!
(mind you, I don't think this country has done much better (regarding the politics- i would never wanna criticise our blessed army! (rule brittania and all that ))

bring them back=screw even more iraqis

depends what way you look at it I guess... I see your point, Ben, BUT- surely sending more troops isn't gonna help... and when do we see em get some aid? Was looking at pics a while ago in The Times of all those children sick and dying in hospital from war wounds etc and there is nothing that can be done for them until supplies and medical help comes through.