 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Friendly fire?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Steve in Idaho Date: 18 Apr 02 - 06:26 PM Yep Claymore - January 1966 - Quang Ngai - 9th Marines and 4th Marines hitting the beach after a steak and eggs breakfast. New Jersey prepping the beach for us. I didn't get to shoot her but I was glad she did as I was in the third wave of tracs heading in -
Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Wesley S Date: 18 Apr 02 - 05:04 PM Doug R - I agree. I can just imagine one of the isolationists looking into the eyes of the widows and orphans of 9/11 and saying " Y'know - we'd LIKE to help you - but the borders of Canada need defending and we can't spare anyone right now. Good luck" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST,Wee WIllie Date: 18 Apr 02 - 04:48 PM Not the trigger happy Yanks again, didn`t they invent "Friendly Fire". Sharon, spot on with your report exactly as reported on Channel 4 News [UK].Wee Willie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 18 Apr 02 - 04:21 PM Norton1, some of my favorite people were Angels (ANGLICO) also known as "Squids on the Ground". I had one shoot the New Jersey into some bunkers south of Cua Viet in '69. Nine rounds and the whole ridge line collapsed... still gives me a woody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 18 Apr 02 - 04:09 PM I don't know how to say "Right on" in German, Wolfgang, but I sense you coming about into the wind. McGrath's comments on the civilian population are pure sophistry IMO. 5% OF WHAT????? 90 % OF WHAT????? In biblical times, the percentage of civilian fatalities in war was usually 100%, and then the victors poured salt on the ground. Is some twit trying to convince me that that 90% of the Gulf War casualties were civilians? We lost some 128 Americans, the Iraqi's lost some 100,000 soldiers in the field. Is some twit trying to say that the Iraqis also lost some 90,000 civilian dead, when even the most outragious estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths was some 3,000? McGrath, I have been at numerous meetings of Commanders in the Field, and civilian casualties are always one of the first considerations in any action which might involve a non-combatant population. Yes, they are sometimes the second consideration after the Commander's own troops. But many times the choice is made to sacrifice troops in order to reduce the civilian casualties. In Vietnam, our planes came over Hanoi at treetop level to get the bridges near Hanoi, to avoid the dikes and reduce the civilian deaths. They got shot down and received beatings when ever Liberal Left peaceniks came to Hanoi to cheer the enemy on. Later on, we used carpet bombing to get them back to the peace talks. Same population different tactics. Whatever you feel about the Israelis, they are clearly trying to reduce the civilian casualties in their current actions. No commander would utilize combat in a built-up area to obtain his objectives, unless it was a political goal to reduce civilian casualties. They clearly want to smoke the terrorists out, instead of simply bombing the place into rubble. The elder Bush made what I believe was the correct choice in not sending troops into Bagdad, as our losses at the time were light (128) and we would have go house to house for Saddam, with heavy looses to both sides, including civilians. Civilian losses are in nobodies best interest, even the victors, and most responsible people know this. Folks, when some twit starts presenting specious percentages to justify some vagrant thought passing through his Air and Space museum, don't let me be the first to put his dogs on the porch... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: DougR Date: 18 Apr 02 - 03:50 PM Moo: your post sounds very nationalistic to me. Are you proposing Canada become isolationist? :>) This was a tragic accident and I regret that those who died become mere statistics in the Afghan situation. It would have been just as tragic had those that were killed have been Brits, U. S. or from any other friendly country. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Steve in Idaho Date: 18 Apr 02 - 03:47 PM And I suppose no other fighting force in the history of armed conflict has ever killed any of their allies - What drivel -
Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST,Bert Date: 18 Apr 02 - 03:19 PM Perhaps the answer is for none of us to be allies with the USA and not fight alongside them. their forces have a history of killing their allies - this is just another chapter in that story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Willie-O Date: 18 Apr 02 - 02:23 PM The official accounts so far do not adequately explain this tragedy. The Canadians were in an area that is well known to the US Forces as the (so-called) coalition's one and only training zone for these kinds of exercises within Afghanistan. Now with all their gee-whiz high-tech location devices, and given the pilot DID have radio communication with base (who told him not to bomb), the assertions that the plane (a) was not part of the training exercise and (b) thought he had found an Al Quaeda patrol (or something) just do not add up. I suspect a real different story will come out, eventually. W-O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Steve in Idaho Date: 18 Apr 02 - 02:17 PM Claymore is correct - give me a Battery of 8" Mobile Guns and I'll take my chances. "Repeat" - - - "Say again all after......" - - -
Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: SharonA Date: 18 Apr 02 - 01:57 PM Excerpt from the article on the ABC News website: "Shock, But No 'Outrage' " Pentagon officials said the U.S. Air National Guard F-16 fighter pilot apparently did not know that there was a training exercise going on and believed he was taking enemy fire. He was given permission to mark his target, but not to release the bomb, the officials said. The F-16 was one of two flying a routine combat patrol near Kandahar. One pilot reported seeing hostile ground fire and was told he could mark the target but that he was not to drop a bomb, according to sources at the Pentagon. When the pilot circled to mark the target, he reported seeing hostile fire again and he dropped a single 500-pound laser-guided bomb, the sources said. Two of the wounded are in critical condition; their injuries are considered life-threatening. The other injuries range from serious to very serious. The Canadians were part of the Third Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group. The fatalities were the first deaths of Canadian troops in a combat zone since the Korean War of 1950-53. The incident took place just before 2 a.m. local time about 10 miles south of the Kandahar air base, which houses both U.S. and Canadian forces. The site of the incident was a former al Qaeda terror camp that has since been used for training exercises. Canadian Gen. Ray Henault, chief of the defense staff, said the F-16 was not participating in the training exercise, and misidentified the Canadian troops. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Wolfgang Date: 18 Apr 02 - 01:52 PM Percentages are often hard to understand. Even if 90% of all casualties are civilians you still can be safer being a civilian than a soldier. It depends on the porportion of soldiers to civilians. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Apr 02 - 01:23 PM I lost the link to that site about civiian casulaties - here is one from UNICEF that should work. "Civilian fatalities in wartime climbed from 5 per cent at the turn of the century, to 15 per cent during World War I, to 65 per cent by the end of World War II, to more than 90 per cent in the wars of the 1990s." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Apr 02 - 01:15 PM The other way that patterns of casualties have changed ovr the past century is that, while the number of soldiers killed has tended to go down, the proportion of civilians and noncombatants of all ages killed has skyrocketed.
This site gives the nightmare statistics. If you are unfortunate enough to be in a country where a war is being conducted,on the whole it's safer to be in the army by a long way. Even if your side is losing. The civilians always die in vastly greater numbers.
My impression is that the presumption is that if it is necessary to kill large numbers of local civilians in order to reduce military casualties, that is seen as the right thing to do, at command level. I've heard of many ordinary soldiers who wouldn't necessarily see it that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Metchosin Date: 18 Apr 02 - 01:11 PM Maybe it is kind of fortunate that we humans are so inept. The world might be in an even worse state, if we were truly as competent as we like to believe we are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Metchosin Date: 18 Apr 02 - 01:05 PM Fortunately there was no one hurt the last time the Canadian Navy accidentally fired a missile from a ship in Esquimalt harbour through some poor bastards garage doors in Victoria. "Human error" should be the nomenclature for the "human race". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Metchosin Date: 18 Apr 02 - 12:57 PM Sadly tis true Mooh, this is the first "official combat" Canada has been in since the Korean War, the other deaths were in the line of "peace keeping duties" or by mistakingly using live ammo during training excercises. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Mooh Date: 18 Apr 02 - 12:44 PM And all the more needless, it was in a training exercise no less, not actual combat, now that's real friendly fire. I don't know if it's true or not but someone over at the Legion said these were the first losses since the Korean War. More to pray for. Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Ebbie Date: 18 Apr 02 - 12:36 PM When a 12-year-old kid is trying to sneak back into his home after a clandestine outing and is shot by his father who hears a 'burglar' bumping into things, is that 'friendly fire'? Elva |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Apr 02 - 12:25 PM Well soph, I did suggest in my first post that we could target Toronto.......This would mean we'd probably hit Ottawa, which might help solve your problems. Spaw ---with just a tiny black humor (:<() |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 18 Apr 02 - 12:23 PM Wolfgang, I'm glad you got back to this site before I did. I suspect that you had to know that someone like me would come across this and after being under friendly fire on numerous occasions (Vietnam, and once under Israeli fire during the Gulf War, during a military/police visit to the northern territories near Lebanon) someone like me would note the central fallicy of the stats. The number of total casualties in each of the wars cited went down, so naturally "accidents" of any sort would become a higher percentage of the casualties. At present, runaway fork-lifts have accounted for 12.5% of our Afghan casualties; lets spend thousands of idiot hours wringing our hands over American fork-lift atrocities. I do not have the time to layout the difficulties that artillery (or aircraft ordnance) undergo to place their weapons on target, but for example, naval gunnery has been likened to shooting at a flying duck while floating down stream in a canoe. Everything from the speed and angle of both the duck and the canoe, to the velocity and aim point of the gun, to the temperature and humidity of the air, plus the trigger pull and spot weld of the gunner come into play. May I suggest a little quiz to those who claim some insight into these tragedies. Name or explain the following very basic terms used in artillery: 1. Gunner's Rule - hint: "LARS" 2. TOT 3. Enfillade fire 4. Plunging fire 5. Grazing fire (To those who know, more of a machine gunners term, but still useful in FSB defense) 6. Reverse slope defense 7. Gun-Target line 8. Pre-planned fire - hint: "Call points" 9. "Shoot the Bags"- hint: When You Care Enough to Send the Very Best... 10. FO 11. FAC 12. "Fire for Effect" - easy 13. "Box me In" or "Walk Me Out" 14. "Willie Peter" I can't say that the commentors on the above thread need to know the above terms, but it should serve to separate the wheat from the sophists. That's enough for now, but I will close by saying that artillery has saved many more marines than have been lost by FF, and "Cannon Cockers" are still a grunt's best friend.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: sophocleese Date: 18 Apr 02 - 11:46 AM What!? People went to war and people got KILLED there?! WOW!!! Big BIG news! What the hell else did you expect to happen? Its one of the reasons why war is NOT A GOOD IDEA! People get hurt on both, all three, four or whatever number of sides there are. I agree with Mooh, Canada has no business being with the Americans in Afghanistan. If we wanted to help we should be going in under the auspices of the U.N. not the U.S. The side of me that likes black humour wonders if it was because we kicked American Ass in Hockey at the Olympics:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Metchosin Date: 18 Apr 02 - 11:28 AM What Mooh said. Any blame for this, lies strictly in Canada's lap, its what happens when you try to play with the big boys. And......can you imagine what that 100 million could do if it was pumped into the Coastguard and Search and Rescue, instead of a couple of luxury jets for the PM. But maybe they're planning to equip the new jets with BB guns so they can be pressed into military service as well.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Mooh Date: 18 Apr 02 - 11:17 AM Wesley S...Very good, feel better now? Compared to the US, Canada's military usefullness in this conflict (besides providing an ally to kill) is miniscule and would be more significant if put to use at and around home. Our participation overseas has more to do with political posturing and bootlicking than collective Canadian will. The US will, if it hasn't already, get its revenge/justice with or without my countrymen and women in the line of fire. Spaw...How right you are...it did take a while for this one to show up. Sad and perhaps inevitable as any war. Peace (still), Mooh.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Wolfgang Date: 18 Apr 02 - 10:43 AM Of course, it is (and feels) worse to kill allies. However, if I was an American general, I'd be glad that the above cited percentages go up and would hope that they go up even more. Why? The US army has now much better automatic tell-friend-from-foe equipment than it had 50 years ago. Therefore these incidents get rarer and the percentage of American soldiers killed by friendly fire compared to the number of all US soldiers involved in a war goes down. Why do the percentages of American casualties by friendly fire compared to all casualties go up though the ability to prevent these accidents gets better? Because the number of the casualties from unfriendly fire has gone down even more at the same time. And each (disregarding those on the other side) general would be glad about that development The percentages cited by me depend upon two different abilities of an army. The ability to prevent friendly fire mistakes (its increase will lower the percentage of casualties from friendly fire) and the ability to prevent unfriendly fire casualties (getting better at this ability will higher the percentage). Counterintuitively, an increasing percentage of casualties due to friendly fire can be an indicator of increased effectiveness. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST,Midchuck downstairs Date: 18 Apr 02 - 10:36 AM Somewhere in my internet junk I have a long list of "Murphy's Laws of Combat." About the shortest of them is: "Friendly fire isn't." 'Twas ever thus. Only solution is not to have wars. And then how would generals and admirals make a living? Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: SharonA Date: 18 Apr 02 - 10:10 AM Wolfgang: Well, yeah, it's bad enough when we kill our own soldiers by mistake. But when we do something stupid that gets the soldiers of our allies killed, that is IMO a different kettle of fish. I'm afraid that, for too long, the US mindset has been that because this sort of thing is inevitable we have no business being outraged by it. I think it's high time that attitude changed, so that steps are taken to bring those percentages down. As horrible as this incident is, I hope that it will be a catalyst for some much-needed reform. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Mrrzy Date: 18 Apr 02 - 09:37 AM I am sadly reminded of that "Sorry, eh?" Tshirt... from the Olympics, when all we did then was raise their flag upside down... Big oops. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Wolfgang Date: 18 Apr 02 - 09:30 AM A sad accident. As others have said, not necessary, but inevitable in the long run. This is much less rare than I would have thought. In the context of these news, they have cited the following figures in the German news (source: Friendly fire notebook):
Percentage casualties of US-army due to friendly fire: Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Wesley S Date: 18 Apr 02 - 09:08 AM Mooh - When your head is buried in the sand your ass is still exposed. I thought you might want to know. How's that for a lively read ? If people want someone to blame try looking at the pilots of those airplanes on 9/11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Mooh Date: 18 Apr 02 - 08:37 AM Canadian military dollars would be better spent protecting our sovereignty in the arctic, training coast guard like personnel, search and rescue, border waters patrol, real peacekeeping, and distribution of relief supplies. Canada has no business being in Afghanistan kowtowing to US interests. I fail to see how we are currently serving either Canadian or Afghan interests. The US has plenty of resources to do their work without Canadian involvement overseas. If we have to be involved, it should be restricted to our shared continent. I figure there will be much disagreement on this subject, so I look forward to a lively read. Peace (honestly), Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Apr 02 - 08:24 AM I was surprised it took this long to show up on the 'Cat. I figured it was like a turd in the punchbowl and everybody knew about it and no one wanted to talk about it! Not much to add........It happens in war. And if we weren't there, it wouldn't have happened unless we started targeting Toronto or something. Sad situation for all concerned. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: artbrooks Date: 18 Apr 02 - 08:19 AM Is it necessary? No. Has it happened in every war in history? Yes. Doesn't make the families or the poor bastard that screwed up feel any better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST,MC Fat Date: 18 Apr 02 - 08:17 AM Proves the old theory that the Yanks couldn't hit a buffalo's arse with a banjo |
|
Subject: Friendly fire? From: kendall Date: 18 Apr 02 - 08:09 AM The screw ups are at it again; four Canadian soldiers killed by American bombs. Is this shit necessary? |