Nick 0 #76 February 7, 2007 I don't think it's just the sharing of information re these fratricide incidents that galls some brits. There have been numerous incidents where information and technology has been passed without reciprication (ones of interest to me was that of the cavity magnatron and the gas turbine). Additionally the UK have only just finished paying off the US for the lease lend agreement started during WW2 which was used to obtain arms from the US prior to Pearl Harbour (something that I believe that a lot of Americans like to forget, yes to an extent we had to pay America to join WW2). Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #77 February 7, 2007 QuoteI find this comparison of blue-on-blue really objectionable. Yes, shit happens in war, and people have doutless been accidentally shooting their friends since the very first projectile weapons. Yes, this doesn't make these casualties any less tragic, and yes, these incidents should be properly investigated and the findings made public (or, at the very least, shared with the families). Pointing fingers and making remarks like "So, each side has killed 3 British soldiers. Given that the US has supplied 250,000 soldiers, and the UK has supplied 45,000, you're not doing too hot in comparison." is incredibly unhelpful. What is this, a competitive sport? A lets-see-who-can-kill-more-friendlies contest? A force:fuck-up ratio? What I think our American friends (and I do count you as friends) need to know, is that the vast majority of Britons are glad to have you as allies, and realise that a certain amount of fratricide is inevitable in large-scale operations. What galls us, however, is that American authorities have at times seemed unwilling to share information about these incidents. It is disgraceful that this cockpit video should have come to light through a leak to a tabloid paper, and was not offered openly to the coroner. It is this apparent indifference to the feelings of an ally and friend that does much more damage to Anglo-American relations than the tragedy of friendly fire deaths on the battlefield, in my opinion. Bullseye. It is unnacceptable and does immeasurable harm. The DoD inquiry results have not been released to the UK either. This is an ongoing disgrace. It was absolutely pathetic to see a statement from the DoD granting permission for the coroner to fully use the tape the day after it was all over the tabloids, internet and TV. The only entity to come out of this with top marks is The Sun newspaper, and that says a lot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #78 February 7, 2007 QuoteYes I agree with you that the pilots tried to ID the targets. Matter of fact, asked for confirmation. Ground relayed no friendlies in the area. About covers it. No. Its quite clear that when they asked if there were any friendlies in the area they specified the area 800m north of the artillery marker. These were the revetted vehicles that they called down the arty strike on. MANILA was never asked to confirm friendlies in the area of the British column. Bottom line, pilot saw the orange panels as soon as he saw the vehicles and then convinced himself they were 'orange rockets'.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #79 February 7, 2007 I would take a wager that the reasons Americans don't die from friendly fire from other nations is because we are trigger happy and will keep firing back. This goes back to even during the Revolution. Quote1777-The Battle of Germantown: George Washington tried a dawn surprise attack on the British army around Philadelphia. The same tactic had worked earlier at Trenton. But in the morning fog and gunsmoke the Yankee right flank got turned around and started shooting at the Yankee center. The Center thought they were being attacked by Tories and returned fire.. By 10:00 AM two thirds of the American army had shot itself to pieces and was retreating away in confusion before the British even knew what was happening. My apologies for thinking you were jumping on the bandwagon .... I only remembered the last post which demanded evidence. Furthermore, searching Google for "friendly fire by british" returns about ten pages of brits demanding explanation for this attack, and then the others come up. Also, I see that the British army wanted to prosecute the two British soldiers that had accidentally fired upon a British commander ... who in reality had died because a lack of proper body armor. It could be a reason why the Air Force isn't cooperating .... since there are many people that want the pilot's heads. Once again, shit happens. It doesn't mean it's okay, but it happens. There is a major risk inherent in war. Now, if we get to whether the risk is worth what we're trying to accomplish, that's a whole different discussion.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #80 February 7, 2007 QuoteThanks for the article. Im not saying we dont kill our own, its war and it happens. But it does ring alarm bells when i havnt heard of an American being killed by a Brit in this war, maybe im wrong i dont know. I understand your feelings about it. You are simply taking ownership in your countrymen which I find admirable. I know war sucks!!!! With so many different ideological ways of thinking and cultures, I wonder if the world will ever live in peace. It's almost as the human race is in too deep. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #81 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy do people always have to turn shitty? Is it a personal attack? Do you feel threatened? Welcome to Speakers Corner My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #82 February 7, 2007 First rule of war: People Die. Second rule of war: You cannot stop rule one, unless you don't go to war in the first place Third rule of war: Monday morning quarterbacks are completely unqualified to offer any interpretation or insight.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #83 February 7, 2007 QuoteFirst rule of war: People Die. Second rule of war: You cannot stop rule one, unless you don't go to war in the first place . In the case of this particular war, Rule 2 was the correct solution.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #84 February 7, 2007 Is that the sound of a can of worms being opened? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #85 February 7, 2007 QuoteI would take a wager that the reasons Americans don't die from friendly fire from other nations is because we are trigger happy and will keep firing back. This goes back to even during the Revolution. Quote1777-The Battle of Germantown: George Washington tried a dawn surprise attack on the British army around Philadelphia. The same tactic had worked earlier at Trenton. But in the morning fog and gunsmoke the Yankee right flank got turned around and started shooting at the Yankee center. The Center thought they were being attacked by Tories and returned fire.. By 10:00 AM two thirds of the American army had shot itself to pieces and was retreating away in confusion before the British even knew what was happening. My apologies for thinking you were jumping on the bandwagon .... I only remembered the last post which demanded evidence. Furthermore, searching Google for "friendly fire by british" returns about ten pages of brits demanding explanation for this attack, and then the others come up. Also, I see that the British army wanted to prosecute the two British soldiers that had accidentally fired upon a British commander ... who in reality had died because a lack of proper body armor. It could be a reason why the Air Force isn't cooperating .... since there are many people that want the pilot's heads. Once again, shit happens. It doesn't mean it's okay, but it happens. There is a major risk inherent in war. Now, if we get to whether the risk is worth what we're trying to accomplish, that's a whole different discussion. Interesting commentary - it brings up the point that the Pentagon covers up fratricide on its own troops too, such as the Tillman incident. www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=434463... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites misaltas 0 #86 February 7, 2007 Quotename the last American to be killed by a Brit in battle. We have an example here of 1 dead Brit Tragic. And those responsible must be held accountable. But if you read back, that wasn't what he said, nor what I asked. Peter made some wild statements back there, I asked questions looking for backup. My apologies for not making that clear enough for you. On how for Brits, Americans should be considered more dangerous than opposing forces in Iraq, on the notion that only Americans have had any instances of misdirected force on "friendly soldiers" (his words), and on historical support for the assertion that US military forces lost the Korean conflict. Plus as you saw, several other questions. Pretty simple.Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy_Copland 0 #87 February 7, 2007 QuoteOn how for Brits, Americans should be considered more dangerous than opposing forces in Iraq I think if anyone actually believes this statement to be true they should go out there and find out themselves.1338 People aint made of nothin' but water and shit. Until morale improves, the beatings will continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #88 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuotemy heart bleeds for them (not as much as it bleeds for our troops who are on the receiving end YET AGAIN of American dick-head HOOAAA brain dead gung-ho troops though) Bristish troops seem to manage not to kill allied troops, why is it only the yanks who seem to repeatedly kill friendly soldiers? I would like to know on how you have confirmed facts that England, and other countries never accidently kill each other due to friendly fire, Just America? Your substance thus far displayed in this thread siimply shows that you have a burning hate towards America, that's it! Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #89 February 7, 2007 Quote Third rule of war: Monday morning quarterbacks are completely unqualified to offer any interpretation or insight. Totally incorrect. If that were true, there would be no purpose behind anyone, including the military, investigating past occurences. Everyone who wasn't there qualifies as a Monday morning quarterback, that doesn't mean they're unqualified to critique a performance. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,122 #90 February 7, 2007 QuoteFirst rule of war: People Die. Second rule of war: You cannot stop rule one, unless you don't go to war in the first place Third rule of war: Monday morning quarterbacks are completely unqualified to offer any interpretation or insightI'm assuming a Monday morning quarterback would be someone who hasn't been in that particular theater. Would that include the President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #91 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotemy heart bleeds for them (not as much as it bleeds for our troops who are on the receiving end YET AGAIN of American dick-head HOOAAA brain dead gung-ho troops though) Bristish troops seem to manage not to kill allied troops, why is it only the yanks who seem to repeatedly kill friendly soldiers? I would like to know on how you have confirmed facts that England, and other countries never accidently kill each other due to friendly fire, Just America? Your substance thus far displayed in this thread siimply shows that you have a burning hate towards America, that's it! Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think? Thanks largely to 9 deaths in a single incident where two A-10 warthogs attacked British APCs despite friendly forces markings on the vehicles and without getting adequate clearance from the forward air controller. Sound familiar? For the US in that same conflict the figure was 17 percent, or over a hundred casualties. That is not an insignificant ratio. It almost makes it worthwhile for Americans to give a shit about this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Darius11 12 #92 February 7, 2007 Well this is a war and friendly fire does happen and has happened in every war. As for the pilots they called in to check over and over again to make sure there are no friendless in the area. Never been a pilot but I would have most likely fired as well. I am sure we can criticize the system they use as it is obviously not full proof, however I don’t believe there is a full proof system out there. I feel bad for All the troops involved, including the pilots.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nick 0 #93 February 7, 2007 So your saying that they eyeballed one group but attacked another, almost makes it worse. Good job it wasn't civillian vehicles they hit.. Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #94 February 7, 2007 QuoteSo your saying that they eyeballed one group but attacked another, almost makes it worse. Good job it wasn't civillian vehicles they hit.. No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there are at least two groups being discussed in the video. They eyeballed them both for different purposes and saw that the one they attacked had friendly markings before they attacked it. The two groups and references to relative locations in communication with the forward air controller seems to have caused some confusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nick 0 #95 February 7, 2007 So they eyballed two groups and attacked the wrong one, still a good job it wasn't civillians.... Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #96 February 7, 2007 QuoteSo they eyballed two groups and attacked the wrong one, still a good job it wasn't civillians.... Say what you like just don't attribute it to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites KidWicked 0 #97 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotePrayers to the Brits that were killed Doesn't much help you when you're dead. Of course it does. Why.Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites unformed 0 #98 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePrayers to the Brits that were killed Doesn't much help you when you're dead. Of course it does. Why. Because.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,254 #99 February 8, 2007 QuoteSo they eyballed two groups and attacked the wrong one, still a good job it wasn't civillians.... Well, they attacked the one that they wanted to attack - they (or rather Popov36) thought it was an "orange missile" convoy. There does, however, seem to me to be confusion over the location they gave their control to check if there were friendlies in the area.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyChimp 0 #100 February 8, 2007 QuoteWell, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think? Please post where you confirmed these findings. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
ExAFO 0 #82 February 7, 2007 First rule of war: People Die. Second rule of war: You cannot stop rule one, unless you don't go to war in the first place Third rule of war: Monday morning quarterbacks are completely unqualified to offer any interpretation or insight.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #83 February 7, 2007 QuoteFirst rule of war: People Die. Second rule of war: You cannot stop rule one, unless you don't go to war in the first place . In the case of this particular war, Rule 2 was the correct solution.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #84 February 7, 2007 Is that the sound of a can of worms being opened? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #85 February 7, 2007 QuoteI would take a wager that the reasons Americans don't die from friendly fire from other nations is because we are trigger happy and will keep firing back. This goes back to even during the Revolution. Quote1777-The Battle of Germantown: George Washington tried a dawn surprise attack on the British army around Philadelphia. The same tactic had worked earlier at Trenton. But in the morning fog and gunsmoke the Yankee right flank got turned around and started shooting at the Yankee center. The Center thought they were being attacked by Tories and returned fire.. By 10:00 AM two thirds of the American army had shot itself to pieces and was retreating away in confusion before the British even knew what was happening. My apologies for thinking you were jumping on the bandwagon .... I only remembered the last post which demanded evidence. Furthermore, searching Google for "friendly fire by british" returns about ten pages of brits demanding explanation for this attack, and then the others come up. Also, I see that the British army wanted to prosecute the two British soldiers that had accidentally fired upon a British commander ... who in reality had died because a lack of proper body armor. It could be a reason why the Air Force isn't cooperating .... since there are many people that want the pilot's heads. Once again, shit happens. It doesn't mean it's okay, but it happens. There is a major risk inherent in war. Now, if we get to whether the risk is worth what we're trying to accomplish, that's a whole different discussion. Interesting commentary - it brings up the point that the Pentagon covers up fratricide on its own troops too, such as the Tillman incident. www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=434463... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
misaltas 0 #86 February 7, 2007 Quotename the last American to be killed by a Brit in battle. We have an example here of 1 dead Brit Tragic. And those responsible must be held accountable. But if you read back, that wasn't what he said, nor what I asked. Peter made some wild statements back there, I asked questions looking for backup. My apologies for not making that clear enough for you. On how for Brits, Americans should be considered more dangerous than opposing forces in Iraq, on the notion that only Americans have had any instances of misdirected force on "friendly soldiers" (his words), and on historical support for the assertion that US military forces lost the Korean conflict. Plus as you saw, several other questions. Pretty simple.Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy_Copland 0 #87 February 7, 2007 QuoteOn how for Brits, Americans should be considered more dangerous than opposing forces in Iraq I think if anyone actually believes this statement to be true they should go out there and find out themselves.1338 People aint made of nothin' but water and shit. Until morale improves, the beatings will continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #88 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuotemy heart bleeds for them (not as much as it bleeds for our troops who are on the receiving end YET AGAIN of American dick-head HOOAAA brain dead gung-ho troops though) Bristish troops seem to manage not to kill allied troops, why is it only the yanks who seem to repeatedly kill friendly soldiers? I would like to know on how you have confirmed facts that England, and other countries never accidently kill each other due to friendly fire, Just America? Your substance thus far displayed in this thread siimply shows that you have a burning hate towards America, that's it! Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #89 February 7, 2007 Quote Third rule of war: Monday morning quarterbacks are completely unqualified to offer any interpretation or insight. Totally incorrect. If that were true, there would be no purpose behind anyone, including the military, investigating past occurences. Everyone who wasn't there qualifies as a Monday morning quarterback, that doesn't mean they're unqualified to critique a performance. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #90 February 7, 2007 QuoteFirst rule of war: People Die. Second rule of war: You cannot stop rule one, unless you don't go to war in the first place Third rule of war: Monday morning quarterbacks are completely unqualified to offer any interpretation or insightI'm assuming a Monday morning quarterback would be someone who hasn't been in that particular theater. Would that include the President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #91 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotemy heart bleeds for them (not as much as it bleeds for our troops who are on the receiving end YET AGAIN of American dick-head HOOAAA brain dead gung-ho troops though) Bristish troops seem to manage not to kill allied troops, why is it only the yanks who seem to repeatedly kill friendly soldiers? I would like to know on how you have confirmed facts that England, and other countries never accidently kill each other due to friendly fire, Just America? Your substance thus far displayed in this thread siimply shows that you have a burning hate towards America, that's it! Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think? Thanks largely to 9 deaths in a single incident where two A-10 warthogs attacked British APCs despite friendly forces markings on the vehicles and without getting adequate clearance from the forward air controller. Sound familiar? For the US in that same conflict the figure was 17 percent, or over a hundred casualties. That is not an insignificant ratio. It almost makes it worthwhile for Americans to give a shit about this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #92 February 7, 2007 Well this is a war and friendly fire does happen and has happened in every war. As for the pilots they called in to check over and over again to make sure there are no friendless in the area. Never been a pilot but I would have most likely fired as well. I am sure we can criticize the system they use as it is obviously not full proof, however I don’t believe there is a full proof system out there. I feel bad for All the troops involved, including the pilots.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #93 February 7, 2007 So your saying that they eyeballed one group but attacked another, almost makes it worse. Good job it wasn't civillian vehicles they hit.. Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #94 February 7, 2007 QuoteSo your saying that they eyeballed one group but attacked another, almost makes it worse. Good job it wasn't civillian vehicles they hit.. No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there are at least two groups being discussed in the video. They eyeballed them both for different purposes and saw that the one they attacked had friendly markings before they attacked it. The two groups and references to relative locations in communication with the forward air controller seems to have caused some confusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #95 February 7, 2007 So they eyballed two groups and attacked the wrong one, still a good job it wasn't civillians.... Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #96 February 7, 2007 QuoteSo they eyballed two groups and attacked the wrong one, still a good job it wasn't civillians.... Say what you like just don't attribute it to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidWicked 0 #97 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotePrayers to the Brits that were killed Doesn't much help you when you're dead. Of course it does. Why.Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #98 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePrayers to the Brits that were killed Doesn't much help you when you're dead. Of course it does. Why. Because.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #99 February 8, 2007 QuoteSo they eyballed two groups and attacked the wrong one, still a good job it wasn't civillians.... Well, they attacked the one that they wanted to attack - they (or rather Popov36) thought it was an "orange missile" convoy. There does, however, seem to me to be confusion over the location they gave their control to check if there were friendlies in the area.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #100 February 8, 2007 QuoteWell, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces. That's a pretty piss-poor record, don't you think? Please post where you confirmed these findings. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
