Why is friendly fire so high in the US military?
Honestly, it's not that high. Friendly fire is one of those little things that is hard to eliminate. Mostly, friendly fire comes from fire support from artillery and aircraft, and to be honest, if the co-ordinates are a little bit off, chances are you could be seriously injured. Imagine, you're a flying a plane, at god knows what height, and you are essentially told to drop a bomb on a specific position, you can't see the soldiers below, you don't know what is going on on the ground, bar what you have been told, so you just drop it where you've been told to. If those soldiers on the ground gave the wrong position, or you are just off (which, let's face it, it's more than possible to be) then they could die. As with friendly fire from small arms, well, most fighting is at about 300-100m distance, you'll all be taking cover.. essentially, battle is hectic. Friendly fire per capita is higher in most other Armed Forces, and there needs to be less stigma surrounding it, just imagine how hard it is for a member of the military to deal with the fact they have accidently killed allies?
What are the consequences of friendly fire in the U.S. military?
as regrettable as it is, it is a part of war. combat is the most chaotic environment known to man. unless the soldier that accidentally kills his own was acting carelessly they will probably not be indicted and will be given the chance to chapter out. sometimes people are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Does the US military use the term "friendly fire" or "blue on blue"?
My experience —- both are used in discussions and dialog… Blue on blue is a newer phrase stemming from he immediate post cold war era until today and friendly fire comes from the Vietnam era… Both really were promulgated by the media and news reporting… Blue on blue also came around with the advent of third party operators ( green, blue ,red, etc) as a way to codify the myriad of new mistakes that can happen.I do not think the term friendly fire was in use before Vietnam. I do not know what they called it in that time and certainly historians have retroactively applied it to explain situations as they write about events… I don’t remember anyone of the WWII guys I grew up around using it and we certainly talked about it. They also all knew it from the news about Vietnam.I recall asking after I was commissioned what they did when some one got hit with friendly fire to my father and he said - we seldom knew who hit who…. smoke, dust, chaos, you only saw shadows of the living…He did tell me that one time a guy was killed by another Marine during Peleliu. The Marine left his hole at night and was shot in the dark. - the next day… The killer was ‘arrested’ sent to the rear, tried, convicted, and punished….He spent a day on bread and water, and was restrained in the brig. The next day he was sent back to the unit. The regret probably haunted him for his life but at least, no civilian judge could order him arrested after the war because of double jeopardy… It was the WWII way of ensuring that men who were guilty of a crime due to the situation were not punished when the war was over. This, he stressed, was not done for people who were actually guilty of premeditated murder.
What military branch has had more friendly fire incidents?
Some ex-army soldier was trying to tell me that the Marines have had the most friendly fire incidents. He failed to offer me any factual data, does anyone know where I can locate OIF/OEF casualty reports detailing friendly fire incidents?
What are the statistics for US Military friendly fire casualties from the war in Afghanistan?
The latest information about it I've seen hereOn spiking casualties among the Afghan military men due to aerial operations of USAFAll this shows that in reality Pentagon is even interested in so horrible casualties in order to continue the notorious "war on terror" there endlessly, as it is extremely profitable for the USA in conditions of growing unemployment and heavy economic difficulties during current crisis instability of this country.
What happens when there’s friendly fire in the military?
If no one is killed or injured mostly there is a lot of head shaking and someone gets carpeted (Told off) if there are injuries or deaths there is an enquiry and someone found to be at fault Someone may lose rank or have some other punishment. Friendly fire is of course American. With the British it is blue on blue mostly because friendly fire never is very friendly.
What was the worst friendly fire incident in US military history?
My answer comes from an extract from our book America Invades (America Invades). It took place 72 years ago as of this writing (7/10/43) when Americans, along with other Allied forces invaded Sicily…Invasion of Sicily"It all started on July 10, 1943, with Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily. The first day of the campaign was also one of the worst when the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment of Matthew Ridgway’s 82nd Airborne was decimated by friendly fire. About fourteen hundred Americans were tragically killed by fire from anti-aircraft batteries on allied naval vessels. From this painful experience, the Allies learned a valuable lesson. All Allied aircraft participating in the D-Day invasion were painted with black and white stripes prior to the Normandy invasion."D-Day Stripes on a C47-F Dakota (IWM Duxford)
Why is the United States military so prone to causing friendly fire?
Early during WW2, the Germans were infamous among their troops for suffering 'friendly' fire. They had no land-air cummnication between the Lufwaffe and the Infantry, and they were fairly consistently being targeted. Yes, their air force did some fantastic attacks early in the war, their Stuka (Sturzkampfflugzeug/dive bomber) performed highly successful strafing runs, but that was only when the enemy was on one side of the river, and the Germans on the other. (The enemy quickly learned better). Then again, at the end of the war, when Germans were being pushed back towards Berlin, it was the Russians that were dropping shells on their own troops; hundreds per day of wounded Russians from their own artillery fire. The Germans had no decisive military protocol for retreating- and unlike the Russians, they did it poorly (also, they wanted to be captured by Americans or the British, not the Russians). So by the time the Russian Artillery had set up their attack area, the Russian infantry had already occupied it.