Do US troops need training to avoid friendly-fire attacks on Allied forces?

Question

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.

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.”

Answer 1

It would be easier not to give U.S. troops guns to start with. They don't have a good track record!

Answer 2

The united states handles the bulk of operations in iraq therefore they will make more contact with the enemy and therefore fire weapons more regularly.Meaning that the ratio of "blue on blue" favours british forces being on the recieving end.
Simple mathematics.
I would also like to point out that friendly fire incidents are nothing new in fluid battle situations even when the most professional of armies are involved.
Extensive measures are in place to prevent this incident in iraq but there will still be exceptions.
Of course it has to be said that american troops are killed most days leaving troops with a decision , kill (quickly) or be killed.
Its not perfect but neither is war.
We also have to acknowledge that american equipment and intelligence save many lives of soldiers in british operations all over the globe(victory in the falklands would not have been possible without the american supplied sidewinder air to air missile), unfortunately we never discuss the benefits of our special relationship.
It also has to be considered that a coalition member who does find themselves under attack often contribute to the incident by being away from agreed zones , failing to give appropriate signal etc.
please consider the achievements of our armies overseas rather than seek out the unavoidable negative aspects

Answer 3

As a retired US Soldier, I've always said that US Troops need more "Shoot, Don't Shoot" training for these "Police type" wars. The problem is that when the US Troops are on the battlefield, they don't remember that there are Friendly Forces Soldiers besides themselves out there. Gee, is that because usually, there isn't? I trained with the Canadian Forces and they are a damn fine force. They provide cross forces training. It's time the US did too!

Answer 4

you have of course by no ability been in contact in a speedy touch or ambush form issue (psdoesn't count style). i recognize all approximately 2 Para Gereshk Valley, you have no longer have been given any theory what went on there and how briskly issues flow in real time, nor do the media or suits sat in the convenience of an place of work making their hindsight observations. Why do no longer you flow spend some months working with human beings till now making a judgement in line with dramatic media comments till now asserting a unit or united states of america "consistently kills Allies" and are "poorly knowledgeable". and do not forget all British Troops at that factor there have been attempt against troops in the worst areas that have been became manned via around 3000 British troops for years without help against envisioned minumum 20000 insurgents. whilst the USMC took over they had to deliver 20000 troops there to regulate that comparable area and nonetheless took casualties. would not be counted how nicely knowledgeable you're in the experience that your consistently outnumbered and wanting speedy evac or help to re-org. the final knowledgeable SF infantrymen in the worldwide can nonetheless be killed via a rogue 14 year previous youngster who purely picked up a rifle for the 1st time. the US could have had a hundred,000 in the rustic yet plenty have been admin, logistics, shop clerks etc who by no ability left camp. so which you will no longer base any arguments that the smaller tension ought to have much less incidents because of the fact there are various variables approximately places,potential and surely jobs.

Answer 5

I will be the first to admit that things happen during "wars" that shouldn't. Friendly fire incidents can be incidents. If the British troops have to resort to that type of evasive action, then someone has to be held accountable. Being from Canada when the US fighter jets killed 4 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, I didn't get terribly upset about it until the full story came out. I know accidents happen, but in that case, the US was notified that Canadian troops were doing exercises in that area and what time they were going to be there. Instead of contacting their command centre, which is the norm, the pilots instead fired ,killing our troops. And the penalty? Nothing, a demotion in rank. Canada has sent troops to fight along with the U.S. in every conflict the U.S. has entered into since WW1and things like this SHOULD NEVER happen if proper protocol is followed . I served in the Canadian military, like my father and grandfather before me. My 20 year old son is in his 5th year in the reserves. He was slated to go to Afghanistan 2 years ago but we had to talk him out of it. Until he is safe from our allies and reckless "cowboy pilots" are held accountable, he will remain in Canada. Accidents happen , especially during the heat of a battle, but when all proper procedures are ignored, offenders must receive more than a slap on the wrist. 'Nuff said.

Answer 6

Yes, they do AND the US should send their servicemen over here to attend inquests when the coroner is investigating a 'friendly fire' death.
There has been just such an inquest this week, and whilst the US will submit their report to the coroner, they will not allow the soldiers concerned to be questioned.
However, they want 3 of our citizens (the 'Nat West Three') for questioning about an issue for which they have already been exonerated in this country and we send them over....
Something not quite right here I fancy.
Typical US attitude - "do as I say, not as I do"!

Answer 7

I think in a war time situation, nerves will be frayed, mistakes will happen.

What may be more effective than training, would be a communications system/network for NATO/UN/Allied forces that all nations in a joint-force could use effectively.

We've seen the same problem with Americans firing on, and bombing, Canadian troops.

Still, even with effective inter-agency comminications, some events would remain inevitable. Just one of the many risks involved with the job

Answer 8

further training in any field of military expertise can only bring benefits.

however, communications between allied forces needs improvement. This will assist reduce adverse errors from being made.

Answer 9

Whats with the term friendly fire anyway, are they going to kill you or is it just a joke?

Answer 10

I personally think that our trrops need to have training before going to war because they need to know on how to handle some high pressure situations!