English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The americans have killed quite a few allied soldiers in so called "Friendly fire" attacks. Do they just get bored and gun happy?

2007-02-08 02:16:28 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

To those prats who whine and say America isn't the only one.......... and refer back to the Wars of the Roses (which is quite frankly ridiculous) I have to ask - why aren't the U.K. Troops shooting the Americans then?
Answer: Because americans are fat.

2007-02-08 04:34:21 · update #1

31 answers

This question has been asked a ba-zillion times before. Perhaps you should check through the catergories before posting but just to humour you I will post my exact same answer to a similar question posed a few days ago...

Friendly fire is not exclusively perpetuated by American forces on their allies. The UK Ministry of Defence actually has an expression for it, "Blue on Blue", whislt our American ALLIES tend to refer to it as "Fragging". Here is a non-exhaustive historical list of Blue on Blue engagements involving UK forces only:

1461 – War of the Roses: At the Battle of Towton, wind conditions often resulted in arrows falling amongst friendly troops as well as the enemy.
1471 - Battle of Barnet: The ‘radiant star’ battle standard used by the troops commanded by the Earl of Oxford was misidentified as an enemy standard (which depicted a ‘brilliant sun’) and were fired on by their own archers.
1815 – Battle of Waterloo: Famously Marshal Blücher’s Prussians came to the aid of the British, and defeated Napoleon decisively. Lesser known is that Prussian artillery mistakenly fired on British artillery causing many casualties, and British artillery returned fire at the Prussians.
1939 (10 September - early World War II) – British submarine HMS Triton sank another British submarine, HMS Oxley, mistaking it for a German U-boat and received no responses to challenges. Oxley was the first Royal Navy vessel to be sunk and also the first vessel to be sunk by a British vessel in the war.
1941 - Fleet Air Arm torpedo attack on HMS Sheffield during the hunt for the German battleship Bismarck
1941 - RAF fighter ace Wing Commander Douglas Bader shot down in what recent research suggests was a friendly fire incident.
1944 - British flotilla attacked by RAF Hawker Typhoons, off Cap d'Antifer, Le Havre. HMS Britomart and HMS Hussar sunk. HMS Salamander damaged beyond repair and scrapped. HMS Jason escaped major damage.
1956 - Suez: Attacks from British Royal Navy carrier-borne aircraft caused heavy casualties to UK 45 Commando and HQ.
1982 - HMS Cardiff Shoots down AAC Gazelle (UK) in the Falklands Islands.
1982 - 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, British Army (UK) Companies A and C engage each other in an hour-long firefight in the Falkland Islands involving heavy weapons and artilery strikes. At least 8 UK casualties.
1982 - United Kingdom UK Special Boat Service Commando killed in firefight with UK Special Air Service Commandos. Falkland Islands.
2003 British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke.

Stop reading the Sun and the News of the World and do some more in depth research before posting such inflamatory crap again. Remember Britain and America are allies. Sorry if that offends your leftist sensibilities.

2007-02-08 02:23:02 · answer #1 · answered by Golf Alpha Nine-seven 3 · 7 3

So Jungleboy has shown us that in the present Iraq war British troops have had one incident of friendly fire.
Compare that to America, who've had loads. In the invasion more soldiers were killed in freindly fire than by the Iraqis, and we've had one incident, so obviously we're just as bad!

This bloke has all the logic of a...well...American.

British troops are much better trained. They are, in fact, the best trained in the world. America's army is the biggest and best equipped, and in a war that talks more than training, but it does mean their soldiers are idiots who shoot everything that moves, friend or foe.

2007-02-09 18:52:09 · answer #2 · answered by AndyB 5 · 1 0

Jungleboy and Hitman well done did you google it.....Can't see how a British Challenger managed to shoot at another in 2003 as they both use radar I.D tags but eh, it happens, SBS and SAS friendly fire as this information would never be disclosed as this incident would be kept "Top Secret" I must assume that you were there or you read a B*llsh*ter on the net.....

Unfortually the Regiment has come in for a bit of a bashing since certain books came out but believe me when I say the chances of a friendly fire fight between SAS on SAS or SBS is very very doubt full it's called communication and 'kin good map reading and the fact we know were the bad guys are and the good boys are.....


Shame the Yanks can't communicate before they take on a target......

2007-02-08 22:17:16 · answer #3 · answered by 284561 3 · 4 0

Hey there,
This is a good link for downloading Battleship Game for free: http://bitly.com/ZYuTcD

it's completely free and it's very fast to install
The Battleship Game World War 2 is a special naval strategy game.
It's a must have game.

2014-09-27 11:19:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

friendly fire tends to happen when troop movements are not properly monitored. In the incident with the British unit, the pilot asked 3 times about units in the area, the reply was no units that far north. With this bad information he was given green light to attack. After finding out he attacked friendly unit he showed remorse. No pilot or soldier intends to kill friendly forces. This same issue happened in the first gulf war between U.S. tank units. Misidentifying was to blame that time. Till a technology is developed that would make identification of troops faster, these sort of incidents will happen in combat situations.

2007-02-08 20:08:14 · answer #5 · answered by GIOSTORMUSN 5 · 0 2

I think friendly fire affects all nationality troops, and US troops rely on intelligence which may be lacking that of the UK.
But I also believe that the American troops have demonstrated significant naivety - especially in Iraq - which I believe stems from an apparent lack of global awareness, and trigger happy is a word that suits USA more than most "civilized" society because of the gun laws. One solution could be to better the teaching in the US - let them understand that "world" does not equate to the US mainland

2007-02-08 10:43:16 · answer #6 · answered by robertthechelseafan 1 · 3 3

Yes, friendly fire incidents are a shame and shouldn't happen, and the losses are sad, but get real. Allied troops aren't the only ones dying in friendly fire. We shoot plenty of our own troops, too, so quit acting like you're so victimized.

2007-02-08 13:06:40 · answer #7 · answered by desiderio 5 · 1 2

And I guess no other country EVER has friendly fire. Considering the U.S. composes almost 89% of the total Force in Iraq, it's going to happen.

10 FF deathes from British and 35 from American Forces. Based on force size...thats just about proportionate based on troop numbers.

Get a grip on yourself and get a life. You started an arguement with part of a story and only half a brain.

2007-02-08 10:59:16 · answer #8 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 2 3

You might just as well ask if British soldiers are negligent in getting killed by American soldiers. With all the training in the world accidents happen or people make mistakes. With the high degree of computerisation, the volume of information and decisons soldiers (and particularly airman) have to make, and the speed with which events unfold it is surprising that more such incidents don't happen.

2007-02-08 10:30:20 · answer #9 · answered by misbehave4me 4 · 3 3

British troops are better trained and a lot more skilled than Americans, that's why we don't need as many troops.

2007-02-08 23:51:28 · answer #10 · answered by David B 1 · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers