have have American forces killed 23 British soldiors?!?

Question

23 british soldiors have been killed by american friendly fire - with all of their military technology and "smart" extra-sensory probes, can they kill so many allied soldiors and wound over a hundred?

get over it? my best friend has been seriously wounded by his Allies!! - no american soldiors have been wounded/killed by Nato/British forces...

Answer 1

Well, it's less British than we killed in the revolutionary war . . .

Answer 2

So ? accidents happen, plus your talking from three different wars, over a 17 year period.

6 British soldiers have been killed by British soldiers in Iraq so far.

So if you look at the amount of American forces, compared to the number of British forces,

The British friendly fire rate is about 10 times higher than the American friendly fire rate.

As to why, there are no British friendly fire against American forces.

Simple, all the friendly fire incidents against British forces by American forces, have occurred from air power.

Since Britain doesn't provide air coverage to American units, they have not had the chance.

You might want to read up on British friendly fire incidents, before you start making assumptions.

In the Falklands conflict:

3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment Companies A and C engaged in an hour long battle with each other, including using heavy artillery.

The SAS and SBS engaged in a deadly fire fight against each other.

The Royal Navy shot down one of their own fighters.

The friendly fire rate in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been so small compared to any past conflicts, as to defy belief.

So maybe you should wait until they find out what happened last week, before you cast aspersions.

Answer 3

When a unit, any unit is in small arms range and calls in an airstrike, that means they are Danger Close. That means if the bomb falls off target due to an error, mechanical or human, or even if it hits its target, the friendly unit is still in the danger area. US troops have been hit too. Its easy to armchair things from behind a computer with hindsight, but its something else to do it from the other perspective. Also, the British are not known for reporting thier positions a lot of times.

Answer 4

I don't believe that no American forces have been killed or wounded by allied forces. Friendly fire incidents are not limited to just American forces.

It is unfortunate that 23 British soldiers have been killed in friendly fire incidents, by Americans. We share your grief' in knowing that mishaps are so frequent amongst these well trained and disciplined troops, yet it still happens.

The loss of a family member, friend, parent or spouse is indeed traumatic. Perhaps it is more so, when the executioner is a friend!

Answer 5

Sadly, when using this technology there is going to be "friendly fire" incidents. Not only to our allies but to our own soldiers also, while the "Bush Administration tries to smother all these reports, Can't think of the fellows name,(isn't that ashame!) he was a Pro football player that joined-up after9/11 was killed in Afganistan
by friendly fire and smothered for a while. But like anywhere else including Q&A you can't hide the truth forever! Great Question!!!!

Answer 6

Mistakes still happen in a high pressure enviroment such as combat. You have to try and remember that because of the high percentage of forces that the US contributes to NATO operations then almost all friendly fire incidents will include them.
In the forces and worked with the Americans and they are just as serious and professional as we Brits.

Answer 7

First, its spelled Soldiers

Second, British Forces have killed several of their Own in Blue On Blue incidents in the current theaters of war

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

British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.

In 1982;

HMS Cardiff shoots down AAC Gazelle (UK) in the Falklands Islands.


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 artillery strikes. At least 8 UK casualties.


United Kingdom UK Special Boat Service Commando killed in firefight with UK Special Air Service Commandos. Falkland Islands

in 1956;

Suez: Attacks from British Royal Navy carrier-borne aircraft caused heavy casualties to UK 45 Commando and HQ

in 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

Fleet Air Arm torpedo attack on HMS Sheffield during the hunt for the German battleship Bismarck


RAF fighter ace Wing Commander Douglas Bader shot down in what recent research suggests was a friendly fire incident.


1942 - Polish submarine ORP Jastrząb was mistakenly sunk by British destroyer HMS St. Albans and minesweeper HMS Seagull.


its war, mistakes happen, doesnt make it any better, but dont claim the British are Immune from such things

Answer 8

Fratricide happens in armed conflict, that is just a fact. 22 US Marines were killed or wounded by the US Air Force in the battle of An-Nasariyah. It is a tragedy but it does happen.

The UK will not rely on its own air assets for support, instead they use US air power. They also make mistakes in regards to command and control of those assets. So they become dependent on US air support and then do not familiarize themselves with US command and control. My conclusion would have to be that if anyone is to blame it would be the troops from the UK. They routinely misidentify targets, do not communicate their location, or get too close to the intended target.

I do not think troops from the UK are inept, however I do think that their command and control in relation to communication with allied command is inept.

I do not know what happened in this situation however after working with troops from the UK in Iraq I can tell you right now that you should look internally.

Even in the incident where a UK Tornado was shot down by a patriot missile the UK was quick to blame the US. However, in that incident both US and UK personnel determined that the aircraft's IFF indicator malfunctioned. Thereby faulty maintenance, and equipment failure caused it, not US personnel.

Incidents such as this happen when troops fail to properly communicate their location. This exact same thing happened in 1991, and 2003. In both those incidents the UK troops involved were in an area that they were not reported to be in. They in effect failed to communicate their locations properly. As in most cases involving fratricide between the UK and the US, the UK is quick to jump to the conclusion that it is not their fault. Upon scrutiny we find out that it was a lack of communication on behalf of the UK troops. What is sad is that the British will blame the US and then fail to do anything to correct their inability to report their locations to allied command.

I think an investigation will show exactly what I am talking about, in that the UK troops failed to properly communicate their location.

The British are notorious for not knowing where their troops are in the field. They don’t properly communicate with their troops, and then call in US air power for support. Then when it goes South they blame the US without addressing the fact that their command and control in relation to air support sucks.

Whenever I interact with people from the UK I get a sense of general arrogance on their part. From my interaction with them, and their military forces in particular I would say that the arrogance they portray is completely unjustified.

If anyone has a "dumb" military its you guys, you cannot keep track of your people, you dont know where they are, you call in air support in areas that they have moved into, and they get killed.

Get your own house in order before you blame other people for your own incompetence.

Answer 9

It's the way Americans fight wars now days.
Lots of bombing from high altitutde with high tech gear.
It is meant to minimize US deaths while maximizing destruction. It sanitizes war so It doesn`t appear so messy.

The problem is that a bomb dropped from 2000 feet in the air, or a missile fired from a ship 20 miles away is not a surgical strike, like they claim it is. It will blast anything in the area.
Including allied troops, schools, children and non combatants.
I'm not a fan of it.
War should be dirty and bloody so people do not have the urge to do it so casually and without reason.
Had some bros in the Canadian army who got hit by US bombs back in `02 from some cowboy in a warthog.

Edit: Thomas, You`re thinking of Pat Tillman, the football guy

Answer 10

Its not just British, a good number of Canadians, and a couple of Italians were killed as well.

Two of the U.S. pilots were subsequently disciplined, and other incidents are under investigation.

Answer 11

I guess two more American pilots wanted to be sent home early, so they let some ordance fly the wrong way on purpose once again!