More "friendly fire"


#juan
No Party Affiliation
#1
One Canadian killed and 30 more injured as NATO A-10 strafes Canadian position.

link
 
I think not
#2
I'm beginning to wonder with all this alleged high tech and procedures in place how many friendly fire incidents took place during WWII. I don't even want to know.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#3
So far it's five dead and 30 injured by "friendly fire". I hate that despicable term. There is nothing friendly about bullets or bombs whoever fires them or drops them.
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#4
Check this out: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG95E1VQ51.DTL

In particular, here's a key paragraph from it: "Army historians have estimated ground casualties from friendly fire in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War at approximately 2 percent, while they soared to 17 percent during the 1991 Gulf War."

Doesn't look like high tech helps in that department.

Edited to add this: that's specifically the U.S. Army it's referring to. I didn't find anything in a quick search about other forces.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Check this out: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG95E1VQ51.DTL

In particular, here's a key paragraph from it: "Army historians have estimated ground casualties from friendly fire in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War at approximately 2 percent, while they soared to 17 percent during the 1991 Gulf War."

Doesn't look like high tech helps in that department.

Edited to add this: that's specifically the U.S. Army it's referring to. I didn't find anything in a quick search about other forces.

I believe Dexter that there were relatively few U.S. casualties in the gulf war, and the friendly fire stats were padded considerably when a stray missile knocked down a chopper full of soldiers.

Here is a link to a fairly accurate accounting of friendly fire casualties.

F.F. link
 
athabaska
#6
It's estimated that up to 20% of allied deaths in WW2 were friendly fire (8,000 Candians killed this way). When I was in the military it was considered part of the price for actually being successful in moving large combat forces forward. Every death is tragic and I'm not sure I support the mission in Afghanistan but the numbers of deaths due to both enemy and other allied operations is quite low consideraing how much fire power and air support is being used. Without that overwhelming Ameircan air superiority there might be 100 Canadians killed for every incident of friendly fire for the success on the ground.
 
Hotshot
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

One Canadian killed and 30 more injured as NATO A-10 strafes Canadian position.

link

That should read an American A-10.

Once again the yankees show that they are a bunch of bungling idiots, worse than the Keystone Kops.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#8
Yes, I know they were American.

Who else would arrogantly blast people on the ground without first identifying them. The Canadian soldiers were camped around their armored vehicles on open ground where they had just spent the night. U.S. forces use identical vehicles. Wouldn't this have given somebody a hint.
 
I think not
#9
When Canadians accidentally kill Afghan police and civilians, it's justifiable.

When Americans accidentally kill Canadian troops, they are bungling idiots.

 
Lineman
#10
Before anyone goes on another anti-American rant perhaps we should remember that Canadian forces were responsible for directing air assests onto the targets. Errors could have been made by a few or by many, by Canadians or Americans, we should await the results of the investigation before pointing fingers.
 
Hotshot
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

When Canadians accidentally kill Afghan police and civilians, it's justifiable.

When Americans accidentally kill Canadian troops, they are bungling idiots.

Yes they are... and its not the first time they've done this. Just wait, they will come up with some bs excuse.

And yes they are bungling idiots. We are cleaning up the mess the yankees left in Afganistan, and look at the mess the bunglers have created in Iraq.
 
Lineman
#12
Just curious Hotshot but how will you blame the Americans if it's found it was a Canadian error? You have No idea what you're talking about. You're answer to everything is "blame the Americans!" It's WAR, it's being fought by humans, and errors will be made by all sides, very unfortunate, but inevitable.
 
Hotshot
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Lineman

Just curious Hotshot but how will you blame the Americans if it's found it was a Canadian error? You have No idea what you're talking about. You're answer to everything is "blame the Americans!" It's WAR, it's being fought by humans, and errors will be made by all sides, very unfortunate, but inevitable.

First, it is the yankees fault that we are there in the first place in case you have forgotten. It they weren't so damn arrogant in the first place, the rest of the world wouldn't hate them and 9-11 wouldn't have happened.

In the previous case, the yankees were definitely in the wrong, but they wormed their way out of accepting responsibility.

In this case the Canadians were just waking up for crying out loud. The damn yanks were just trigger happy.

Canada and NATO should just pull out and leave the yanks alone with their butts hanging out.
 
Lineman
#14
Again you show your will to jump to conclusions without the facts. The pilot, National Guard Maj. Harry Schmidt, in the first instance was charged with dereliction of duty. As for the Canadians just sitting around having breakfast and suddenly an A-10 decides to attack them? No information on the incident has been released and I doubt they would be calling in air support if it wasn't needed. Just speculation on my part but they were more likely engaged with the enemy and were very close. Remember, air support has to be called in, it just isn't loitering above attacking what it wants and when it feels like it. By the way we're part of NATO. We've signed a treaty, we're obligated. Same as our allies would be if we were attacked. Or is not living up to your commitments more your style?
 
I think not
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Hotshot

Yes they are... and its not the first time they've done this. Just wait, they will come up with some bs excuse.

And yes they are bungling idiots. We are cleaning up the mess the yankees left in Afganistan, and look at the mess the bunglers have created in Iraq.

We never left Afghanistan. As for Iraq, you're irrelevant.
 
Daz_Hockey
#16
who was it that said "friendly fire is where one side blows up the other one, then the americans bomb the chinese embassy"?
 
Hotshot
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by Hotshot

Yes they are... and its not the first time they've done this. Just wait, they will come up with some bs excuse.

And yes they are bungling idiots. We are cleaning up the mess the yankees left in Afganistan, and look at the mess the bunglers have created in Iraq.

We never left Afghanistan. As for Iraq, you're irrelevant.

A typical yankee non-response. Of course the bunglers didn't leave Afganistan: they are keeping on killing friendlies.

Why don't you address the truth when it comes to the illegal action in Iraq? Your prez should be up on charges. I can't believe you simps have not impeached him
 
I think not
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Hotshot

A typical yankee non-response. Of course the bunglers didn't leave Afganistan: they are keeping on killing friendlies.

You did a pretty good job yourselves there a couple of weeks ago.

Quote: Originally Posted by Hotshot

Why don't you address the truth when it comes to the illegal action in Iraq? Your prez should be up on charges. I can't believe you simps have not impeached him

That's our business, you're irrelevant.
 
Lineman
#19
So you still didn't answer Hotshot, how will you blame the Americans if it's found it was a Canadian error or a combination of both?
 
Colpy
Conservative
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by athabaska

It's estimated that up to 20% of allied deaths in WW2 were friendly fire (8,000 Candians killed this way). When I was in the military it was considered part of the price for actually being successful in moving large combat forces forward. Every death is tragic and I'm not sure I support the mission in Afghanistan but the numbers of deaths due to both enemy and other allied operations is quite low consideraing how much fire power and air support is being used. Without that overwhelming Ameircan air superiority there might be 100 Canadians killed for every incident of friendly fire for the success on the ground.

By far the most sensible post on the subject so far.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Check this out: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG95E1VQ51.DTL

In particular, here's a key paragraph from it: "Army historians have estimated ground casualties from friendly fire in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War at approximately 2 percent, while they soared to 17 percent during the 1991 Gulf War."

Doesn't look like high tech helps in that department.

Edited to add this: that's specifically the U.S. Army it's referring to. I didn't find anything in a quick search about other forces.

What you are missing is the fact that Americans lost 150 soldiers in the first Gulf war.........and killed 100,000 PLUS Iraqi soldiers.

Practically all from the air.

Imagine how many allied casualties there would have been if that massive air power had not been used, and the PBI (poor bloody infantry) had to dig the Iraqis out one by one.......

The stats are misleading, to say the least....
 
hermanntrude
#22
not sureif there are any stats on this but it seems to me (although i am well aware that this may be planted in my head by various media), that more incidents of "friendly fire" or as I prefer to call it "killing the your so-called allies because you're dumb" caused by americans than by any other country. Maybe the training of US army men needs to be looked into. obviously they're a great fighting force but maybe they just need a little refinement
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote:

What you are missing is the fact that Americans lost 150 soldiers in the first Gulf war.........and killed 100,000 PLUS Iraqi soldiers.

Practically all from the air.

Imagine how many allied casualties there would have been if that massive air power had not been used, and the PBI (poor bloody infantry) had to dig the Iraqis out one by one.......

The stats are misleading, to say the least

The American Modus operandi is to bomb every square foot of ground three times before the army puts a boot on it. If they killed a hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers, they probably killed twice that many civilians. Is there any honour in that? None that I can see.

That disgusting display on the so-called highway of death in "desert storm" was complete, unnecessary, murder, and I'm sorry to say Canada took part in it as well.

Does anyone, including Americans, think the invasion of Iraq was successful? The civil war that everyone warned about shows no sign of slowing down. It is quite clear that Iraq, as a country is finished. That war was started on lies and Bush lies about it every time he opens his mouth.
 
athabaska
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Quote:

What you are missing is the fact that Americans lost 150 soldiers in the first Gulf war.........and killed 100,000 PLUS Iraqi soldiers.

Practically all from the air.

Imagine how many allied casualties there would have been if that massive air power had not been used, and the PBI (poor bloody infantry) had to dig the Iraqis out one by one.......

The stats are misleading, to say the least

The American Modus operandi is to bomb every square foot of ground three times before the army puts a boot on it. If they killed a hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers, they probably killed twice that many civilians. Is there any honour in that? None that I can see.

That disgusting display on the so-called highway of death in "desert storm" was complete, unnecessary, murder, and I'm sorry to say Canada took part in it as well.

Does anyone, including Americans, think the invasion of Iraq was successful? The civil war that everyone warned about shows no sign of slowing down. It is quite clear that Iraq, as a country is finished. That war was started on lies and Bush lies about it every time he opens his mouth.

You have a naive view of war. Canadians were part of similar events in WW2. One doesn't send in one's ground troops before destroying everything in their path. Even then, tens of thousands of Canadian infantry and others were killed The surviving troops were Canadian vets who live in your town and tens of thosuands of those survivors would have been added to the casualty list if we didn't try and destroy the enemy with as much force as possible.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#25
Quote:

You have a naive view of war. Canadians were part of similar events in WW2. One doesn't send in one's ground troops before destroying everything in their path. Even then, tens of thousands of Canadian infantry and others were killed The surviving troops were Canadian vets who live in your town and tens of thosuands of those survivors would have been added to the casualty list if we didn't try and destroy the enemy with as much force as possibl

Don't try to tell me about war.. I flew fighter aircraft in the RCAF back in the fifties and sixties. At that time there were still people in the service who had fought in WW2 and we talked about it all the time. Canadian soldiers, after D-day, rarely had the benefit of massive air strikes and that is a fact. Do you think that the Canadian forces who pushed their way into Belgium and Holland had the airforce working ahead of them all the way? Not likely. They had their own artillery to soften up hard pockets of resistance here and there.

The Illegal invasion of Iraq and the so-called "operation Iraq Freedom" cannot be compared with WW2. The Iraq war has been one cock-up after another, and I sure as hell would not compare it to anything Canadian soldiers did in WW2.
 
athabaska
#26
You're full of baloney. The biggest bullshitter on this forum spouting your phony military service. Your knowledge of the military is non-existant. You have this T.V. image of two groups of fellows shooting at each other across an open field.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#27
Not worth responding to!
 
Colpy
Conservative
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Quote:

What you are missing is the fact that Americans lost 150 soldiers in the first Gulf war.........and killed 100,000 PLUS Iraqi soldiers.

Practically all from the air.

Imagine how many allied casualties there would have been if that massive air power had not been used, and the PBI (poor bloody infantry) had to dig the Iraqis out one by one.......

The stats are misleading, to say the least

The American Modus operandi is to bomb every square foot of ground three times before the army puts a boot on it. If they killed a hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers, they probably killed twice that many civilians. Is there any honour in that? None that I can see.

That disgusting display on the so-called highway of death in "desert storm" was complete, unnecessary, murder, and I'm sorry to say Canada took part in it as well.

Does anyone, including Americans, think the invasion of Iraq was successful? The civil war that everyone warned about shows no sign of slowing down. It is quite clear that Iraq, as a country is finished. That war was started on lies and Bush lies about it every time he opens his mouth.

You're right about US MO, but I don't think the Yanks killed many civilians bombing the Iraqi Army in the desert during GW1. AND, if it saves allied lives, why not bomb military targets into fragments?

I think you are engaging in a little 20/20 hindsight over the "highway of death" incident. At the time, we were still engaged in combat, the "conventional wisdom" was (correct me if I'm wrong) that we were going to invade Iraq proper.

Why would we allow the Iraqi Army to escape Kuwait intact, only to turn on us later? Doesn't make sense.

As for the Iraqi thing, it IS a damned mess. I don't know how all out civil war will be avoided. At this point though, all the Yanks can do is soldier on.
 
Hotshot
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Lineman

So you still didn't answer Hotshot, how will you blame the Americans if it's found it was a Canadian error or a combination of both?

If it is proven (and I don't mean by yankee propaganda) that it was the Canadians who were at fault, then of course I will not blame the Yankees. I am not like the Yankees who would blame anyone to get themselves off the hook.
 
unclepercy
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Hotshot

Quote: Originally Posted by Lineman

Just curious Hotshot but how will you blame the Americans if it's found it was a Canadian error? You have No idea what you're talking about. You're answer to everything is "blame the Americans!" It's WAR, it's being fought by humans, and errors will be made by all sides, very unfortunate, but inevitable.

First, it is the yankees fault that we are there in the first place in case you have forgotten. It they weren't so damn arrogant in the first place, the rest of the world wouldn't hate them and 9-11 wouldn't have happened.

In the previous case, the yankees were definitely in the wrong, but they wormed their way out of accepting responsibility.

In this case the Canadians were just waking up for crying out loud. The damn yanks were just trigger happy.

Canada and NATO should just pull out and leave the yanks alone with their butts hanging out.

FIRST, don't call me a damned Yankee. Second, the rest of the world does not hate us. Third, aren't you a little presumptuous announcing the cause of 9-11? Who asked you anyway?

Uncle
 

Similar Threads

6
A "Muslim-friendly" America?
by Blackleaf | May 14th, 2007
10
Who the "family friendly" budget forgot
by temperance | Apr 1st, 2007