Talk:Friendly fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friendly fire article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Canadian military history task force German military history task force United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Can you provide a reference for those Pentagon figures? - Khendon 13:32 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the word 'supporting' from the intro because in cases where friendly forces are attacked thinking they are enemy the fire is not really 'supporting'. DJ Clayworth 15:12, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Do the percentage figures refer to percent of friendly fire casualties among all casualties in that conflict?

Contents 1 Friendly Fire 2 "fratricide" 3 Error-prone US armed forces? 4 Blue on blue 5 Opinion refuted with opinion 6 Highest friendly fire loss 7 Aircraft losses to 'FF' 8 Cultural views (Revert) 9 Classification 10 Request Citation 11 Removal of Cultural Views section 12 Citation requests 13 Numbers 14 Punishment 15 USS Liberty incident

[edit] Friendly Fire

Recently added by someone else:

"such as the destruction of British Infantry Fighting Vehicles by a US attack aircraft."

to

"Errors of identification Where friendly troops are mistakenly attacked in the belief that they are enemy. Highly mobile battles, and battles involving troops from many nations are more likely to cause this kind of incident as evidenced by incidents in the first Gulf War, such as the destruction of British Infantry Fighting Vehicles by a US attack aircraft."

I think this has the possibility of being seen as a NPOV issue. Yes, I know it did happen - however the wording gives the Gulf War as an example ("evidenced by") so a further one is unecessary. If it is considered appropriate, then consider rë-wording to "where British Infantry Fighting Vehicles were destroyed by US Attack Aircraft".

Furthermore, the edit seems to refer to a single attack - so a source is necessary.

--ReviewDude 16:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that one is too far back to find a reliable source, it was an A10 which shot upp two Warriors flying Union Flags and wearing the agreed indicator markings, caused a huge furore. However I have found a source for the Patriot Battery shooting down a returning Tornado during the Iraq invasion. :) ALR 16:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "fratricide"

The quote "but more properly refers to deliberate attacks upon one's own forces" doesn't jibe well with my own recollections of the phrase, which are in the realm of strategic nuclear targeting. In this context, fratricide is the destruction of later-arriving warheads by the detonation of earlier-arriving ones, caused by high target density in a target area and poor mission planning. As such, it was always considered accidental and to be avoided greatly (as a waste of weapons and a significant risk of inadequate target coverage--if, for instance, you launch two warheads at a target area, it's because you actually need two warheads to adequately destroy the targets in the area. A shortfall of one weapon in a laydown could necessitate a restrike or allow targets to survive.)

But, of course, in the article we're talking about friendly fire which kills troops, not friendly fire which destroys weapons, so the domain is a tiny bit different. I guess I'm just pointing out that "intent to kill friendly forces" isn't automatic in all contexts of the word fratricide. I'm going to be a tiny bit bold in editing and remove the bit about intent if I don't see mildly pursuasive counterarguments in the next day or so. Gnoitall 16:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, semantically, fratricide refers to deliberately killing a brother. Accidentally doing so wouldn't strictly be fratricide in that context. We can presumably reason from that to friendly fire. Though I object to the term on the basis that it's needlessly dramatic and a bit silly. Friendly fire, while somewhat oxymoronic, is also descriptive and concise without venturing into hyperbole. Zabieru 09:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My dictionary defines "fratricide" as "the act of killing one's brother." There is nothing about it being deliberate, not is killing necessarily deliberate. And in any case, to the extent it is a term of art in the U.S. military, its original meaning is besides the point.--agr 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Would appreciate a cite for use of "fratricide" as synonym for "friendly fire" - even an obvious example would suffice. This use is novel to me. I assume good faith but rely on verifiability. SmithBlue 09:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Found example of Fratricide =FF in External links section. satified. SmithBlue 09:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error-prone US armed forces?

"Rightly so, the armed forces of the US are widely believed to be more prone to friendly fire incidents than the military of other nations." [emph added]

Is there a source for the accuracy of this belief? What are the rates for other nations? —wwoods 01:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The edit which introduced this little bit of unsubstantiated NPOV was from User:152.78.254.243 at 17:53 29 Apr 2005. It was only automatically summarized; no actual user comments. I don't know; seems gratuitous to me. Actually the entire opening parenthetical "Rightly so" and its previous incarnation "Rightly or wrongly" are both unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence. It is pretty true that the US military has a highly-publicized fratricide problem; it seems to my shallow reasoning to be because it's more active than other militaries, larger than most, and most accessible to the press. So it's fair to say the U.S. military is perceived to be prone to friendly fire. I'm inclined to strike the opening parenthetical and let the statement about public perception stand without further editorializing. Gnoitall 19:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I struck the opening sentence. Without a source, I think this is unsubstantiated POV. If there is a source somewhere, then it should go back in, in a NPOV phrasing. 68.207.105.199 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

On a related topic, does anyone have a source for the claim that French regiments flew white flags following a friendly fire incident? - without a souce this looks an awful lot like French bashing. --Nick Dowling 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How about how incredibly bad it looks on the US airforce for two of these incidents to happen to Canadian soldiers in pretty much the SAME war? I can understand the first one was more of a bad mistake but the second one is ineptitude by the pilot. A-10 Thunderbolts are among the slowest of military aircraft. .... You can pretty much get out and run faster than fly one. Hence if you miss your target when firing you're a bad gunner and if you can't tell that the vehicles are friendly (as those soldiers were in vehicles the enemies don't have) you're blind and really shouldn't be out there.

[edit] Blue on blue

The British military refers to these incidents as blue on blue, which derives from wargaming exercises where friendly forces are "blue" and enemy forces are "red".

I thought that it was a Nato expression and based on Nato's wargaming colour which was based war gaming by the US in which its forces are tradtionally blue (and conviniently Communists in Red). I thought that British war gaming before joining Nato (or possibly the US enty in to WWII) was Red, with Blue for the French, and Grey or Black for the Germans. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The colours you are talking about refer to british maps ( and I am not sure about black for Germany ). I was not aware of any particular british war gaming prior to WWII : and no specifed colours. 217.7.209.108 13:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion refuted with opinion

This statement seems to have little supporting evidence:

"However, a much more accurate view is that the United States, as a world superpower, is simply more likely to have "friendly fire" events because the US is much more likely to be involved in combat operations."

Perhaps some figures on the proportions of friendly fire incidents and fatalities for other superpowers or UN peacekeepers would lend come credence to the statement.

[edit] Highest friendly fire loss

The article says that (Lt.) Gen. Buckner was the second highest US friendly fire loss of WW II but doesn't list the highest: Gen. Leslie McNair, commander of all US Ground Forces. He was killed with about 100 other soldiers in US bombing attacks during Operation Cobra, July 44. He was posthumously promoted to full (4-star) general.

[edit] Aircraft losses to 'FF'

An interesting article, especially the % approximations of losses to friendly fire. Does anyone have any similar approximations/data regarding losses of military aircraft to its own side ( to other aircraft or AA fire)? Harryurz 18:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural views (Revert)

This view is supported by incindents such as those in Iraq recently where American aircraft have strafed clearly makred British conveys and then flown around and starfed them again and the shooting down of an RAF Tornado GR4 by a U.S. Patriot battery.

Reverting this edit, because not only is the paragraph riddled with spelling mistakes and bad grammar, but it represent a point of view with few references or facts and it was inserted in a hap hazard manner. Pointing to a few incidents (already listed in the rest of the article) doesn't contribute to the section. The entire sub heading (Cultural views) is already a contentious enough, since it is a subjective viewpoint not supported by much statistics. Yes, there will be friendly fire incidents as there is in all wars, but to state that the U.S. is more likely to damage friendly forces than enemy ones is patently ridiculous. Deon Steyn 06:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classification

The classification of fratricide should be based on two factors: either it is deliberate, or it is unintentional.

If deliberate, then it is either murder, or it is state sanctioned. The latter refers to such actions as wartime executions and the shooting of recalcitrant troops, both acts considered fratricide under the general definition provided in this article.

If unintentional, then one should look at the factors that have contributed to that event: poor navigation, failure to maintain situational awareness on the battlefield, incorrect identification of targets as friend/foe, equipment errors, equipment malfunctions (e.g. the 1968 napalming of a church by an American F-4 as a result of an equipment malfunction), and the unintended results of battlefield hazards like unexploded ordinance, mines and boobytraps. --Milbuff101 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request Citation

The line about Allied forces annihlating their opposition seems both taken from a biased POV and quite innacurate. Personally, I can't think of one example to support this. It would seem more likely to me that case of friendly fire were simply never recorded. LuNatic 06:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Cultural Views section

Tfine80 has removed this entire section due to it being "POV" and "unsourced," which strikes me as being both revisionist and POV in itself. The British viewpoint of an American propensity to inflict FF casualties on British troops and other Allied forces is certainly common and is widely referenced in both the news media (e.g. Wounded British soldiers condemn US 'cowboy' pilot, Accusations fly over lack of action on friendly fire deaths , Friendly fire threat to Gulf troops, [1], & Iraqi police 'were too scared' to help Americans in Fallujah) and in popular culture (e.g. in the TV series Monkey Dust, where a group of British soldiers is shown being targeted by a US aircraft for no good reason). There's even a "joke" in the dialogue of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (developed by Rockstar North, based in Scotland) about an American aircraft deliberately engaging a supposedly friendly target with an excuse along the lines of, "We can always say we thought it was a British tank." Obviously opinion will vary on whether these attitudes are justified, but they do exist.

Nick Cooper 08:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that a section on this could be useful, the removed piece was definitely POV; consider these couple of sentences:

Many in other nations - particularly those in Britain - hold the view that the US has a severe record of friendly fire. The popular opinion is that the US is more likely to injure its own or its unfortunate allies, the British, than anyone of an opposing army. (emphasis added)

On top of that, some of the text was clearly confused:

However, a more accurate view is that the United States, as a world superpower, is simply more likely to have "friendly fire" events [snip snip] By sheer numbers, the odds are that the US will have more casualties, regardless of whether they are from enemy or friendly fire.

starts off by addressing the US causing more friendly fire incidents, but ends up talking about the US sustaining more casualties.

So, if the section really needs to be there, it should be rewritten for accuracy, sense, and NPOV. The removed section should probably have deserved a weasel tag too, given its lack of sources; the sources you've kindly dug up should, however, be a useful set of citations should the section be reinstated. Carre 12:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that the use of the word "unfortunate" was biased. I'll see if I can pull together something short and concise together about the British perspective, and will include some detail on British-inflicted FF incidents as a counterpoint. The argument about numbers as relates to American forces is useful, but really needs some statistical back-up. Nick Cooper 13:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation requests

User:Bryson109 is removing fact tags without justification, whilst there may be supporting information in the sources mentioned the requirement at each fact tag is for an expliocit, credible reference. At present the article down not meet the requirements of encyclopedic standards, and will not do so until this verifiable evidence is provided.ALR 15:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I also note that the request directly on the users talk page hass been removed without response.ALR 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• You added citation tags to statements that were common knowledge such as:

“(e.g. missing the enemy and hitting "friendlies")”

I have actually added four citations to tags. --Bryson 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You pick the one example where I chose to place it at the end of the sentence rather than at the place where the tag was required. Fair enough, I would have anticipated some lateral thought, but clearly it needed to be made exaclty clear what was being asked for. You may have now added four citation tags, but the initial effort was just mass clearance of fact tags with no explanation, and I'm not convinced that you were actually going to produce evidence given the few comments left. If I misread your intent then I apologise. Regardless, the article is now closer to being credible. Although actually eveey example requires supporting evidence.ALR 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Added 3 "citation needed" tags to instances where info is sketchy, ie no dates, nor vessel ids, or where recent research is mentioned. In one case, it sounds too similar to Wikinger. Folks at 137 15:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've dealt with the Douglas Bader and HMS Oxley/HMS Triton incidents, although they were already covered on their respective pages. Nick Cooper 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

Vietnam war: 8,000 (14%) - where those numbers came from ? Here are some statistcs - http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html. And there is number we are looking for - "Misadventure 1,326". That was the name for friendly fire in those times. It amounts to ~ 2.3%. Here is excerpt from Lt-Col Shrader, Charles R. Amicicide: the problem of friendly fire in modern war

"It appears that amicicide incidents account for something less than 2 percent of all casualties in battle. American casualties in the Second World War were about 774,000. If 2 percent is a reasonably accurate estimate of the total casualties attributable to amicicide, then about 15,480 Americans, or the equivalent of one full infantry division, fell victim to friendly fires in World War II. Similarly, out of 57,000 US casualties in Vietnam more than 1,100 could thus be counted as victims of amicicide."

--Tigga en 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punishment

Does anyone have the common punishment for friendly fire in US/NATO? I am curious. If you do have this info please add it to the article. --Voidvector 12:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Liberty incident

Does the US Liberty incident count as friendly fire? The US and Israel were not officially allies engaged in the same war. 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, the circumstances are sufficiently disputed that it would imply a POV on listing, never mind the legalities when we consider the complex network of internaitonal defence agreements.ALR 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)