BBC Distortions Exposed

[budanski]

BBC Distortions Exposed
Strategypage (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTIW.HTM)

Spend enough time discussing military affairs with somebody in the U.K. and you invariably run into an interesting attitude—“American soldiers are trigger-happy cowboys.” It’s sort of the consolation prize the Brits awarded themselves after U.S. military power eclipsed Britain’s by an order of magnitude: “You Yanks may outclass us in quantity and quality of material, but at least our boys don’t go blundering about blasting everything in sight,” is the unofficial credo. The Brits are justifiably proud of their troops and I don't mean to slight them, but the suggestion that British forces are more disciplined than U.S. forces is an un-provable school yard style proposition.*

The attitude is powerfully reinforced every time there is a friendly fire incident of some kind. Do British armed forces ever accidentally fire on each other? You bet they do. Are there more friendly fire incidents involving U.S. forces? The anecdotal evidence suggests there is, but that’s more likely a function of the higher percentage of U.S. forces in theater. Pure and simple, more weapons firing gives you a statistically greater likelihood of friendly fire. A statistical analysis would likely bear this out but insofar as there were less than a dozen friendly fire deaths in Iraq prior to the announcement of the end of major hostilities, an analysis of the current conflict is probably meaningless.

Some "blue on blue" incidents, as the military calls them, are probably unavoidable and arguably only receive the attention they do because the U.S. and U.K. forces so outclass the opposing forces they regularly encounter that they frequently inflict more casualties on each other than the enemy itself can manage. “The real story is that the casualties have dropped to such a low rate that the percentage of people killed by friendly fire may appear to be abnormal," says retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner, who was in command of coalition air power in the Persian Gulf War.

Still, the myth of the American soldier/cowboy looms large in the British psyche. Case in point is this report on the BBC website describing an accidental shooting of civilians in Baghdad on August 7, 2003. Now the U.S. is not denying that the shootings in question were accidental. And the article reports that the surviving family members have received $11,000 on the direct orders of Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition forces in Iraq. So I’m not faulting the BBC for reporting the story in the first place, it’s legitimate news and civilian deaths have, if anything, been under-reported following the fall of Baghdad.*

My problem with the report is this uncritical quotation of a supposed witness to the accidental shootings:*

It all happened just outside the Jabari household. Members of the family talk of a scene of chaos breaking out as the troops were searching a nearby house for weapons.*

"The Americans seemed to panic," said Hussein al-Jabari, who witnessed the events.*

"As well as the two cars that were hit, they fired indiscriminately all around them. I heard someone shout in English: 'Shoot anything that moves'. They even shot each other. Two of them were laying screaming in the road," says Hussein.

Utter nonsense! There is no way that a U.S. Army officer, commissioned or otherwise, would ever give an order to “shoot anything that moves,” particularly in a civilian neighborhood. That kind of talk only takes place in the movies, which is undoubtedly where the purported witness heard it.*

The BBC reporter should have caught this falsehood immediately instead of uncritically reporting it. Particularly since there are other indications within the article that the witness is embellishing his account:*

Coalition military spokesmen at the time of the incident said the troops had already come under attack during their operation. There are no reports of friendly fire incidents.

In other words, the witness’s claim that that the U.S. soldiers also shot each other is false.*

I’ve often accused the BBC of intentional bias against the U.S. and its policies. But in this case, I think the problem is more the reporter’s innate prejudice than any purposeful intention to smear the U.S. Army. That the slander may have been unintentional does not however excuse it or lessen the damage done. The BBC reporter’s own preconceived notion that U.S. soldiers are trigger-happy cowboys prevented him from spotting an obvious untruth about how American forces operate. In so doing, the reporter also served to perpetuate the myth of the "trigger-happy" U.S. soldier by reporting the falsehood to the British public as news.

[Seoulstriker]

fuc* the BBC. they are once again 'sexing up' their liberal bias.

[Mortimer]

so because the reporter "may" have mis-reported something like that the US arn't cowboys?

The British didn't blow up friendly tanks.
The British didn't shoot down a friendly bomber.
The British didn't massacre a friendly convoy.

And there's no proof that the officer didn't say that, only the 'likelyhood' that he didn't...........

[Seoulstriker]

so because the reporter "may" have mis-reported something like that the US arn't cowboys?

The British didn't blow up friendly tanks.
The British didn't shoot down a friendly bomber.
The British didn't massacre a friendly convoy.

And there's no proof that the officer didn't say that, only the 'likelyhood' that he didn't...........

:roll:

[Mortimer]

hehehehe yep

You suck ass

[Eviscerator]

The BBC does not equal the opinion of the British public, it is an independant broadcaster, it's like citing a Klu Klux Klan website as being a representative of the American society's views. However, the British public are incredibly proud of our troops, and do believe them to be the best trained in the world and one of the most experienced forces. Also, I dont believe that the US' military power has 'eclipsed Britain’s by an order of magnitude', yes they may have a great deal more troops, aircraft and vehicles but Britain still possesses about 50 active nuclear warhead tipped missiles, enough to wipe out pretty much every major city in the US. Britain doesn't need the massive force it once had, recent conflicts have been small scale, and there is no looming threat of a world war that would explain the need for millions of troops.

Oh, and Mortimer, yes we did blow up friendly tanks, two Challenger 2's engaged each other near Basra, one was blown up/disabled and the crew were killed.

[Seoulstriker]

Oh, and Mortimer, yes we did blow up friendly tanks, two Challenger 2's engaged each other near Basra, one was blown up/disabled and the crew were killed.

nice one, morty.

[Ratamacue]

The Brits weren't operating at the same pace as US forces in the war (that's not to say that they didn't play an important part). At a higher pace, more accidents are ****e to happen (helicopter crashes, friendly fire incidents, etc.).

The US isn't made up of reckless cowboys like everyone thinks. US troops giving the order to "shoot anything that moves?" Makes me want to both laugh and puke. US troops just shooting each other like that? Alright, man.

[Mortimer]

Oh, and Mortimer, yes we did blow up friendly tanks, two Challenger 2's engaged each other near Basra, one was blown up/disabled and the crew were killed.

nice one, morty.
i knew that, lol you want me to include US/US FF incidents??

i am talking US/Brit FF incidents

[Seoulstriker]

Oh, and Mortimer, yes we did blow up friendly tanks, two Challenger 2's engaged each other near Basra, one was blown up/disabled and the crew were killed.

nice one, morty.
i knew that, lol you want me to include US/US FF incidents??

i am talking US/Brit FF incidents

what US/UK ff do you know of?

[Vance]

[quote="Mortimer"]The British didn't blow up friendly tanks.
[quote]
Yes, they did.

[Gordon]

This article may or may nor represent the truth.


My problem with the report is this uncritical quotation of a supposed witness to the accidental shootings:

To start with, and to use an argument that is a favourite among users of this board, "He wasn't there" so how could he know what happened hence all of his arguments are invalid. This argument has been used by many on this board in order to nulify statements made by people, this reporter sites no proof within his article hence why should we believe him until he does so.




"As well as the two cars that were hit, they fired indiscriminately all around them. I heard someone shout in English: 'Shoot anything that moves'. They even shot each other. Two of them were laying screaming in the road," says Hussein.

Utter nonsense! There is no way that a U.S. Army officer, commissioned or otherwise, would ever give an order to “shoot anything that moves,” particularly in a civilian neighborhood. That kind of talk only takes place in the movies, which is undoubtedly where the purported witness heard it.

Hmmm ... I'm not saying that US Officer did or didn't but this reporter's basing his artilce on supposition.




Coalition military spokesmen at the time of the incident said the troops had already come under attack during their operation. There are no reports of friendly fire incidents.

Coaliton spokesmen said that an Apache that was shot down was destroyed, this proved to be a false statement. Surely this makes coaliton reports subject to bias in the same way that the "liberal" media is.

To finish off, all media and their respectful reporters are biased to personal and company views, and this has been said by pretty much all members of this board at one time or another, so, by taking the article in question to be true you are being hypocritical.

I don't have experience serving with either British or American troops and as far as I'm concerned all articles published or screened should be taken with a pinch of salt, I'm just making the point that this article is also written by a journalist with a bias.

To quote (I can't remember the exact words and it was written a while back) a certain moderator on this board who has served "British troops are the most professional troops in the world" (please correct the quote if it's wrong).

By the way this post is mainly aimed at seoulstriker who is very happy to condemn any "liberal and biased" media articles he comes across but is also happy to jump on and support any media articles that happen to support his view.

[Gordon]

Oh, and Mortimer, yes we did blow up friendly tanks, two Challenger 2's engaged each other near Basra, one was blown up/disabled and the crew were killed.

nice one, morty.
i knew that, lol you want me to include US/US FF incidents??

i am talking US/Brit FF incidents

what US/UK ff do you know of?

Umm .. a US patriot destroyed a UK Tornado.

Just to make it clear, I don't have anything against Americans and have many American friends ... at the moment i'm living in America. I was just making a few points.

[Vance]

Saying one army is better than another is just a ****-measuring contest, no more, no less. It's pathetic.

[Gordon]

Saying one army is better than another is just a ****-measuring contest, no more, no less. It's pathetic.

If you're talking to me I never said any army was better than another .. I was just pointing out a few facts about the media and this article. Eh.. if you weren't talking to me then what i just said don't matter so .. :|

[Vance]

I wasn't saying it to anyone specific

[Gordon]

Aye, I hear ya ... as ya said hypothetically comparing armies is about the most useless argument you can have.

[hood]

Not having read the original article, I can't say if this happened or not; as long as the writer of the article included a disclaimer about the witnesses statements, that they haven't been backed up with other objective proof, I'm not seeing the problem with him giving us what the witness said. It's up to us, the readers to decide whether we believe the guy or not. If his article is entitled "US soldiers are all cowboys" then obviously there's a problem. I particularly like the motto of Fox News. Not to say that they necessarily abide by it, but "We report, You decide" is a good methodology. Unfortunately they have several anchors that don't stay objective with their emotions.

[Mortimer]

Oh, and Mortimer, yes we did blow up friendly tanks, two Challenger 2's engaged each other near Basra, one was blown up/disabled and the crew were killed.

nice one, morty.
i knew that, lol you want me to include US/US FF incidents??

i am talking US/Brit FF incidents

what US/UK ff do you know of?

Umm .. a US patriot destroyed a UK Tornado.

Just to make it clear, I don't have anything against Americans and have many American friends ... at the moment i'm living in America. I was just making a few points.

An A-10 also made two passes on a Britsh column of fighting vehicles and killed two troopers.

[Haiw]

ok just the ones i can think up so far to keep ur guys going, both US/UK & US/US:

-in afghanistan, remember that story about the big SAS raid a while back? it mentioned how a F-18 almost nailed a few troopers, just barely missing em....although he didnt hit em, imo it still counts as FF
-Tornado nailed by patriots
-like mortimer said, column nailed by A-10
-US marines bombarding their own guys with mortars (around nasariyah if i remember correctly)
-US plane (f18?) taken down by a patriot
-the kurdish convoy being strafed by US planes

and there's propably lots more...

[Ratamacue]

And I'm sure there was plenty more friendly fire incidents back in other wars. They happen in EVERY SINGLE WAR by EVERY SINGLE PARTICIPATING SIDE. It's not just us imperialist pigs.

[mocking_loudly_died]

You bloody gun totting yanks! :lol: ;)

(Looks at the sky for the impending A10 strike on my house)

[hood]

I still have the video of the one where the F-15 drops the bomb on the Kirdush/SF convoy. The visual of the reporter's blood dripping onto the camera lens is still strong in my mind.

[Sabre]

All hail the mighty american media! They have no flaws, their war correspondants are all ex-generals with up to date knowledge in modern warfare.

War correspondants are crap. Compare their knowledge on the subject of conflict to that of a parliamentary correspondant on the government. They know nothing.

Despite this, they still have cameras, and they still have ears. If the only eye witness to something says 'such and such' happened, is the reporter to 'filter' it to suit his own needs? 99% of what politicians say is bull ****, but we still hear endless speeches from them without 'filtration' by the media.

Again, lay off the BBC. They are no better/worse than other journalists.

As for friendly fire, one Challenger 2 engaged another and killed two crew. There were far more US/UK incidents. The tornado was downed because the NG 2nd Lt who manned it switched control to manual, despite the automatic system identifying the aircraft as friendly.
I think it's bollocks that these things 'just happen' and should be ignored. The A 10 incident was virtually a carbon-copy of the GW warrior attack. In both cases, the vehicles were on a recce, displaying the necessary ID systems. In this latest case, the pilot made two passes. After the first, the pilot came so low that one of the troopers said he could see his helmet and visor looking around. Surely for someone who's job is just to blow up armoured vehicles, he should know what the difference is between friendly and enemy vehicles. Nothing the Iraqis have look like Scimitars. Anyway, did the pilot not know what the Union Jack looks like?

Poor training, or poor calibre personnel.

[garyfanclub]

I love how you've just generalized the US Armed Forces into one giant group of people who are, quote "poor calibre personnel". I'm not going to whip out the old "put yourself in their shoes" arguement, it's truly pointless and leaves too much room for speculation. Let me just leave you with a few thoughts, as you seem to think you're an expert in the field of the American military, you'd be calling the Army Rangers "poor calibre personnel" and SF and Delta, "Poor Quality personnel". I'd go as far as to vouch for our regular units, who did a ****ing miraculous job during the ground war. Anyway, I smell a big wad of limey bull****, probably the product of your vocal orifice.

Call us what you want, but when the **** hits the fan, I know who you'd want backing you up, the US Military.

[Argyll]

He was refering to the A10 pilot !

And if he can't ID a Union Jack,or pick up the IFF panels,or the type of AFV then what does that tell you?

And did the coalition troops also not do a "miraculous" job too?

And prey tell me what it was that was so "Miraculous",seeing as you're the expert?

[Seoulstriker]

I still have the video of the one where the F-15 drops the bomb on the Kirdush/SF convoy. The visual of the reporter's blood dripping onto the camera lens is still strong in my mind.

whoa. hood, do you have the link to that?

[Argyll]

You never seen it Seoul
It's the most harrowing scene I've seen for a long time,worst thing is it's by the BBC,and John Simpson and he doesn't hold any punches,and he's also a fat wan*er too!!

[Seoulstriker]

You never seen it Seoul
It's the most harrowing scene I've seen for a long time,worst thing is it's by the BBC,and John Simpson and he doesn't hold any punches,and he's also a fat wan*er too!!

man, i need a link! i'll do a quick search with the info i have so far. ;)


EDIT: i couldn't find a link.

[Argyll]

Try this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39060000/rm/_39060081_attack18_simpson_vi.ram

[Seoulstriker]

Try this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39060000/rm/_39060081_attack18_simpson_vi.ram

that's some crazy ****, man.

:( :(

[Argyll]

Did that link work for you?

Yes I agree,I've seen the whole incident several times and it's still,prety grim viewing.
Are you aware that this was during the battle of something ridge or hill something like that,that was posted here a few months ago,where the story reported an OD-A held off a Motorized Iraqi company?

[Seoulstriker]

Did that link work for you?

Yes I agree,I've seen the whole incident several times and it's still,prety grim viewing.
Are you aware that this was during the battle of something ridge or hill something like that,that was posted here a few months ago,where the story reported an OD-A held off a Motorized Iraqi company?

yeah, the link worked perfectly.

i don't know anything of the background of the movie, though.

[Gordon]

But we have to remember that link is to a BBC site and according to you the BBC is full of **** so how can you be sure that video hasn't been altered by BBC journalists in order make US forces look bad.

[Scrim]

An A-10 also killed 9 Marines in Nasariyah, not confirmed but still under investigation.
When I was trained in the use of the Stinger, under the rules of engagment, there is one exception when you can engage friendly aircraft. Self defense. If the unit you are providing air defense for is engaged by friendly aircraft, the aircraft is fair game. Maybe if this happened a couple of times the A-10 pilots would actually study their vehicle recognition guides and allies flags.

[marktigger]

let me see now
GW1 USAF can't tell difference between warrior and Iraqi AFV's
GW2 USAF can't tell difference between SCUD and Tornado
GW2 USAF Can't tell Difference between Scimitar and Iraqi AFV's
(well done trooper finney gaining a GC for bravery under friendly fire)
GW2 US Anglico team drop naval gunfire all over 29 cdo RA
GW2 US soldiers open fire on field hospital recce team (they return fire US troops surrender)
GW2 US convoy truck deliberatley swerves out of convoy and rams RMP land rover
GW2 US troops open fire on UK Lynx helecopter Pilot sets down walks over to team and punches officer in charge.

thease are just the incidents we heard about and i'm sure there are many more.


Action by US authorities: investigations find no fault with US troops.
Sunday telegraph today described Any Area with The USAF operating over it as a hostile area.
Being in a coilition is about trusting the other members it is getting to the point where British troops won't trust americans. And we're not the only friendly forces to suffer from American Screw ups. ask the canadians and new zealanders. Things might be different if your investigations wer'nt such obvious cover ups.
The 2 F15's that crashed in the scottish highlands a few years ago well the RAF court martialed the UK air traffic controller involved.

[Ratamacue]

And I'm sure there was plenty more friendly fire incidents back in other wars. They happen in EVERY SINGLE WAR by EVERY SINGLE PARTICIPATING SIDE. It's not just us imperialist pigs.

[Vance]

GW2 US soldiers open fire on field hospital recce team (they return fire US troops surrender)
GW2 US convoy truck deliberatley swerves out of convoy and rams RMP land rover
wtf?

[marktigger]

Added to the apalling treatment of one of or commanding officers caused by the blatant lies of an American officer I think we in the UK have every right to be a bit pissed of. Oh what has happened to that tosser who was with the Royal Irish has he been slung out of the US army? Probably not probably promoted and given a medal.

[Argyll]

It wasn't a Lynx either it was a Chinook!

Just to balance it up and not make it one sided

UK/UK blue on blue in the AL Faw peninsula where the RM Milan Team engaged their own boat troop!

[marktigger]

GW2 recce team for the british field hosp at shaiba moved into Iraq with an escort of pioneers. The arrive at the site to be recce'd and where opened fire on by US troops. The medics and their pioneer escort returned fire the US troops surrendered.

Just after things had settled a packet of 2 RMP land rovers was joining a highway in the British TAOR slow lane was clear middle lane was a US convoy. One of the US trucks in the convoy swerved out of line and ramed one of the Rovers then went back into line and continued on its way. US convoy kept going and only when the rear US MP HUMVEE saw what had happened did that HUMVEE stop to assist. 2 British soldiers very serously injured 1 non Iraqi Interpreter very seriously ill.

[Deuterium]

let me see now
GW1 USAF can't tell difference between warrior and Iraqi AFV's
GW2 USAF can't tell difference between SCUD and Tornado
GW2 USAF Can't tell Difference between Scimitar and Iraqi AFV's
(well done trooper finney gaining a GC for bravery under friendly fire)
GW2 US Anglico team drop naval gunfire all over 29 cdo RA
GW2 US soldiers open fire on field hospital recce team (they return fire US troops surrender)
GW2 US convoy truck deliberatley swerves out of convoy and rams RMP land rover
GW2 US troops open fire on UK Lynx helecopter Pilot sets down walks over to team and punches officer in charge.

thease are just the incidents we heard about and i'm sure there are many more.


Action by US authorities: investigations find no fault with US troops.
Sunday telegraph today described Any Area with The USAF operating over it as a hostile area.
Being in a coilition is about trusting the other members it is getting to the point where British troops won't trust americans. And we're not the only friendly forces to suffer from American Screw ups. ask the canadians and new zealanders. Things might be different if your investigations wer'nt such obvious cover ups.
The 2 F15's that crashed in the scottish highlands a few years ago well the RAF court martialed the UK air traffic controller involved.

Sorry.

[Chris1]

^ :D



Come on Mark, its not like no-one else has had thoughts of ramming an RMP landie :)

[marktigger]

true but the operative word is thought. :D

have to say my opinion of the Monkies has changed since working with them on Telic met some great guys and girls wearing red hats. They've had an unlucky time out there but are still doing a good job.

[marktigger]

I have to say i did meet some cracking american soldiers and officers in the gulf.
who I would sugest that are as capable of preventing blue/blue incidents if they had better proceedures and guidance. I'm sure their allies are more than willing to help get the best balance by being able to look in from the outside and maybe we'll pick up some stuff along the way that will improve our proceedures as well.

[Sabre]

To clarify, I was referring to the A10 pilot as 'Poor calibre'. You can't fault me on that mate. If you know there are friendly recce units in the area, and you can't tell the difference between them and the enemy, you give it the benefit of the doubt. Unless all you care about is blowing **** up 'cos you can. In order to engage a target, you have to ID it. If you can't do that properly, get out of the game.

The A10 pilot is just indicative of the more lax attitude the US military takes to fighting wars. There is less effort spent on finding ways to reduce mistakes than in the UK, 'because these things happen'.

IMO, the reason for this is that the US army is mainly a 'high intensity' army. They are still in the Cold War mentality of 'all or nothing' warfare. I think because most UK units have extensive experience of restrictive ROE, they are better placed to exercise restraint over adrenaline. 'Discretion is the better part of valour' and all that.

_____________________________________________________________

I do find that story about the medical recce team getting the US troops to surrender quite amusing. Shame it could have turned out so differently.

[hood]

So because 6 soldiers/airmen commited FF, that means that the rest of the 147,000 troops in theater all have the same mentality?

Concerning the BBC, they're just doing what everyone else is.. daily headlines of:

"Private Johnson stubbed his toe getting out of bed today, is the US effort in Iraq failing miserably?"

[Smintjes]

As I said before, I still prefer BBC reporting over any and all US reporting. In fact, I think the BBC News Online site is the best site out there, full stop.

[Recce_Plt]

Two more incidents: 2 F15s shoot down Blackhawk with 9 UN personnel in Northern no fly zone; 2 F16s drop a bomb on Canadian troops training nr Kandahar at Tarnak Farms range... several Cannucks died.

There is a summary of the inquiry into the Tarnak Farms incident on the web, don't know the URL foo-hand, but comes up on google. Also, the no-fly zone incident is extrememly well documented in a great book by Scott Snook called Friendly Fire, you can see how complicated these issues really are, and that it's not all down to some "cowboys" in many cases... there is a huge system of support in the background that can have an influence on apparently crazy decisions to fire blue on blue.

[Sabre]

Hood:

My point is that the US is not used to erring on the side of caution. Effectively, yes, they have the same mentality. I think there is a mentality of 'when in doubt, blow it up', simply because it is war. Obviously it is not that black and white or universal, but it is more prevalent in the US than the UK armed forces.

Because most of our lads have experience (be they cooks, infanteers, RMP or whatever) of bopping around various hot-spots, making snap decisions and exercising restraint over all, I think they are better suited to think more about the ROE in a scenario where there is massive media attention.

[WARPIG]

New headlines .. same old B.S.
Fratracide is a fact of war. I don't care what Army you are in.. being trigger happy in a combat zone is sort of expected.
B.S. is a fact of media... bottom line is not to report the happenings of the day verbatim..but to report what is newsworthy. If plain old combat is getting covered then what does an upcoming reporter have to report? Hmm.... take a failed mission or FF report and spice it up.
This can't be old news to you guys.
The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish.
~Robert Jackson
It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.
~Robert E. Lee
The process of creating new, democratic organs of government power is beginning, and, as never before, the greatest responsibility rests with the broadcast media.
~Eduard Sagalaev
"Friendly fire, isn't."
~Murphy
Funny how quotes from the past seem to fit the present.
US fratracide isn't all that impressive.. remember when Russian officers would shoot soldiers if it looked like they might retreat? Is that really fratracide or just "negative re-enforcement?"

[marktigger]

the bombing of the new zealanders in the gulf i think it was kuwait. US cobras attacing abrhams in IRAQ. The taking out of an american armoured column by apaches in GW1. Isolated incidents we could maybe understand but its time after time. One of things maybe that you need to abandon is the kill box where aircraft patrol boxes and there should be no friendlies in them which is a very dangeroous assumption. Modern armoured warfare moves very very quickly and kill boxes are not flexible to keep up. Proper recognition of targets is the only way wether thats a FAC in the air or on the ground or pilots doing effective visual recognition training. And the introduction of effective rules of engagement. If th USAF don't get their act together soon coalitions will be more difficult to form as no one wants to be anywhere near them. Or we start to deploy our air defence systems because under the rules of engagement from aircraft at our forces is a hostile act and under the hostile act rules shorad can engage that outh to focus the USAF's minds if a few of their fighter Jocks get brought down after attacking friendlies :D

[Saranof]

So because 6 soldiers/airmen commited FF, that means that the rest of the 147,000 troops in theater all have the same mentality?

Concerning the BBC, they're just doing what everyone else is.. daily headlines of:

"Private Johnson stubbed his toe getting out of bed today, is the US effort in Iraq failing miserably?"

Yes, when british soldiers get blown to bits they go to the americans to see what Pvt Johnson has done.

[WARPIG]

Actually there is a problem with Fratracide between US and coallition Forces. There is a big technology gap that makes commo and ID difficult between them. Future technologies address those gaps but it is not going to be enough. There has to be a "cultural" change in the way we fight together. As our techology pushes the pace of battle faster and faster the room for error will increase. Guess what... more bull**** stories for the media to embellish too.
I hope the technology is able to make friend or foe ID more reliable.

[Royal]

I have the greatest respect for most of the US service personell I have worked with, in most cases it has been a pleasure to work with them.

Now for the but, the majority of fratricide cases over recent years seem to involve members of the Air National Guard. The US seems to us foreigners to 'cover up' most of the incidents concerned. A significant number involve cases where it should have been blindingly obvious that the 'target' was friendly - either because it was signiture equipment, the controller said it was friendly, or because it was in a notifed 'friendly' location.

As an ex-FAC, I know how dificult it is to ID ground equipment, but that's their job - if in doubt, go round and try again. Yes, we Brits have had incidents of fratricide too - but they're investigated, and the results published. In most cases SOP's are reviewed or changed.

It's mostly a matter of perception, and the bottom line is that in war, **** happens. But, as someone cleverer than me once said - "Don't learn from your mistakes - learn from other peoples, before you make them".

[WARPIG]

Just to put some perspective on your comment... a large part of the Air support for US Forces is Air National Guard. Saying that most of the fratracide incidents involve the ANG is like saying most of the points scored during the game was by the players. Still, there is much to be desired when it comes to "shoot don't shoot " training. When we become too careful.. we get shot by "prisoners" with their rifles up in the air. If we are too agressive.. well everyone has a story.

[Royal]

Just to put some perspective on your comment... a large part of the Air support for US Forces is Air National Guard.

Which just goes to prove the point. We all depend heavily on reservists nowadays, but they need to be brought up to/back to full speed. Just 'cos someone has upteen thousand hours on 757's and flew F16's 10 years ago, does not mean they are up to speed now.

The fault is not fully with those who commit the fratricide, it is with those who train them, and with those who limit that training due to budgetry or time constraints.

Sadly (& this is from a UK point of view), as MarkTigger says - if the issue is not resolved, we will resent, or even if possible avoid air cover from the USAF.

[WARPIG]

Going back to the top of the thread... just in volume alone the US forces outnumber the Brits. By statistic alone there will be a greater number of incidents. Don't take it out of context. Also I've read a few articles that some Brit soldiers have complained about the ability for British ground troops to ID themselves to Friendly air being hampered by the British government's lack of funding on some equipment and technology to help with the "friend or foe" ID problem. I even heard some similar complaints from some British soldiers I've trained with. Don't get me wrong. Fratricide is a big problem for all of us. Although US forces seem to dole it out (in volume) pretty well, it is definitely not exclusive to us. Try not to exaggerate training holes to affect blame. I do agree however that the burden of trying to minimize the fratricide lies with the US. Whether it is the size of the US military or if you still feel the US training is poor.. the volume of damage that the US afflicts on friendly forces is something that needs to be addressed. Same as in the past.. and will be the same in the future.

[Royal]

Warpig - I agree with everything you have written there. It is quite true that our own IFF systems are criminally outdated, but as I have said, a large part of it is perception and like it or not, we Brits have a perception of the USAF - we don't trust them.

[WARPIG]

It is definately a sad state when soldiers with the technology and power that our nations have.. fear each other instead of the enemy.

Possible good news. Many of the British, Austrailian, and US forces are lined up for some pretty major tech upgrades. Battlefield perspective, identification, and communication are among the top concerns. All those are major factors in IFF technology as well as protocol. The training engines for the new tech is being addressed also. Much of the US military is starting to move toward Task Force oriented training as well as lining themselves up logistically to work in more modular, mobile units. New tech should help improve the IFF issues but may create new ones.

[hood]

Well, I think it's also a matter of all of the soldiers having the high tech stuff at the same time. A perfect example of this is the ultra high-tech 4th infantry where they have computer screens in the vehicles that show where the other elements are. The problem was that they were stuck off the coast while the technologically less advanced 3rd infantry ended up doing most of the fighting.

[martinexsquaddie]

Problem is tomorrows war is not likely to be high tech all armour
its likely to be tanding round in some 3rd world ****hole avioding aks and rpgs. A JSF with stealth lasers being **** all use.
Anyone think of any army except china or russia could fight against the US military conventially

[Royal]

Hood,

Maybe I'm a luddite (or just an old git), but I'm afraid that increasing technology is not the only answer. The IT systems in many modern AFV's (& ships) provide an increasingly large ammount of information constantly. It's up to the crew to filter that down at times of 'stress' - another source of stress - I've alluded to the problems that this is causing with our Apache Longbow training on other threads.

Yes, technology is a useful tool, but it is not the beall and endall. The classic gripe from infantry instructors here is with GPS. Many young soldiers buy them and use them for patrolling without learning the basics of map reading properly. They then discover that they can't always get resup of batteries for civvy kit - or worse still that an EMP or jammer can disrupt the signal. KISS.

[hood]

Well, what happened to the idea of transponders? Airplanes have them, why don't vehicles have them also? An f-16 is swooping in for a bomb run, and his targeting reticle starts flashing with a red X because it's getting a friendly transponder signal off the target. Doing it by visual confirmation alone is probably what caused the FF incidents.

[Argyll]

I thought that ,most of the Allied AFV's already had IFF Infra Red panels on them anyway?

[hood]

But that's still a visual thing in the pilot's scope right?

[WARPIG]

Compatability for one. Tech from today doesn't always work with yesterdays tech. (look at windows)
Also, the wholed kill box concept is behind the times. As intel changes and the battlefield moves that kill box should change too.
It doesn't.
Tech is only half the battle.. doctrine is the other.
Tech is easy to change but slow to implement on a large scale... harder between branches.. and excruciating across different countries.
Don't even get me started about doctrine.
BTW With having commercial companies develop new war technologies it makes it easier to share that with allied forces. For instance Fabrique-Nationale makes our m249, m240, and even the M2. That is also available to other militaries. It is a little more complicated with classified technology but certain companies like Boeing, Mcdonnald Dougglas, Alliant, Raytheon, etc have contracts that allow them to share certain tech with allied countries. Maybe not all of it but it is easier than getting USAF engineers to work with RAF engineers and come up with some crossover tech.

[Royal]

Well, what happened to the idea of transponders? Airplanes have them, why don't vehicles have them also? An f-16 is swooping in for a bomb run, and his targeting reticle starts flashing with a red X because it's getting a friendly transponder signal off the target. Doing it by visual confirmation alone is probably what caused the FF incidents.

We have been prommised IFF in AFV's for at least 6 years. Do date the MoD has done bugger all to impliment it (I'm sure it's the same with the DoD).

However, the IFF transponder carried by an RAF Tornado failed to prevent it being shot down by a US Patriot battery - the officer in charge manually overrid the system.

Yes, IFF would improve things, but I go back to my earlier points; it's partly a matter of perception that will take years to resolve and partly a matter of funding and training. IMHO the training aspect is the cheapest way of not only preventing fratricide, but also improving inter-agency and international confidence.

[marktigger]

before i changed to nursing i was an air defence gunner. we had to visually identify our targets before we engaged them. it ment long periods looking at slides of potential targets and you had to pass a test of 120 slides which you could could get 4 names wrong and 2 not recognised but you failed if you got any friendly/hostile wrong. Blowpipe was fitted with IFF but it was disconected as it was deemed to be unreliable as the codes couldn't be updated regularly enough. So we had to rely on visual recognition out to 5k. with Javelin it went up to 9k. the systems we used were daylight only. But good visual recognition skill were a matter of unit pride and there was rivalry between troops to be best. When the brigade we were in ran recogniion compition or mil skills compitions with a recognition element it was almost a grudge match between batteries with in our regiment, the armoured recce sqn and the inf anti tank platoon as to who won.
On the brigade compition i did as a nursing officer we astounded the brigade when the field hspital won the recognition element of the brigade military skills compition beating the favourites the armd recce sqn by a good margin.
IFF is fine when it works but it can be spoofed, broken or out of date it isn't very passive. but Visual recognition is passive and can be much more effectve. It relies on the mk 1 eyeball and what ever binos' cameras are at hand the only weak link is the knowledge of the operator.

[marktigger]

as royal has said technology is only an aid. I agree totally with his opiniom that it is no substitute for basic skills. Transponders are a 2 edged weapons because not only do they tell friendly forces where you are but as they are an active emittng system they also tell the enemey where you are as well. It isn't to difficult with modern DF kit to isolate an electronic emmision close enough to shell it.
One thing that did realy scare me when working with the US military was the whole GUNG HO attitude which we in the British HQ commented on regularly you really need to chill out a bit. British troops can be gung ho and aggressive when we need to be but on the whole we are not constantly pumping our selves up.
One of my mates was in afganistan with the Booties on patrol and he said that he was only really scared when 2 A10 began circling near them.
I know that the A10 crews get a bad name following a few incident and most of them are af res or guard. why cause the USAF wants very little to do with close air support. Maybe the regular USAF should take this role back over an let the 757 piolt from the ANG fly a 767 tanker i know its not sexy but as a reservist i know how difficult it is to maintain skills and keep up dated.

[martinexsquaddie]

It seems the US forces have pumped themselves up to Fight total war only to discover there is nobody left to fight against.
short of invading china nobody is going to give the US a problem on the battlefield. Whats going to give them problems is low intensetity warfare and attacking there support units with Rpgs and aks.
Where most of your hi tech weapon systems won't help niether will CAS
it comes down to personal skills and small unit tactics. Now how many support units train to do anti ambush drills and patrolling skills?

[Dave.mil]

IR recognition panels are only good out to a range far lower than the sighting systems of most AFV's. The problem is the reliance on a system that was never meant to be used the way it is. An AFV thermal sight might be able to see out to X km,s but to Identify the target it needs to be a lot closer. I'am not using any real ranges because if you dont know them you dont need to. As Royal pointed out it's OK getting all the realtime information it's filtering it that is the problem. During GW1 an incident occurred were a 7 brigade Air defence spartan was hit by a 4 brigade Challenger the 7 brigade Arty echelon was travelling south directly across the front of 4 brigade doing an advance to contact east. If brigades cant filter information what chance does a vehicle commander have.