Friendly Fire

[Mekong]

Just read an article about the Inquest in UK this week about a "Friendly Fire" Incident in Iraq.

 

A Lengthy read so here a a few points

 

Three days before his 26th birthday, Hull was dead. For his courage Finney was awarded the George Cross - its youngest military recipient. He could not be awarded the Victoria Cross, as it is given only for bravery in the face of the enemy. The US pilots were friends.

 

With friends like that who needs enemies

 

Certainly the army expected such deaths during the Iraq invasion, having lost 22 men to friendly fire in the first Gulf conflict. In fact Hull died at a time when the gallows humour doing the rounds was that men were more likely to be killed by Americans than Saddam's forces. At the time of the 25-year-old's death, five British servicemen had been killed by friendly fire, one more than the Iraqis had managed.

 

A glance at the service's internet message boards yesterday confirmed as much; the perceived gung-ho mentality of US soldiers, once again, the recurring theme. One said: 'I have met a former US pilot, and he would never have made the rank of private in the TA here. I wouldn't have trusted him to drive a bus.' Another said: 'The American military have the best technology and worst personnel. The British military have the worst technology but best personnel. The Americans have one mentality - if it moves, shoot it.'

 

Full Article

[Neo]

The dirty secret of war is the amount of friendly fire casualties. It doesn't matter what country you are. In WWII estimates are 1 in 6 americans casualties were due to friendly fire. Imagine that, 1 in 6 who didn't come back were shot up by their own--it is a huge number and likely conservative. As warfare moves further and further from seeing your enemy it gets increasingly risky even though there are technological improvements. In the gulf war it was about 1 in 4.

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

[color:red]"Rumours swirl around the vast British army bases in Iraq and Afghanistan that US pilots take amphetamine pills to heighten their attacking prowess"[/color]

 

aahhhhh, the nazis used to do the same thing.

[Julian2]

It's not a natural thing to kill ourselves in large numbers. A lot of our instincts like shouting, pushing, turning red in the face are designed to settle conflicts without violence.

Dealing out sudden death is something that has to be taught, those that do it naturally are as "different" from the norm as pedophiles; something's missing in their makeup.

Unfortunately the teaching process isn't always successful so a little chemical assistance is often required. The rum issue in the British army in Wellington's time was specifically for this purpose. Several usually reliable sources have told me that ecstasy was developed to be given to pilots in Vietnam. A drug, apparently, that eliminates fear and inhibitions.

[Julian2]

* Quote:

 

"A glance at the service's internet message boards yesterday confirmed as much; the perceived gung-ho mentality of US soldiers, once again, the recurring theme. One said: 'I have met a former US pilot, and he would never have made the rank of private in the TA here. I wouldn't have trusted him to drive a bus.' Another said: 'The American military have the best technology and worst personnel. The British military have the worst technology but best personnel. The Americans have one mentality - if it moves, shoot it.'"

WEB Griffin the American military historian and author often says in his books that IQ has nothing to do with the ability to fly planes, which probably explains why Dubbya could do it.

Apparently everyone entering the US military sits a test and pilots are selected purely on their potential ability to fly, with nothing else taken into consideration.

[Old Hippie]

* Quote:

 

The Americans have one mentality - if it moves, shoot it.'"

[/b]

WEB Griffin the American military historian and author often says in his books that IQ has nothing to do with the ability to fly planes, which probably explains why Dubbya could do it.

Apparently everyone entering the US military sits a test and pilots are selected purely on their potential ability to fly, with nothing else taken into consideration.

 

 

Hmmm...ever been in combat? "...if it moves, shoot it..." is basically the rule, as it may be comming to shoot you. Stop, waiting to assertain threat level and ID intent/personnel etc...are all fine and dandy in the safe world, in war it is a different story. Personnel on the ground are given pass words etc with which to ID each other...

 

From the air all bets are off. I seriously doubt it was the fault of "doped up pilots" as much as it is just a war time fuck up. Sad, but a reality of the situation.

 

As for the difficulty of flying...not hard at all, very easy in fact. The trick comes when you have to pull multi G manuevers, while being shot at/fighting for your life in a "dog fight" etc, and still trying consider fuel burn and what not needed to compleate the mission and get home... it takes a certain type of person, similar to being a Navy Seal or SAS etc.

 

Your average idiot cannot pull this off. I conceed however, GWB is NOT "the average idiot..."

 

[Old Hippie]

It's not a natural thing to kill ourselves in large numbers. A lot of our instincts like shouting, pushing, turning red in the face are designed to settle conflicts without violence.

Dealing out sudden death is something that has to be taught, those that do it naturally are as "different" from the norm as pedophiles; something's missing in their makeup.

Unfortunately the teaching process isn't always successful so a little chemical assistance is often required. The rum issue in the British army in Wellington's time was specifically for this purpose. Several usually reliable sources have told me that ecstasy was developed to be given to pilots in Vietnam. A drug, apparently, that eliminates fear and inhibitions.

 

 

I would argue that violence and killing are basic instincts when driven to that point. People do snap with absolutely no training at all. The ratioanal ones would feel remorse after the fact for their actions, but are still capable of extreme violence. Think of how angry you have become in the worst case...think of what it could take to get you to kill...you have that point, we all do.

 

As for chemicals being needed...no, not at all. Just hype people up (helps if they aren't that smart to begin with) and fill their heads full of crap about what they are doing, and you can get the same result.

 

Things like Meth anphetimine were used by the Nazis and most likely something similar issued to US troops through out history to prolong stamina, and keep you moving. Meth and other such drugs make people very hard to control...it makes them psychotic, so I seriously doubt they would issue it to troops now adays, especially to pilots. Makes the troops to hard to control. No doubt pilots may take some sort of "pick up" just not sure what.

 

I was never "issued" any such substance, and no one I know was...I HAVE heard something was issued to certain units for certain missions in Vietnam...but don't really know 1st hand.

[Flashermac]

When I came home from Vietnam, I counted up how many American deaths from "friendly fire" I knew of. Came to over 50, as I recall. Mostly it was the artillery firing on movement in the jungle cover. In one incident the gunners took out almost an entire infantry platoon returning from a patrol.

 

I've been under "friendly fire" myself ... and there is nothing friendly about it! It was the effing USAF firing in an area with both friendlies and bad guys. The zoomies simply shot at anything that moved -- including us.

 

p.s. We never were issued anything in Vietnam. We even had to pay for our own warm crappy Carling's Black Label beer!

 

[Julian2]

Perhaps I should have said dealing out sudden death on a day to day basis OH.

You should read WEB Griffin, cent sends me his books occasionally, fascinating insight into the military mind set in very readable fiction.

[Old Hippie]

I've heard of him, and will pick up something by him...any particular ones you like? or would recommend over say another? How does he compare to Tom Clancy, who I like. I have insights into the military as well...none of them good