In my opinion, any time allied forces with dissimilar equipment fight togther in a non-linear engagement, the possibility for mis-indentifying allies increases as compared to forces from one country fighting alone.
Therefore my opinion-based answer to your non-fact oriented IMHO/GD question is this. More Brits would die when fighting beside Allied troops than if the Brits fought alone, or stayed home and watched it all on CNN.
So what you all are saying is, there’s no problem and we shouldn’t try to implement any changes. I’m sorry, but even if that’s true - and according to my own military experience, I don’t really think it is - that’s a dangerous attitude to have. If even one soldier gets killed by his buddies a year then procedures have to be examined and revised.
What’s happening is that fewer soldiers are being killed by friendly fire, but each death gets more news coverage. If four guys get killed and have their entire life stories broadcast, that doesn’t mean the situation is worse than it was in WW2 when a platoon might get wiped out by a screwed-up artillery attack and get three paragraphs on page 14, assuming the story wasn’t suppressed entirely as contrary to the war effort.
That said, I’m strongly in favour of tighter controls and better planning, but accidents can never be completely prevented and they’re a poor reason not to pursue a much larger, important objective.
Gee, doesn’t sound like rider is abusing GQ to pimp some point of his.
“What’s happening is that fewer soldiers are being killed by friendly fire, but each death gets more news coverage.”
My earlier post with cite show that percentages are climbing. Fewer soldiers killed (if indeed this is true) just means that fewer are taking part in military actions.
What is your point? What factual answer are you looking for?
I’m asking if British citizens (or other nationalites for that matter) feel wary about their troops going into battle alongside an army with such a notable record (as evidenced by provided cites) of mistakenly killing their allies.
The number of responses to this post would suggest that my OP is not exactly rocket science.
No, as a Briton I am not wary. Friendly fire is part and parcel of war, and the more firepower you use the greater the casualties in any friendly fire tragedy. It’s not just Americans that do it; ask the Royal Marines killed in the Falklands by a patrol from their own unit.
(1) 100%. Both will be on the winning side.
(2) A better chance than if they were fighting against the USA. (in case I misunderstood your question)
Nope, not at all wary. We are allies, and the US is the strongest power in the world. I very much doubt they have a worse record on friendly fire than anyone else. Given the technology used in their weapons, I suspect the US has a better record than most.
There is probably a greater likelihood of friendly fire incidents when several countries fight together because of an increased probability of a communications screw-up. But again, I doubt the US is worse than average.
No, it shows you’re confusing percentages with absoute numbers, which is fine if you have an agenda since you can pick the one that better suits your argument.
Percentage values are only useful for comparisons if the overall numbers are about the same. Comparing the Gulf War’s “whopping” friendly-fire rate to that of WW2, Korea or Vietnam is pointless unless you also mention that the overall number of casuallties in the Gulf was less than 1% of Korea or Vietnam, and less than one tenth of one percent of the casualties of WW2.
If you take a sample of 100 people and observe that 10 are left-handed, you might conclude that 10% of the overall population is left-handed. But if you reduce your sample to one person, you’d end up concluding that either 100% or 0% of the overall population was left-handed. Your small sample size is more vulnerable to anomalies. This is Statistics 101, which I suggest you read up on.
Besides, the increasing sophistication of the American military means that deaths due to enemy action are greatly reduced because the American soldiers have access to better intelligence and thus can avoid enemy fire. Since accidents will always be part of the equation, the overall percentage of accidental casualties will rise, even as the overall number of casualties fall.
Here’s an answer to your opinion-based question:
Assume there are 22,000 Brits deployed in a war in the Middle East against Iraq. Estimates I have read indicate there would be about half of the troop strength needed as compared to Desert Storm, and 22,000 is about half of what the Brits deployed to Desert Storm.
Based on history (45,000 troops there, 9 killed in one incident) I’d give it a 1:5000 chance of any British soldier being killed by American forces back then. So with half the forces, I’d say half the chance. 1:10,000.
But there are also estimated to be half the US strength, to keeps the math easy.
With no increase in accuracy and intelligence, I’d say the would be a 1:20,000 chance, so one would expect to be killed. If we could just select that one before the action and dispose of him, we would not need to worry at all, would we?
But perhaps the Allied Forces have learned to respect “Kill Boxes” which are free fire zones. And we could save that one man.
Forgive my erriors in statistics, but I’d guage these numbers more accurate than what Rider would come up with.
You’re being intentionally ignorant. We don’t appreciate that around here.
What you’re saying is that if 5000 Brits would’ve died to Iraqi fire instead of 15, it would’ve been safer to fight alongside US forces, because the fratricide percentage as a percentage of casualties as a whole goes down.
And that, of course, makes no sense - as has been explained to you several times already.
“You’re being intentionally ignorant. We don’t appreciate that around here.”
Please…you sound like a small-town sheriff.
Thanks to the two people who answered my question. And to everyone else who got on their defensive high horses…maybe we can return to this subject when the latest numbers start rolling in next February or whenever the new war begins.
I didn’t mean to say it in a threatning way, if that’s what you’re implying. On a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, being intentionally ignorant isn’t going to win you any friends, and that’s precisely what you were doing.
You were told why your argument was completely flawed and just ignored that and kept reasking your question because you have an agenda to push. That sort of stuff doesn’t fly around here.
And I wasn’t “getting defensive” about anything - I have no vested interest in the idea that the US army has high or low fratricide - I was just pointing out the illogical nature of your argument.
Please return to the subject in the appropriate forum next time. Things like
and
do not belong in GQ.
“You were told why your argument was completely flawed and just ignored that and kept reasking your question because you have an agenda to push.”
I kept reasking it because people kept on requesting me to state my question more clearly, not because I have any agenda. I find it an interesting topic, that’s all.
UncleBill…You can tell me where my posts belong when you’re a moderator, ok?
I asked.
Saying that my posts “do not belong in GQ.” is telling me something, not asking.
I can tell you what the forums home page says:
Bolding mine.