-
'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Oh dear another 'blue on blue'. Very sad.
Quote:
The friendly-fire deaths in Helmand have reopened a schism between American and British troops over how to fight the Taleban in Afghanistan.
Although publicly British commanders insist the Americans are still a vital ally in the fight against insurgents, privately British soldiers expressed concern and anger at their "gung-ho" approach.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2323959.ece
So, our American buddies, does the US military shoot first and ask questions later? There does seem to a lot of friendly fire' incidents from them. I havn't got any figures for UK forces doing a 'blue on blue', but there doesn't seem to be the same frequency from them.
Any thoughts?
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Oh dear another 'blue on blue'. Very sad.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2323959.ece
So, our American buddies, does the US military shoot first and ask questions later? There does seem to a lot of friendly fire' incidents from them. I havn't got any figures for UK forces doing a 'blue on blue', but there doesn't seem to be the same frequency from them.
Any thoughts?
My first thought is to answer your question as a hesitant yes. Hesitant in the sense that warzones dont lend to analysis of who is shooting at you and where from.
The recent UK deaths as I saw on the news here in the U.S. it was UK forces that called in U.S. air support and something got mucked up in the coordinants (again thats how the latest incident was reported here...).
The % differences in force deployments naturally would have the U.S. involved in more incidents, but IMHO if were going to do this multi national thing we ought to let the Brits handle a sector on thier own and be done with it.
But yes, I think they shoot first in some cases but if we look at the % of men in the theatre and the conditions its hardly startling, on the contrary Im surprised there arent more friendly fire deaths.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
As I understand it the majoriety of troops in Helmand at the moment are British. I remember stories of Landrovers being shot ot oin Basra by Americans, a complete lack of recognition training for American trrops with regard to Allied equipment.
The bottom line is that the US isn't geared towards being a team player.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
After spending a month with the royal marines, I'll be very surprised if the americans are any worse...
Though, the royal marines were kept in check by terminatorish british MP's....
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Sometimes, like when people are shooting at you or Iranians are approaching, it's better to shoot first.
CR
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Sometimes, like when people are shooting at you or Iranians are approaching, it's better to shoot first.
That's not a very good idea if allies are standing in front of you, now is it?
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Did I say everytime? Or did I say sometimes?
Sheesh.
CR
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Its an unfortunate thing that friendly fire occurs, and isn't just Americans killing allies, more often than not its Americans killing Americans. Some guy gets jumpy and starts firing on some guy in the distance carrying a Weapon, and then the rest get all jumpy... :furious3:
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Sometimes, like when people are shooting at you [...] it's better to shoot first.
CR
So how can you shoot first when the other one is already shooting at you?:inquisitive: ~;)
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Did I say everytime? Or did I say sometimes?
Well, this thread is about friendly fire, if you wasn't thinking of such cases, what did your statement add to the thread?
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
Its an unfortunate thing that friendly fire occurs, and isn't just Americans killing allies, more often than not its Americans killing Americans. Some guy gets jumpy and starts firing on some guy in the distance carrying a Weapon, and then the rest get all jumpy... :furious3:
That's my reading of it as well. It's all well and good us sat here on our swivel chairs posting on a games forum, however something is badly amiss here.
Training? Tactics? Logistics? Language?
IIRC more UK troops were killed by 'coalition' (aka USA) that by Saddam.
Surely more can be done?
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
I would say better liaison, much better communciation, better target recognition training, more work on map reading. For both the US and the UK.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
That's my reading of it as well. It's all well and good us sat here on our swivel chairs posting on a games forum, however something is badly amiss here.
Training? Tactics? Logistics? Language?
IIRC more UK troops were killed by 'coalition' (aka USA) that by Saddam.
Surely more can be done?
About four times as many IRRC. Slypsy has the right of it, it all comes down to training.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
That's my reading of it as well. It's all well and good us sat here on our swivel chairs posting on a games forum, however something is badly amiss here.
Training? Tactics? Logistics? Language?
IIRC more UK troops were killed by 'coalition' (aka USA) that by Saddam.
Surely more can be done?
Yes more can be done, domestically this must be fueling more talk of withdrawl from the theatre overall (iraq and afghanistan).
Thats what can be done, its the best overall solution for all involved on many levels. Untill that happens, logistics seems the best way forward as communication is key.
There is no doubt in my mind that the men and women on the ground over there, no matter thier coalition country are highly trained, they have just been over there to long in a half assed manner.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Communication is key... but more than that its having the discipline to actually Identify Your Target before firing. Its all well and good to say that had we known you guys were going to be in the sector we wouldn't have fired, but what happens when those soldiers come under heavy fire or decide to reroute around a target and some Jack Hole in the Distance immediately thinks 'Taliban!' I think some Sergeants and Officers need a lesson in using a Handy Tool that most soldiers come with: A Binocular...
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Well, this thread is about friendly fire, if you wasn't thinking of such cases, what did your statement add to the thread?
Oh, gee, I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about shooting first and asking questions later. You know, like the title of the bloomin thread said!
:inquisitive:
CR
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Blue on Blue = Leadership failure.
Every time.
Whether it's rocks, sticks, bayonets, M16's, mortars, artillery, aerial bombing, whatever.
Some leader, somewhere, screwed up. Wrong map coordinates are the usual suspects, whether transmitted or received, or re-transmitted.
I offer my deepest condolences, however miserably inadequate, to the families and countrymen of the dead soldiers.
That this regretable accident was unintentional goes without saying. Nevertheless, we all recognize that such accidents are preventable.
Scant solace that it is, I promise that the screw-up, whoever he is, will lose not only his career, but also his freedom. We can do no less. :bow:
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Scant solace that it is, I promise that the screw-up, whoever he is, will lose not only his career, but also his freedom. We can do no less. :bow:
I fear you are too optimistic, old buddy. It is not your honour code that informs your government.
So far, the US government has been unwilling to co-operate with UK inquiries, contributing almost no relevant evidence and rarely allowing the servicemen involved to be questioned. Information is not offered to a valued partner, but hidden as if from the enemy.
This position has been defended by the usual "national security" argument and the claim that the US has already conducted an inquiry of its own. And no, you don't need to see the report, everything is fine, trust us.
The servicemen involved have invariably been found to have been promoted or otherwise left untouched. This may well reflect on your other point, that the leadership is more culpable, but there is no evidence that anyone has been addressed at any other level either.
Since the British forces never get to know what actually happened, never see anyone punished/reprimanded, never see any signs that anyone has learned any lessons even, then you can understand why each time this happens again, the reaction tends to be angry.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The bottom line is that the US isn't geared towards being a team player.
QFT.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
I'm seeing the current (UK and Dutch) coverage as being very one-sided. Sure, I'll accept that the US military has been less than forthcoming over other incidents and I don't think that's any way to treat an ally, but in this particular case too little is known about even the basic situation to jump to conclusions; it's not even certain on which side the fault lies. Did the bombers attack the wrong place due a mistake on their part, or did groundtroops send in the wrong coordinates? I haven't seen anything on this yet, but a lot of rushed conclusions.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Its not my job but...
If American soldiers first shot and then think then maybe Brits should do same.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
If you really want to do it on your own don't ask your allies for support. And what Geofry_S says.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
I'm seeing the current (UK and Dutch) coverage as being very one-sided. Sure, I'll accept that the US military has been less than forthcoming over other incidents and I don't think that's any way to treat an ally, but in this particular case too little is known about even the basic situation to jump to conclusions; it's not even certain on which side the fault lies. Did the bombers attack the wrong place due a mistake on their part, or did groundtroops send in the wrong coordinates? I haven't seen anything on this yet, but a lot of rushed conclusions.
You have a point but the reaction is a result of past incidents, American demeanor and coverups/non-co-operation.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
So essentially speculation based on previous occurances, but no hard facts yet.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Scant solace that it is, I promise that the screw-up, whoever he is, will lose not only his career, but also his freedom. We can do no less. :bow:
Give him a medal and a government position.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
So essentially speculation based on previous occurances, but no hard facts yet.
Conclusions based on past experience, which has remained pretty constant for about 50 years.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
“They have a different approach to us, if we get in an ambush we pull back and assess the situation," said another. "They try and shoot their way through it and kill as many people as possible.”
Different situations call for different tactics, if the ambush was in a crowded street you'll definetly have to think twice before spaying into which ever direction, but I doubt "if we get in an ambush we pull back and assess the situation" all British soldiers are commando like troops and cannot be fazed by AK-47's...
Like veterans of all wars says (more or less to this): If your not scared your a damn liar.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
While this may be true, its a woeful failure on the Part of US Military Instructors (specifically Drill Sergeants), Every Soldier on the battlefield will be scared, but there are Drills and Methodical Training that can be used to an advantage, if you aren't afraid you'll probably die, if you're too afraid you'll panic, which can result in either pissing yourself, running, or killing someone on accident. Its finding the Middle Ground.
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
Not much of a surprise there, then. Not really the way to treat allies, is it?
-
Re: 'They fire first and think later,' say British soldiers
You might have thought that it would be the least they could do, would be to allow the family some closure on their childrens deaths, by revealing the facts.
If you don't inquire into mistakes and rectify them, they are sure to be repeated.
As is the case too often.
A bad reaction from an ally, a despicable one from a friend. :thumbsdown:
