|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friendly fire article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 100 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
I've separated the two incidents mentioned for Operation Cobra. Each one was serious enough to be mentioned separately, I think; but more than that, they represent two different types of incident. The first seems to be a typical "fog of war" incident; the flyers couldn't control the weather, and those that bombed and missed were completing their missions, while the ones who didn't could (conceivably) been in trouble when they got back. OTOH the second, ignoring a well-founded request to change practice in order to avoid the very thing that eventually happened, smacks of reckless endangerment. In fact I'm wondering if this is a fundamental distinction in friendly fire incidents; is it because "shit happens", or because "someone screwed up"? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's too much grey area to make this distinction in a lot of cases. Shit happens because people screw up in war. Mdw0 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Friendly Fire between U.S. and Pakistan
You may add Friendly fire between ISAF and Pakistan on November 26th 2011. ISAF forces opened fire on Pakistani forces killing 24 pakistani soldiers and causing a great diplomatic standoff between U.S.and Pakistan. ISAF forces argue they were there to hunt down militants at the AF-PAK border. Pakistan has stopped transit of goods through its territory to ISAF in Afghanistan because of the Incident. U.S. has to apologise to resume the transit route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Another term for such incidents is fratricide, a word that originally refers to the act of a person killing their brother.
- It should also be noted that the article for fratricide links here when it says, under the heading "Military terminology:"
- Fratricide may also be used to refer to friendly fire incidents. It also refers to the possible destruction of one MIRV warhead by another. Targets may be arranged deliberately to increase the likelihood in a strategy called dense pack.
- But there are no references. I did a Ctrl+F for "fratricide" on this article and found that two of the references here include "fratricide" in their titles, so perhaps you are mistaken? I could not access the online reference for some reason, and the other I couldn't be arsed to look up at the library, so I have no evidence as to particular usage of the word in those works, but judging from the usage of these references in the article, fratricide is indeed used academically to refer to friendly fire.220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Battle of Algeciras Bay
- In the confusion one French ship was captured, a Spanish frigate sank and two huge 112-gun Spanish first rates collided and exploded, killing as many as 1,700 men.
- At 23:20, Keats discovered the Real Carlos and pulled alongside, firing three broadsides into the Spanish ship that started a severe fire. Superb then pushed on towards Saint Antoine while Real Carlos drifted in darkness and confusion, encountering San Hermengildo, the Spanish ships mistaking one another for an enemy and opening fire. Real Carlos then drifted into San Hermengildo, the huge ships tangling together and the fire spreading from one to another until both were blazing wrecks in the darkness. They both exploded at 00:15 on 13 July, killing more than 1,700 men.
These both from the Algeciras Campaign page. The form of the story on the present page is somewhat different from either of the previous two.
Presumably, the most detailed version, in which the Superb fires only on the Real Carlos, is the most accurate.
Extensive Copy-Editing Necessary
I have noticed much wordiness and poor construction and below posted my proposed edits:
- ==Addressing friendly fire==
- Friendly fire often is believed inevitable, and in total casualties, negligible. Its effects are not just material. Being hit by friendlies demoralizes troops and causes them to doubt their command's competence, and friendly fire's prevalence makes commanders more cautious in the field.
- Military leaders' attempts to reduce this effect generally involve identifying its causes and preventing incidents' repetition through training, tactics, and technology.
- Friendly fire arises from the "fog of war" – the confusion inherent in warfare. Friendly fire due to apparent recklessness or incompetence may be improperly lumped into this category. The concept of a fog of war has come under considerable criticism because it can excuse poor planning, weak or compromised intelligence, and incompetent command.
- Errors of position occur when fire aimed at enemy forces may accidentally end up hitting one's own. These incidents are exacerbated by close proximity of combatants and were relatively common during the First and Second World Wars, wherein troops fought in close combat and targeting was relatively inaccurate; improved targeting has diminished this phenomenon.
- Errors of identification happen when friendly troops are mistakenly for enemies and therefore attacked. Highly mobile battles and battles involving troops from many nations more often cause this kind of incident as evidenced by incidents in the 1991 Gulf War, or the shooting down of a British aircraft by a U.S. Patriot battery during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In the Tarnak Farm incident, four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight others injured when a U.S. Air National Guard Major dropped a 500 lb (230 kg) bomb from his F-16 onto the Princess PYatricia's Canadian Light Infantry regiment which was conducting a night firing exercise near Kandahar. A nother case of such an accident was the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, although the exact circumstances of that incident are yet to be definitively determined.
- I have no problem with editing back this section, but avoid using 'believed' when presenting a viewpoint. Even if you could get a reference indicating someone's belief, it is irrelevant. You could probably kill some of the examples too. But some of this has been edited back so much the meaning of the sentence is lost. The fact that friendly fire is seen as inevitable and minor is the reason why it has been ignored for so long. That cause and effect flow is lost in this edit. Also, I think its necessary to clearly distinguish the difference in morale between being hit and being hit by friendlies, because that difference is the whole point of the sentence.
- Also, semi colons shouldn't be used when full stops are required. 'Improved targetting...' is a new sentence. Saying that troops from different countries is the cause of errors is wrong. That's blaming the victim. It may exacerbate the problem of the fog of war, but the cause is poor thinking, training and fire discipline. This edit also has fog of war as the only cause, which isn't correct. The other factors are hidden in that messy last paragraph in the Causes section. There is some good information there that just needs to be reworked and included at the top of the Causes section. Otherwise this edit is fine. Do you consider the Solutions section sufficiently succinct or are you proposing total deletion? Mdw0 (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Office of Technology Assessment,. Who goes there : friend or foe?. Diane Publishing. Retrieved 4 January 2011.[page needed]
- Kirke, Charles M. (ed., 2012) Fratricide in Battle: (Un)Friendly Fire Continuum Books
- Cite error: The named reference
Reganwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- The Economist Closing in on Baghdad 25 March 2003
- Friscolanti, Michael. (2005). Friendly Fire: The Untold Story of the U.S. Bombing that Killed Four Canadian Soldirs in Afghanistan. pp. 420–421
- CBC News Online (6 July 2004). "U.S. Air Force Verdict."
- "U.S. military probes soldier's death". Cnn.com. 1 July 2006. Retrieved 4 January 2011.