#164746 - Sat Mar 22 2003 10:01 PM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Star Poster
Registered: Wed Mar 15 2000
Posts: 15286
Loc: The Delta Quadrant
|
Now hearing that a US soldier tossed a grenade towards his comrades and injured at least 13. That soldier is currently being detained.
Update: 1 is dead, about 16 wounded. The soldier threw 3 grenades, 1 each into 3 different tents. Then 2 soldiers were shot.
Edited by ladymacb29 (Sat Mar 22 2003 10:55 PM)
_________________________
"Without the darkness, how would we see the light?" ~ Tuvok
Editor for Television Category
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164748 - Sat Mar 22 2003 11:42 PM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Star Poster
Registered: Thu Oct 07 1999
Posts: 10256
Loc: New York USA
|
CAMP NEW JERSEY, Kuwait, Sunday, March 23 — In an apparent fratricide attack, one soldier was killed and 13 others were injured early this morning when grenades were thrown and shots were fired into a tent used by leaders of a brigade from the 101st Airborne Division, military officials said.
"An American soldier is in custody," Maj. Trey Cate, a spokesman for the division.
Major Cate did not identify the detained soldier or suggest a motive, but military sources described him as a sergeant attached to an engineering unit, an American citizen, and a Muslim convert. He was found in a scud bunker when senior officers took a head count after the attack. http://nytimes.com
------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
Military criminal investigators said the suspect was recently reprimanded for insubordination and was told he would stay behind when his unit left camp for Iraq, according to Time magazine correspondent Jim Lacey, who is accompanying the unit.
Lacey said he was told by a military commander that the soldier lobbed three grenades into the operations center and yelled, "You're under attack!" A major told Lacey he saw a grenade roll by him before an explosion.
Lacey, who was in a tent about 20 yards from the blast, helped move two of the wounded to an ambulance. "The carnage inside those tents was pretty severe," he said.
Lacey said a "full company" of soldiers was guarding the camp's perimeter before the blast, but there had been traffic in and out, including "trucks, buses, and contractors. It's not a foolproof system."
About 2,100 soldiers are encamped at the post. Lacey said soldiers were assembled and deployed around the compound after the blast. http://cnn.com
---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
Horrible.
Edited by sue943 (Mon Mar 24 2003 11:40 AM)
_________________________
Still Crazy After All These Years
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164749 - Sun Mar 23 2003 12:02 AM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Enthusiast
Registered: Tue Mar 18 2003
Posts: 309
Loc: Minnesota / Iowa USA
|
What did the soldier hope to accomplish by tossing a grenade among his own company? Everyone has to have a motive, but I can't see any for this guy. It's terrible when our soldiers have to fear internal attacks as well as enemy fire.
_________________________
Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164751 - Sun Mar 23 2003 05:54 AM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Mainstay
Registered: Fri Aug 30 2002
Posts: 524
Loc: Kent, England
|
So it appears that a British plane has been shot down by an American missile. Watching the reports on television, I was horrified to learn that during the last Gulf war, more British servicemen were killed by 'friendly fire' than by the enemy!
Any casualties are always a sad thing but inevitable in war, but if you can't rely on your allies..........
_________________________
It's only the sane people who are willing to admit they're crazy-Nora Ephron
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164753 - Sun Mar 23 2003 06:24 AM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Prolific
Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
|
American press apparently hasn't run with this yet, but the Ozzies just have. See link.Of course, we all know that in war, truth is the first casualty. Let's see what develops. As of about 7:15 a.m. EST, no second-source confirmation of this.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164756 - Sun Mar 23 2003 10:48 AM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Prolific
Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164758 - Sun Mar 23 2003 09:49 PM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Prolific
Registered: Wed Oct 10 2001
Posts: 1127
Loc: Louisiana USA
|
What's to explain away? War is a dirty business and people get killed. When you're dealing with the chaos and split second decision-making that is a part of war, accidents happen. Surely, no one here thinks that American troops are purposely shooting down British planes. Please tell me you don't think that!!! American's are killing French soldiers with depleted uranium, American's are purposely shooting down British planes, American's can't be relied on not to kill their allies,.....Apparently, on FunTrivia there is nothing that America can't be blamed for. For every unfortunate incident of friendly fire there is a soldier that must live with the thought of what he has done. Sometimes he will face disciplinary actions if his conduct was negligent. Friendly fire casualties are nothing new. It is a tragic thing but it is a part of combat.
_________________________
In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. - FDR
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164759 - Mon Mar 24 2003 03:15 AM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Enthusiast
Registered: Sat May 19 2001
Posts: 241
Loc: UK
|
Unless I'm reading a different thread to you, no one has suggested that the Americans are shooting down British planes on purpose.
But everyone's entitled to express shock and horror at these accidents; the Iraqi airforce hasn't flown a single sortie yet in this war. Every single plane in this war has been an allied plane. So maybe people are entitled to be surprised that someone's been trigger-happy enough to knock one out of the air.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164760 - Mon Mar 24 2003 03:44 AM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Prolific
Registered: Wed Oct 10 2001
Posts: 1127
Loc: Louisiana USA
|
Quote:
Unless I'm reading a different thread to you, no one has suggested that the Americans are shooting down British planes on purpose.
Well, apparently you are....
Quote:
the shootingg down of a British plane by an American missile - that is friendly fire (at least I hope it was an accident)
and how about this gem...
Quote:
the majority of the French soldiers that died in that military action were actually affected by the radiation from the uranium enriched weapons used by the States.I wonder if this could be classed as a war crime?
Maybe the British are deliberately flying into American patriot missiles. This board use to be a place of intelligent discussions but it has deteriorated into who can make the most outrageous assertion of American criminality. I don't even know how to respond to the crap that appears on this site any longer.
_________________________
In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. - FDR
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164761 - Mon Mar 24 2003 08:01 AM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Star Poster
Registered: Thu Oct 07 1999
Posts: 10256
Loc: New York USA
|
Apparently the patriot missile sends out a signal message to a plane (any plane it picks up) which must be responded to. That's how it distinguishes friend from foe. The British aircraft, for whatever reason, apparently did not respond.
There is no question but that this was a tragic accident. To suggest anything else is absurd.
_________________________
Still Crazy After All These Years
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164762 - Mon Mar 24 2003 08:28 AM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Enthusiast
Registered: Sat May 19 2001
Posts: 241
Loc: UK
|
More information about the technology designed to prevent this sort of 'accident' happening ... Quote:
Many people will ask how an RAF Tornado could be downed by an American Patriot Missile System given the technology used by both of these weapons systems.
What could have gone wrong?
Returning from its mission, the Tornado should have been following assigned routing. This is designed to allow safe passage to friendly aircraft.
It would have been sending out electronic signals from its Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) equipment to show it as a friendly aircraft on coalition radar.
Once in friendly airspace, it would also have adopted a non-hostile flight profile, slow speed with lights on. A profile that no Iraqi Mig pilot would adopt if he managed to reach coalition territory.
The missile system would have been at the highest alert state ready to intercept Iraqi surface-to-surface missiles, potentially carrying chemical or biological agents.
It would have its own block of sky assigned to it, a Weapons Free Zone' (WFZ) that the Tornado crew would have known the whereabouts of.
The Patriot operator is at liberty to engage any target that enters his WFZ. It is possible that this could happen automatically. This is understandable if you consider the crew have only a very few seconds in which to decide and shoot at a Scud Missile before it lands.
Potential failings
It is hard to imagine that the two crew Tornado would have simply wandered unknowingly into the Patriot's WFZ and been shot.
The crews are too experienced and capable and their navigational equipment too sophisticated.
There are many other coalition systems that monitor the air picture to guard against such simple errors (like the Awacs Airborne Early Warning aircraft). The Awacs would be in radio contact with all aircraft and able to provide radio instructions if one of them began to head towards a friendly WFZ.
It is possible that the Tornado crew had experienced some sort of serious electrical failure with maybe an onboard fire.
It could well have lost its communications, navigational and IFF equipment as a result. They may then have been forced to head directly back to base with their aircraft in flames, off the normal routing and into the Patriot WFZ.
They would now be busy and possibly not aware of their exact position, but would be expected to adopt a non-hostile 'lame duck' posture, slow speed etc, if they were going to enter the WFZ.
The Patriot operator would have seen the aircraft entering its warning area. He would have prepared to engage whilst checking that the potential target was hostile.
But given that we have not heard of a single Iraqi aircraft launch, it is reasonable to assume that the Patriot operator could take time to verify the nature and identification of any aircraft on his scope.
Ongoing risk assessment would more than likely reveal that there is more chance of a friendly aircraft wandering into a WFZ than there is of a hostile Iraqi Mig.
Even at high speed, the flight profiles and signal returns from an aircraft and missile would look very different on radar.
The operator should have had time to make further checks on the aircraft's identity, even contacting other agencies like the Awacs.
If the Tornado had looked like an Iraqi aircraft threat, the Patriot operators should have expected advanced warning that such a threat had been seen launching and was heading his way. This was clearly not the case.
Full article here
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164763 - Mon Mar 24 2003 11:05 AM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Prolific
Registered: Wed Oct 10 2001
Posts: 1127
Loc: Louisiana USA
|
Thanks for the article hegley. There is a big difference between personnel error, or even personnel negligence, and intention to shoot down the aircraft. I'm out.
_________________________
In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. - FDR
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164764 - Mon Mar 24 2003 11:50 AM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Administrator
Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 34639
Loc: Jersey Channel Islands
|
When I originally typed the comment about hoping that it was an accident it was tongue in cheek. However, in light of the subsequent information that it happened just after that American soldier threw grenades into the tents of his senior officers and was from the same camp perhaps it might not have been so far fetched after all, but no, I was not suggesting that the Americans deliberately shot at the British aircraft.
Two aircraft were returning together in formation, one took evasive action and reported that a missile almost got him, it hit the other one. We shall have to wait for the results of the enquiry to find out what actually happened.
The point of my post was to say that I felt the term 'friendly fire' ought not be applied to the deliberate act of that soldier, only to accidents, nothing more than that.
Oh, for those who didn't see the same footage of the aircraft being hit and the troops in the camp who were in a state of alert due to the grenades, there was an urgent call of 'Hold it!' just after the hit, in other words possibly 'don't hit the button again' - you could hear the helicopters in the background.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#164767 - Wed Mar 26 2003 06:02 PM
Re: Intentional Friendly Fire?
|
Prolific
Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index