Friendly fire

Discussion in 'General' started by RemeDesertRat, Mar 24, 2011.

  1. SuperMarioBros.

    SuperMarioBros. Discharged

    An article that it would appear you largely rewrote, and then attempted to alter again under a different username, after being kicked off Wikipedia.

    Care to explain the obsession with Friendly Fire, and perhaps why you seem so intent on spreading confusion about an otherwise serious/interesting subject?

    ~A

    I have never edited or touch anything on Wikipedia at all. I was trying to bring up a good points in a friendly discussion. Jesus i never except this to turn up into a serious argument. I never edited Wikipedia or anything at all. Yes i think i may notice that wikipedia has been going through many changes but they are some citations links that can prove it. Because i was trying to learn something about friendly fire, tactics. Jesus i never expect this to turn up into a serious argument. Otherwise point out my wrongs so i can never do it again.
     
  2. SuperMarioBros.

    SuperMarioBros. Discharged

    Which post is this a source for?
    Is it meant to be proof of something you had written previously or is it to show in general that friendly fire happened in Viet Nam.

    This is a WW2 site.

    Secondly the photo in the link provided by you is so out of place it shows two 7RAR soldiers who were in Viet Nam between April 1967 to March 1968, so these two men were not in country when Operation Marauder was undertaken. This makes me very wary of any other information in that article, as they have placed wrong photos with captions saying they were 7RAR when the only Army Combatants in Viet Nam were 1RAR, the Prince of Wales Light Horse and 105 Arty Bty.

    The details of the 1965 Aussie deployment were written almost right next to it, this makes me think what else are they screwing up on this link.

    You really should place your sources in the post you are writing on.

    The link that you posted shows that their were three friendly fire incidents during that operation none were by Australians.

    As for Arty drop shorts that is unfortunately a occurrence that can happen. It is not the Gunners or their CO's fault, it usually is the Arty round in this case due to 'damp powder' (?)
    As opposed to air craft firing or Infantry firing at the wrong target.
    Down here in Australia the Arty is jokingly and affectionaly refered toas Drop Shorts.

    I am still waiting for your source on the Australian digger who called in a Arty strike to the wrong coordinates. When, where and what units were involved?

    I am not saying it did not happen. I just want to see your sources for the incident as well as other appropriate sources to your other posts, as blabbing of at the mouth about incidents with out sources quoted is not a good way to learn or show the truth.

    Also what books are you talking about, the two at the bottom of that article.
    Maybe you should post the Titles, ISBN number, Author and so on of any book that you feel is a source for any of your posts and post the book information in the actual post it is intended for, not at the bottom of a link that is not that releveant on a WW2 site.

    Regards
    Cobber
    .
    Link or book citations links can be proof. You told me to provide some proof so i did. You're right. The Australian officer never gave the wrong coordinates to a new Zealand . I thought i see it somewhere but thanks for correcting me.
     
  3. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    I have never edited or touch anything on Wikipedia at all. ... I never edited Wikipedia or anything at all.
    So. Somebody with the same IP and other correlations was "Continuing to add the same erroneous information on multiple articles" & "continue[d] to edit disruptively" (as Wiki Puts it) ?
    How queer, someone must be creeping in and using your pooter to edit their friendly fire article and other Military history pages...

    I'm not going to link to the Wiki discussion pages at the mo, and would ask that nobody else does either, but just 'cos Wiki doesn't want you doesn't mean we have to put up with the similar attempts to add unsubstantiated 'fringe' points of view without commenting, mate.
    Does it.

    ~A
     
  4. SuperMarioBros.

    SuperMarioBros. Discharged

    So. Somebody with the same IP and other correlations was "Continuing to add the same erroneous information on multiple articles" & "continue[d] to edit disruptively" (as Wiki Puts it) ?
    How queer, someone must be creeping in and using your pooter to edit their friendly fire article and other Military history pages...

    I'm not going to link to the Wiki discussion pages at the mo, and would ask that nobody else does either, but just 'cos Wiki doesn't want you doesn't mean we have to put up with the similar attempts to add unsubstantiated 'fringe' points of view without commenting, mate.
    Does it.

    ~A

    Wow... that's uhh... wow. Do you actually have proof i edited those things? You know nothing about me, so don't even try and dictate to me. I stated i never edited and i never did something wrong about Wikipedia. What are you talking about? Probably someone edited or but i don't know who did it but. This wiki argument is getting ridiculous. so stop accusing me that i never actually did in my life.
     
  5. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

    Well the only other alternative I can think of is that your computer has become sentient and is interested in the very same topics as yourself. Perhaps you should have it checked out.
     
  6. SuperMarioBros.

    SuperMarioBros. Discharged

    Well the only other alternative I can think of is that your computer has become sentient and is interested in the very same topics as yourself. Perhaps you should have it checked out.

    You know what i have too many people shotting me down and this isn't worth arguing though because it can be from anyone computer or not. Otherwise i don't know because if we keep going like this, it gets ugly. I think this is wrong forum i arguing here.
     
  7. Vitesse

    Vitesse Senior Member

    On the semantics of the term "friendly fire", the OED seems to suggest the exact term was coined as late as 1976, when it was used as a book title. Earlier citations go back to 1925, with the "friendlies" definition referring to shellfire as suggested above, but they have no exact match before 1976. I'd guess it's an American coinage though and my bet would be from the Vietnam era which brought us other wonderful neologisms like "de-escalation", so Websters very likely has an earlier usage. I'd even put a small wager on Time being one of the first (or even the first) to use it publicly in print (with an each-way bet on National Geographic.)

    This is the OED's first citation, from "Soldier and Sailor Words" by E Fraser and J Gibbons:
    Friendly, a trench phrase in the War, used of a shell heard either passing high overhead or one falling short in our lines, meaning in that case one of our own shells.
     
  8. Vitesse

    Vitesse Senior Member

    You know what i have too many people shotting me down and this isn't worth arguing though because it can be from anyone computer or not. Otherwise i don't know because if we keep going like this, it gets ugly. I think this is wrong forum i arguing here.
    Don't let the door hit you on the way out ...
     
    Formerjughead likes this.
  9. SuperMarioBros.

    SuperMarioBros. Discharged

    Don't let the door hit you on the way out ...

    well ok thanks.....
     
  10. SuperMarioBros.

    SuperMarioBros. Discharged

    On the semantics of the term "friendly fire", the OED seems to suggest the exact term was coined as late as 1976, when it was used as a book title. Earlier citations go back to 1925, with the "friendlies" definition referring to shellfire as suggested above, but they have no exact match before 1976. I'd guess it's an American coinage though and my bet would be from the Vietnam era which brought us other wonderful neologisms like "de-escalation", so Websters very likely has an earlier usage. I'd even put a small wager on Time being one of the first (or even the first) to use it publicly in print (with an each-way bet on National Geographic.)

    This is the OED's first citation, from "Soldier and Sailor Words" by E Fraser and J Gibbons:

    I don't know who came up with this word though but i think they created this term as opposed to enemy fire. It's used to denote cases where casualties occur before "friendlies" have mistakenly fired upon each other at the same time fighting with the enemy. Hence the term "friendly fire" was used. It is really messed up when someone on your own side killed you. I seriously doubt that the dead found the fire "friendly.
     
  11. Cobber

    Cobber Senior Member

    [/QUOTE]You told me to provide some proof so i did[/QUOTE]

    No you have not!
    You have shown absolutely no proof of any of your claims including the one about the Australian Officer (in your words inexperienced) calling in a Arty strike that landed on his own position. However you now say that it never happened.
    Again no proof has been shown by you, in at least eight (8) of your posts you have given varying information on friendly fire as well as to technology, ammo, news stories and other details, as well as facts and figures yet you still offer no real sources for all these grand statements.

    In post 27 you offer your first and only source that is placed in the thread you were talking about.
    The extent of these sources ,"Their are books to confirm it".

    We all know their are books out their that will confirm anything
    My question regarding this one is "What books, What title, which author, what is the ISBN number and what pages and what chapters cover your statements??????


    You then in post 49 offer a source, it was about Viet Nam and operation Marauder, this had little to do with anything you have written previously. This link proved your statement completely wrong and is about the war in Viet Nam not WW2 which this site is dedicated to.


    You showed through your only link that the NZ Arty had two (2) drop shorts due to wet powder and that the US FAC flew into USA Arty fire and was blown up.
    You have frequently failed to give sources or any links to your statements, several members have asked about links for your grandiose statements yet you continually have not provided them and now other unsavoury points regarding you have also come to light.
    You have constantly failed in placing links in appropiate posts. When you write something no matter how well known it is, it still is best to provide a link in the post that the link is relevant to.

    Links or links to books most certainly can be proof, however it is the proper thing to place the links in the post that requires the proof that that link shows. And to give as much information about the book in the relevant post.

    "Wills" in post 52 sums it up well, Quote{ "all forces suffer this problem"}End Quote:

    The job is to stop it before it gets out of hand and too many get killed.
    The worst friendly fire would have to be napalm. Not that any FF is any less than horror.

    All nations suffer from and are guilty of "Friendly Fire", in my opinion where ever their are men with guns most especially in a military situation their is a reasonable chance of a fire fight by combatants of the same side.
    It happens with Infantry, Naval assets and in the Air.
    The US has got a bad wrap over the years, they have been involved in many conflicts and with the sheer numbers of USAAF, USN, USMC and US Army planes and men they unfortunately some times fired on allies, just as allies have fired on US troops etc.

    Why do i feel like i am trying to teach a 7 year old?

    Regards
    Cobber
     
  12. SuperMarioBros.

    SuperMarioBros. Discharged

    You told me to provide some proof so i did[/QUOTE]

    No you have not!
    You have shown absolutely no proof of any of your claims including the one about the Australian Officer (in your words inexperienced) calling in a Arty strike that landed on his own position. However you now say that it never happened.
    Again no proof has been shown by you, in at least eight (8) of your posts you have given varying information on friendly fire as well as to technology, ammo, news stories and other details, as well as facts and figures yet you still offer no real sources for all these grand statements.

    In post 27 you offer your first and only source that is placed in the thread you were talking about.
    The extent of these sources ,"Their are books to confirm it".

    We all know their are books out their that will confirm anything
    My question regarding this one is "What books, What title, which author, what is the ISBN number and what pages and what chapters cover your statements??????


    You then in post 49 offer a source, it was about Viet Nam and operation Marauder, this had little to do with anything you have written previously. This link proved your statement completely wrong and is about the war in Viet Nam not WW2 which this site is dedicated to.


    You showed through your only link that the NZ Arty had two (2) drop shorts due to wet powder and that the US FAC flew into USA Arty fire and was blown up.
    You have frequently failed to give sources or any links to your statements, several members have asked about links for your grandiose statements yet you continually have not provided them and now other unsavoury points regarding you have also come to light.
    You have constantly failed in placing links in appropiate posts. When you write something no matter how well known it is, it still is best to provide a link in the post that the link is relevant to.

    Links or links to books most certainly can be proof, however it is the proper thing to place the links in the post that requires the proof that that link shows. And to give as much information about the book in the relevant post.

    "Wills" in post 52 sums it up well, "all forces suffer this problem"
    The job is to stop it before it gets out of hand and too many get killed.
    The worst friendly fire would have to be napalm. Not that any FF is any less than horror.

    All nations suffer from and are guilty of "Friendly Fire", in my opinion where ever their are men with guns most especially in a military situation their is a reasonable chance of a fire fight by combatants of the same side.
    It happens with infantry, Naval assets and in the air.
    The US has got a bad wrap about this, they have been involved in many conflicts and with the sheer numbers of USAAF, USN, USMC and US Army planes and men they Unfortunately some times fired on allies, just as allies have fired on US troops etc.

    Why do i feel like i am trying to teach a 7 year old?

    Regards
    Cobber[/QUOTE]

    *sigh* To be honest, arguing on forums like babies wont change anything otherwise it get hostile even more every-time i argue with somebody. Fine i don't have any proof or any book i'm just trying to bring based on links. My point is that all nations suffered from friendly fire and yes that exactly the point i'm make. Good to know people like u that friendly fire sucks. But unfortunately there's no training in the world that can prevent human error..just lessen the chances on it happening on a regular basis. But i do have proof that July 3, 1950 friendly fire incident. I can quote if you want.
     
  13. Cobber

    Cobber Senior Member

    Who is arguing? If i was arguing with you, you would know it in the first sentence I would write. I would for example have a real go at certain things about you and your posting. But I am not like that, it is your way of writing and I accept that. Just as I and every other person on here accepts that friendly fire affected all forces.
    .
    I have been discussing/telling you about providing links as proof of what you are saying. You just don't seem to get this.

    What does July 3 1950 have to do with WW2, anyone can find links to friendly fire incidents from all nations during all of history however imho it is best on this site WW2talk to try and keep the discussion to WW2.
    Also no one is saying friendly fire did not happen at any time, so why are you mentioning but not posting proof of friendly fire incidents.
    You come across as if you think you are the only person who knows about friendly fire, however from what I have seen you only blab off at the mouth and do not show sources. (Ah not again, bluddy sources and this Mario bloke)
    So go on show us this July 3 1950 Friendly fire incident and please show your sources.
     
    BFBSM likes this.
  14. SuperMarioBros.

    SuperMarioBros. Discharged

    Who is arguing? If i was arguing with you, you would know it in the first sentence I would write. I would for example have a real go at certain things about you and your posting. But I am not like that, it is your way of writing and I accept that. Just as I and every other person on here accepts that friendly fire affected all forces.
    .
    I have been discussing/telling you about providing links as proof of what you are saying. You just don't seem to get this.

    What does July 3 1950 have to do with WW2, anyone can find links to friendly fire incidents from all nations during all of history however imho it is best on this site WW2talk to try and keep the discussion to WW2.
    Also no one is saying friendly fire did not happen at any time, so why are you mentioning but not posting proof of friendly fire incidents.
    You come across as if you think you are the only person who knows about friendly fire, however from what I have seen you only blab off at the mouth and do not show sources. (Ah not again, bluddy sources and this Mario bloke)
    So go on show us this July 3 1950 Friendly fire incident and please show your sources.

    To be honest, if you guys are WW2 veterans then i apologize. I trying to have a friendly discussions and we kept arguing back and fourth. If we keep this one like this, it kept on getting it worse. As for the July 3, 1950 i send you a private message because i posted it i keep getting hostile messages.
     
  15. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member Patron

    I posted this joke (in hind site probably inappropriately) as the 2nd post of this thread to the originator (a member I frequently engage with on my own WW2 interests) and in the spirit of posts I have follow in other threads on serious subjects which sometimes have a little jocular interlude here and there. My intention was not to offend.

    This was something my GF said to me when I was a young boy during the 1970's (in less PC times). I really cant answer for him as he is no longer with us but I cherish the memory of listening to his endless recollections of the war . Maybe the quote above is right and maybe he was wrong to say these things but the truth is I really dont know (the 1970s were different times). I want to apologise to anyone on this forum who was offended by the joke.
    As native of Belfast I have learned to be thick skinned (not to allow myself to be offended, a big challenge I can tell you!) and to understand anothers perspective. I sometimes forget there are many out there that don't share the same philosophy as I, so I can only say in conclusion, God bless free speech.

    I see no need for an apology either friend. I took the spirit of the post as it was intended, in (accurate) jest. Being 100% American, I can attest that many of my countrymen have "earned" that moniker many times over at one time or another. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing all the time, but at the same time not a bad thing either. I've been called worse for good reason from time to time myself.

    In many publications in reference to the current unpleasantness going on in the Southwest Theater of Operations (I like that term, sort of a big-time sounding cool name), the term "fratricide" is beginning to be used more often than "friendly fire". To me fratricide sounds a little PC in origin, but that's the way things are going these days.

    I have read about the unfortunate incidents that resulted in the deaths of US troops at the Slapton Sands maneuverers before, to include the shelling of troops on the beach that went forward of the taped off areas and into the impact area. I can't even start to imagine or answer for why they moved as far forward as they did. All I can say about it is that a lot of good men died, and no one was happy about it. They were training for war, and incidents like that will always happen in situations like that.

    To add my story about friendly fire, my dad told me of the time USN fighter jets used to fly over their trenches in Korea and dump garbage and refuse on them from time to time. I guess the fly boys thought it was funny until my dad and his com-padres loaded their .50 calibers up with all tracer rounds and fired on the jets the next time they made their weekly garbage runs. Of course they didn't hit them, but later that day an official order came down from division to refrain from firing on US or Allied planes for whatever reasons for the duration of the war. I've always wondered why the Navy boys didn't garbage-bomb the Chinamen instead. The things they do for fun in wartime is beyond comprehension at times.
     
  16. RemeDesertRat

    RemeDesertRat Very Senior Member

    I posted this joke (in hind site probably inappropriately) as the 2nd post of this thread to the originator (a member I frequently engage with on my own WW2 interests) and in the spirit of posts I have follow in other threads on serious subjects which sometimes have a little jocular interlude here and there. My intention was not to offend.

    This was something my GF said to me when I was a young boy during the 1970's (in less PC times). I really cant answer for him as he is no longer with us but I cherish the memory of listening to his endless recollections of the war . Maybe the quote above is right and maybe he was wrong to say these things but the truth is I really dont know (the 1970s were different times). I want to apologise to anyone on this forum who was offended by the joke.
    As native of Belfast I have learned to be thick skinned (not to allow myself to be offended, a big challenge I can tell you!) and to understand anothers perspective. I sometimes forget there are many out there that don't share the same philosophy as I, so I can only say in conclusion, God bless free speech.

    No need to apologise, it was taken in the spirit it was given, light hearted banter.
    I think Supermario has gone way over the top with some comments posted here, and seems to take everything too personally.

    As for the answer to my original question - seems to be maybe :D
     
  17. Vitesse

    Vitesse Senior Member

    In many publications in reference to the current unpleasantness going on in the Southwest Theater of Operations (I like that term, sort of a big-time sounding cool name), the term "fratricide" is beginning to be used more often than "friendly fire". To me fratricide sounds a little PC in origin, but that's the way things are going these days.
    Sorry, but using "fratricide" in that sense is an abuse of the English language. The "-cide" suffix, which comes from Latin, always implies a deliberate act of killing: in the case of "fratricide", the killing of a brother. Presumably somebody with less than a proper understanding has extended this from "fraternity" which originally meant "a brotherhood" but was first found in its current American usage of a college association around 1800.

    Compare patricide/parricide, matricide, sororicide (all of which, like fratricide, define killing a blood relative), regicide, suicide, homicide and genocide. I don't see anything accidental in any of those.
     
  18. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    Otherwise i don't know because if we keep going like this, it gets ugly.

    I suspect another outcome-Three letters begins in B and ends in E :lol:
     
  19. idler

    idler GeneralList

    ... "fratricide", the killing of a brother...

    For gods's sake don't bring race into it! Or religion, I suppose :unsure:
     
  20. Ron Goldstein

    Ron Goldstein WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran Patron

    Vitesse

    Sorry, but using "fratricide" in that sense is an abuse of the English language. The "-cide" suffix, which comes from Latin, always implies a deliberate act of killing: in the case of "fratricide", the killing of a brother.


    Spot on !

    But.......if my dear brother Mick's creeping barrage had been even a little more off range and he had actually killed me, then that would have been fraticide :) :) :)

    Ron
     

Share This Page