Friendly fire

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

  1. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    Ron,

    Surely 'Friendly' Fraticide?
     
  2. Vitesse

    Vitesse Senior Member

    For gods's sake don't bring race into it! Or religion, I suppose :unsure:
    Amen, brutha:p
     
  3. SuperMarioBros.

    SuperMarioBros. Discharged

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

    aww thanks a lot. Thanks for correcting me btw :D
     
  4. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member Patron

    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.

    Hey, I didn't coin the word, I just mentioned it! I prefer "friendly fire" myself (the word, not the action thereof). Point well taken though.

    Besides, abuse of the English language us what we do.
     
  5. Formerjughead

    Formerjughead Senior Member

    Hi,

    I'm not trying to start an arguement either just speaking from personal experience and it wasn't from air support either. One was a mortar round and the other was from a .50 cal machine gun both by members of the USMC.

    In my opinion nothing to do with poor communication or co-operation. More like poor training and the want to shoot anything that moves and not engaging the brain with what the Mark 1 eye ball sees.

    Just because someone uses a phrase about the Americans you shouldn't get upset and take it to heart, even when it is probably true. The Americans called us the 'Borrowers' in Iraq as we was always borrowing their kit (I'm still 'borrowing' some of it)-We just said to them that someone had to show them how to use it properly. ;)

    Cheers
    Andy

    Sounds to me like you fellas need to pay more attention to land navigation and keeping your grimey mits off other people's stuff. If you were shot at by Marines and no one was killed or wounded they were warning shots; a rare courtesy.....:D
     
  6. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    :lol: Not me FJH thankfully - It was a colleague in the Signals coming back from a shovel recce and while he was gone a small group of USMC chaps in their Hummers decided to temp. attach themselves to our troop for the night. The Marine who I assume was top cover opened up on him walking back with the shovel over his shoulder....If it was me the Marine would have ended up wearing the shovel :D
     
  7. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    This happened the same day - USMC Cobra v USMC M1 Abrams

    [​IMG]
    22.
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Formerjughead

    Formerjughead Senior Member

    :lol: Not me FJH thankfully - It was a colleague in the Signals coming back from a shovel recce and while he was gone a small group of USMC chaps in their Hummers decided to temp. attach themselves to our troop for the night. The Marine who I assume was top cover opened up on him walking back with the shovel over his shoulder....If it was me the Marine would have ended up wearing the shovel :D

    Are you sure your colleague wasn't a collaborator? I am assuming that 'shovel recce' means the same to you as it does me and that he was returning from a 'Deuce Strike'.
    IN all seriousness, I think more than a few incidents of friendly fire occur under such circumstances. I think the ensuing eF..You!!! contest would have been of epic scale.
     
  9. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    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...

    ~A

    "I see that you are professionally rather busy just now," said he, glancing very keenly across at me.

    "Yes, I've had a busy day", I answered. "It may seem very foolish in your eyes," I added, "but really I don't know how you deduced it."

    Holmes chuckled to himself.

    "I have the advantage of knowing your habits, my dear Watson," said he. "When your round is a short one you walk, and when it is a long one you
    use a hansom. As I perceive that your boots, although used, are by no means dirty, I cannot doubt that you are at present busy enough to justify the hansom."

    "Excellent!" I cried.

    "Elementary", said he.

    :p
     
  10. SuperMarioBros.

    SuperMarioBros. Discharged

    Anyways i was just wondering. Does allied submarines sinking a enemy ships full of allied POWs considered friendly fire? That's what i was just wondered.
     
  11. JonS

    JonS Member

    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.
    But ... it invariably is deliberate. The intent may not have been to kill friendly forces, but it certainly was to kill someone.
     
  12. PeterG

    PeterG Senior Member

    "fratricide" ... The "-cide" suffix, which comes from Latin, always
    Afraid not, the suffix -cide comes from the Latin -cida (killer, slayer) from caedere. The Latin terms are homicida, parricida, matricida, fratricida, sororicida, tyrannicida, suicida, etc.
     
  13. PeterG

    PeterG Senior Member

    Just found this draft entry (March 2002) in the OED:

    Fratricide

    Mil. a.a Premature detonation of a nuclear warhead or interference with its guidance system during flight, caused by the blast of a missile that has been previously launched at the same or a nearby target.

    1972 Bull. Operations Res. Soc. Amer. 20 Suppl. 1 b183 The reentry vehicles are intercepted according to various intercept point selection (IPS) tactics and in observance of blackout, fratricide, and radar tracking constraints. XXX1985 National Rev. (U.S.) 28 June 53/2 [Any] effort to slip through to the targets before pressure waves had time to form would be frustrated both by the intricacies of timing such an attack and by the multiplied probability of missile fratricide. XXX2000 R. E. Powaski Return to Armageddon i. 36 They asserted that the detonation of the first Soviet warheads would commit ‘fratricide’.

    b.b Accidental casualties or damage caused by an army's own force or that of its allies; friendly fire.

    XXX1986 Washington Post (Nexis) 7 June a1 In official Air Force jargon, such friendly fire is known as fratricide. In pilots' slang, the victims ‘mort themselves out’. XXX1992 H. N. Schwarzkopf It doesn't take Hero 500, I detest the term ‘friendly fire’. Once a bullet leaves a muzzle or a rocket leaves an airplane, it is not friendly to anyone. Unfortunately, fratricide has been around since the beginning of war. XXX2001 Financial Times (Nexis) 27 June 13 The report also addresses one of the most serious problems in combat—the potential for what the military calls ‘unintentional fratricide’, also known as friendly-fire casualties—when troops accidently [sic] fire on their comrades.

    (Source: Copied & Pasted direct from the OED)
     
  14. Cobber

    Cobber Senior Member

    Sorry guys not about WW2 but it shows how mario is a revisionists

    This mario is now editing written books this came from the offical history of Australians in Korean war 1950 1953 Combat Operations.
    This comes from a Pm he sent me re 77th RAAF on 3rd July 1950

    He correctly posted this first paragraph as it is written in the book.
    Quote{ The second day of operations was marred by a sobering misfortune. The squadron was ordered to carry out its first attack mission of the war. Eight aircraft, each carrying six 60 pound rockets, were to range over an assigned target area, looking for major troop concentrations to attack. The target area was changed before the mission, led by Spence, took off from Iwakuni. The Australians were to attack troop movements along the main highway between Suwon and Pyongtaek. Spence had misgivings about the new area, believing it was too far to the south to be entirely in North Korean hands. He checked again with the Fifth Air Force Tactical Control Centre at Itazuke and was assured that the area was under North Korean control.


    These are the words he added to the above paragraph they do not exist in the book . So the pilots engaged and fired rockets into a train After the train got destroyed, the pilots came back with the United States 5th Tactical Air Force that there were Americans and South Korean troops” Official History of Australia in the Korean War Volume II Combat Operations Page 305-306

    To me this above paragraph is revisionist he did not even mention the below paragraph

    These are the correct unedited paragraphs that follow immediately after the above correct paragraph
    When the Australians arrived over the target area, they noticed a train steaming southwards and a cloud of dust raised by a column of trucks on the highway.
    They prepared to attack. Flight Lieutenant Adams dived down to rocket the locomotive, only to discover that it was carrying a South Korean marking. He did not fire and ordered his flight to hold its fire. After reconfirming his position and making a radio call to an American forward air control aircraft further south, he was assured that the area in which he had found the train was under enemy control and he should proceed with the attack. He gave the necessary orders and the flight dived to release its rockets. The train was blasted off the rails, onto its side, and many of the trucks on the road were hit during twenty minutes of rocketing and strafing.

    After returning to Iwakuni, Spence was still uneasy about the target area and checked again with Itazuke, only to be reassured that the battle-line was further to the south. Shortly afterwards, when the pilots were relaxing over a drink, Itazuke called back with the sickening news that the trucks had been carrying Sth Korean and American troops of the advanced Battalion of the US 24th Division, the first American troops to have been rushed to Korea to assist the Republic of Korea (ROK) Army. The train had been laden with American ammunition. This report had a severely depressing effect on No. 77 Squadron particularly because the American and Korean troops who had been struck were facing such a desperate situation.

    The raid had been witnessed from the ground by several press reporters, including Peter Kalischer of United Press who recognised the attacking aircraft as Australian. The story was extensively reported in United States newspapers on the following morning.
    . General Partridge flew to Iwakuni and apologised, assuring Spence that No. 77 Squadron was not to blame; General Stratemeyer reinforced Partridge's expression of regret. General MacArthur's headquarters denied that the attack had been made by aircraft under his command.}End Quote



    So I believe he does edit wiki and anything else to get what information he wants in the way he wants. He also from my experience only reads what he wants to see, and misses out on much true information.
    Why he thought some one whose main interest is the Korean war would not have his own copy of the book is amazing

    When cornered he starts getting abusive and starts trying to blame the other for wrong doings.
    I asked him to stop PMing me he then sent another ten (10) PMS most with childish abusive words in them.
    He in a sneaky way tried to get me to find sources links books etc for him and when i didn't he again became unreasonable.
    I was onto him and gave him naught except some basic pointers.
    seems he thinks the above incident should be available everywhere as a sole link yet not other FF incidents.

    Apologies for going off subject.

    Best Regards
    Cobber
     
    Slipdigit likes this.
  15. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Apologies for going off subject.
    :lol:
    Apology accepted here, as I'd just been reading of some interesting Friendly fire instances from the Napoleonic wars (about halfway down the page - great site, by the way):
    Infantry Tactics Combat: Infanterie taktiken : tactiques d'infanterie
    In 1815 at Quatre Bras, the Highlanders mistook the Netherlands cavalry for French and fired. Williams writes, "There then occurred one of those tragic incidents of war in which men die in error at the hands of friends. Seeing the Netherlands in blue (hussars) and green (light dragoons) galloping wildly toward the crossroads and hearing them shouting in French, the Scots of the 92nd and 42nd Highland along the Namur road mistook them for the French and were ordered to open fire on them. Many horses in particular were brought down, as they presented the largest targets ... van Merlen was left to reflect with sadness on the losses his unit had suffered and with bitterness that more had been caused by their 'Scotch' allies than by the French."
    etc.
    Well worth a shufti, many more on there.

    Having said that, should we force this thread onto WW2 incidences from now on?
    Nobody's surprised that friendly fire happens, always has & probably always will, and nobody with any sense is going to see it's existence as debatable, so it's probably more productive to chuck in WW2 events.

    Just remembered that 51H/Richard posted of a rather moving incidence a few years back:
    WW2Talk - How can it be called friendly fire?
    http://www.keep-em-moving.com/
     
  16. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Cobber
    It came to me earlier that we were dealing with a crafty one as his use of the langauge gave him away - e.g one paragraph would be good English then the second one was in infantile langauge which made me suspect that there was something not quite genuine about this object as he was quoting a fair article then twisting it out of shape to make his points - in the case of the Tiger situation he chastised me for insulting the whole of the American forces with my statement that the people killed had been dis-obedient- next paragraph he then agreed with me - That was when I gave up on this thread as rational arguements are lost on this type
    Cheers
     
  17. Cobber

    Cobber Senior Member

    I Agree with you Von poop, since this is a WW2 site maybe we should try and stick to WW2 Friendly Fire incidents.
    Such a wonderful site shouldn't have to put up with these types.
    Unfortunately it often takes some time to catch them out.

    Tom i reckon he cuts & pastes parts of articles then in his own writing adds what he wants to make it look like his point is right. The fact that his sentence construction, spelling and grammar are so lousy that any edits etc show up very easily as being his own words.

    He seems to think that the above incident should have zillions of links just to this one incident, yet in the 13 PMs he has sent me he shows examples of FF incidents that are only covered in the article relating to the entire battle/campaign. naturally these links he provided were Wiki (for example operation Cobra) or did he edit this to make himself look like he was right with this and other claims by him.

    Thanks for the support VP & Tom Canning.
    Tom i have the highest respect for you and your WW2 comrades on this site and all allied WW2 veterans world wide.
    I have yet to say this to you guys,
    THANK YOU FOR PUTTING YOUR LIVES ON THE LINE THEN GETTING UP AND DOING IT AGAIN AND DOING THIS DAY AFTER DAY AND YEAR AFTER YEAR, to save us future generations from the barbaric insanity of the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese.

    Cheers and if I could I would by you all a beer.
    Cobber
     
  18. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Not wishing to be provocative, but here's a last Napoleonic fling :) Waterloo seems to have been prolific in incidents. Here are a few I found in a quick search:

    - In 1815 at Waterloo, the Nassauers were fired upon by their Prussian allies because they were still wearing the French style uniforms. The shooting went on for at least 10 minutes (!) before the officers on both sides realized their mistake.

    - In 1815 at Quatre Bras, the Hihlanders mistook the Netherlands cavalry for French and fired. Williams writes, "There then occuredd one of those tragic
    incidents of war in which men die in error at the hands of friends. Seeing the Netherlands in blue (hussars) and green (light dragoons) galloping wildly
    toward the crossroads and hearing them shouting in French, the Scots of the 92nd and 42nd Highland along the Namur road mistook them for the French
    and were ordered to open fire on them. Many horses in particular were brought down, as they presented the largest targets ... van Merlen was left to reflect with sadness on the losses his unit had suffered and with bitterness that more had been caused by their 'Scotch' allies than by the French."

    - At Waterloo, the counter-attacking British infantry (Picton's division) fired on their allies, the Belgians of General Bylandt, whose uniforms resembled the enemy's outfits. Shortly thereafter, having realized their error, they mistook French troops for Belgians and let them get away.

    - in the very last stage of the battle of Waterloo, the British 52nd Light Infantry mistook 23rd Light Dragoons for enemy and fired. It resulted in great disorder and hesitation among the troops.

    More at the link
     
  19. 51highland

    51highland Very Senior Member

    From Supermarios post 45; "As for your 2nd question, i had to created a new account because i cannot access to my old account for some reason(probably hackers i believe)".
    Didn't have a name such as 'Spaniard' did you?
     
  20. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    From Wiki (IP/email address reference removed):
    Comments:
    The Friendly fire article has been plagued by a persistent vandal and serial sockpuppeterr Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/********. ********* is an IP sock puppet previously used by the vandal to insert this edit. The edit is problematic in that it is based on an old report so superficially it appears cited, however, that report is incorrect. The report alleged that a British Forward Air Controller faced manslaughter charges, this never happened and subsequent investigations blamed no-one but highlighted flawed procedures and equipment problems. As it repeats incorrect information it is a BLP violation as the name of the FAC is known. Wee Curry Monster [Wiki white-hat's username, not the pseudonym of our little friend ~A] talk 20:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

    Bit bored with it now, so we'll have a little tidy up shall we...

    Move along, nothing to see here.
    I believe we were discussing friendly fire? ;)
     

Share This Page