Military Review

Fire on their own in iraq

33
Fire on their own in iraq

This year marks ten years since the beginning of the American aggression in Iraq. The invasion was rather disorganized. The most convincing evidence of this is the serious number of incidents in which the Americans bombed and launch missiles from their comrades and allies.


Until recently, cases of “friendly fire” in any army were considered an extraordinary event. However, wars with massive use of high-precision weaponsled by the United States, starting with “Storm in the Desert”, revealed the main shortcomings of this very weapon - weak warning systems “your / someone else’s”. This circumstance, coupled with poor training and negligence of personnel, gave a stunning result. Today, "friendly fire" - the most common thing that accompanies any military adventure of Washington.

So, March 2003, the first days of the invasion ... A detachment of marines, cut off from the main group of forces at the beginning of the battle for the village of Nasiriya, has been fighting in the Fedayin ring for several hours. Five guys were injured, several armored personnel carriers were killed, and finally, a characteristic echo is heard - no doubt, the brave American Air Force will iron the enemy’s positions. These were the A-10 Thunderbolt - aircraft specifically designed to destroy ground targets. The Marines hoped that the heavy machine guns of the stormtroopers would pave their way to their camp. However, the pilots took the star-striped armored personnel carrier for a column of Iraqi tanks. "Stop shooting! Stop shooting!" - the signalman was torn, while other marines frantically fired rocket launchers. But the pilots of the A-10 made several more approaches before they realized their mistake. The attack killed ten Americans.

It is worth noting that in Iraq, the American storm troopers gained quite a disrepute, becoming the real symbol of a friendly fire. Salon magazine quotes the squadron commander of naval attack helicopters, Lieutenant Colonel Jim Braden: “Many of the Air Force pilots I worked with seem to be just looking for an excuse to pull the trigger without worrying where their comrades in arms are at the bottom. Their position is: “Just give us the GPS coordinates and we will do our job.”

In April, 2003, the American aircraft again attacked their own infantry. The distribution included units of the friendly Kurdish army and American special forces, as well as journalists who were with them. BBC staff - reporter Tom Giles and editor John Simpson were injured, but still managed to capture the moment of the bombing. “It was a scene from hell,” says Simpson, who went on the air a few minutes after the tragedy: “I saw ten or twelve bodies around us, that is, dead Americans, and American planes were circling in the sky - they dropped bombs next to us"...

More than once, their main allies suffered at the hands of the Americans in Iraq. Interestingly, shortly before the invasion, English Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Larpent called on the command of the Royal Armed Forces, before going on a campaign on the side of the United States, to introduce in the British ground forces a system of protection against ... American fighter pilots. Explaining the nature of the problem, Larpent stressed: "The lack of attention and indifference on the part of pilots of the US Air Force." The professional and human qualities of the allies Larpent experienced in their own skin: in 1991, the American A-10 took his unit for the Iraqi squad. Nine Britons died, 12 injured ...

In 2003, the lieutenant colonel’s warnings began to come true frighteningly quickly. Already in the first month of the fighting, several incidents took place at once, badly spoiling relations between the Anglo-American allies.

For example, the American Patriot rocket hit a British Panavia Tornado aircraft assigned to the Royal Air Force 13 Squadron. Killed pilot and navigator. At the same time, the notorious attack aircraft A-10 Thunderbolt II bombed the patrol convoy, which was flying the flag of Great Britain. As it turned out, firstly, the pilots made a mistake several kilometers (previously a cluster of Iraqi tanks was found nearby), secondly, they took the orange identification panels on combat vehicles for ... rocket launchers. As a result, one English soldier died, another five were injured.

According to the results of an internal investigation conducted by the US Air Force Headquarters, the actions of the pilots were found to be erroneous. The report indicated that they had become possible due to "mental and physical overload and the lack of effective interaction with the command center." The authors of the report recommended administrative or disciplinary measures against pilots. However, in the Pentagon it was decided to refrain from any severe sanctions.

At the end of 2010, the Wikileaks site revealed the secret data of the US Department of Defense, from which it follows that British soldiers in Iraq had repeatedly been subjected to similar "accidental" attacks by American allies. Only officially such incidents recorded 11. As a rule, skirmishes occurred in the dark. But it also happened that in daylight American and British vehicles simply could not share the road. In these cases, we are talking, of course, not about the minuses of the “one’s / others’s” warning system, but rather about criminal boyhood and posturing ...

As a result of a similar incident in September 2003, on the road between Mosul and Tikrit, the Americans fired at a car in which Italian Ambassador Pietro Cordone was. The diplomat was not injured, his translator died. The US military did not give any clear explanation. In one of the reports, however, it was said that the car was shot at because it was trying to overtake the convoy of the US military ...

Another case of "friendly fire" turned for Italy almost into a national tragedy. Quite a wide resonance in March 2005 caused the death of negotiator Nicolo Kalipari near Baghdad. He drove Julian Sgren, a hostage freed from the hands of Islamists, when his car was fired at the side of the American roadblock. "The holiday turned into mourning as soon as the news was heard that Julian was wounded, and her liberator, military intelligence agent Nicola Calipari, was killed by the" friendly fire "of the American military," writes Italian La Repubblica.

In general, if you look at the Iraq war in the context of the incidents listed above, it becomes obvious that, with all the overwhelming military technical power of the United States, the "fog of war" for the American army, on the contrary, is only deepening. It turns out that the more highly declared war is declared, the greater the percentage of losses will have to be attributed to a friendly fire. It is not by chance that Americans suffered the greatest percentage of friendly fire losses in 1991 during the Desert Storm. Then, we recall, Washington decided to do without a ground operation at all. At the same time, the death of every fourth soldier of the US Army was caused by the "luring" American cruise missiles or the actions of American pilots "in a state of mental and physical overload."

Over the period 2003-2011. The Pentagon officially recognizes only 18 cases of friendly fire in Iraq, which caused the death of seven and injured 34 American soldiers. However, in fact, the death toll is much more, as evidenced by at least the materials of the above-mentioned secret Pentagon report published on the Wikileaks website.

In addition, it is worth considering that the American command in the field is usually not in a hurry to report cases of “friendly fire”, fearing a “crisis of confidence” on the part of the authorities. Thus, the problem of friendly fire in the American army is a bit like the problem of rape on American university campuses. There, the sad statistics are also greatly underestimated in order not to dampen the reputation of the higher education institution ...
Originator:
http://ru.fbii.org/analytics/952.html
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Canep
    Canep 12 November 2013 08: 08
    +9
    I noticed this favorite American fun.
    According to the results of an internal investigation conducted at the US Air Force headquarters, the actions of the pilots were found to be erroneous. The report stated that they became possible due to "mental and physical overload and the lack of effective interaction with the command center."
    more correct: “mental and physical insufficiency and the absence of any interaction with the command center.” On RT news:
    For Education: Iowa Police Shot Teenager After Calling His Father
    It is from the same song that Americans shoot forward and then think. Cowboys.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 12 November 2013 13: 11
      -6
      [quote = Canep] is more correct as follows: "mental and physical insufficiency and the absence of any interaction with the command center." On RT news: [/ quote]
      You carry nonsense, and frank. [

      quote = Canep] It is from the same song that Americans shoot ahead and then think. Cowboys. [/ Quote]
      Even greater nonsense. Any case unrelated to the case is taken, and attached tightly, right?

      Do you know approximate statistics on the opening of fire in your own in different countries of the world?
      1. atesterev
        atesterev 12 November 2013 18: 02
        +1
        Please bring it. I have a feeling that any war cannot do without it ...
      2. 31231
        31231 12 November 2013 19: 14
        +3
        It seems to me that the difference is very big from the opposing armies. If now in Syria, the SSA is not very different from the militia of the ATS and the ATS itself, in Iraq the warring parties differed dramatically.
  2. drop
    drop 12 November 2013 08: 28
    11
    There were such cases in our army. Following the instructions of the Government, we created a system to exclude such situations. I ask those who are interested to read my article in our journal "The task is to increase the effectiveness of missile and bomb strikes."
    .
    1. Orel
      Orel 12 November 2013 08: 50
      +3
      I will add that there were quite a few of them in South Ossetia. There is no reliable data, but if you think that in fact the Georgian armored vehicles and ours practically did not differ, like the aviation, then I think we had a lot of losses from "identification errors". It is possible that most of our SU-25s could have been knocked out from the ground. A motorized rifleman from the ground cannot tell who is flying over you, our SU-25 or not, and when it flies it's unpleasant ...
      1. Toporkoff
        Toporkoff 12 November 2013 09: 26
        +8
        I will add that there were quite a few of them in South Ossetia. There is no reliable data, but if you think that in fact the Georgian armored vehicles and ours practically did not differ, like the aviation, then I think we had a lot of losses from "identification errors". It is possible that most of our SU-25s could have been knocked out from the ground. A motorized rifleman from the ground cannot tell who is flying over you, our SU-25 or not, and when it flies it's unpleasant ...

        There is no reliable data, but if you think about it, a more developed alien civilization could mutate into Georgians and attack Russia ... it is possible that most of our SU-25s could be beaten by flying saucers, and the government is hiding the facts ...
        You have no facts either? but it would be more interesting to get acquainted with the facts, rather than speculation ...
  3. Prometey
    Prometey 12 November 2013 08: 30
    11
    In some program I watched an interview with an American colonel, where he talked about friendly fire. He said that fire losses, in their own way, accounted for 2% of all combat losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, according to this American military, unfortunately in a modern war, no army can rule out friendly fire.
    And the participant of the storming of Grozny in 1995, V. Mironov wrote that in the war, our first enemy was our own aviation (
    1. Orel
      Orel 12 November 2013 08: 46
      +3
      I agree that the "fog of war" and the desire of each combat unit commander to protect his soldiers is doing their job. They prefer not to take risks and call in art support or aviation. There have been plenty of identification errors at all times ...
  4. nik_alt
    nik_alt 12 November 2013 08: 32
    +3
    heavy assault machine guns

    The A-10 is actually a gun.
  5. makarov
    makarov 12 November 2013 08: 37
    +7
    “A lot of the Air Force pilots I've worked with seem to be just looking for an excuse to pull the trigger without worrying about where the comrades in arms are down there. .. "

    And what the hell is the difference? Is there a departure? - Yes! Ammunition spent? - Spent! It means a combat flight, and for it a pretty penny is received as for a military one.
  6. Sterlya
    Sterlya 12 November 2013 08: 38
    +3
    nice to read when they wet each other. they don’t set fire to their aircraft carriers for a long time. it’s time already
    1. Orel
      Orel 12 November 2013 08: 42
      16
      Come on, soldiers carry out orders, if it’s worth hating someone, it’s those who sent them to this senseless war ...
      1. vlad0
        vlad0 12 November 2013 16: 31
        +5
        Somehow I am more or less loyal to the French, Germans, Italians and other Europeans. But here's the arrogance and snobbery ... Above - only the stars! Even their "brothers" in NATO cannot digest them.
  7. Orel
    Orel 12 November 2013 08: 38
    +6
    Until recently, cases of "friendly fire" in any army were considered an out of the ordinary event.


    This is not accuracy, to say the least, to say the least. Since the beginning of the massive use of artillery, aviation and firearms, there have been many and many casualties of "friendly fire" in all armies and conflicts. The thick "fog of war" cannot yet be overcome in more than one army in the world ...
    1. Su-9
      Su-9 12 November 2013 09: 19
      +4
      Yes exactly. And all those who have somehow been somewhere in the war will confirm this. Now it’s become better to part with this, if only because of more sophisticated means of communication (whoever has them) - but literally in the 80s it was - mom, do not grieve like filth.
  8. Blinov_I
    Blinov_I 12 November 2013 09: 24
    -4
    "The invasion was rather disorganized" Ha-ha ... In less than two months they broke organized resistance and a decent area in a ground operation - now it is called "disorganized @
    I will not read further.
    1. 0255
      0255 12 November 2013 21: 51
      +2
      Quote: Blinov_I
      "The invasion was rather disorganized" Ha-ha ... In less than two months they broke organized resistance and a decent area in a ground operation - now it is called "disorganized @
      I will not read further.

      In 2003, half of Iraqis surrendered to Bush or deserted. And Saddam's army was armed with old technology from the 1960s and 1970s, the one that was not destroyed during Desert Storm. It was impossible not to win here. Therefore, there is nothing to admire. Or have you replayed modern American shooters?
      1. Blinov_I
        Blinov_I 13 November 2013 03: 16
        0
        "Or are you overplayed in modern American shooters?"
        It’s impossible not to complain about your profile picture. wink
        I don’t play shooters.
        No one talks about the possibility / impossibility of victory. The operation completed with minimal losses in the minimum time. Or do you think the US Staff Logistics / Planning for the front of 1000 kilometers in advance on the site did ... because did they know that the Iraqi armed forces would not even try to resist? Although this is a rhetorical question. I think anyway everyone will be in their own opinion.
  9. Kerch
    Kerch 12 November 2013 11: 56
    +1
    Like in 1945, in Berlin, our tankers applied white stripes to the towers of tanks for identification from the air (so that their own aircraft did not strike)
    1. GastaClaus69
      GastaClaus69 12 November 2013 18: 24
      +5
      The Germans throughout the war so as not to suffer from their aircraft, flags with a swastika were laid on top of the engine compartment, they say. Imagine how such a spectacle was pleased with the pilots of the IL-2? smile
  10. svskor80
    svskor80 12 November 2013 12: 34
    +6
    Unfortunately, no one is immune from mistakes. And in this case, statements like "well, Americans are stupid" are inappropriate, I think there are such incidents in any war. One can only try to reduce their number.
    1. iConst
      iConst 12 November 2013 22: 04
      0
      Quote: svskor80
      Unfortunately, no one is immune from mistakes. And in this case, statements like "well, Americans are stupid" are inappropriate, I think there are such incidents in any war. One can only try to reduce their number.

      Plus
      In general, the Americans are turned on all kinds of control systems. And if they have such inconsistencies, then do not be angry.
      It is not known how our thick-handed staffers would have worked in such an operation.

      Even then, the percentage of losses is "laid down" on military exercises.
  11. Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 12 November 2013 12: 48
    +5
    "Friendly fire is usually not." (from) hi
  12. operator35
    operator35 12 November 2013 14: 28
    +7
    and how many times have we half-drunk m ... ki shot at their own ????? during the battle, you ask to put smoke from the mortar, and above your head the "chandelier" lights up, is this normal ?????
    1. MAG
      MAG 12 November 2013 16: 58
      +7
      We often had a "slight" misunderstanding with the army team. You go to the base and they put them in front of us as they passed in the fog and did not understand, but we had to see THEIR eyes when we swam out of the fog) once we went down into the gorge and the trail became impassable went on the other side and we hear on our wave they ask for the opening of fire of the LNG and AGS on us that we were standing for cover as we burst into the dead zone and on the move conveyed that they were our own)) and during the cleanup they entered from three directions and 2 groups took each other for Czechs the team began to beat us Then we sorted it out to help them BUT this mess, he still staged a dushara, shot in both groups and went into the forest
  13. Nayhas
    Nayhas 12 November 2013 15: 00
    +2
    The author, of course, hates Americans fiercely and for the sake of his hatred is ready to inflate any miscalculation into a sensation, but any participant in the hostilities knows that "friendly fire" is an inevitable evil. They are trying to minimize it, but everyone is well aware that this is possible. The author should have asked about the percentage of our aviation losses from "friendly fire" in the war with Georgia. And there is nothing to say about Chechnya, how many guys there died from this ...
  14. mountain
    mountain 12 November 2013 15: 01
    +3
    It is unfortunate that in modern conditions, young people, even ours, even an American or any other nation, die by stupidity or chance. Purely human, sorry.
  15. Astartes
    Astartes 12 November 2013 15: 39
    +2
    I read the idea that the Americans, trying to minimize their losses from enemy fire, introduced the concept of "friendly fire", they say, they have such a cool army that the enemy cannot take them, and the losses are so accidental.
  16. Not served
    Not served 12 November 2013 16: 29
    +2
    Compared to Kursk, this friendly fire pampering ....
    On this site I saw a link, went through it and read about the first opinion about the Kursk cap. It's all sad, very ...
    My uncle told me about the "friendly fire" how during the Second World War they used their Katyushas on their own ... and more than once.
    1. GastaClaus69
      GastaClaus69 12 November 2013 18: 44
      +2
      The wars of the 18-19 centuries were also funny.
      When the cavalry with sabers barely attacks their own infantry by mistake, well, of course, it defends itself. During the Battle of Waterloo, the Prussians mixed up the French and the British and opened fire on them with guns, the British, of course, kindly reply with courtesy).
      In general, war is bad !!
  17. qwert1707
    qwert1707 12 November 2013 19: 00
    +4
    There are a lot of such shoals as "friendly fire" in our army, if they were all recorded and checked, and not hushed up and written off, then the hair would stand in one place ..
    I also heard about how our flyers were weird and artillery, and just soldiers ...
    And thank God, too, from experience, that the machine gunner the double bass from the reconnaissance near Shali turned out to be a clumsy one ... otherwise it might have been 6 years since mother of the mother had laid eggs for Easter at the cemetery ..
  18. iConst
    iConst 12 November 2013 22: 10
    0
    Litter for offtopic: at all this site so slows down or is it just me?
    1. baku1999
      baku1999 12 November 2013 22: 39
      0
      KASPERSKY'S PAST .................
  19. iConst
    iConst 12 November 2013 23: 26
    +2
    Quote: baku1999
    KASPERSKY'S PAST .................
    Well, advice ... laughing
  20. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 13 November 2013 01: 17
    0
    Great news, I think it is necessary to increase the accuracy of the shooting of American troops.
  21. pv1005
    pv1005 13 November 2013 01: 45
    0
    Friendly fire is something other than a failure in the organization of interaction.
  22. Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 13 November 2013 08: 32
    0
    The problem of identifying friend or foe is quite relevant. As far as I know, we also had problems with identification in Chechnya and Ossetia.
  23. kelevra
    kelevra 13 December 2013 14: 00
    0
    Americans often cover their own because they work as drones and aircraft, and spotters, for fear of getting closer to the goal so as not to put in their pants, often aim from closed positions, only in coordinates! And mathematicians and calculators, none of them , I myself saw how they work, so it is not surprising that their fell out of proportion!