Journal Planesdragon's Journal: Friendly Fire 8
I've heard more than a few times the claim that Americans are especially prone to friendly fire. The claim is most often attributed to a friend who happened to serve in the Canadian or British military services, and I'm willing to take uncontested the fact that Americans have this REPUTATION.
But I don't believe it, and I won't believe it until some real statistics are shown.
Such as, how do these friendly fire incidents add up when you normalize for the size of the military? How about when you seperate the rate of inter-army and intra-army friendly fire?
It's an horrible event when any soldier dies at the hands of their allies. But if a country that fields 100,000 men and women DOESN'T have ten times the friend-fire incidents of their 10,000 strong ally, then I'll get worried.
Until I hear the numbers, I'm not convinced that the greater number of American friendly fire incidents is due to anything more than the greater number of American soldiers.
Numbers and ratios (Score:2)
Does DU count? (Score:2)
I'm waiting for a FOI
Even more confusing now (Score:2)
The Reputation Isn't All That New (Score:2)
He served in the US Army, by the way. It does seem that our airmen, in particular have a reputation for shooting at anything that moves.
Re:The Reputation Isn't All That New (Score:2)
Which is why I doubt the current view. It makes about as much sense as claiming that the French always surrender, or that the British army never loses.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is nothing more than an urban legend that dates back to the Civil War.
Re:The Reputation Isn't All That New (Score:2)
I think some of the problem comes from the US military's traditional reliance on firepower as an equalizer for numbers. You can't afford to lose people, so you are rather freer with the expenditure of ammo.
And let us not forget that Stonewall Jackson was accidentally
Re:The Reputation Isn't All That New (Score:2)
The phenomenon is not an urban legend. The fact that America is especially prone to it is.
I think some of the problem comes from the US military's traditional reliance on firepower as an equalizer for numbers. You can't afford to lose people, so you are rather freer with the expenditure of ammo.
To be blunt, if that were all it is then I'd be fine with it. Better them than us
Re:The Reputation Isn't All That New (Score:2)
The real shame was that the European military academies didn't believe that there was anything important to be learned from the American Civil War, when the seeds of Ypres, Verdun, and the Marne were clearly visible to those who would see.