Talk:Friendly fire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

23 August 2007

Paulioetc has recently amended this entry to read:

• August 23, 2007: A USAF F-15 called in to support British ground forces in Afghanistan dropped a bomb on those forces due to incorrect coordinates given to the pilot by a British Forward Air Controller. Three privates of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, were killed and two others were severely injured. The British Forward Air Controller is now facing manslaughter charges so the US were not to blame for this tragedy. It was later revealed that the British forward air controller who order the attack was never issued a headset by the British army. Deafened by enemy mortars falling on his position he incorrectly confirmed one wrong digit of the co-ordinate and the American bomb landed on his three comrades rather than enemy positions almost a mile away. The coroner finally stated it was down to the "flawed application of procedures" rather than individual errors or "recklessness".

Ther are a number of errors and false interpretations here. Firstly, the inquest would not have gone ahead and reached the verdict it did, had the manslaughter charge against the FAC proceeded. This source confirms that the charge is no longer pending, and even if it was, there would be no grounds - in the absence of an actual verdict - to claim, "the US were not to blame." Secondly, it is false to state the incident was, "due to incorrect coordinates given to the pilot by a British Forward Air Controller." The cited sources sated that the FAC, "misheard the grid reference repeated back to him by the US aircrew" (my emphasis). It is not stated whether he gave them the wrong co-ordinates in the first place, or that he gave the right co-ordinates, but they mis-heard or mis-understood them. Thirdly, there is no source that the FAC was, "Deafened by enemy mortars falling on his position," only that the parol he was with was under fire; it was the Royal Anglian position that was under mortar fire. Lastly, the error was 1,000 metres - i.e. one kilometre - which is not "a mile." I have therefore changed the text accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonsble - though the entry could probably be simplifed further to - "as a result of miscommunication between the aircraft and FAC characterised at an inquest as 'flawed application of procedures' a USAF F-15 dropped weapons on a Royal Anglian position 1,000 m from the enemy killing two soldier and injuring two more". There isn't much more to be said except if anything changed as a result of the incident. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Without exaggerating, this is about the 5th time he has added the same flawed informaiton based on an outdated newspaper report if you count this and another article. He has thus far refused to engage in any meaningful way in talk and is continuing to add erroneous information or to use very flawed sources. One of the sources he re-added is a WP:SPS and was removed yesterday. I am beginning to think the time has come for an RFC/U. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Aren's you guys going to add in that the British FAC is not charged instead of having to know what happened to the him? Because the readers need to know what happened to him because we never know what the cause of it. Otherwise stop being a bit biased and wikipedia was supposed to have contribute.170.91.194.9 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough Paulio or whatever your name is, we don't tend to include comments that the innocent never faced charges on account of being innocent in the first place. This has nothing to do with bias. Quit disrupting this article. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean Up

Anyone object if I remove all of the unverified entries added by Paulio? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

we should be removing all unverified material I suppose. In general a sift through of the contents would be a good idea. While recent wars have been smaller in scale and individual inciddents stand out, trying to list incidents from the second world war would overwhelm the article . What would be useful is some general coverage of number of incidents and total casualties as well as themost notable incidents. 08:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, we should set criteria for including incidents. The rest we could perhaps cover in a tubular format in terms of incidents and casualties. Though we should be careful to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN in its creation. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Specifically I was thinking that what the article could use is phrases like "during the Battle of Britain there were few/many/loads of cases of friendly fire incidents due to trigger-happy AA gunners/weather conditions/the amount of cocoa served in the mess". The incidents involving Typhoon taxicab support (and other CAS) hitting the wrong guys could also be brought together as distinct from the less used heavies flattening the wrong lines. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

About this new section

http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/news_asia/2011-03-29/pakistani-soldiers-laid-to-rest-killed-by-friendly-fire.html

does anyone know what killed 13 pakistan troops? Does this supposed to take place in Afghanistan war section or what?170.91.194.9 (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Mass Revert

I've performed a major revert back to 17 April as our old friend Paulioetc has been back using an IP sock puppet to add unsourced material. I'm in the process of adding back any useful content that was added in-between so please be patient. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think thats done, please don't take it personally if I missed yours. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You should also have noted the additions were generally grammatically bad English. The G9 incident was valid but the sentences a mess. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes they were but whilst bad grammar falls under WP:SOFIXIT, lack of sourcing and a BLP violation are clear justifications for such a mass revert. Did I miss something, I didn't see any sources so if there was something of salvageable content we should do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

have you been reading mines what i said. Here are many wrongs with the friendly fire article you reverted. Here i can give you an examples: 1) The one that killed three paratroopers during the Vietnam War actually happened on January 3rd during operation Maurader, not the January 9th. Why don't you ask username AustralianRupert' and 'Anotherclown yourself before you change something. You seem to stoop to the level of Paulio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AustralianRupert and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anotherclown I thought i already gave out my reason yet you revert back into the your version. 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Villers-Bretonneux this battle happened on April 24/25, not the 18th. This incident happened at night of 24/25 3) Micah Jenkins was involved in the same incident with Longstreet during the Battle of the Wilderness in the American Civil war. My grammar may be bad but what do you want me to say? Why don't you remove it? 67.164.105.159 (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See [[1]] for the history of this sock puppet. Despite protestations of innocence and improving content, there is a history of inserting erroneous information, allied with a persistent habit of inserting a WP:BLP violation. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok let me get this straight. You have been adding this without any backup. You just talk about the first one on 2007 but noe on others issues. What "erroneous information" you chose to remove and list them out for me instead of just "erroneous information". I already look at your reason 10 times and i still don't get you. Whatever that means Wikipedia admins like you is become totalitarian dictatorship and we supposed to help out each other not to remove information to something you don't like and you still don't care. You are acting like what paulio is going: revert edits, put inaccurate dates, and in fact you chose not to look into my reason. For three paratrooper killed, that took place in January 3rd not the 9th. it was a mistake so i revert it back in. Why don't you ask them instead of giving me this info you have me here? Maybe talk and dicuss instead. Everytime i changed something you just revert it (EX Second_Battle_of_Villers-Bretonneux took place in April 24 not the 18th) everytime ichanged it, you reverted it back 67.164.105.159 (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Crimp started 8 January, most of what you add is simply wrong, so it is no longer worth my while checking. Reverted again and Graham's edition re-added. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok Wee curry not to butt in but how do you know that one that killed three paratroopers was from Operation Crimp? The last time i read the incident happened on January 3rd during Operation Maurader, how can you sure that incident happened on Operation Crimp? What make you so sure? Do you not care about adding a correct infor or no? 170.91.194.9 (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry, you starting to abuse your power. What make it clear that you think that those three paratrooper killed was Operation Crimp? otherwise you are stooping to the level that paulioetc was. I asking you what make uou think that? I see not enought information why i should be blocked for it. It doesn't make any sense. tell me, other you care about adding your agenda or not discuss with me at all. "most of what you add is simply wrong". What wrong do you mean? give me an example. That link you gave about sockpuppet was only one example. What proof can you really get huh? 67.164.105.159 (talk)

Wee Curry, Sockpuppet, i wanted to have a discuss with you, not having a conflict with you. Let's discuss what's wrong instead of have sending me messages that has nothing to do with my question and having a conflict with me.67.164.105.159 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm not sure if this helps at all, but we've had this issue on the Operation Crimp article before (please see this diff: [2]) and it seems that January 3 is the correct date and that it was Operation Marauder, not Crimp in which it occured. I'm not an expert on it, but I do have a copy of the Breen book (which is currently being used as a reference for January 9 date of the friendly fire incident that killed three US paratroopers). On page 173 of my copy 1988 version, Breen actually provides the date of January 3, so I think our article has just accidently listed January 9. The full quote is: "Early on 3 January two rounds from the New Zealand Gun Battery fell among Company C of the 2/503rd, killing three Paratroopers..." (1998, p. 173). This is within a section on Operation Marauder. I believe, that the New Zealand Official History also states something similar (I don't have a copy, but I believe that Anotherclown who has worked extensively on the Operation Crimp article does). I can't vouch for 67.164.105.159's actions, but I think they might be correct on this point. I haven't edited this article, though, and I will leave it up to the established editors to decide how best to proceed, though. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, everytime i changed it back wee curry kept changing it back to Operation Crimp. He just simple refuse to listen and everytime i changed it back he threatened to block me. He refuse to listen what i say. He just adding it to his own agenda and he never cares. Plus he accused me of something i never did. 67.164.105.159 (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Block log of User:67.164.105.159 [3], block log of User:170.91.194.9 [4]. Both are known socks of Paulioetc. Note that I asked Anotherclown [5] to comment as Paulio mixes legitimate edits within his wikifiddling. None of his edits are cited per WP:V, when he has added cites in the past they were not reliable per WP:RS but in the main WP:SPS such as blogs, personal websites or forums eg [6]. Per the citation criteria on citing it would be best if someone who actually has the source edits the article as 3rd party cites are not acceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. I was asked to have a look at some of the recent edits and from looking at my sources in this instance it looks like the changes by User:67.164.105.159 are correct in this case. Specifically:

• 24/25 April 1918, during the battle of Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux... confirmed by the Australian official history Bean 1937, The AIF in France 1918, p. 585. (the ref used in the article which I also happen to have a copy of)
• Two rounds from New Zealand artillery inexplicably landed on the US 173rd Airborne Brigade, killing three paratroopers and wounding seven on January 3, 1966... confirmed by the NZ official history McGibbon 2010, New Zealand's Vietnam War: A History of Combat, Commitment and Controversy, p. 125. Likewise Breen 1988, First to Fight, p. 173. (Please note that this incident occurred during Operation Marauder, not Operation Crimp which started on 8 January).

I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent Paulio edits

[7] He keeps changing numbers without citing a reason why. eg

“ During Operation Cobra, bombs from the Eighth Air Force landed on American troops on two separate occasions, killing 241 and injuring 620. Lieutenant General Lesley McNair was among the dead — the highest-ranking victim of American friendly fire. ”

to

“ During Operation Cobra, bombs from the Eighth Air Force landed on American troops on two separate occasions, killing 136 and injuring 620. Lieutenant General Lesley McNair was among the dead — the highest-ranking victim of American friendly fire. ”

It smacks of wikifiddling and given the history of disruptive edits, I am of a mind to revert. Outside comment please? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok wee curry here's to it why i changed to 136. This one is very long. From Operation Cobra article:

“ To gain good terrain for Operation Cobra, Bradley and Collins conceived a plan to push forward to the Saint-Lô–Periers road, along which VII and VIII Corps were securing jumping-off positions.[29] On 18 July, at a cost of 5,000 casualties, the American 29th and 35th Infantry Divisions managed to gain the vital heights of Saint-Lô, driving back General der Fallschirmtruppen Eugen Meindl's II Parachute Corps.[29] Meindl's paratroopers, together with the 352nd Infantry Division (which had been in action since its D-Day defense of Omaha Beach) were now in ruins, and the stage for the main offensive was set.[29] Due to poor weather conditions that had also been hampering Goodwood and Atlantic, Bradley decided to postpone Cobra for a few days—a decision that worried Montgomery, as the British and Canadian operations had been launched to support a break-out attempt that was failing to materialize.[73][74] By 24 July the skies had cleared enough for the start order to be given, and 1,600 Allied aircraft took off for Normandy.[73] However, the weather closed in again over the battlefield. Under poor visibility conditions, more than 25 Americans were killed and 130 wounded in the bombing before the air support operation was postponed until the following day. Some enraged soldiers opened fire on their own aircraft, a not uncommon practice in Normandy when suffering from friendly fire.

After the one-day postponement, Cobra got underway at 09:38 on 25 July, when around 600 Allied fighter-bombers attacked strongpoints and enemy artillery along a 300 yd (270 m)-wide strip of ground located in the St. Lô area.[75] For the next hour, 1,800 heavy bombers of the U.S. Eighth Air Force saturated an area 6,000 yd (5,500 m) wide and 2,200 yd (2,000 m) deep on the Saint-Lô–Periers road, succeeded by a third and final wave of medium bombers.[76] Approximately 3,000 U.S. aircraft had carpet-bombed a narrow section of the front, with the Panzer-Lehr-Division taking the brunt of the attack.[52] However, once again not all the casualties were German; Bradley had specifically requested that the bombers approach the target from the east, out of the sun and parallel to the Saint-Lô–Periers road, in order to minimize the risk of friendly losses, but most of the airmen instead came in from the north, perpendicular to the front line.[76] Bradley, however, had apparently misunderstood explanations from the heavy bomber commanders that a parallel approach was impossible because of the time and space constraints Bradley had set. Additionally, a parallel approach would not in any event have assured that all bombs would fall behind German lines because of deflection errors or obscured aim points due to dust and smoke.[77] Despite efforts by U.S. units to identify their positions, inaccurate bombing by the Eighth Air Force killed 111 men and wounded 490.[78] The dead included Bradley's friend and fellow West Pointer Lieutenant General Lesley McNair—the highest-ranking U.S. soldier to be killed in action in the European Theater of Operations.[78]

”

Doesn't sound like if 241 were killed it's more like 135 or 136 killed in this incident. Or maybe show me a source where 241 killed.

The same thing with 1994 Black hawk down shootdown incident. The one on a friendly fire article that says 29 were killed when in fact, only 26 people were killed in this incident. Now have any source for this? i have http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/blackhawk.html http://www.aircraftrecognition.com/aircraftrecognition.php and much much if you Google them up. Now please look it up before you remove something. Can i have permission to change it? Or do it yourself if you will. 67.164.105.159 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So you don't have a source, its a guess. And you're still using WP:SPS. I guess I will revert on that basis. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And you don't care regardless how accurate is it??? What about black hawk down incident? It's not 29, it's 26. can i have a permission to change that? 67.164.105.159 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't know, you don't guess. And you do not use WP:SPS to cite an edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that 29 people was actually killed? I just gave you the link here and pretty much every link i googled up says 26. that's pretty much a pathetic argument you got there. What make you think what realizes source i put in or not? What make you so sure that 29 was actually killed because if you look them all up, it all say 26 people.67.164.105.159 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I am telling you that edits on wikipedia have to be verifiable from a reliable source and that self-published sources such as blogs or personal websites do not satisfy wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. If you are unable or unwilling to grasp this, your edits will be removed. This is the final response I will give you, as if you are not willing to listen I will save my breath. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

All right fine i will have to go and read up the Wikipedia rules again. 67.164.105.159 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Correcting a sentence

The increasing sophistication of weaponry, and the tactics employed against American forces to deliberately confuse them has meant that while overall casualties have fallen for American soldiers in the late 20th and 21st centuries, the overall deaths due to friendly fire in American actions have risen dramatically.

If I'm not mistaken, it's the proportion of American casualties due to friendly fire that have increased, not the absolute number of friendly fire casualties. This is due in part because American forces are simply taking fewer casualties to enemies on the battlefield, so friendly fire accounts for a larger part of casualties. I don't believe that friendly fire incidents have actually increased in recent decades, so the sentence should be reworded —Masterblooregard (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

if the sentence is cited it should be checked against the source and then rewritten if needed. If it's uncited and its meaning unclear its better off removed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the expression

Article about Von Moltke states: "Moltke originated the use of the colors blue for friendly forces and red for hostile forces in strategy or wargaming. Hence the term blue on blue fire in friendly fire situations."

This one, however, tells a different story: "The term friendly fire was originally adopted by the United States military. Many North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) militaries refer to these incidents as blue on blue, which derives from military exercises where NATO forces were identified by blue pennants, hence "blue", and Warsaw Pact forces were identified by orange pennants. "

Neither version is referenced. Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.222.151.33 (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that both are partly correct: I'm willing to believe that Moltke originated the idea of using colours for real countries on exercises and wargames. However, NATO was responsible for standardizing on Blue for 'us', and on exercise, Orange for 'them'. This was because nations used their own standards before - UK, for example, marked own forces in red (the 'Thin Red Line') and the enemy in blue, because in the 19th century, most of our potential enemies did, in fact, wear blue. --Wally Tharg (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Revert back to friendly fire incident Falklands War

There is a person who keeps removing an entry on the the Falklands war, without using the talk page, he also like to delete facts that goes against his POV. I have been making contribution to this page for years. This fact is not collateral damage as he states. It was discussed in 2007 and it was agreed that this would be part of this page, as it was investigated and clearly the wrong house was targeted. This resulted in the deaths of 3 woman. Outofsinc has removed or changed quite a few other contribution of mine and never uses the correct venue for making such changes.Jacob805 09:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)

Archive 1 shows no such discussion in 2007. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well this was removed without discussion:

June 11th, 1982: A British Royal Navy HMS Avenger (F185) ship fired a 4.5 inch explosive shell into a house while shelling a port in Stanley, Falkland Islands, killing three British women and several others were wounded. They are the only British civilian casualties of the war.[12][13] source cited((http://www.ppu.org.uk/falklands/falklands3.html))Jacob805 10:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This entry was also removed:

British Patrol units of 45 Commando Royal Marines fired on a British mortar section who were mistaken for an Argentinian unit in the Falkland Islands, killing five Royal Marines. Jacob805 10:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the entry about HMS Avenger killing 3 Falklands civilians and wounding 3 more, which did happen, was deleted because collateral damage is specifically excluded from the definition of friendly fire at the top of the article? Just a thought. (Don't know about the other incident.)--Wally Tharg (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor correction - Vietnam, July 70 involving NZ Artillery

I have made a minor correction to the above as I was with 1 ARU when we were hit by the NZ artillery. I therefore add its name (1 ARU). I have no access to the reference quoted and cannot be sure of the date of incident except July 1970. Another point could be that the prior reference to 8 RAR being involved in a seperate NZ Artillery could be in error. Posibly confusion with the 1 ARU incident to which I refer. I say this because 1) the dates are close. 2) I know the incident of ARU was outside the wire and the lieutenant was inexperienced. 3) 2 killed. To my mind it seems a bit too much of a coincidence. Anyhow excuse me if I have gone against any conventions. i am a newbie. Paloma99 (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Paloma99, As a military historian I (and everyone else!) should welcome contributions from those who were there. Having looked at many FF incidents from Vietnam myself, and tried to 'deconflict' incidents that were too close to be separate, I suspect your hunch is correct. Would it be possible for you to search NZ online war records, maybe a roll of honour, to find out when the 2 men died? If you could find out who died, it could be linked to the page. --Wally Tharg (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Should this article be split?

I've been thinking about this for some time. It appears that the article serves two separate but nevertheless useful purposes: first, a definition of friendly fire and discussion of the issues surrounding it; second, an ordered and (hopefully, one day ...) referenced list of friendly fire incidents in history, to serve as a reference data source. But in doing both jobs its getting longer, taking ages to load, and making it harder to separate the sources that discuss the top-level issues with those that describe individual events. Secretly, I'd like to take a large axe and split it in two. (The offshoot would be called a 'List of friendly fire incidents' or similar; TBC.)

I say this because I am aware of over 3000 friendly fire incidents from history, discussed at a recent military analysis conference, and if these are going to be 'trickle-fed' by folks into this article, it will become totally unwieldy. Worse, it will be so big and baggy that readers who want a snappy discussion of friendly fire - the original aim - will be put off. But I'm not going to do anything drastic until I've seen some measured responses. [Discuss: 10 marks] --Wally Tharg (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

While there is nothing inherently wrong in such a split, my concern is that every incident under the sun would appear in the list. With weapons and the fog of war, incidents are likely to happen, so to be worth including in a list it really needs to be a monumental error or a very public one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

While I'd prefer a shorter and punchier list of examples and an all-in-one article, there's not really a lot you can do to stop the list getting longer. I'd be OK with a split. Maybe a long list in a separate article and a smaller one in the main article of 'Notable' incidents. Mdw0 (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your initial thoughts; will leave it for a bit and see how it goes, but at least I didn't get a blizzard of objections! While I see your point Graeme, as Mdw0 points out, there's nothing we can do to stop people adding the trivial ones they know about, while some of the worst ones in recorded history - Karansebes, Bois de Rossignol, Beauséjour - are still omitted. Fortunately there's a 'top ten' list in the new book on friendly fire that's out by Kirke (ed.) so will probably implement that one for starters if I do the split. The point of splitting out the incident list is that it if people do add the new and the trivial, then it won't detract from the impact of the main article. (There must of course be strong links from one article to the other.) What do y'all think? --Wally Tharg (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re content of a list - Under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". I believe that gives editors room to be selective about the number and detail of incidents. It would also be appropriate to give more collated information eg (well sourced) statements such as "during X war there were nnnn casulaties ascribed to friendly fire". GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme, will bear that in mind when I get around to doing the split. I certainly intend to retain the "during X war ..." type entries in the main FF article, because they're general information, rather than what I'd call a data resource. But I need a few more hours in the sand-pit before I have the confidence to tackle this job. --Wally Tharg (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In preparation for the Big Split I've started rationalizing the references. There are far too many duplicates in the 'incidents' section, so I've started grouping those that refer to the same source. This has allowed me to add 3 references to books that are specifically on friendly fire remove two 'general' references (i.e. books that happened to contain incidents) from that list, moving them where they belonged, in the footnotes. Result: three more important sources and a slightly shorter article. Win-win or what? --Wally Tharg (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

In case you need any further endorsement, I’d support restricting this article to an explanation of the phenomenon and its various aspects, and agree that a separate list page is a good idea. It would resolve the addition of minor incidents to this article; they could simply be cut out and transferred to the list page. To avoid the problem of a List page becoming "a complete exposition of all possible" incidents I’m assuming any entries there would have to be notable; or at least challengeable by requiring a citation to back them up if they seem too trivial.

I’m guessing the examples remaining on this page would be the most notorious cases (maybe the ones that already have their own page? or a full description somewhere?), or examples of the various aspects of the phenomenon (by country, maybe, or by conflict: Or illustrating the difference between, say, incidents due to "fog of war" and those due to recklessness or incompetence).

Anyway, good luck with it...Xyl 54 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. The only problem I now foresee is that I can't simply create a new article myself from the split, as it needs to be approved by the Wiki editors. If the 'new' article (being the existing list plus a short intro) is rejected for the very real reasons discussed above, then I will have succeeded in brassing off a whole stack of contributors who will, effectively, have had their precious anecdotes deleted. Personally, I think that the full list does serve a purpose, just that it's in the wrong place at present. If the editors disagree, it could be a huge waste of effort. --Wally Tharg (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Exercise Tiger

Where is the intent to harm the enemy here? Mdw0 (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this wasn't a friendly fire incident? Or that there's something wrong with the definition? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the definition, technically this can't be friendly fire. Mdw0 (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Operation Cobra

I've separated the two incidents mentioned for Operation Cobra. Each one was serious enough to be mentioned separately, I think; but more than that, they represent two different types of incident. The first seems to be a typical "fog of war" incident; the flyers couldn't control the weather, and those that bombed and missed were completing their missions, while the ones who didn't could (conceivably) been in trouble when they got back. OTOH the second, ignoring a well-founded request to change practice in order to avoid the very thing that eventually happened, smacks of reckless endangerment. In fact I'm wondering if this is a fundamental distinction in friendly fire incidents; is it because "shit happens", or because "someone screwed up"? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There's too much grey area to make this distinction in a lot of cases. Shit happens because people screw up in war. Mdw0 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Friendly Fire between U.S. and Pakistan

You may add Friendly fire between ISAF and Pakistan on November 26th 2011. ISAF forces opened fire on Pakistani forces killing 24 pakistani soldiers and causing a great diplomatic standoff between U.S.and Pakistan. ISAF forces argue they were there to hunt down militants at the AF-PAK border. Pakistan has stopped transit of goods through its territory to ISAF in Afghanistan because of the Incident. U.S. has to apologise to resume the transit route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.197.9 (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Algeciras Bay

In the confusion one French ship was captured, a Spanish frigate sank and two huge 112-gun Spanish first rates collided and exploded, killing as many as 1,700 men.

---

At 23:20, Keats discovered the Real Carlos and pulled alongside, firing three broadsides into the Spanish ship that started a severe fire. Superb then pushed on towards Saint Antoine while Real Carlos drifted in darkness and confusion, encountering San Hermengildo, the Spanish ships mistaking one another for an enemy and opening fire. Real Carlos then drifted into San Hermengildo, the huge ships tangling together and the fire spreading from one to another until both were blazing wrecks in the darkness. They both exploded at 00:15 on 13 July, killing more than 1,700 men.

These both from the Algeciras Campaign page. The form of the story on the present page is somewhat different from either of the previous two.

Presumably, the most detailed version, in which the Superb fires only on the Real Carlos, is the most accurate.

Does anyone have any insight into this? Heavenlyblue (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

fratricide

Another term for such incidents is fratricide, a word that originally refers to the act of a person killing their brother.

I removed this, because this word does refer specifically to deliberate murder. Heavenlyblue (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the article for fratricide links here when it says, under the heading "Military terminology:"

Fratricide may also be used to refer to friendly fire incidents. It also refers to the possible destruction of one MIRV warhead by another. Targets may be arranged deliberately to increase the likelihood in a strategy called dense pack.

But there are no references. I did a Ctrl+F for "fratricide" on this article and found that two of the references here include "fratricide" in their titles, so perhaps you are mistaken? I could not access the online reference for some reason, and the other I couldn't be arsed to look up at the library, so I have no evidence as to particular usage of the word in those works, but judging from the usage of these references in the article, fratricide is indeed used academically to refer to friendly fire.174.25.204.125 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Friendly fire

Cyberbot II has detected links on Friendly fire which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.robertankony.com/publications/twenty-second-and-last-patrol/

  Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Friendly fire

Cyberbot II has detected links on Friendly fire which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.robertankony.com/publications/twenty-second-and-last-patrol/

  Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Extensive Copy-Editing Necessary

I have noticed much wordiness and poor construction and below posted my proposed edits:

==Addressing friendly fire==

Friendly fire often is believed inevitable, and in total casualties, negligible. Its effects are not just material. Being hit by friendlies demoralizes troops and causes them to doubt their command's competence, and friendly fire's prevalence makes commanders more cautious in the field.

Military leaders' attempts to reduce this effect generally involve identifying its causes and preventing incidents' repetition through training, tactics, and technology.

===Causes===

Friendly fire arises from the "fog of war" – the confusion inherent in warfare. Friendly fire due to apparent recklessness or incompetence may be improperly lumped into this category. The concept of a fog of war has come under considerable criticism because it can excuse poor planning, weak or compromised intelligence, and incompetent command.

Errors of position occur when fire aimed at enemy forces may accidentally end up hitting one's own. These incidents are exacerbated by close proximity of combatants and were relatively common during the First and Second World Wars, wherein troops fought in close combat and targeting was relatively inaccurate; improved targeting has diminished this phenomenon.

Errors of identification happen when friendly troops are mistakenly for enemies and therefore attacked. Highly mobile battles and battles involving troops from many nations more often cause this kind of incident as evidenced by incidents in the 1991 Gulf War, or the shooting down of a British aircraft by a U.S. Patriot battery during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In the Tarnak Farm incident, four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight others injured when a U.S. Air National Guard Major dropped a 500 lb (230 kg) bomb from his F-16 onto the Princess PYatricia's Canadian Light Infantry regiment which was conducting a night firing exercise near Kandahar. A nother case of such an accident was the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, although the exact circumstances of that incident are yet to be definitively determined.

References

Duxwing (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with editing back this section, but avoid using 'believed' when presenting a viewpoint. Even if you could get a reference indicating someone's belief, it is irrelevant. You could probably kill some of the examples too. But some of this has been edited back so much the meaning of the sentence is lost. The fact that friendly fire is seen as inevitable and minor is the reason why it has been ignored for so long. That cause and effect flow is lost in this edit. Also, I think its necessary to clearly distinguish the difference in morale between being hit and being hit by friendlies, because that difference is the whole point of the sentence.

Also, semi colons shouldn't be used when full stops are required. 'Improved targetting...' is a new sentence. Saying that troops from different countries is the cause of errors is wrong. That's blaming the victim. It may exacerbate the problem of the fog of war, but the cause is poor thinking, training and fire discipline. This edit also has fog of war as the only cause, which isn't correct. The other factors are hidden in that messy last paragraph in the Causes section. There is some good information there that just needs to be reworked and included at the top of the Causes section. Otherwise this edit is fine. Do you consider the Solutions section sufficiently succinct or are you proposing total deletion? Mdw0 (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The concept of a fog of war is criticized—implying that the whole idea should be scrapped—or the fact that it is too readily used as an excuse is criticized? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Friendly fire

Cyberbot II has detected links on Friendly fire which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.robertankony.com/lurps-gallery/

  Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.robertankony.com/publications/twenty-second-and-last-patrol/

  Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Friendly fire

Cyberbot II has detected links on Friendly fire which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.robertankony.com/lurps-gallery/

  Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.robertankony.com/publications/twenty-second-and-last-patrol/

  Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Globalisation

This article is too US centric.

Take for example the section Causes every example given is about US attacks. With one exception it is US attacks on allies.

Take for example the section Solutions it is totally about US solutions.

Incidentally when read sequentially a reader new to the subject could be forgiven for inferring that the friendly fire incidents in the first section are down to Americans' lack of training in recognising allied formations and large weapon systems as the article states "The response in training includes recognition training for Apache helicopter crews to help them distinguish American tanks and armored vehicles at night and in bad weather from those of the enemy." Because presumably anything that is not American is to be taken to be the enemy.

-- PBS (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a lot less US-centric before the list of incidents was removed into another article. That showed many incidents from history and in conflicts around the world, balancing the examples of friendly fire used in these sections that used primarily U.S. examples. Still, the fact remains that nearly all the famous incidents of the 21st Century have been ones where American forces are the perpetrators. This may simply be because the American media is freer than before to report on the incidents. I don't think you need to read 'sequentially' to pick up that American forces had developed a reputation for being blasé about friendly fire, its a pretty common attitude amongst Allied veterans. And as this is a friendly fire article, I'd say its pretty clear that at times, not only is 'anything not American' considered the enemy by American forces, but at times so are the American ones, and that training and improvements in training are an absolute must. Its not an insult to all American forces if a better training system is introduced. Its actually a good thing, a destruction of arrogance, an admission that 'we are not perfect, we can improve.' When someone says 'we can improve,' that is not a backhander to every veteran who came before, implying that they were backward. We are in some ways fortunate that this article has not ben used by propagandists simply to bash the American forces or label them as arrogant or careless or dumb. Instead we have a story of recognizing a problem and making attempts to fix it. Mdw0 (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

History

This article is lacking a history section about how forces in the past avoided friendly fire incidents? How about the use of coloured sashes (or even plants tucked into the brim of hats), and then the development highly visible coloured uniforms, both developed to reduce the accidental killing of allies as well as unit recognition by senior commanders. Eg

Hussey Vivian wrote in 1833

Prior to this, the 18th [Hussars], in their pursuit, after their charge, had nearly reached the [farm of Rossomme], and had met with some of the advanced cavalry of the Prussians on entering the road; and, I fear, in some instances, mistakes had occurred. I myself, the next day, saw several men of the 18th lying dead or wounded on the high-road, nearly as far as the farm mentioned (319).

To balance that with two other examples given by Vivian in the same article to show that friendly fire incidents were not just a problem for Prussians:

[My] brigade was at this time so much in advance of all other troops of the British army, that whilst the French were firing grape at us, shot and spherical case were falling amongst us from some of our own guns, those working them taking us for an enemy, and I sent an officer to the rear to correct the mistake (316).

and

The circumstance here referred to occurred to the 1st hussars of the German Legion, in advancing over the plain near Rosomme, after the last attack of the 10th [Hussars]. I then brought the 1st hussars to the front, and the regiment was trotting across the plain, when suddenly we heard a large body of infantry and cavalry immediately before and advancing towards us. It was too dark to see at any distance; and but for the extraordinary steadiness of the corps, a mistake might have occurred, and very naturally so, as French voices were plainly distinguished, and preparations were made to attack. But it was soon discovered to be a part of the 11th light dragoons, of Sir Ormsby Vandeleur's brigade, which had charged a large body of the enemy, and made some hundreds of prisoners, with whom they were proceeding to the rear.

"The very great disadvantage of a similarity of appearance between British and foreign cavalry." [quoting George Gawler (1833)]

I have above explained the cause of the mistake which had nearly occurred with respect to the 11th light dragoons and the 1st German hussars. This had nothing whatever to do with similarity of dress; but I still quite agree with you in the advantage of a perfect distinction between the dress of our troops and those of foreign nations, and that distinction cannot be better maintained than by the British being clothed in the national colour—red, however much some may think it takes from the appearance of a part of our army.

(320–321)

• Vivian, Hussey (1833), "Reply to Major Gawler on his 'Crisis of Waterloo", The United Service Magazine, pp. 310–324

This is one article about one battle, there must be wealth of subject matter to be used to build a history section. -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll take this the wrong way, but did you bother to read to the end of the article and click on the link to the List of friendly fire incidents? You'll certainly find more than one battle there.Mdw0 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Causes

The causes of blue-on-blue incidents are not limited to "Errors of position" or "Errors of identification". General "trigger happiness" is also a major cause, particularly with green (unbloodied) forces, and the US military.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No matter how trigger-happy a soldier might be, they don't fire on their own troops deliberately - they make an error of identification. Of course they might make this error more often and react with more deadly force, but it is still an error of identification that causes the incident.Mdw0 (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)