U.S. versus British infantry

[Sea Skimmer]

thats not the only excuse, i remember at one point they shot down a returning RAF aircraft...

Yeah, you see there's this interesting thing by which a returning aircraft would be flying in the same direction as a hostile attacking aircraft would be. The Tornado shoot down was when the system was in fully automatic mode, artillery fire having forced the crew to get under cover. IFF failed so it shot.

Anyway, despite what some people like to claim Operation Iraqi freedom has had a record low toll of friendly fire deaths.

[Bill Door]

If it was returning, then it was heading towards a carrier or airbase right?
A carrier in the same area as a US carrier, or airbase shared with US forces? This would put it on the "We might want to shoot this down" list.

There should not have been that choice. Something went wrong with the IFF equipment, whether it was on the aircraft or in the Patriot battery fire control. Sometimes things go wrong. The question the military should be asking themselves is 'how do I stop this?'

Like it or not, the ability of the US soldier to decide "US or not US," is easier and faster and more acurate than "Enemy or Allied."
We kill more allies than our own.
True/false VS multiple choice.
You ALWAYS miss more multiple choice questions.

Why should that affect ground attack aircraft? The British were using air identification markers that the US gave them. And what about the USMC AAV's? They also got attacked by A-10's (admittedly from the USAF)? Are the US marines not part of the US military?

And what about the RAF? Why did the RAF not hit US veichles, as the same would apply to them? (there may be fewer RAF aircraft (~460 in total compaired to ~26000 in total), but there is more US stuff to hit.) The RAF does not give its pilots 'Go-Pills' (amphetamines) on extended missions. Could these be partly to blame?
Source for the Go-Pills and numbers of Aircraft: Essential Militaria by Nicholas Hobbes ISBN 1-84354-229-3


Moving away from the whole Friendly Fire issues.
The SA-80 A2 is a much improved weapon. this means that it is alot less likely to:
1: Jam
2: Have the plastic melt
3: Have the magazine drop out at inappropriate times
4: Malfunction in such a way that it fails to fire.

Also, as the battlefield is set in a forest, it is likely to be a temperate climate. This will mean that it will work more reliably than in the extremes of Afganistan or Iraq.

[Sea Skimmer]

There should not have been that choice. Something went wrong with the IFF equipment, whether it was on the aircraft or in the Patriot battery fire control. Sometimes things go wrong. The question the military should be asking themselves is 'how do I stop this?'

And you think there not doing so why exactly? Billions have and are being spend on identification and datalink technology.

Why should that affect ground attack aircraft? The British were using air identification markers that the US gave them. And what about the USMC AAV's? They also got attacked by A-10's (admittedly from the USAF)? Are the US marines not part of the US military?

No system is perfect, thousands of sorties where flown and about five hit friendly forces, that is incredible good. The human eye and mind is not perfect.

And what about the RAF? Why did the RAF not hit US veichles, as the same would apply to them? (there may be fewer RAF aircraft (~460 in total compaired to ~26000 in total), but there is more US stuff to hit.)

My what a stupid comparison. You don't actually think the UK or US sent every plane they have to support the invasion do you? The US had over 600 tactical aircraft deployed, while the UK had about 50, and they where almost all interdiction aircraft like the Tornado, which means they weren't flying CAS missions. They where flying deep strikes against Iraqi forces and infrastructure well behind the lines.

The RAF does not give its pilots 'Go-Pills' (amphetamines) on extended missions. Could these be partly to blame?

Such pills have been in use for over 50 years
without any problems. The reason is quite simple, UK fixed wing aircraft flew very few CAs sorties, the US flew a great many.

Moving away from the whole Friendly Fire issues.
The SA-80 A2 is a much improved weapon. this means that it is alot less likely to:
1: Jam
2: Have the plastic melt
3: Have the magazine drop out at inappropriate times
4: Malfunction in such a way that it fails to fire.

And yet it still failed horribly at tests, and soon after the MoD announced that it was going to be retired from service in the 2006-7 timeframe, original projections where for around 2020.

Well, at least it doesn't empty the magazine on full automatic if you drop it anymore.

[Bill Door]

The british rifles may jam, but the machine gus won't as regularly. This leaves the British in quite a bit of trouble when trying to attack, but will reduce the ability of the Americans to walk all over the Brits.

The British L86 is one of the worst machine guns ever built; though jamming isn't so much the issue as the whole thing disintegrating.

Of course the L86 is crap, its a longer and heavyer barreled L85. The machine guns im talking about are the GMPG and the FN Minimi (essentially a M249 without a heatsheild IIRC).
See below:
British Army website

[Death from the Sea]

I vote for the U.S. Military to win.

[Sea Skimmer]

Of course the L86 is crap, its a longer and heavyer barreled L85. The machine guns im talking about are the GMPG and the FN Minimi (essentially a M249 without a heatsheild IIRC).

You've got it the wrong way around, the M249 is a modified Minimi, it does have an added heat shield and a different carrying handle and some parts where changed slightly to suit American production equipment. The British use it unmodified.

However by the terms of the thread there would be no GPGM’s, both sides basically use the same thing anyway, two different modified FN MAG’s, while British forces would have many fewer Minimi’s.

[MKSheppard]

The Americans may have the superior weapons, but they kill half their own troops in 'friendly fire' incidents before they even lay eyes on a Brit, using up most of their ammo.

Except that he specified

Infantry only, with only their standard issued weapons.
No air support, GPS, RPGs.. etc etc
No special forces.

So we don't have to worry about the RAF or USAF blowing the shit out
of their own side

[Zoink]

There was an interesting program on OLN, that showed the annual sniper competition they have in the U.S. Now *that* was a cool program.

The had about 50 teams, the majoirty being a mix of U.S. teams (mix of army, ranger, detla, etc), with about 3 Canadian (all from Canada's elite unit), and 1 British.

The pevious year had been won by a Canadian team, but for this competition a team from Alaska won (I think they were a regular army unit). The highest Canadian team was 7th (or something like that). The British team came in last, unfortunately because they weren't able to import their own ammo, and had to use unkown american ammo.

So if you want to see a real "vs" battle keep your eye out for that program!

[jegs2]

Here're the rules...

Equal number of troops on both sides.
Both start at opposite ends of a forest.

Infantry only, with only their standard issued weapons.
No air support, GPS, RPGs.. etc etc
No special forces.

Who takes the field?

Invoking the original rules here, as there seems to be a lively debate based on fratricide incidents from A-10's and other aircraft. Note that in the rules, there is no CAS.

Since we're speaking of standard issue weapons, can we use Bradley Fighting vehicles or other standard mechanized infantry equipment included in the MTOE of a mech battalion, or the Strykers in an SBCT?

[Trytostaydead]

Since we're speaking of standard issue weapons, can we use Bradley Fighting vehicles or other standard mechanized infantry equipment included in the MTOE of a mech battalion, or the Strykers in an SBCT?

Nonono.. just you little grunts..

[jegs2]

Nonono.. just you little grunts..

Well then, that depends on a great many factors. If the infantry unit in question is fresh out of JRTC or some other CTC, they will be more highly trained as a cohesive warfighting force. If they've recently completed a mission at the Siani or a Bosnia rotation, then they'll be soft on warfighting skills due to a lack of intensive combat training and a focus on area presense and "police" work. Then we look at intangibles like the current leadership and unit morale...

[CmdrWilkens]

First off for thsoe who keep arguing about the hugely disproportionate problem with Friendly Fire incidents:

* Second world war (1939-1945)
US deaths:135,576
Friendly fire: 21,000 (16%)

* Vietnam (1966-1971)
US deaths: 58,000
Friendly fire: 8,000 (14%)

* Gulf war (1991)
US deaths: 148
Friendly fire: 35 (23%)
UK deaths: 47
Friendly fire: 10 (21%)

* Afghanistan (2002)
US deaths: 31
Friendly fire: 4 (13%)

* Gulf war (2003)
US deaths: 91
Friendly fire: 12 (13%)
UK deaths: 30
Friendly fire: 5 (17%)

Sources: Pentagon, Reuters

Thus the highest incident rate in the modern warfare era would be in GWI. Since then casualty percentages have basically followed those of every previosu war (staying in the rough boundaries of 13-17%). Now what I don't have available in number of freindly fire deaths per thousand troops involved. Nonetheless peak involvement in Vietnam reached roughly the same size as the first Gulf War though it obviously lasted much longer. Still even given that the story is still in favor of better living today. Were we to assume that the entire Veitnam force was rotated exactly once yearly, and that the force was at its peak level for the entire time, then there were roughly 13 times as many troops involved in Veitnam against the Persian Gulf War of '91. However there were 228 times as many friendly fire casualties. This means an individual was 228 times LESS likely to die from riendly fire in the Persian Gulf War, and that war had a much higher casualty rate than any of the actions since.



Now back to the original point. I'd give it to the Marines who decide to crash the party .

[Sea Skimmer]

Some of those KIA figures must be combat deaths only, while others are not.

[CmdrWilkens]

Some of those KIA figures must be combat deaths only, while others are not.

I'm pretty certain that the figures for PG'91 and PG'03 are both from the commencement of Offensive Operations onwards. So they won't count accidents that occured during the build up, only after we went on the attack.

[Rubberanvil]

CmdrWilkens were there any figures for the Korean War, Granada and Panama?

[CmdrWilkens]

CmdrWilkens were there any figures for the Korean War, Granada and Panama?

Not that I could pull up easily. I could go lookign but what you see there is the result of about a half an hour of search then double check.