Friendly Fire from aircraft

[narwan]

kevin said:

Fatricide (from the air is extremely rare these days, compared to Vietnam Korea and WWII), but all fatricide has consistently remained the cause of approximately 10% of US casualities from the Revoulutionary War up to ODS. (I don't know the figures from OIF)

You do realise you're more or less contradicting yourself here? How can it be extremely rare these days and still account for 10% of the casualties?

It SEEMS rare because no combat operations of the kind and on the scale seen in Vietnam, Korea, etc have taken place recently. And yes, I do know about the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but that's exactly what I mean. Those saw only limited conventional combat operations on the ground and for only a relatively short period (days or weeks).
During those relatively short combat campaigns quite a few incidents occurred. And it'll happen again, I'm sure of that.

Technology is NOT the answer here, at best it can be a tool helping the humans using it, but it can also be the cause for unwanted incidents. As someone else pointed out, the more gizmo's the more room for technological error.

narwan

[narwan]

On modern technology, the more data it will generate for combat units the more it will probably influence the battle NEGATIVELY.

Both data and information are near useless for actual combat units (data are just loose parcels of observations, information is structured data where the loose elements are combined and linked). It is only when information becomes KNOWLEDGE that it'll start to help combat units. Knowledge is contextualised information, where the new information is integrated in the total picture.
The difference is that data and information need (a lot of) interpretation before it can be put to use. After doing just that, you end up with knowledge. However, knowledge itself doesn't change a thing about the situation. You have to act upon it, think of something, 'innovate' (innovation is the application of knowledge to change an existing situation).

All of this takes time, a lot of time. Which on the modern battlefield is a scarce thing. The big issue becomes which data, information, knowledge, and innovation (battle plans in this case) should go to what level and part of the militairy machine at which point? So much of it will be generated that it'll easily lead to 'swamping' officers and troops with info that's useless to them. And a single bottleneck can cripple the entire effort.

Think of the office worker who spends 3 hours a day going through his emails of which 3/4 aren't relevant to him or his actual work. Wasting time like this can be deadly on the modern battlefield.

More data and information is not always a good thing, just like more options on a computer (program) does NOT make it more user friendly (a mistake many programmers still make!).

Narwan

[Pyros]

What if some day the soldier will be nothing more than a weapon platform carrying intelligent weapons, smart ammo and sensors?

[Mobhack]

Pyros said:
What if some day the soldier will be nothing more than a weapon platform carrying intelligent weapons, smart ammo and sensors?

Then - read "Starship Troopers" and avoid the poxy movies made that merely used the name while almost completely ignoring the original Heinelen book they were allegedly based on

In any case - getting way off topic for the game now.

Cheers
Andy

[kevin]

I meant that as a % of overall fatricide casualties, airstrikes have gone down. Fatricide still exists in the form of bad arty coordinates, panic fire from troops, etc.

[BigJim]

Ok I take it then that the pilot was American and fired on Canadian troops because they either had different IFF's or none at all??? You must admit tho that this is RARE situation. I live in Tucson, right near the A-10 Base those guys fly "hot" training missions all the time and I have yet to hear of a "blue on blue" situation out here. Anyhow I guess the point is moot, the game allows it to happen and it's not a big enough deal to warrant the work it would take to program it out.

Thanks for you input tho, I was taken a back by your reports and I have no doubt that they are correct.

[junk2drive]

I have become so leery of FF from the air in all the wargames that I won't use it unless I have a large enemy unit in LOS. Even then in SP the aircraft my target an ammo dump instead of a tank or apc.

[Pyros]

Hi,
Lately I am testing the use of air strikes (Korea era) and my advice would be to always be cautious when assigning air-strikes near areas with a lot of smoke.
In clear areas the pilots may efficiently choose their targets (priority to armored units).

[Shadowcougar]

It is an uncommon occurrence. It has happen since the first aircraft attacked the ground target. It also happens in ground combat and well as naval operations.

In Operation Cobra the USAAF destroyed Panzer Lear and a US Inf battalion that was dropped on.

Remember that most pilots don't like CAS. Only in the USMC and the Warthog community is it an everyday mission.

Also… there is no such thing as friendly fire. Bombs and rockets have no friends... only those who use them and those who get hit by them.

[PlasmaKrab]

IFF are meant to be standard. Otherwise what is the point of NATO? And why would all the Eastern Europe countries spending big bucks to upgrade their frces to NATO standard, among else by fitting the standard IFF on their aircrafts.

And once more, to this day no ground unit apart from AADs have IFF transponder/reciever. That is why pilots have recognition classes, and that is why human error and info gaps lead to (fatal) errors. A patrolling pilot seeing soldiers and armor fighting in some forelorn desert corner will rather distrust his IFF, or admit that the bad guys got hands on some transponders anyhow, than assume some fellows if his are exercising and he wasn't told. I don't know the details of this canadian business but I guess that was something similar (except for the non-existent IFF).

So here you are, Jim! Anyway in the game you can lower your friendly fire rae by picking carefully your entry routes, strike points and aircraft loadouts: don't take a Maverick-armed tank buster when you're the only one with tanks, and don't send a CBU or napalm drop two hexes from your forward line.

That should keep you from too much unwanted damage!
But I have to reassure you, the subject pops up quite regularly!

Regards