Friendly Fire from aircraft

[Marek_Tucan]

I take extreme care of calling in air strikes far enough of my troops since one "good" attack run of Thunderbolt with HVAR's back in good old SP1, altough my tanks survived that one, some of them were quite seriously damaged.

[The Black Captain]

I have a whopper of an anecdote for this topic. Yesterday was playing a Vietnam 1968 battle. My Skyraider attacked a Marine helicopter! That is a little ahistorical.

[Shadowcougar]

Well it seems that flying a airstrike is about the second modt difficult thing you can do as a pilot. I think only a night trap is more difficult.

A F-16 pilot would 1. have to find the target area 2. find the target 3 ID the target. 4. employ his weapons 5. egress the area all without mating with a tree, hill, other aircraft... wlth everyone taking a pot shot at him.. Also he is listening to the FAC yelling in one ear and his wingman yelling in the other ear and remembering what is flight instructor said about Speed is Life.. not a easy task.

the A-10 has much the same issue ecept the Speed is Life issue.. No speeed ... no problem

I use TAC Air away from my forces and alwast being them accross the front of my forces.. never over them.. all it takes is a ARCLIGHT mistake to drive that point home

[Chaim_Krause]

@ Big Jim

If you are going to make statements like that, back them up with facts. Fratricide is a huge problem

And speed doesn't have anything to do with it. Aircraft have blue on blue even at a hover.

[BigJim]

Chaim_Krause said:
@ Big Jim
Lets see if I got your point you think that IFF or the existance of IFF needs tons of research???? As to the last part of your statment thats just silly on the face of it.
If you are going to make statements like that, back them up with facts. Fratricide is a huge problem

And speed doesn't have anything to do with it. Aircraft have blue on blue even at a hover.

[kevin]

OK guys, let's stop beating up on Big Jim here. This is a case where everyone is right.

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)

Fatricide is a huge problem. Put yourself in the position of the family. Your loved one has died and because of a mistake made by someone on his/her side. I have heard conferences where US Officiers and other lecturers have stated it may be better to pursue tactics that may result in more casualities overall, than to pursue a strategy with a lesser chance of overall casualities, but higher chance of friendly fire. In short: better to loose 25 guys to the enemy than, 10 guys to the enemy and 10 to fratricide for 20 total.

I've never been involved in calling in an airstrike in combat, but have in training. IMHO technological improvements are over-rated as solutions to the problem. They key is communicating. I don't mean having a better radio, I mean having everyone working on the same page. Usually a Forward Line is established. Units on one side are bad guys, units on the other side are good guys. Well, with advancing land troops in pursuit of the enemy, it's easy to cross the line without anyone knowing.

Also, imagine how hard it is to make sure to tell everyone when the line is moved. You have to coordinate between ground forces in combat (platoon, company, Battalion, Brigade, Division, Corps, Area Component commander, CINC) just to determine where the grunts are and how soon to and how far can you advance. The farther up the chain that guestimate is made, the more likely it is to be wrong. Then again, those closest to the action are the youngest and most inexperienced troops.

Okay, a decision is made, you have to send the answer down the ground chain, and then down the air chain: CINC, Air Component Commander, # Air Force, Wing, Squadron, Section, Pilot) Shadowcougar described what it's like for the Tom Cruise wanna-bes in the air.

In summary, it's the network systems, C&C, IVIS, GPS which are the best tools to use, but it is the end users of those tools that ultimately reduce blue on blue.

As far as the game goes..... I like holding my Air back to use against arty. If using it as true CAS, make sure you have a direct spotter, try to go for a target in the open and stay put once the strike is called.

[Chaim_Krause]

BigJim said:

No, you didn't get my point. I am not saying the existence or use of IFF needs research. I am saying your claim that air-to-ground blue-on-blue is rare needs research. You make a statement and don't back it up with data. FYI, I work at CGSC and it is my job to make sure simulations are an accurate representation of the battlefield as I assist the college's faculty to instruct our Army's Majors. I have seen many documented cases of blue-on-blue and have heard many second-hand stories from soldiers and Marines who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a very big problem. If you are going to claim it is rare, what is your source? Where did you get your data? That is what needs research, not the existence or use of IFF systems.

As for my comment on speed, you said "Sure there will be some foul ups but in the main the system works (even at 700 knots ESPECIALLY at 700 knots)." My point is that speed is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is an airplane doing 700 knots or a helicopter sitting at a hover. Decision time is what is relevant. The longer a pilot has to process the facts, the more chance he has to recheck his assumptions and lower the chance of blue-on-blue.

P.S. Don't get me wrong. I am glad you are here. WinSPMBT is a great game and I am glad you like it. Maybe I can make some scenarios you'd like.