Blue on blue again!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by cernunnos, Dec 6, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Accidents happen unfortunatly, no need to link it to the bollocks wikileaks released.
  2. Very sad but it happens. Always has, and until we get reliable comms and integrated IFF it always will. US do seem to committ more blue on blues but that is probably because they provide more close air support than anyone else.

    No point the press getting a c*ckstand about it because troops in a firefight would rather take the risks of CAS than lose a firefight.
  3. Well said. Given most CAS is USAF or USN then its rather unsurprising that a CAS related blue is from US aircraft. Would we blame US FAC's if a RAF aircraft blue-blued US troops or would we accept that sometimes bad things happen?

    As mentioned elsewhere RIP
  4. Beat me to it on all points.
  5. Couldn't agree with you more Uzbeck, but please forgive the naivety, but what does CAS stand for?!
  6. Close Air Support
  7. Close Air Support. Close being the operative and dangerous bit I would suspect (trained for but never done it for real with bad guys trying to grab you by the belt buckle and it was bad enough then)
  8. Close air support.

    Uzbeck - nail on the head.

    You'd rather the risk of a blue on blue than continue to get malleted by Terry though.
  9. Even with effective comms and IFF, TICs are often so close to the enemy that any subsequent fire support may take friendly casualties. On these situations a peril of war unfortunately.
  10. even when you get the acronym right ;)
  11. What you said. Having had to do it in extremis (although admittedly without much of the gee whiz electronic gizmos they have today) it is often a very dicey proposition with a fair amount of risk (especially when "danger close") even if everything and everyone is working properly. Until you are well within the ECR of a huge (and they are ALL huge when you see them leaving the aircraft coming toward you) bomb and see the fickle way concussion and shrapnel do their work, it is hard to fully appreciate it. I have seen friendlies killed "merely" because their helmet was just slightly (less than an inch) above the cover they were behind or because their position was oriented in just a bit of the wrong angle in relation to the point of detonation.

    I am not excusing negligence, incompetence, carelessness or worse by anyone playing with live ordnance and if that is the reason friendlies get hurt or killed there should be consequences. And to save some of you time, I am well aware of the instances where there were UK casualties from US ordnance under allegedly such circumstances and the result was unsatisfactory to many in the UK in terms of "consequences." As I have also said, there are such results in every nation and there have been numerous legal proceedings in both our nations where the result was very disagreeable to one group or another.
  12. It was cannon fire according to the report, only takes one wandering round out of many.

    I think it was on the Ross Kemp series that not one voice dissented on blue on blue incidents, they were just glad the Americans where there to provide cover.
  13. The US have the best CAS pilots in the world, bar none. Without a doubt the pilot, the BRF JTAC and the OC on the ground will be gutted.

    Hundreds of our soldiers probably owe their lives to the skill and hard work of many JTACS and US Pilots. It’s extremely rare for either to be negligent, incompetent or careless.
  14. It's called 'danger close' for a reason.