Great cock-ups of WW2

And at 300mph at 100ft of altitude when every vehicle is just a dark blur...
Besides, most vehicles 'lost' their white star as it was too obvious a target for the enemy.

 

100ft would be incredibly low. At 1000ft horizontally it's practically impossible to distinguish the colours of a person's clothing, factor in speed, smoke, increase altitude and horizontal range and it's a miracle that pilots could hope to ID anything at all, let alone actually hit it!

 

I am not trying to start a flame war, I am trying to ask a serious question. It seems that most (lets look at the allies) friendly fire is conducted by the Americans.

Is this merely a coincidence or is there something in the culture which differs from the British/Canadians to Americans?

Maybe it has something to do with training - Maybe US forces are trained to be a little more trigger happy?

Maybe quite simply the US fired more shots/bombs etc therefore the chance of friendly fire is higher?

Does anyone have any insight into this? I'm genuinely interested.

 

I do beleive that US doctrine and policy means that their troops are more trigger happy than the other allied forces.

They seem to have more access to more ammunition and are asked fewer questions after discharging their ammo in the field, so they consider it natural to fire rounds as they please.

And please, don't this as a dig or US bashing, it's just my opinion and I not saying it is wrong, or right for that matter.

FNG

 

It would seem that way if one judges by the amount of publicity the incidents receive. The US has always had a more activist and interventional public and press. Just look at the WW II Patton slapping incidents. Most other nations were baffled that the US would sack what was arguably the best Allied general (temporarily fortunately) over what was perceived as a trivial incident.
US friendly fire incidents were often quite spectacular inasmuch as the US had by far the largest and most aggressive airforce and the most destructive friendly fire incidents usually involve air power.
Do a search for friendly fire, fratricide or blue on blue and you will find that the vast majority of study and analysis of the issue involves the US and US forces. One is left to conclude that either there is something uniquely American about friendly fire incidents or that the US is more likely to publicly discuss/analyze it's muck ups than other nations. I happen to think it's the latter, in combination with the fact that the US has been involved in more combat from 1941 to the present than any other nation.

 

Indeed, US/UK Blue on Blues always generate much more publicity than UK/UK (At least within a certain island... ).

Care to guess what the first "kills" of Spitfires were? Hawker Hurricanes. What were Blenheims frequently mistaken for during the Batle of Britain? Ju88's.

It's far too easy for the press to show up those "damn Yankees" as plastering "our boys" when they should be hitting the enemy, but unfortunately it also makes better headlines.

I doubt the US units are any worse than our own, but unfortunately US bashing is a hobby of its own.

 

task force baum...patton sends some 200 of his men to their deaths while trying to rescue pattons own son in law....SIXTY MILES.. behind german lines ..the leg out wasnt so bad ..but the return trip was needless to say ..not so good...most of the pows decided to walk 10 miles back to captivity rather than ride any futher on baums tanks...