• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

— — Introduction, Findings, Issues for Congress 1 merica’s recent combat in the Persian Gulf War brought new attention to an old problem: fratricide, or ‘‘fi-iendly fire, ’ that is, casualties from U.S. or allied weapons fired A at U.S. or allied military personnel. Twenty-four percent of all U.S. combat fatalities in the war were caused by friendly fire. This figure seemed much higher than in previous wars and caused a sudden focus on avoiding fratricide in future wars. The U.S. military and the American public are becoming increasingly sensitive to the human costs of military involve- ment, especially for contests of less than national survival. The United States has invested much in energy and equipment to keep casualties low. The high fraction of deaths in the Persian Gulf War due to fratricide was much higher than the nominal two percent rate frequently cited in the military literature. Broad- based data on fratricide rates are not available; but, a recent review of long-extant casualty surveys from World War II and the Vietnam War shows that fratricide estimates of 2 percent are unrealistic and 15 to 20 percent may be the norm, not the exception. Thus, one reason that fratricide seemed unusually high in the Persian Gulf War is that total U.S. casualties were low but another important reason is that past rates of fratricide have been systematically and substantially underestimated. If these rates are, indeed, typical, then reducing casualties from fratricide deserves the same kind of attention as reducing casualties from any other major source. Beyond numbers of killed and wounded, fratricide has a compounding effect on combat effectiveness. Weapons aimed at friends are not aimed at the enemy. Friends killed by friends are not able to fight the enemy. Moreover, the psychological effects of friendly fire are always greater than from similar enemy fire. Combatants expect to be shot at by the enemy, but being shot at 1 2 I Who Goes There: Friend or Foe? Table l-l—Detrimental Effects of Fratricide 3. near-absolute dominance of the battlefield by the U.S. meant that only U.S. rounds ● Hesitation to conduct limited visibility operations ● Loss of confidence in unit’s leadership were flying through the air and if a soldier ● Increase of leader self-doubt got hit by anything, it was likely to be from ● Hesitation to use supporting combat systems a U.S. weapon; and ● Oversupervision of units 4. the unique characteristics of many U.S. ● Loss of initiative weapons, for example, the depleted ura- ● Loss of aggressiveness during fire and maneuver ● Disrupted operations nium in the M-1 tank round, made the ● Needless loss of combat power fratricide that did occur undeniable. ● General degradation of cohesion and morale Some of these reasons will apply to a range of SOURCE: Center for Army Lessons Learned. possible future military engagements. Whether or not fratricide in the Persian Gulf was particularly by friends corrodes cooperation and morale; high compared to past wars, it may be representa- shooting at friends also destroys morale and can tive of future conflicts. cause commanders to be overly cautious in The fourth point above deserves careful con- combat. See table 1-1. sideration. While military historians have fre- The Persian Gulf experience has concentrated quently used two percent as a notional fratricide the attention of the military Services on the rate, the figure has been higher in all of those problems of fratricide. Several new antifratricide cases for which good data are available. A recent programs were started within the Department of review of medical records from World War II, the Defense, and existing programs have been accel- Korean War, and the Vietnam War show fratri- erated, reoriented, or brought under new manage- cides to account for 12 percent and more of total ment control. New emphasis has been given to the casualties in those cases for which data are fratricidal implications of other programs-such available. Perhaps the Persian Gulf War was not as those to improve communication-not explic- so unusual. itly or primarily intended to reduce fratricide. Reducing fratricide is desirable and feasi- Doctrine and training are also being reexamined ble, but eliminating it is not. Although programs with a view to minimizing the risk of fratricide. to reduce fratricide are certainly needed, setting a goal of eliminating fratricide is unrealistic and FINDINGS probably even counterproductive. Overly restric- Fratricide may be a significant source of tive rules of engagement, for example, may so casualties. Twenty-four percent of U.S. combat reduce combat effectiveness that casualties in- fatalities in the Persian Gulf War were caused by flicted by the enemy increase more than friendly friendly fire. This seemed extraordinarily high fire losses are reduced. See figure 1-1. compared to past conflicts. Several reasons have The new global military environment re- been presented for why the fraction should have quires a reevaluation of antifratricide efforts. been so large: Any technical goals established during the days 1. total U.S. losses were very low, thus the of the Cold War need to be reexamined. Past percentage of fratricides appeared abnor- directions will not be completely reversed, but mally high; priorities among technical direction may change. 2. the war was so short that U.S. troops did not For example, during the NATO-Warsaw Pact have a chance to gain much experience, confrontation, which type of weapon was on reduce fratricide, and get the average down; which side was clear-cut. Today, noncooperative identification based on type of weapon or plat- Chapter I-Introduction, Findings, Issues for Congress 3 Figure l-l—Total Casualties and by strengthening any of the links. For example, Antifratricide Measures outfitting tanks with compasses will improve —— ————— navigation, helping units to be where they are [, ) supposed to be and not to stray into fields of . / / friendly fire. Improved radios allow the transmis- ,< Total losses A sion of more of this navigation information. \ // ‘\\ Improved displays within the tank would allow I ~.. ——–— clearer representation of that information. And, of \ / \ Increasing losses course, better sensors would allow better recogni- \ from enemy fire >/’ tion of fiends seen through the sights of the gun. /’ \ Declining losses ‘,< / Each of these measures could reduce fratricide. from fratricide Some approaches to reducing fratricide have \ / \ / other benefits. For example, improved communi- /“ ‘\ . / cation and navigation allow better command and / ‘A control of combat units, more flexible tactics, and z / A c1 ———’ -- -— --- more efficient allocation of combat resources. All of this together could improve combat capability -——.-.—.r significantly while also reducing fratricide. An No antifratricide Too stringent anti- measure fratricide measures improved identification device will mostly re- duce fratricide with much smaller side benefits. > Thus, only the appropriate fractions of the costs of More stringent anti- systems should be compared when considering fratricide measures their relative efficiency in reducing fratricide. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993. form will be more difficult in a world in which enemies and allies may own the same hardware. Figure 1-2—Causes of Fratricide: Direct Fire Fratricide in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam Also, future alliances, like that in the Persian Gulf, may be more ad hoc, making planning for Inexperience and sharing of identification technology more 190!0 difficult. On the other hand, some tasks should be /--\ Unknown factors easier to accomplish since few potential enemies Target 1 00/0 will be as sophisticated as the former Soviet m(sldentlflcahon Union or possess the sheer numbers. 260/o Fratricide results from multiple causes. Friendly fire is often thought of as due primarily, or exclusively, to misidentification. Investigation of particular cases usually reveals that the fratricide was in fact the last link in a chain of mistakes. b“ Coordination That is, faulty navigation; poor communication, 45% command, and planning; lack of fire discipline; and occasional malfunctioning equipment are Incidents by category %= responsible at least as often as misidentification. 58 total incidents See figure 1-2. With multiple links in a chain of causes, there SOURCE: U.S. Army are multiple solutions to the problem of fratricide 4 I Who Goes There: Friend or Foe? support for several years just to get up to where aircraft systems are today. Coordination among the U.S. military Serv- ices and among U.S. allies is essential. Programs to develop technology to reduce fratricide must be coordinated among Services and allies from the beginnin g. The U.S. military emphasizes “com- bined arms” operations where the strengths of many different types of weapons are brought to bear simultaneously against an enemy. This approach presents many opportunities for friendly fire among aircraft, artillery, land vehicles, surface- Wreckage of a U.S. armored vehicle destroyed by friendly fire in the Persian Gulf War. The effectiveness to-air missiles, and so on. Fratricide reduction, as of modern weapons makes identification mistakes much as any other DoD effort, needs some central deadly. coordination, either from Office of the Secretary, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or other special joint- No single technical approach to target identifi- Service organization. The Services realize the cation will be perfect. Identification techniques importance of coordination, and their ongoing can be roughly divided between cooperative and multi-Service efforts should be encouraged and noncooperative approaches. In general, coopera- monitored. tive techniques can provide positive identifica- Future conflicts are likely to be allied opera- tion of friends. Failure to respond to a cooperative tions—as much for political as military reasons— identification query could be assumed to identify and coordination of antifratricide technology a putative target as an enemy, but in most development with allies must be maintained from circumstances, most shooters would be hesitant to the beginning.

Load more

  6

Copy Link