US Army admits killing TV cameraman

“Friendly Fire”, new and old. First read this from Iraq:

xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,3888-2284965,00.html

Then this from the UK:

Hundreds Of U.S. Troops Killed
In WWII Mistake In England

Note - The story of the accidental slaughter of hundreds, perhaps more, of American soldiers off and on the beaches of England in a catastrophic mistake during 1944 has been rumored for years. More information is now emerging from the shadows of time. Apparently, during a nightime practice amphibious assault exercise on the English coast, one or more German E Boats came across the flotilla of ‘invasion’ ships lying just off the target beach. The German boats opened fire and total chaos broke out, including the use of friendly British fire, using live ammunition, from shore aimed at the American forces involved in the practice landing. The carnage was withering and by morning, according to at least one witness, the beaches were littered with the bodies of hundreds of dead Americans with hundreds more still bobbing in the adjacent waters. Here is a new report on the tragedy from the Newspaper, Western Morning News in England:

IS this field the site of a mass grave of scores of American soldiers who died in a World War Two friendly fire incident in South Devon?

Rumours of a secret grave of US troops in the South Hams have persisted since wartime exercises involving tens of thousands of soldiers were carried out in 1944 to prepare men for the Normandy landings later that year.

Now corroborating eyewitness accounts obtained by the WMN suggest that scores of soldiers were killed in a series of friendly fire incidents and their bodies buried nearby.

Although the US authorities have admitted that more than 600 men were killed during the exercises in a surprise E-boat attack, these revelations will stun relatives of the dead who have always been led to believe that all the deaths were caused by enemy fire.

Suspicions that American servicemen were buried in South Devon arose in the 1980s when Stoke Fleming woman Dorothy Seekings broke her wartime vow of silence to US military forces, revealing how she had witnessed soldiers’ bodies being buried in a mass grave in the nearby hills.

Now the Western Morning News has uncovered an independent source who has given an eyewitness account of graves being dug in the same field near the South Hams village of Blackawton, near Dartmouth, in 1944.

Ugborough farmer Francis John Burden saw a huge pit between one and two acres in area with boxes the shape of coffins stacked beside it. Today a mound marks the site in a field belonging to farmer Nolan Tope, who told the WMN: “I know the whole story, but I have sworn not to tell anyone. These chaps gave their lives for you.”

Meanwhile former American serviceman Harold McAulley has revealed how he buried bodies - their faces black with oil and burns - in the South Hams. He said: “We hauled them off the beach and took a couple of (truck) loads inland and just threw them in.”

Evidence for a friendly fire incident is compelling, with a number of US soldiers giving key statements.

While Lieutenant Colonel Edwin Wolf watched troops debarking from landing craft on Slapton Sands in April, 1944 he heard several “zings” close to his ear. “Infantrymen on the beach fell down and remained motionless on the shingle - the exercise ‘defenders’ were using live ammunition,” he said.

American military driver Hank Aaron watched the same exercises from Strete Beach. Suddenly bullets began passing around his head and he scrambled from the action zone. When he looked up, five men nearby had been killed by the firing.

East Devon landowner Gordon Hallet has told how, in 1944, he pulled the drenched bodies of American servicemen from the sea off Exmouth, saying they looked like “sick mannequins”.

Witnesses tell how during the 1950s skulls and bones appearing to date from the end of World War Two were found buried beneath Blackpool Sands and surrounding beaches.

Then, in the 1970s, the skeletal remains of what appear to be an American serviceman’s leg, complete with boot, were found in the back garden of a house in the South Hams village of Strete.

Exeter-based Richard Bass, a wartime historian who has been studying the Westcountry D-Day exercises for 10 years, said: “Evidence is coming to light which reveals that a number of covered-up incidents occurred during the exercises. Now is the time for the truth to come out.”

rense.com/political/wwII.htm
edition.cnn.com/US/9511/veterans_day/memory/

I saw a ITV documentary about Slapton, that is how I came to hear about it. Veterans of Slapton appeared on it, one of them was coxswain of an LST. These veterans openly cried when describing how they were pinned down on the beach by friendly fire. They even described from what direction the machine gun was firing. Dozens of men were killed and apparently were posted as being killed in action. In my own personal opinion this is where the cover up came in. From the author: I hope my American friends will forgive me but this seems to be “nothing new”. How many times do we hear of US forces bombing Allies and their own? Gulf War - all British losses down to “friendly fire” and Afghanistan - how many “friendly” deaths? I suspect that the “dozens” of US soldiers that allegedly died by friendly fire can only be resolved by exhuming bodies and checking for bullets - I doubt if survivors of these families would like to find that out! Apparently some American soldiers were also killed by Royal Naval gunfire when they crossed lines they were supposed to remain behind - or did their officers not pass the orders on? More mystery?

mikekemble.com/ww2/slapton.html

17 journalists have been killed in Iraq during and since the war. I don’t have the figures, but not too many were killed by errantly firing tank gunmen. These journalists are simply willing to put their lives on the line.

Typical Brit superiority complex. Maybe that’s why our low-tech, trigger happy farmers kicked your sensitive professionals out of America. Maybe that’s why you lost your empire. What do you think? Your pros couldn’t even get to the Falklands without US help and then look at the clusterfuck you made of it. You even had to use American maps because yours were 100 years out of date…And let’s not even talk about the wonderful job you did in the Balkans. :unamused: But don’t worry, America is always happy to have the Brits beside us in a war. We need somebody to hold our jackets while we do the fighting…and anybody is better than the French.[/quote]

:laughing: somebody just got bitch-slapped. sit yo’ ass down.[/quote]

Who slapped who? Sheepshagger has a point. Blueface is just proving it, in a Jerry Springer guest-like way.

I seem to recall that part of tactical fighting is to confuse the enemy and ideally get them shooting at each other. Sounds like the E-boats did an awfully good job. Yet another awful consequence of waging wars.

In very weird circumstances a couple of Australian WWII vets told me that offing someone from your own side who was either grossly incompetent or in any way posed a threat to the group was very common. A pre-cursor to “fragging”, or always part of the great game?

HG

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]In very weird circumstances a couple of Australian WWII vets told me that offing someone from your own side who was either grossly incompetent or in any way posed a threat to the group was very common. A pre-cursor to “fragging”, or always part of the great game?

HG[/quote]

“Fragging” started up in the British trenches in WWI.

You mean as a term? I’m sure as a practice it has existed as long as wars have been fought.

Been in the Army? Been in combat? Right. I thought not. I suggest all our armchair Napoleons here get on the next plane to Guam and join up. Be sure to volunteer for the Infantry and request duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. Do your year there and then come back to Forumosa and tell us all about “cultural sensitivity” and “historical experience”…tell us how everything is so clear and easy to understand because you’re so much better educated than those stupid American losers. I’ll be alot more interested in listening to what you have to say.

That is if you don’t come back in a bodybag.

It comes from the use of a FRAGMENTATION GRENADE. It’s alot harder to use a musket to kill someone sleeping in a tent and then get away with it.

There is no smoke without fire. While “friendly fire” incidents are a tragic consequence of any military operation, the media reports suggest that the US military has a particularly lamentable reputation for killing its allies unmatched by any other armed forces. Some examples.

[quote]Three wounded UK soldiers have described how they survived an attack by a US A-10 Thunderbolt anti-tank aircraft that killed one of their troop and destroyed two armoured vehicles. One of the survivors criticised the US pilot for showing “no regard for human life” and accused him of being “a cowboy” who had “gone out on a jolly”.

A joint US-Canadian investigation into the bombing concluded that the pilots were at fault for the deaths, and the head of the probe said they showed

Right. It should be just like “Star Trek”:

Captain Kirk: “Phasers on stun!”

Technology?? The Brits refuse to wear helmets or use body armor. They think berets are much more macho or something. A brain bucket is pretty basic technology…

And since no one seems to have followed the link:

Friendly Fire Inevitable In War

13/04/2003
Patricia Reaney

Weapons are smarter than ever, troops are equipped with the latest gear and although this may help to reduce deadly mistakes, military psychiatrists say friendly fire is a terrible, inevitable consequence of war.

“Every single war has had friendly fire. Every war. It is not a new thing at all. The problem now is that it is all recorded,” said Ian Palmer, a professor of defence psychiatry for the British armed services.

In World War One soldiers killed by their artillery were listed as lost in combat and families were often spared the details of how their loved ones died.

But in the war that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, with journalists “embedded” with coalition troops and television providing live footage of the conflict, soldiers killed in friendly fire have featured prominently in media coverage.

“The media are much more up front than they have ever been so they are going to be picking up every mistake, whereas in the past I suspect it just got glossed over,” said Martin Baggaley, a former psychiatrist with the British military.

“I suspect in the past there were a lot more friendly fire incidents that weren’t recognised,” he added.

Losses to enemy fire in Iraq are low compared to other major conflicts, so deaths due to mistakes seem proportionally high. But the percentage of troops killed by friendly fire in Iraq in the first three weeks of the conflict was lower than in the Gulf War more than a decade ago.

Confusion, Fatigue And Fear

“War is the most human of all tragedies,” said Palmer.

“Accidents happen. Soldiers know that in war you are liable to be bombed by your own side. It is always the case.”

In the worst of a series of friendly fire incidents, 18 American special forces and their Kurdish allies were killed when they were bombed by a U.S. warplane.

Two journalists were killed when a US tank fired on a Baghdad hotel where the international media were based. A third was killed in a U.S. air raid on the capital.

Although the US said the troops were responding to sniper fire, journalists said no shots had been fired from the hotel. Some questioned whether it was a deliberate attack.

People watching the war on television in the comfort of their homes ask how such deadly mistakes can happen in a war with precision equipment, highly trained troops and sophisticated intelligence.

But Baggaley says it is a very different scenario for troops on the ground who may be threatened by suicide attacks, sniper fire and an enemy in plain clothes.

Referring to the US tank attack on the media hotel, Baggaley said: "In that situation if the commander and the gunner believe they are at some risk that also is going to affect their judgment.

Fatigue, fear and feeling threatened affect snap decisions.

“I also simply think the structure of modern warfare is difficult because you no longer have a very clear front line,” he added.

“If you have rapidly moving troops, all mixed up rather than in clear lines, it does make it very difficult. The other thing is that the technology allows you to fire at much greater distances.”

Mixed Messages

The war against Iraq with its mixed messages poses unique problems which add to the stress and anxiety of the troops, according to Bill Durodie, of the Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London.

“On the one hand it is meant to be taking out Saddam, on the other…the whole thing is repackaged as a humanitarian mission,” he explained.

Durodie said forces in Iraq have to decide if someone is an enemy soldier, a civilian or one of their own troops and then make life-or-death decisions.

“You can’t just shoot as you would in a normal war. Here troops are being asked to be hesitant before they even open fire. It is that hesitancy that will create confusion and trauma because of the lack of clarity,” he said.

[b]More than three weeks into the conflict, fatigue could be affecting troops. In a study designed to mimic combat conditions researchers showed that lack of sleep and fatigue affected cognitive performance of U.S. Navy Seals and Army Rangers.

Navy Seals who slept for just an hour in 73-hours of duty had slower reaction times, problems remembering details and made more errors in a quick decision test than they did at the start of the study. Army Rangers had similar results.

The stress and fatigue affected the soldiers in the study so badly their performance was worse than if they were drunk or sedated, according to New Scientist magazine.[/b]

“The military is looking at ways to ensure that troops remain alert, including the development of computer programs that will monitor troops’ sleep pattern,” it said.

Baggaley, who was on the reserve list for duty in Iraq, said: "I always felt that my biggest hazard wasn’t actually being shot by an Iraqi.

“The most likely accident would have been to be killed on the road or shot by your own side. That is always likely to be the biggest risk.”

xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,3888-2284965,00.html

Been in the Army? Been in combat? Right. I thought not. I suggest all our armchair Napoleons here get on the next plane to Guam and join up. Be sure to volunteer for the Infantry and request duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. Do your year there and then come back to Forumosa and tell us all about “cultural sensitivity” and “historical experience”…tell us how everything is so clear and easy to understand because you’re so much better educated than those stupid American losers. I’ll be alot more interested in listening to what you have to say.

That is if you don’t come back in a bodybag.[/quote]

That’s right, unless you’re eighty years old and fought in the war, just shut yer yaps and listen how Captain Bluebell took a hilltop in Germany all while showing he supported the locals by eating sauerkraut. Take a pill, Bluebell, and go flex your muscles in the mirror for a while. All you are proving with the last few posts is that while you may have no cultural sensitivity, you are surely oversensitive.

The CIA and the FBI have credible evidence that these cameramen possess weapons of mass destruction and have the capablity to launch a strike withing 45 minutes.

It comes from the use of a FRAGMENTATION GRENADE. It’s alot harder to use a musket to kill someone sleeping in a tent and then get away with it.[/quote]

I guess back then, you’d just use a knife.

Didn’t the yanks get their arses kicked by the canadians who took the white house?

Blueface seems to think the US are the best troops that have ever existed. Well that is a matter of opinion.
I remember watching a TV documentary and ex-British WW2 servicemen from top rank to private were interviewed and they said the Germans were the best soldiers.

Throughout the world (and your hollywood films don’t help) people believe that US troops are Rambo types, who want to taste blood, ignore orders and have little discipline.

When you have a soldier on CNN saying he wants revenge in Iraq as someone he knows was killed in 9/11, that is insane. No other army would allow such madness.

How long are US troops trained for?
How long are British troops trained for?


“Military men are dumb, stupid animals
to be used as pawns for foreign policy”. - Henry Kissinger

I did question the “culture” of the US military elsewhere. My take is that if you have the shit to throw around then you will. The US military seems to apply the theory that ‘there’s loads more where that came from so toss as much as you like and hopefully we’ll lessen our own casualities.’ This seems to have been the overwhelming tactic of WWII, for example and has lived on into Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq.

It’s a pure numbers game. Got the money, got the people, got the gear then use it. It does seem to come at an awful cost though. . sadly to civilians, allies and their own troops.

HG

I don’t think Canada was a country when that happened, so I guess it was the Brits that did it. But it wasn’t exactly yesterday.

So I guess you’re saying you haven’t been in the military, you have no intentions of joining and basically you know jackshit about the subject. Why am I not surprised? :unamused:

For some reason beyond my comprehension many photographers seem to think that the camera they are holding will protect them from bullets, bombs and the like. Unfortunately it doesn’t.
Journalist in general have very good instincts and are usually not a high priority target for combatants. In a guerrilla war the civilians and journalist are in a much more vulnerable position.
This guys luck ran out.

Richardm:

And a global one at that!

HG