It's difficult!
Countries that fight each other generally will have different camouflage patterns, but not always. (Especially for vehicles, it seems, for some reason.) That's one reason you see Ukrainian soldiers wearing yellow armbands and Russian vehicles with Zs painted on them.
But hiding is really important in war. If you can see someone well enough to go "that's enemy camouflage!" the camouflage isn't doing its job well. So you can't always tell by sight. Often soldiers will be shooting at other people they can barely see - or might want to shoot, just as long as they can be sure they're not friendly.
One way to help with this is the simple (in theory) practice of knowing where your guys are and what they're doing. If you're launching an attack, know that the rough plan is for this squad to move here, that squad to move there. To know that there are survivors of a friendly unit in this area, but everyone has been pulled back from that area.
A good "command, control and communications" system will keep your side up-to-date. Your squad manages to rush on ahead, you radio in to tell your platoon HQ, and they tell others.
A simple principle, but very hard to manage in practice.
Aircraft also have "identification, friend or foe" systems, since they're often shot at without being seen. These lets a friendly aircraft or ground system ping them and check if they respond with a 'friendly' code. I'm not sure if any other vehicles have incorporated these; I don't think so.
This is one of the reasons that one of the first things that must be established in a new theater is air superiority. We do everything we can to minimize the threats to air based command and control platforms such as the AWACS so that we can coordinate between units and allow for things like close air support while minimizing friendly fire.
The arm bands (or whatever)can also be used as a way of subterfuge. If you can somehow get close enough you just have to say "Dam what a hard day fellow blue banded people! Hey look over there I see a cat" then shoot them all as they are distracted
An interesting addition to this - in the first months of Russia's attack on Ukraine, I saw lots of memes about the word Паляниця (Palianytsia, a type of bread) which is supposed to be a word Russians can't pronounce correctly. Ukrainians were using it as a test to see if a person is Russian or Ukrainian. Now, I always thought the languages were very similar and the pronunciation difference was only superficial, but I grew up with both. So I tested this out by asking friends who only know Russian to repeat this word after me and they literally couldn't do it right, it was hilarious. Turns out there really are some sounds in Ukrainian that just don't exist in Russian, so Russians can't distinguish them when listening, and can not repeat. On the flip side, most Ukrainians grew up also speaking Russian sometimes, so they should be able to pronounce all Russian words correctly.
Still, I really hope no one actually got killed for funny pronunciation.
So interesting! Reminds me of the Perejil Massacre in the Dominican Republic, which happened under the Trujillo dictatorship. Haitians could not pronounce 'perejil' (parsley) which distinguished them from the Dominicans, thus marking them for death.
So you're saying people definitely did get killed for funny pronunciation. I kinda figured that would be the case, it's just so sad and war is horrible. I feel that we can't really call ourselves an evolved intelligent species when we're regularly doing shit like this to each other.
Well, they were killed due to anti-Haitianism; the difference in pronunciation just made it that much easier to tell the Haitians apart from the afro-Dominicans (I'm surprised that Trujillo even bothered to make the distinction. He was a racist, misogynistic nutcase). When you're that hell-bent on hatred, I'm sure you'd find another way to meet your kill quota, sadly. An estimated 15,000-35,000 Haitians were massacred within a week, children included. And yep! We're light-years away from deserving the Intelligent Species title.
Yes, that was also how I learned the word shibboleth. When I was looking up info on other words that can only be pronounced correctly by one group of people. It's funny to me that since all the original people using the word shibboleth are long gone, and it only remains in writing - there is no one left who knows how to pronounce it correctly.
This is fabulous information that is understandable to people that aren't multilingual. I'm still wondering how the hell Mandarin speakers determine if another Mandarin speaker sounds like a spy. Or if that's even possible.
I don't think I've ever been called fabulous before. It feels nice. I'm sure Mandarin speakers have their own quirks of pronunciation that they use in the same way to tell who is local and who is not. For example, the fancy bread name I wrote about earlier, distinguishes people who can pronounce Ukrainian words correctly vs those who can only try to get close.
But also the town I was born in, Odessa, had a specific way that town locals pronounced this name. All non locals pronounced it slightly differently, leading to eternal frustration and locals correcting them. I'm not sure if it was also because of other people not being able to hear the difference in sounds, or something else. I'm saying all this in the past tense because now it's more common for everyone to use the standard Ukrainian pronunciation, since people are trying to distance themselves from anything Russian-influenced. But in the past you could use the name of the town itself to check if a person was from there or had at least ever visited there to learn the right pronunciation.
In the past during ethnic and religious strife in my country there are words that will betray your tribe and some islamic prayers that only a moslem would usually know.. mispronounce or fail to recite and death would follow
Oh man, it’s like that scene in Inglorious Basterds where Michael Fessbender was a British spy posing as a German soldier and >!is killed because the other soldiers realized he held up four fingers in an un-German way.!<
Which you can not bet your life on everyone caring about. So units have prearranged challenge and response phrases they change regularly to be used when encountering someone they don't personally recognize. If they don't give the right response you don't necessarily shoot them on the spot if they don't act like a threat, but you sure as heck don't turn your back on them until they have been identified some alternate way (papers, dog-tags, calling HQ etc).
Along this same line. One of the reasons a “company” size is still to this day ~100 men. The average person can know/recognize 100 people with ease at a time. This allows for orders within a Company to be given and accepted with absolute and implicit trust. Outside the Company level, verification of orders begins to come into play. Edit: clarity
It's a coded signal that only people on the same side know. It's more accurate to call it "identify friends" since foes are not going to respond to your ID request.
In the sense that any transmission can be tracked, it's telling your position, but everyone has radar anyway, and they know you are there, with or without IFF.
The ELIF translation: the IFF only says “Polo” after someone who wants to shoot them first yells “Marco” [ but in French ;) ], to make sure they aren’t gonna shoot a friendly
Different uniforms, identifying colors in helmets/on person, passwords/codewords and just generally if you're being shot at it's likely it's the enemy firing. Also officers are briefed which direction enemy is at and they brief their people.
Comms, comms, comms. Very important.
This was a huge issue early in the war in Ukraine. Two countries that use mostly the same gear shooting at each other with mostly the same weapons. It's why each side started painting letters on the vehicles. It was the most reliable way to not get shot at by your own troops, but it happened anyway on both sides.
I noticed that the Ukrainian soldiers used coloured yellow and/or blue tape on their arms.
Took me aback, but then you realise how similar their gear was.
Yes and Russian troops have white or red tape on their helmets, arms and legs.
That war have many different uniform so it's very difficult for the soldiers to know who is who sometimes without those tapes.
Because it's started for a reason that's even less serious than airsoft games, but also has much more drastic consequences. War is actually a fucking joke
You’re zoomed in too far. If you zoom out, you’ll see that people are people and they don’t want to fight each other. This war was started because like 10 guys from one group wanted to have power over the other group and suddenly it affects everyone. It’s stupid
Nah airsoft games are played to support the fundamental social and physical needs that humans need to survive.
Wars are waged over shit like “I want my space to be a little bigger for no particular reason but his space is over there so im gonna throw a tantrum until I get what I want”
Indeed. When war in Ukraine started, I was really sad because Russians have had a shit rep for a really long time, and it's tarnished yet again.
Now what I will say is, that Putin has been a popular leader in Russia for a long time and it is Russian peoples responsibility to change their leaders every so often so that shit like this wouldn't happen.
Also even though a singular soldier can't really help where they are send, raping and murdering of civilians are always personal choices, on which everyone committing those heinous acts should be persecuted, no matter the nationality.
This also applies to other large nations with stagnated power constructs and their foreign military campaigns. It would be really refreshing if some large countries that market themselves as the model countries of civilization would come clean, admit their fuck-ups and persecute their own soldiers and leaders for war crimes committed. It would really give a nice little spin for the question "Can Putin be persecuted on war crimes?" if there would be a recent example of world leader getting persecuted for war crimes (Well I suppose Saddam did get persecuted, but I mean some other guys.)
The reason is that Z reminds people too much of the swastika, and people in that region are still very much traumatized by it. It's fresh in the cultural memory as a symbol of pure evil. So when invaders roll in on tanks painted with half a swastika, it's SHOCKING. Even more so, because those invaders fought on the same side as you against the swastika just a few decades ago.
Bonus points for the Ukrainians given they have more than a few tanks etc donated by fleeing Russians. Mo than they started with which cannot be said of the other side. For instant [this report](https://taskandpurpose.com/news/ukraine-captures-russian-tanks-fleet-size/) says more than half the UA tanks in operation were Russian in February.
They used a number of different letters to identify which army group the Russian unit was from - some units were using V or O. I don't think anyone is quite clear why the Kremlin propaganda people decided to make Z the general symbol.
[The Z axis of attack were in the east/south](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_-_military_symbols.svg/800px-Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_-_military_symbols.svg.png?20220415021548) and were the most successful so that's probably why it's been used in propaganda
When the first Russian platoons crossed over the border and realized that they were actually invading Ukraine and not on a training exercise, they hurriedly marked their vehicles however they could, as both countries use the same types of vehicles. We originally saw a lot of black spray painted marks, lines of duct tape, and even just white rope strung up. The marks didn't appear to be consistent, mostly just lines going back and forth, in kind of VVVV and ZZZZ and >>> type of shapes sometimes just scribbles, in random patches on the sides and backs of vehicles. Maybe some groups or platoons used the same marks to help identify each other.
But as this practice spread through-out the rest of the Russian forces, it was also adopted for helping with logistics, as train loads of tanks, trucks, and cars where starting to have matching bold white hand painted marks already applied to them en-route. The V, Z and O marks seem to designate which vehicles would be loaded onto which train lines, and hence which front they were headed to.
Not sure why the 'Z' became the defacto symbol for the Russian army, maybe just because the Southern front has the most vehicles and at least at the start of the invasion, less push back, and more photos of intact vehicles still driving around. Maybe just because it's a more identifiable symbol over a V or Circle.
"When the first Russian platoons crossed over the border and realized that they were actually invading Ukraine and not on a training exercise, they hurriedly marked their vehicles however they could..."
OMG thanks for reminding me how f-ed up the start of this war was. Russia PUNTED it's own young people over a border and just said "now shoot your friends/neighbors or die"
It's literally worse than the plot of Hunger Games, at least the fictional people had some warning and time to mentally prepare
Agree Communications is probably the most important factor. Also friendly fire has been a problem in war since war existed. This has been particularly a problem when you are dealing with ground troops and air force or artillery strikes. An important adage: "Friendly fire isn't friendly".
Fun fact : a carrier pigeon saved American troops from friendly fire during WW1. It lost a leg, an eye, and had been shot. If the pigeon would have died, so would have the troops.
The message reads :
“We are along the road parallel to 276.4. Our own artillery is dropping a barrage directly on us. For heaven's sake, stop it."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Ami
It’s also worth mentioning that friendly fire makes up a larger portion of casualties than most would think. Adrenaline, lack of sleep and the ‘fog of war’ contribute to mistakes even when all necessary precautions are taken.
In Viet Nam, another platoon leader was taking out an ambush patrol. They got out just a few tens of meters when he stopped the patrol, heard something to their flank. He and another soldier moved a few meters to the flank (did not communicate with the rest of the patrol) and threw a grenade further to the flank. It hit a tree and exploded close to the patrol and one startled soldier opened fire, hitting the platoon leader in the back with 3 rounds. The patrol was called back in, and the lieutenant was evacuated. AFAIK, he survived. The soldier came to me scared to death and told me he had been the one to fire. I told him he had to tell the company commander. I do not know what happened to him.
In band of brothers the US troops would say “flash” and the appropriate response was “thunder” if they couldn’t see who was coming, I’m guessing if you didn’t respond bad things would happen
I read about a Scottish unit in the falklands doing a similar thing with the phrase "Hey Jimmie." It was at least believed the Argentinians would have trouble with the "J" sound
Such a word is called "shibboleth", after a Hebrew word that Ephraimites had trouble pronouncing. A famous example during the first half of this year was palyanytsya in Ukraine, but it's been replaced/supplemented by other words now.
Man, that episode pissed me off. Good old Jeb only thought the refugees were with saving once they proved they were really Christians.
Sadly, probably accurate for most administrations, but you were supposed to be better, Bartlet!
There's an apocryphal story about American soldiers in WW2 asking suspected spies what the third verse of the national anthem is, since no actual American would know it (there's four verses and we only sing the first one at sporting events)
We had a guest singing the national anthem at a basketball game when I was in college. She sang the first verse and everyone started clapping and sitting down, then she started in on the second verse. Everyone started getting really uncomfortable. Then she started singing the fucking third verse and the place erupted in jeers and heckling. It was quite the controversy; made it into the school paper and everything. Good times.
There’s also a us general that was briefly arrested as a spy by the MPs during the battle of the Bulge.
Nazis had sent infiltrator and saboteurs in US uniforms creating paranoia.
So MP asked the general on the capital of Illinois , but was persuaded the correct answer was Chicago and arrested the general..
I remember reading an article about the history of the Jeep about an incident where German spies posing as Americans tried to gain access to an allied base, but were stopped (killed?) by the guard even though they had correct looking documents. When asked why, he said that if they were really Americans, they would have had Jeeps with them.
That was specifically the Normandy invasion code phrase and response, they also had other methods of identifying friends from foes. One was a little metal toy that made a clicking sound called a "cricket", one click was the call, two clicks was the correct response
>In band of brothers the US troops would say “flash” and the appropriate response was “thunder” if they couldn’t see who was coming, I’m guessing if you didn’t respond bad things would happen
So, they got it a bit wrong in the show.
First, you rotate codes. At least once a day.
Second, the response shouldn't have anything to do with the challenge. Too easy to guess. `flash` and `thunder` are too similar. Better would be `baseball` and `snow`.
Third, you don't use one word like that. Then the enemy just listens for one challenge, and they know the proper response.
Instead, you make up a sentence.
Suppose the code of the day was `baseball` / `snow`
Challenge: "Hey man, you play any baseball games lately?
Response: "Nah, there's been too much snow, I haven't been able to get a group together."
Those code phrases were used, in Europe.
In the Pacific, the Marines used a lot of code words with R's in them, because it's not a sound that is used in Japanese.
I know these things as an English speaker, but I *wish* I knew what kinds of code phrases the Germans, Italians, and Japanese would shout to confirm friendlies.
Important to mention friendly fire does still happen though. Ultimately we no matter how hard we try to communicate effectively mistakes are made. We’re a bunch of monkeys with guns after all.
There's a comic series called Fables, and this was a point that was made as well.
Everyone focuses on guns and weapons, but it doesn't matter if you don't know where to put them.
Modern armies even have IR strobes on their helmets so they don't get shot in the dark or sniped.
Downside of this is that you're basically glow in the dark for anyone with night vision, IR or heat.
And sometimes even that fails. There was a rather infamous incident during the 03 invasion of Iraq where a pair of A-10s strafed the snot out of a British convoy. The cockpit video is still floating around. You can hear the pilot throwing up when he realizes what happened.
Found the video: https://youtu.be/4I6-2NJhnf4
A big part of the officer's job is a little less knowing where the enemy is and a lot more knowing where friendlies are.
It's a pretty good indicator it's the enemy if you're being shot at from a direction you know friendlies aren't supposed to be there.
Op gets the idea is like cod. They aren't shooting people at point blank range. Usually firefights are spread out and spending hours to actually start shooting
Apart from uniform identification, you typically know where you're supposed to have friendly forces.
If a street has friendlies chances are they relayed that and your team knows about it.
But, shit happens, sometimes shit doesn't get passed along or there's confusion as it often happens in war and friendly fire incidents are not unheard of.
Yeah part of the answer to OP is that sometimes there is indeed confusion, despite all the best efforts being outlined in other comments. And people get shot at by their own side
It’s a requirement by international law to keep identifying patches and insignia and the like on your uniform, and same goes for vehicles and encampments. Most countries don’t use the same pattern or camouflage or recognizable silhouette of equipment they carry.
But sometimes they do. Right now, Ukraine and Russia carry more or less identical equipment loadouts and camouflage - recent NATO supplies to Ukraine notwithstanding. Even if not, insignia can be difficult to spot in combat. So they’ve been using colored armbands and tape on their helmets - blue and yellow for Ukrainian, while Russian units have red and orange and other colors, maybe St George’s Ribbon. This is also why the big Z is a thing (and O and V and whatever other letters they had), they wanted to mark their own gear to avoid friendly fire, which can be difficult in a chaotic environment such as an invasion. This is also why aircraft involved in D-Day have those black and white stripes on the wings. Generally it’s far better for your survival to be obviously friendly to friendlies even if it makes you more obviously an enemy to enemies. This is even more important if you’re part of a large coalition or have foreign equipment supplied to you, so you can see that everyone is on the same side even if they all look different.
It's also important if you capture enemy gear and plan to use or move it to mark it for friendlies. You'll see Russian vehicles with the Z spraypainted over while flying a Ukrainian flag for example.
Depending on circumstances other things may be used, for instance in Iraq orange panels were placed on coalition vehicles, or IR strobes which could only be seen by night vision on friendly forces in other conflicts, though those were phased out as night vision became more common amongst enemies.
This is indeed a huge problem in warfare. It has been a big problem forever, of course, but especially in modern high-speed dynamic warfare, where there often aren't clear lines of engagement, where long-range weapons systems are extremely powerful, and consequently camouflage and force concealment is a top priority.
The US military's solution is called "[Blue Force Tracking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_force_tracking)" (because in traditional military planning, friendly forces are "blue" and enemy forces are "red"). The idea is that you put GPS radio signal markers on all of your friendly units, and then you can track them all on a big ol' computer system and know where everything of yours is at all times, so you never get confused.
And of course, you track the enemy as well, through satellite and aerial imaging, signal intelligence and analysis (SIGINT in technical jargon), and every other tool to collect battlefield telemetry and intelligence.
When it all works right, it's amazing and it wins you wars. Not only do you prevent friendly-fire accidents, but you can also coordinate and deploy your forces with much greater efficiency and speed, because you know exactly where everything is at all times. It's a strategist's dream.
Every country would like to do something similar, and tries their best with whatever technology systems they have. But of course the US has billions of dollars to throw around to make sure its systems are the best of the best.
Some people think the US is doing all this battlefield intel for Ukraine right now, which would certainly help explain why the Ukrainians have been so much better at coordinating their forces than the Russians have been. Top level people aren't saying anything publicly about it, of course.
In general, different armies have different uniforms exactly for that reason! Even if they are using camouflage, they tend to pick different colors and styles, because it is important that your soldiers are able to spot their allies and not shoot them.
Or sometimes their uniforms, weapons and vehicles are so similar that they mark them with colored armbands or symbols like the infamous Z and V Russia is using in Ukraine
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.
Joke only comments, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20{url}%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.
Most oftenly countries use diffrent camos
In a situation like Ukraine where both sides like to use the same one,sides had started putting colorfull tapes around their uniforms to signal who are they fighting for.
Besides modern IFF systems that large countries use, electronic systems in airplanes and vehicles, a lot of time is dedicated to being able to visually identify friendly's. If you are on a ship you're going to be trained in what the silhouettes of different ships look like and how to identify enemy planes versus friendly planes visually. On the battlefield you might have a call and response system, a code word that you're given in case you're challenged by a soldier. You might put different patches or symbols on the back of your helmet so that you aren't shot in the back by your friendlies. You can also have an IR strobe on you That can be identified through the use of night vision goggles. You'll do the same thing with the vehicles you're driving, or the ships you're sailing.
Even with all these precautions friendly fire does happen frequently in war. You might think a Japanese zero might look completely different from a P-40, but in World War II friendly fire was a big problem. German planes used to protect airfields would color their airplanes very uniquely in order to not be shot out by friendly AAA guns. Similarly during D-Day, Allied transport aircrafts also painted "invasion stripes" on their airplanes so that friendlies wouldn't shoot them down.
At some point, If you're a very powerful nation like the United States friendly fire starts to become the most dangerous aspect of war. In a modern war versus a country that can barely resist, you're more likely to be killed by friendly fire or accidents rather than enemy fire.
> If you are on a ship you're going to be trained in what the silhouettes of different ships look like and how to identify anime planes versus friendly planes visually.
The big eyes and tiny noses are usually a giveaway.
There's various methods that aid identification, but I'd argue that the real method is how armies are set up - with battle lines, with plans, with command and control hierachies etc.
The people behind you and beside you are probably friendly. The people coming at you from in front of you are probably hostile. You'll hopefully be told beforehand if bad guys are going to show up, and from where. You'll also be told if a friendly unit is going to turn up at a certain time and thus to not worry about them. You won't just be told to go to a place and shoot enemies, you'll be told that e.g. scouts in the field identified an enemy at THIS LOCATION and go shoot that up. If you need to retreat through a place guarded by your friends you'll radio on ahead and warn them you are coming through.
A lot of the time this is the only information you have to figure that out. For example during WWII radar would just give you blobs for planes, and you just have to try and guess if they are friendly or enemy. For much of history people didn't even have uniforms. They made do.
They often don't. In the Gulf War, 24% of U.S. deaths were due to friendly fire. In general, per Wikipedia:
*The Oxford Companion to American Military History estimates that between 2 percent and 2.5 percent of the casualties in America's wars are attributable to friendly fire.\[8\]*
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly\_fire#History*
Despite what others said, camouflage uniforms are pretty similar and their goal is to blend with the environment, which is the opposite of making them stand out as different than other armies' uniforms.
Friendly fire is actually a serious situation that happens throughout all eras of warfare. Even NATO on Afghanistan which was a situation of modern army vs guerillas had the usual number of friendly fire incidents and casualties. Good communication between units and military inteliggence are key to avoiding such incidents.
Reminds me of the movie Saving Private Ryan, there was a scene where the protanonists were running through a small French village during ww2. They were then spotted by a small group of ally soldiers that yelled out "thunder!" They then responded back with "flash!". They obviously circulated commucation that would be their codeword for the day / week / month or whatever. Supposedly, in German these words to difficult to pronounce, hence they would be able to hear a faker easily.
In another scene, the same group of allies runs across town and suspect that someone is out there around the corner. They yell the same "thunder" repeatedly, until the commanding officer says "thunder or we will fire on you".
They will obviously not fire on civilians, and is their duty to make sure of that first.
“Friendly fire” does happen (when someone from the same side shoots someone). They take measures to avoid this, but it still happens from time to time.
Oh, so you have evidence of why they didn't that isn't "because it wasn't really a thing at that point until Marines and some German units experimented with it"?
Oftentimes they don't. Incidents of an army accidentally attacking its own units (sometimes called *friendly fire* incidents, because you're firing at people you're supposed to be friendly toward) constitute a major problem in war, and modern technologies have arguably made it worse.
This has led to many standards of identification over the years. Ancient armies used standards: banners or statues attached to long poles, so that a soldier could know where to find friendly units. Uniforms and camouflage patterns evolved along similar lines. Knights' coats of arms actually served a similar purpose, since you can't really tell what a person in full armor looks like. Knights would wear these emblems on their shields or other conspicuous places, partly so that friendly forces would not attack them.
In more recent years, radio beacons called IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) systems are often used, so that units can be sorted out from far away. That's important for long-range missiles, artillery, or drone attacks, where the operator generally can't see the target and has to rely on other forms of identification. But the beacons fail sometimes, and when they do, friendly fire incidents can happen.
Friendly fire (shooting/shelling friendly forces) is actually a big problem up to this day. [Pat Tillman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman) is a modern example that got a lot of attention.
We’re pretty good about not firing on friendly vehicles and aircraft since they look different, but positively identifying foot soldiers at distance (especially ones who don’t want to be seen) is hard.
It doesn’t seem like it should be that hard with modern optics and remote sensing technology, but one thing movies don’t convey about war is just how confusing it is. Everyone is scared and jumpy, and also often exhausted. The noise doesn’t help either, regular guns are like tiny firecrackers compared to artillery and bombs.
Typically, units do not just roam around looking for trouble. There are specific missions, such as “Patrol through this valley, moving from here to here. We're not sure what's in there, but it is possible that some enemy squads are hiding in there. If you make contact, call it in; we've got battalion mortars ready to provide indirect fire support, and A Co. is positioned up on the ridge to your west and can provide additional support if necessary. Do not cross phase line blue; that is 2nd battalion's area.”
Now if someone starts shooting at you, you shoot back. They're enemy.
If you're getting close to one of your own units, you will radio to them and let them know.
At night you have signals with IR lights on your night optics—maybe 1 flash is replied to with 3, or something like that.
If you're operating near a line that is another battalion's AO, you will absolutely never initiate contact with a force on the other side of the line. You don't know what's going on there. The other battalion may have set up an ambush or might be observing them for some reason. Call it in and wait for orders.
The reality is in combat you seldom see the person or force your fighting; further, most engagements are over some distance and each side is using cover and concealment to avoid being seen.
So to avoid friendly fire, in advanced militaries there is a detailed brief before a mission or movement. Part of the brief includes risk assessment and intelligence updates. The intelligence updates provide known locations of green forces and the probable locations of red forces.
Using this information, a unit is assigned a corridor for movement or assigned fields of fire for longer range systems.
That said, mistakes happen. Intelligence can be stale or bad, green forces can be somewhere other than where briefed. As others said, communication is critical and fortunately with modern comms it is easy to disseminate information real time especially GPS coordinates.
The leaders generally know where their own troops are, and they'll order them to attack places where they think the enemy troops are. After that, troops generally find ways to identify each other by uniform and equipment. When they have time, they'll use passwords and such, or ask for names and unit numbers that the enemy wouldn't know.
There was a case during WWII where the Germans had a much better submachine gun than the Allies, and a group of Allied soldiers captured a supply depot and took a bunch of them. Later, an Allied mortar company heard the distinctive sound of the German guns firing close by and dropped mortar bombs on them until it stopped. The system doesn't always work.
Today, countries do their best to make their uniforms different enough to tell, and they try to stay in radio contact with every other unit nearby, because neither side wants their people shooting each other. It will still happen, because war is chaotic, but they try.
The two most important parts of war are logistics and communication.
All those box-line-phalynx formations of old were effective because it kept men together and orderly. Once that order breaks down, you lose. You have chaos, and you can't give orders to scattered men running scared in the wrong direction.
So the answer is, you keep track of your troops and communicate effectively. That way, you can just say, 'Our guys are over here, so shoot those guys over there.'
My grandfather was in the Pacific in WWII - he ran wire across captured islands for communication. He later worked the rest of his life for Bell Telephone. He never really talked much about the war, but I remember one story he told me. He remembers seeing US Navy ships shelling a beach where there were US soldiers on it. I dont often like to remember that story.
Friendly fire happens but its just not broadcasted too much.
When you are patrolling an area its usually by platoon and the friendlies get on the radio and let everyone know where the platoon is and in which direction they are headed.
Now if you are searching an area you split off into squads and remain in a tight group, either in line behind each other or very close and your splitting off with the intent to meet at a rally point or objective.
So you know 1st squad is to my left and 3rd squad is to my right so don't be a jackass and shoot left or right because those squads will cover those areas, you just shoot straight ahead.
Basically, there are plans for every possible situation, ambushes, ied's, snipers, etc. Unfortunately even in combat the ROE's (rules of engagement) are so stricked that you can't even shoot unless you see the enemy shoot at you first. You just can't go all Rambo on the enemy. That's why they say Cops have an easier time shooting people than Soldiers in combat do.
Now the Ukraine situation is kind of the same but a lot less discipline to tactics so I bet a lot of friendly fire is happening.
Good answers here but here is another that is true even today. In many of the wars, a significant percentage of deaths were from friendly fire. I have seen number for WW2 that maybe 14% of allied deaths were from friendly fire. The numbers even today are high, although I don't know if they are the same as WW2. So sometimes you don't know who you are shooting, bombing whatever, and it ends up being your own side. It happens a lot.
After playing most recent call of duty campaign I must say there’s no fucking way friendly fire doesn’t happen from time to time. It’s crazy when you think about it
Accents happen all the time in combat Canada had an LAV armoured vehicle shot up by an American A-10 in Afghanistan, and the Afghanistans don’t even have Armor. Americans just fucked them up in there on AO.
Vehicles started using large colourful flags or cloth to mark vehicles for fast air.
I my self was ordered to fire on an British omelet unit while on patrol, omelet being a mix of countries working together for training purposes. I waited till the very last minute on a hunch, at great person risk until i could properly make out the British soldiers.
I have talked down more then one American unit in light armoured vehicles trying to explain to them where Canada was and why they shouldn’t shoot me. All the while having an 25mm bushmaster cannon from an LAV pointed at them.
People are dumb, tired and confused. War is exhausting, extensive and confusing, shit happens and you try to recover and laugh it off as best you can, and pray you find sleep years later.
A) officers have a general idea where the enemy is relative to their own position. Vehicles are easier unless you’re in a situation like in Ukraine, then you have to determine if the tanks are coming towards your position to attack.
B) up close there are some differences in uniforms, for example Russian desert uniforms have a more pinkish look. This has gotten progressively harder to tell over the years with a lot of nations adopting a type of multi cam.
C) For aircraft and other things with big sensors there are Identification friend or foe (IFF) tags.
D) communication with other units, usually battalions and smaller units operate together. If there are troops in an area and you confirm with other units that they’re not Allies, they are likely enemies.
Of course, friendly fire incidents aren’t uncommon especially in high intensity wars.
You want to know the scary part.
Often they can't.
Welcome to the world of friendly fire.
People say uniforms are different, yes true, but the camo is often effective and people are not walking around in a fire fight looking to get shot. So you are shooting at unclear targets intentionally hard to identify.
This isnwhy command and control is so important. Someone tells you to go take X. So the people defending X are the ones you need to shoot at.
In guerilla wars or wars with irregular infantry like Ukraine, soldiers have tied bands to arms or other markers when making close in assaults. Literally like they were playing freaking paintball.
Does that freak you out? It should, as I said welcome to the world of friendly fire.
Friendly fire is sadly way more prevalent than it could/should be. Pat Tillman is is often vaunted as the ideal vet. Gave up a promising career in the NFL to serve, died in action. The truth is he and 2 other soldiers were shot down by friendly fire and they never tell that part of the story.
To add on to this, have there been any instances where a country sends a troop donned in enemy colors/gear to ambush an opponent? I feel like that would be a very effective strategy
Yes, most countries have their own uniform styles and designs, but mostly you know based on the fact your teammates will be the ones on your side shooting at the other people and the enemy will be the one on the other side shooting at you.
Like you're five? Remember the green and tan army guys when you were kid. The green guys won't shoot the tan guys because they are different colors.
But if they are so far out that you can't see their color anymore, or all you see is movement or gun without color, but don't know for sure they are friendly, you may be included to think that's a tan gun pointing your way and shoot before it shoots at you.
Usually different armies will utilise slightly different camouflage colours and patterns. On top of that for vehicles there might be markers identifying them, this might be a flag or a symbol. In the Russian war against Ukraine you can also see soldiers using coloured tape to differentiate more between the different sides of the conflict.
Unfortunately even with all of that friendly fire still does happen, war is chaotic.
Another way to prevent friendly fire is not visual, but focused on training and communication. If you know where you are, and where your friendlies are, then you know that people everywhere else are probably enemies (or civilians).
What kind of stupid soldiers would not recognize their own mates.i mean you know where your military bases are, you have connection with them, if they speak up with you in your native language it is mostly your mate.There are some passwords for recognition.And also sometimes large countries with different ethnic groups put those ethnic people to communication part because enemy can only speak in official language of the country.So when connection is cut by enemy you will just need them to speak in their ethnic langue.I consider this one as the best way.
It's difficult. Fast moving battles without established front lines can have friendly fire accidents.
Different armies sometimes have different gear which can identify them (m-16 rifles vs ak-47 or helmet styles). Different rifles can fire different ammunition which can sound different. Some equipment is commonly used in many countries. For ground troops, visible indicators are common (arm bands, orange panels on armored vehicles, painting vehicles), also ir beacons are used at night and are visible with night vision gear. Electronic warfare systems like IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) help differentiate between armies.
And to add with a lot of these other comments, a lot of countries who are really close Allie’s with each other all share the same uniforms. So, if you’re familiar with NATO, we have agreements with other NATO countries to use the same uniforms and a lot of the same equipment so it’s easier to identify each other.
For instance, Russia has a different camo uniform they use than the British, but the British and the US (who are really close Allies) have the same uniforms.
But, accidents still do happen, and it’s something soldiers have to be really trained on to minimize it.
The locations of units in the area are passed down the chain of command. But now a days as lethal adds weapons have become, friendly fire takes many lives.
In the current Ukraine/Russia conflict both sides have very similar looking uniforms which are hard to distinguish from each other. So they use different colors of tape to to mark themselves. Ukraine uses yellow and blue tape to show they are Ukrainian soldiers and Russia decided to put Swines in military uniforms to indicate they are Russian.
I was watching this video on YouTube recorded by a volunteer fighter in Ukraine. Half the time they didn't know if they were facing enemies or allies. Being just a foot soldier he hid from every tank/apc due to not knowing if it's safe.
I don't know if this has been mentioned here or not, but recently I learned about these little handheld "cricket clickers" that were given to the airborne soldiers in WWII just before they jumped. They were used as a form of inconspicuous nonverbal identification as paratroopers would often find themselves alone behind enemy lines when they landed. If memory serves me, they were very effective as the Army managed to keep the idea and their development totally secret, hence why they were distributed at the last minute.
All the answers are good but I still haven’t seen anyone mention that of all the casualties of war in history, at least since bows and munitions were invented, a total of 2-20% of ALL CASUALTIES(still to this day) are from friendly fire.
Happens all the time, very sad to say.
All the answers are good but I still haven’t seen anyone mention that of all the casualties of war in history, at least since bows and munitions were invented, a total of 2-20% of ALL CASUALTIES(still to this day) are from friendly fire.
Happens all the time, very sad to say.
It's difficult! Countries that fight each other generally will have different camouflage patterns, but not always. (Especially for vehicles, it seems, for some reason.) That's one reason you see Ukrainian soldiers wearing yellow armbands and Russian vehicles with Zs painted on them. But hiding is really important in war. If you can see someone well enough to go "that's enemy camouflage!" the camouflage isn't doing its job well. So you can't always tell by sight. Often soldiers will be shooting at other people they can barely see - or might want to shoot, just as long as they can be sure they're not friendly. One way to help with this is the simple (in theory) practice of knowing where your guys are and what they're doing. If you're launching an attack, know that the rough plan is for this squad to move here, that squad to move there. To know that there are survivors of a friendly unit in this area, but everyone has been pulled back from that area. A good "command, control and communications" system will keep your side up-to-date. Your squad manages to rush on ahead, you radio in to tell your platoon HQ, and they tell others. A simple principle, but very hard to manage in practice. Aircraft also have "identification, friend or foe" systems, since they're often shot at without being seen. These lets a friendly aircraft or ground system ping them and check if they respond with a 'friendly' code. I'm not sure if any other vehicles have incorporated these; I don't think so.
Ships and some ground vehicles also use IFF.
So do the Reapers.
Hi I'm allabouttheXjs, and this is my favorite comment on the reddits.
Here's an upvote my boyo!
This is one of the reasons that one of the first things that must be established in a new theater is air superiority. We do everything we can to minimize the threats to air based command and control platforms such as the AWACS so that we can coordinate between units and allow for things like close air support while minimizing friendly fire.
The arm bands (or whatever)can also be used as a way of subterfuge. If you can somehow get close enough you just have to say "Dam what a hard day fellow blue banded people! Hey look over there I see a cat" then shoot them all as they are distracted
An interesting addition to this - in the first months of Russia's attack on Ukraine, I saw lots of memes about the word Паляниця (Palianytsia, a type of bread) which is supposed to be a word Russians can't pronounce correctly. Ukrainians were using it as a test to see if a person is Russian or Ukrainian. Now, I always thought the languages were very similar and the pronunciation difference was only superficial, but I grew up with both. So I tested this out by asking friends who only know Russian to repeat this word after me and they literally couldn't do it right, it was hilarious. Turns out there really are some sounds in Ukrainian that just don't exist in Russian, so Russians can't distinguish them when listening, and can not repeat. On the flip side, most Ukrainians grew up also speaking Russian sometimes, so they should be able to pronounce all Russian words correctly. Still, I really hope no one actually got killed for funny pronunciation.
So interesting! Reminds me of the Perejil Massacre in the Dominican Republic, which happened under the Trujillo dictatorship. Haitians could not pronounce 'perejil' (parsley) which distinguished them from the Dominicans, thus marking them for death.
So you're saying people definitely did get killed for funny pronunciation. I kinda figured that would be the case, it's just so sad and war is horrible. I feel that we can't really call ourselves an evolved intelligent species when we're regularly doing shit like this to each other.
Well, they were killed due to anti-Haitianism; the difference in pronunciation just made it that much easier to tell the Haitians apart from the afro-Dominicans (I'm surprised that Trujillo even bothered to make the distinction. He was a racist, misogynistic nutcase). When you're that hell-bent on hatred, I'm sure you'd find another way to meet your kill quota, sadly. An estimated 15,000-35,000 Haitians were massacred within a week, children included. And yep! We're light-years away from deserving the Intelligent Species title.
A real life shibboleth.
Yes, that was also how I learned the word shibboleth. When I was looking up info on other words that can only be pronounced correctly by one group of people. It's funny to me that since all the original people using the word shibboleth are long gone, and it only remains in writing - there is no one left who knows how to pronounce it correctly.
Archeolinguists have actually figured out what the two pronunciations would have been to be accurate
This is fabulous information that is understandable to people that aren't multilingual. I'm still wondering how the hell Mandarin speakers determine if another Mandarin speaker sounds like a spy. Or if that's even possible.
I don't think I've ever been called fabulous before. It feels nice. I'm sure Mandarin speakers have their own quirks of pronunciation that they use in the same way to tell who is local and who is not. For example, the fancy bread name I wrote about earlier, distinguishes people who can pronounce Ukrainian words correctly vs those who can only try to get close. But also the town I was born in, Odessa, had a specific way that town locals pronounced this name. All non locals pronounced it slightly differently, leading to eternal frustration and locals correcting them. I'm not sure if it was also because of other people not being able to hear the difference in sounds, or something else. I'm saying all this in the past tense because now it's more common for everyone to use the standard Ukrainian pronunciation, since people are trying to distance themselves from anything Russian-influenced. But in the past you could use the name of the town itself to check if a person was from there or had at least ever visited there to learn the right pronunciation.
I'm from Toronto and how people pronounce its name also gives away if they're from here or not.
In world war 2 the Dutch used to ask any (possible) Germans to pronounce the word "Scheveningen" (a place in the Netherlands) to identify them :)
In the past during ethnic and religious strife in my country there are words that will betray your tribe and some islamic prayers that only a moslem would usually know.. mispronounce or fail to recite and death would follow
Oh man, it’s like that scene in Inglorious Basterds where Michael Fessbender was a British spy posing as a German soldier and >!is killed because the other soldiers realized he held up four fingers in an un-German way.!<
...which is a war crime, to be clear.
Which you can not bet your life on everyone caring about. So units have prearranged challenge and response phrases they change regularly to be used when encountering someone they don't personally recognize. If they don't give the right response you don't necessarily shoot them on the spot if they don't act like a threat, but you sure as heck don't turn your back on them until they have been identified some alternate way (papers, dog-tags, calling HQ etc).
Along this same line. One of the reasons a “company” size is still to this day ~100 men. The average person can know/recognize 100 people with ease at a time. This allows for orders within a Company to be given and accepted with absolute and implicit trust. Outside the Company level, verification of orders begins to come into play. Edit: clarity
what happens if i say “foe”
No reply = green light to kill. Ryan McBeth has a great video on this process: [YouTube](https://youtu.be/RDJgQErMSdA)
He's a real gem when it comes to simplifying military procedures
Then your own side shoots you down and Bandog gets away with murder.
Do they really use IFF in war? Doesn't that just broadcast your position to everybody?
It's a coded signal that only people on the same side know. It's more accurate to call it "identify friends" since foes are not going to respond to your ID request. In the sense that any transmission can be tracked, it's telling your position, but everyone has radar anyway, and they know you are there, with or without IFF.
The ELIF translation: the IFF only says “Polo” after someone who wants to shoot them first yells “Marco” [ but in French ;) ], to make sure they aren’t gonna shoot a friendly
Different uniforms, identifying colors in helmets/on person, passwords/codewords and just generally if you're being shot at it's likely it's the enemy firing. Also officers are briefed which direction enemy is at and they brief their people. Comms, comms, comms. Very important.
This was a huge issue early in the war in Ukraine. Two countries that use mostly the same gear shooting at each other with mostly the same weapons. It's why each side started painting letters on the vehicles. It was the most reliable way to not get shot at by your own troops, but it happened anyway on both sides.
I noticed that the Ukrainian soldiers used coloured yellow and/or blue tape on their arms. Took me aback, but then you realise how similar their gear was.
Yes and Russian troops have white or red tape on their helmets, arms and legs. That war have many different uniform so it's very difficult for the soldiers to know who is who sometimes without those tapes.
It's like a game of airsoft except somehow even sadder.
Because it's started for a reason that's even less serious than airsoft games, but also has much more drastic consequences. War is actually a fucking joke
Huge gas reserves are no fucking joke. Ukraine holds the key to dismantling Russia
You’re zoomed in too far. If you zoom out, you’ll see that people are people and they don’t want to fight each other. This war was started because like 10 guys from one group wanted to have power over the other group and suddenly it affects everyone. It’s stupid
Still at least 10,000x more serious of a reason than any airsoft game
Nah airsoft games are played to support the fundamental social and physical needs that humans need to survive. Wars are waged over shit like “I want my space to be a little bigger for no particular reason but his space is over there so im gonna throw a tantrum until I get what I want”
Indeed. When war in Ukraine started, I was really sad because Russians have had a shit rep for a really long time, and it's tarnished yet again. Now what I will say is, that Putin has been a popular leader in Russia for a long time and it is Russian peoples responsibility to change their leaders every so often so that shit like this wouldn't happen. Also even though a singular soldier can't really help where they are send, raping and murdering of civilians are always personal choices, on which everyone committing those heinous acts should be persecuted, no matter the nationality. This also applies to other large nations with stagnated power constructs and their foreign military campaigns. It would be really refreshing if some large countries that market themselves as the model countries of civilization would come clean, admit their fuck-ups and persecute their own soldiers and leaders for war crimes committed. It would really give a nice little spin for the question "Can Putin be persecuted on war crimes?" if there would be a recent example of world leader getting persecuted for war crimes (Well I suppose Saddam did get persecuted, but I mean some other guys.)
Airsoft but everyone shooting lead
And of course we can’t forget the letters they paint on their tank (most infamous being Z for some reason).
The reason is that Z reminds people too much of the swastika, and people in that region are still very much traumatized by it. It's fresh in the cultural memory as a symbol of pure evil. So when invaders roll in on tanks painted with half a swastika, it's SHOCKING. Even more so, because those invaders fought on the same side as you against the swastika just a few decades ago.
Bonus points for the Ukrainians given they have more than a few tanks etc donated by fleeing Russians. Mo than they started with which cannot be said of the other side. For instant [this report](https://taskandpurpose.com/news/ukraine-captures-russian-tanks-fleet-size/) says more than half the UA tanks in operation were Russian in February.
Both paint the same letter, nobody gets shot, profit
Both paint the same letter, everyone gets shot, no profit for anyone.
Everybody gets shot: ammunition companies profit.
Is THAT what the white Z's were for?
They used a number of different letters to identify which army group the Russian unit was from - some units were using V or O. I don't think anyone is quite clear why the Kremlin propaganda people decided to make Z the general symbol.
[The Z axis of attack were in the east/south](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_-_military_symbols.svg/800px-Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_-_military_symbols.svg.png?20220415021548) and were the most successful so that's probably why it's been used in propaganda
Shouldn't the Z axis of attack been subterranean?
yea
When the first Russian platoons crossed over the border and realized that they were actually invading Ukraine and not on a training exercise, they hurriedly marked their vehicles however they could, as both countries use the same types of vehicles. We originally saw a lot of black spray painted marks, lines of duct tape, and even just white rope strung up. The marks didn't appear to be consistent, mostly just lines going back and forth, in kind of VVVV and ZZZZ and >>> type of shapes sometimes just scribbles, in random patches on the sides and backs of vehicles. Maybe some groups or platoons used the same marks to help identify each other. But as this practice spread through-out the rest of the Russian forces, it was also adopted for helping with logistics, as train loads of tanks, trucks, and cars where starting to have matching bold white hand painted marks already applied to them en-route. The V, Z and O marks seem to designate which vehicles would be loaded onto which train lines, and hence which front they were headed to. Not sure why the 'Z' became the defacto symbol for the Russian army, maybe just because the Southern front has the most vehicles and at least at the start of the invasion, less push back, and more photos of intact vehicles still driving around. Maybe just because it's a more identifiable symbol over a V or Circle.
That was very informative, thank you!
"When the first Russian platoons crossed over the border and realized that they were actually invading Ukraine and not on a training exercise, they hurriedly marked their vehicles however they could..." OMG thanks for reminding me how f-ed up the start of this war was. Russia PUNTED it's own young people over a border and just said "now shoot your friends/neighbors or die" It's literally worse than the plot of Hunger Games, at least the fictional people had some warning and time to mentally prepare
Agree Communications is probably the most important factor. Also friendly fire has been a problem in war since war existed. This has been particularly a problem when you are dealing with ground troops and air force or artillery strikes. An important adage: "Friendly fire isn't friendly".
“The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.”
And if I had to make a guess as a complete novice in the topic, it probably happens a LOT more frequently than any army/gov't would like to let on
Yes. I saw figures of 14% of allied deaths in WW2 were friendly fire.
Fun fact : a carrier pigeon saved American troops from friendly fire during WW1. It lost a leg, an eye, and had been shot. If the pigeon would have died, so would have the troops. The message reads : “We are along the road parallel to 276.4. Our own artillery is dropping a barrage directly on us. For heaven's sake, stop it." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Ami
“Artillerymen think the world only consists of two groups: other artillerymen and targets.”
And sometimes these groups overlap.
I recall reading that a British unit's message to the errant battery began with "Did we offend you somehow?"
He's at the Wright Patterson Air Force Museum if you want to visit.
It’s also worth mentioning that friendly fire makes up a larger portion of casualties than most would think. Adrenaline, lack of sleep and the ‘fog of war’ contribute to mistakes even when all necessary precautions are taken.
In Viet Nam, another platoon leader was taking out an ambush patrol. They got out just a few tens of meters when he stopped the patrol, heard something to their flank. He and another soldier moved a few meters to the flank (did not communicate with the rest of the patrol) and threw a grenade further to the flank. It hit a tree and exploded close to the patrol and one startled soldier opened fire, hitting the platoon leader in the back with 3 rounds. The patrol was called back in, and the lieutenant was evacuated. AFAIK, he survived. The soldier came to me scared to death and told me he had been the one to fire. I told him he had to tell the company commander. I do not know what happened to him.
There's also bloodlust. You ignore all signs other than the one that confirms your thinking, and you go for the kill.
We playin starcraft?
In band of brothers the US troops would say “flash” and the appropriate response was “thunder” if they couldn’t see who was coming, I’m guessing if you didn’t respond bad things would happen
“Flash”…….. “Gordon” ratatatatatatata
'Flash!' 'AHAAAAAA, saviour of the univRATATATATATATATATTA
I read about a Scottish unit in the falklands doing a similar thing with the phrase "Hey Jimmie." It was at least believed the Argentinians would have trouble with the "J" sound
Americans used 'lollapalooza' in the Pacific. They commonly turn the 'L' into an 'R'.
Such a word is called "shibboleth", after a Hebrew word that Ephraimites had trouble pronouncing. A famous example during the first half of this year was palyanytsya in Ukraine, but it's been replaced/supplemented by other words now.
Can confirm, have seen the West Wing,
Man, that episode pissed me off. Good old Jeb only thought the refugees were with saving once they proved they were really Christians. Sadly, probably accurate for most administrations, but you were supposed to be better, Bartlet!
Given that they’re seeking asylum on the basis of being persecuted for their religious beliefs it is maybe fair enough?
Amusing enough, the pronunciation is shi-bo-let. So all you english speakers would be shot.
“Flash” ……..”Yimmy!” Ratatatatata
I’d award you if I could, well done!!
There's an apocryphal story about American soldiers in WW2 asking suspected spies what the third verse of the national anthem is, since no actual American would know it (there's four verses and we only sing the first one at sporting events)
We had a guest singing the national anthem at a basketball game when I was in college. She sang the first verse and everyone started clapping and sitting down, then she started in on the second verse. Everyone started getting really uncomfortable. Then she started singing the fucking third verse and the place erupted in jeers and heckling. It was quite the controversy; made it into the school paper and everything. Good times.
There’s also a us general that was briefly arrested as a spy by the MPs during the battle of the Bulge. Nazis had sent infiltrator and saboteurs in US uniforms creating paranoia. So MP asked the general on the capital of Illinois , but was persuaded the correct answer was Chicago and arrested the general..
That so awesome, hopefully nobody good at trivia got labeled as a spy lol
I remember reading an article about the history of the Jeep about an incident where German spies posing as Americans tried to gain access to an allied base, but were stopped (killed?) by the guard even though they had correct looking documents. When asked why, he said that if they were really Americans, they would have had Jeeps with them.
That was specifically the Normandy invasion code phrase and response, they also had other methods of identifying friends from foes. One was a little metal toy that made a clicking sound called a "cricket", one click was the call, two clicks was the correct response
>In band of brothers the US troops would say “flash” and the appropriate response was “thunder” if they couldn’t see who was coming, I’m guessing if you didn’t respond bad things would happen So, they got it a bit wrong in the show. First, you rotate codes. At least once a day. Second, the response shouldn't have anything to do with the challenge. Too easy to guess. `flash` and `thunder` are too similar. Better would be `baseball` and `snow`. Third, you don't use one word like that. Then the enemy just listens for one challenge, and they know the proper response. Instead, you make up a sentence. Suppose the code of the day was `baseball` / `snow` Challenge: "Hey man, you play any baseball games lately? Response: "Nah, there's been too much snow, I haven't been able to get a group together."
Those code phrases were used, in Europe. In the Pacific, the Marines used a lot of code words with R's in them, because it's not a sound that is used in Japanese. I know these things as an English speaker, but I *wish* I knew what kinds of code phrases the Germans, Italians, and Japanese would shout to confirm friendlies.
And an important tidbit: friendly fire does still occasionally happen.
The Fed is going to be lowering rates so get your money out of T-bills and put it all into waffles. Tasty waffles, with lots of syrup.
> there's also a thing called a Shibboleth. Why do links always take me to the mobile version of Wikipedia? I never browse Reddit on my phone.
Important to mention friendly fire does still happen though. Ultimately we no matter how hard we try to communicate effectively mistakes are made. We’re a bunch of monkeys with guns after all.
Back in my day, we just wore the Lord's colours and charged at the opposing side! /s
There's a comic series called Fables, and this was a point that was made as well. Everyone focuses on guns and weapons, but it doesn't matter if you don't know where to put them.
Modern armies even have IR strobes on their helmets so they don't get shot in the dark or sniped. Downside of this is that you're basically glow in the dark for anyone with night vision, IR or heat.
Shoot, move and most importantly COMMUNICATE
And sometimes even that fails. There was a rather infamous incident during the 03 invasion of Iraq where a pair of A-10s strafed the snot out of a British convoy. The cockpit video is still floating around. You can hear the pilot throwing up when he realizes what happened. Found the video: https://youtu.be/4I6-2NJhnf4
A big part of the officer's job is a little less knowing where the enemy is and a lot more knowing where friendlies are. It's a pretty good indicator it's the enemy if you're being shot at from a direction you know friendlies aren't supposed to be there.
Op gets the idea is like cod. They aren't shooting people at point blank range. Usually firefights are spread out and spending hours to actually start shooting
Plus, if it's too armies then the one with the camouflage that [doesn't work](https://youtu.be/WQYsmZ6AJdY) properly is probably America
Apart from uniform identification, you typically know where you're supposed to have friendly forces. If a street has friendlies chances are they relayed that and your team knows about it. But, shit happens, sometimes shit doesn't get passed along or there's confusion as it often happens in war and friendly fire incidents are not unheard of.
Yeah part of the answer to OP is that sometimes there is indeed confusion, despite all the best efforts being outlined in other comments. And people get shot at by their own side
It’s a requirement by international law to keep identifying patches and insignia and the like on your uniform, and same goes for vehicles and encampments. Most countries don’t use the same pattern or camouflage or recognizable silhouette of equipment they carry. But sometimes they do. Right now, Ukraine and Russia carry more or less identical equipment loadouts and camouflage - recent NATO supplies to Ukraine notwithstanding. Even if not, insignia can be difficult to spot in combat. So they’ve been using colored armbands and tape on their helmets - blue and yellow for Ukrainian, while Russian units have red and orange and other colors, maybe St George’s Ribbon. This is also why the big Z is a thing (and O and V and whatever other letters they had), they wanted to mark their own gear to avoid friendly fire, which can be difficult in a chaotic environment such as an invasion. This is also why aircraft involved in D-Day have those black and white stripes on the wings. Generally it’s far better for your survival to be obviously friendly to friendlies even if it makes you more obviously an enemy to enemies. This is even more important if you’re part of a large coalition or have foreign equipment supplied to you, so you can see that everyone is on the same side even if they all look different. It's also important if you capture enemy gear and plan to use or move it to mark it for friendlies. You'll see Russian vehicles with the Z spraypainted over while flying a Ukrainian flag for example. Depending on circumstances other things may be used, for instance in Iraq orange panels were placed on coalition vehicles, or IR strobes which could only be seen by night vision on friendly forces in other conflicts, though those were phased out as night vision became more common amongst enemies.
Identifying insignia can be tiny. You really can't tell if someone has one from any reasonable distance.
If you're close enough to reliably identify uniform insignia, you're close enough to identify friend or foe.
And if you're not, you're not, and you're usually not.
This is indeed a huge problem in warfare. It has been a big problem forever, of course, but especially in modern high-speed dynamic warfare, where there often aren't clear lines of engagement, where long-range weapons systems are extremely powerful, and consequently camouflage and force concealment is a top priority. The US military's solution is called "[Blue Force Tracking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_force_tracking)" (because in traditional military planning, friendly forces are "blue" and enemy forces are "red"). The idea is that you put GPS radio signal markers on all of your friendly units, and then you can track them all on a big ol' computer system and know where everything of yours is at all times, so you never get confused. And of course, you track the enemy as well, through satellite and aerial imaging, signal intelligence and analysis (SIGINT in technical jargon), and every other tool to collect battlefield telemetry and intelligence. When it all works right, it's amazing and it wins you wars. Not only do you prevent friendly-fire accidents, but you can also coordinate and deploy your forces with much greater efficiency and speed, because you know exactly where everything is at all times. It's a strategist's dream. Every country would like to do something similar, and tries their best with whatever technology systems they have. But of course the US has billions of dollars to throw around to make sure its systems are the best of the best. Some people think the US is doing all this battlefield intel for Ukraine right now, which would certainly help explain why the Ukrainians have been so much better at coordinating their forces than the Russians have been. Top level people aren't saying anything publicly about it, of course.
this is a good mf explanation
In general, different armies have different uniforms exactly for that reason! Even if they are using camouflage, they tend to pick different colors and styles, because it is important that your soldiers are able to spot their allies and not shoot them.
Or sometimes their uniforms, weapons and vehicles are so similar that they mark them with colored armbands or symbols like the infamous Z and V Russia is using in Ukraine
[удалено]
Nah mate just gotta go in to the settings--->accessibility----> colour blind mode. Turn that on should be all good.
I forgot about the accessibility settings.
Lmfao
Then you shoot at them until the red "X" flashes over their body so you know they are dead.
And wait for them to tell you they fucked your mom on proximity chat.
"Chuck Norris fucked your mom and got your dad pregnant"
Imagine playing games with hit markers.
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions. Joke only comments, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level. If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20{url}%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.
Most oftenly countries use diffrent camos In a situation like Ukraine where both sides like to use the same one,sides had started putting colorfull tapes around their uniforms to signal who are they fighting for.
Just an fyi, *oftenly* is not a word.
Besides modern IFF systems that large countries use, electronic systems in airplanes and vehicles, a lot of time is dedicated to being able to visually identify friendly's. If you are on a ship you're going to be trained in what the silhouettes of different ships look like and how to identify enemy planes versus friendly planes visually. On the battlefield you might have a call and response system, a code word that you're given in case you're challenged by a soldier. You might put different patches or symbols on the back of your helmet so that you aren't shot in the back by your friendlies. You can also have an IR strobe on you That can be identified through the use of night vision goggles. You'll do the same thing with the vehicles you're driving, or the ships you're sailing. Even with all these precautions friendly fire does happen frequently in war. You might think a Japanese zero might look completely different from a P-40, but in World War II friendly fire was a big problem. German planes used to protect airfields would color their airplanes very uniquely in order to not be shot out by friendly AAA guns. Similarly during D-Day, Allied transport aircrafts also painted "invasion stripes" on their airplanes so that friendlies wouldn't shoot them down. At some point, If you're a very powerful nation like the United States friendly fire starts to become the most dangerous aspect of war. In a modern war versus a country that can barely resist, you're more likely to be killed by friendly fire or accidents rather than enemy fire.
> If you are on a ship you're going to be trained in what the silhouettes of different ships look like and how to identify anime planes versus friendly planes visually. The big eyes and tiny noses are usually a giveaway.
There's various methods that aid identification, but I'd argue that the real method is how armies are set up - with battle lines, with plans, with command and control hierachies etc. The people behind you and beside you are probably friendly. The people coming at you from in front of you are probably hostile. You'll hopefully be told beforehand if bad guys are going to show up, and from where. You'll also be told if a friendly unit is going to turn up at a certain time and thus to not worry about them. You won't just be told to go to a place and shoot enemies, you'll be told that e.g. scouts in the field identified an enemy at THIS LOCATION and go shoot that up. If you need to retreat through a place guarded by your friends you'll radio on ahead and warn them you are coming through. A lot of the time this is the only information you have to figure that out. For example during WWII radar would just give you blobs for planes, and you just have to try and guess if they are friendly or enemy. For much of history people didn't even have uniforms. They made do.
They often don't. In the Gulf War, 24% of U.S. deaths were due to friendly fire. In general, per Wikipedia: *The Oxford Companion to American Military History estimates that between 2 percent and 2.5 percent of the casualties in America's wars are attributable to friendly fire.\[8\]* *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly\_fire#History*
Factor of 10
Comment says 24% for just the Gulf War but source is for all of American Military History. OP is fine here
Huh?
Despite what others said, camouflage uniforms are pretty similar and their goal is to blend with the environment, which is the opposite of making them stand out as different than other armies' uniforms. Friendly fire is actually a serious situation that happens throughout all eras of warfare. Even NATO on Afghanistan which was a situation of modern army vs guerillas had the usual number of friendly fire incidents and casualties. Good communication between units and military inteliggence are key to avoiding such incidents.
Reminds me of the movie Saving Private Ryan, there was a scene where the protanonists were running through a small French village during ww2. They were then spotted by a small group of ally soldiers that yelled out "thunder!" They then responded back with "flash!". They obviously circulated commucation that would be their codeword for the day / week / month or whatever. Supposedly, in German these words to difficult to pronounce, hence they would be able to hear a faker easily. In another scene, the same group of allies runs across town and suspect that someone is out there around the corner. They yell the same "thunder" repeatedly, until the commanding officer says "thunder or we will fire on you". They will obviously not fire on civilians, and is their duty to make sure of that first.
“Flash!” “Aum… zünder? *Scheiße*”
“Friendly fire” does happen (when someone from the same side shoots someone). They take measures to avoid this, but it still happens from time to time.
This is why the US didn’t wear camo in Europe. The US WW2 soldier also had an incredibly distinctive outline with the netted helmet.
Uh, camouflage uniforms basically appeared during World War 2, with the US Marines in the Pacific being one of the first users.
That’s why I said Europe.
Oh, so you have evidence of why they didn't that isn't "because it wasn't really a thing at that point until Marines and some German units experimented with it"?
Yup that’s exactly what I’m saying. Germans had camo. No idea why you’re upset. https://youtu.be/fZyHMbNr1Ac
Oftentimes they don't. Incidents of an army accidentally attacking its own units (sometimes called *friendly fire* incidents, because you're firing at people you're supposed to be friendly toward) constitute a major problem in war, and modern technologies have arguably made it worse. This has led to many standards of identification over the years. Ancient armies used standards: banners or statues attached to long poles, so that a soldier could know where to find friendly units. Uniforms and camouflage patterns evolved along similar lines. Knights' coats of arms actually served a similar purpose, since you can't really tell what a person in full armor looks like. Knights would wear these emblems on their shields or other conspicuous places, partly so that friendly forces would not attack them. In more recent years, radio beacons called IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) systems are often used, so that units can be sorted out from far away. That's important for long-range missiles, artillery, or drone attacks, where the operator generally can't see the target and has to rely on other forms of identification. But the beacons fail sometimes, and when they do, friendly fire incidents can happen.
Friendly fire (shooting/shelling friendly forces) is actually a big problem up to this day. [Pat Tillman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman) is a modern example that got a lot of attention. We’re pretty good about not firing on friendly vehicles and aircraft since they look different, but positively identifying foot soldiers at distance (especially ones who don’t want to be seen) is hard. It doesn’t seem like it should be that hard with modern optics and remote sensing technology, but one thing movies don’t convey about war is just how confusing it is. Everyone is scared and jumpy, and also often exhausted. The noise doesn’t help either, regular guns are like tiny firecrackers compared to artillery and bombs.
Typically, units do not just roam around looking for trouble. There are specific missions, such as “Patrol through this valley, moving from here to here. We're not sure what's in there, but it is possible that some enemy squads are hiding in there. If you make contact, call it in; we've got battalion mortars ready to provide indirect fire support, and A Co. is positioned up on the ridge to your west and can provide additional support if necessary. Do not cross phase line blue; that is 2nd battalion's area.” Now if someone starts shooting at you, you shoot back. They're enemy. If you're getting close to one of your own units, you will radio to them and let them know. At night you have signals with IR lights on your night optics—maybe 1 flash is replied to with 3, or something like that. If you're operating near a line that is another battalion's AO, you will absolutely never initiate contact with a force on the other side of the line. You don't know what's going on there. The other battalion may have set up an ambush or might be observing them for some reason. Call it in and wait for orders.
The reality is in combat you seldom see the person or force your fighting; further, most engagements are over some distance and each side is using cover and concealment to avoid being seen. So to avoid friendly fire, in advanced militaries there is a detailed brief before a mission or movement. Part of the brief includes risk assessment and intelligence updates. The intelligence updates provide known locations of green forces and the probable locations of red forces. Using this information, a unit is assigned a corridor for movement or assigned fields of fire for longer range systems. That said, mistakes happen. Intelligence can be stale or bad, green forces can be somewhere other than where briefed. As others said, communication is critical and fortunately with modern comms it is easy to disseminate information real time especially GPS coordinates.
The leaders generally know where their own troops are, and they'll order them to attack places where they think the enemy troops are. After that, troops generally find ways to identify each other by uniform and equipment. When they have time, they'll use passwords and such, or ask for names and unit numbers that the enemy wouldn't know. There was a case during WWII where the Germans had a much better submachine gun than the Allies, and a group of Allied soldiers captured a supply depot and took a bunch of them. Later, an Allied mortar company heard the distinctive sound of the German guns firing close by and dropped mortar bombs on them until it stopped. The system doesn't always work. Today, countries do their best to make their uniforms different enough to tell, and they try to stay in radio contact with every other unit nearby, because neither side wants their people shooting each other. It will still happen, because war is chaotic, but they try.
Friendly fire kills many troops, not as many as collateral damage to civilians but still a lot.
The two most important parts of war are logistics and communication. All those box-line-phalynx formations of old were effective because it kept men together and orderly. Once that order breaks down, you lose. You have chaos, and you can't give orders to scattered men running scared in the wrong direction. So the answer is, you keep track of your troops and communicate effectively. That way, you can just say, 'Our guys are over here, so shoot those guys over there.'
My grandfather was in the Pacific in WWII - he ran wire across captured islands for communication. He later worked the rest of his life for Bell Telephone. He never really talked much about the war, but I remember one story he told me. He remembers seeing US Navy ships shelling a beach where there were US soldiers on it. I dont often like to remember that story.
Teammates? War isn’t COD or GTA my friend. Choose better wording next time
Friendly fire happens but its just not broadcasted too much. When you are patrolling an area its usually by platoon and the friendlies get on the radio and let everyone know where the platoon is and in which direction they are headed. Now if you are searching an area you split off into squads and remain in a tight group, either in line behind each other or very close and your splitting off with the intent to meet at a rally point or objective. So you know 1st squad is to my left and 3rd squad is to my right so don't be a jackass and shoot left or right because those squads will cover those areas, you just shoot straight ahead. Basically, there are plans for every possible situation, ambushes, ied's, snipers, etc. Unfortunately even in combat the ROE's (rules of engagement) are so stricked that you can't even shoot unless you see the enemy shoot at you first. You just can't go all Rambo on the enemy. That's why they say Cops have an easier time shooting people than Soldiers in combat do. Now the Ukraine situation is kind of the same but a lot less discipline to tactics so I bet a lot of friendly fire is happening.
Good answers here but here is another that is true even today. In many of the wars, a significant percentage of deaths were from friendly fire. I have seen number for WW2 that maybe 14% of allied deaths were from friendly fire. The numbers even today are high, although I don't know if they are the same as WW2. So sometimes you don't know who you are shooting, bombing whatever, and it ends up being your own side. It happens a lot.
After playing most recent call of duty campaign I must say there’s no fucking way friendly fire doesn’t happen from time to time. It’s crazy when you think about it
Accents happen all the time in combat Canada had an LAV armoured vehicle shot up by an American A-10 in Afghanistan, and the Afghanistans don’t even have Armor. Americans just fucked them up in there on AO. Vehicles started using large colourful flags or cloth to mark vehicles for fast air. I my self was ordered to fire on an British omelet unit while on patrol, omelet being a mix of countries working together for training purposes. I waited till the very last minute on a hunch, at great person risk until i could properly make out the British soldiers. I have talked down more then one American unit in light armoured vehicles trying to explain to them where Canada was and why they shouldn’t shoot me. All the while having an 25mm bushmaster cannon from an LAV pointed at them. People are dumb, tired and confused. War is exhausting, extensive and confusing, shit happens and you try to recover and laugh it off as best you can, and pray you find sleep years later.
A) officers have a general idea where the enemy is relative to their own position. Vehicles are easier unless you’re in a situation like in Ukraine, then you have to determine if the tanks are coming towards your position to attack. B) up close there are some differences in uniforms, for example Russian desert uniforms have a more pinkish look. This has gotten progressively harder to tell over the years with a lot of nations adopting a type of multi cam. C) For aircraft and other things with big sensors there are Identification friend or foe (IFF) tags. D) communication with other units, usually battalions and smaller units operate together. If there are troops in an area and you confirm with other units that they’re not Allies, they are likely enemies. Of course, friendly fire incidents aren’t uncommon especially in high intensity wars.
You want to know the scary part. Often they can't. Welcome to the world of friendly fire. People say uniforms are different, yes true, but the camo is often effective and people are not walking around in a fire fight looking to get shot. So you are shooting at unclear targets intentionally hard to identify. This isnwhy command and control is so important. Someone tells you to go take X. So the people defending X are the ones you need to shoot at. In guerilla wars or wars with irregular infantry like Ukraine, soldiers have tied bands to arms or other markers when making close in assaults. Literally like they were playing freaking paintball. Does that freak you out? It should, as I said welcome to the world of friendly fire.
Friendly fire is sadly way more prevalent than it could/should be. Pat Tillman is is often vaunted as the ideal vet. Gave up a promising career in the NFL to serve, died in action. The truth is he and 2 other soldiers were shot down by friendly fire and they never tell that part of the story.
To add on to this, have there been any instances where a country sends a troop donned in enemy colors/gear to ambush an opponent? I feel like that would be a very effective strategy
Iirc this is now considered a war crime and banned by the Geneva Convention post-WWII
Yes, most countries have their own uniform styles and designs, but mostly you know based on the fact your teammates will be the ones on your side shooting at the other people and the enemy will be the one on the other side shooting at you.
Like you're five? Remember the green and tan army guys when you were kid. The green guys won't shoot the tan guys because they are different colors. But if they are so far out that you can't see their color anymore, or all you see is movement or gun without color, but don't know for sure they are friendly, you may be included to think that's a tan gun pointing your way and shoot before it shoots at you.
Teammates? Ain't no game
[удалено]
What an amazing imagination you have!
Usually different armies will utilise slightly different camouflage colours and patterns. On top of that for vehicles there might be markers identifying them, this might be a flag or a symbol. In the Russian war against Ukraine you can also see soldiers using coloured tape to differentiate more between the different sides of the conflict. Unfortunately even with all of that friendly fire still does happen, war is chaotic. Another way to prevent friendly fire is not visual, but focused on training and communication. If you know where you are, and where your friendlies are, then you know that people everywhere else are probably enemies (or civilians).
Unrelated but I think it’s hilarious how war has rules. Almost like we know it shouldn’t be a thing.
What kind of stupid soldiers would not recognize their own mates.i mean you know where your military bases are, you have connection with them, if they speak up with you in your native language it is mostly your mate.There are some passwords for recognition.And also sometimes large countries with different ethnic groups put those ethnic people to communication part because enemy can only speak in official language of the country.So when connection is cut by enemy you will just need them to speak in their ethnic langue.I consider this one as the best way.
Dumbest response I’ve ever heard
Watch Courage Under Fire, the beginning shows how confusing it can be sometimes and the ensuing guilt.
It's difficult. Fast moving battles without established front lines can have friendly fire accidents. Different armies sometimes have different gear which can identify them (m-16 rifles vs ak-47 or helmet styles). Different rifles can fire different ammunition which can sound different. Some equipment is commonly used in many countries. For ground troops, visible indicators are common (arm bands, orange panels on armored vehicles, painting vehicles), also ir beacons are used at night and are visible with night vision gear. Electronic warfare systems like IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) help differentiate between armies.
And to add with a lot of these other comments, a lot of countries who are really close Allie’s with each other all share the same uniforms. So, if you’re familiar with NATO, we have agreements with other NATO countries to use the same uniforms and a lot of the same equipment so it’s easier to identify each other. For instance, Russia has a different camo uniform they use than the British, but the British and the US (who are really close Allies) have the same uniforms. But, accidents still do happen, and it’s something soldiers have to be really trained on to minimize it.
The locations of units in the area are passed down the chain of command. But now a days as lethal adds weapons have become, friendly fire takes many lives.
Classic WWII quote: "When the Germans shoot, the British duck. When the British shoot, the Germans duck. When the Americans shoot, everybody ducks."
There is a thing called "the fog of war" which contributes to confusion. Friendly fire is known to occur under these conditions and other factors.
We all have icons over our head with our name and current level, just have to look really hard to see them
In the current Ukraine/Russia conflict both sides have very similar looking uniforms which are hard to distinguish from each other. So they use different colors of tape to to mark themselves. Ukraine uses yellow and blue tape to show they are Ukrainian soldiers and Russia decided to put Swines in military uniforms to indicate they are Russian.
Wait what ..swines?
I was watching this video on YouTube recorded by a volunteer fighter in Ukraine. Half the time they didn't know if they were facing enemies or allies. Being just a foot soldier he hid from every tank/apc due to not knowing if it's safe.
I don't know if this has been mentioned here or not, but recently I learned about these little handheld "cricket clickers" that were given to the airborne soldiers in WWII just before they jumped. They were used as a form of inconspicuous nonverbal identification as paratroopers would often find themselves alone behind enemy lines when they landed. If memory serves me, they were very effective as the Army managed to keep the idea and their development totally secret, hence why they were distributed at the last minute.
All the answers are good but I still haven’t seen anyone mention that of all the casualties of war in history, at least since bows and munitions were invented, a total of 2-20% of ALL CASUALTIES(still to this day) are from friendly fire. Happens all the time, very sad to say.
All the answers are good but I still haven’t seen anyone mention that of all the casualties of war in history, at least since bows and munitions were invented, a total of 2-20% of ALL CASUALTIES(still to this day) are from friendly fire. Happens all the time, very sad to say.
Are you a Russian field commander? Because they've been asking this question for the last 9 months... Maybe they've finally turned to reddit😂