Message to all A-10 pilots:

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Asher

Missiles cost a lot more, and the A10s gun (depleted uranium shells, IIRC they're classified by the UN as WMD) is just as effective in ripping apart tanks.

i don't know i agree with that Asher, FROM WHAT I'VE READ the tank and the tank crew survived only because the gun was used not the missiles, like i say though, from what i've read.

[Asher]

Originally posted by reds4ever
i don't know i agree with that Asher, FROM WHAT I'VE READ the tank and the tank crew survived only because the gun was used not the missiles, like i say though, from what i've read.

The A10s gun can rip apart tanks. It gives the crew an opportunity to escape more than a missile does, but the effect is the same.

Was the Brit tank destroyed after the A10's assault?

I've seen a few TLC/Discovery Channel shows on the A10, and that gun is very deadly.

7x30mm depleted uranium gatling gun, 6000 rounds/minute...

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Asher
I've seen a few TLC/Discovery Channel shows on the A10, and that gun is very deadly.

then your background in anti-tank warfare is similar mine

i still think straffing is more fun though......

[Chemical Ollie]

Basically a dirty bomb. Now I know why the troops have chemsuits.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Why do we need to specify killing of Americans?
The Brits have had many other Brit FF incidents already in Iraq...

And we also haven't mentioned American FF deaths due to other Americans. If we want to do a comparison that's fair we have to use cross-national FF deaths. I'll leave it to you to figure out why this is so.

If both were equally reckless then there should be an equal number on each side (the Brits should have killed 5 Americans so far to keep up)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
If both were equally reckless then there should be an equal number on each side (the Brits should have killed 5 Americans so far to keep up)

How do you figure, the Brits don't have an equal number of troops.

[KrazyHorse]

Is this another one of your duh moments (think back to immigration question)

The brits have X number of troops.

The yanks have Y

The number of times American troops encounter British troops in a manner that they might want to pull the trigger is XY/c (c a constant determined by the size of the area of operations, the way the forces are deployed etc.)

The number of times British troops encounter American troops in a manner that they might want to pull the trigger is YX/c (c the same constant). They work out the same because multiplication is commutative

Take an analogy. Imagine a disease. Imagine a society in which there are white people (90%) and black people (10%)

The number of black people that catch the disease from white people should be the same as the number of white people that catch the disease from black people if the same percentage of black and white people have the disease, and both populations are equally susceptible

This is basic statistics...

[Asher]

I was just thinking of it in terms of you have less British troops, so they're less frequently engaged in combat, which means they less frequently have FF accidents in terms of raw numbers compared to the Americans...

[KrazyHorse]

The way they work out different is twofold:

a) The British are careless in the way they deploy troops (leading to an understandable increase of misidentifications by the other side)

b) The Americans are careless in the way they instruct their forces to attack

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
I was just thinking of it in terms of you have less British troops, so they're less frequently engage in combat, which means they less frequently have FF accidents in terms of raw numbers compared to the Americans...

Think about it.

The British have less troops to shoot at the Americans, but also have less troops to be shot at by the Americans.

[KrazyHorse]

This is why it's best to do cross-national comparisons.


The raw numbers should work out the same, all else being equal.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
Think about it.

The British have less troops to shoot at the Americans, but also have less troops to be shot at by the Americans.

Which was why I was insisting we don't count countries in specific. It's pointless to do so.

I was talking about FF accidents, not FF accidents against Brits specifically.

[KrazyHorse]

And what I'm saying is that all else being equal, the number of Americans killing allies should work out the same as the number of allies killing Americans.

Why aren't they the same?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
And what I'm saying is that all else being equal, the number of Americans killing allies should work out the same as the number of allies killing Americans.

Why aren't they the same?

Luck of the draw? War is not a science.

You should also factor in the deadlier equipment the Americans have versus the Brits.

Also, you should look at WHERE they're fighting. For the most part, the Brits are staying behind and securing some towns, the Americans are mostly pressing forward into Iraq.

It's not an accurate comparison because there's too many variables.

[KrazyHorse]

That's exactly why it's an accurate comparison.

The "deadly equipment" thing is only valid if you can show that there were an equal number of mistaken engagements by both sides, but the Americans' tended to kill more.