Amicicide: Friendly Fire

Chapter 4: Ground Attack

by LTC Charles Shrader



Introduction

While amicicide incidents arising from the engagement of one friendly ground unit by another have not involved the same destructive force as either artillery or air incidents, they have nevertheless constituted a serious threat to the continuity of ground operations and have resulted in death, wounds, and loss of friendly equipment. Active combat operations involving large numbers of infantry troops and armor units are particularly difficult to coordinate. The lack of proper coordination, the inability to distinguish friend from foe, and the usual stresses of combat on nervous or ill-disciplined troops have on occasion led to friendly soldiers or tanks firing on one another with predictable consequences. None of the fifty-eight incidents identified in this study were related to any mechanical problem. The incidents were all due to some human failure.

It should be pointed out that the weapons involved in the noted incidents of ground amicicide were direct-fire weapons of limited range and required visual acquisition and identification of the target. In World War II and in Vietnam there were no technical, electronic aids to assist in the identification process, and the pressures of combat usually demanded, or seemed to demand, a "shoot first and sort 'em out later" policy.

Most of the fifty-eight incidents examined involved small arms and automatic weapons fire of one infantry force against another. Sixteen of the fiftyeight incidents involved tanks, but most were cases in which tanks fired with both machine guns and main armament on infantry forces. Only two major incidents involved friendly tanks engaging other friendly tanks, and one additional incident involved a protracted engagement of tanks with friendly tank destroyer forces. All three incidents occurred in the European theater during World War II. Two of the incidents are described in detail in this study.

World War I

The well-fixed defensive lines and planned, coordinated attacks characteristic of warfare on the western front in World War I were not proof against frequent incidents of ground as well as artillery amicicide. The great confusion of offensive operations and the serious disruption of communications that accompanied such attacks sometimes resulted in one group of friendly troops battling another. The limited visibility and confusion of a disputed trench was often the scene of such incidents.

Typical of these was the experience of the Australian 50th Infantry Battalion on 24 April 1918 during the second battle of Villers-Bretonneux. [1] Despite heavy enemy fires, the Australians advanced steadily toward the German trenches under cover of the darkness. As they neared the German position, several shots were fired at them from close in front, someone yelled "Bomb the bastards," grenades were thrown, and a rush of the trench was made. [2]

The trench proved to be occupied, not by the Germans, but by remnants of the 2d Devon and 1st Worcester Battalions, who had not been informed of the Australian counterattack and thought the Germans were attacking them from the rear.

World War II: Europe

The more fluid conditions of combat in World War II, both in Europe and the Pacific, only intensified the problems of locating and coordinating friendly units in order to preclude incidents of amicicide. Although communications were greatly improved, the greater area of dispersion, higher mobility, and, particularly in the Pacific, more difficult terrain offset any gain in ease of communication. Surprisingly, there appear to have been no incidents of ground amicicide during the North African campaign of 1942-43 worthy of being recorded in the more obvious sources. The inexperience of US forces was amply revealed in several incidents of artillery, air, and antiaircraft amicicide, but cases of misplaced ground fires that may have occurred do not appear in the published histories of the campaign.

The ill-fated airborne reinforcement of the Gela beachhead by the 504th Regimental Combat Team on the night of 11 July 1943 has been described above. Friendly antiaircraft fires were not the only hazard for the paratroopers of Operation HUSKY 2. Several of the American paratroopers were hit by friendly small arms and automatic fire while still in their parachutes, and a few were shot after they landed.

For example, Chaplain Delbert A. Kuehl (HHC, 504th Parachute Infantry) and several other men landed in the 45th Infantry Division area, well to the southeast of Gela, and immediately began to receive fire from American troops. [3]

Shouting the password only caused the fire to increase, so while the other men fired their weapons into the air, Chaplain Kuehl crawled around to the rear of the American position and succeeded in stopping the fire.

Both the 171st and 158th Field Artillery Battalions of the 45th Infantry Division reported engagements with American paratroopers on the night of 11 July, the 171st's report stating that: "Since no news of the American paratroopers had reached this headquarters, they were assumed to be hostile and the Battalion was deployed for all around defense." [4]

The nervous artillerymen even managed to kill one of their own men who was mistaken for a German parachutist. [5]

The entire Gela-Farello fiasco prompted an investigation which, however, came to no firm conclusions. [6]

Both the antiaircraft and ground amicicide incidents connected with Operation HUSKY 2 did bring improvements in coordination that went far toward avoiding such incidents during later airborne operations.

Both the pace and scale of combat operations on the Continent after 6 June 1944 made the avoidance of ground amicicide difficult if not impossible. The fire and maneuver of many large units, often in a confined area, against a determined and skillful enemy frequently resulted in the engagement of one friendly unit by another. Such incidents were particularly common during the periods of active offensive operations (the Normandy breakout; the breaking of the West Wall) and during the confused retrograde and holding actions in the Ardennes in December 1944.

Amicicide began to occur almost as soon as the first Allied troops crossed the Normandy beaches in June 1944. Within the first four or five days after the invasion, the green troops of the 25th Cavalry Regiment (4th Armored Division) shot up another American unit while attempting to straighten their lines in a defensive position near the Normandy beachhead. [7]

The data on amicicide incidents of all types is particularly good for at least one unit that fought in the European theater. The US 30th Infantry Division took part in some of the hardest fighting on the Continent and appears to have carefully recorded its share of both the receipt and delivery of misplaced fires. The experiences of the 30th Division were by no means unique and thus may serve as examples of the problems faced by all Allied units during the advance into Germany.

Between 1 and 6 July 1944 the 30th Infantry Division, commanded by Maj. Gen. Leland S. Hobbs, as part of Lt. Gen. Charles H. Corlett's XIX Corps, held defensive positions north of the Vire-et-Taute Canal and east of the Vire River and prepared to continue the attack to the south with an assault crossing of the canal-river line in the vicinity of Aire 1. Active patrolling was conducted as the division prepared for the coming river crossing operation. Although the relatively quiet course of static defensive operations brought no major amicicide incidents, some liaison officers and messengers reported that they were "more afraid of nervous sentries in the rear areas than of Germans." [8]

At 0430 on 7 July 1944 XIX Corps attacked with the 29th and 30th Infantry Divisions and the 113th Cavalry Group (mechanized) to secure the high ground north of St. Lo. The 30th Division successfully assaulted westward across the Vire River in the vicinity of Airel and southward across the Vire-et-Taute Canal to seize the high ground in the vicinity of Pont Hebert with the main effort in the direction of St. Jean de Daye, St. Giles, and St. Lo. By nightfall on 7 July the division had secured its bridgeheads and was preparing to resist German counterattacks and continue the attack to the south on 8 July. [9]

Late on 7 July the corps commander, Lieutenant General Corlett, sought to exploit a possible' breakthrough situation by committing elements of the 3d Armored Division through the small and still developing 30th Infantry Division bridgehead over the Vire River. Combat Command B of the 3d Armored Division was ordered to cross the Vire River at Airel and attack southward on the morning of 8 July with the 30th Infantry Division.

The commitment of CCB through the confined 30th Division bridgehead served to increase enormously the confusion and turmoil already present in the still tenuous position and was to result in several serious incidents of ground amicicide before the units broke free to the south toward St. Lo.

Problems began as soon as CCB attempted to cross the crowded Vire River bridge at Airel and move into assembly areas in the bridgehead on the night of 7-8 July. Chaos prevailed as both tankers and infantrymen competed to cross the bridge and find space for assembly areas. In the confusion men from both units fired indiscriminately with small arms and machine guns, partially from fear and confusion and partially out of frustration and anger over the actions of their supposed comrades-in-arms. [10]

The following day Major General Hobbs complained to corps headquarters that his division had suffered sixteen casualties as a result of uncontrolled shooting by the CCB tankers. [11]

Casualties among the tankers were apparently not reported.

The attempt to advance on 8 July saw no substantial improvement. Most of the day was spent trying to sort out the jumble of tanks and infantrymen now faced by counterattacks and strong resistance from the recently arrived 2nd SS Panzer Division (Das Reich). [12]

General Hobbs subsequently complained bitterly of the inactivity and lack of movement by CCB which prevented his own regiments from moving forward and which hampered efforts to support the 30th Division units with close artillery fires for fear of hitting the friendly armor elements. [13]

On the afternoon of the eighth the artillery commanders of the 3d Armored Division and the 30th infantry Division met in an effort to coordinate their fires and to prevent the artillery of one unit from firing on the troops of the other. [14]

At 2045 Major General Hobbs and Maj. Gen. Leroy H. Watson (commanding general of the 3d Armored Division) discussed both the problem of CCBs not moving out and the problem of possible additional amicicide incidents:

Watson: Do you mean I am holding you up?

Hobbs: Yes.

Watson: I don't see how I am.

Hobbs: If you don't move those people will shoot into each other. We have had 16 casualties from the situation as it is now. [15]

A few minutes later General Hobbs told his artillery chief that ". . . as far as fires are concerned tonight [I want] it clearly understood that first of all it should be prepared to protect our troops as they are now, wherever they are, irrespective of armor or anything else, and if they call for it, they get it." [16]

Fortunately, there were no major incidents of misplaced artillery fire, but the resumption of the attack on 9 July was to see a significant incident of ground amicicide involving the two commands.

In an effort to relieve the congestion and confusion in the Airel bridgehead caused by the presence there of two major units under separate command, on the evening of 8 July CCB was attached by Lieutenant General Corlett to the 30th Infantry Division, despite the protests of Major General Hobbs, who was convinced his division could proceed in the advance without further "assistance" from the pesky armor unit. [17]

Nevertheless, Hobbs received attachment of CCB and plans were made for the tankers to continue the attack to the southwest on 9 July to seize the dominant terrain of Hill 91 at Hauts-Vents, slightly more than three miles ahead.

On the morning of 9 July Brigadier General Bohn, the CCB commander, attempted to pass his trailing task force in column through his leading elements. The always difficult maneuver was further complicated by the heavy hedgerow terrain and extremely muddy conditions caused by several days of heavy rain.

The advance of the armored forces was soon bogged down and also stymied the attempts of 30th Division units to move forward. Dissatisfied with CCB's slow progress, General Hobbs pressed General Bohn, telling him to take his objective by 1700 or surrender command of his unit. [18]

In an effort to give his impatient superior some sign of progress, Bohn ordered one of his tank companies to strike ahead without pause, cross the St. Jean de Daye-Pont Hebert highway, and move southwestward to Hill 91. The company of eight Sherman tanks soon moved off toward Hauts-Vents spraying the ditches and hedgerows with machine gun fire.

Meanwhile Bohn attempted to get the remainder of his mired combat command underway and the various elements of the 30th Infantry Division braced themselves against expected counterattacks by the 2nd SS Panzer Division from the west and the Panzer Lehr Division from the east. As the day wore on the 30th Division's infantry and attached armor (743d Tank Battalion) came under increasing German pressure. Although the division generally stood firm in the face of the German counterattack, isolated units withdrew precipitately after learning of the virtual destruction of the 743d Tank Battalion in a German ambush on the division right flank.

The 823d Tank Destroyer Battalion (Towed) was attached to the 30th Infantry Division in April 1944 and landed at OMAHA Beach on 24 June 1944. Equipped with thirty-six 3-inch or 76-mm towed antitank guns, the 823d was considered a well-trained unit with high morale even though on 9 July it was still in its shakedown period. Later the battalion would hold the US Army record for tanks destroyed by a tank destroyer battalion for the period 6 June 1944--8 May 1945 on the Continent, having knocked out III enemy tanks and other armored vehicles. [19]

Company C, 823d Tank Destroyer Battalion, had crossed the Vire River on 7 July and had supported the 30th Infantry Division's abortive attempts to continue the attack out of the bridgehead on 8 July. Its main role, however, had been to counter the German counterattacks that mounted in intensity on 9 July. By late afternoon on the ninth the company was in defensive direct-fire positions south of the St. Jean de Daye crossroads astride and east of the main highway to St. Lo. [20]

Shortly after 1635 1st Lt. Ellis W. McInnis's 1st Platoon shifted positions slightly in anticipation of an expected German armored counterattack north up the St. Lo highway. [21]

By about 1715 1st Platoon's guns were in position covered by the bazookas and small arms of the Ist Reconnaissance Platoon, 823d TD Battalion, led by 1st Lt. Thompson L. Raney.

While Lieutenant McInnis's platoon moved into position, stragglers from the 117th Infantry Regiment streamed northward along the St. Lo highway reporting that the German armor was not far behind. Air bursts from unidentified artillery over the tank destroyer positions lent credence to the imminence of a German assault. About 1800 Lieutenant McInnis spotted a tank about 1,000 yards to his front which moved back and forth several times to look over the hilltop in hull defilade. He immediately radioed the Company C commander to ascertain whether there were any friendly tanks in the area and received the reply that "what you are looking for is in front of you." [22]

Almost immediately the tank moved north along the highway spraying the hedgerows, ditches, and 1st Platoon positions with .30-caliber machine gun fire. It was soon joined by several other tanks which also fired their machine guns and 75-mm tank guns. Unable to visually identify the advancing tanks because of the drizzle and fog which had restricted visibility all day, Lieutenant McInnis could only conclude that the tanks firing on his position constituted the long-awaited German counterattack and gave the order to his platoon to open fire. [23]

Sergeant Malery Nunn, who had already received a graze on the face from one of the tank machine gun bullets, issued the fire commands for his gun to engage the lead tank at an estimated range of 500-600 yards. The gunner, Corporal Clement, scored a dead center hit with the first round, and the lead tank stopped as smoke poured from it.

Two additional rounds were fired, but their effect could not be observed because of smoke. The other tanks continued to advance firing, and Sergeant Nunn's gun was hit, and Corporal Clement was wounded in the leg. Sergeant Nunn assumed the gunner's position and Lieutenant McInnis loaded. Three more rounds were fired, but no hits were observed, and the remaining tanks continued to roll forward. [24]

As the tanks closed, the tank destroyer personnel were forced to take cover in the ditches where they were pinned down by the machine gun fire from the tanks. When the tanks were about 400 yards away, Sergeant Nunn recognized them as friendly mediums, called for a cease-fire, and stood up waving at the tanks in an attempt to halt their firing. His brave attempt had no effect, and the 1st Platoon hugged the ground as several tanks, only three of which were not firing, passed through the position and continued out of sight to the north, all attempts by the tank destroyer personnel to identify themselves having failed. [25]

Sgt. Carl Hanna, Private First Class Hardin, and Pfc. Ernie Jacobs of Lieutenant Raney's recon platoon were in the process of establishing a bazooka position in a ditch when the tanks appeared. They were pinned down by fire from the tanks, and when it became unbearably heavy, Sergeant Hanna ordered his men to take cover in the ditch on the other side of the hedgerow. As they attempted to do so, Private First Class Jacobs was hit in the head by a 75-mm tank round, which killed him instantly and knocked out Sergeant Hanna, who was hit in the back of the head by fragments of Jacob's skull. [26]

Company C's 2d Platoon, led by 1st Lt. Francis J. Connors, also fell victim to the tankers' fire. A tank rolled up to within fifteen yards of Connors's uncamouflaged halftrack, which could scarcely have been mistaken for anything other than a US vehicle, and fired point-blank, severely wounding the halftrack's assistant driver in the chest. [27]

Lieutenant Connors identified the tank as a 3d Armored Division tank (No. 25) and Sgt. Joseph A. Chustz, the 2d Platoon Security Sergeant, identified another by the name on its hull, BE-BACK. [28]

During the course of the fray Lieutenants McInnis and Raney and several of their men took cover on the north side of a stone building. One of the tanks fired an HE round into the building from twenty feet away and five feet from where the party was standing. The next tank in column turned its turret toward the group but did not fire when Lieutenant McInnis waved his arms and shouted. Shortly after the offending tanks had rolled northward out of the Company C area, 1st. Lt. Neil P. Curry of the 30th Reconnaissance Troop arrived from the north and reported that the tanks had also fired on his M-8 halftrack and showed the hole in the turret ring mount. [29]

The results of the twenty-five-minute engagement were serious but not catastrophic. Two US medium tanks were destroyed, and one 3-inch antitank gun was damaged by machine gun fire striking the recoil mechanism but was returned to service within twenty-four hours. [30]

The 823d TD Battalion suffered casualties of one man killed and three wounded (two seriously); the tankers lost six men. [31]

In his daily report for 9 July the 823d TD Battalion S-3, Maj. Ashby I. Lohse, reported the unit's combat efficiency as "satisfactory but mad as hell" and added that the unit "took two prisoners which were its first, suffered its first fatal casualties, was shot up by its own Infantry and Armored Force and in turn shot up our own Infantry and Armored Force but under all circumstances came through their first critical engagement in fairly good shape and without too serious losses." [32]

On 10 July Major Lohse was appointed a board of one officer to investigate the incident. He identified the offending tanks as belonging to the 3d Armored Division and concluded that the US tanks were fired upon because [33] :

    (1) enemy tanks were reported both by Higher Headquarters and withdrawing Infantry to be in the immediate front of the 3" guns,

    (2) poor visibility prevented recognition of type and nationality of tank,

    (3) no friendly tanks were known to be in that area,

    (4) because tanks were firing upon gun positions and friendly positions generally and,

    (5) because tanks were moving north while the direction of attack was south.

Despite the poor visibility and obvious stress of being under heavy fire, the tank destroyer personnel did recognize the tanks as friendly and ceased firing when the tanks were about 400 yards away. They then attempted, often at very personal risk, to identify themselves. Under the circumstances the continued firing by the tankers is difficult to excuse. Every effort was made by the tank destroyer personnel to identify themselves, but whether out of confusion, fear, or simply lack of discipline, the tanks moved through the friendly position and well to the rear, firing continuously.

As the reader has probably already surmised, the offending tanks were the company from. CCB, 3d Armored Division (probably a company of the 33d Armored Regiment) earlier dispatched by Brigadier General Bohn to proceed expeditiously to Hauts-Vents. Apparently the tank company commander either misunderstood his instructions or became confused.

In any event, upon reaching the north-south St. Lo highway he turned right (north) rather than left (south) and blundered into the 823d TD Battalion position. The commander personally suffered the consequences of his error. His tank was the one knocked out at the beginning of the engagement by Sergeant Nunn's gun. Just at the moment the lead tank was hit, General Bohn was attempting to contact his wayward unit by radio and over the open radio channel heard the tank company commander's cry of pain and anguished statement, "I am in dreadful agony." [34]

After their pass through the 823d's position, the remaining six tanks reversed direction and proceeded to the objective, Hill 91 at Hauts-Vents, which they somehow managed to reach shortly before dark. Ironically, the six tanks reached the objective just in time to be hit by an American strafing attack requested earlier but delayed by bad weather. Fortunately, there were no casualties and the remnants of the tank company spent the night on Hill 91 only to be withdrawn the following morning (10 July) when it proved impossible to reinforce them. The Hauts-Vents objective was finally secured by CCB on the afternoon of 11 July. [35]

Despite the tragic amicicide incident, Lieutenant General Corlett, the XIX Corps commander, congratulated Major General Hobbs on the 30th Infantry Division's performance on 9 July, and Hobbs replied that he, too, thought that the division had done a good job and that "...there were a few upsets but things like that will happen. In one case our own tanks turned the wrong way and went up the wrong road, but all in all it was a good show." [36]

The unfortunate engagement of CCB, 3d Armored Division, and the 30th Infantry Division's 823d Tank Destroyer Battalion south of the St. Jean de Daye crossroads on 9 July 1944 was representative of the problems of identification and control faced by ground forces commanders in the difficult hedgerow terrain of Normandy as Allied forces plagued by often foul weather attempted to break out of the Normandy enclave against strong German opposition.

Given the difficult terrain, poor visibility, and confusion generated by crowded Allied units and skillful German resistance, the occurrence of incidents of amicicide of all types is not surprising. On 10 July, the very morning following the St. Jean de Daye crossroads incident, 30th Infantry Division units were again reporting friendly tank fire falling on their troops. [37]

But the 30th Infantry Division was not the only American unit to experience ground amicicide incidents in the Normandy fighting. The attack of the 29th Infantry Division to seize St. Lo 15 July 1944 got off to a dismal start when lack of proper coordination with the adjacent 35th Infantry Division resulted in a misunderstanding and exchange of fire among US troops. A panicky withdrawal by an infantry company of the 115th Infantry Regiment (29th Infantry Division) was averted only by the prompt action of an artillery liaison officer who took charge and restored order and discipline. [38]

Such incidents would continue to occur as the Allies pressed forward on the Continent.

In late July as Allied forces broke out of the Normandy lodgement and raced toward Avranches, mission-type orders were common and operations often took place in great confusion. On one occasion two tank battalions of the 4th Armored Division engaged in a shooting match while trying to occupy the same night assembly area. A short time later the two US battalions were joined by a German tank battalion also attempting to use what must have been a really choice assembly area. The German tanks parked unchallenged and it was some time before all parties realized what was happening. The upshot was a frantic melee in which the German and American tanks engaged each other at ranges of eight to twenty-five feet. [39]

Some American tanks posed a hazard to friendly troops merely by virtue of their construction. In September 1944 the lst Infantry Division cautioned its units that extreme care should be exercised in firing the bow machine gun with which some US tanks were equipped because the gun was mounted in a low position and was impossible to aim accurately, thereby creating a serious hazard for infantry in front of the tank. [40]

By late November 1944 American units were pressing against the prepared German West Wall positions in the Saar-Moselle triangle. In foul weather on 23 November 1944 the 90th Infantry Division's 2d and 3d Battalions, 358th Infantry Regiment, were ordered to attack Muenzingen and Sinz, 3,000 and 4,000 yards respectively behind the Orscholz Switch Line, in hopes of opening the way for CCA of the 10th Armored Division (to which the 358th Infantry was then attached) to drive through and secure a crossing over the Saar River at Saarburg.

Planning and coordination of the attack proved faulty, however. As the 2/358th Infantry crossed the line of departure and moved into the attack it was taken under heavy short-range 75-mm fire by the tanks of CCA's TF CHAMBERLAIN, bogged down in the mud on the flank. Almost simultaneously the supporting 344th Field Artillery Battalion, mistaking the location of the friendly infantry, showered the unfortunate infantrymen with a hail of shells.

Caught unaware by friendly fire from flank and rear, many of the infantrymen were killed or wounded, control was lost, and the attack stalled. The 3/358th Infantry suffered less damage than its sister 2d Battalion and quickly reorganized and continued the attack, clearing Campholz Woods of the enemy. The 2/358th Infantry, however, was seriously disorganized and was unable to reform and resume the attack until late in the afternoon and then with only meager success. [41]

The infantrymen of the 358th were justly enraged by the careless firing of the CCA tankers. Ill will between the two units persisted for some time. Fights broke out in the hospitals where casualties of the two units were confined, and there were numerous altercations between the infantrymen and tankers later in the rest area behind the lines. [42]

Friendly troops paid a heavy toll for the failure of commanders and staff officers to adequately coordinate the operations in progress.

The unexpected and violent German attack in the Ardennes in December 1944 scattered American units and seriously disrupted the coordination and cooperation of the hard-pressed American soldiers. Struggling to reorganize and hold the powerful German offensive thrust, several units found that in the confusion and uncertainty of the moment their fires found friendly rather than enemy troops. [43]

On 16 December 1944 the 4th Infantry Division attempted to jam the southern shoulder of the German penetration. That morning Company B, lst Battalion, 12th Infantry, and ten tanks from the 70th Tank Battalion mounted a limited attack to relieve the 2d Battalion's Company F, then encircled at the north end of the village of Berdorf.

The tanks, with infantrymen on their decks, reached the northeastern edge of the town just before noon and began shelling the Parc Hotel, which proved to be occupied by men of Company F, who quickly found in the hotel an American flag, which they displayed on the roof. Having relieved the battered infantrymen of Company F, the attacking force attempted to clear the town but German resistance proved strong, and the attempt was abandoned at night fall.

The same day (16 December) found the 28th Infantry Division resisting the attack of the 2nd Panzer Division in the vicinity of Weiler and Wahlhausen. Small elements of US armor and infantry were committed piecemeal in the area, and coordination was difficult.

In the early afternoon a platoon of medium tanks from Company A (or B), 707th Tank Battalion, attempted to drive the Germans off the road linking the villages of Holzthum and Consthum. The tankers were informed that there were no friendly troops on the road, but just outside Holzthum the tanks engaged and knocked out an antitank gun placed there by Company I, 3d Battalion, 110th Infantry. After a short delay while the infantry and tankers identified themselves, the tanks rolled on to the south to complete their mission.

At several times American units were forced to withdraw and in the resulting confusion were fired upon by their own troops. On the night of 17-18 December elements of the 2d Battalion, 38th Infantry (2d Infantry Division), and the 395th Infantry Regiment (99th Infantry Division) were forced to withdraw from the village of Rocherath. The 395th Infantry elements took up new defense positions on the 2d Infantry Division left flank northeast of Rocherath and waited for the expected enemy advance.

In the withdrawal from Rocherath the 324th Engineer Combat Battalion (99th Infantry Division) had been left behind on Rath Hill. On the morning of the eighteenth, the engineers moved west to rejoin their fellows, but before reaching safety they came under fire from both the enemy and the 395th Infantry and suffered some casualties.

Also on the morning of 18 December Major General Barton, the 4th Infantry Division commander, dispatched the 2d Battalion, 22d Infantry, to strengthen the right flank of the 12th Infantry near the village of Osweiler. As the battalion approached the village, the American tanks there, mistaking them for Germans, opened fire. After two hours and several casualties, a patrol under a white flag managed to make contact with the tankers in Osweiler and establish identification, and the tank company in Osweiler was augmented by the somewhat worn 2/22d Infantry.

The following day (19 December) the 423d Infantry Regiment (106th Infantry Division) attempted to mount a counterattack against the German forces in the vicinity of Schoenberg in the Schnee Eifel. The 3/423d jumped of f at 1000, but one company was soon cut off and captured. The other two rifle companies nearly reached Schoenberg, but were forced to withdraw. The 1/423d managed to get one company in the advance, but it was eliminated by mid-afternoon. The fate of the 2/423d was even less inspiring. Attempting to advance to the northwest on the regiment's right flank, the 2/423d became separated and was taken under fire by the left flank elements of the neighboring 422d Infantry, 400 yards to the north. The 422d men mistook the 2/423d's advance for a German flanking attack and fired into the draw up which the 423d, men were moving. A brief fire fight ensued, and both units became considerably disorganized.

At 1630, with contirol gone, ammunition spent, and many wounded men untended, the commander of the 423d Infantry surrendered his regiment to the Germans. Eventually, all but 150 men of the 422d Infantry were forced to surrender as well.

The attacking Germans in the Ardennes were not immune from ground amicicide incidents either. On the morning of 23 December 293. Regiment (18th Volks-Grenadier Division) worked its way through the Fuhrer Begleit Brigade around Rodt (near St. Vith) and proceeded along the road to Poteau, intending to outflank CCA, 7th Armored Division, to the east. The German situation was as confused as the American, however, and the 293. Regiment ran into the infantry and assault gun screen of the 9th SS Panzer Division, which mistook them for a withdrawing American column and delivered a heavy flanking fire. Several hours later, after the Americans had escaped from the trap, the 293rd entered Poteau.

The American forces in the Bulge weathered the Ardennes storm and soon resumed their steady advance toward Germany. That advance continued to be accompanied by occasional amicicide incidents that caused casualties and disrupted the continuity and pace of offensive operations.

In the 6th Armored Division attack toward Wardin on 2 January 1945, the 9th Armored Infantry Battalion attempted to replace the 44th Armored Infantry Battalion, but was caught in an artillery barrage during the passage of lines and was seriously disorganized. The 9th was unable to resume the advance until noon and soon thereafter was subjected to the misplaced fire of the 134th Infantry (35th Infantry Division) which further retarded its progress.

One final incident will conclude our survey of ground amicicide in the European theater. It merits detailed description because it is one of the very few incidents in which friendly tanks were fired upon by other friendly tanks. [44]

At the end of February 1945, the 30th Infantry Division was advancing, steadily opposed by elements of the 9th and 11th Panzer Divisions, along the Roer River. The flat, open terrain dotted with villages afforded little cover and concealment for a conventional daylight attack, and so most of the bounds forward from town to town were made by coordinated night attacks lit by moonlight. [45]

The incident with which we are concerned involved elements of the 30th Infantry Division in a night attack north of Oberembt, Germany, on 26-27 February 1945.

On the night of 25-26 February the 117th Infantry attacked successfully and seized the towns of Lich and Oberembt. On the twenty-sixth, the 117th consolidated its position and planned the next phase of the operation: a coordinated night attack to seize the villages of Kleintroisdorf and Kirchtroisdorf and the town of Putz farther on. The day was spent in reconnaissance and detailed planning and coordination, and at 1800 the regimental plan was issued. The plan called for the 3/117th to move up from Steinstrass, pass between the 2d and Ist Battalions, and attack on the left at 2230 to seize Kleintroisdorf. The 2st Battalion would attack simultaneously on the right to seize Kirchtroisdorf. Then the 2d Battalion would be committed through the 3d Battalion to seize Putz. [46]

The attack would be supported by tanks from Companies B and C, 743d Tank Battalion, and a company of British flail tanks (Troop A, 1st Lothian and Border Yeomanry) to be used for breaching minefields. [47]

Despite the obvious problems of a night passage of lines (by the 3d Battalion), the attack jumped off smoothly at 2230. By midnight the Ist and 3d Battalions had taken Kirchtroisdorf and Kleintroisdorf respectively, and three hours later the 2d Battalion passed through and took Putz before daylight in a short but stubborn fight. [48]

Only one incident marred the generally well coordinated and successful moonlit attack. The platoon of British flail tanks (four tanks) detailed to follow the 1/117th in the attack on the right toward Kirchtroisdorf strayed left into the 3/117th zone. After proceeding several hundred yards the platoon leader realized his mistake and turned his platoon around. As his tanks again approached the 3d Battalion axis of advance, they were spotted by elements of the 3d Battalion, which had jumped off ten minutes late.

The 3/117th and its accompanying armor (B-743d Tank Bn and Troop A, Ist Lothian and Border Yeomanry (-)) and tank destroyer elements (one platoon of C-823d TD Bn) assumed that the tanks were German and took the hapless flail tanks under fire, destroying the entire platoon. [49]

In an otherwise well planned, well coordinated and well executed attack, chance, an error, and reduced visibility making identification difficult resulted in a serious case of ground amicicide, as it had so many times before in the European battle area.

World War II: The Pacific

Numerous incidents of ground amicicide occurred in the Pacific theater and for the same reasons prevalent in Europe: green troops, confusion, lack of coordination, and misidentification due to poor visibility, dense jungle, and the excitement of battle. If anything, small-scale incidents of indiscriminate firing at night were an even greater problem in view of the reputation of the Japanese enemy as a wily night fighter.

An attack by Company K, 127th Infantry (32d Infantry Division), on the Buna Mission on 28 December 1942 was stifled by spontaneous and uncontrolled firing by American troops, and the attack had to be halted while a reorganization took place. [50]

Lt. Gen. Robert L. Eichelberger, the commanding general of the Buna Force, also reported: "Excitedly firing at noises during the night was a common fault and seriously restricted the use of patrols and other important movements after dark." [51]

The problem of indiscriminate firing at night was a serious one everywhere in the Pacific. It was addressed in some detail in a report worth quoting in its entirety:

PART 2: Killing or wounding our own troops

During recent operations a number of officers and enlisted men have been killed or wounded at night by our own troops who fired with the belief, or from the fear, that the Japs were infiltrating into their areas. The majority of cases reported occurred among troops bivouaced well to the rear of the front line infantry battalions. Some of the men and officers were sleeping in their jungle hammocks when shot. The majority of this 'trigger happy' firing, although not restricted to troops which had not been previously in action, was among newly arrived units.

Officers with battle experience in this theater are of the opinion that this condition is contributed to by the overemphasis placed on the ability of the Jap to infiltrate into our rear areas and by the often heard statement "stay in your slit trenches after dark, assume that everything that moves is a Jap".

That attitude is, of course, essential for patrols and observations posts remaining outside the 'perimeter' at night and for the small units forming that 'perimeter.'

In the rear of this line, even in the areas of the battalions in contact, commanders, staff officers, messengers and wire communications personnel must move around at night. Further to the rear, back of the artillery areas for instance, such personnel should be able to move with more freedom.

Those officers also believe that, while there will continue to be incidents of this nature in the forward area, training prior to arrival in the theater in the withholding of fire until it is established that the target is an enemy will obviate these losses in the rear areas. They feel that such training, together with a judicious use of passwords or recognition signals, will reduce these casualties in the forward areas. [52]

The danger of uncontrolled firing by ill-disciplined green troops was clearly demonstrated in the events on the Aleutian island of Kiska on 15-16 August 1943. Expecting fanatical Japanese resistance, 35,000 US and Canadian troops, most of whom had not seen combat before, invaded Kiska on 15 August 1943. By nightfall on 16 August, twenty-eight men were dead and fifty were wounded despite the fact that there was not a single live Japanese soldier on the island. [53]

Although a few (four killed and several wounded) fell victim to booby traps and mines left by the Japanese, most were shot by mistake by their own comrades in the heavy Kiska fog.

Immediately upon landing on 15 August, the inexperienced troops fanned out through the fog. The columns frequently engaged each other in the reduced visibility, and the night of 15-16 August brought even more firing by the nervous soldiers. One participant, US Army Lt. Brian Murphy, later recalled that, "the troops were shooting at anything that moved." [54]

One infantryman attacked what he believed to be an enemy patrol. The patrol members shouted for him to stop, but he began to throw hand grenades and was promptly shot down.

The Kiska landing was an embarrassing and costly mistake in several respects, not the least of which was the uncontrolled gunfire of the inexperienced troops. The invasion commander, Vice Adm. Thomas C. Kincaid (commander, North Pacific Force), proved somewhat disingenuous when he later stated that "of course we had no way of anticipating our men would shoot each other in the fog." [55]

Inadequate coordination between units was another cause of ground amicicide incidents in the Pacific. In May 1943, three months before the ill-fated Kiska landings, US troops on Attu, another of the Aleutian Islands, experienced delays and casualties from their own fires.

As one platoon leader on Attu later commented, "Staff work must equal small unit work in quality if there is to be success. Lack of coordination will cause units to fire into the area held by friendly units, and, as I actually saw, attack friendly units. I cannot stress this too much, as I saw the lack of it too much." [56]

A major obstacle to the quick capture of Butaritari Island (Makin) on 20 November 1943 was the West Tank Barrier, a trench six feet deep and more than fourteen feet wide, which extended north and south across the island about 3,400 yards east of the RED landing beaches. [57]

The planners of the 27th Infantry Division decided that the best method of eliminating the obstacle would be to envelop it, and because this would involve two units moving toward each other, great care was taken to avoid the danger of a fire fight between friendly units. The measures proposed to coordinate the two assaulting units involved colored smoke signals and constant radio contact between the two units.

In the event, the coordination measures proved inadequate. On D-Day (20 November) the 1st Battalion, 165th Infantry, landed and advanced eastward toward the West Tank Barrier, while the 2/165th Infantry moved westward toward it. No direct radio communication between the two units was established, and the frantic attempts of the 1/165th conanander, Lt. Col. Gerard W. Kelley, to determine the whereabouts of the 2/165th were futile. About 1400 the 1/165th was pinned down by friendly fire from the front, but Kelley was ordered by 27th Infantry Division Headquarters to press on to a junction with Lt. Col. John F. McDonough's 2d Battalion. The men of the 1/165th pressed on, but not without some anxious moments due to the continuing fire of the 2/165th Infantry.

Japanese sniper fire and ruses on the night of 20-21 November provoked uncontrolled firing by the jumpy American troops, who blasted away all night, wasting ammunition and drawing Japanese counterfire. Daylight on the twenty-first brought a resumption of incidents attributable to poor coordination and lack of strong fire discipline. Two hulks on the reef near On Chang's Wharf (YELLOW Beach), which had been heavily attacked by air and naval gun fire, were again thought to harbor the enemy. Landing craft coming in to YELLOW Beach machine-gunned the hulks, many of their rounds landing amidst the American troops on shore.

Between 0818 and 1630 several air strikes were directed against the hulks, and at 0920 several medium tanks were brought up to the beach and shelled the hulks with their 75-mm guns. Many of their "overs" fell into the boat lanes in the lagoon, making the approach to YELLOW Beach a very uncomfortable one indeed.

The 27th Infantry Division's problems with illcoordinated and downright indiscriminate ground fire on Butaritari were neither unique nor particularly costly. They did, however, interrupt operations and adversely affect the discipline and morale of the men ashore. Given other conditions, they may have proved costly indeed.

Amphibious assaults, the dominant tactical form. in the Pacific war, were very difficult to coordinate and control, and amicicide incidents were frequent for both the Army and the Marines. During Operation FLINTLOCK, the assault on Kwajalein Atoll on 1 February 1944, the 2d and 3d Battalions, 24th Marines, landed on Namur Island beginning at 1145.

Enemy fire was light, but the Marines were greatly annoyed and suffered several casualties as a result of fires by friendly armored amphibians offshore that raked the Marines moving inland from the beach. The Army forces on Kwajalein had problems of their own. The greatest danger to the 32d Infantry Regiment (7th Infantry Division) advancing on the east side of the island on 3 February 1944 was friendly small arms fire from the 184th Infantry to the west.

Green troops and confusion were not exclusive characteristics of American forces. In the attack on Myitkyina, Burma, on the night of 20 May 1944, unseasoned infantrymen of the Chinese 150th Regiment (Chinese 50th Infantry Division) assisting Merrill's Marauders became confused, fired on their own men, and ran away in panic. [58]

Some incidents of ground amicicide in the Pacific were almost bizarre. During the campaign on Saipan the 27th Infantry Division had great difficulty controlling its artillery fires. [59]

The tanks of the 27th Division were also occasionally guilty of firing on the adjacent Marines, but proved equally dangerous for the 27th's infantrymen. [60]

During an attack on Hill Able on the morning of 27 June 1944 two platoons from the 762d Tank Battalion supported the assault. Soon after the attack began it started to rain, and the tanks became covered with mud, which obscured the vision of the drivers and caused them to lose their sense of direction. As a consequence, the tanks fired in the direction of the 3d Battalion, 106th Infantry, disrupting the coordination of the attack and halting it. The 3/106th was forced to regroup and effect further coordination. They finally jumped off at 1250 and accomplished their mission by 1342. [61]

The stiff Japanese resistance and difficult terrain on the island of Guam made the coordination of all arms difficult during the campaign in July and August 1944. [62] Typical of the problems caused by the dense Guamanian jungle was that faced by the 22d Marines attempting to take Orate on 28 July. The Marines swept through the barracks grounds and moved on to the outskirts of the village of Sumay, where they were held up by Japanese fortified in coconut-log pillboxes.

Marine tanks were called up to eliminate the pillboxes but made little progress because the dense brush restricted observation and frequently made it impossible to fire without danger to friendly troops. Fortunately, no friendly troops were injured, but the Japanese had to be winkled out by the infantry in a slow and dangerous operation.

The Army and Marines on Guam, as on so many other islands of the Pacific, found it extremely difficult to maintain contact with adjacent units and to keep their operations adequately coordinated. The attack of the 77th Infantry Division to secure Mount Barrigada resumed on the morning of 4 August 1944.

In order to reduce Japanese roadblocks and reestablish contact with the 3d Marine Division on the division's flank, a platoon from the lst Battalion, 307th Infantry, and one tank from Company A, 706th Tank Battalion, set out along the Finegayan Road about 0645. Three hours later the small task force had broken two strongly held Japanese roadblocks, and shortly before 1100 it came to a third. The American tankers opened fire at once on what they assumed to be another Japanese position.

This roadblock, however, turned out to be manned by Company G, 9th Marines, who had been warned by the 3d Marine Division to expect the Army patrol. The Marines did not fire and were apparently unaware that the Army troops expected friendly positions to be signaled by red smoke grenades. Capt. Francis L. Fagan, the Marine company commander, was able to stop the Army firing only by running down the road toward the Army troops waving his helmet. Before he was able to stop the firing, seven of his Marines were wounded. Contact between the Army and Marines was reestablished, but at some cost to the Marines.

Several days later it was the Army's turn to come under fire from the Marines. Troops of the 2d Battalion, 306th Infantry, moving along the Salisbury Road in the attack on Mount Santa Rosa, began receiving rifle and machine gun fire about 1215. They suspected the fire was coming from the 3d Marine Division elements in the area.

About 1245 the trailing company, Company F, 2/306th Infantry, was engaged in a short fire fight at the junction of the Chaguian Trail and Salisbury Road by what they were convinced was a force of US Marines. Complaints were lodged with the 3d Marine Division, which denied that its troops were in the area. Shortly thereafter the 306th Infantry Regimental CP came under artillery fire that was conclusively shown to be from Marine pack howitzers, and a short time after the mistaken shelling an Army motor column on the Salisbury Road was machine-gunned by what again was believed to be the Marines.

The confused situation along the Salisbury Road and the attendant incidents of amicicide resulted from a lack of adequate coordination between Army and Marine units in the area. Once ad hoc action had been taken to stop the mistaken firing, the 306th was able to complete its mission with relative ease, and by 1715 the regiment had dug in across the northern face of Mount Santa Rosa. [63] The eighth of August ended for the troops of the 77th Infantry Division in a grand finale of amicicidal firing.

At sunset the 1/306th Infantry, west of Lulog, and the 3/307th Infantry, to the south on Mount Santa Rosa, engaged in a prolonged and costly fire fight. About 1830 each battalion began receiving mortar fire coming from the general direction of the other. Although it might have been Japanese fire, it was more likely from American weapons being registered for night defensive fires. Both battalions reported a Japanese counterattack and opened up with small arms fire in the direction of the presumed attack.

This fire only increased the illusion in each unit that they were under attack, and the tanks with the 306th Infantry began firing toward the 307th's position. Both battalions called for artillery fire, and the 902d Field Artillery Battalion fired a brief barrage. Fortunately, it soon became apparent that friendly troops were firing on one another and the firing was stopped. The costs of the mistake were high: the 3/307th Infantry had at least ten casualties, and the 1/306th and the 306th Regimental CP suffered a smaller number.

The Korean War

Two of the first one hundred men wounded in the Korean War received their wounds as a result of friendly fire. Both incidents, however, more resembled a true accident than they did a correctly designated case of ground amicicide. They are included, however, because they both meet our definition of amicicide and presaged an all too common event of the next conflict (Vietnam) one green and nervous soldier shooting another.

Pvt. Robert J. McCoy, 21st Infantry (24th Infantry Division), suffered a severe shrapnel wound of the left arm at 0900 on 10 July 1950, when he was mistaken for an enemy soldier by his buddy, who threw a hand grenade at him. [64] At 2220 on 2 August 1950, Pfc. Norman A. Yoder, Battery B, 15th Field Artillery Battalion (2d Infantry Division), was shot in the right arm by a .30-caliber carbine fired by a sergeant guarding the battery CP north of Pusan. [65]

The sergeant mistook Private First Class Yoder for a North Korean infiltrator. Yoder spent the next thirty hours in pain at the battalion aid station "waiting for another casualty to be put in the ambulance." [66]

Such "accidents" involving individual soldiers were probably not uncommon in Korea. More serious results followed ground amicicide incidents of greater scale. The tactical situation of US forces in the Korean War frequently involved the loss and subsequent recapture of defensive positions at night. Sometimes the same position changed hands several times in the course of a single night.

Ad hoc attacks and counterattacks mounted in darkness and great confusion bred ground amicicide incidents arising from a lack of coordination. Two examples can suffice.

One of the most gallant episodes of the Korean War was the stubborn defense of the British 29th Brigade along the Imjin River north of Seoul in April 1951. [67]

Faced by a massive Chinese Communist attack beginning on 22 April 1951, the 29th Brigade held its positions until the early morning of 25 April when it was ordered to withdraw. The battered remnants of the Ist Battalion, Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, an attached battalion of Belgians, and the 1st Battalion, Royal Ulster Rifles, were able to retire in good order.

The 1st Battalion, The Gloucester Regiment, was not so fortunate. Surrounded, exhausted, and with ammunition and rations nearly expended, the Glosters left their dead and wounded in the care of their battalion commander, sergeant-major, surgeon, and chaplain and attempted to break out after sixty hours of continuous fighting.

The only element of the Glosters to escape death or capture was Company D, under the command of Capt. Michael Harvey, and Company D paid a heavy price to both enemy and friendly fire for its ultimate survival. Pursued closely by the Chinese, Harvey and his men had almost reached the safety of American lines by running and crawling the length of a narrow valley when they encountered a line of American tanks drawn up across the valley 500 yards ahead and firing at the Chinese pursuers.

As the surviving Glosters rushed forward, the American tanks mistook them for the enemy and produced a devastating fire from main guns and machine guns. Six of the hapless Glosters were killed. After several agonizing minutes, during which the Chinese continued to bayonet the stragglers, Captain Harvey succeeded in identifying his force to the American tankers. The surviving Glosters were brought under the meager protection of the US tanks, and the combined force conducted a three-mile fighting retreat out of the valley to safety. Captain Harvey and thirty-eight men of the Glosters made it to safety; they were the only men of the regiment to do so.

Two years later American troops found themselves the victim of their own fires. Pork Chop Hill was occupied by a succession of Red Chinese and American troops on the night of 16-17 April 1953. [68]

Shortly before dawn on 17 April, Companies K and L, 31st Infantry (7th Infantry Division), attacked from opposite sides of the hill to retake it. Neither company knew that the other was to attack from the other side. Company K, commanded by Ist Lt. J. G. Clemons, had just reached the top of the hill near the CP bunker when they came under intense machine gun fire. They immediately returned fire.

The fire on Company K was coming from the right-hand finger of the hill where Sgt. Horace Ford of 1st Platoon, Company L, had found a machine gun and two boxes of ammunition and had ordered Pvt. Columbus Jackson to fire on the crest of Pork Chop Hill, believing it to be held by the Chinese. As S. L. A. Marshall expressed it, "King's men tried to signal Love to shut it off, but the fire was too intense to stand against. It died only after Love had been bled into silence." [69]

The Dominican Republic

Even the brief intervention by US forces in the Dominican Republic in 1965 produced at least one incident of ground amicicide. Two companies of the 82d Airborne Division were assigned to secure a bridge, one company at either end. Neither company could be said to have been seasoned, and when someone fired a shot, a fire fight between the two units broke out. The firing halted only after both company commanders called to the same field artillery battalion for support. Two men were wounded. [70]

Vietnam

Ground amicicide incidents of various types occurred among US troops with disconcerting frequency during the ten years of US involvement in Vietnam. Most were precipitated by nervousness and lack of fire discipline or by inadequate coordination. [71]

As in other conflicts, green troops in Vietnam took their toll of their fellow soldiers by firing nervously before properly identifying their target. One man was killed in October 1966 near Bong Son during a five-man patrol sent out by Troop D, 2d Squadron, 12th Cavalry (1st Cavalry Division, Airmobile). The patrol stopped for a break and one man left the trail to relieve himself. When he attempted to rejoin the patrol he was "mistaken for the enemy" and shot to death by his best friend.

A similar incident occurred in the 1st Battalion, 46th Infantry. A soldier from Company B, 1/46th, was killed by a comrade in the summer of 1971. The victim left the company's night defensive perimeter and became disoriented. Returning to the perimeter at the wrong location, he scared another man from Company B, who shot and killed him.

Aside from possible enemy action, night defensive positions often proved to be dangerous places. In 506 Valley, south of Bong Son, on 16 December 1966, Company A, 1/12th Cavalry (1st Cavalry Division, Airmobile) had established a defensive position at night, when the battalion commander ordered another company (probably Company B, 1/8th Cavalry, OPCON at the time to the 1/12th Cavalry) to pass through A- 1/12th and take up a position on the other side. During the passage of lines a soldier from B-1/8th shot one of the platoon leaders from A-1/12th, wounding him severely.

In November 1971 an infantry rifle platoon of Company C, 1/506th Infantry (101st Airborne Division), found itself in a night defensive position in I CTZ. A new member of the platoon was pulling night perimeter guard for the first time. He was Spanish-speaking and could barely understand English. As the relief guard approached to relieve him, the Spanish-speaking soldier turned in fright and killed the relief with a shot from his M-16 rifle.

The limited quantities of armor employed in Vietnam served to make amicicide incidents involving tanks rare. No incidents involving tank against tank or infantry against tanks were recorded. On one occasion, however, an armored vehicle fired on friendly troops with devastating effect. In September 1969 soldiers of the 758th Supply and Service Company and the 546th Ordnance Company (both of the 610th Maintenance Battalion, lst Cavalry Division, Airmobile), manning the perimeter at Quan Loi base camp, were fired upon by a 1st Cavalry Division M-551 Sheridan using a beehive round. Seven of the soldiers were killed in and on their bunker.

Although tanks were relatively rare in Vietnam, armored personnel carriers equipped with .50-caliber machine guns were not, and the mechanized infantry forces were fond of reconning by fire. On 25 February 1967 just before the battle of Prek Klok the lst Battalion, 16th Infantry (1st Infantry Division), commanded by Lt. Col. Rufus C. Lazzell, was fired upon in the early hours of darkness by a friendly mechanized unit conducting reconnaissance by fire with their .50-caliber machine guns. Fortunately, the only damage was to an 81-mm mortar. [72]

In 1 CTZ in 1971 Company C, 1/506th Infantry (101st Airborne Division), also narrowly escaped injuries when fired upon at night by .50-caliber machine guns mounted on friendly armored personnel carriers. The APCs were 11returning fire", after having received "sniper fire."

The confusion and disorientation that affect even seasoned troops in active combat often produced amicicide incidents, especially when previous coordination was less than adequate. In September 1968 Company A, 3/7th Infantry, 199th Light Infantry Brigade, established a night ambush position along the edge of a village in Long An Province. The perimeter of the ambush was irregular, with village huts separating the various platoon positions.

As the expected Vietcong squad approached the ambush site, one platoon opened fire as planned. During the ensuing fire fight another platoon to the right of the first began firing on the first platoon's position, hitting several of the friendly soldiers with rifle and machine gun fire.

A similar incident involving a single platoon, 3d Platoon, Company D, 4/12th Infantry (199th Light Infantry Brigade), occurred near Dinh Quan (Long Kanh Province) in October 1969. The platoon established a perimeter defense for the night in dense jungle. During the night the platoon received a few rounds of enemy fire at close range and returned fire.

One of the platoon machine guns was observed firing across a portion of the friendly perimeter, and following the enemy attack one man was discovered in the area fired across by the friendly machine gun with a mortal wound in the back of his head. Presumably he had been killed by the friendly machine gun.

Incidents involving confusion and inadequate coordination also happened to units on the move. In August 1969, Company A, 1/22d Infantry (4th Infantry Division) was on the move across a sparsely wooded plain with high brush south of Pleiku.

First Platoon led, followed by the 2d and 3d Platoons. Three enemy mortar rounds fell to the left of the company, and enemy sniper fire was received from the left front. The 2d Platoon returned fire on the suspected sniper location, forgetting in the heat of battle that the 1st Platoon was ahead. A Kit Carson Scout with the point squad of the 1st Platoon received a wound in the groin from a friendly M-79 grenade launcher HE round.

The difficult terrain of Vietnam often made even well planned operations the scene of amicicide incidents when units were unable to maintain contact and coordination. In Pleiku Province in June 1966 the commander of Company C, 1/35th Infantry, prescribed specific routes for each of his three platoons on a search and destroy mission. The unit had had recent contact in the area, and the men were quick to fire. During the course of the operation one platoon became disoriented and strayed into the path of another platoon. The two platoons engaged in a fire fight that resulted in two men wounded in each platoon before the firing was stopped.

On 2 September 1969 Company A, 1/50th Infantry (Mech), made a combat assault ten kilometers north of LZ Sandy. On landing, the troops dispersed on the rice paddy dikes and almost at once received fire from the brush nearby and observed what they believed to be the enemy on the horizon to the east. Company A returned fire and then received fire from the wood line to the southeast in the general direction in which the "enemy" had been observed. The troops on the horizon to the east turned out to be friendly; fortunately, no casualties were caused in either unit.

In August 1970 the 1st and 2d Platoons of Company A, 1/7th Cavalry (1st Cavalry Division, Airmobile), conducted clearing operations. The two platoons inadvertently crossed paths and engaged in a five-minute fire fight, which resulted, surprisingly, in no casualties. One platoon's M-60 machine guns laid down a heavy and effective suppressive fire, which, although it fortunately did not hit anyone, did force the other platoon to the ground and limit their fire.

Such "coordinated" operations were even more hazardous when conducted at night and when the plan involved close cooperation between US and ARVN forces. Company A, 3/7th Infantry (199th Light Infantry Brigade), was on a night operation near a Vietnamese village in Long An Province in August 1968 when fired upon by an ARVN security force. one US soldier was killed and several were wounded. The ARVN element was located on the edge of the village with the mission of security and ambush. The US company was moving to a pickup zone. The leading platoon leader of the US company was told by his company commander that the ARVN security force had been informed of the company's movement and that a strobe light displayed at a certain trail intersection would bring an ARVN soldier to the passage point and that he would guide the unit through the village.

Fifteen meters from the passage point, the US platoon leader could hear the ARVN security force and see the guide. Suddenly the ARVN soldiers fired a flare and took Company A under f ire. After some time, the leading platoon leader was able to establish direct voice communication with the ARVN security force and to have the firing stopped. The incident was the product of incomplete coordination on the part of the ARVN security force. Their US advisor had indeed informed the ARVN platoon leader of the US company's movement, but the latter had not passed the information on to the security squad that did the firing.

Neither the US nor the ARVN forces were immune from mistaken engagements during night operations. In early 1969 two US patrols, one of which was from Company B, 5th Transportation Battalion (101st Airborne Division), met and engaged in a fire fight at night outside the perimeter of Camp Eagle (Phu Bai). One American soldier was wounded. In the spring of the same year (1969) two Regional Force/Popular Force platoons were conducting a night operation in a contested area in Binh Tranh District, Dinh Tuong Province. The plan called for the two units to operate on opposite sides of a canal during the patrol, but mistakes were made, and the two platoons engaged each other in the dark. As was so often the case, one man was killed and one was wounded.

Conclusion

There is nothing at all mysterious about either the causes of ground amicicide or the measures necessary to prevent it. Incidents of friendly ground troops firing on one another are natural products of the fog of battle. In every war, inexperienced and nervous soldiers, poorly planned or inadequately coordinated operations, and occasionally poor fire discipline or true mistaken identification result in friendly forces inadvertently engaging each other with weapons ranging from rifles and hand grenades to tanks and antitank guns.

As was the case with air amicicide incidents, visibility seems to have been a significant factor in most incidents of ground amicicide (see table 5). Nearly half (twenty-seven) of the fifty-eight incidents examined in this study took place under conditions of reduced visibility, mostly during the hours of darkness. The natural increase of fear, misorientation, and nervousness during reduced visibility perhaps played as great a role as the inability to see and distinguish clearly other ground forces in the vicinity.

The type of tactical operation in progress at the time of an incident seems to have followed the dominant tactical employment in each conflict. In World War II most incidents (twenty-six out of thirty-four) took place during offensive operations in which the necessary fire and maneuver of forces against often strong enemy opposition made coordination and identification much more difficult. In Vietnam, on the other hand, most of the incidents identifiable as to type of operation (sixteen) occurred in defensive situations at night (seven) or during patrols (eight).

By far the most significant causative factor in all ground amicicide incidents appears to have been some lack of adequate coordination between units. In twenty-six of the fifty-eight incidents studied, lack of coordination was the primary cause. This was especially true of incidents that occurred in the Pacific during World War II (twelve out of sixteen) and in Vietnam (ten out of twenty), where the natural difficulties of coordination and accurate location of friendly forces were further complicated by difficult terrain.

The misidentification of friendly for enemy troops was also a frequent cause. In fifteen of the fifty-eight incidents misidentification was the major factor, and it was an element in many of the incidents attributable mainly to faulty coordination as well. Proportionately, misidentification seems to have been a greater problem in Europe during World War II (twelve out of eighteen incidents) than in either the Pacific theater in World War II (none out of fifteen incidents) or in Vietnam (only two out of twenty incidents). The employment of green troops and lack of fire discipline and proper control of firing by leaders were also an important factor (eleven incidents).

The results of such incidents have always been killed and wounded soldiers, disrupted operations, and a general degradation of cohesion, morale, and combat power. The measures required to prevent them are also simple in concept if not so easy in achievement. Adequate training and battle indoctrination accompanied by tight fire discipline imposed by calm and capable leaders are essential. Operations must be planned and thoroughly coordinated with detailed attention given to the possible occurrence of amicicidal engagement. Even the best planned operations conducted with well-seasoned troops will probably continue to result in occasional amicicide incidents, given the frightening and confusing atmosphere of the battlefield.

While human error cannot be eliminated from war, its incidence and effects can be attenuated somewhat if due attention is given it by those charged with the lives of men and the fate of their nation.


Back to Table of Contents -- Combat Studies Research # 1
Back to Combat Studies Research List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2005 by Coalition Web, Inc.
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com