Introduction

1. For example, the FASTVAL tests conducted at Fort Hunter Liggett, California, between April and July 1979 pitted a reinforced tank company supported by A-10 aircraft and attack helicopters against an OPFOR tank battalion. All players were equipped with lasers and laser sensors, and artillery was played with all the inherent problems of accurate target location. Engagements of friendly forces as well as enemy forces were recorded and analyzed.

2. Operation COBRA is discussed in several studies. See Martin Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit (Washington, DC, 1961), inter alia. For the Allied bombing of Switzerland see Jonathan E. Helmreich, "The Diplomacy of Apology: U.S. Bombings of Switzerland during World War II," Air University Review 28 (May-June 1977):19-37.

3. Translated from Alexandre Percin, Le Massacre de notre Infanterie, 1914-1918 (Paris, 1921).

4. Ibid., p. 10.

5. Courtlandt Dixon Barnes Bryan, Friendly Fire (New York, 1976).

6. US Army, Army Regulation 600-10, The Army Casualty System, 15 January 1976, with change 1, dated 15 September 1978.

7. The general problems of dealing with military medical statistics are well outlined in the preface and introduction to Gilbert Wheeler Beebe and Michael E. De Bakey, Battle Casualties: Incidence, Mortality, and Logistic Considerations (Springfield, IL: 1952), pp. xi-xii, 1-15. Beebe and De Bakey characterize such data as "inevitably crude and inexact."

8. 1st Lt. David W. Hart, "Casualty Reporting, July 1951- July 1953," typescript, Seoul, Korea, 6 April 1954, U.S. Army Center of Military History files, Washington, DC (hereafter cited as CMH).

9. Frank A. Reister, "Effects of Type of Operation and Tactical Action on Major Unit Casualty and Morbidity Experience--Korean War (Numbers and Rates of Killed, Wounded, Disease and Non-Battle Injury for U.S. Army Divisions and Separate Regimental Combat Teams), 1950-1953" (Washington, DC, May 1969), table 18 (pp. 52-53), table 19 (pp. 54-55), CMH.

10. Ibid.

11. "Casualties-Number Incurred by U.S. Military Personnel-- Hostile-Not Hostile, 1961-1975," typescript (n.p., n.d.), tables CAS 8.02 9.0, 10.0, CMH.

12. Ibid., table CAS 9.0.

13. Percin, Le Massacre, pp. 10, 13-14.

14. Letter, Maj. Gen. Paul H. Streit (Commander, Walter Reed Army Hospital) to Maj. Gen. Raymond W. Bliss (The Surgeon General, Department of the Army), subject: Casualty Questionnaires, 23 August 1950, CMH.

Chapter 1. Artillery

1. In the excellent World War I film, Paths of Glory, directed by Stanley Kubrick and starring Kirk Douglas, Adolphe Menjou, and Ralph Meeker, the commander of a French division scheduled for a particularly difficult assault matter-of- factly lists "5 percent to our own barrage" when enumerating the probable costs of the operation for the commander of the leading assault regiment. The angry reaction of the regimental commander in the film must be considered necessary to the dramatic progress of the story rather than as representative of actual reactions in a war in which such losses were all too common.

2. Percin, Le Massacre, passim.

3. Ibid., p. 10.

4. Ibid., pp. 13-14. The estimates of total casualties in the war vary. For consistency, I have used Percin's figure. Percin cites about 236 specific incidents of artillery amicicide among French forces. While an average of about 318 casualties per incident (75,000/236) seems unreasonable, his estimation of the total number of casualties due to amicicide seems in accordance with what we know of the general conditions of artillery employment and is remarkably consistent with the evidence for other conflicts as explained above (ibid., p. 10).

5. John Ellis, Eye-Deep in Hell: Trench Warfare in World War I (New York, 1976), pp. 61-62.

6. Ibid., p. 61, quoting Sidney Rogerson of the 2d Battalion, West Yorkshire Regiment.

7. A summary review of the published official history of the North African campaign reveals only one incident. During the attack of the US 34th Infantry Division on Fondouk-el- Aouareb on 27 March 1943, American artillery struck two squads of the Intelligence and Reconnaissance Platoon of the 135th Infantry Regiment. The incident is described in George Frederick Howe, Northwest Africa: Seizing the Initiative in the West (1957; reprint ed., Washington, DC, 1970), p. 581.

8. The following account of the Monte Altuzzo incident is based entirely on the story of the battle contained in Charles Brown MacDonald and Sidney T. Mathews, Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo, and Schmidt (1952; reprint ed., Washington, DC, 1974), pp. 169-216.

9. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 84.

10. Interview with Brig. Gen. James L. Collins, Jr., a former US Army Chief of Military History, who then commanded the 957th FA Battalion, 10 April 1980 at Fort Leavenworth, KS.

11. Robert L. Hewitt, The Workhorse of the Western Front: The Story of the 30th Infantry Division (Washington, DC, 1946), p. 32.

12. Ibid., p. 24. Before arriving on the Continent, the 30th Infantry Division artillerymen had sharpened their skills on the small and tricky ranges available in England with mixed success. On one occasion a stray round destroyed a wooden leg, leaving its owner otherwise untouched. Another (correctly placed) round hit a bull that had strayed into the impact area (ibid. p. 7).

13. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 243.

14. The detailed story of the battle of Schmidt and the amicicide incident as described here is contained in MacDonald and Mathews, Three Battles. I have followed closely MacDonald's account of the defense of Vossenack (pp. 352-54).

15. Charles Brown MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign (1963; reprint ed., Washington, DC, 1970), p. 609.

16. Comment of Major General Barton on 8 August 1944, in US Army Ground Forces Observer Board (European Theater of Operations) (hereafter cited as AGFOB(ETO)), report no. 191, "Notes on Interviews with Various Commanders in Normandy during the period August 5th to 10th 1944," by Col. Charles H. Coates, 20 August 1944, p. 5, US Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA (hereafter cited as MHD.

17. MacDonald and Mathews, Three Battles, p. 25.

18. Ibid., pp. 25, 33.

19. Hugh Marshall Cole, The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge (1965; reprint ed., Washington, DC, 1972), p. 106.

20. AGFOB(ETO), report no. 803, "Miscellaneous," by Col. James D. O'Brien, 7 April 1945, p. 1, MHI-

21. Ibid.

22. MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign, pp. 270-71.

23. Cole, The Ardennes, p. 602.

24. "Report of the Commanding General, Buna Forces, on the Buns. Campaign, December 1, 1942-January 25, 1943," (n.p., 1943), p. 54, Combined Arms Research Library, US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS (hereafter cited as CARL).

25. Samuel Milner, Victory in Papua (1957; reprint ed., Washington, DC, 1971), p. 159.

26. Philip Axtell Crowl and Edmund G. Love, Seizure of the Gilberts and Marshalls (1955; reprint ed., Washington, DC, 1970), p. 251.

27. Robert Ross Smith, The Approach to the Philippines (1953; reprint ed., Washington, DC, 1971), pp. 339-40.

28. Robert Ross Smith, Triumph in the Philippines (1963; reprint ed., Washington, DC, 1973), p. 84.

29. Smith, The Approach to the Philippines, p. 199.

30. Ibid. It was later found that Maj. Ralph D. Burns's lst Battalion, 124th Infantry, had not called for any artillery support and that the fire was apparently called for by artillery observers in towers along the coast who spotted the smoke from fires used by Burns's men to cook their breakfasts.

31. Crowl and Love, Seizure of the Gilberts and Marshalls, p. 363.

32. Ibid., p. 364.

33. The following accounts of Guam incidents are from Philip A. Crowl, Campaign in the Marianas (1960; reprint ed., Washington, DC, 1970), pp. 392-406.

34. Ibid., p. 406.

35. Edmund G. Love, The 27th Infantry Division in World War II (Washington, DC, 1949), p. 662.

36. Ibid., pp. 662-63.

37. Crowl, Campaign in the Marianas, p. 209.

38. US Army, 106th Infantry Regiment (27th Infantry Division), "Regimental Journal," 2 June 1944, entry 394, in "FORAGER Operations Report" (n.p., 1944), CARL. See also Crowl, Campaign in the Marianas, p. 209, and Love, The 27th Infantry Division, p. 662.

39. 106th Infantry Regiment, "Regimental Journal," 26 June 1944, entries 423, 428, 429, 430, 437, 451, 461, 463, 469; 27 June 1944, entries 510, 522, 567, CARL.

40. The story of the division's activity and the Company K mishap on Hill King on 29 June is told in Love, The 27th Infantry Division, pp. 332-33, and in Crowl, Campaign in the Marianas, p. 228. Not surprisingly, the 27th Infantry Division G-3 Periodic Report for the period 281600 June to 291600 June 1944 (in US Army, 27th Infantry Division, "Operational Report, 27th Infantry Division, Battle for Saipan, 17 June to 6 August 1944," CARL) is somewhat vague on this part of the day's events, consequently I have followed the account given in Love and in Crowl.

41. Love, The 27th Infantry Division, pp. 332-33.

42. Total 27th Infantry Division casualties for the period from 281300 June to 301300 June were 28 killed and 279 wounded, presumably including the men of Company K wounded by friendly artillery on Hill King. See 27th Infantry Division G- 3 Periodic Reports for 281600-291600 June 1944 and 291600- 301600 June 1944 in the division's "Operational Report," CARL.

43. 106th Infantry Regiment, "Regimental Journal," 3 July, entries at 1010 (no serial) and 0946; 4 July, entry at 0915 (no serial or time-in); 7 July, entry 1092, CARL.

44. Ibid., 30 June 1944, entry 739.

45. Crowl, Campaign in the Marianas, p. 238.

46. Love,.The 27th Infantry Division, p. 289.

47. The following account was taken from the detailed story of the battle for Pork Chop Hill told by Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall in his Pork Chop Hill: The American Fighting Man in Action, Korea, Spring, 1953 (New York, 1956), pp. 125-78.

48. The MACV Rules of Engagement are reproduced in David Ewing Ott, Field Artillery, 1954-1973 (Washington, DC, 1975), pp. 173-75.

49. Ibid., pp. 175-76.

50. Ibid.

51. Of 47 incidents identified, the type of error could be established in 34 cases. Of these, one was due to misidentification of friendly for enemy troops and four to mechanical problems of one type or another. The remaining 29 cases were all due to FDC/gun crew error (13), FO error (9), or lack of adequate coordination (7). See table 1. The results of a 1969 USARV study of artillery and mortar incidents and accidents (cited by Ott, Field Artillery, pp. 178-79) are given in table 2.

52. It should be noted that amicicide incidents of all types were perhaps more thoroughly reported and investigated in Vietnam than ever before (see Ott, Field Artillery, pp. 176- 77). Aside from the now-famous incident that forms the background of C. D. B. Bryan's journalistic Friendly Fire and ten incidents described in official documents, the majority of the artillery amicicide cases noted in this study were identified through responses to a questionnaire circulated to the staff, faculty, and students of the US Army Command and General Staff College in January 1980. More than 100 responses were received, some detailing more than one incident. These incidents are not cited separately in the notes, thus all incidents in the text not identified as to source can be assumed to have been reported in the survey. The time available for verifying all the incidents reported in the survey has been short, therefore all incidents must be considered tentative as to unit involved, date, actual casualties, and cause pending verification from official records. It might also be noted that although details are lacking, there were 29 artillery amicicide incidents reported in the XXIV Corps area between 1 February and 30 April 1970. These resulted in 40 killed and 112 wounded, both military and civilian. See US Army, XXIV Corps, "Operational Report-- Lessons Learned, Headquarters, XXIV Corps, Period Ending 30 April 1970 (RCS CSFOR-65 (R2))," 23 May 1970, p. 34, Defense Technical Information Center, Defense Logistics Agency, Cameron Station, VA (DTIC).

53. An experienced infantry officer who served as a battalion S-3 in Vietnam related to the author that it was his common practice (and that of others) to accept up to 5 percent friendly casualties from friendly artillery in the assault before lifting or shifting fires. The rationale, of course, is that it is preferable to suffer 5 percent casualties from onels own fire plus 5 percent from the enemy than to permit the enemy, through lack of adequate suppression, to inflict 15 percent casualties on the attacking force.

54. AGFOB(ETO), report no. 157, "Notes on Interviews with Various Infantry Commanders in Normandy, France, 6 June8 July 1944," by Col. Charles H. Coates, 5 August 1944, p. 7, MHI.

55. Bernard William Rogers, Cedar Falls-Junction City: A Turning Point (Washington, DC, f974-), p. 116.

56. Bryan, Friendly Fire, passim.

57. Ibid., pp. 337-38.

58. The following Vietnam accounts were taken from US Military Assistance Command, Viet Nam (NACJ343), Viet Nam Lessons Learned No. 70: Friendly Casualties from Friendly Fires, 17 October 1968, pp. 9-12 (hereafter cited as VNLL#70).

59. This incident reported in VNLL#70 was confirmed to me independently by a friend who served in the 25th Infantry Division artillery at the time of the incident.

60. Letter, US Department of the Army, the Adjutant General (AGAM-P(M)), Subject: Special Operational Report-Lessons Learned, Casualties from Own Fires, 8 January 1968, CMH.

61. Bryan, Friendly Fire, pp. 372-73.

62. This and the following accounts were taken from VNLL#70, pp. 5-13.

63. Visibility does not appear to have been a significant factor. In nearly one half of the total incidents the visibility was unknown or uncertain. Of the remaining 54 cases, the difference between incidents occurring during conditions of reduced (night, smoke, fog) visibility (25) and normal (daylight) visibility (29) cannot be considered significant. Such incidents did appear to occur more frequently during periods of reduced visibility in Vietnam (11:2) but one must consider that the tactical conditions of the Vietnam conflict generally resulted in increased artillery activity at night, specifically the firing of close defensive fires. With respect to the type of tactical operation (defense, attack, retrograde, or patrol) the data appear equally insignificant. Of the 98 incidents, the type of tactical operation could not be determined from the available data in 24 cases. Of the remaining 74 incidents more than half (39) occurred during offensive operations by friendly troops, 27 occurred during defensive operations, 3 during withdrawals, and 5 during patroling actions. When the World War II and Korea/Vietnam cases are considered separately, however, a pattern emerges. In World War II, 34 incidents took place during offensive operations as against only 8 during defensive combat. The situation is reversed in the case of Korea/Vietnam: 19 incidents during defensive operations and 5 during offensive operations. What is reflected here is the predominant tactical mode in each conflict rather than any decisive influence of type of operation on the occurrence of artillery amicicide.

64. The type of error to which an incident of artillery amicicide could be attributed was extremely uncertain. In 35 cases the cause was unknown. In only three cases (two in World War II and one in Vietnam) could the cause be identified as misidentification of friendly for enemy troops. Incidents due to mechanical problems were few (5). Errors due to direct human error predominated. The largest number of incidents (32) was due to lack of adequate coordination. Fire direction center (5), FO (9), and gun crew errors (9) were also important. All of the latter incidents occurred in Vietnam. Many such errors, however, are probably concealed under the general heading of lack of coordination in the World War II figures.

Chapter 2. Air Strikes

1. Operation COBRA in Normandy, 25 July 1944. See the detailed discussion below.

2. "Saipan operational Report, 295th Joint Assault Signal Company," in "Operational Report, 27th Infantry Division, Battle for Saipan," p. 21, CARL.

3. Letter, Advanced Allied Expeditionary Air Force (Adv. AEAF/24241), Headquarters, Subject: Air Support of the Attack on the Cherbourg Peninsula, June 22, 1944, 20 July 1944, p. 4, CARL (hereafter cited as Letter, AAEAF/24241).

4. Sir Edward Louis Spears, Liaison 1914: A Narrative of the Great Retreat (London, 1930), pp. 299-300.

5. Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate, eds. , The Army Air Forces in World War II, vol. II, Europe: TORCH to POINT BLANK, August 1942 to December 1943 (Chicago, 1949), pp. 29, 38.

6. Howe, Northwest Africa, p. 162.

7. US Army Ground Forces, "Observer's Report," by Col. Thomas J. Heavey, 19 February 1943, p. 23, CARL (hereafter cited as USAGF, "Observer's Report").

8. US Army, 701st Tank Destroyer Battalion, "North African Campaign Diary: "B" Co. , 701st TD Bn and 2nd Plt. , Recon Co., 701st TD Bn," typescript (n.p., 1943), p. 8, MHI.

9. Howe, Northwest Africa, p. 398.

10. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 11:193.

11. The following account was taken from Albert N. Garland and Howard McGaw Smyth, assisted by Martin Blumenson, Sicily and the Surrender of Italy (1965; reprint ed. , Washington, DC, 1970), pp. 194-95.

12. The following account was taken from that provided in Garland and Smyth, Sicily, p. 403.

13. AGFOB(ETO), report no. 51, "Visit to 2d Armored Division (Major General E. H. Brooks, Commanding) at Tidworth Barracks, Wiltshire, England, 10-12 April 1944," by Col. Robert 0. Montgomery, 18 April 1944, pp. 4-5, MHI.

14. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 11:486.

15. Martin Blumenson, Salerno to Cassino (Washington, DC, 1969), p. 441; James W. Walters, "Art!-Ilery and Air Support of Ground Attack, Cassino--1944," Military Review 26 (January 1947):54.

16. Blumenson, Salerno to Cassino, p. 441; James A. Huston, "Tactical Use of Air Power in World War II: The Army Experience," Military Review 32 (July 1952):41.

17. Blumenson, Salerno to Cassino, p. 441; Huston, "Tactical Use of Air Power," p. 40.

18. For General Clark's remarks see Blumenson, Salerno to Cassino, p. 441. The report of the commander of the 6th Mew Zealand Brigade is quoted by Walters in "Artillery and Air Support," p. 58.

19. Ibid.; Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, vol. III, Europe: ARGUMENT to V-E Day, January 1944 to May 1945 (Chicago, 1951), p. 367 and n. 124, p. 849.

20. Of particular interest is the US Army Air Forces Evaluation Board in the European Theater of Operations, The Effectiveness of Third Phase Tactical Air Operations in the European Theater, 5 May 1944-8 May 1945 (Orlando Army Air Base, FL, 20 August 1945), CARL (hereafter cited as Third Phase Tactical Air Operations), which contains more than 400 pages of detailed information on all tactical (close air support) operations in the ETO. This very important study can be supplemented for various specific operations by more general histories: Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit (particularly on Operation COBRA), and Helmreich, "The Diplomacy of Apology," pp. 19-37.

21. Helmreich, "The Diplomacy of Apology," p. 20.

22. Ibid., pp. 20-29.

23. Ibid., p. 31; Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 111:735-36.

24. Helmreich, "The Diplomacy of Apology," p. 31 and n. 47, p. 36.

25. Ibid., pp. 34-35.

26. MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign, p. 260 and n. 20; Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 111:615.

27. Both incidents are examined in detail using the pertinent official records by Royce L. Thompson in "Malmedy, Belgium Mistaken Bombing, 23 and 25 December 1944," typescript, 5 June 1952, CMH. I have followed Thompson's excellent reconstruction of the events.

28. Cole, The Ardennes, p. 377.

29. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 208.

30. Letter, AAEAF/24241, p. 1, CARL.

31. Ibid., p. 2. The Germans also complicated matters by firing smoke shells over Allied positions to confuse Allied pilots. See Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 111:200.

32. Ibid.

33. AGFOB(ETO), report no. 157, p. 11, MHI.

34. Ibid., p. 8.

35. Letter, AAEAF/24241, p. 3, CARL.

36. AGFOB(ETO), report no. 191, p. 5, MHI.

37. Letter, AAEAF/24241, p. 5, CARL. For additional information on OBOE and other radio/radar marking systems see Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 111:17.

38. Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, p. 85.

39. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, pp. 220-22.

40. Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, pp. 85-86.

41. Ibid., p. 86. See also Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, pp. 220-21.

42. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, pp. 228-29; Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, p. 86.

43. Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, p. 91.

44. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 229 and n. 11.

45. Ibid.; Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, p. 91; Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 111:230. The bomber was from the 2d Bombardment Division. The airfield was being used by the US Ninth Air Force.

46. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 229; Third Phase Tactical Air OpTrations, p. 91. Blumenson states that sixteen heavy bombers were involved, and Third Phase Tactical Air Operations mentions only twelve and does not indicate that the strike hit the 30th Infantry Division. In general I have followed Blumenson's account throughout inasmuch as his work was conducted later with the benefit of better materials.

47. Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, p. 91.

48. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 229; Hewitt in Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 36, gives 24 killed and 128 wounded. Craven and Cate (Army Air Forces, 111:230) put the 30th Infantry Division casualties at 16 killed and 64 wounded. The US Army, 30th Infantry Division, "After Battle Report," July 1944, pp. 18-19, CARL (hereafter cited as 30th Infantry Division ABR), lists the following casualties from friendly air attacks on 24 July:

a. 120th Infantry and 3/117th Infantry (at 1145; vicinity 451679): 18 killed, 76 wounded;

b. 117th Infantry (-): 8 wounded-,

c. 119th Infantry (at 1146; vicinity 3d Battalion, 455674; from 3 bombs dropped by 2 P-47s): 4 killed, 33 wounded;

d. 743d Tank Bn: 1 wounded;

e.823d Tank Destroyer Bn (bombed):no casualties;

f. 197th FA Bn:1 killed, 3 wounded;

g. 105th Engineer Bn (byP-47s,vicinity 460680): 7 wounded;

h. Total Casualties: 24 killed, 128 wounded.

49. Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 36.

50. The following accounts of these incidents were taken from Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, pp. 235-36; Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, p. 91; and Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 111:234.

51. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, pp. 236-37; Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, pp. 91-92; Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 36.

52. Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 37.

53. Interview with Brig. Gen. James L. Collins, Jr. The 957th was hit by air strikes thirteen times in Europe. Seven of those attacks were by friendly aircraft.

54. Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 37. Hewitt's figures are the same as those in 30th Infantry Division ABR, July 1944, pp. 19-20, CARL. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 236 and n. 32, gives the number of men killed in the 30th Infantry Division as sixty-one.

55. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 236 and n. 32. The total casualties for the two days would thus be about 757 men killed and wounded. The figures vary. For instance, the most commonly mentioned figure is 101 killed and 463 wounded for both days (Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, p. 91), computed by Eighth Air Force in May 1945. Craven and Cate (Army Air Forces, 111:234) give the losses on 25 July as 102 killed and 380 wounded for a two-day total of 562 casualties. Blumenson is more likely to be correct.

56. Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, p. 92; Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, pp. 238-41.

57. Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, p. 85.

58. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 236.

59. Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, p. 32.

60. Ibid., p. 96; Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 480.

61. Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, pp. 96, 99.

62. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 510.

63. Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, p. 118.

64. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, III:xix.

65. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 115; Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 111:206. The engagement with the 823d Tank Destroyer Battalion is described in chap. 4.

66. "Employment of 2d Armored Division in Operation COBRA, 25 July-1 August 1944," by Committee 3 (Student research report, The Armored School, Fort Knox, KY, May 1950), p. 21, CARL.

67. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 299.

68. Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, pp. 59, 61.

69. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 111:255.

70. The following account of the air support for Operation CISCO is taken in its entirety from MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign, pp. 252-60.

71. The details of the following account of the Operation QUEEN breakthrough attempt were taken from Third Phase Tactical Air Operations, pp. 28, 173, 413; MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign, pp. 403-6, 412-13, and n. 12.

72. MacDonald and Mathews, Three Battles, pp. 272, 274.

73. MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign, p. 348; and MacDonald and Mathews, Three Battles, pp. 272, 274.

74. MacDonald and Mathews, Three Battles, pp. 385, 386.

75. MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign, p. 424.

76. The following accounts of the Grandmdnil and Battle of the Bulge incidents were taken from Cole, The Ardennes, pp. 592, 441, 474, and n. 8.

77. MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign, p. 382. In some areas close coordination proved almost impossible. One such area was the Balkans, where the US Fifteenth Air Force faced severe problems in getting the suspicious Russians to cooperate. Some minor improvements were made after a flight of P-38s strafed a Red Army march column near Mis, Yugoslavia, in November 1944, destroying twenty vehicles and killing six men, including a Russian lieutenant general. See Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 111:749.

78. MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign, p. 381.

79. Milner, Victory in Papua, p. 108.

80. Ibid.; Craven and Cate, AM Air Forces, vol. IV, The Pacific: Guadalcan ' al to SaiEan, August 1942 to July 1944 (Chicago, 1950), p. 13; Robert L. Eichelberger, Our Jungle Road to Tokyo (New York, 1950), p. 67.

81. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, IV:13.

82. Ibid., IV:348.

83. Ibid., IV:126.

84. Milner, Victory in Papua, pp. 284-85. General Eichelberger noted in Our Jungle Road to Tokyo (p. 40) that more than a dozen casualties were caused by a stick of American bombs which fell on one company of the 127th Infantry on its first day in the line at Buna.

85. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, IV:123- Even the generals were not immune. General Eichelberger and the Australian General Blamey were strafed twice within minutes near Buna by two different American aircraft, Three men were wounded in the last attack. Eichelberger, Our Jungle Road to Tokyo, p. 40.

86. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, IV:385.

87. Crowl and Love, Seizure of the Gilberts and Marshalls, p. 1350

88. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, IV:231-32; Robert Lee Sherrod, History of Marine Corps Aviation in World War II (1952; reprint ed., San Rafael, CA, 1980), p. 151. It was during the New Georgia Campaign that the Marine Corps began to develop more effective methods for controlling close air support. Ibid., p. 150.

89. Crowl and Love, Seizure of the Gilberts and Marshalls, p. 111.

90. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, IV:566.

91. US Army, 27th Infantry Division, "Saipan Operational Report, 295th Joint Assault Signal Company," in "Operational Report," 24 October 1944, p. 20, CARL. 92. This account of Garapan and the following accounts of Guam were taken from Crowl, Campaign in the Marianas, pp. 227, 345, 357, 407, 374, 427, 425.

93. Smith, Triumph in the Philippines, p. 183.

94. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, vol. V, The Pacific: MATTERHORN to Nagasaki, June 1944 to August 19L5 (Chicago, 1953), p. 442.

95. Smith, Triumph in the Philippines, p. 236 and n. 56.

96. Ibid., p. 198; Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, V:442.

97. Smith, Triumph in the Philippines, p. 236. The official Air Forces history (Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, V:442 and nn. 76-81, pp. 805-6) admits only five air amicicide incidents during the Luzon Campaign: two involving Fifth Air Force planes strafing Sixth Army troops; one caused by the accidental jettisoning of a bomb on a Navy LSM by a Marine Corps SBD off Damortis; a bombing by twenty-three B-24s west of Fort Stotsenburg on 22 February 1945, which caused no casualties; and a strafing by Navy SBDs on positions held by the 1st Cavalry Division on 11 February.

98. Smith, Triumph in the Philippines, pp. 235-36. In April 1945 the 24th Infantry Division suffered 32 casualties on Mindanao when their positions were mistakenly bombed by Marine aircraft. Sherrod, Marine Corps Aviation, p. 321. On Okinawa Marine aircraft flew more than 10,000 sorties with only 10 reported incidents of amicicide involving 66 casualties. General Geiger himself was forced into a ditch on the Motobu Peninsula in April 1945 when he was strafed by an American plane. Ibid., pp. 409-10.

99. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, V:442.

100. Ibid., V:438-39.

101. Ibid., V:442 and n. 77, p. 806.

102. Of twenty-two incidents of air amicicide in Vietnam considered in this study only one could not be identified as to primary cause. Seven of the incidents involved a direct pilot error, either in navigation, orientation to the ground and target, physical manipulation, or observance of marking aids. Ten incidents involved problems of coordination or accurate location of the positions of friendly ground troops known to be in the target area. Only two incidents resulted from purely mechanical problems and there were only two incidents attributable to mistaking friendly for enemy troops. Of seven incidents in which it was possible to determine unambiguously the existing visibility conditions, six occurred in conditions of reduced visibility. Twenty of the incidents produced 327 casualties, or 16.35 casualties per incident. Unless otherwise noted all incidents described in this section were identified in the survey conducted at Fort Leavenworth in January 1980.

103. The details of this incident and most of the following accounts of other Vietnam incidents were taken from VNLL#70, pp. 14-22, except for the personal account of the A Shau Valley incident provided to the author by Lt. Col L. D. F. Fraschd at Carlisle Barracks, PA, February 1980.

104. Anthony A. Bezreh, "Interim Report on Injuries Resulting From Hostile Actions Against Army Aircrew Members in Flight (July 1966-June 1967)," typescript, n.d., CMH.

Chapter 3. Anti-Aircraft Fire

1. The following account was taken from Howe, Northwest Africa, pp. 467-68.

2. USAGF, "Observer's Report," p. 28, CARL.

3. Garland and Smyth, Sicily, p. 175. Garland and Smyth give a detailed account of the ill-fated HUSKY 2 airborne operation, pp. 175-85. The following description is based entirely on their material except insofar as is noted.

4. Ibid.3% p. 180.

5. Ibid.2 p. 184.

6. Ibid., p. 184.

7. Ibid., p. 218.

8. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 11:454.

9. Garland and Smyth, Sicily, p. 218.

10. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 11:454.

11. Garland and Smyth, Sicily, p. 218.

12. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 11:455; Garland and Smyth, Sicily, pp. 423-25.

13. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 11:455.

14. Ibid., pp. 455-5-6; Garland and Smyth, Sicily, pp. 423-25.

15. AGFOB(ETO), report no. 51, p. 3, MHI.

16. Garland and Smyth, Sicily, p. 195. A similar case occurred on 15 August 1944 over Laval, France, when a fighter from the VIII Fighter Command was shot down while attempting to strafe the headquarters of the US Third Army and XIX Tactical Air Command. See Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, 111:255.

17. US Army Ground Forces Observer Board (Southwest Pacific Area), report no. 27, 19 January 19442 Inclosure 2, "Memorandum for G-3 HQ ALAMO Force from AA Section," 15 January 1944, pp. 22 7, MHI (hereafter cited as AGFOB(SWPA), report no. 27). The cause stated for the erroneous downing of the P-47 was "too little training."

18. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, IV:340-41.

19. Ibid.; AGFOB(SWPA), report no. 27, p. 7, MHI.

20. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, IV:341.

21. AGFOB(SWPA), report no. 27, p. 7.

22. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, IV:341.

23. AGFOB(SWPA), report no. 27, p. 7, MHI. The B-24 later showed IFF.

24. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, IV:344.

25. Ibid.

26. AGFOB(SWPA), report no. 27, p. 7, MHI.

27. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, IV:345. The following accounts of 27 and 28 May 1944 were taken from IV:635-37.

Chapter 4. Ground Attack

1. This incident is not included in the tabulation of ground amicicide incidents found in table 4.

2. Charles Edwin Woodrow Bean, The Australian Imperial Force in France During the Main German Offensive, 1918 (Sydney, 1937), p. 585.

3. Garland and Smyth, Sicily, pp. 179, 181.

4. Ibid., p. 181, n. 15.

5. Ibid.

6. See above, pp. 67-68.

7. Information provided by Lt. Gen. DeWitt C. Smith, USA- Retired, former Commandant, US Army War College, who served in the 4th Armored Division at the time.

8. Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 22. The following account of the operations of the 30th Division in the Vire River crossing is based on Hewitt; chaps. V and VI of Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit; and the journals, reports, and other documents of the 30th Infantry Division and its subordinate units in "AGO, World War II Operations Reports, 1940-1948," boxes 8732, 8792, 23847, 23849, 23911, Record Group 407, National Archives, Washington, DC (hereafter cited as AGOWWIIORs).

9. HQ, US Army Ground Forces, Memorandum for the Commanding General, Army Ground Forces, Subject: "Report on Operations of XIX Corps in Normandy and Comments based upon interviews and Personal Observations," by Lt. Col. H. W. Johnson and Lt. Col. W. S. Renshaw, 2 August 1944, p. 7, CARL.

10. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 109; Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 28.

11. Summary of telephone conversation between Major General Hobbs (Commanding General, 30th Infantry Division) and Colonel Maguire (XIX Corps Headquarters), 2100 hours, 8 July 1944, entry 53A, 9 July 1944, in US Army, 30th Infantry Division, "G3 Journal Files," Box 87923, AGOWWIIORs.

12. Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 28.

13. In a telephone conversation with Colonel Maguire (XIX Corps Headquarters) Major General Hobbs accused Brig. Gen. John J. Bohn, the CCB commander, of having "not turned a track in 95% of his vehicles all day long" and of "sitting on his fanny all day, doing nothing," and attempted to resolve the confused artillery situation. Summary of telephone conversation between 30th Infantry Division, "G3 Journal Files," AGOWWIIORs.

14. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 109.

15. Summary of telephone conversation between Major General Hobbs and Major General Watson, 2045 hours, 8 July 1944, entry on 9 July 1944, 30th Infantry Division, "G3 Journal Files," AGOWWIIORs.

16. Summary of telephone conversation between Major General Hobbs and Colonel Ellis (CRACKER 5), 2112 hours, 8 July 1944, entry 53A, 9 July 1944, 30th Infantry Division, "G3 Journal Files," AGOWWIIORs.

17. The details of the following account of the Airel bridgehead incidents were taken from Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, pp. 110-14, 116; and Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, pp. 28, 29, 274.

18. Despite the fact that elements of CCB did reach Hauts- Vents by 1700 on 9 July, Major General Hobbs did relieve Brigadier General Bohn five hours later (Blumenson, p. 116).

19. Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 274.

20. US Army, 823d Tank Destroyer Battalion, TD Weekly Operational Report no. 3 (090800 July 44-160800 July 44), 16 July 1944, entry no. 12, 16 July 1944, "Journal Files," Box 23847, AGOWWIIORs.

21. The following account of the amicicide incident at the St. Jean de Daye crossroads is based primarily on the sworn depositions of 823d TD Battalion personnel present. These statements are included in the report of the officer appointed to investigate the incident, Maj. Ashby I. Lohse, S-3, 823d TD Bn. Major Lohse's report, dated 10 July 1944, is included as entry no. 14, 10 July 1944, 823d TD Bn, "Journal Files," Box 23849, AGOWWIIORs (hereafter cited as "Lohse Investigation"). Blumenson briefly describes the incident in Breakout and Pursuit (pp. 114-15), using the Lohse investigation materials and the CCB, 3d Armored Division, journal files, which I have not seen. Hewitt (,Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 29) completely confuses the incident, making it a fight between a column of tanks from CCA, 3d Armored Division, and friendly antiaircraft guns.

22. Sworn statement of Lieutenant McInnis, 10 July 1944, "Lohse Investigation."

23. ibid.

24. Sworn statements of Lieutenant McInnis and Sergeant Nunn, 10 July 1944, "Lohse Investigation."

25. Ibid.

26. Sworn statement of Sergeant Hanna, 10 July 1944, "Lohse Investigation."

27. Sworn statement of Lieutenant Connors, 10 July 1944, "Lohse Investigation."

28. Sworn statements of Lieutenant Connors and Sergeant Chustz, 10 July 1944, "Lohse Investigation."

29. Sworn statement of Lieutenant Raney, 10 July 1944, "Lohse Investigation." Lieutenant Raney played a key role in later actions of the 823d TD Bn, particularly in the hard- fought defense of Mortain in early August.

30. 823d TD Bn Weekly Operational Report no. 3, AGOWWIIORs.

31. Statement of Investigating Officer, 10 July 1944, "Lohse Investigation"; Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 115; 823d TD Bn Weekly Operational Report no. 3, AGOWWIIORs. The "Daily Estimated Loss Report as of 2400, 9 July 1944," entry no. 2, 10 July 1944, 30th Infantry Division, "Gl Journal Files," AGOWWIIORS, shows 9 July casualties for the 823d TD Bn as 1 killed, 11 wounded, and 12 missing; for CCB, 3d Armored Division (attached) as 5 killed and 28 wounded. The exact personnel losses for the two units in this amicicide incident are difficult to determine. Blumenson (Breakout and Pursuit, p. 115) states that the two units together had 10 casualties. A review of the Lohse Investigation statements puts 823d TD Bn casualties at 1 killed (Pfc. Jacobs) and 3 wounded (counting Sgt. Nunn but not Sgt. Hanna). That would leave six casualties (or two tank crews) for the CCB, company, not all of whom were killed, if the G-1 loss report for 9 July is correct. v32. Unit Report no. 15 (082200 July 44-092200 July 44), 092230 July 1944, entry no. 4, 9 July 1944, 823d TD Bn, "Journal Files," Box 23849, AGOWWIIORs.

33. Statement of Investigating Officer, 10 July 1944, "Lohse Investigation."

34. Blumenson, p. 115.

35. Ibid., pp. 115, 117.

36. Summary of telephone conversation between Lieutenant General Corlett and Major General Hobbs, 2100 hours, 9 July 1944, entry on 9 July 1944, 30th Infantry Division, "G3 Journal Files," AGOWWIIORs.

37. Entries 29 (at 0710 hours) and 59 (at 1300 hours), 10 July 1944, 30th Infantry Division, "G3 Journal Files," AGOWWIIORs.

38. Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 164.

39. Notice of this incident was provided to the author indirectly by Lt. Gen. DeWitt C. Smith, USA-Retired, former Commandant, US Army War College, who was assigned to the 4th Armored Division at the time. The commander of the US XII Corps, Maj. Gen. Manton Eddy, noted a similar incident in his diary for 8 November 1944. The members of a tank battalion attached to the US 26th Infantry Division near Arracourt got into a shooting match among themselves and knocked out five of their own tanks and wounded the battalion commander (Manton S. Eddy, "Activities of General Eddy," entry for 8 November 1944).

40. AGFOB(ETO), report no. 120, "Employment of Tanks with Infantry," 2 September 1944, p. 7, MHI.

41. "The loth US Armored Division in the Saar-Moselle Triangle," by Committee 15, (Student research report, The Armored School, Fort Knox, KY, May 1949), pp. 35-36 (hereafter cited as "Saar-Moselle Triangle"); Hugh M. Cole, The Lorraine Campaign (1950; reprint ed., Washington, DC, 1970), p. 493.

42. "Saar-Moselle Triangle," p. 36.

43. The following incidents are described in Cole, ' The Ardennes: Berdorf, p. 247; Holzthum, p. 185; Rocherath, p. 112; Osweiler, p. 251, Schoenberg, pp. 168, 170; the German 293. Regiment, p. 418; 9th Armored Infantry Battalion, p. 633.

44. The only other recorded incident is that involving the two tank battalions of the 4th Armored Division in the night assembly area near Avranches in July 1944. See above, p. 159.

45. "Armor in the Night Attack," by Committee 21 (Student research report, The Armored School, Fort Knox, KY, June 1950), p. 4; Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 228.

46. The plan as given in "Armor in the Night Attack," (p. 12) is certainly incorrect, substituting the 2d for the lst Battalion and vice versa. The maps (figures 1-3) are even more misleading. The plan described in "Armor in the Night Attack" would have required the 2d and 3d Battalions to attack simultaneously across each other's paths. Hewitt (Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 228) apparently gives the correct (or at any rate, more reasonable) dispositions, the principle of difficilior lectio potior not withstanding.

47. "Armor in the Night Attack," pp. 11-12.

48. Hewitt, Workhorse of the Western Front, p. 228; "Armor in the Night Attack," p. 14.

49. "Armor in the Night Attack," pp. 14-15 (based on the "After Action Report" of the 743d Tank Battalion for February 1945, p. 19).

50. "Report of the Commanding General, Buna Forces, on the Buna Campaign, December 1, 1942-January 25, 1943," p. 70, CARL.

51. Ibid. General Eichelberger himself nearly became the victim of such uncontrolled nighttime firing during the infamous "Battle of Brinkman's Plantation" at Hollandia. A platoon from the 24th Infantry Division 'Was detailed to guard Eichelberger's CP, and from about 2200 until the following morning the trigger-happy platoon "carried on a terrific war," resulting in several friendly casualties. At dawn General Eichelberger dismissed the errant platoon, stating he would feel safer if guarded by the Japanese army. Coincidentally, the same platoon was again assigned to guard Eichelberger's CP on Biak several weeks later and despite a real Japanese presence did not fire at all that night. Eichelberger, Our Jungle Road to Tokyo, pp. 115-16.

52. AGFOB(SWPA), report no. 32, by Col. Horace 0. Cushman, 25 February 1944, p. 6, MHI.

53. The story of the Kiska invasion is told by Brian Wynne Garfield in The Thousand Mile War: World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians (New York, 1969), pp. 334-35. Four of the dead and four of the wounded were Canadians of the 13th Canadian Infantry Brigade. US units involved included the 87th Mountain Infantry Regiment, the 184th Infantry Regiment, and elements of the 17th and 53d Infantry Regiments.

54. ibid., p. 334.

55. Ibid., p. 335.

56. US War Department, Infantry Combat: Part One, Eddekhila, and Part Two, Attu (n.d.; reprint ed., Fort Benning, GA: US Army Infantry School, ca. 1944), pp. 14-15.

57. The details of the following accounts of the incidents of November 1943 and February 1944 were taken from Crowl and Love, Seizure of the Gilberts and Marshalls, pp. 42, 42-43, 96, 108, 109-10, 316, 265.

58. Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces, V:517.

59. See above, pp. 12-14.

60. 106th Infantry Regiment, "Regimental Journal," 3 July 1944, entry 946, CARL.

61. 106th Infantry Regiment, "FORAGER Operations Report," p. 10, CARL.

62. The following Pacific incidents are described in Crowl, Campaign in the Marianas: 22d Marines, p. 369; roadblock on the Finegayan Road, pp. 402-3; Salisbury Road, pp. 433-34; 77th Infantry Division, p. 434.

63. Ibid. , p. 434. The 306th Infantry reported casualties of eleven killed and twenty-four wounded on 8 August, many of which were due to friendly fire from both the Marines and the 307th Infantry. Earlier in the day the 3/306th had been fired on accidentally by tanks with the 307th Infantry (ibid., p. 432).

64. Streit to Bliss, p. 6, and questionnaire form on McCoy, CMH. The letter transmits to The Surgeon General a questionnaire filled out on (and by) each of the first 100 men evacuated from Korea. Private McCoy was awarded the Purple Heart Medal.

65. Ibid., pp. 2, 6, and questionnaire on Yoder. Pfc. Yoder was also awarded the Purple Heart Medal.

66. ibid., p. 2.

67. The story of the 29th Brigade's defense of the Imjin River line is in T. R. Fehrenbach, This Kind of War (New York, 1963), pp. 449-57. 1 ha-ve followed closely Fehrenbach's account of the encounter between the Gloster survivors and the US armor unit (pp. 456-57).

68. The whole story of the battle for Pork Chop Hill is told by S. L. A. Marshall in Pork Chop Hill. The amicicide incident involving Companies K and L is on pp. 151, 177.

69. Ibid., p. 151.

70. Information provided by a respondent to the friendly fire incidents survey conducted at the US Army Command and General Staff College in January 1980.

71. All information on ground amicicide incidents in Vietnam, unless otherwise identified, is derived from the friendly fire incidents survey conducted at the US Army Command and General Staff College.

72. Rogers, Cedar Falls-Junction City: A Turning Point, P. 112.

Chapter 5. Conclusions

1. In 58 of the 99 air incidents the actual number of casualties could be determined. These 58 incidents resulted in a total of 2,616 casualties (killed or wounded). Most incidents (31) resulted in fewer than 5 casualties per incident, but in 5 incidents the total was more than 140, including the St. L8 bombings of 24-25 July 1944, in which the total casualty count was more than 757. See table 6, Air column.

2. In 57 of the 98 artillery incidents the actual number of casualties could be determined. These 57 incidents resulted in a total of 722 casualties. Again, almost half of the incidents (27) involved fewer than 5 casualties per incident and only one resulted in more than 60 casualties (this incident involved 150 casualties). See table 6, Artillery column.

3. In 25 of the 58 ground incidents the actual number of casualties could be determined. These 25 incidents resulted in a total of 147 casualties. Once again most incidents (18) involved fewer than 5 casualties per incident, and only one resulted in more than 20 casualties (this incident involved 74 casualties). See table 6, Ground column.

4. In 6 of the 15 antiaircraft incidents the actual number of casualties could be determined. These 6 incidents resulted in a total of 320 casualties, but in two-thirds (4) of the incidents no casualties resulted, and in one other incident there was one casualty. The figures for antiaircraft incidents are thus greatly skewed by the 319 casualties of the Sicilian airborne operation (HUSKY 2). See table 6, Antiaircraft column.

5. VNLL#70, p. 4. v6. Ibid., p. 3.

7. The Kansas City Times, Wednesday, 2 January 1980, p. A9. The Washington Post, Sunday, 4 July 1982, p. A17, also carried reports from British war correspondents in the Falkland Islands of two amicicide incidents during the short war between Britain and Argentina. On 21 May 1982 at least four British Royal Marine commandos were injured when one Royal Marine commando patrol called in mortar fire on another patrol in the mistaken belief that it was Argentinian. In the second incident two men were killed by friendly small arms fire when a Special Boat Squadron patrol and a Special Air Service patrol attacked each other at night. The same article reported a total of 256 British fatalities from fighting in the Falklands.