Why doesn't Allied military equipment have distinguishing marks anymore?

[Jonty]

In the light of the numerous accidents with Allied tanks etc being confused and being destroyed, why aren't there clear markings on them like in the old days.

I know there are electronic devices on board that are supposed to make known their identity but surely as a backup clear markings should be used? Or is there a good reason for there not to be?

[Mike]

How close are they when they are shooting at one another? How do you know they aren't miles away?

[Jonty]

True, but surely it would help in a close range scenario?

[Epidemic]

In the old days they blew up friendlies as well.

I think this is no worse and probably better then in previous conflicts. However, it is highlited by the low battle casualties and immediate media. I am sure there was not nightly briefings given to the press saying that a coursair just strafed an american convoy. It was dealt with quietly and stored in the book of things to try to avoid in the future rather than blasted across the front page.

[muno]

Statistically it goes something like this:
~20% in Kora
~40% in Vietnam
~50% in 1st Desert storm
~70% (for now) in 2nd desert storm

That's how the allied die. You can see a trend there.
//edit: I mean that is the percentage of allied troops killed by friendly fire.//end edit

There were clear markings during eg. 1st desert storm, but even that (eg. huge british flag on top of the tank) they were shot...
-M

//2nd edit: I edited the coutnries to be correct and altered percentages.

[RADAR1797]

muno,

A source would be nice. I would contend that we lose far less to enemy fire these days, so the percentages would be horribly skewed.


-RADAR

[muno]

http://www.iltalehti.fi/2003/03/28/592126_uu.shtml

The article is in Finnish, and I think you have to register to be able to read it.

This is a clippyticlip from the article.

Puolustusasiantuntijoiden mukaan omaan tuleen kuolleiden sotilaiden määrä on ollut tasaisessa kasvussa toisen maailmansodan jälkeen. Esimerkiksi
Korean sodassa oma tuli tappoi tai haavoitti 18 prosenttia amerikkalaissotilaista, Vietnamissa 39 ja Persianlahden ensimmäisessä sodassa jopa 49 prosenttia.

Which translates (roughly) to:
According to professional defence personnel the amount of people killed by friendly fire has steadily grown after the IIWW. In korean war friendly fire killed/wounded 18% u.s. soldiers, in Vietnam 39% and in 1st desert storm 49%.

My countries were wrong at my first post, it should be korean, vitnam and then desert storm.
-M

[Blood_Luster]

nice find muno

[Jonty]

As Epidemic says, it's probably reported much more than in former times.

[muno]

Either you mean the u.s. officials claimed people died in enemy fire earlier, or you mean that people can't count.

About the first case there's nothing much to do.
About the latter, I'm sure whoever can count 1+1 can count that if there were total 1000 losses, and 500 of them died at friendly fire it means that 50% of casualties were caused by thenselves.
-M