Hi Brian,
Are you aware that friendly fire incidents in the UK Gun Belts in the summer of 1944 came about as the result of imperfect technology? Both the British and the American AAA gunners had gun laying radar that automatically directed the guns, and proximity fuzes, the combination of which enabled to fire at targets, and to hit these, without optical contact. That was a first in the history of gunnery. What could have been, but was not, automated, was a link with the British IFF system. This could have been integrated by the American radar designers, but the British wished to keep their IFF system classified - even to the Allies. The net result was that the IFF operator had to shout his observations to the gunnery officer, with four AAA guns firing as fast as they could right next to him. This was a receipt for incidents.
If you want the technical details, check out
http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_...Abajian074.pdf
for an interview with an engineer who worked on the gun laying radar.
Furthermore, the proximity fuzed shells were lethal way beyond the gun belt no-fly zone limits. This means that a pilot, flying outside the no-fly zone as ordered, could be hit with fatal results by gunners who were firing at a V1, and who could perhaps not even see the friendly aircraft. A direct hit, or an explosion in the proximity of the aircraft, meaning within about 15 meters, of a 90mm shell would be fatal to a fighter aircraft.
Finally, several fighter bases were located WITHIN the gun belts, meaning that pilots had no choice but to enter the no-fly zone. The gunners were - to a degree - allowed to fire in inland directions as well.
To this can be added the usual human factor. The AA gunners had to learn the job with new tools, in actual combat, no time for proper training. They were given a firing window, in which friendly aircraft were not supposed to exist. In other words: they shot at everything.
Considering the secrecy with which the new technology was surrounded, one may wonder who in high command had the full picture, that could have led to measures to prevent or reduce these friendly fire incidents. I believe that this would have been possible, without negative results for the higher goal of shooting down doodlebugs.
Such incidents were covered up, as a result of the effort to keep the effectiveness of this automated AAA technology hidden from the enemy. If not covered up, then the explanation came easy: the pilot was flying where he should not have flown. It should be obvious from what I state here that this explanation does not do justice to the complexities of the there and then, putting the blame on the one who could no longer defend himself: the pilot.
The blame should not be put on the AAA-gunners either. Such simplifications distort the complexity of reality there and then.
A question, resulting from the observations above. Have you identified causes for friendly fire incidents, other than the ones mentioned above? I apologize if this question has already been forwarded and answered. I did not read all the pages of this thread.
Regards,
Rob