Shall "friendly fire" be disabled?

When on August 15 and 16, 1943, American-Canadian troops were landing on the island of Kiska in the Aleutian Islands in the North Pacific, people still remembered the fights from over two months before for the nearby island of Attu. Fortunately, Kiski's conquest was much less bloody. Only 313 people were wounded or killed. The result could have been much worse if only... there were Japanese on the island at all.

The latter left it more than two weeks before. So how did the US and Canadian soldiers die? The impact of stumbling upon the mine by the destroyer USS Abner Read was the most deadly, others fell victim to landmines and traps left on the island. But as many as 30 fell from "friendly fire," being shot by their own friends, which shows how common such situations could be in battle.

Why? Because the real fight, especially in conditions of reduced visibility (and such prevailed on the fogged Kiska), does not look like a game of Call of Duty. In fact, soldiers are, surprisingly, much less willing to risk and do not like to die. Frequently, one does not wait to see the silhouette of the enemy and shoots everything that moves or looks suspicious, especially having the advantage of fire.

More soldiers died in World War II from artillery and mortars than from rifle bullets (on average, as the statistics obviously looked differently in the Libyan desert and in the bocage of Normandy). And, statistically, thousands of those meant for one victim had to be shot.