Over 30 Iraqi Soldiers Killed in US Air Force Strike, 20 Others Injured

Yet to be confirmed though. Not going to opine just yet, so just a heads up. Originally from Sputnik News. Other sites just repeating the same ATM.

At least 30 Iraqi soldiers were killed and 20 others injured in US air strike, Hakim al-Zamili, the head of Iraqi parliament's Security and Defense Committee said.
The politician stated that he demanded "the [Iraqi] prime minister to conduct an investigation into the airstrike against the 55 brigade, which had previously had huge success in the fight against Daesh terrorists."
Sputnik
Claims of a US airstrike killing more than 20 Iraqi soldiers are not accurate, US Defense Department spokesman Maj. Roger Cabiness told Sputnik on Friday.

Extra stuff added to the same article here RT about a strike by NATO on 6 Dec.
"Earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry said four Western coalition warplanes had been spotted over the Deir ez-Zor area in Syria on December 6, when a Syrian Army camp came under attack.
An airstrike on a field camp of the 168th Brigade of the 7th Division of the Syrian Army left four servicemen dead and 12 injured. It also destroyed three APCs and four vehicles bearing 12.7mm heavy machine guns".

If true then this extremely provocative to say the least.
Watch this space I spose.

a reply to: Ngatikiwi

According to Baghdad, it was 10 wounded or killed. The unit was in close combat when the airstrikes were called in, and soldiers on both sides were hit.

Baghdad (AFP) - Iraq's joint operations command said 10 Iraqi soldiers were killed or wounded Friday by so-called friendly fire from US-led coalition aircraft west of Baghdad.

The command, which oversees Iraq's war effort against the Islamic state group, said casualties occurred on both sides during a strike on IS during close combat.

news.yahoo.com...

a reply to: Ngatikiwi

Did this air strike allegedly happen today? Our relationship with Russia is strange. On one hand, US and Russia publicly agreed to join forces to uncover the flow of money going to ISIS, but on the other hand, it is widely believed that Turkey, USA, and the Saudis are reaponsible. So it seems that Russia is trying to close in on USA.

If USA really did carry out these strikes, then it really doesn't help its image in light the oncoming investigation.

So either these are rumours used to put USA in a bad position, of USA is losing control.

When getting info like this it is often so far apart. Sometimes they cover up casualties and other times too many are listed. Some could have been killed by the people they were fighting and incorrectly added to the friendly fire total. It still isn't good when friendly fire kills soldiers on your own side no matter how many it happens to. In war friendly fire kills lots of people..

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

All the reports of the higher total link back to Sputnik. It appears that it did happen, but wasn't as bad as claimed. Some of the soldiers hit appear to have been IS fighters that the Iraqi forces were fighting. If they called in a danger close strike it would explain how both sides were hit.

-You know we have a hell of a time keeping track of our own people with the best tech and here we have many groups fighting each other with little or no coordination or communication with us. To top it all off they all basically look and dress the same using mostly the same equipment, so it is not like WWII where you can say hey there be Germans..lol. In the end there is no right or wrong here its just how war is when things go boom people die and we really can't pick and choose when we do not know who is who most of the time without having our own troops embedded too.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Cheers for that.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

All the reports of the higher total link back to Sputnik. It appears that it did happen, but wasn't as bad as claimed. Some of the soldiers hit appear to have been IS fighters that the Iraqi forces were fighting. If they called in a danger close strike it would explain how both sides were hit.

True that
And as others have indicated, its going to be difficult to swim through the "He said she said" mire of info and opinion thats going to continue to manifest. As Xtrozero said its not like WWII.
I guess we'll be hearing about a lot more "friendly fire" incidences from now on, which will no doubt be "spun" to suit the situation and various parties agendas. Discernment will have to take precedent over knee jerk reactions.

a reply to: Ngatikiwi

They're considering training Iraqi soldiers to serve as JTAC for their units. The only thing is that it takes a long time to train them to do the job right, and well. Putting US JTACs on the ground would require a lot of troops to do the job. They need to relaunch the OA-10 Fast FAC program and bring back FACs.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Ngatikiwi

They're considering training Iraqi soldiers to serve as JTAC for their units. The only thing is that it takes a long time to train them to do the job right, and well. Putting US JTACs on the ground would require a lot of troops to do the job. They need to relaunch the OA-10 Fast FAC program and bring back FACs.

Whew, lots of acronyms there. Had to educate myself fast on them.
A-10, awesome aircraft (from a flght simmer) and agree should be there. FACs - really surprised they arnt being utilised, I presume (bit ignorant on this stuff) they use other means ie. drones, AWACs, satellite, allied intel, etc. With the tech and experience, friendly fire "should" be uncommon, and hopefully we wont get too much of it. Such a waste. Maybe with this incident we might see your OA-10 Fast FAC suggestion utilised again.

a reply to: Ngatikiwi

Sorry, I lived with acronyms for so long that I forget not everyone knows them.

With the introduction of the JTAC program, they ended the FAC program. Between UAVs and JTACs, it was decided that there was enough control to not require a FAC.

a reply to: Xtrozero

True but our visual aids may be unable to spot the (perp) our ability to factor in the dividing forces and what they have shown that they are doing r at least trying to do against a demoniacal game is the place to focus in order to follow along . ie , can a bad tree produce good fruit .!? ... Yes it is about taking sides , and this doesn't mean that either side is the real bad guy because good people get used every day ...

a reply to: Zaphod58

I am not sure if it was the few beer I had but that made me bust a seem ..ty :>)

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

well the united states basically has no choice but to comply with such a request since they themselves have branded ISIS as evil doers. if they refuse then they look bad. russia is for lack of better words playing tricks on them.

but friendly fire does happen. very often from what i hear. i dont think these two things are connected.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

Some of the first causalities of friendly fire in the invasion of Afghanistan were Canadian forces .Hard to think that in this day and age that such miscommunication's could exist in a coalition led by the USA would happen , but that was what the report said .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

well the simple fact of the matter is that bombs are unpredictable and targeting is tricky.

i suspect this was an honest, but tragic, mistake.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Ngatikiwi

Sorry, I lived with acronyms for so long that I forget not everyone knows them.

With the introduction of the JTAC program, they ended the FAC program. Between UAVs and JTACs, it was decided that there was enough control to not require a FAC.

All good mate. I dont mind at all. Just bein cheeky. I now know a little bit more than I knew a few minutes ago.
Its often a steep learning curve on ATS. Love it.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The only blue on blue in Desert Storm by the Apache, the crew hovered out of hearing of a US convoy that was stopped in the desert and discussed attacking them for several minutes before finally launching on them. They had them on their scope the entire time while they discussed things. A fast moving platform has a hard time to see, identify, and confirm the target as they fly past the area. The technology has gotten better, but it's not infallible unfortunately.

Another blue on blue, using a B-52, was caused because someone transposed the GPS coordinates radioed from the ground as they programmed the bombs. Part of the problem is the fact that humans are involved.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Ngatikiwi

They're considering training Iraqi soldiers to serve as JTAC for their units. The only thing is that it takes a long time to train them to do the job right, and well. Putting US JTACs on the ground would require a lot of troops to do the job. They need to relaunch the OA-10 Fast FAC program and bring back FACs.

Indeed!
Let the warthogs eat ISIS for dinner.
When you want precision ground strikes A10's are the answer.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Part of the problem is the fact that humans are involved.

Well in this day and age of statistical analysis with computers , I would think that a well made plan would compensate for the (human factor) ...The use it in their smart bombs and guidance systems don't they ? From looking at the hospital bombing in Afghanistan they used highly guides missiles to hit a DWOB operation guided by boots on the ground . Protocol was followed by the hospital . The data was passed on . But they made a perfect hit on the target ...So what happened ?