Incident at Castle Martin 14-06-2017

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
So this is written into Training Manuals? There is also an exemption from liability for the Commander if he survives? Your point reeks of saddles, spurs and Stetsons.
No. I never said it's written into training manuals. You seem to be arguing against a straw man for reasons that escape me.
 
No issue with that but the Coroner ruled on Causation, the cause being the design fault, none of the rest would have happened without that flaw.
Im not entirely sure fault is the right word, since the component in question didnt fail, it just wasnt there. Its more of a procedural error.

Plenty of crews have fired god knows how many rounds down range safely over C2's 20 year service life, they just didnt borrow another crews tank to let the unqualified range bloke fire off some 120mm rounds?
 
No. I never said it's written into training manuals. You seem to be arguing against a straw man for reasons that escape me.
Well, sit comfortably and listen.

The first point is this practice is either dangerous or not.
The second is you could just be saving the enemy's ammunition by destroying your own tank and killing the crew

Now if it is dangerous but acceptable I would expect to see a written procedure in which a CO signs off that his commanders can endanger the vehicle and crew. I would not see it as the gift of a commander in a sealed vehicle to decide for himself without reference to the chain of command.

The alternative is that it is an acceptable risk and it should be written into doctrine and trained for.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Now if it is dangerous but acceptable I would expect to see a written procedure in which a CO signs off that his commanders can endanger the vehicle and crew. I would not see it as the gift of a commander in a sealed vehicle to decide for himself without reference to the chain of command.
Again, this is where I disagree. Commanders may choose to disregard safety rules if the net result is that they're safer, just as I think that infantry should fire inside the safety angle mandated on ranges if it will save lives on operations. That's arguably worse as they're doing so at someone else's risk rather than their own. The tank crew risks only themselves.

Minor reductions in survivability are sometimes a helpful tradeoff for lethality and I can't think of a single rule designed for self-protection that I think should apply absolutely in all circumstances.
 
Im not entirely sure fault is the right word, since the component in question didnt fail, it just wasnt there. Its more of a procedural error.

Plenty of crews have fired god knows how many rounds down range safely over C2's 20 year service life, they just didnt borrow another crews tank to let the unqualified range bloke fire off some 120mm rounds?
Wasn't this a training tank to be used by all and sundry?
if so, why would a crew who have finished their shoot, clean and partially reassemble the gun but leave the BVA assembly in the brew bin?
 
A tank crew has the option of slightly increasing the risk of a turret explosion in order to raise the rate of fire and thereby reduce the risk of getting destroyed by incoming fire.
Where is this laid down? What regulations, that have been signed off by a senior commander, are you referring to?
 
Where is this laid down? What regulations, that have been signed off by a senior commander, are you referring to?
Agreed, the Commander who follows this course is leaving himself open to a Manslaughter charge. That is why I am suggesting an authorisation process, even if it is a blanket authorisation on crossing the start line.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Where is this laid down? What regulations, that have been signed off by a senior commander, are you referring to?
As I said to 21st, I'm not referring to regulations. It's just something that can be done if the crew wants to. It's an option available to them, just like firing within safety margin is an option available to the infantry.
 
As I said to 21st, I'm not referring to regulations. It's just something that can be done if the crew wants to. It's an option available to them, just like firing within safety margin is an option available to the infantry.
Some would call that recklessness, others arrogance.

I know your intentions and logic are in the right place they just do not reflect reality. You transfer responsibility quite fluidly in your responses though.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
You learn what you are taught.
And then you do stupid and dangerous stuff because you can get away with it. There is actually a pretty good system for understanding what's happening inside a CR2 on the range, including listening to all voice comms, but you'll never stamp something like this out unless you fit a number of internal cameras and constantly monitor the footage.
 
I remember the deployment across the start line during GW1. Wagons of all descriptions overloaded. Units don't train with mob stocks (see the thread on exercising the logistics chain).

It always seemed to me that we had a mentality of "this is what we do in peacetime: in war, all bets are off".

So, I'd suggest that in fact @twentyfirstoffoot and @Caecilius might be in violent agreement here. If everyone 'knows' that peacetime H&S refs are set too stringently, then it needs to be made clear that (a) either the same rules apply or (b) another set of SOP comes into play with the ROE. But not left to junior commanders to make up on the spot, perhaps?
 
Its the same logic as an infanteer firing inside the safety angle mandated by the SASC. He slightly increased the risk of hitting his mates in exchange for killing the enemy more easily, and thereby reducing the chance of him or his mates getting shot by the enemy first.
Cock.

Safety angle prescribed by SASC is a 'training only' safety rule., governing where you point the weapon, not how you operate it.

The procedures for the safe operation of crew-served weapons - like tank main armament - apply irrespective of where the weapon is pointed.
 
A tank crew has the option of slightly increasing the risk of a turret explosion in order to raise the rate of fire and thereby reduce the risk of getting destroyed by incoming fire.
To date the only Challenger destroyed by incoming tank fire was one hit by the fire of another Challenger.

FFS, you're advocating a flapper's charter.
 
I have the feeling that the real problem here is that the coroner, under what pressure I know not, has come to a technical conclusion that it was an equipment "design fault"!

Well.. there are only so much you can do IMHO.. as the man says, and with no intention or wish to malign the dead.. "It is impossible to make things foolproof, as fools are so ingenious". This episode in my opinion comes into the same category as inspecting fuel levels with a lighter or playing Russian roulette with an automatic pistol..

And so we leap into another set of unintended consequences..
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top