Incident at Castle Martin 14-06-2017

Operational expediency is already considered within the way systems are operated.

It starts with the user pam, within this are safety regulations, these are in red. These are not to be ignored for operational expediency.

In trading there is Pam 21 for range conduct, these regulations obviously do not apply during ops.

There is also LUMAT (Limitations in Use for Missiles and Ammunition at Training). Again, not used during ops.

If you need to deviate from regulations the refer up, that’s why we have a CoC.

Undoubtedly the pams/regulations cannot cover every operational eventually and there may be an occasion where you need to deviate from those safety precautions, but this is likely to be life and death and may have to be justified after action. It is not an excuse to ignore safety precautions based on some erroneous and imagined percentage of risk.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Undoubtedly the pams/regulations cannot cover every operational eventually and there may be an occasion where you need to deviate from those safety precautions, but this is likely to be life and death and may have to be justified after action.
Well obviously. Isn't that what we're arguing about? Deciding not to follow safety regulations in a life and death situation such as a tank battle.

If you need to deviate from regulations the refer up, that’s why we have a CoC.
I'm more a fan of local commanders making appropriate decisions. If you don't have time to refer up then the usual principles of mission command apply, including knowing when not to obey an order. If you do have time then transferring the risk up the chain of command is just weak leadership in my view. If a junior commander thinks the risk is justified then he should go with it and assume the responsibility himself.
 
Well obviously. Isn't that what we're arguing about? Deciding not to follow safety regulations in a life and death situation such as a tank battle.
No, you appear to be wanting to do what you want when you want and using any excuse to justify it.

If the risk cannot be appreciated, stick to the drills.

It’s always amazed me how poor people are at understanding and assessing risk then making appropriate decisions regarding that risk.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
No, you appear to be wanting to do what you want when you want and using any excuse to justify it.
I want to do it when it will increase the risk of survival and I'm using my blokes lives as the excuse. I can't really see what's unreasonable about that.
 
I want to do it when it will increase the risk of survival and I'm using my blokes lives as the excuse. I can't really see what's unreasonable about that.
It’s unreasonable if you’re just using it as an excuse not to bother with certain drills.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Has in never occurred to you that your judgement may be flawed?

Of course not.
All judgements are inherently flawed. That doesn't mean people shouldn't make them.

It’s unreasonable if you’re just using it as an excuse not to bother with certain drills.
We can agree on that, but where on this thread had anyone argued for just not bothering with certain drills? This has been about deliberately moving away from taught drills in order to produce increased lethality when appropriate - that's very different from not bothering.
 
We can agree on that, but where on this thread had anyone argued for just not bothering with certain drills? This has been about deliberately moving away from taught drills in order to produce increased lethality when appropriate - that's very different from not bothering.
That’s what this thread is about - not bothering with certain drills.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
That’s what this thread is about - not bothering with certain drills.
No it isn't. It's about people diberately stepping away from drills to produce a faster rate of fire. Surely you can see the difference between that and not bothering?
 
As dingerr has observed, people are really bad at appreciating risk. It’s a general thing, across the population.
One instance that springs to mind is seatbelts* - people decide against wearing them by convincing themselves that they stand a better chance of being “thrown clear” and that a seatbelt will “trap” them. When you look at the stats, it’s complete horseradish. Without checking the numbers, I’m reasonably confident that there have been more people killed by airbags that are designed to work without a seatbelt than have been saved by not wearing a seatbelt, and that’s ignoring all the people killed by simply not wearing a seatbelt.

Anyway, Caecilius made some numbers up to prove his case; how does he know that they are not reversed. How does he know that his higher rate of fire does not make his crews more likely to be blown up?


* in civilian cars, although that doesn’t mean that it is untrue of military vehicles.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
No it isn't. It's about people diberately stepping away from drills to produce a faster rate of fire. Surely you can see the difference between that and not bothering?
It’s one and the same thing. Stop being facetious.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
how do you know that a faster rate of fire with improper drills isn’t more risky than a slower rate of fire with proper drills?
Ask Admiral Beatty, or the crews of Indefatigable, Queen Mary and Invincible, who made that tradeoff (less safety procedures, more rate of fire) for reasons that doubtless seemed good at the time.
 
So he simply transfers the pain further down the chain then doesn't he?




A bit like Sgt Roberts then, except it wasn't his choice Victory for widow as MoD held to account over death of soldier
Of course he passes it down the chain who the **** wants to be responsible for a subordinate deciding to take a risk?
Sgt Roberts was killed because the stupid cnuts in charge of the supply chain would rather their soldiers looked ally rather than actually being any good at their job.
 
No, that was stacker1, apologies.

However, I think that the point should still be considered; how do you know that a faster rate of fire with improper drills isn’t more risky than a slower rate of fire with proper drills?
It was me who made up the figures which is what someone on the ground will do in an emergency. Do they obey the rules which is more risky (in their opinion) than not obeying them.
 
It was me who made up the figures which is what someone on the ground will do in an emergency. Do they obey the rules which is more risky (in their opinion) than not obeying them.
Isn’t that what training is for? Help identify what is or isn’t an emergency and how to act appropriately?
For a parallel, what stops an infantryman switching to automatic and emptying his magazine in a contact?
 
Isn’t that what training is for? Help identify what is or isn’t an emergency and how to act appropriately?
For a parallel, what stops an infantryman switching to automatic and emptying his magazine in a contact?
If it's his honest belief it's safer for him to do that than what he's been taught he probably will.
No training is ever going to be like the real thing. Especially as the MOD become more risk averse.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top