Incident at Castle Martin 14-06-2017

If it's his honest belief it's safer for him to do that than what he's been taught he probably will.
So why bother training? He'll do as he pleases anyway?
No training is ever going to be like the real thing. Especially as the MOD become more risk averse.
Very true, although it would still be the case if the MoD was completely uncaring and allowed to get away with it.
So if training is unrealistic, and you'll quite happily accept all and sundry chinning off drills that they don't care for, why train? Why have accepted drills?
 
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?
Interesting comment on a faster rate of fire vs risk, and raises a few points.

Caecilius contends that there circumstances in which he considers the risk worth taking, what are the circumstances and what are the time savings and how are they made?

At the moment the contention is that the time saved is by "alternative" charge stowage. Is this true? HESH charges in the Cmdrs lap may save a couple of seconds but what about APFSDS charges is it possible to sit with one or more in your lap and still command the tank effectively? Has this been trialled in whatever simulator is now used and shown to give sufficient time savings to be worth the risk? Are we in the realms of chasing a perceived time saving that does not exist started by the pursuit of 3 or more HESH rounds in the air.

What type of engagement requires time saving over accuracy, If the threat level is high and requires a high rate of fire then is a kinetic engagement the priority where it may not be possible to shorten the loading sequence due to the difficulty in finding "alternative" charge stowage. If the threat is of a lower nature then accuracy may take priority, if so is the risk worth taking in these circumstances?

What other ways are available to make time savings within the loading and firing sequence if any, and do the present sequences actually negate any time savings made by the "alternative" stowage?

Just a few thoughts on the time saving subject, I do not claim to be correct or have any particular insight into this subject but I do have an interest in the subject so if anyone has any answers/thoughts to the questions posed it especially anyone who has crewed CR2 I would welcome your comments.
 
Let’s face it, this isn’t about operational expediency, this is about people showing off.
 
So why bother training? He'll do as he pleases anyway?

Very true, although it would still be the case if the MoD was completely uncaring and allowed to get away with it.
So if training is unrealistic, and you'll quite happily accept all and sundry chinning off drills that they don't care for, why train? Why have accepted drills?
You train for most events, if the Russians hordes are swarming towards you, you would probably switch to auto.

Do you have trouble reading? People will chin off drill if they think the risk is worth it. Not because they dont like the drill.
Do you want to inform the paras that they are shit because they chose not to wear body armour? Or do you want to accept that sometimes the answer isnt in the big book of rules?
 
Do you want to inform the paras that they are shit because they chose not to wear body armour? Or do you want to accept that sometimes the answer isnt in the big book of rules?
That’s not the individual deciding that, it’s the CO or higher.

Besides that, it’s a very poor choice of scenario, it’s not even a drill.
 
That’s not the individual deciding that, it’s the CO or higher.

Besides that, it’s a very poor choice of scenario, it’s not even a drill.
Its a safety feature that was binned because it was deemed to be more risky.
 
Do you have trouble reading? People will chin off drill if they think the risk is worth it. Not because they dont like the drill.
I’m proposing an alternative way of looking what you wrote to the way you intend it to be read, because that alternate view can be inferred from the scenario that you present.
The people don’t like the drills because they feel* that it slows them down. So they are chinning off drills because they don’t like them and rationalising it as “being worth the risk”. I’m not convinced that the risk/benefit has been properly considered, much less quantified.

You train for most events, if the Russians hordes are swarming towards you, you would probably switch to auto.
Do you train for firing on auto?

* without any kind of quantification, it seems.
 
Its a safety feature that was binned because it was deemed to be more risky.
It’s not the same as we are discussing here. It falls into the same area as dispensing with ECM or dispensing with an EOD suit. It’s a decision made way before the actual event.

This is about circumventing establishes safety drills that protect the individual, those around them and equipment.
 
I’m proposing an alternative way of looking what you wrote to the way you intend it to be read, because that alternate view can be inferred from the scenario that you present.
The people don’t like the drills because they feel* that it slows them down. So they are chinning off drills because they don’t like them and rationalising it as “being worth the risk”. I’m not convinced that the risk/benefit has been properly considered, much less quantified.


Do you train for firing on auto?

* without any kind of quantification, it seems.
Soldiers have been ignoring drills in an effort to be faster/safer than the ****** trying to kill him since armies have existed.
When it goes right they are bally heroes when it goes tits up the outrage mob is out in force.

The last time I can remember fireing on auto with live ammo on training was when I acting as a grenadier in a section attack.
 
And what hordes of enemies were at Castle Martin ranges that day?
 
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?
Discipline and morale: adherence to well taught drills ingrained from day one; good leadership and the example of his peers remaining steady under fire.

Next question
 
Last edited:
It’s not the same as we are discussing here. It falls into the same area as dispensing with ECM or dispensing with an EOD suit. It’s a decision made way before the actual event.

This is about circumventing establishes safety drills that protect the individual, those around them and equipment.
Thay wasnt what i was answering twentyfirstoffoot said something along the lines of training should be the same as ops (I'm on my phone so I can't be arsed cutting and pasting it).
Drills may cover most events it's highly unlikely they can possible cover every event. I have no idea how things work in the tank world but if ignoring a drill meant the difference between me firing a round into the enemies tank before he fired one into mine, I'd probably take the risk.
 
Thay wasnt what i was answering twentyfirstoffoot said something along the lines of training should be the same as ops (I'm on my phone so I can't be arsed cutting and pasting it).
Drills may cover most events it's highly unlikely they can possible cover every event. I have no idea how things work in the tank world but if ignoring a drill meant the difference between me firing a round into the enemies tank before he fired one into mine, I'd probably take the risk.
Fair enough.
 
Soldiers have been ignoring drills in an effort to be faster/safer than the ****** trying to kill him since armies have existed.
When it goes right they are bally heroes when it goes tits up the outrage mob is out in force.
Strikes me that it would always be better to identify what the short-cuts are and address:
1) are they actually a benefit?
2) what risk do they pose and can it be mitigated without compromising the benefit?
3) are the users aware of the risks and benefits in a rational and quantified way?
Rather than just giving out carte blanche for the users to chin off drills and do whatever they like the moment someone starts shooting at them.
To draw a parallel to antiquity, you might stand a better, short term and personal, chance if you break a shield wall to strike at an enemy, but you'd be trained not to because it would put your mates at unacceptable risk.
The last time I can remember fireing on auto with live ammo on training was when I acting as a grenadier in a section attack.
But you were trained to do it.
Not like putting a matchstick into the mechanism of a SLR.
 
Here's hoping he has one up the spout of his personal , safety catch off, finger on the trigger and the barrel pointed at the back of your head while you are travelling across rough ground, ' just in case he feels the need to dismount and engage in a bit of hand to hand.
Dig around on this site, and you'll find the boy wonder arguing that the simple rule that you should never point a weapon at another person, unless you intend killing them, is an unnecessary precaution :)
 
Strikes me that it would always be better to identify what the short-cuts are and address:
1) are they actually a benefit?
2) what risk do they pose and can it be mitigated without compromising the benefit?
3) are the users aware of the risks and benefits in a rational and quantified way?
Rather than just giving out carte blanche for the users to chin off drills and do whatever they like the moment someone starts shooting at them.
To draw a parallel to antiquity, you might stand a better, short term and personal, chance if you break a shield wall to strike at an enemy, but you'd be trained not to because it would put your mates at unacceptable risk.

But you were trained to do it.
Not like putting a matchstick into the mechanism of a SLR.
It strikes me as there are far to many scenarios in a conflict that the bumper book of rules can cover. You don't have the luxury of time when shit hits the fan.
Better to tried by 12 than carried by six as the saying goes.

I was trained in one scenario. A scenario where i wasn't in any real danger and it didn't really matter what I did the worse that would happen is the instructor would boot me in the head if it looked like i would **** up. Not quite like that on Ops.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Dig around on this site, and you'll find the boy wonder arguing that the simple rule that you should never point a weapon at another person, unless you intend killing them, is an unnecessary precaution :)
Good point. Work occasionally pays me to point a weapon and fire it at my mates with a magazine full of paint rounds, so 'never point a weapon at anyone' is an excellent example of a safety rule that doesn't always apply. Thanks for the support!
 
Last edited:

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Interesting comment on a faster rate of fire vs risk, and raises a few points.
Interesting post so I'll try to answer your points in rough order.

At the moment the contention is that the time saved is by "alternative" charge stowage. Is this true? HESH charges in the Cmdrs lap may save a couple of seconds but what about APFSDS charges is it possible to sit with one or more in your lap and still command the tank effectively?
I think the thing about it being stored in someone's lap is a one off. The charge bags on the day were lined up on the floor, which is how I've heard of it being done on TELIC 1 and that does increase rate of fire. I'm not really sure what a round was doing on a commanders lap at any stage because that can't be any faster to reach than the correct stowage.

this been trialled in whatever simulator is now used and shown to give sufficient time savings to be worth the risk?
Almost certainly not and it's not an official drill in any way. But define something being worth the risk. It's highly scenario dependent and can only be (badly) judged on the day.

What type of engagement requires time saving over accuracy, If the threat level is high and requires a high rate of fire then is a kinetic engagement the priority where it may not be possible to shorten the loading sequence due to the difficulty in finding "alternative" charge stowage. If the threat is of a lower nature then accuracy may take priority, if so is the risk worth taking in these circumstances?
Multiple targets in the open or firing on the move could necessitate a higher rate of fire. Most of the time you're going to want accuracy and the taught drills will give you a more than adequate rate of fire. There are clear circumstances such as charging at an enemy tank troop, or where you've been flanked, where a high rate of fire is justified. Even scimitar teaches rapid fire as a drill and you can't hit anything with six rounds of auto from one of those.
 
It’s not the same as we are discussing here. It falls into the same area as dispensing with ECM or dispensing with an EOD suit. It’s a decision made way before the actual event.

This is about circumventing establishes safety drills that protect the individual, those around them and equipment.
I think you’re spot on

It’s classic human factors stuff that applies in numerous industries/areas - I spent a lot of time doing ‘adverse incident’ investigations and it was always the same pattern of poor training, pressure of workload (often needlessly) and lack of supervision.

There are always going to be circumstances where safety drills might be circumvented when absolutley necessary - but there is an inherent risk in doing this. The vitally important thing is people understanding at a really deep level that increased risk, and taking a conscious decision to divert away from the drills out of absolute necessity.

Whereas what we really know is that this shit slips in because one of the old and bold shows the crow a shortcut that allows you to get three rounds off quicker, and within a few years everyone’s doing it all the time as long as nobody is watching.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top