Incident at Castle Martin 14-06-2017

. . . because it is forbidden, for good reason, and no competent commander would override that restriction, would seem to be the logical thing here.
It may be forbidden, but that doesn’t stop people doing things they shouldn’t.
 
Can you help us out with the difference between 'error of drill' and 'error in drill?' I was told once but 'twas donkey's years ago...
You had to bloody well ask!

Error in drill means the drill written in a publication is found to be a contributing factor of the incident.

Error of drill means the user has conducted the drill contrary to what is written down.

(I think it’s that way round).
 
You had to bloody well ask!

Error in drill means the drill written in a publication is found to be a contributing factor of the incident.

Error of drill means the user has conducted the drill contrary to what is written down.

(I think it’s that way round).
WOT WE SAID!
 
From the Lancashire Post, dated 03 July 18

Preston soldier died in explosion in tank while on training exercise

Mr Briggs, presenting a "suspected sequence of events", said as they prepared the gun for firing, a display unit on the loader's guard inside the turret would have shown a "red light" as the BVA was not fitted, preventing firing.

He said Cpl Hatfield "would have followed correct procedure", by manually fitting another piece of equipment - the tube vent electric (TVE).

Mr Briggs added: "As TVE has been fitted manually, it would have shown a green light.

"As there was no BVA, there would be no gas tight seal and the force of the bag charge would have come back into the turret."

I'm confused.
 
From the Lancashire Post, dated 03 July 18

Preston soldier died in explosion in tank while on training exercise

Mr Briggs, presenting a "suspected sequence of events", said as they prepared the gun for firing, a display unit on the loader's guard inside the turret would have shown a "red light" as the BVA was not fitted, preventing firing.

He said Cpl Hatfield "would have followed correct procedure", by manually fitting another piece of equipment - the tube vent electric (TVE).

Mr Briggs added: "As TVE has been fitted manually, it would have shown a green light.

"As there was no BVA, there would be no gas tight seal and the force of the bag charge would have come back into the turret."

I'm confused.
You are not alone in that, unless the complete circuit is made then in theory the gun will not fire!
Loading a vent tube manually seems to have some how closed the circuit, I would love to sit down with the idiots who approved this system for service, also to meet the gunnery instructors who gave the first instructions to crews while seemingly being unaware of a major safety flaw in the equipment.
 
That’s not what you stated.

The BVA was not fitted. - Equipment fault.

Charge bags were not stored correctly - error of drill.

There were other failings, but these were the main two that contributed to the deaths and VSI.
T

The Bolt Vent Axial must have been fitted.. I suspect it was the annular seal that was not...

The BVA looks a bit like a mushroom or a car inlet valve with a hole down the middle for the flash from the tube to get to the base of the charge. It sits horizontally in a hole in the front of the upper breech block and goes through the block from the breech face to the tube lock on the back of the block. The front face of the BVA forms the rear face of the gun chamber when the breech is closed. The BVA is loose in the top block and sits in a flexible seal that expands when the gun fires sealing the breech. The tube that fires the gun fits in the back of the BVA and is connected to the front face of the BVA by the vent.. It is impossible to fire the gun without the BVA because that is what holds the tube (primer)...
 
I'm confused. If the BVA wasn't fitted, which it seems it wasn't, how was the vent tube loaded which locates inside the BVA?

In the link I posted above the witness claims a red light would show if the BVA is absent, preventing the gun from firing. He then says manually loading a vent tube gives a green light so now the gun can fire.

So obviously a vent tube can actually be loaded without a BVA in place, which overrides at the least the red light, and possibly any safety preventing the gun from firing.

I'm bearing in mind this witness is Police not Army,
 
You are not alone in that, unless the complete circuit is made then in theory the gun will not fire!
Loading a vent tube manually seems to have some how closed the circuit, I would love to sit down with the idiots who approved this system for service, also to meet the gunnery instructors who gave the first instructions to crews while seemingly being unaware of a major safety flaw in the equipment.
Is the word 'manually' of any significance here? Would the vent tube normally be loaded manually and described as such?
 
T

The Bolt Vent Axial must have been fitted.. I suspect it was the annular seal that was not...

The BVA looks a bit like a mushroom or a car inlet valve with a hole down the middle for the flash from the tube to get to the base of the charge. It sits horizontally in a hole in the front of the upper breech block and goes through the block from the breech face to the tube lock on the back of the block. The front face of the BVA forms the rear face of the gun chamber when the breech is closed. The BVA is loose in the top block and sits in a flexible seal that expands when the gun fires sealing the breech. The tube that fires the gun fits in the back of the BVA and is connected to the front face of the BVA by the vent.. It is impossible to fire the gun without the BVA because that is what holds the tube (primer)...
Pass then. I was at Shriv last year when the PAD report was released, I didn’t get to read it, but the SAT said the BVA was not fitted.

More recently I spoke to Stu Lawson, who also said the BVA wasn’t fitted.

I can’t offer an alternative explanation as I’m not familiar with the equipment.
 
Interesting post so I'll try to answer your points in rough order.



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.



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.



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.
1st round hit .. 5 auto at 1400 meters all hit..
 
Pass then. I was at Shriv last year when the PAD report was released, I didn’t get to read it, but the SAT said the BVA was not fitted.

More recently I spoke to Stu Lawson, who also said the BVA wasn’t fitted.

I can’t offer an alternative explanation as I’m not familiar with the equipment.
Curiouser and curiouser..!

I will consult with "friends in the West Country" and get back to you..
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
You agree that it’s not answerable, but you still want to pursue an answer.

Beggars belief.
Eh?

The first question (if you know it makes survival more likely) is not only answerable but should be answered the same way by any rational person. The second question (only if you believe it makes it more likely) isn't easily answerable, which is entirely the point I'm making.

Anyway, the thread appears to have moved on and nobody seems willing to discuss this honestly so I'll leave it there.
 
Last edited:
I'm confused. If the BVA wasn't fitted, which it seems it wasn't, how was the vent tube loaded which locates inside the BVA?

In the link I posted above the witness claims a red light would show if the BVA is absent, preventing the gun from firing. He then says manually loading a vent tube gives a green light so now the gun can fire.

So obviously a vent tube can actually be loaded without a BVA in place, which overrides at the least the red light, and possibly any safety preventing the gun from firing.

I'm bearing in mind this witness is Police not Army,
Not totally familiar with the equipment but looking back to previous breeches/circuits ref vent tubes, it was and I presume still is an auto load from the vent tube magazine to the gun, if for some reason the tube had not been loaded the loader would report "rammer out" no vent tube and carry out the very quick drill to load one manually, after that engagement if time allows he would then check vent tube alignment ( providing you are not in the middle of a gunfight)

He could then continue loading manually until time was available to check alignments, magazines for damage etc.

We have a police witness and the guest crew member giving these statements about the circumstances! I cannot source any diagrams or schematics for the breech /gun interface but I am truly confused as to how a firing circuit was made without the BVA, I suspect it was fitted but the seal was not.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I’ve never been in the turret of a Chally 2, but isn’t there a breech shield that has to be pulled across before firing?
Yes. It's the last part of the loading sequence and completes the firing circuit. If the gunner already has his aim then he may already have the firing switch depressed while the loading sequence competes so that firing is initiated by the shield being pulled across.

From its placement in the turret (not sure if anyone can find a photo) it wouldn't stop hot gases escaping from any possible exit route though so I'd be surprised if there was a deliberate decision to allow it to be fired without a BVA on the assumption that the shield would catch it. Even if the charge bags weren't out for this incident the loader almost certainly would still have been badly injured.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
As I said earlier I am totally bewildered as to how this culture seems to have been allowed to creep in to the training regime, for a Lt Col' to state that he was not aware is unbelievable, he has a regimental gunnery officer, he has a regimental gunnery SNCO there would be gunner mech's in each squadron as well as regimental gunnery instructors, to think that every man jack of them has been brain washed into thinking that these "new drills" were authorised leaves me speechless.
I'm certain they will have known that the drill isn't authorised and those doing it will have known that it's a shortcut. In those circumstances it's entirely possible that the CO would be unaware of it happening.
 
Eh?

The first question (if you know it makes survival more likely) is not only answerable but should be answered the same way by any rational person. The second question (only if you believe it makes it more likely) isn't easily answerable, which is entirely the point I'm making.

Anyway, the thread appears to have moved on so I'll leave it there.
Different people make different decisions, it’s not down to rationality.

You are, at best, guessing. I’ve been there, done it and have the scars to prove it. I’ve also investigated many poor decisions and yet you continue to argue.

Just accept that your attempts to justify a cowboy attitude have been met with the derision it deserves. It’s simple, stick to the drills and you can’t go far wrong.
 
I'm certain they will have known that the drill isn't authorised and those doing it will have known that it's a shortcut. In those circumstances it's entirely possible that the CO would be unaware of it happening.
He should be exercising proper C2 to ensure such things don’t happen. It’s a simple concept.
 
Is investigation into this CR2 incident now complete and public?

I used to work with the partner of one of the dead crew, so I have a special interest.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top