Large EOD find

Nobody died
so a good result all round
any one that complains should be quite sternly told to go and F*** themselves, or take it up with Hermann Goering

Yes, there is that, but other principles are protect property and return the situation to normality as soon as possible.

My thought process here is in no way a criticism of the EOD teams performance or EOD policy and principles in the UK - they more than serve their purpose well.
 

HE117

LE
There have been a series of render safe procedures uing d against aircraft bombs over the years since the 1940s. What was done was based on a number of factors relevant at the time..

The initial approach was to defuze the bomb manually by extracting the fuze and then removing the bomb in a filled condition. The early series electrical fuzes were fairly easy to neutralise by shorting out the contacts, although this was quickly changes. Neutralising fuzes by injecting discharging fluid was still carried out in later fuzes. The bombs and fuzes were however all in a new state and in predictable condition.

As the war progressed, more anti handling features were added and long delay mechanisms used. This led to the use of remote fuze removal techniques and clock stopping and neutralising techniques. Towards the end of the war, and in the immediate post war period there was an indication that some of the bomb fillings were deteriorating. The Germans were getting short of good explosives and were filling bombs with low grade mining explosives such as gelignite. This was subject to breakdown and sweating nitroglycerine even after a few years.

In instances where it was difficult to extract fuzes, an alternative technique was developed where a hole was cut in the casing and the filling was extracted by the use of steam. This would work on conventional TNT fillings and some low grade ones. although there was always a chance of premature detonation if unstable compounds were present.

It has to be acknowledged that any surviving WW2 bomb are now reaching eighty years old, and whilst TNT filling would probably not be in too bad a state, the compounds in the fuze detonators and boosters and their containers however are an entirely different kettle of fish.

The last point is that the system is far less willing to take risks than it was in the past. The willingness to spend money rather than risk life is very high, and unless there are very pressing needs to recover items for evidence, the policy line is to mitigate and blow in situ.
 
The last point is that the system is far less willing to take risks than it was in the past. The willingness to spend money rather than risk life is very high, and unless there are very pressing needs to recover items for evidence, the policy line is to mitigate and blow in situ.
No win, No Fee lawyers are a modern innovation and they are circling every professional and tradesman like a flock of vultures. All those law school graduates have to be kept in employment at someone's expense.
 
....What could we do better? Especially in terms of mitigation, water tamping? Foam?

I wondered if Hesco bastion could be produced using none metallic frames in order to build a traverse?

Interesting question. Plenty of suitable polymer products available. Don't know if any are used to make bags, but wouldn't the standard one-ton woven bag do the same thing? Easily available, used successfully for something slightly different at Toddbrook reservoir.
1614550031002.png
1614550314531.png
 
There have been a series of render safe procedures uing d against aircraft bombs over the years since the 1940s. What was done was based on a number of factors relevant at the time..

The initial approach was to defuze the bomb manually by extracting the fuze and then removing the bomb in a filled condition. The early series electrical fuzes were fairly easy to neutralise by shorting out the contacts, although this was quickly changes. Neutralising fuzes by injecting discharging fluid was still carried out in later fuzes. The bombs and fuzes were however all in a new state and in predictable condition.

As the war progressed, more anti handling features were added and long delay mechanisms used. This led to the use of remote fuze removal techniques and clock stopping and neutralising techniques. Towards the end of the war, and in the immediate post war period there was an indication that some of the bomb fillings were deteriorating. The Germans were getting short of good explosives and were filling bombs with low grade mining explosives such as gelignite. This was subject to breakdown and sweating nitroglycerine even after a few years.

In instances where it was difficult to extract fuzes, an alternative technique was developed where a hole was cut in the casing and the filling was extracted by the use of steam. This would work on conventional TNT fillings and some low grade ones. although there was always a chance of premature detonation if unstable compounds were present.

It has to be acknowledged that any surviving WW2 bomb are now reaching eighty years old, and whilst TNT filling would probably not be in too bad a state, the compounds in the fuze detonators and boosters and their containers however are an entirely different kettle of fish.

The last point is that the system is far less willing to take risks than it was in the past. The willingness to spend money rather than risk life is very high, and unless there are very pressing needs to recover items for evidence, the policy line is to mitigate and blow in situ.

Happy with that and I’ve never been a fan of alternative techniques as you have to mitigate for high order. I was thinking more about mitigation and support on the ground.

Could we make better use of the RE and have them construct effective traverses? I’m sure the RE wouldn’t mind replacing a combat engineering Tp under the command of an RLC Lt Col.

Let’s go old school and try a little ingenuity, experiment with different materials.

It’s not always easy being a two person team on what eventually turns out to be quite a big job, knowing what you want, but not confident you’ll get anywhere near it.
 

Cromarty

War Hero
Disappointingly it appears the explosion has created a bit of a mess and some inconvenience to the locals.


It’s reported the bomb was contained in a ‘400 tonne box of sand‘ and the video shows quite clearly sandbags being launched, but also quite a bit of hard debris (sounded like stones to me).

@HE117, @rickshaw-major and anyone involved in EOD. Whilst the teams on the ground did an excellent job, they will always face the difficulties of not being able to pick the ideal location, ground, weather and a number of other factors that ideally we would do to make explosive demolitions as safe as possible and as such there will be the inevitable collateral damage as reported on and seen in the video.

What could we do better? Especially in terms of mitigation, water tamping? Foam?

I wondered if Hesco bastion could be produced using none metallic frames in order to build a traverse?

But on the bright side, the Army will get the blame and not the Navy.
 
But on the bright side, the Army will get the blame and not the Navy.

It’s immaterial, these things happen with large munitions in built up areas. The Army or MoD don’t pay any compensation, that’s down to Police and local Government, after all it is their problem, we are just helping them.
 

HE117

LE
Happy with that and I’ve never been a fan of alternative techniques as you have to mitigate for high order. I was thinking more about mitigation and support on the ground.

Could we make better use of the RE and have them construct effective traverses? I’m sure the RE wouldn’t mind replacing a combat engineering Tp under the command of an RLC Lt Col.

Let’s go old school and try a little ingenuity, experiment with different materials.

It’s not always easy being a two person team on what eventually turns out to be quite a big job, knowing what you want, but not confident you’ll get anywhere near it.
I suspect the reality is that there is not enough of these incidents to warrant much attention being paid to further investment. You also have to understand that the corporate knowledge and understanding of these subjects in the higher echelons of the system is fading, and the confidence to sanction RSPs is not present.

I have to say that much of this is down to the process of breeding out technical competence in the officer cohort and the policy of leaving such matters to senior ranks (..which was a very RCT way of operating!). Whilst SATs should and do have influence on the ground, this corporate knowledge is not necessarily retained and reflected in the higher echelons of the command structure. We do need to have individuals with good technical judgement and influence up to at least 1/2 star level. This has, regrettably not been happening. We have been content to keep selected LE in positions of power for far too long, which has had the effect of fire gapping this capability.

The transfer of much of the ammunition empire to DE & S has however been the really fatal move in terms of technical capability. The loss of senior military posts, which were the proper breeding grounds for armaments knowledge has been profound, replaced by an increasingly incompetent and ignorant civilian staff with an entirely separate agenda.
 

Cromarty

War Hero
It’s immaterial, these things happen with large munitions in built up areas. The Army or MoD don’t pay any compensation, that’s down to Police and local Government, after all it is their problem, we are just helping them.

I know. I was just adding to the Army stealing Navy glory thing.

Guess I'm just not as funny as i thought......sob....
 
There have been a series of render safe procedures uing d against aircraft bombs over the years since the 1940s. What was done was based on a number of factors relevant at the time..

The initial approach was to defuze the bomb manually by extracting the fuze and then removing the bomb in a filled condition. The early series electrical fuzes were fairly easy to neutralise by shorting out the contacts, although this was quickly changes. Neutralising fuzes by injecting discharging fluid was still carried out in later fuzes. The bombs and fuzes were however all in a new state and in predictable condition.

As the war progressed, more anti handling features were added and long delay mechanisms used. This led to the use of remote fuze removal techniques and clock stopping and neutralising techniques. Towards the end of the war, and in the immediate post war period there was an indication that some of the bomb fillings were deteriorating. The Germans were getting short of good explosives and were filling bombs with low grade mining explosives such as gelignite. This was subject to breakdown and sweating nitroglycerine even after a few years.

In instances where it was difficult to extract fuzes, an alternative technique was developed where a hole was cut in the casing and the filling was extracted by the use of steam. This would work on conventional TNT fillings and some low grade ones. although there was always a chance of premature detonation if unstable compounds were present.

It has to be acknowledged that any surviving WW2 bomb are now reaching eighty years old, and whilst TNT filling would probably not be in too bad a state, the compounds in the fuze detonators and boosters and their containers however are an entirely different kettle of fish.

The last point is that the system is far less willing to take risks than it was in the past. The willingness to spend money rather than risk life is very high, and unless there are very pressing needs to recover items for evidence, the policy line is to mitigate and blow in situ.

That's what happens when you only allow RLC Officers to play with ammo for a few years before moving them on and having a greater emphasise on pushing trucks about.

I know of a few ATOs who have tried to stay within ammo with no success and left the Army as a result.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
That's what happens when you only allow RLC Officers to play with ammo for a few years before moving them on and having a greater emphasise on pushing trucks about.

I know of a few ATOs who have tried to stay within ammo with no success and left the Army as a result.
I couldn't agree more - but it was RAOC senior officers that allowed it to happen - and to be further propagated. What's surprising is that some of them were undoubtedly ATOs.
 
Water tamping was trialled at SHB in 1994 by an extremely competent, very handsome and thoroughly likeable chap :cool: :cool: . It is highly effective at reducing fragment/secondary spoil throw. Par example we detonated a 155mm HE M107 in a properly constructed fragmentation arena including fragment velocity analyser screens. 40cm of water stopped ALL fragment except the base which struck the VAS at 90m/s. I also know that a DELLEX water suppression system was used when they attacked an RAF 2000lb bomb in one of Saddams palaces. So water suppression is highly effective but may have deployability difficulties. It was never taken seriously by then then DLSA. See @HE117 post above for the reasons why.

Why they don't use 1 tonne bags filled with sand I don't know. We used them regularly at SHB.

NB All of the above methods need training.
 

HCL

LE
Nothing unusual about that, you bastards have been taking the credit for our gallant deeds for centuries. We are the silent service after all.

Here, have free bar of soap as compo. No need to thank me, the rest of the world will. Sun dodgers, more like soap dodgers.
 
As a matter of interest, I looked up the exclusions on a home insurance policy.

We won’t pay for:
War; any consequence whatsoever which is the direct, or indirect result of any of the following, or anything connected with any of the following, whether or not such consequence has been contributed to by any other cause or event: war, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or a warlike operation or operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war, mutiny, rebellion, revolution, military rising, insurrection, civil commotion assuming the proportions of or amounting to an uprising, military or usurped power.

It seems that the insurers could refuse to pay out for damage to a house caused by a UXB going off. Whether they would refuse to pay out is another question. The clause was probably intended to stop the insurers being bankrupted by widespread destruction from another Blitz or WW3.
 

HE117

LE
The shrapnel would kill thousands though if it did go.
There was a little publicised development project in RARDE to produce a bio degradable claymore utilising the unique properties of cookhouse fried bread.

I was all going well until someone found the relevant sub paragraph in the Haig protocols!

Oops!
 
There was a little publicised development project in RARDE to produce a bio degradable claymore utilising the unique properties of cookhouse fried bread.

I was all going well until someone found the relevant sub paragraph in the Haig protocols!

Oops!
also compo ration Oatmeal Blocks.
 

Latest Threads

Top