Post by: crt360 on August 20, 2008, 12:09:05 PM
(August 19, 2008)Four civilian workers were sent to a Gatesville hospital after an artillery shell fell short of an impact area where troops were training at Fort Hood.
Maj. Jay Adams of III Corps said an artillery unit was conducting training when the round fell just short of the impact area near the Brookhaven Range Complex around 4 p.m. last Thursday.
The four civilians, who were not seriously hurt, were treated and later released, Adams said.
We simply don't know for certainty what happened, Adams said.
Adams said two investigations have been launched, one that will focus mainly on safety issues and the second by the chain of command to determine if there was any negligence.
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/27152179.html
Early reports indicate involvement by a soldier only identified as PFC Fistful.
image added for 41magsnub
Post by: Manedwolf on August 20, 2008, 12:11:22 PM
Quote
We simply don't know for certainty what happened, Adams said.
I would suspect it was a direct result of someone being bad at math.
Post by: 41magsnub on August 20, 2008, 12:11:25 PM
Post by: crt360 on August 20, 2008, 12:26:17 PM
If it was artillery why is there a picture of a Bradley Stinger Vehicle launching a Stinger SAM? As an aside.. didn't that whole program die? Edit: NVM, that is an M6 linebacker which replaced the BSV since the BSV had a bunch of short comings.
Probably editorial choice of picture. I'll try to find something more appropriate. 
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 20, 2008, 12:33:51 PM
Early reports indicate involvement by a soldier only identified as PFC Fistful.
Just to set the record straight:
My unit at Hood might have totaled two parked Apaches at Bradley gunnery (one of them a Longbow), but NO ONE WAS HURT.
Post by: Dannyboy on August 20, 2008, 05:18:32 PM
Quote
We simply don't know for certainty what happened, Adams said.
I would suspect it was a direct result of someone being bad at math.
Post by: seeker_two on August 20, 2008, 05:41:57 PM
Early reports indicate involvement by a soldier only identified as PFC Fistful.
Just to set the record straight:
My unit at Hood might have totaled two parked Apaches at Bradley gunnery (one of them a Longbow), but NO ONE WAS HURT.
....that is, until the company CO arrived.....
Post by: Antibubba on August 20, 2008, 08:04:12 PM
WTF?
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 20, 2008, 08:20:32 PM
I don't know if it would be normal to lob artillery over occupied area, or not, at least in training. That wasn't my field. But artillery is usually indirect fire (not line of sight) so, strictly speaking, they would not have been between the gun and the target.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 20, 2008, 08:33:34 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 20, 2008, 08:57:40 PM
The ranges at Fort Hood are operated by civilians, usually ex-military.
I don't know if it would be normal to lob artillery over occupied area, or not, at least in training. That wasn't my field. But artillery is usually indirect fire (not line of sight) so, strictly speaking, they would not have been between the gun and the target.
We used to borrow time on the rifle range at an army base outside of Indianapolis for use in high power matches. It wasn't uncommon to hear artillery shells flying overhead during the middle of a match. It seems that the base was small enough that artillery practice consisted of a firing from one corner of the base and aiming at a target on the diagonally opposite corner of the base. That meant that shells were being lobbed over most of the (thoroughly occupied) base.
I don't know if it would be normal to lob artillery over occupied area, or not, at least in training. That wasn't my field. But artillery is usually indirect fire (not line of sight) so, strictly speaking, they would not have been between the gun and the target.
Post by: Regolith on August 21, 2008, 12:27:29 AM
The ranges at Fort Hood are operated by civilians, usually ex-military.
I don't know if it would be normal to lob artillery over occupied area, or not, at least in training. That wasn't my field. But artillery is usually indirect fire (not line of sight) so, strictly speaking, they would not have been between the gun and the target.
We used to borrow time on the rifle range at an army base outside of Indianapolis for use in high power matches. It wasn't uncommon to hear artillery shells flying overhead during the middle of a match. It seems that the base was small enough that artillery practice consisted of a firing from one corner of the base and aiming at a target on the diagonally opposite corner of the base. That meant that shells were being lobbed over most of the (thoroughly occupied) base.I don't know if it would be normal to lob artillery over occupied area, or not, at least in training. That wasn't my field. But artillery is usually indirect fire (not line of sight) so, strictly speaking, they would not have been between the gun and the target.
They should just send all the artillery folks out to Nevada for training. We got a firing range there big enough for nuclear warheads, with no civilian populations nearby to worry about should the artillery rounds fall short, and a series of mountain ranges that provide one heck of a backstop.
Post by: Dannyboy on August 21, 2008, 02:53:09 AM
They should just send all the artillery folks out to Nevada for training. We got a firing range there big enough for nuclear warheads, with no civilian populations nearby to worry about should the artillery rounds fall short, and a series of mountain ranges that provide one heck of a backstop.
We went to White Sands instead. Just as much room without the heebie jeebies.Another possibility for what happened is that the gunner might have input the firing data incorrectly. Either the grid, azimuth, or maybe the metro data. Now, I'm going off of MLRS fire control but the Paladin is very similar.
Post by: HankB on August 21, 2008, 03:20:19 AM
He told me that once the artillery guys there got their directions mixed up and fired a round into town, 180 degrees away from the target.
Shell hit a big empty field, and only one civilian was injured from shrapnel.
Story was, the commander of the battery(?) was demoted and reassigned to Alaska . . .
Post by: Paragon on August 21, 2008, 03:30:47 AM
Post by: Scout26 on August 21, 2008, 10:00:15 AM
(we could also watch them shoot teh various Tank Tables on range 35.)We had two former battery commanders serving as OIC's of the Golf course. One after his FDC computed weather data at like 3am and they didn't shoot until 3pm. Rounds impacted off post in a farmers field.
The other had his one of his FO's announce over the radio "DID NOT OBSERVE, REPEAT". While Range 4 (100m Rifle Range) was screaming (in a very panicky voice) on the Range Control freq "CEASE FIRE, CEASE FIRE, THIS IS RANGE 4, I HAVE ROUNDS IMPACTING ON MY RANGE, CEASE FIRE!!!! CEASE FIRE!!!!" That was bad math on computing the charge. I remember CID joking that "They forget to carry to the one."
And yep this was back in late '80's early '90's. We had German Civilians that worked the ranges. (Target setup, maintenance, etc.)
Post by: Manedwolf on August 21, 2008, 10:02:10 AM
The other had his one of his FO's announce over the radio "DID NOT OBSERVE, REPEAT". While Range 4 (100m Rifle Range) was screaming (in a very panicky voice) on the Range Control freq "CEASE FIRE, CEASE FIRE, THIS IS RANGE 4, I HAVE ROUNDS IMPACTING ON MY RANGE, CEASE FIRE!!!! CEASE FIRE!!!!"
So the caliber was too high for the range?
Post by: Scout26 on August 21, 2008, 11:24:19 AM
So the caliber was too high for the range?
When the Training Circular from the MTA states "Nothing larger the 7.62mm" and you have 155mm exploding very nearby, it's does tend to make one's sphincter slam shut or open very wide, depending on the individual.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 21, 2008, 01:18:05 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 21, 2008, 02:37:54 PM
If the range rules are posted on signs, and your caliber utterly destroys all of those sings, are you still in violation of the posted rules?
That's my story.