Responsible howitzer owner shells house 5km away...

[ponderingturtle]

From the description, it seems like they fired from a rise, with the barrel angled downwards, over a valley floor that was within the boundaries of the range. Such a setup could allow the shell to travel quite far, before coming to rest safely inside the range. Depending on the height of the rise, the degree of the downward angle of the barrel, and the extent of the range in the valley below.

If a straight line extending from the barrel of the gun intersects the ground before crossing the range boundary, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a ballistic projectile fired from that gun will hit the ground somewhere short of the far edge of the range.

Assuming a responsible setup (and I've no reason to assume otherwise at this point), the shell's actual trajectory appears to be anomalous.

Nice to know Newton was so wrong.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What's the problem with owning artillery?

The expected stray rounds you always get now and then do more property damage?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The expected stray rounds you always get now and then do more property damage?

Just part of the entertainment.

 

[newyorkguy]

Mike says when they fired the gun, "that thing [the shell] to rise and go far northwest of the range..." All I can say is, "Wee-doggie!"

But firing a 105mm Howitizer downhill to hit a target located only several hundreds meters away...? How do you do that safely? I think I know what an experienced artillery officer would say:

"Forget it. Don't do it. Don't even try it. You're going to kill somebody."

Seriously the guns aren't designed for that. How did the shell rise? Sounds like it could be a problem with the barrel? Maybe the charge? Maybe they didn't understand the elevation and/or trajectory path?

I don't know. Somebody screwed up something.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't know. Somebody screwed up something.

Sign outside a certain facility that no longer exists, and never did:

"Range Safety Officer: Col. Murphy".

 

[sadhatter]

What state? Most states you can own these knives, you just can't carry them (odd distinction).

Canada, Ontario specifically.

Don't get me wrong i can get a lot of cool weapons, but in any world in which a gun is legal to own (and i agree with gun ownership, though feel our laws give needless hassle) banning any knife seems downright silly. ( unless said knife is designed to get past metal detectors and such)

Ontario, where i can buy a machete, combat knife, baton, or throwing knife, but not a butterfly knife or a skunk. Sure as hell don't want Phillipino druids taking over i guess.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Seriously the guns aren't designed for that. How did the shell rise? Sounds like it could be a problem with the barrel? Maybe the charge? Maybe they didn't understand the elevation and/or trajectory path?

I don't know. Somebody screwed up something.

Have you or anyone else seen a report other than that terribly thin piece in the OP?

You seem wedded to the idea this could not have been a carom off the ground.
Is that correct?

 

[theprestige]

Why would he need to drill trained professionals on safety?

In my industry, our professionalism is measured in part by the frequency and consistency of our drills.

I'd question the professionalism of anyone who didn't regularly drill on any critical task.

I'd question the concept of professionalism held by anyone who assumed that it wasn't important to carry out a drill before performing any planned activity that had the potential to put lives at risk.

Your fault-finding in this instance is absurd to the point of being grotesque. It is my sincere hope that your idea of professionalism never becomes the standard in any field of importance.

 

[newyorkguy]

...On his pass to shoot rockets, instead of firing the rockets in the pods, he had the cockpit switches set wrong, and jettisoned the pods! Oops!...

My unit had that happen in Viet-Nam. We were an assault helicopter company with a Cobra (AH-1) attack platoon. The lead ship -- Cobra One -- went up on a demonstration run for some visiting congressmen. He was going to fire his wing rockets. When he made his turn and went into the approach run the rockets fell off. Oops.

It was embarrassing. I knew the E6 who mounted the rockets pre-flight. He was a cool guy. He was from Texas I think. He actually didn't hear too much about it I don't think. And all the EM knew enough not to try and "kid him" about it.

 

[newyorkguy]

...I'd question the concept of professionalism held by anyone who assumed that it wasn't important to carry out a drill before performing any planned activity that had the potential to put lives at risk.

I'd question the concept of professionalism held by anyone who fired an artillery gun at a car located downhill and several hundred meters away and instead hit a house three miles away. But that's just me.

 

[trustbutverify]

I'd question the concept of professionalism held by anyone who assumed that it wasn't important to carry out a drill before performing any planned activity that had the potential to put lives at risk.

Your fault-finding in this instance is absurd to the point of being grotesque. It is my sincere hope that your idea of professionalism never becomes the standard in any field of importance.

Keep in mind the individual you're replying to is a highly experienced Viet-Nam combat vet. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.

 

[newyorkguy]

...You seem wedded to the idea this could not have been a carom off the ground. Is that correct?

I'm just going by what Mike Friend described in the TV interview I saw, it was word-for-word what is quoted in the OP.

For that thing to rise and go far northwest of the range, it’s just unheard of.

That doesn't sound like he's describing a carom. Can an artillery shell "carom" three miles?

Btw, remember what I wrote earlier about, "It can happen to the best of them?" This happened earlier this month:

An errant 155mm artillery shell fired by a Missouri Army National Guard unit training at Fort Chaffee (AK) Maneuver Training Center left the installation and landed less than 500 feet from a residence in Franklin County on Thursday afternoon....The Missouri National Guard will investigate what went wrong - Link

 

[MattusMaximus]

The range owner, Mike Friend, insists the historic weapon was safely fired by professionals in a downward projection.

Obviously not.

 

[MattusMaximus]

From the description, it seems like they fired from a rise, with the barrel angled downwards, over a valley floor that was within the boundaries of the range. Such a setup could allow the shell to travel quite far, before coming to rest safely inside the range. Depending on the height of the rise, the degree of the downward angle of the barrel, and the extent of the range in the valley below.

If a straight line extending from the barrel of the gun intersects the ground before crossing the range boundary, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a ballistic projectile fired from that gun will hit the ground somewhere short of the far edge of the range.

Assuming a responsible setup (and I've no reason to assume otherwise at this point), the shell's actual trajectory appears to be anomalous.

Yes, the laws of physics were magically suspended.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I'm just going by what Mike Friend described in the TV interview I saw, it was word-for-word what is quoted in the OP.

That doesn't sound like he's describing a carom. Can an artillery shell "carom" three miles?

Thanks. I've a wonky media codec situation on this laptop and tend to forget which vids I'm unable to view, there are so many. This is one of them.

 

[Aepervius]

I does not make sense IMHO to allow civilian to have artillery gun or associated cannon. There are some type of weapon which should not be allowed for civilian usage. But that's a debate for another thread.

What puzzle me is that it should be allowed to civilian to fire an artillery piece where the *maximum range* would allow it to hit other people houses. If one want to fire a piece of artillery, downward or not, then they should be able to do it only when there is no house are within the maximum range of the piece. Simple as that.

Responsible artillery owner ? not really.

 

[Puppycow]

I does not make sense IMHO to allow civilian to have artillery gun or associated cannon. There are some type of weapon which should not be allowed for civilian usage. But that's a debate for another thread.

What puzzle me is that it should be allowed to civilian to fire an artillery piece where the *maximum range* would allow it to hit other people houses. If one want to fire a piece of artillery, downward or not, then they should be able to do it only when there is no house are within the maximum range of the piece. Simple as that.

Responsible artillery owner ? not really.

Killjoy.

Anyone remember the notorious Mythbusters artillery incident?

 

[tsig]

The way i see it is that if a gun has a legitimate use (defense, or hunting ), it is in societies best interest to let people use it as a toy (referring to target shooting, or other non defense related purposes) people will become more comfortable and proficient in it's use, leading to better outcomes in situations where it needs to be used and less accidental harm to the users. So for just about any gun, i say load it up and fire away. I'm pretty darn accepting of weapons of almost all kinds, i enjoy them, think they are beneficial to society, and that anyone who can safely be trained to use one should have one.

That being said, what the hell logic is used that says a civilian can have artillery? It is mind boggling, if we were talking reservists, or full time military personnel, who obtained a special permit, i could digg that, they may be able to put skills to use they learn via firing it, but seriously we are not talking something that can kill one other person (which for the record in cool with), or even something that can kill lots of other people if need be (again, totally down, who knows what one may face), but something that can take out buildings.

I just don't get it, i believe in weapon ownership because while violence is rare, it does happen, so people should be able to be prepared, and if people can own weapons they should be able to do what they want with them within legal boundaries, but come on folks, artillery? Could we maybe tone it down just a bit? Maybe stop at any gun to big to carry for private citizens? It's crap like this that really gives the anti gun folks ammo.

It's better to have artillery and not need it than to need it and not have it.

 

[tsig]

The expected stray rounds you always get now and then do more property damage?

Collateral damage in the name of freedom.

 

[Border Reiver]

I have to say as a gunner who regularly uses 105mm howitzers (well, to be honest, I haven't fired one or commanded one since '95 - I've had other duties in the unit since) I'm calling BS on the owner's "safety" measures.

When wingers are fired by professionals there is an investigation to find out where the screw-up occurred - here in the Great White North the drill is to get the crew manning the piece to step back from the postions in action while the TSM or the BSM check the lay of the piece, check the ammunition (counting charge bags to see how much powder was used) and comparing the data on the sights to what the Command Post ordered. We also have some fairly serious safety rules about ricochet, etc that I'm fairly certain from the news article aren't being followed.

Personally, I can see a number of outcomes here:

a. The insurer for the range is going to do a huge re-evaluation of the insurance coverage of the range in light of this accident and the inevitable lawsuit and settlement;
b. The owner of this piece is going to find it prohibitive to shoot due to the now exhorbitant costs of using the range, leading to the owner selling it or deactivating it;
c. Any calls to prohibit the civilian ownership of crew served artillery by civilians will be met with some activists screaming that this is the thin edge of the wedge and "da gummint's cummin' fer our guns!"