Calgary reservist Maj. Darryl Watts found not guilty of mans

Xort @ Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:18 pm

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Alright,this is going to be more painful for me than you. Mostly because from what I can see you're a moron and the stupid doesnt burn you like the rest of us:

A good start to any reasoned reply.

$1:

Firstly just because you spent 20 min in the military and attained the lofty heights of Cpl, obviously shows you have little knowledge of how ranges are run and what Sr NCOs and Officers actually do.

After 5 years I do have some knowledge of how ranges work so thanks for the confirmation of my experince.

What do you have? Reg force? Reserve? Officer? Enlisted? What rank?

$1:

It might be completely different for armored units, but I REALLY doubt that. Again the shave tails might have gotten the same training as a guy just getting off basic training, but would never have as much training on a weapon as say someone who has been in for 5 years. It wont nor should it happen, Officers are supposed to have overview of the battlefield, and you cannot do that as #2 rifle man in a section attack. You are also fucked in the head if you think an officer should be.

Officers shouln't know how to use weapons. Officers must know how every weapon works to a degree they will override the safety instructions of appointed safety staff as being not safe enough.

$1:

Then the officers in your unit must have had A LOT of time on their hands or you all had low standards for weapon proficiency.

Weapon use was identified as a key strenght by all the COs and all the OC's I had. Maybe another unit might think that being an officer should give a pass on weapons use and skill but not at my unit. For all the A fighting vehicles used in my unit the crew commander can act as the gunner, and is required to work with the gunner for effective vehicle fighting. This mentality of having the crew commanber which is 1 in 4 an officer be part of a weapon's team might have carried over to everyone getting training time with the MG's and other weapons beside their personal rifles and pistols.

$1:

Tell me, if the RSO runs the range and he has several ARSOs at his disposal what is the point of a Range OIC? I have a feeling you've got no fucking clue.

I take it you mean above the requirement as stated in the regulations? Anyway the RSO is running the firing line and controling the action on the ground the OIC would be talking to higher or range control, issuing commands based on his removed perspective with the a better overview of the range operations. The RSO is too busy with the firing point to be handling the management of the full range, his focus is the safety and movement of the people at the line. Most often in my experince the OIC would be in a tower if such a structure was in place, with radios for the range staff and other nets, would have the paper work and publications at hand, and would be siging off on the results of the range activity officaly. I suspect they were also keeping track of weather conditions, the flow of traffic, and the overall progression of the range.

$1:

As for evidence that the WO was a moron and didnt take range safety seriously: Three of the soldiers who were injured in the blast took the stand during the court martial, describing the incident as a disorganized training exercise where some soldiers were given safety briefings while others were not.

Maybe I read something wrong, but that WO wasn't part of the range staff was he?, And while you can make an argument for his failure to ensure that everyone got a range briefing and safety talk, that's hardly a sound proof for that WO suffering from a mental handicap. I don't recall getting a safety briefing for my ranges in Afghanistan, those aspects were covered as part of my mission briefings from my CC.

It wouldn't do to have a large number of people standing in a tight group so they can hear someone tell them that everyone is trained in first aid and not to shoot the wild life.

It would seem like a waste of time to have a range briefing about where I can shoot and what is a safe area, when every mission I went on my CC told me what my arcs were, and updated them as we moved to different locations.

Or to put it another way, we didn't get a dedicated safety briefing before conducting an operation so why do we need one for a range? We already cover those aspects as part of the mission brief. I wouldn't go to a range without getting a mission brief, and in the brief would be my safety information. And often in much greater detail than the standard range safety brief.

$1:

Those things are not hard to play for, you have sentries out like any other fucking range. If the area is so active that you cannot conduct safely you dont fucking run the range.

That's your idea? To put out some sentries like a normal range?

I'd suggest having some vehicles out that would switch up to get the needed shooting done when other crews finished up, as the low minimum.

$1:

I have no fucking clue what shit is coming out of your mouth here.

Is doing what is required in the regulations and manuals not enough to qualify as taking reasonable precautions?

$1:

Where has the word malfunctioned been used? I have seen several times the word accident, but never malfunctioned.

Do some more reading, if you are not informed on the topic then don't talk about it.

$1:

15 m to the rear, 300 m to the front and the template for the front is convex due to the shape of the charge (I think its something like 270 degrees but I could be wrong on that). Rear safety also depends on the ground, it is reasonable to triple that distance if you are on a rocky surface. The ground is not an issue though as it has been stated in almost all the articles that the injured were hit with the ball bearings.

And if that claymore explodes and shoots it's payload in all directions even with 45m of distance you are still well in the potential kill range.

$1:

So do you want me to tell you how the claymore is constructed? Because if you think that ball bearings can just fly backward you obviously have no clue on how a claymore is put together.

That's how a claymore should function, which is why you can be as close to it as you normaly can. However if the weapon malfucntions then you can end up with a lot of different explosion profiles. Which is what was reported as what happened.

$1:

Yes there is a limit, its called the fucking pubs. These guys were firing them off, out of cover and standing up taking video. If you look hard enough you can find the video they took.

That they may have been in an unsafe location, doesn't disprove my statements about no upper limit. Basic logic here.

$1:

If you want to give an opinion on something be my guest, just be sure your opinion isnt asinine or it will get ripped apart by people who know more than you.

Well if someone comes along to rip into my opinion or the supporting argument I'l deal with that when it comes. But so far all you have done is some wet noodle slapping and name calling.

I will offer you some advice, you are not ripping into anyone if you are calling someone stupid. That's just name calling. If you are ripping into someone it should be clear to everyone just how wrong that person is, and how dumb they are for saying what they said. No need to point it out.

Guy_Fawkes @ Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:44 pm

$1:

After 5 years I do have some knowledge of how ranges work so thanks for the confirmation of my experince.

What do you have? Reg force? Reserve? Officer? Enlisted? What rank?

Unlike you, I am still in the military, and bitching about stupid officers can get me charged. So I will withhold all personal info thank you.

If you had a brain in your head, my name on CKA would give you a hint at what I do.

$1:

Maybe I read something wrong, but that WO wasn't part of the range staff was he?

You did read something wrong the WO was the RSO and his trial has yet to start.

$1:

It wouldn't do to have a large number of people standing in a tight group so they can hear someone tell them that everyone is trained in first aid and not to shoot the wild life.

It would seem like a waste of time to have a range briefing about where I can shoot and what is a safe area, when every mission I went on my CC told me what my arcs were, and updated them as we moved to different locations.

Or to put it another way, we didn't get a dedicated safety briefing before conducting an operation so why do we need one for a range? We already cover those aspects as part of the mission brief. I wouldn't go to a range without getting a mission brief, and in the brief would be my safety information. And often in much greater detail than the standard range safety brief.

Again if you are in an area that is so hostile that you can't conduct range briefings behind the vehicles you should not be training there. The quote from witnesses says the range was disorganized, that is something the OIC should have straightened out.

$1:

That's what putting out sentries means....

$1:

Is doing what is required in the regulations and manuals not enough to qualify as taking reasonable precautions?

Yes and that is what I said, and what they did not do.

$1:

And if that claymore explodes and shoots it's payload in all directions even with 45m of distance you are still well in the potential kill range.
That's how a claymore should function, which is why you can be as close to it as you normaly can. However if the weapon malfucntions then you can end up with a lot of different explosion profiles. Which is what was reported as what happened.

Wow, you really dont know what a claymore is do you.

This is a claymore:

They are constructed by having a layer of ball bearings, with a layer of C4 behind it. The C4 is initiated and the bearings are sent forward. The secondary hazard area is mostly for pieces of the casing and what ever is lying behind the weapon.

The claymore does not fire ball bearings in all directions, it only fires them to the front. It cant fire them to the rear because for that to happen you would need C4 in front of the ball bearings.

$1:

That they may have been in an unsafe location, doesn't disprove my statements about no upper limit. Basic logic here.

What explosive range *have you have been on where its ok to hang out from under cover and shoot video?

Trust me plenty of people here think you are dumb, and we point it out to you, but you never seem to listen.

*edited for clarity.

Gunnair @ Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:09 pm

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

$1:

After 5 years I do have some knowledge of how ranges work so thanks for the confirmation of my experince.

What do you have? Reg force? Reserve? Officer? Enlisted? What rank?

Unlike you, I am still in the military, and bitching about stupid officers can get me charged. So I will withhold all personal info thank you.

If you had a brain in your head my name on CKA would give you a hint at what I do.

$1:

Maybe I read something wrong, but that WO wasn't part of the range staff was he?

You did read something wrong the WO was the RSO and his trial has yet to start.

$1:

That's what putting out sentries means....

$1:

Is doing what is required in the regulations and manuals not enough to qualify as taking reasonable precautions?

Yes and that is what I said, and what they did not do.

$1:

Wow, you really dont know what a claymore is do you.

This is a claymore:

$1:

That they may have been in an unsafe location, doesn't disprove my statements about no upper limit. Basic logic here.

What explosive range you have been on where its ok to hang out from under cover and shoot video?

Trust me plenty of people here think you are dumb, and we point it out to you but you never seem to listen.

The slapping continues... :lol: