# Flashbang question



## Irapliskin (7 Dec 2005)

I was wondering something....I was on a FTX to Borden...and while sleeping we were all given 1 flashbang......One of the recruits that was with us decided to try his flashbang out in our hoochie(tent).....i was on night supervision and i heard the flashbang go off....me and the acting WO ran to check what happened....and when we got there the entire tent had burns on their faces.....and the thing that puzzles me is that....I've been hit with a flashbang...and never got any burns......was there something defective with them?


If someone could help me out with this it would be greatly appreciated ???


----------



## Pte_Martin (7 Dec 2005)

because a Flashbang is supposed to be outside not in a ten/hooch also since they were in a small space I'm guess there face was near the flashbang when it went off


----------



## D-n-A (7 Dec 2005)

Irapliskin, I'm guessing your a cadet, since you list your military experiance as 3 years, an hold the rank of Warrent. What were you doing with pyro?

You sure it was a flashbang, not a thunder flash.


----------



## Aries (7 Dec 2005)

Yeah it was most likely a t-flash cause they woulf have had a lot more than just burns if it was a flashbang.

And t-flashes will burn and bruise to all to hell....one landed next to me while i was prone and bruised all my right torso under my armpit....hurt like hell....

Safety distance is 5 feet.


----------



## nULL (7 Dec 2005)

4 feet. 

I had one go off next to me while I was prone, I opened my eyes right after the blast and seem to remember sparks flying over my head...

It was pretty cool.


----------



## Tracker 23A (7 Dec 2005)

I question the practice of giving Cadets pyrotechnics for use on exercises.   I didn't realize they were authorized to use it in the first place.   If they are, this stands as an example why they shouldn't handle it in the first place.

Even with training and constanst safety briefings on the use of pyro in the regular force, we still have accidents and misuse.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Dec 2005)

Okay gurus, when I left the CF in Jan 95 the only hand thrown 'battlefield simulating pyroterchnics' widley used were theThunderfash and the Artillery Simulator. Both which can cause serious injury if improperly used, and were NOT available for Cadet useage to the best of my knowledge.

WTF is a flash-bang? Is this something which as been developed since I left, or just a new nickname for the good ole T-flash C1.? 

If you don't know the correct answer, don't reply with more silly rumours.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Blakey (7 Dec 2005)

Wes,
It is a device most commonly used by "Door Kickers", sometimes refereed to as a "DD" or distraction device.
Which makes the posters claims all that more suspicious....see attached photo.


----------



## KevinB (7 Dec 2005)

:  I would put $ on it not being a banger -- they are stingy with them on the UOI course


----------



## Blakey (7 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> :   I would put $ on it not being a banger -- they are stingy with them on the UOI course


Like i said Kevin "even more suspicious..."


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Dec 2005)

So, some kind of concusion device, not associated with simulation, used by the police etc.

Thanks for the info.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (7 Dec 2005)

Roger that.

  There is a ZERO PERCENT chance that a cadet got one.

The CF had issued the DefTech #25  and changed to the Nico 9 Banger recently.

Outside SOF they are discussed and very very very rarely seen - even doing overseas predeployment unless the unit had some common sense (strangely rare) to have the Hill run the pre-dep CQB stuff.


----------



## Tracker 23A (7 Dec 2005)

Kevin, that is the problem with the military of yester-year.  As you probably know, we have been conducting operations in urban areas for years, and until recently, have only started to place a serious focus on training and SOP's in units, based off the UO course and the experience we have learned from recent ops.

Tactics and training that revolve around urban operations, should have existed years ago, and should have been standard training for all combat, primarily infantry soldiers, who find themselves in this setting daily while on deployment.  In the beginning, it should have been taught by SOF, but now emphasis should be placed on those who have experience that works with the new UO course.  Which is largely developed around SOP's from the Hill. 

Those of us who were trained to fight the next war in Europe in a head to head mechanized battle, have to make this our secondary role, with urban fighting our primary role.


----------



## NATO Boy (8 Dec 2005)

...this is why, lately, I check someone's profile after reading what could be "8U11$HI7!"

Which leads me to my next point; never light stoves near the POL point.


----------



## gottyfunk (8 Dec 2005)

Another thing that most should remember when it comes to flashbangs is that they tend to jump when they go off and get hot as hell. They have been known to stick into walls and start localized fires, aswell they create a overpreasure that can rupture eardrums. Its a less lethal device .........less lethal then some other devices that can be tossed upon making entry.


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

Irapliskin said:
			
		

> I was on a FTX to  Borden..
> .and while sleeping we were all given 1 flashbang..How do you know if you were sleeping
> ....One of the recruits that was *with us  * decided to try his flashbang out *in our *  hoochie(tent)..Contradicts next statement
> ...i was on night supervision and i heard the flashbang go off....me and the acting WO ran to check what happened..So who was in charge?
> ...



Just IMHO.

Ben


----------



## sheikyerbouti (8 Dec 2005)

During my time in Cadets we had T-flashes chucked at us all the time. Now some of you may call BS but there was once a time when this stuff was around. It might have been specific to certain corps' but mine  had T-flashes issued to the Res guys and they had no problems with terrorizing the Cadets with whatever they could, whenever they could. I do call into question this stuff being in the kids hands but how hard is it to find stuff lying around in someones locker or at least out of their sight.
Mind you this ended with budget cuts, safety concerns and liability issues, oh and all that CHAPS stuff.


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2005)

gottyfunk - that was the No 25 primarily - the 9 Banger does not have the same issue with confusing itself with a rocket that the 25 did occasionally.

 They are an excellent tool - especially for todays climate.  

The are not nec a Less than Lethal option but a DD, so you can either discourage attention (good for dropping out a vehicle near a crowd), or if you are a firebreathing doorkicking action figure they are good for putting a hickup hadji's OODA loop logn enough so you and the boys can give him some 5.56mm Love.


----------



## Shadowhawk (8 Dec 2005)

Edited to remove a bad quote.
Edited again to check spelling ... I need to go to bed now. :boring:


Cadets are never to be in possesion of any pyros of any kind .. period... The story sounds suspect to me. :

Posted by: sheikyerbouti
"Mind you this ended with budget cuts, safety concerns and liability issues, oh and all that CHAPS stuff."

It ended because it was not safe.

"CHAPS stuff" .. The program is called CHAP - Cadet Harassment and Abuse Prevention. (Note - No S) and just for the record... a cadet can not "chap" someone or have someone "chapped". I know that the subject of my last sentence was not discussed but it is something that I used to hear said allot around the "old squadron" (former life was spent as a CO of a cadet unit) Just something that irritated me. 

Rant off


----------



## darmil (8 Dec 2005)

Maybe they got it from someone.


----------



## Shadowhawk (8 Dec 2005)

Ummm... Well anything is possible.

 ^-^


----------



## sheikyerbouti (8 Dec 2005)

Having taken the CHAP program at one point in time (had to to teach) I will defer to your correction on the appropriate spelling of the acronym but all the kids I worked with called it "CHAPS". 

I hate to bring up the bad news but when was cadets considered safe? It is only in recent times that we have been subject to the vagaries of a fully 'litigious' society which has prompted us to re-examine our responsibilities and change our perspectives. The Cadet system was introduced as a means to produce high quality trade ready recruits for the Canadian forces, it is only in the last decade or so that we have seen a complete denial of the original roles of the Cadet system.

 Having experienced both the good and the bad of the transition phase, I can honestly relate that the old standards were not only higher but more driven to produce results that were advantageous to both the CF and the young they took under their guidance. Sure it might have been mildly dangerous to expose us to potential hazards but how does this conflict with the aim of producing   a high calibre recruit that is well grounded in the history and traditions of the forces.

Now before anyone brings up the Child soldier issue, why is it that our allies still conduct enhanced training with their Cadets? Unless of course you mean to imply that our young are not up to the standards of their British counterparts.
   
 I very much disagree with your assertion (shadow) that all of the training we Cadets used to receive was cancelled due to safety issues. The fact of the matter is that the CF went through a period of extreme budgetary pressures (post-Conservatives and during the Liberal tenure) which forced it to make many decisions that are only now being fully realized. 


P.S. Did the procedures change with respect to a cadet reporting potential misdoings by their colleagues or their superiors? My understanding was that a cadet was now encouraged to speak up as opposed to the old way of beating the rat into submission or quietly asking the malfeasant to resign before holy hell broke loose, or even better, letting it lie for decades only to reappear in the form of some kiddy fiddling lawsuit.


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Its a youth organisation, why should it not be safe? Agreed!
> 
> The current cadet system was NEVER designed to form new recruits. The old Boys Brigades and whatnot were, but cadets as we know it (from after WW2 on) was never designed with that as the primary idea.
> Again, wrong. Cadets does not produce recruits for the CF. Yes, they do. It's in their primary roles/purpose.
> ...



Ben


----------



## sheikyerbouti (8 Dec 2005)

hey Piper,

check out www.armycadethistory.com/Main_page.htm

or www.cadets.ca/about-nous/vision/vision_e.asp

for two credible sources which contradict your assertion.

As a long time side drummer I suggest you save the hot air for your pipe bag (pipe band crack) ;D.

I don't disagree with the assertion that cadets should be safe but it must be recognized that people don't join to learn how to polish boots or how to shoot a daisy air rifle. Alot has changed due to budgetary pressures, some of it good, most of it bad especially when it comes to relevant training.

My 2 cents, not trying to start something here.


----------



## Trinity (8 Dec 2005)

OldRanger

Are you saying that cadets is used to produce soldiers?

I would at one time agree with you, but after getting berated
at the highest level of officers once at Blackdown for referring to
the cadets as "soldiers".. I was quickly informed of their new doctrine.

It is a youth organsation designed to produced leadership skills in 
todays youth.  They help shape the youth of tomorrow into something
positive.. (apparently)

So I was informed (very promptly... almost while standing at attention!)

And the rate of cadets that cross into regs or res I heard was very small, 
definitely NOT worth the funding we put into it.  

But ... I still love you..


----------



## Pea (8 Dec 2005)

Trinity,

I am guessing it was CIC officers at blackdown that told you this.

I can't help but wonder why the 3 aims of the cadet program are:

Develop leadership and good citizenship 
Promote physical fitness 
*Stimulate an interest in the three elements of the Canadian Forces * 

I understand that this is a small part of cadets, so in turn does not constitute "recruiting for the forces, or training them to join the Military." However, I do think that cadets does boost recruiting into the forces. Sure it may not be a huge number of people, but every little can help. So, I think it is worth the funding they are given.


----------



## MJP (8 Dec 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> And the rate of cadets that cross into regs or res I heard was very small,
> definitely NOT worth the funding we put into it.



I think the crossover is better than just small, exact numbers are hard to pin down though.  Most people don't talk about their cadet experiences (usually) and its not like they fill out a form or have some kind of special ID.  Most people I know with cadet experience have said it has done nothing but help them in their military careers.



BTW sorry Card no LAVs downtown today or tomorrow we took that out of the training for us.  Get back to work.


----------



## Pea (8 Dec 2005)

MJP said:
			
		

> I think the crossover is better than just small, exact numbers are hard to pin down though.   Most people don't talk about their cadet experiences (usually) and its not like they fill out a form or have some kind of special ID.   Most people I know with cadet experience have said it has done nothing but help them in their military careers.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW sorry Card no LAVs downtown today or tomorrow we took that out of the training for us.   Get back to work.



Thanks for backing me up on that one MJP. I am not sure of the numbers either. However, I have met many reg force and reservists that were once a cadet. They all say the same thing, cadets has helped them.


And that's ok about the LAV. I have been nuts at work today anyways. Which reminds me, I must get back to the craziness I call work now.  ;D


----------



## Shadowhawk (8 Dec 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> Having taken the CHAP program at one point in time (had to to teach) I will defer to your correction on the appropriate spelling of the acronym but all the kids I worked with called it "CHAPS".



Agreed but it still is not correct ... (thats what I said ... I think) (BTW Also UHRA qualified)



			
				sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> I very much disagree with your assertion (shadow) that all of the training we Cadets used to receive was cancelled due to safety issues.



I will have to re-read my original post but I don't believe I ever said that all the training cadet use to receive was cancelled. I know for a fact that pyros was discontinued because it was/it unsafe. Most CIC instructors are not qualified to use them so how can they be expected to teach people use?

In the Atlantic region ... Down hill ski trips were cancelled because someone was injured on a cadet ski trip. again ... Safety issue. I'm sure there are other things as well (indoor ranges for one)




			
				sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> P.S. Did the procedures change with respect to a cadet reporting potential misdoings by their colleagues or their superiors? My understanding was that a cadet was now encouraged to speak up as opposed to the old way of beating the rat into submission or quietly asking the malfeasant to resign before holy hell broke loose, or even better, letting it lie for decades only to reappear in the form of some kiddy fiddling lawsuit.



You are correct. If a cadet believes something/anything is not "right" they are encouraged to "tell someone"


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> OldRanger
> 
> Are you saying that cadets is used to produce soldiers?Yes, we need little people too!
> 
> ...



Cheers,

Ben


----------



## sheikyerbouti (8 Dec 2005)

I feel I should clarify my position with respect to safety and its' role in changing Cadet training.

 I was a Seaforth cadet for a few years and the differences in training from my first year in, to my last year in, were  a night and day comparison. The first day I walked into the armouries to get a feel of the place I was escorted to the indoor range and given a weapon familiarization. My second day there I got to shoot some rounds on the .22 and got to watch the Res guys work with something bigger.

 We had 2 annual shoots on the FN plus twice a week on the .22's, 5 or 6 full weekend outdoor exercises (some with pyro),at least 2 indoor ex's, band practice, drill team, rappelling on our own tower, cooperation with the Regiment and at least 2 field trips a year to Vancouver Island. There were also other goodies that can't be divulged but suffice to say there were no locks on the liquor cabinets.

 On my last year in there were no outdoor exercises, the Pat bay band camp was done with, we had no drivers from the Res, our number of officers was cut, we had 3 or 4 indoor exercises, did no parades, didn't shoot anything, no drill comp, no more kilts issued except to the band and very senior NCO's and to top it all off there was no more hot food because the only thing we were allowed to eat was old IMP's.

 I personally feel it was budgetary pressures which resulted in most of these changes.
BTW Apologies for  my contribution to this thread getting off course but at least it has aroused some good discussion.


----------



## Burrows (8 Dec 2005)

Irapliskin said:
			
		

> I was wondering something....I was on a FTX to Borden...and while sleeping we were all given 1 flashbang......One of the recruits that was with us decided to try his flashbang out in our hoochie(tent).....i was on night supervision and i heard the flashbang go off....me and the acting WO ran to check what happened....and when we got there the entire tent had burns on their faces.....and the thing that puzzles me is that....I've been hit with a flashbang...and never got any burns......was there something defective with them?
> 
> 
> If someone could help me out with this it would be greatly appreciated ???



Your officers are total idiots if they gave cadets pyrotechnics.  If you're making this up you're an idiot.  Either way, someone is at fault.

If it was your officers they should be charged.

Locked.


----------



## Burrows (8 Dec 2005)

Also change your profile IAW Cadet regulations.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2005)

I shouldn't be reading threads this late at night. But, since I happen to be familiar with the Training Safety manual I just wanted to clarify some incorrect data issued in the early postings of this thread regarding Thunderflashes and safe distances:



			
				Aries said:
			
		

> Safety distance is 5 feet.





			
				nULL said:
			
		

> 4 feet.



OPERATIONAL TRAINING - TRAINING SAFETY
B-GL-381-001/TS-000 - Training Safety
Issued on the Authority of the chief of Land Staff
OPI: DAT 3-6-3 2003-01-15
CH 6 2003-08 -28



> *137. Thunderflashes. Thunderflashes shall
> NOT be thrown within 5 m of personnel, and 25 m
> of volatile material, equipment and vehicles.*



Link to Army Electronic Library source for this publication: http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/publications_ns.asp?series=380_e


(Edited to add publication number and link.)


----------



## Spr.Earl (9 Dec 2005)

T-Flash's will take your hand off believe it or not.
But again what were cadets doing with Pyro?


----------

