# Safety Angle and Beaten Zones



## Haligonian (12 Sep 2012)

Two seperate questions:

1.  Wartime small arms safety angle.  Does this exist?  I know our training safety angle is 688 mils for 5.56 and 622 for 7.62 and that out past the riccochet line then safety distances are employed, however, I, nor has anyone around my office heard of a wartime safety angle/distance.  It would appear to be at the discretion of the comd based on the tactical situation.

2. Beaten Zone for C6.  What is in the PAM is different from a document I have from the infantry school and the PAM seems a bit too good to be true.  PAM: At 600m the beaten zone is 250m long, 2.5m wide, and it achieves grazing fire with rounds not raising more than 1.5m.  Pl Comd Aide Memoire: At 500m the beaten zone is 100m long, 1m wide, and no info on heights.  Can anyone confirm that the PAM is indeed correct over the inf school doc?

Thanks


----------



## PanaEng (12 Sep 2012)

1. Haven't come across any info when on the two way shooting gallery - direct line arcs.

2. Beaten zone increases in size from 100 to 600m or so. At some point it reaches its max and then starts becoming shorter, rounder (wider)  and you start losing grazing fire as the barrel gets elevated and the trajectory goes to a higher arch. However, from 500m to 600m going from 1m wide to 2.5m wide seems a bit off - might still be within the margin of error but I wouldn't want to be near that edge. One of those numbers might not be as accurate as the other.

Anyway, I'm far from an expert - consider that both documents were produced by the CoE


----------



## rhli13 (12 Sep 2012)

1.   I don't think there is a "wartime" safety angle for small arms. If, as a commander in wartime, you decide to shrink or ignore a safety angle, be prepared to justify it later.
2.   Check your references to see if they differentiate between SF and Light Role.


----------



## dangerboy (12 Sep 2012)

rhli13 said:
			
		

> 1.   I don't think there is a "wartime" safety angle for small arms. If, as a commander in wartime, you decide to shrink or ignore a safety angle, be prepared to justify it later.



There are safety angles in Wartime.  The C6 PAM has one listed for doing a Final Protective Fire (FPF) Mission.  From B-GL-385-004/PT-001, Chapter 4, Lesson 4, Para 14 



> The size of the safety angle will depend on the terrain
> and the cover available, but IT MUST NEVER BE LESS THAN 50
> MILS IN WARTIME OR LESS THAN 200 MILS IN PEACETIME.
> If the gun is not being employed for any other mission, it should be in
> position for final protective fire.


----------



## Haligonian (13 Sep 2012)

Dangerboy, roger, I found that yesterday as I was wrapping up for the day.  Thanks.  I just took a quick look into the C9 PAM and doesn't appear to be any reference to minimum safety angles.  I guess I would just assume that 50 mils during wartime is a solid rule of thumb for all small arms.  50 mils does allow you to provide fire sp pretty damn close to assaulting troops.


----------



## dangerboy (13 Sep 2012)

Remember that the C6 Safety angle is due to the fact that it is in the SF mount and using the C2 sight.


----------



## Haligonian (13 Sep 2012)

Good point dangerboy a guess a C6 in non SF role or a C9 would have a larger angle.

Anyone have any ideas on which doc is correct regarding beaten zones?


----------



## GnyHwy (13 Sep 2012)

Never heard of wartime angles.  As well, the principle of mutual support would not be possible if there were minimal angles involved. 

I can only think of two potential reasons for the beaten zone discrepancy.  

1.  Like others have mentioned, the possibility of the PAM being in the light role, and the aide de memoire being in the SF role.  

2.  It could be that the PAM is describing the beaten zone as a diameter, stating the entire length and width of the beaten zone, and assuming the target is in the center.  The aide de memoire may be describing it as a radius i.e rounds may travel 100m longer or further than the target, and 1m to the right or left.  This explanation would make the numbers work.


----------



## GnyHwy (13 Sep 2012)

This also makes sense from a soldier's perspective, and definitely from an Arty perspective.  It is much easier to quickly visualize a radius or distance from a target, than to visualize a diameter or total length and try and center the target within it.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2012)

Wartime safety angles seem to be missing the fact that sometimes I do want rounds onto my position...


----------

