Artillery gun comes loose and hits taxi in Nanaimo

[FJAG]

Maybe I am showing my age, but I always thought the pintle was used as the point of contact to anchor the top carriage to the borrow carriage, and then was the pivot point for traversing. Perhaps more relevant, the handspike appears to be missing from its place on the left trail, which suggests this was a non-operational or administrative move, taking the gun from point A to point B by a non-qualified group.

This thing:

Is called a "pintle hook" or "pintle" for short. Pintles like this are on the backs of all our trucks.

Here's the link to the page:

https://www.hitchweb.com/product/88/48205/Pintle-Hook-10000-lbs

What you are thinking of is another type of pintle which is one type of a weapon mount.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_mount

You being an IG would of course be an expert on all things gun. Pintle however is a generic term that goes beyond that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintle

;D

:cheers:

 

[Old Sweat]

This thing:

Is called a "pintle hook" or "pintle" for short. Pintles like this are on the backs of all our trucks.

Here's the link to the page:

https://www.hitchweb.com/product/88/48205/Pintle-Hook-10000-lbs

What you are thinking of is another type of pintle which is one type of a weapon mount.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_mount

You being an IG would of course be an expert on all things gun. Pintle however is a generic term that goes beyond that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintle

;D

:cheers:

First time I have encountered pintle used in that context. We used to call them "tow hooks" in the context that the gun is hooked in.

The issue remains that we don't know what happened, but it shouldn't have. So we go into wait and see mode.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think Pintle hooks came into use as some can rotate on basically a pintle. I suspect that sloppy language crept in over the years. As for the missing handspike, likely in the cab to prevent it being lifted by some souvenir hunter.

 

[Ashkan08]

Speaking of artillery, do you guys know why they changed the name from artillery soldier to gunner?

 

[FJAG]

Speaking of artillery, do you guys know why they changed the name from artillery soldier to gunner?

They didn't.

The term gunner came into use a very long time ago, shortly after "guns" were invented and came into service with armies across the world.

Within the British military, the term "gunner" was not only a descriptive term for all artillerymen but also a rank equivalent to private.

Within the Canadian artillery the trade to which gunners belonged was called "artilleryman" well before females were permitted to serve in the combat arms. Once females were permitted to serve the term "artillery soldier" came into use in our advertising campaigns. Within the trade, we have always and continuously referred to ourselves as "gunners". IMHO the term "artillery soldier" (like "armoured soldier" and "infantry soldier") always sounded stilted and contrived. The change in our advertising to the term "gunner" is in my view a good choice because 1) it gets back to the use of a traditional term rather than a made-up one and 2) is nonetheless gender neutral.

While I don't have details as to how the change came about, I would suspect that there has been an ongoing campaign by the Colonel Commandant and the Director of Artillery and various other senior serving and honourary artillery officers to influence the system to adopt the change.

:cheers:

 

[Ashkan08]

Makes sense. Thanks

 

[daftandbarmy]

They didn't.

The term gunner came into use a very long time ago, shortly after "guns" were invented and came into service with armies across the world.

Within the British military, the term "gunner" was not only a descriptive term for all artillerymen but also a rank equivalent to private.

Within the Canadian artillery the trade to which gunners belonged was called "artilleryman" well before females were permitted to serve in the combat arms. Once females were permitted to serve the term "artillery soldier" came into use in our advertising campaigns. Within the trade, we have always and continuously referred to ourselves as "gunners". IMHO the term "artillery soldier" (like "armoured soldier" and "infantry soldier") always sounded stilted and contrived. The change in our advertising to the term "gunner" is in my view a good choice because 1) it gets back to the use of a traditional term rather than a made-up one and 2) is nonetheless gender neutral.

While I don't have details as to how the change came about, I would suspect that there has been an ongoing campaign by the Colonel Commandant and the Director of Artillery and various other senior serving and honourary artillery officers to influence the system to adopt the change.

:cheers:

So ... like.... we Infantry people can still call you Artillery people 'Drop Shorts', right?

 

[FJAG]

So ... like.... we Infantry people can still call you Artillery people 'Drop Shorts', right?

Not if you want to have free beer at my barbecue.  ;D

And I say that notwithstanding that my battery once dropped a round 50 metres away from where I was forming up for an assault with my supported 3 RCR company on an exercise in Petawawa once.  [:'(

What was even more troubling was that when I had the gun position look into what happened the GPO came back with the message "It looked good when it left here!"  [

:cheers:

 

[Blackadder1916]

So ... like.... we Infantry people can still call you Artillery people 'Drop Shorts', right?

I thought that was a navy expression, usually followed by bending someone over.

 

[medicineman]

I thought that was a navy expression, usually followed by bending someone over.

Was thinking the same thing... 8)

MM

 

[Good2Golf]

Not if you want to have free beer at my barbecue.  ;D

And I say that notwithstanding that my battery once dropped a round 50 metres away from where I was forming up for an assault with my supported 3 RCR company on an exercise in Petawawa once.  [:'(

What was even more troubling was that when I had the gun position look into what happened the GPO came back with the message "It looked good when it left here!"  [

:cheers:

:warstory:  Ah yes...shades of the early 90s when 2 Guns dropped a few rounds of 105 into a formation of helos landing in DZ ANZIO  ...again, GPO-induced issues.  I was elsewhere in the range at the time, but to hear the FEs described how they were trying to keep the inserted troops from climbing back onto the Hueys while the formation was scattering away from what they thought was another round of fire inbound, was pretty colourful.  I don't think the gunners were very popular that day...

Regards
G2G

 

[Old Sweat]

That reminds me of the classic response to a too close round, "Reference my a..hole, Add 800, over."

 

[FJAG]

:warstory:  Ah yes...shades of the early 90s when 2 Guns dropped a few rounds of 105 into a formation of helos landing in DZ ANZIO  ...again, GPO-induced issues.  I was elsewhere in the range at the time, but to hear the FEs described how they were trying to keep the inserted troops from climbing back onto the Hueys while the formation was scattering away from what they thought was another round of fire inbound, was pretty colourful.  I don't think the gunners were very popular that day...

Regards
G2G

In my case actually, the problem was on the gun--an L5--with the angle of sight scale off by 100 mils.

The GPO's problem was that it was winter and he didn't want to get out of his heated M577 so he simply asked the gun line to confirm their bearing and elevation settings and confirm charge fired. They reported back with the right data. After my expletive loaded reply to his message he finally got his butt out of the track and found the AS error. (Not a bad guy otherwise and the last I saw he'd made it to LCol)

:cheers:

 

[Old Sweat]

My gut reaction when you wrote "a round" that it probably was an error on the gun. Should not the section commander or the safety officer have spotted it, as the elevation would have been noticeably different?

The incident G2G reported, on the other hand, sounds like a CP error, either in timing and/or execution of the fire plan, or a technical error.

 

[daftandbarmy]

In my case actually, the problem was on the gun--an L5--with the angle of sight scale off by 100 mils.

The GPO's problem was that it was winter and he didn't want to get out of his heated M577 so he simply asked the gun line to confirm their bearing and elevation settings and confirm charge fired. They reported back with the right data. After my expletive loaded reply to his message he finally got his butt out of the track and found the AS error. (Not a bad guy otherwise and the last I saw he'd made it to LCol)

:cheers:

That's why it helps to always owe Gunners some money, then they'll usually try to make sure you're around to repay it

 

[FJAG]

My gut reaction when you wrote "a round" that it probably was an error on the gun. Should not the section commander or the safety officer have spotted it, as the elevation would have been noticeably different?

The incident G2G reported, on the other hand, sounds like a CP error, either in timing and/or execution of the fire plan, or a technical error.

Yup. It was in fire for effect with one drop short and the remaining rounds bang on the target - remember that old dug-in Khe San style fire base at Race Horse - that was it, we were strung out in the tree line to the south getting ready to do a banzai charge up the hill.

And yes, the safety officer and the section commander should both have caught it.

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Having fired a winger myself, I not be tarring anyone with a brush. Laid onto the wrong set of Aiming posts (tight gun position) still all my fault as the Number 1

 

[FJAG]

Not sure how this developed into a winger discussion but for Daftandbarmy's info guns can also "drop long".

In Petawawa, again, we had a Militia battery where the battery had just finished a mission firing charge three and were given an end of mission. Contrary to proper procedures the 2i/c (who looks after and prepares ammo) on one gun had left some five rounds on the ready tray made up to charge three and one made up to charge seven. A new mission at charge three was called and the detachment took post. The loading gun number took the charge seven round and the spare charge 4,5,6 and 7 powder bags from the adjacent round to the number 1, reported "charge 3". The number 1 took the four spare bags as per drill, said "Correct, Load" and then wondered why his gun had such a large recoil.  :facepalm:

The round overshot the target and for good measure, overshot the impact area and the Petawawa river and landed 35 meters from a cottage occupied by two families. Very fortunately there were no injuries although there was shrapnel damage to a boat and stone fireplace on the cottage shifted due to the blast.

:cheers:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My gut reaction when you wrote "a round" that it probably was an error on the gun. Should not the section commander or the safety officer have spotted it, as the elevation would have been noticeably different?

The incident G2G reported, on the other hand, sounds like a CP error, either in timing and/or execution of the fire plan, or a technical error.

I was in 2 RCHA at that time. It was absolutely a CPO error. He did not make the target numbers unsafe when the assault force crossed one of the control lines and landed on the LZ and continued to FFE. It got worse when the FOO, the BC and the CO all yelled "check firing" simultaneously on the net when they saw what was happening, which had the effect of everyone jamming the frequency. Which allowed the mayhem to continue for several more seconds. What saved the assault force that was the swampy ground. The rounds were impacting in amongst the the Twin Hueys quite nicely, but they didn't really do too much damage. The Royals (1 RCR, I think) were trying to scramble back on the helos as quick as FEs were trying were trying to throw them off, so they could get the helicopters out from under the full fury of D  Bty. In hindsight, it was humorous because no one got hurt. But it could have wiped out most of a company and all of 427 Sqn, had things gone a different direction.

 

[FJAG]

I was in 2 RCHA at that time. It was absolutely a CPO error. He did not make the target numbers unsafe when the assault force crossed one of the control lines and landed on the LZ and continued to FFE. It got worse when the FOO, the BC and the CO all yelled "check firing" simultaneously on the net when they saw what was happening, which had the effect of everyone jamming the frequency. Which allowed the mayhem to continue for several more seconds. What saved the assault force that was the swampy ground. The rounds were impacting in amongst the the Twin Hueys quite nicely, but they didn't really do too much damage. The Royals (1 RCR, I think) were trying to scramble back on the helos as quick as FEs were trying were trying to throw them off, so they could get the helicopters out from under the full fury of D  Bty. In hindsight, it was humorous because no one got hurt. But it could have wiped out most of a company and all of 427 Sqn, had things gone a different direction.

When was this?

:cheers: