Chitchat Sinkie Prettyboy Reservist Aloysius Pang Seriously Injured In NZ While Fucking Around With Howitzer! Guess Whether He Uplorry! Boss Sam Please Help!

[Papsmearer]

The only one at fault was the fucktard who designed the Primus, and the asshole who forced the SAF to buy 2000 copies of this piece of crap. If you look inside the turret of other SPGs, you will never see the breach protrude so far back that it wedge a crew. The design was flawed from the start.

 

[laksaboy]

The only one at fault was the fucktard who designed the Primus, and the asshole who forced the SAF to buy 2000 copies of this piece of crap. If you look inside the turret of other SPGs, you will never see the breach protrude so far back that it wedge a crew. The design was flawed from the start.

It can be used as a giant crab shell crusher.

 

[Papsmearer]

It can be used as a giant crab shell crusher.

I don't make jokes about shitty designed equipment that kills its own crew.

 

[eatshitndie]

The only one at fault was the fucktard who designed the Primus, and the asshole who forced the SAF to buy 2000 copies of this piece of crap. If you look inside the turret of other SPGs, you will never see the breach protrude so far back that it wedge a crew. The design was flawed from the start.

breech lah not breach. it's actually called the "cradle" which is part of the breechloader that holds a round before going into the breech. as i've pointed out earlier, the "cradle" is way too long. the m109 paladin cradle is sexcellent as it's short, can be retracted, folded, and tucked away during firing. it gives the gun crew so much room to move around inside turret (@1:36.9).

 

[cocobobo]

breech lah not breach. it's actually called the "cradle" which is part of the breechloader that holds a round before going into the breech. as i've pointed out earlier, the "cradle" is way too long. the m109 paladin cradle is sexcellent as it's short, can be retracted, folded, and tucked away during firing. it gives the gun crew so much room to move around inside turret (@1:36.9).

this one lagi worse. wonder how many have been killed by the recoil at the 4:00 mark

 

[eatshitndie]

this one lagi worse. wonder how many have been killed by the recoil at the 4:00 mark

so far never heard of any casualties from the recoil in an m109. if you have please provide. at 0:36.9 can see gun crew standing aside to pull the trigger, and recoil is less than 16.9 inches. moreover, during howitzer firing, gun is almost always pointing up at an angle not parallel to ground level. thus, recoil is down instead of horizontal. how to die from recoil like that? unless safety measures are thrown out the turret and crew member stands right behind the breech during firing. only morons and suiciders with iq of 69 or less would do that.

 

[mojito]

.
View attachment 62175
View attachment 62176

No wonder SAF so many yesmen. ME2, ME3, all the way up to ME7! How to have thinking soldier you tell me?

 

[rambo22]

No wonder SAF so many yesmen. ME2, ME3, all the way up to ME7! How to have thinking soldier you tell me?

sure cannot lah

most of their top soldiers

BG, simiranjiao G all also cannot think properlee

u expect their ka kia to think ah ??

 

[knowwhatyouwantinlife]

First say nobody fault than say aloysius fault now it becomes an ns man and regulars fault

 

[nayr69sg]

First say nobody fault than say aloysius fault now it becomes an ns man and regulars fault

Still the stupid guys fault for not listening to command to move away.

 

[Papsmearer]

Still the stupid guys fault for not listening to command to move away.

Sometimes the command comes, and you still cannot get out of the way in time.

 

[nayr69sg]

Sometimes the command comes, and you still cannot get out of the way in time.

yes that is possible as well. Have you heard that this was what happened in this accident? Of all the the people, you would be someone I would believe if you had a different account of what happened in that vehicle.

Share leh.

 

[Papsmearer]

yes that is possible as well. Have you heard that this was what happened in this accident? Of all the the people, you would be someone I would believe if you had a different account of what happened in that vehicle.

Share leh.

I know exactly what happened. The command to stand clear or move out of the way is bullshit. Everyone will cover up and say the command to stand clear was given but AP did not obey it. Whether its given or not, its irrelevant. The fact of the matter is there should be no need to give such a command to stand clear at all. I am very familiar with armour turrets. The most vulnerable person or the last man in the loop is the one that says "All Clear" or "Clear", then the gun is fired or depressed or whatever after the clear signal is given. The whole sequence is wrong, which means the SAF self propelled gun force is incompetent or has their system wrong.

SO for example, when you are going to do something with the gun, eg. fire it, depress or elevate it, etc. the one controlling this action gives the indication of what action he wants to take. And this is the difference here, he does not tell them to stand clear, he just tells them what he wants to do with the gun. The order he gives will determine what the other occupants in turret need to do. If he cannot sight the occupants of the turret, he cannot assume that everyone in the turret has heard his command and gotten out of the way immediately. He has to hear the feedback from the occupants that they are safely in the turret before doing the action. So, either someone in charge in the turret informs him "All Clear", or they sound off like "Loader clear", "rammer clear", etc. I don't think this happened at all. Just because the command was given, does not mean that everyone heard him.

In a tank for example. If i am the tank commander, and I need a HE round in the gun, I call for HE. The gunner loads the HE round into the gun, but I never fire the gun until I hear the word "clear" from him. even though I can hear the round ram into the gun, and the breech closed, I never order fire until I hear "clear" from the other crew member. The reason is that his arm might be caught in the cradle, or his sleeve snagged on a piece of gear, and if you fire the gun without hearing the "clear" you can break or amputate his arm, as has happened before. Because he is the last man in the loop and the most vulnerable, I need to hear the "clear" from him, indicating he is safely out of harm's way. This definitely did not happen in the AP case. Someone in the Primus turret has to check and say all clear, and then when the person in charge of the gun hears that, he then lowers it. In the case of AP and the SAF Primus Force, it appears their procedures are arse backwards.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[nayr69sg]

I know exactly what happened. The command to stand clear or move out of the way is bullshit. Everyone will cover up and say the command to stand clear was given but AP did not obey it. Whether its given or not, its irrelevant. The fact of the matter is there should be no need to give such a command to stand clear at all. I am very familiar with armour turrets. The most vulnerable person or the last man in the loop is the one that says "All Clear" or "Clear", then the gun is fired or depressed or whatever after the clear signal is given. The whole sequence is wrong, which means the SAF self propelled gun force is incompetent or has their system wrong.

SO for example, when you are going to do something with the gun, eg. fire it, depress or elevate it, etc. the one controlling this action gives the indication of what action he wants to take. And this is the difference here, he does not tell them to stand clear, he just tells them what he wants to do with the gun. The order he gives will determine what the other occupants in turret need to do. If he cannot sight the occupants of the turret, he cannot assume that everyone in the turret has heard his command and gotten out of the way immediately. He has to hear the feedback from the occupants that they are safely in the turret before doing the action. So, either someone in charge in the turret informs him "All Clear", or they sound off like "Loader clear", "rammer clear", etc. I don't think this happened at all. Just because the command was given, does not mean that everyone heard him.

In a tank for example. If i am the tank commander, and I need a HE round in the gun, I call for HE. The gunner loads the HE round into the gun, but I never fire the gun until I hear the word "clear" from him. even though I can hear the round ram into the gun, and the breech closed, I never order fire until I hear "clear" from the other crew member. The reason is that his arm might be caught in the cradle, or his sleeve snagged on a piece of gear, and if you fire the gun without hearing the "clear" you can break or amputate his arm, as has happened before. Because he is the last man in the loop and the most vulnerable, I need to hear the "clear" from him, indicating he is safely out of harm's way. This definitely did not happen in the AP case. Someone in the Primus turret has to check and say all clear, and then when the person in charge of the gun hears that, he then lowers it. In the case of AP and the SAF Primus Force, it appears their procedures are arse backwards.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks for sharing. What happens if you do hear "All Clear" then proceed with your intended action and then later on realize that the person who said "All clear" did not actually get out of the way but based on his own judgment thought that he was out of harm's way? and because of that was caught in the line of fire/physical danger. Is that a possibility?

Or do all the gun commanders have to do a visual check to make sure everyone is all clear?

Looking at your above SOP, heavy emphasis is on trust. We assume that the last man is wise enough not to say "clear" if he is indeed not clear. But what happens when you have a stupid soldier who thought he is clear but is not? (As you know many NS men can be pretty stupid)

 

[Papsmearer]

Thanks for sharing. What happens if you do hear "All Clear" then proceed with your intended action and then later on realize that the person who said "All clear" did not actually get out of the way but based on his own judgment thought that he was out of harm's way? and because of that was caught in the line of fire/physical danger. Is that a possibility?

Or do all the gun commanders have to do a visual check to make sure everyone is all clear?

Looking at your above SOP, heavy emphasis is on trust. We assume that the last man is wise enough not to say "clear" if he is indeed not clear. But what happens when you have a stupid soldier who thought he is clear but is not? (As you know many NS men can be pretty stupid)

Even stupid people have a sense of self preservation. Safety procedures are designed to prevent stupid people from dying. I believe the following factors contributed to his death, ranked by order of importance:

1) The turret design is flawed, as mentioned here, the American M109 Paladin does not have this problem. Its impossible to be trapped by the breech or cradle of a M109 when the gun is being depressed or elevated. The only time the crew has to stand clear is when the gun is fired, as the recoil might injure whoever is directly behind the gun. The SAF and MINDEATH could have easily bought the M109 off the shelf, but instead, paid money for ST to developed this piece of shit and then buy 2000 copies of it.

2)The Primus is seldom used. In fact, the average gun fires less then 50 rounds a year. The lack of practice on this vehicle contributed to confusion during the repair. There does not seem to be any safety protocol during repairs. There are safety protocols when the gun is firing, when its moving, etc. But there does not appear to be the same level of safety protocols when a bunch of guys are putzing around in the turret. I think lack of familiarity with the weapon system was a contributing factor.

3) AP's reservist status. Its not safe in my opinion for reservists to just come in once a year and pick up where they left off. They have forgotten some things, the speed is not there, and they are disoriented. Its the same for armour crews. Knowing what I do now, I wouldn't put them in the tank until they have attended a couple of days of classroom refresher training. Any insurance company will tell you the accident rate for reservist is actually higher then for NSmen. In other armies like the IDF, reservist can go back to their camp without being schedule for ICT or recall anytime of the year. Its not uncommon for the 4 crew members of a tank to arrange to meet on a Saturday, and drive down to their base and draw out a tank and go shooting and driving. That way, they keep in practice the whole year. The SAF should have something like this, or at least make a few tank or Primus simulators available all year round.

 

[nayr69sg]

Chalk it down to the flaw in the Primus design.

 

[borom]

The problem with building your own design is that you cannot share experience with other users and flaws are not detected early.
Had we bought the German PzH 2000 as an example, we can share experience with users from Italy, Holland, Hungary, Greece, Lithuania, Croatia, Qatar, ect2 including their combat experience in Afghanistan.
I dread to think what will happen in actual combat in a vehicle built by and used by people with no actual combat experience

 

[Papsmearer]

The problem with building your own design is that you cannot share experience with other users and flaws are not detected early.
Had we bought the German PzH 2000 as an example, we can share experience with users from Italy, Holland, Hungary, Greece, Lithuania, Croatia, Qatar, ect2 including their combat experience in Afghanistan.
I dread to think what will happen in actual combat in a vehicle built by and used by people with no actual combat experience

This is the reason that Singapore, ST and Chartered before them cannot sell anything to the rest of the world. To be honest, they have engineers from other countries that help them design the major weapon systems, but still, the designs are not proven in combat. That is why the SAF is a wayang army. Unproven and suspect weapons led by unproven scholar generals equal a disaster in battle.

 

[nayr69sg]

This is the reason that Singapore, ST and Chartered before them cannot sell anything to the rest of the world. To be honest, they have engineers from other countries that help them design the major weapon systems, but still, the designs are not proven in combat. That is why the SAF is a wayang army. Unproven and suspect weapons led by unproven scholar generals equal a disaster in battle.

They should make a business of providing free military equipment for Hollywood movies.

 

[Hypocrite-The]

SAF serviceman admits to causing death of Aloysius Pang, fined S$8,000
Actor Aloysius Pang died four days after sustaining serious injuries during military training in New Zealand. (File photo: Facebook/Aloysius Pang)Share this content
Bookmark
SINGAPORE: A Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) serviceman on Tuesday (Nov 19) was fined and demoted after he admitted to causing the death of national serviceman Aloysius Pang.
Third Sergeant (National Service) Hubert Wah Yun Teng, 31, pleaded guilty to one charge of causing death by a negligent act under the Penal Code, and another charge of a negligent act of endangering life under the SAF Act.
He was fined S$5,000 for the charge of causing death by a negligent act and fined another S$3,000 for a negligent act of endangering life. His rank will be demoted to Corporal.
The military court heard that 3SG (NS) Wah, an operationally-ready detachment commander, failed to ensure that Pang was not in the travel path of the flick rammer of the Singapore Self-Propelled Howitzer, resulting in the flick rammer pinning Pang against the centre slew ring of the Howitzer, thereby causing his death.
For the other charge, the court heard that 3SG (NS) Wah failed to activate the emergency stop button that would have stopped the flick rammer.
READ: Aloysius Pang death: 2 SAF servicemen charged in military court
A person convicted for causing death by a negligent act faces up to two years' jail and/or a fine.
In 3SG (NS) Wah’s mitigation, his defence lawyer Adrian Wee said Pang’s next-of-kin had asked for the court to be lenient on the accused.
For the charge of causing death, the prosecution said it did not object to only a fine being imposed, adding that if a fine was to be imposed, it should be the maximum S$5,000.
Meanwhile, Military Expert 2 Ivan Teo Gee Siang, 35, also pleaded guilty to two charges of a negligent act of endangering life and another charge of disobedience of general orders, all under the SAF Act.
ME2 Teo, a regular armament technician, was fined a total of S$7,000 for the three charges.
For the first two charges, ME2 Teo failed to alert 3SG (NS) Wah that Pang was in the travel path of the flick rammer, and failed to activate the emergency stop button that would have halted it, the court heard.
For his third charge, ME2 Teo proceeded to loosen the outer cover of a box in the Howitzer when its barrel was not in a parked position and its master switch was not switched off, despite a maintenance manual indicating that they should be.
3SG (NS) Wah and ME2 Teo had been charged on Jul 31 but their charges were amended.
On Tuesday, the court heard that 3SG (NS) Wah will pay his fine in full on Nov 22, while ME2 Teo will pay S$3,000 on Tuesday and the remainder in monthly instalments of S$1,000, to be deducted from his salary.
The three-member tribunal, led by General Court Martial president Lieutenant-Colonel (NS) Shawn Ho – a serving State Court judge – said that based on the facts and circumstances as well as case precedents, the court agreed with the prosecution’s sentencing position for both servicemen.
Mitigating factors include the two servicemen’s guilty pleas, as well as ME2 Teo's clean service record and 3SG (NS) Wah's “almost unblemished” service record, LTC (NS) Ho said.
“Given that 3SG (NS) Hubert Wah was the junior commander, the fact that he activated the switch for the flick rammer, and one of the charges he faced was Section 304A(b) of the Penal Code, we are of the view that 3SG (NS) Hubert Wah’s culpability is higher than ME2 Ivan Teo,” he said in his oral grounds of decision.
“Accordingly, this fact is reflected in their respective sentences.”
PANG WAS LIFTED OFF THE GROUND
The court also heard a fresh account of what happened during the incident that led to Pang's death.
On Jan 19, 3SG (NS) Wah was operating the Howitzer as part of a training exercise in New Zealand when it encountered an error in its firing angle and required maintenance, court documents showed.
3SG (NS) Wah reported the error and a maintenance crew was activated to rectify the error. Pang, who was trained in repairing Howitzers, was instructed to provide maintenance support.
Pang arrived with ME2 Teo and conducted an inspection of the Howitzer, which had its barrel raised at the time.
The pair then left the Howitzer to discuss a repair plan together with another armament technician.
It was decided the technicians would attempt to correct the error by replacing the interface printed circuit board inside the motor drive control unit - ammunition handling system box.
After the discussion, ME2 Teo entered the Howitzer, informed 3SG (NS) Wah of the plan and told him to put the barrel to its “standby” position. He then loosened the outer casing of the system box to remove the circuit board.
This took place when the barrel was still at the “high” angle position and the master switch powering the Howitzer was switched on.