Members of 51 Squadron RAF Regiment, taking aim before live firing a 81mm Mortar. Wikimedia
Daily Mail: Now health and safety chiefs say British soldiers can't fire their mortars because they are too LOUD
* The 81mm mortar was routinely employed in fight against the Taliban
* But bosses say firing it more than 5,000 metres exceeds work place sound limits
* Soldiers can now only practise mortar fire up to a range of 2,000 metres
* New rule comes after fears that many veterans have sustained hearing problems
British soldiers have been banned from firing mortars at full range in training by health and safety bosses - because they are too loud.
The longer-range 81mm mortar, which was routinely employed by the British Army against the Taliban, is set to see reduced use in training after it was deemed a risk to the hearing of troops.
Health and safety chiefs have ruled that firing the 81mm at a longer range than 5,000 metres exceeds the upper work place sound limit by 137 decibels, despite the use of ear defenders.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: My father served in an artillery unit during the Second World War .... it is true .... hearing damage and loss is expected. As to this story .... why limit oneself to mortars. Artillery causes hearing loss, Close missile and bomb strikes cause hearing loss. Tank shells cause hearing loss. There are a hundred one weapon systems out there that will cause hearing loss .... this focus on 81mm mortars is just PR to silence the critics.
16 comments:
I love this. Gosh I wonder what your father would have said about this?
Want some hearing loss? Fire blank rounds out of the M240B.
The U.S. armed forces use ear plugs quite regularly. Foam earplugs with a 20-30 decibal reduction makes a great difference, and are extremely inexpensive. Secondly why would you restrict the use of such an effective weapon? The enemy will still use then regardless. Our armies are getting pampered. Pampered soldiers die when the bullets start flying.
When many combat-arms soldiers leave the service with hearing damage, they claim it as disability, and many are denied because they were 'provided ear protection'.
I am thinking specifically about a mortarman who was leaving the Army during my first year in the same unit. It can be impossible to hear commands and/or stop to put in ear protection when your friends are under fire and you need to hang mortar rounds down range in less than 10 seconds from the call.
So, my point is, even with hearing protection, there are lots of times where you simply can't or shouldn't use it, and I don't think the higher-ups/politicans accept that.
I was Abn Infantry and spent a long period on a scout team where even in training we would patrol, not surprisingly, as quietly as possible, and get ambushed by OpFor, and suddenly the M240B is blasting off blank rounds next to your face. Who is going to stop and put in ear plugs? And during deployment? Many times putting in ear protection is a luxury you don't have time for.
I'd raie hearing loss over loss of life any day.
*take
fab z and Alex,
Absolutely right both of you. It is a known fact that 100% of the dead can't hear, plugs or not. I have trouble hearing on one side (something got too close), but I am in the land of the living and that is all that counts.
"firing the 81mm at a longer range than 5,000 metres exceeds the upper work place sound limit by 137 decibels, despite the use of ear defenders."
Creating deaf soldiers during training is counterproductive.
British soldiers wear earplugs that mute high pitched and high decibel sounds, but still allow normal speech to be heard. I use similar earplugs on the job site, but above certain decibel levels of noise, they provide no protection.
Artillary and tank crews wear headsets and voice mikes, which allow a much greater level of hearing protection, while still allowing communication.
While similar systems could be adopted for mortar crews in limited training situations, they are not useable in other training situations as mortar crews are attached to the infantry, with whom they need to communicate.
In combat, Health and Safety rules do not apply.
James .... talking to my dad was sometimes frustrating. And being a proud man .... he never admitted that he had a hearing problem. The hazards of war.
Alex .... you summed it up perfectly.
Alex
There is no denial on hearing problems I served on a 777 crew in the Marine Corp very loud indeed. We didn't have any good options in my time to protect ourselves, but now is a different story.
The Honeywell here in Missouri is working with I.H.P system for our soldiers.
They are on the verge of regrowing ear drums and the like.
It will be expensive at first.
Si-vis-pasen-
"no denial on hearing problems", they can be somewhat useful when talking to the wife or girl friend.
Agreed especially with over the weekend chores, I've been asked to get my patio furniture in the garage before the first snow ,too late now :-(
So what, my hearing is damaged part of the job of being a solider, I hear a motor running in my right ear all the time, just the way it is, and most of my buddies are hearing impaired.
http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/~/media/Files/Factsheets/Benefits/pdf/Armed%20Forces%20Compensation%20Scheme%20July%202012.ashx
Claims for hearing loss in the military costs the British £65,567,900 year and is growing at an exponential rate.
The British Military , which isn't large to begin with, "loses" almost a 1,000 members a year due to "effective hearing loss", some of them Specialists that have cost the Military close to £1 million in training costs.
Post a Comment