Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
In a horrific twist of events, a computerized anti-aircraft gun went out of control in a SANDF (South African National Defence Force) live-fire exercise. Attempts to shut it down failed as it sprayed hundreds of high-explosive 35mm cannon shells around the five gun-firing position.
[...]
Is that something an antiaircraft gun would normally have? (According to US Army manuals, we should handle a "runaway" machine gun by manually breaking off the linked ammo and, keeping the gun pointed in a safe direction, wait for it to fire off its remaining ammo.)I still don't trust that gun: No manual Emergency Off or Shutdown.
I'm no Stuart but 35mm's a big bullet, it's likely high-explosive. Obviously immediately fatal to anyone caught in the path. (a .50 cal will dismember people -- to include at the waist)Sidewinder wrote:The article says the gun had "gone postal" when a female officer tried to clear a jam, causing another round accidentally fired. I'm wondering how the hell did that happen. (Of course, I may be wrong to think of 35 mm antiaircraft guns as oversized 7.62 mm machine guns.) Comments from Mr. Stuart?
Instant shock if not termination of vital signs is what you're getting from those rounds. A 7.62 mm NATO FMJ will take a limb off if it hits the bone, so a 35 mm ack-ack hitting you is game over. A near miss will likely be shrapnel wounds extensive enough to kill if a HE tip.SPC Brungardt wrote:I'm no Stuart but 35mm's a big bullet, it's likely high-explosive. Obviously immediately fatal to anyone caught in the path. (a .50 cal will dismember people -- to include at the waist)
Wouldn't be the guy in a BMW on a motorway in the UK would it? There was an incident like that a year or two ago where the throttle got stuck at least and the guy had to negotiate traffic at well over 100 MPH and eventually rolled on a roundabout after failing to turn quick enough. He couldn't kill the engine because, as with most modern cars, that would kill the power steering also which is a bad thing on even a straight motorway stretch.Is there seriously nothing that forces the power off though? That's insane. This reminds me of some snazzy automatic transmission supercar whose stupid computer brain was stuck giving the car gas and the poor driver was flying down a (European, IIRC the story) freeway over 150mph. Stick plz k thx
Here you goDarth Servo wrote:I'm not exactly a gun fanatic. Would someone mind posting a pic of what kind of weapon we're talking about, the size, etc.
Try again with the piccyDarth Servo wrote:I'm not exactly a gun fanatic. Would someone mind posting a pic of what kind of weapon we're talking about, the size, etc.
Wasn't that because the fire control systems saw the exhaust fans for the field latrine, and trhough the magic of doppler shift, concluded that they were helicopter rotors, and engaged it as hostile?Stuart wrote:One day, I'll tell you why a Sergeant York engaged a particular mutinous looking field latrine and literally shot the shit out of it.
That's hilarious. Man, I love the advancing field of FCS. Maybe just go the simpler route and tell such units to shoot anything that moves, drop them behind enemy lines and then high tail it outta there.MKSheppard wrote:Wasn't that because the fire control systems saw the exhaust fans for the field latrine, and trhough the magic of doppler shift, concluded that they were helicopter rotors, and engaged it as hostile?Stuart wrote:One day, I'll tell you why a Sergeant York engaged a particular mutinous looking field latrine and literally shot the shit out of it.
That's the one. Best cure for constipation known to humanity.MKSheppard wrote: Wasn't that because the fire control systems saw the exhaust fans for the field latrine, and through the magic of doppler shift, concluded that they were helicopter rotors, and engaged it as hostile?
Wouldn't it be safer to drop them and then stand VERY STILL while they kill everything in the area? Or am I wrong in thinking that running would make you a target?Admiral Valdemar wrote:That's hilarious. Man, I love the advancing field of FCS. Maybe just go the simpler route and tell such units to shoot anything that moves, drop them behind enemy lines and then high tail it outta there.MKSheppard wrote:Wasn't that because the fire control systems saw the exhaust fans for the field latrine, and trhough the magic of doppler shift, concluded that they were helicopter rotors, and engaged it as hostile?Stuart wrote:One day, I'll tell you why a Sergeant York engaged a particular mutinous looking field latrine and literally shot the shit out of it.
Commander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
It would be better to get behind the most solid object you can find away from any possible targets. Moreover, if you stood still in a battlefield, if the gun didn't get you by accident, some bastard with a rifle probably will.Vehrec wrote:Wouldn't it be safer to drop them and then stand VERY STILL while they kill everything in the area? Or am I wrong in thinking that running would make you a target?Admiral Valdemar wrote:That's hilarious. Man, I love the advancing field of FCS. Maybe just go the simpler route and tell such units to shoot anything that moves, drop them behind enemy lines and then high tail it outta there.MKSheppard wrote: Wasn't that because the fire control systems saw the exhaust fans for the field latrine, and trhough the magic of doppler shift, concluded that they were helicopter rotors, and engaged it as hostile?
Being very, very still didn't help Santa Catalina Island when a Mk.15 Phalanx went berserk.Vehrec wrote: Wouldn't it be safer to drop them and then stand VERY STILL while they kill everything in the area?
I believe I've read about that one before. Always reminds me of that scene with the MAC-10 in True Lies.Stuart wrote:
Being very, very still didn't help Santa Catalina Island when a Mk.15 Phalanx went berserk.
By the way, this doesn't only happen with the bigger stuff. There's a delightful story from the IRA of an attempt to ambush a British unit that went utterly pear-shaped. The disprited IRA group (abouta dozen of them) went back to a room somewhere for a post-mortem on what had gone wrong (essentially, they set the ambush up in the wrong place). The leader of the group threw his Thompson SMG onto the table in disgust. The impact made it slam-fire and the weapon started run-away firing, the recoil made the weapon spin in a 360 degree circle, spraying bullets that killed or maimed everybody in the room.
Stories like that are quite common from back when we still used the old Sterling SMG, if you dropped it it would go off and you'd have a run away weapon. Apparently more than a few people got shot in the foot or the leg.Stuart wrote:
By the way, this doesn't only happen with the bigger stuff. There's a delightful story from the IRA of an attempt to ambush a British unit that went utterly pear-shaped. The disprited IRA group (abouta dozen of them) went back to a room somewhere for a post-mortem on what had gone wrong (essentially, they set the ambush up in the wrong place). The leader of the group threw his Thompson SMG onto the table in disgust. The impact made it slam-fire and the weapon started run-away firing, the recoil made the weapon spin in a 360 degree circle, spraying bullets that killed or maimed everybody in the room.
When a gun uses a computer system for almost every function, it's bound to have a huge problem at some point. Using computers for things like targeting and tracking are fine, but it's usually a smarter idea to have an actual person check the target and pull the trigger.Admiral Valdemar wrote:Those were made to be cheap, easy to make SMGs though. You don't expect this issue with a multi-million dollar AA installation. But I'd rather get hit with a 9 mm parabellum than a 35 mm HE incendiary.
If a human was always checking the target and pulling the trigger, the system would be incapable of countering low level high speed air attacks. Human reaction time isn’t fast enough. The gun its self is an Orklinie KDA cannon on a twin mount, which is basically a giant gas operated belt fed machine gun in terms of how it functions; meaning it can have the same problems you sometimes get with a submachine gun or a rifle caliber machine gun. The gun mounts do have provisions for manual control but it’s an emergency function.chitoryu12 wrote: When a gun uses a computer system for almost every function, it's bound to have a huge problem at some point. Using computers for things like targeting and tracking are fine, but it's usually a smarter idea to have an actual person check the target and pull the trigger.
Low-flying aircraft. As far back as Korea it was noted that jets like the F-80 suffered less from anti-aircraft fire than the piston-engines F-51s because the jets were over the target and gone before the AA guns could open up. That's why the development of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles started.salm wrote: Just out of curiosity: What is considered a low level high speed air attack? Incomming rockets and missiles or low flying air planes?
