Browse by Subject
Browse by Category
We have a set of earth covered magazines with high humidity.
I would like to hear about what systems others are using to mechanically dehumidify their ECMs. Informartion on the systems that are set up on the outside of the bunker, with piping going through the barrel of the magazine, portable dehumifier units and other systems would be greatly appreciated.
Changes to AESIP Portal o/a Jan 6, 2020.
The AESIP Portal URL (https://aesip.army.mil/irj/portal) will no longer be directly accessible to AESIP Hub applicatons. Redirected link will be to the Army Enterprise Portal URL (https://enterprise.armyerp.army.mil).
Current publications state we must put that indivuals have been screened IAW AR 190-11 in the 1687 remarks block. Should we now put AR 190-13 due to ALARACT 062/2019? What say you?
Artillery units have been removing pre-fuzed rounds and replacing them with a different model fuze. This practice is prohibited at unit level maintenance and could cause serious injuries.
DODIC C454 and C479 are the most common fuzed cartridges consumed in training.TM 9-1300-251-20&P Lists remove and installation of a fuze that has been pre-fuzed to the projectile as a Depot level maintenance task. Maintenance Allocation Chart for Artillery Ammunition (pg B-17 of TM9-1300-251-20&P )
Group Number: 0304Component/Assembly: b. Nose FuzeMaintenance Function: Remove/InstallMaintenance Level: DepotWhen the unit looks at the Chart, I am sure that they will comment that component/assemblynose Fuze allows for removing and installing of the fuze at the operator or crew maintenance level but component/assemblya nose Fuze does not apply to the pre-fuzed cartridges. C454, M60 Smoke WP rounds are fuzed at the time of manufacture. Units are not authorized to remove fuzes from prefuzed rounds There are two safety rationale for units not removing the fuzes from the pre-fuzed cartridges in the field: 1. The fuzes are staked to prevent any movement of the fuze during transportation for safety purposes. If the round is unfuzed the cartridge is not safe to transport because the original fuze is not installed, and the cartridge is not being transported in the appropriate packaging configuration. 2. Pre-fuzed rounds are torqued to the round more from the manufacture than when a soldier installs them in the field. Removal of a fuze in the field will require more torque causing damage to the fuze, and a possibility of booster breaking off in the fuze well of the round resulting in both the projectile and the fuze becoming unserviceable and an explosive hazard.
My unit is looking at using a brass deformer
IAW the DAP 385-64
Safety Site Planning
(13) Establishes or designates locations for equipment (such as, brass deformers) used to process spent cartridge cases, range residue, and so forth
Question: If the brass is already Certified and verified explosive free, as it would be going to DLA, why would the unit need a DDESB safety site plan?
Is there a regualtion that states the Approver on DA Form 1687 can not receive ammunition from the ASP?
Prior to 1967 the “front” sector of an Earth-Covered Magazines (ECM) was measured from the center of the headwall. Magazines were constructed based on this assumption.
Now, the front exposure arc originates inside the magazine, intersecting at the Headwall & sidewall (the arc is widened). Now the canted magazines have a Side to Front exposure by a thin margin.
This increases the inter-magazine (IMD) distance required, increases the required K factor, thus requiring drastically reduced storage limits in some cases.
What are your thoughts?
All ammo operations require an SOP, the NEW must be listed in the SOP. Is it stated anywhere that the Bay NEW limits must match the NEW on the SOP?
Is there a regulation that states aircrafts cannot fly over ammunition?
Not an ammunition technical question, but it is the operatiojns realm and some of you may have dealt with this before. If AMC-R-350-4 calls for a Contracting Officer Representative to attend Ammo-65 (DOD Contractor's Explosives Safety Standards) and DAC farms this couse out to a civilian company, are there channels for AMC to pay the tuition, or refund the tution ($2000.00) to the local command.
It just seems odd to me the AMC would require a GS civilian to have a course not offered by DAC, it is hard enough for Commands to find the funds to support the TDY. Thanx, Ted
I provide contractor support to AFLCMC. We are in the early stages of a new AF missile acquisition. My question is, How and to whom do we get the drawings to for the purposes of developing the 19-48? Can someone familiarize me with the process. I see the other legacy Air-to-Air missiles listed. Any info would be appreciated.
Several of my customers have asked about their OIP low marks in Ammo. I dug this thing up from my 12 years as an Ammo Manager and Master Gunner. I never failed an inspection with this. Hope this helps someone else out there.Ammo Cradle to Grave Documents._Page_1.jpg
DA PAM 700-16, para. 12-15a, states DA Form 4949 is used on all ammo, missiles and explosive items along with applicable MFDRs.
Is a DA Form 4949 the only form required for expenditure of operational load items? Or do I also need to complete a DA Form 5692-R when consuming items such as AT-4s and C-4, which are CIIC I, II for operational load purposes?
Additionally, appendix F, para. F-4c, states items in Table
F-2 with a "T" will require additional documentation.
So which forms do I need to complete when expending CIIC I and II items for operational load purposes?
Many times in my career I have faced a situation where unit's want to know what I have on hand for CL V. I will typically tell that individual that my asset status report is sensitive in nature and that I am not allowed to give that information out unless it is to give my commander situational awareness of what is available. I am aware that as an Accountable Officer, I am obligated to report my on hand to echelons above me as it relates to CL V.
Is there anywhere in writing where it states who I am allowed to give my asset status report to or is there anywhere that states that I do not have to give my asset status report to another individual or unit besides my commander? I would like to have a regulation to back me up because most will challenge myself or anyone in an AO position that decides not to reveal that information.
IAW with AIN 014-19
Recovery of the FRTR is not designed or intended to be recovered. Question is what happens when these rounds are fired into a temporary impact area.
My QASAS has been telling me that there are drawings for Rotary Wing (sling) and Fixed Wing (463L pallet) movements. He quotes the 19-48 drawings which are for storage of single DODICs and outload - like on a truck or in a MILVAN but the drawings don't account for mixed DODICs, nor various sized boxes w/in the same sling or on the same pallet, especially with limited rescources at an austere location (There are no Walmarts, Home Depots (limited lumber), etc. nearby). In our situation, as the slings of mixed DODICs w/ different sizes and various weighted packages, which affects the center of gravity of the pallet gets lifted in the sling (also, how the corners of the pallet match up w/ the holes between the ropes of the sling can add to the twisting of the pallets of the ammo when the rotary wing asset lifts the sling) the pallets have twisted and the tensioned metal bands break. The contractor has told me the broken banding can also cut/fray the sling making the sling not usable for future use and must then be replaced. (By the way, what is the tension breaking strength of the various sizes of metal banding?) The rotary wing contractor wants the pallets secured w/ ratched straps b/c the straps stretch w/o breaking while under stress. That contractor says they have had metal banding break in flight for various reasons resulting in loose ammo in the sling and the contractor can't just set down IOT reconfigure the load adn doesn't want to drop ammo out of their sling which can become donor material to the bad guys. When the rotary wing contractor comes in to set down the sling they are quite often under fire. Inadvertantly they deliver the ammo w/ a thud (IOT leave the area quickly since they are not able to defend themselves.)
The 19-48 drawings are for full pallets of the same DODIC, which works great for storage at Depots and loading onto trucks or into MILVANs but not necessarily for Operational loads of smaller quantities of mixed DODICs. A vast majority of units do not order Depot sized quantities or pallets of each DODIC. Does anyone have a common sense answer to this delema? The QASAS is writing up the contractor for packaging pallets of ammo as per sling yard guidance which is not abiding to the 1948 drawings. The ASP contractor assists the units and gets them their ammo asap despite the contractor working outside their Statement of Work, by configured the ammo for sling loads and moving the ammo to the sling yard. Most of the contract workers are former SM that worked ammo when they were serving, as such they understand as we do the need to provide the trigger puller ready, reliable, lethal ammunition quickly.
The contract workers are packaging the unit's ammo as per the guidance from the sling yard personnel IOT quickly push the ammo to the Warfighter. But the QASAS is writing the contractor up and pushing the write ups up their Chain of Command which is threatening contract renewal.
What has been a 3 day process to issue/fly ammo to the Warfighter is going to be extended to about 3 weeks b/c the contractor, not wanting to be written up for assisting Soldiers by configuring the unit's ammo in a way they are not required is saying they will stop b/c they don't want to be written up. A work around has been suggested for the ASP contractor to still assist units by creating HAZDECs, helping prep the Unit's ammo (they've signed for the ammo) to the sling yards requirments, but the unit will have to cordinate movement to the sling yard. However, most units do not have the necessary support at our location (LNOs) to prepare HAZDECs or move ammo from the ASP to the sling yard/flight line. Still working out the details of this work around. The contractor workers are not happy w/ this option of not being able to openly help the Warfighter to the fullest extent b/c the QASAS is so focused upon drawings that don't apply in all situations.
My concern is, the Warfighter probably does not have enough on hand stocks as the pipeline becomes 18 + or - days longer. So if anyone has suggestions for load out drawings for the contractor for smaller quantities of various DODICs IOT prevent my QASAS from complaining it would be greatly appreciated. The contract workers want to help the warfighter and by stepping back will cause the sling yard Soldiers to become overworked b/c they don't have the personel for the increase in workload. And w/ the Boots On Ground numbers being examined. I'm fearful the sling yard will lose more personnel while their workload is about to increase since the ASP workers aren't being allowed to assist. Yet my QASAS writes up the contractor, who has been doing the work, wants to assist the warfighter, and who's numbers don't go against the BOG. Help! Seeking common sense solutions in a forward environment.
How does one submit an article for the newsletter?
Tim: Is there any regulatory guidance at any level saying No weapons into an ASP? To
me guards potentially make sense b/c they are getting extra weapons training as
per AR 190-14 but accidents do occur. That's why they're called accidents. I
just don't want an accident to become a catastrophe.
USAEHA TG 146.pdfDwg 13064136.pdf
The attached documents will clarify some misinformation circulated regarding wood preservative treatments.
Wood treated with pentachlorophenol is indicated by a "P" marking (Ref USAEHA TG 146 attached). Pentachlorophenol is no longer used as a wood preservative and has been replaced by alternatives such as Copper-8-quinolinolate, zinc naphthenate, and copper naphthenate.
IAW Dwg 13064136 these alternative treatments that are currently authorized can be recognized by the following markings -
A PS Magazine Article (PS 677) as well as the DA Pam 742-1 22Nov2016 erroneously indicate that PA, PB & PC are pentachlorophenol treated.
Required fields marked with *
Please note that you should expect to receive a response from our team, regarding your inquiry, within 1 business day.