| |
 ROBERT LINN
| 2 | 2/17/2021 6:09 PM | I believe there used to be-or-is a requirement for a
(Separator Board) either metal or plywood that would separate the cargo
compartment of the vehicle from the
operator/passenger compartment when transporting ammo. Does anyone have a reference?
| LANCE MATTHEWS | 2/22/2021 11:15 AM | | No | | | | |
| |
LANCE MATTHEWS
| 0 | 1/5/2021 2:46 PM | | | 1/5/2021 2:46 PM | | No | | | | |
| |
LANCE MATTHEWS
| 0 | 1/5/2021 2:44 PM | | | 1/5/2021 2:44 PM | | No | | | | |
| |
LANCE MATTHEWS
| 0 | 1/5/2021 2:40 PM | Department of the Army Pamphlet 700–107
Logistics Preparation of Standard Operating Procedures and Written Standards for Ammunition Operations
New publication, dated 11 Dec 2020.
| | 1/5/2021 2:40 PM | | No | | | | |
| |
LANCE MATTHEWS
| 0 | 1/5/2021 2:38 PM | Army Regulation 700 – 13 Logistics
Worldwide Department of Defense Military Munitions (Ammunition) Logistics/Surveillance/Explosives Safety Review and Technical Assistance Program
Major revision dated 15 Dec 2020.
| | 1/5/2021 2:38 PM | | No | | | | |
| |
WILLIAM WALLACE
| 2 | 9/15/2020 12:34 PM | Hello all, i am getting ready to write an ESMP for an ASCC. I am lookig for a/any template? thanks for any help. send to: william.wallace@socom.mil William | WILLIAM WALLACE | 9/17/2020 1:20 PM | | No | | | | |
| |
DEWARD CUMMINGS
| 2 | 8/18/2020 11:16 AM | How would one go about getting a copy of the DoD Acquisition Managers Handbook for Insensitive
Munitions, August 2013 (NOTAL).
From my understanding, NOTAL is restricted distribution.
| Tom Coradeschi | 9/2/2020 10:54 AM | | No | | | | |
| |
LANCE MATTHEWS
| 1 | 6/18/2020 9:04 AM | | JACQUELINE GARCIA | 8/12/2020 3:41 PM | | No | | | | |
| |
JAMES THOMPSON
| 3 | 8/3/2020 12:53 PM | Can someone tell me who the POC or the office is that I need to contact about updating the AMC DRAWINGS 19-48-series?
| LAURA FIEFFER | 8/4/2020 7:42 AM | | No | | | | |
| |
KENDALL LEWIS
| 2 | 7/31/2020 9:39 AM | Does anyone know of anyone resources to lookup COEs? We have had no luck so far. | LAURA FIEFFER | 8/3/2020 8:06 AM | | No | | | | |
| |
THEODORE MCHUGH
| 7 | 5/29/2020 1:56 PM | Here in Hawaii we are working a jiont project with the Navy constructing new Magazines. We were asked a question about a buildings requirements. We answered using the requirements of DA PAM 385-64. USACE came back and stated: "The vriteria laid out in DA Pam 385-64 is no longer valid. SDW are not approved for new contsruction using the criteria of the DA Pam." If we do not use the DA Pam, what do we use, and what will licenses and inspections be based on.......Thanx, Ted | CLAYTON LIHILIHI | 6/3/2020 4:58 PM | | No | | | | |
| |
EDDY SMITH
| 2 | 4/24/2020 9:57 AM | When processing residue documents through SAAS that contain expended lunch tubes (CX01), are the expended tubes required to be brought to record or does the document simply gets cleared through document reconciliation? My questions arised from reading DA Pam 700-16 para 10-32 and from expended CAT I items guidance used prior to SCP 11. Thanks! | BENJAMIN PHILPOTT | 5/21/2020 4:12 AM | | No | | | | |
| |
THEODORE MCHUGH
| 3 | 12/12/2019 7:59 PM | 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?
| MICHAEL LIMA | 5/3/2020 6:15 AM | | No | | | | |
| |
CHRISTOPHER WOODS
| 1 | 4/28/2020 10:41 AM | I am currently working on the requirements for the Army Safety Explosives Level 2 certificate. One of the required courses for this is the online AMMO-100 Explosive Safety Site Planning Process (DAC Course 4E-F25_431-F9 (DL)) course. To register for this course, I went to the DACTES website, which directed me to the ATRRS site. After registering, I was directed to the ALMS site. However, on ALMS, there is only a Letter of Instruction (LOI), the Exam, and a Survey. I can't seem to find the actual course content. Can anyone assist me with this? Thank you!
| Tom Coradeschi | 4/29/2020 8:27 AM | | No | | | | |
| |
JR CAMARENA
| 1 | 2/4/2020 8:15 AM | 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. | ROBERT CHENARD | 2/18/2020 7:18 PM | | No | | | | |
| |
LANCE MATTHEWS
| 0 | 12/26/2019 12:24 AM | | | 12/26/2019 12:24 AM | | No | | | | |
| |
ROBERT LINN
| 0 | 11/20/2019 10:09 AM | 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: 0304
Component/Assembly: b. Nose Fuze
Maintenance Function: Remove/Install
Maintenance Level: Depot
When the unit looks at the Chart, I am sure that they will comment that component/assembly
nose Fuze allows for removing and installing of the fuze at the operator or crew maintenance level but component/assembly
a 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.
| | 11/20/2019 10:09 AM | | No | | | | |
| |
ROBERT LINN
| 4 | 10/20/2019 1:51 PM | My unit is looking at using a brass deformer
IAW the DAP 385-64
Chapter 4 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?
| ROBERT LINN | 11/5/2019 9:25 AM | | No | | | | |
| |
TRAY BLAKLEY
| 2 | 9/23/2019 6:39 PM | Is there a regualtion that states the Approver on DA Form 1687 can not receive ammunition from the ASP?
| ROBERT LINN | 10/24/2019 9:14 PM | | No | | | | |
| |
JOSHUA WUSTNER
| 1 | 9/19/2019 11:31 AM | Background: 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. COAs: - Reduce the limits based on the Front to Side exposure.
- Modify criteria (DESR, OP 5, etc.) to allow for a small Front to Side clip to be considered a Side to Side exposure. How small is small? Less than 5% of the sidewall sees the front exposure arc? Modify ESS programming?
- Deviations on a case by case basis, using submittal notes in ESS.
What are your thoughts? | JULIE PORTER | 10/15/2019 9:54 AM | | No | | | | |
