By: Jason Bender (Major, US Army Field Artillery)

Jason Bender (Major, US Army Field Artillery) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:34:19 +0000

I wouldn’t worry about a “dud rate” on US manufactured artillery ammunition. (I’m an active duty Army artillery officer… and a Salem resident who grew up skiing on Hood and Bachelor.) We ensure our dud rates to be about 1/10th of 1 percent, which comes out to be about 1 in a 1000 rounds that may not function upon impact or time (if a time fuze is used). The last time I was skiing in Taos, I came around one run and sitting on a high bluff was their M101A2 that they use for avalanche control. I’d heard that some of the larger resorts use them, but seeing one in person is believing. Hood would do good to talk w/ the folks at Taos to get insight into their utilization of the cannon. Moreover, the safety concerns as expressed by a few people in the Oregonian article need to be addressed as lack of common sense (recoilless rifle mishap) and lack of secondary safety checks (overshooting the target w/ the howitzer). Manual cannon fire direction is an EXACT science. Based on the location of the target (we call it a predicted point of impact), exact numbers for deflection (compass direction the gun tube needs to be aimed), elevation of the gun tube, and powder charge (based on fixed, pre-made 7-charge combination that’s used for 105mm semi-fixed ammunition and which gives the projectile a known and documented muzzle velocity) are all calculated w/ information on the gun’s actual physical location (GPS determined), powder propellant temperature (affects burn rates), and projectile weight (difference of a few pounds actually makes a difference in precision targeting). The 2 major ways to not hit the target are by 1) not computing deflection, elevation or charge correctly — which is what secondary checks are for, or 2) not accurately determining either the target location or gun location — again, verified w/ secondary checks. We don’t rely on luck in the Army or Marine artillery, it’s been boiled down to a science over the last 100 years and the young Soldiers and Marines that train on this out at Fort Sill, OK, will tell you the same. Mount Hood would do well to use the howitzer for avalanche control, but I question the use of the M101A1. It’s an old gun that dates back to WW2. A better and more recent piece would be the M101A2 which only dates back to the Vietnam-era, and which the Nat’l Guard may still maintain, but which also has abundant spare parts since several nations still use them actively for national defense.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:07:41 +0000

FYI – if you highlight the text and then copy & paste it into any text editor you can read the entire thing.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:40:24 +0000

I can’t read all of the key points on the website…they are cut off. Also, where has this Howitzer been used for avalanche control before? Are there any studies on its use? It sounded like from the dud recovery rate that Meadows has used this before? Remember bombs on the beach campaign from New Jersey beach fill project…I’d hate to see bombs on the mountain.

Comments on: Mount Hood Meadows Avalanche Control Expansion Proposal

By: Jason Bender (Major, US Army Field Artillery)

By: Scott

By: Charlie