I want to update my original post which was based on another post that laid out the scenario & location of the incident.
I accepted the scenario & questioned the location. In fact I’ve now received a great deal of new information from soldiers who were there & want to correct the record.
So here’s what I know: the location is correct, the scenario (an artillery round caused the explosion) was totally wrong.
Soldiers on the ground are saying 2 training scenarios were happening in that location simultaneously.
First there is lots of static ranges that face the second lake from rifle ranges to a 60 mm mortar range to a grenade range to an antitank range limited to the M72 & 84 mm Carl Gustov. These hand held shoulder fired anti armour weapons have been used by CDN infantry platoons for 4 decades now. They are generally very effective & reliable.
I’m told a Carl G was being fired at a target some 300 metres away from a static cement bay using the standing position. The safety officer stands about 18” away in a cement bay observing every action taken by the loader & gunner. This is very basic infantry training & carried out at least annually.
In this case a high explosive (HE) round was being fired.
Apparently shortly after the HE round was fired it malfunctioned & dove at full speed into the ground striking either a buried natural gas wellhead or pipeline which exploded. There were casualties at this range caused by the blast wave.
Simultaneously there were some 150 soldiers training in fighting in built up areas (FIBUA or Urban Warfare) using blank ammo or just running through the basic drills using dry fire. No live ammunition, no explosives of any type, certainly no live indirect fire. There were 3 wooden structures being used & all three were completely destroyed by the blast. A significant number of casualties occurred here.
The explosion led to a grass fire which was whipped up by strong gusts of wind which blew directly through the units bivouac site (tented area where troops sleep, rest, park vehicles etc) casing additional casualties. The fire then continued on & went beyond the training area into the municipality of Wainwright.
At this point, it appears that this series of incidents began with a round malfunctioning & doing damage that never could have been imagined let alone predicted or prevented.
As was the case last night, the fog of war/crisis still exists so information may still change.
This is not because of a cover up or some imaginary conspiracy.
If the casualty count is only half as high as some are claiming you will have to go back to the darkest days of WWII to find similar numbers & never has a training exercise seen anything like this so a great deal must be done in the immediate aftermath before making definitive public statements so please have patience, please believe everyone is trying to get this right & those who really care are more than willing to correct their earlier errors as the newest information comes in.
Think long & hard about what you post…thousand of soldiers & their families are watching! Please keep them all including the military & civilian first responders in your prayers.
I hope this helps & I’ll potentially post more as it becomes available.
I have no direct knowledge about what happened but based on this post, I think I can add some clarity to things I read in the comments.
There are many types of ranges within the CFB Wainwright training area & there is an attached permanent base area that has training & administrative buildings, dining halls, barracks & even a whole community of houses for married permanent staff members. All ranges are in the training area several kms from the base area.
Some ranges are permanent & fixed in place, some amount to an area on the map & range orders that tell the user what types of weapons can be fired within that designated area. This type of live fire range is likely where this incident took place.
Once you decide that a live fire range is going to happen a Range Safety Officer must be designated. The RSO works with Assistant RSO’s who are qualified to template (safely determine where a weapon can be fired from based on its maximum range, if it’s an indirect fire weapon like an artillery or mortar shell, there’s lots of added factors to be considered) the different weapons that will be used from rifles to medium & heavy MG’s to anti tank weapons to 2 calibres of mortars to artillery. All these folks work with a permanent base organization called Range Control who ensure all the templates are properly done, all the safety rules are understood, all the temporary safety staff are qualified for their jobs & that flags, road barriers & guards on the outer perimeter have been assigned & are in place so no one just wonders into a shit storm.
They assign a safety frequency separate from the tactical frequency. Whenever any obstacles or sensitive things are located within a designated live fire training area or range, they are made known to the range safety staff by Range Control so that buffer or restricted zones can be placed around them.
The area indicated (see the map) near the 2 lakes was never authorized for indirect fire & if my memory is correct, it was never authorized for any form of live fire training.
It should also be noted that prior to any live fire range involving multiple weapons systems (especially indirect fire) & movement by troops, the safety staff would not just rely on maps & templates & written rules, they would be walking the ground repeatedly so they were 100% familiar with what is referred to as the trace, which is just another way of saying, the direction the training troops would generally follow.
A good range gives as much latitude to the tactical officer or NCO in charge to fire & maneuver using the ground to their advantage but still ensuring that their weapons are staying within the safety arcs. This takes a lot of effort by a very large safety team & must also stand up to the inspection by a full time Range Control Officer.
Typically indirect fire is tightly controlled both by the safety staff assigned to monitor the tactical fire controllers requesting the indirect fire & by the safety team at the gun or mortar line positions to ensure the rounds will land safely & avoid any potentially dangerous targets such as a gas well. This is double checked by those doing the firing & their safety monitors several kms away.
So two things jump off the page with this report. One based on my years of working in Wainwright both as a trainee, as permanent staff & as a safety officer for indirect mortar fire countless times including on static & maneuver ranges, I can’t imagine this part of the training area ever being used for any form of live fire let alone indirect fire.
And two, the idea that at least 6 people would have had to miss the fact that a restricted target had been selected or the folks at the gun line had entered the coordinates incorrectly into the targeting computer or set up the gun line incorrectly is beyond imagination.
There are so many safety redundancies built into using indirect artillery fire with troops on the ground it’s nearly impossible to believe.
Hope this helps!