Now here’s something a bit different. Conscripted Korean recruit falls asleep at the wheel, after an all night training excerise, and crashes into and through two cars and stalls next to a Bongo truck and a couple of SUVs. More from Edmonton Journal:
“…the South Korean army tank was returning to base after an all-night training exercise near the border with North Korea. Suddenly, reported passersby, the tank quickly accelerated and veered off the road. It crushed two cars and smashed four trucks as motorists and pedestrians scrambled for cover.
One driver escaped death by mere inches, gripping the steering wheel and staring in disbelief — the proverbial deer in the headlights phenomenon — as the tank plowed through the passenger side of his car, leaving it a mass of twisted metal.
The tank eventually came to a halt after it crashed into a storefront and the engine stalled, say police. It was only then that the driver, Yeon Lee, 32, woke up. Lee was the only casualty, sustaining injuries to his head and chest.”
Photo from Orange Personal Communications (UK)
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Cue the 2002 armored car incident snark in 3… 2… 1…
Damn… that’s right.
That thought did grace my mind a millisecond after I clicked “post.”
I hope he’s not gonna be deployed to Afghanistan
“Suddenly, reported passersby, the tank quickly accelerated and veered off the road.”
The military’s just gotta stop buying Toyota . . .
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Jeffery,
Cue the punchine drums…
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/pyccqcpjpd–Drum-punchline-2Comedy-AudioMicro-Cartoons-and-Comic-Effects-
Not to be a troll, but it kind of bugs me when people add phrases into descriptions of events – phrases they probably think nothing of and which I’m certain were not meant to mislead, but which can add unintended slash inaccurate connotations to stories. For example, leading off the post with the phrase “conscripted Korean recruit” when the driver was a 32-year old staff sergeant is not only factually incorrect but implies that inexperience or the conscript-based nature of the Korean military contributed to the accident, when neither was the case. I bet you didn’t intend either implication. Just a pet peeve – thanks for the link.
In terms of tanks going amok, this reminds me of the 1995 San Diego Tank Rampage by disgruntled ex-U.S. Army tanker Shawn Nelson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vESIVemfG8
Yes, I agree his description was misleading but understandable when you realize that in armor units, it’s privates and other lower-ranking/younger guys who drive tanks — NOT staff sergeants/older guys, who are typically tank commanders (TCs), which begs the question, where was this crew’s TC?
It seems like this tank was short of its normal four-man crew if the ostensible TC has to do the driving and no one serving as TC to keep the driver awake and on course. To me, this suggests that there may be a severe shortage of trained junior enlisted personnel in the ROK Army which perhaps has yet to be exposed.
O.0;
I think someone’s insurance premiums just went up…
Yeah, my bad. You know what else might be wrong? It might not be a K1A1. Looking at the picture, that looks like a 105mm gun, not a 120mm.
I wonder if there will be nightly candlelight vigils demanding that this soldier be tried for attempted murder.
Hard to beat Hodges on this one, but “Holy George S. Patton, Batman!”
Damn all this weed smoking in the ROK Army!
So, is it operator error, or does this mean I’ve got to take my K1A1 into the Hyundai dealer for servicing?
“I hope he’s not gonna be deployed to Afghanistan”
Why, he sounds perfect…looks like he’d do more damage than the ones they’re really sending
I to immediately thought after seeing this picture was, what would the anti-US groups being saying right now if that was an M1 instead of a K1 tank? Since the M1 tanks are now brought out on trucks to training areas such a crash by an M1 is not likely. It does beg the question why K1′s are not brought out to training areas by truck to prevent such accidents from happening though?
As was discussed by other commenters, I wouldn’t blame the driver completely for the accident. You have to look at how much time the soldier’s commander gave the unit to sleep before moving their tank convoy down a civilian road? Was there a TC and if there was what was he doing to keep the driver awake?
Thankfully though no one was seriously hurt.
Your question made me imagine a very long poll with a feather tied to one end that the TC would use to tickle the driver to keep him awake. This was a great mental exercise in itself that kept me awake.
Elgin,
I think the driver is in his own little world in the cockpit. If it’s like an M1, then there is no physical connection between the driver and the tank commander. I believe the only modern tank where the driver has a connecting physical access to the main crew compartment is in the Israeli Merkava.
As a former Bradley Commander it was SOP for us to do continuous comms checks with the driver to first make sure the comms work but also to make sure he was awake. I used to keep candy in the turret to not only snack on but also to throw at the driver’s hatch to get his attention in case the comms went out between the turret and the driver.
Exactly — with one exception: Because everyone’s CVC helmet is plugged into the intercom system with the entire crew is talking to each other, you do not have the ability to be in your “own little world,” especially as a driver with a TC in his ear at all times giving him guidance and telling him what to do.
I think the average American male’s conceptualization of how tanks are operated are based on their last viewing of that 80′s movie, Best Defense with Eddy Murphy driving, loading and commanding a tank all at the same time, while looking through a periscope from the turret. LOL! (Perhaps this is why we need to return to compulsory military service for all Americans.)
You must log in to post a comment.