Minimizing Blast Overpressure Exposure: Enabling Lethality

Winter-Spring 2024 by CPT Leah Foodman On Dec. 11, 2023, the U.S. Army Train ing and Doctrine Command’s Ranges Proponent Office issued guidance for “Managing Brain Health Risk from Blast Overpressure.” The memorandum, crafted for installation range manag ers, is intended to “provide guidance for minimizing exposure from blast overpressure until information can be added to Army Regulation 385-63, Range Safety.” The Department of De fense has current standards that aim to limit blast overpressure exposure in order to prevent “lung injury, eardrum rupture [... and other] potential health impacts,” yet, there is sparse informa tion — and thus, limited data driven guidelines — pertaining to blast over pressure and brain health. The U.S. Army Engineer School (USAES) recently conducted research related to overpressure exposure and neurotrau ma for personnel executing breaching operations. Their findings begin to bridge the aforementioned knowledge gap of the impact of over-pressuriza tion exposure impacts on the brain. Despite USAES’ research emphasis on breaching operations, the implications of its results are largely applicable to the Armor community. Most notably, USAES concluded that overpressure ex posure results in negative long term health consequences, but also immi nently compromises lethality. Per the USAES study, “Soldiers [who are ex posed to blast overpressure] will be slower to react and unable to identify sounds and directions from enemy threats [during and after breaching op erations]; this is a reduction in overall combat capability and efficiency.” As the large-scale combat operations fight looms and preparations intensify, Armor leaders at all echelons must re commit to standards adherence and risk mitigation for blast overpressure injuries. Leaders must reinforce Leaders must reinforce double hearing Minimizing Blast Overpressure Exposure: Enabling Lethality by Reinforcing Safety and Recommitting to Standards protection for all Soldiers. “Double hearing protection” refers to both ex ternal and internal protective mecha nisms used conjunctively; for example, traditional issued in-the-ear protection coupled with a combat vehicle crew man (CVC) helmet worn with a but toned chinstrap. Without a secured chinstrap, the external ear protection offered by the CVC is ineffective—and the helmet is unlikely to remain in place in the event of an accident. De partment of the Army Pamphlet 385- 63, Range Safety, Table 8-20, “Expo sure Limits to Hazardous Impulse Noise for Tank Main Gun for Selected Car tridges” lists the number of rounds that a tank crew member may fire from his/her respective position on the ve hicle with both single and double hear ing protection. In this study informing the data in Table 8-20, single hearing protection refers to “approved ear plugs, earmuffs, CVC helmet, or head set,” while double protection requires earplugs and one of the latter three devices. Per Table 8-20, an exposed (out of the hatch) vehicle commander firing M829A3 cartridges from the 120mm Abrams Main Gun may safely fire 26 rounds over a 24-hour period with sin gle hearing protection, but up to 256 rounds with double hearing protec tion. The driver and gunner may fire 104 and 417 rounds respectively with single hearing protection, but up to 1,000 rounds per day with double pro tection. While a buttoned CVC chin strap is far from fashionable, when paired with approved earplugs, it can be truly lifesaving: preserving hearing and minimizing blast overpressure ex posure thereby enables optimal situa tional awareness and reaction times both acutely and over long periods. Leaders must set the conditions now (in training) to prevent residual injury and ensure clear dissemination of the standard and its rationale. This will en sure that Armor formations enter con flicts ready to win. The Range Proponent Office’s memorandum said it best: “This inter im guidance is not meant to restrict commanders from conducting mission essential heavy weapons training [but to] raise blast overpressure (BOP) risk awareness as DoD continues to better define the relationship between BOP exposure… and potential health ef fects.” Commanders and leaders across the Army must leverage their authority and best judgment to implement train ing plans that balance two critical ob jectives: preparing for war and safe guarding the warfighter. CPT Leah E. Foodman is the Armor Proponent Officer (Cadet Accessions/ Branching Representative), Office of the Chief of Armor, Fort Moore, GA. Her previous assignments include: Executive Officer, Troop B, 2nd Squadron, 15th Cavalry Regiment, 194th Armored Brigade, Fort Moore; Scout Platoon Leader, Troop C, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO; and Assistant Operations Officer (Plans), 3-61 Cavalry, 2nd SBCT, 4th Infantry Division. 1LT Foodman’s military schools include the Armor Basic Officer Leader Course, Scout Leader Course, and Basic Airborne Course. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in American Politics from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (2020). 1LT Foodman’s awards include the Order of St. George (Black Medallion), the Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal (for civilian volunteer service as an Emergency Medical Technician), the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Achievement Medal. She has previously published work in the Journal of Strategic Security, Modern War Institute, and the Army War College’s “War Room.” Acronym Quick-Scan BOP – blast overpressure CVC – combat vehicle crewman DoD – Department of Defense USAES – U.S. Army Engineer School