Any engineers out there?

[Guest Scott Clinton]

First off...ease up on the pad lock there Steve!

Steve wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, to answer the question (before I lock up this one, and there had better not be a THIRD topic started) it is my understanding that when AT mines were placed in a stone road they didn't put the stones back. This made them easier to spot, so were of less value. However, they did offer the chance of whacking an unsuspecting vehicle. They would also deny the use of the road until someone could come in and dig the mine out. So in theory regular minefields should be able to be placed on hard roads, but I am not sure how common this was in the real war. In any case, you can put the daisychain mines on a road to acheive the same end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great, understood. But what post exactly was I supposed to gleam that bit of information from? An off-the-cuff comment made by Zamo three months ago regarding putting rocks on top of live mines???? Mines, btw, that you could stand on top of, and not set off...

I am not a combat engineer (thus, my original thread calling for input from one...before it was locked ) but it was my understanding that anti-vehicle mines had various settings. i.e. 200kg, 300kg, 500kg... Thus the placement of a 5-10kg rock would have zero chance of setting the mine off.

If this were the case, why would the paving stones have to be left off?

Also...so what if the stones were not replaced? Did all vehicles in the ETO avoid all patches of road where a paving stone was missing???? Boy, talk about an easy way to slow/stop traffic. My point here is that if they did NOT avoid all 'missing stones' then we must assume that mines placed in paved roads were not easily spotted or avoided.

I can't say that I have any hard data either way...THAT IS WHY I POSTED IN THE FIRST...AND SECOND...AND NOW THIRD PLACE.

Has this board degenerated to the point where a simple request for data results in locked threads and one-word responses to "SEARCH"?

I ask again:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anybody out there an ex-combat engineer what to clue me in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or, is that too much to ask?

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-18-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-18-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-18-2000).]

[Bamse]

This is not intended to start a flamewar.

If some of you have to flame me, mail me at:

elfbj97@ite.mh.se

M Hofbauer and Scott, I recognize you both from the days of Ryan Ross Close Combat Forum.

M Hofbauer I remember you as a great map and modmaker. Scott made many intelligent posts and may have been involved in realred (don't remember, Sorry Scott).

I have been around since the days of CC1 and PanzerGeneral1. Mostly lurking (because of my bad English). You are both valuable posters on many forums, why can't you just be pals instead of nitpicking/flaming eachouther ?

Scott ! I was a plattonleader in the Swedish army 5 years ago in a AT-Missile/Inf Platoon. We had 30 AT-mines as standard equipment. Digging down a mine in a pawed road was nothing we did (most probably because we would destroy the road).

In the winter there were no problem to dig down the mines in the road (but mines have a lesser effect in snow)

Björn Elfström

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Bamse:

Howdy, I seem to recall you also. Yes, I did some work on the REALRED mod way back when. And I hold no grudges against anyone, period. Live and let live.

But, perhaps the question is more of what was done historically in WW2 now that I think about it. So perhaps a call to combat engineers is not right (unless they were WW2 veterans).

From the schematics I have seen of anti-vehicle mines of WW2 (only a few) they had shear pins. These were little rods of metal of a specific thickness and strength so as to hold a certain weight and then break when any weight over that amount was applied. Thus a single anti-vehicle mine could be set to explode when anything over 200kg ran over it. By using a different size/type of shear pin the weight limit could be increased or decreased for the same mine.

Thus, my logic is that it would seem to me that it would be very possible to lay anti-vehicle mines UNDER paving stones (and thus on paved areas of CM's map) by simply using a 'heavier' shear pin.

But, was this done in practice in WW2?

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-18-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

Scott,

For what it's worth, I take posts less seriously whenever I see smileys, especially smileys sticking their tongues out or rolling their eyes. I find them to be pedantic and it makes me read the post as something directed at a 12 year old. This is a criticism, though not a big one, and I thought I'd make it because this may be some of what's setting people off.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scott,

The problem is that if I don't lock up an inflamatory thread when it is clearly on its way to a full flame fest I will have to lock it up soon enough anyway. In *either* case there will be no, or very little, critical discussion. So there is no point to the thread being left open. That is why I invited a new thread if someone wanted to start it out again with the topic in mind, not a fight.

So... I beg the two parties involved to drop the bickering and just let this thread be about mines in the road. I for one could certainly use more knowledge on this as the engineer's field manual I have is from 1962 and doesn't address cobblestones.

My thinking as to why they might not have been replaced was either time or the length of the trigger pin. Most cobblestones I know of are at least 2 inches thick or thicker. Perhaps the pins weren't long enough to poke up through dirt and inbetween the stones?

As for potholes causing delays... I am sure stuff like this happened. I know, for example, that German roadblocks were to be treated as if they were boobytrapped. Apparently the Germans were fond of putting explosives in them so when the grunts started to tear into them... BOOM! But I bet most roadblocks weren't in fact boobytrapped. All you need to do is make the enemy fearfull and you have done the job, explosives or not.

Steve

[Slapdragon]

I do not know if this helps, but I saw a civil engineering friend who teaches in the College of Engineering, and he owes me a few favors (but thinks war games are stupid). So I asked him about placing sensors in cobble stone and paved roads that detect cars but not human, or perhgaps a human detector. How easy is it?

He said he would mail me. Here is part of his answer-

----start excerpt-----

"...anyway Steve, you cannot just pry up the stones, slap down the type of mechanical sensor you are talking about, and walk away. First, it would cause the stone to be higher than the others and drivers would avoid it, ruining your data. Next the large mechanical device you described to count cars is silly, why not use a pass wire? (note: I told him it was to count cars).

Now we come to the place people mostly don't know, but any stone or cement road made in the past century or two by competent engineers is not just rock thrown on the ground. First it is leveled, then a layer of crushed rock or some other heavy material is added and tamped down, then the stone or cement is laid down. So here you have two choices: either get a work party or some big machine to dig out the substrate material to emplace your sensor, this can take you all day and tie up traffic (note: ahem....). Or you can pry up the stone, attach a metal plate to the sensor, and simple throw in it without the stone. "

-------End Excerpt--------

Now I am betting that a mine placed in a hasty manner in the road would use the same idea, just pry the stone and drop the mine, otherwise you have to do a lot of pick and ax work, and when Hell on Wheels is breathing down you neck you may not have that sort of time.

Steve Jackson

PS-- I am not Steve Jackson of Steve Jackson games!

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 09-18-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

(this post has been written up in several hours of offline work in the meantime several posts have been made to this topic; I will post before I read through them)

Scott,

since you seem so obsessed with this issue I will try to add something in the hopes that it will make you just a little bit happier, and just for *you* I looked at the matter.

I am aware of the concept of using small pins of different strength to customize the required detonation pressure (weight) of the mine. However, it is my understanding that the german WW2 mines largely did NOT work that way.

The german mines detonation pressure was determined by the force of the spring that would push against the detonator pressure plate surface. Therefore, the german T-Mines of WW2 had certain discriminate fixed detonation pressures for each type depending on the spring-plate construction.

The original T.Mi. 35 already detonated under a weight of 90kg. German manuals pointed out that a heavy soldier of that weight would already set off these mines. The T.Mi. 35St fixed this and increased the pressure to 210kg. The later T.Mi. 42 also required 210kg, the l.Pz.Mi. needed 250kg.

The T.Mi. 43 finally introduced a new no-spring mechanism which simply pushed the staged mushroom-type detonator assembly into the mine in a way that you described, at a force in excess of 320kg.

Now it is important to understand that the late-type T.Mi.43 never reached the usage of the T.Mi.42, instead the T.Mi.42 continued to be produced and used as the standard T.Mi.; 1943 saw the production of roughly 4.8 Mio type 42 over 2.2 Mio type 43; in 44 it was 4.3 Mio type 42 over 1.3 Mio type 43.

I went to check on the good guys. similar to the germans both versions existed. The M4 AT mine used the no shearing pin, spring-type construction, whereas the US M1A1 standard AT mine had a design as you described, with two shear pins holding in place the detonator in the armed condition. The difference to the germans is that with the americans the M1A1 AT mine was the standard AT mine, not the M4.

So far for the mine types.

Now, for tactics.

The german manuals do not call for T-Mines to be dug in into paved roads. Use of T-Mines on paved roads was limited to the so-called "offene Verlegung" (open laying/employment) of the mines, which basically means the mines were put onto the surface, just like that. It was usual that in such a manner on paved roads they were not used as single mines, but almost always as so-called "Schnellsperren" (quick barrier), which to you americans is known as daisy chain mines, or "Rampensperre" (a substitute for the regular Schnellsperren, the mines were simply fixed onto a wooden plank). I have looked through everything I have on that subject and nowhere saw the embedding of mines into paved or cobble-stone roads. I do have found some pictures showing T-Mines being embedded into dirt roads however.

I think two reasons account for the non-use of the practice of digging in mines into paved/cobble stone roads (just my take):

a) it would have been a very tedious process

there weren't too many such roads around. the CM manual specifically advises scenario designers to be very conservative in the use of paved roads. indeed there weren't too many.

c) the german tactics for employment of such mines stated that the mines were to be under fire cover from friendly forces. in such situations, mines laid _onto_ the paved surface would serve just as well as dug-in ones, because neither can be cleared.

Again, I think that the way BTS handles this is well in line with the impression I got from looking into this. all the pics with mines on roads showed daisy-chain, openly-laid mines. I am not saying your suggested digging-in of mines wouldn't work. It might very well work, and I think it might even have been done occasionally in WW2. However, in general, the large majority, it wasn't, instead it was handled the way BTS modeled it in CM.

have a beautiful day,

M.Hofbauer

btw: including your very own thread within the three links I provided to you was an attempt at humor. I know that nobody will find my jokes funny, but as long as I personally think they are, that's ok, because I can laugh over it *g*

------------------

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[M Hofbauer]

Steve,

don't mean to sound condescending but thought I might as well clear that up.

you wrote:

Perhaps the pins weren't long enough to poke up through dirt and inbetween the stones?

obviously there's a misunderstanding here.

the shearing pins Scott talked about were not poles sticking out of the mine to detonate it when it is bent - although such detonators existed (Knickzünder 43) that's not what he meant. (Knickzünder were mostly used in high snow or high grass etc., since otherwise they were too obvious/identifiable/conspicuous; they did have the advantage however that *any* messing with the detonator rod would detonate the mine, so you wouldn't need the tank to hit the mine with the track, it would work too if the front hull bent the detonator)

he was referring to the litle pins inside the mine that hold the detonator pin from striking the detonator cap, roughly speaking. At a set force onto the protruding upper pressure plate, the shearing pin would break and the pressure of the tank onto the protruding pressure knob on the top of the mine would push the detonator into the assembly and detonate the mine. obviously, by choosing pins of varying strengths you can customize the needed force needed for detonation.

as I have outlined above, however this is not how most german and some american AT mines worked, instead they used a strong coiled spring to keep the detonator inplace, and the detonation pressure would be determined by the force of that spring. non-customizable.

I also dare to say that IMHO I think there wasn't too much customization going on with the american mines which used shearing pins either. The reason is that there isn't much place for variation in the system, and, this is the real reason, for an AT mine you would always want the maximum of required detonation pressue, so you would always use the strongest pin.

------------------

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[Frenchy]

Scott:

I wrote a history of my grandfather's unit during WW2 (270th Engineer Combat Battalion, 70th Infantry Division). He saw action in NE France from Jan 1945 - May 1945.

I acquired 300+ pages from the National Archive; AARs, unit intelligence summaries, daily work reports and mine charts. Unfortunately, most of the mine overlays were missing along with appendicies for type identification.

This is what I have been able to find out. It's information, but unfortunately, won't really help you. For the majority of the time during this period, the 270th engineers spent most of their time removing mines from located enemy minefields and repairing/building bridges and roads. The majority of which were "schu" mines; those nasty wooden bad ones. Teller mines were usually found to be booby trapped; set to go off at a certain time and rigged to do some major damage.

The few mines that were layed were AP and AT, set up near infantry defensive positions. Mines were set in roads, but the type of road was never stated (except as a co-ordinate, from point A to point . I do have the 1944 Engineer Combat field manual and will look up any reference for you concerning paved roads. Just send me your email address and I will forward the material that I find.

------------------

Webmaster

http://www.trailblazersww2.org

http://www.vmfa251.org

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hello Markus,

First of all, thanks for being such a good sport and coming back to give a fully detailed answer. I know I learned a thing or two

As for the pins... DOH! I had my mind stuck on anti-infantry mines, which generally have "pins" (don't know the technical word) instead of pressure plates. Or perhaps I am mistaken about this as well

Thanks,

Steve

[Los]

A quick look at a cobblestone road would show that normally a cobblestone road (particularly in old Europe) on main thoroughfares are not just rocks set in dirt but rocks set in cement or some other bonding substance. Same deal as if you were going to just pry up regular concrete or tar pavement.

Secondly for mining paved areas engineers (and I have seen pics of this from WW2 also) will normally just string a number of mines together and pull them across the road, usually in a location that would not be obvious until you came around a curb or something. Since any obstacle, to be effective, needs to be covered with fire, (a point normally overlooked by non-military types) then you can get a bigger bang for your buck (time and effort-wise) by using the string AT mines (Which was commonplace) in a well select spot than go through the effort to pull up and carefully bury and conceal AT mines in paved cobblestone areas.

I'm sure that there were some special operations or partisan booby traps would have been ocasionally set under paved areas but frankly they normally would have been a lot more trouble than they were worth.

Just applying a little common sense to the issue....

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-18-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Elijah Meeks:

Good, then the 'smiles' have the intended effect. (Another one just for you! )

You see, if they were not used then some people would get bent out of shape because of my 'attitude'. If they are used then the worst that can be said is I was 'silly'. Hopefully, the later will cause a less hostile reaction; I'll take that.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

As for the information posted by M Hofbauer and Los...yep good stuff. But nothing new really. No offence mind you, but nothing that I have not already thought about.

It seems to be the general consensus that burying anti-vehicle mines under a paved surface would be a royal pain in the arse. Perhaps...

It also seems to be the general consensus that a daisy chain mine string would have the same effect (or almost) as a hidden anti-vehicle mine field. On this point, I strongly disagree.

If you doubt me try a PBEM game and tell your opponent where all your anti-personnel mines are located as soon as he approaches them By using the same logic posted here, they should be just as effective because they are covered by other fire and deny the area, right?

I think that in many, many situations it would be worthwhile to spend the effort to 'dig in' anti-vehicle mines in paved surfaces. And in many situations there would be plenty of time to do so. Say the defense of the Ruhr pocket for example. A situation where there was lots of local labor, plenty of time to place the mines and lots and lots of mines available.

But, 'we' still don't have any data to show that anti-vehicle mines were historically used on paved roads, and that is key. But, do we have any data that indicates they were NOT used on paved roads?

What leads everybody to the conclusion that they were NOT used on paved roads when it seems to be the general consensus that it was possible and logic dictates that paved roads by there very nature would be high traffic, high value avenues?

Just trying to 'think this through'...

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Captitalistdoginchina]

Now the subject of mines gets interesting, i believe that paved roads were a prime target for laying mines...afterall that is where you would expect a juicy vehicle to come along right?

Also most paved roads during the war were in bad shape from lack of repairs and heavy use by tracked vehicles and even badly cut up from combat. Therefore with the roads in such bad shape hiding a mine in a pothole or in a crater or even to dig a small hole and then place the mine with some dirt/loose shingle around it would be the norm. I doubt that anyone would attempt to place rocks on the top in order to conceal the mine - dirt/sand/shingle or debris would be easier to use and safer.

However having said that what exactly is the thread all about? Do you want to know for personal info Scott or is there a suggestion/complaint about how mines are used in CM ?

The topic itself is interesting, especially about how mines were constructed - as a vehicle engineer i can relate to the way mines were made as described in an earlier post.

CDIC

------------------

"Death solves all problems - no man no problem"

J.V.Stalin, 1918

[Compassion]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

But, 'we' still don't have any data to show that anti-vehicle mines were historically used on paved roads, and that is key. But, do we have any data that indicates they were NOT used on paved roads? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just throwing in my 2 bits... In Burgett's "Curahee" he writes of setting Hawkins mines on a road and then coverng them with cow droppings to disguise them.

[Guest Michael emrys]

As far as paved roads are concerned, it seems to me that it would be just as effective and less labor intensive to simply crater them. Also much simpler to repair if you decide you want to use them yourself later.

Just another voice heard from.

Michael

[Simon Fox]

Good point Michael. SOP was crater the road with a big bang (surplus aircraft bombs were good) then mine the verges.

[Jarmo]

Just for a side note.

I used to live in Kotka, where there are still a few cobblestone

roads left. Now the authorities used to have a problem with

people stealing the stones at night. (good for gardens)

The rocks there were held together by concrete, crushed

rock under that. I think the really old roads did use just sand

between the rocks.

Anyway, if the roads in CM would be anything like the ones I've

seen, it'd not be too hard to grab a few rocks and put a mine in

the opening. But it'd take a lot of work and artistic skill to

make the result look anything like the rest of the road. So it

probably wouldn't be worth it.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now the subject of mines gets interesting, i believe that paved roads were a prime target for laying mines...afterall that is where you would expect a juicy vehicle to come along right?

Also most paved roads during the war were in bad shape from lack of repairs and heavy use by tracked vehicles and even badly cut up from combat. Therefore with the roads in such bad shape hiding a mine in a pothole or in a crater or even to dig a small hole and then place the mine with some dirt/loose shingle around it would be the norm. I doubt that anyone would attempt to place rocks on the top in order to conceal the mine - dirt/sand/shingle or debris would be easier to use and safer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, these are my points exactly. Paved roads would be the most valuable, thus the most likely to be mined (IMO). And I would think that by today's comparison the roads in Western Europe in 1944-45 would be in damn sad shape after 4-5 years of war and military traffic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However having said that what exactly is the thread all about? Do you want to know for personal info Scott or is there a suggestion/complaint about how mines are used in CM ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strictly relating to CM, and I would definitely call it a suggestion (grumble perhaps ).

I recently started a game where I had a low quality German infantry force defending a random "Town" map against a combined arms US force. With various limitations imposed (that I will not go into here) I decided that the best way to defend the town was to use lots of infantry and anti-vehicle mines. This of course will not work because I was not allowed to either place the mines in the main roads leading into the town or anywhere in the town itself (paved road and pavement terrain).

It appears to me that the way CM is currently modeled the assumption is being made that anti-vehicle mines were not laid on paved terrain. Yet everyone here agrees it would be possible (as far as I can tell). And frankly I don't accept that daisy chain mines are "just as effective" when used properly (not even close IMO).

So, considering the value of paved roads: Why does CM make the assumption that anti-vehicle mines were NOT laid in paved terrain?

I freely admit to a lack of 'hard data'. But in the absence of 'hard data' I would assume just the opposite because of the inherent value of paved roads.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scott,

If we have a situation with a bunch of evidence on the one hand, and little to none on the other, we go with what makes the most sense and is better documented. In the case of mines IN roads, I agree that it is probable that this happened here and there. Pretty much EVERYTHING happened here and there (remember my famous Bovine MG42 Sponge example? ). The question is... should it be allowed to happen in a common and perhaps ahistorical way? We always err on the side of conservative realism.

It is hard to mine the roads themselves, there is little evidence to support a claim that it was common, and in fact evidence of daisychained mine use is very easy to get a hold of. I think the decision we made is clear, logical, and most likely historically correct.

As for your mine choice in the town... you should have picked daisychain mines as that is what they are usefull for.

OH! And don't forget... minefields in CM are semi densely laid 20x20 patterns. If we did allow in ground mines on roads, how many would be in there? A half dozen over a 5-10 meter stretch of road? So we are talking about needing a new mine "unit" if we get convinced that this is needed.

And lastly, daisy chained mines, if covered by fire, should be just as effective as regular minefields. That is, at least, my experience. Especially in urban settings. It doesn't take much to block up an avenue of approach, especially if the first vehicle running through hits the mine

Steve

[John Rainey]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

Strictly relating to CM, and I would definitely call it a suggestion (grumble perhaps ).

I recently started a game where I had a low quality German infantry force defending a random "Town" map against a combined arms US force. With various limitations imposed (that I will not go into here) I decided that the best way to defend the town was to use lots of infantry and anti-vehicle mines. This of course will not work because I was not allowed to either place the mines in the main roads leading into the town or anywhere in the town itself (paved road and pavement terrain).

It appears to me that the way CM is currently modeled the assumption is being made that anti-vehicle mines were not laid on paved terrain. Yet everyone here agrees it would be possible (as far as I can tell). And frankly I don't accept that daisy chain mines are "just as effective" when used properly (not even close IMO).

So, considering the value of paved roads: Why does CM make the assumption that anti-vehicle mines were NOT laid in paved terrain?

I freely admit to a lack of 'hard data'. But in the absence of 'hard data' I would assume just the opposite because of the inherent value of paved roads.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scott,

The main reason roads were not and are not currently mined in the way you suggest is in fact their inherent value. The fast avenue's of approach are usually closed with a quick laying of surface mines. Why? The roads and other quick approaches are going to be used by the covering force or scouts that are holding off the enemy so that you can prepare your defense. These guys are going to break contack with the enemy and run like hell to get behind your new defensive line. They need the roads to do this.

You then quickly close the route with a surface layed plug. It is quick and often the enemy is right behind the Covering Force. Poof! you are now ready to defend.

Mine fields serve 3 main purposes ( I'll use current terminology but the same principles applied in WWII).

1. Turn - get the enemy to move down the route you want. He goes were your main force is and you kill him or he takes the time to breach your fields and you have time to shift forces and still kill him.

2. Fix - Make the ground sticky. The enemy must move around (giving flank shots for AT weapons) or through your obstacles( giving you lots of time to kill his engineers and the stuff that is backed up behind them)

3. Block - Very hard to do. Need alot of engineer effort and lots of combat units. Basically a DIP mission (either you win or you Die In Place).

In CM use Daisy chains on roads or better yet leave the road has the only route through and set up the channel as a extensive AT kill zone. Set up your AT assets so you have flank shots at anything that is in the open route.

As a Combat Engineer (15 years of exp) I could care less if even one of my mines kills a vehicle. That is not their purpose. I shape the battle field for the Combat Units. They do the killing.

The same applies to WWII. Believe me Combat Engineering has not changed that much in 60 years. Heck most of my equipment is 30 to 40 years old as it is. We are always on the short list when it comes to new stuff.

John Rainey

ESSAYON'S (motto of the Combat Engineers)

[This message has been edited by John Rainey (edited 09-19-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

what some people are overlooking here IMO is that AT mines weren't used to bag the occasional vehicle by a cleverly placed hidden AT mine.

"Herr Oberleutnant, I am sure if we place a nice little AT mine right at the map edge corner, where there is only one passage through two patches of wood, we can bag us a Churchill..."

"yes nice observation Obergefreiter Dreckarsch...we only paid 30 points for that minefield and if we can get a 200+ tank with it that would definitely improve our battle win score..."

back to reality. Minefields were used as integrated parts of whole defenses, not as singled-out chances-to-kill. If you want to deny the road to the enemy, make a roadblock. If you want to kill some vehicles, put up a PaK or some Panzerschreck or some scratched-together group of ad-hoc tank hunters armed with Panzerfausts.

Minefields are used mainly to block and funnel enemy advances. Thus they are used together with other weapons. As I said before, the german SOP insisted upon minefileds to be created in a way that they were covered by friendly fire: "(...) auf jeden Fall müssen die Minenfelder durch Feuer überwacht sein. Bei ungenügendem Feuerschutz ist das T-Minenfeld feindwärts durch S-Minen zu sichern".

IOW, to put a single minefield onto some patch of road is almost gamey. Rather, they formed one link of a defense that was out to hold the line, not win a game by score.

Daisy chain mines work very well for me on roads. Scott could you please relate what causes you to evaluate their effectiveness differently?

------------------

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If we have a situation with a bunch of evidence on the one hand, and little to none on the other, we go with what makes the most sense and is better documented.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great! Then you do have evidence that mines were not implanted in paved terrain (very often)? (Or are you saying something else? What are the two "hands" here?) I hope I am not being "obtuse"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The question is... should it be allowed to happen in a common and perhaps ahistorical way? We always err on the side of conservative realism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. You said "ahistorical"...that leads me to the assumption that you do indeed have evidence that shows that mines were not generally implanted on paved roads. Is this so??? Can you elaborate? Because in the absence of such historical evidence I would be much more likely to assume that high value paved roads would be a prime target for implanted mines.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is hard to mine the roads themselves, there is little evidence to support a claim that it was common, and in fact evidence of daisychained mine use is very easy to get a hold of.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well first off, you are talking about two different things. I have read MANY, MANY accounts of mined roads (as have, I would hope). But how many specifically stated the type of road that was mined? But when a mention of "daisy chain" mine arrangement is made it was frequently used at roadblocks and is always referred to distinctly so that there is no question as to the type of mine arrangement.

Also, of course mining roads would not be 'common'. To implant mines in an area is to deny its use not only to the enemy but to your own troops too. This would be something that would be rarely done on high value paved roads and rarely called for strategically. But it WAS done on the front lines. It was done in the Bulge quite a bit where I recall reading accounts of US engineers 'hacking' into the "frozen road surface" to mine the road. I had always assumed it was a dirt road, but a frozen dirt road would be just as difficult to mine as any paved road IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the decision we made is clear, logical, and most likely historically correct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would hope so, otherwise you would not have made that choice!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for your mine choice in the town... you should have picked daisychain mines as that is what they are usefull for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they are NOT as useful as buried mines.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OH! And don't forget... minefields in CM are semi densely laid 20x20 patterns. If we did allow in ground mines on roads, how many would be in there? A half dozen over a 5-10 meter stretch of road? So we are talking about needing a new mine "unit" if we get convinced that this is needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? Why? Are you assuming they would mine a road and then not mine the shoulders? That would be foolish IMO. The same CM unit would work perfectly well IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And lastly, daisy chained mines, if covered by fire, should be just as effective as regular minefields. That is, at least, my experience. Especially in urban settings. It doesn't take much to block up an avenue of approach, especially if the first vehicle running through hits the mine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Did you take up my challenge and play a nice defensive PBEM with anti-personnel mines and then tell your opponent where all your minefields were?? According to this logic, they would be (and I quote) "...just as effective as regular minefields." How can a daisy chain mine block be just as effective when nobody in their right mind would drive a vehicle over one and almost the only way to spot an anti-vehicle mine would be to lose a vehicle first?!?! Frankly, I just don't see how anyone could seriously argue this point. Anytime someone wants to take up this challenge, I will gladly be their opponent in the PBEM game.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-19-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-19-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

John Rainey:

I agree with every one of your points and composed some of them (in principle) in my response to Steve before I saw your post. But I have read numerous accounts of US engineers mining as well as blocking the roads in the Bulge.

I am sure you would agree there are times when denying a roads use to everyone is better than just a string of daisy chain mines. IMHO, it compares to blowing a bridge, just not as drastic nor as permanent.

M Hofbauer:

Read the my last paragraph in the above post...

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[M Hofbauer]

I just noticed that John Rainey in the meantime made a post that largely had already covered what I posted. just wanted to say it is more a case of telepathic mind sharing than plagiarism on my part.

------------------

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)