Any engineers out there?

[Hamstersss]

Scott,

The onus of proof is on you. Steve does not, indeed can not, prove a lack of use. What evidence would there be? Letters from HQ telling commanders not to use mines in roads? Pictures of Waffen SS officers telling soldiers to dig up the mines they put in roads?

Rather, you need to produce evidence that this did happen more than once or twice.

On to more important things, I want to hear about this Bovine MG42 Sponge.

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

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

-David Edelstein

[pzvg]

Coming in late, but here goes,

As a former combat engineer (modern) I can give you a coupla reasons why mines weren't emplaced in roadbeds, note: these would also apply in WW2 or 3 for that matter.

1) Time, emplacing a minefield, unless done well ahead of schedule (read as peacetime) has a finite time limit applied to it, ie; getting done before the enemy shows up, roadbeds slow this in a major way, so for the most part we would not do it unless under special constraint.

2) Principal of defensive minefields, (there are no offensive minefields) To deny passage to the enemy, killing troops or damaging equipment is incidental to area denial, a desirable side effect if you will, consquently, hiding minefields is of limited utility, add the fact that there is and was no way to render roadwork undetectable, and you can see why we won't bother to try. Also we like cost-effective solutions There is a great amount of "pucker factor" one can achieve by laying a few surface mines on a road, as your average troop, seeing that the road is mined, would naturally assume that the verge and fields to either side are mined as well.

I hope that explains it a little better

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

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scott,

We can't prove a negative. If we don't see evidence for one thing, but do for another, we have to make a decision. If logic and pratical considderations support the side that is better documented (i.e. daisy chain mine use) then it is clear that we should pick that side and not the one with little to no documented evidence. It is not possible to hold off from making a decisions simply because we haven't found serious evidence on one side. CM would never have been released if that were the case, since many of the "little" details of warfare are horribly under documented

So I'll restate my position here...

We do have descriptions of the use of daisy chain mines on roads. We also have documentation that such mine obstructions were rather common. It is also not hard to understand why it would be easier, more practical, and flexible to use above ground mines instead of ones burried in the road. Finally, if in fact mines were burried into the roads themselves (and I am sure this did happen from time to time) it was not likely to be common enough to warrent their use in this way in the game.

As for mine use in the Bulge, I would expect that most mines were on the surface or burried in the snow since the ground was not easy to work with for the majority of the battle. Plenty of horror stories about how hard it was to dig any sort of defensive work into the frozen and rocky soil. Having the same type of soil around me in the US I can see why

And as pointed out above... the main purpose of a minefield for a planned defense is not to defeat the enemy but to denny access to certain advance routes and/or to funnel the enemy into killing zones. Causing death are desirable, but for a planned defense secondary goals. They were not meant to defeat an enemy. So that Stuart comes bumbling down the road, spots the daisy chain mines laid on the street, and then what? Not drive down the street, which is the intended objective and is therefore plenty successfull.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

As to the effectiveness of mines...

I just got done playing a PBEM game that had me on the attack. There were AP mines EVERYWHERE. I manged to find most of them the hard way. I lost about 6 men and one squad flaked out for a little bit. But otherwise the mines did NOTHING to hinder my actions. They were burried, but they were not propperly covered by defensive fire. So they were ineffective in this particular game, in spite of being burried. Yes, I was surprised to see them, but easily avoided without penalty after discovered.

Steve

[John Rainey]

>Quote Scott Clinton

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. >Unquote

Scott I would take up your challenge because where you place your minefields is more important then the losses they cause. That was my main point. I will play a PBEM game with fixed defense with minefields playing a key role. I will take a snapshot of the set up after minefields but before unit placement and send it to you. We can then finish setup and fight it out. Now you will prob beat my pants off but I bet it will have nothing to do with the minefields. Most likely do to a stupid mistake I make and you take advantage of. I will freely admit I am no tactical wizard. Thats why I stick to blowing sh** up and digging holes and carving roads in the jungle.

John

ESSAYON'S (Let Us Try!!!)

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We can't prove a negative. If we don't see evidence for one thing, but do for another, we have to make a decision. If logic and pratical considderations support the side that is better documented (i.e. daisy chain mine use)....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, understood. But can we please just drop the entire daisy chain thing? It is frankly irrelevant IMO. You are talking about a different type of mine defense, one that I have no issue with (other than when you say it is just as effective as buried mines).

And FWIW, you can prove a negative. If documents are abundant on the placement of mines in woods, fields, and in every type of terrain except roads or (better) if positive proof is found that mines were not laid on roads because of directive or some technological limitation. These would be proof (negative). To say it is not possible, is simply not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We do have descriptions of the use of daisy chain mines on roads. We also have documentation that such mine obstructions were rather common. It is also not hard to understand why it would be easier, more practical, and flexible to use above ground mines instead of ones burried in the road.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great...I never had any issue with daisy chain mines. Daisy chain mines were presented by you and others as being "...just as effective". Frankly that is laughable to me. But (please note!), I never questioned the way daisy chain mines are modeled in the game in any way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally, if in fact mines were burried into the roads themselves (and I am sure this did happen from time to time) it was not likely to be common enough to warrent their use in this way in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps...and I fully accept this position under the assumption that you have the said required documentation in regards to the usage of the other weapon systems in the game and lack it on the use of this weapon system on roads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for mine use in the Bulge, I would expect that most mines were on the surface or buried in the snow since the ground was not easy to work with for the majority of the battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, I have see photos of the battle area after the snow thawed...lots of mines on the surface of fields...hmmm....seems to make the placement of 'buried mines' on snow covered roads that much easier though doesn't it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So that Stuart comes bumbling down the road, spots the daisy chain mines laid on the street, and then what? Not drive down the street, which is the intended objective and is therefore plenty successful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Understood. Now, explain how this is "...just as effective" as if that same tank had run over a buried mine and been destroyed or immobilized? The point system on the game surely does not reflect this as I get points for kills and (I think) immobilized tanks but I don't get points for making a tank alter his route.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As to the effectiveness of mines...

I just got done playing a PBEM game that had me on the attack. There were AP mines EVERYWHERE. I manged to find most of them the hard way. I lost about 6 men and one squad flaked out for a little bit. But otherwise the mines did NOTHING to hinder my actions. They were burried, but they were not propperly covered by defensive fire. So they were ineffective in this particular game, in spite of being burried. Yes, I was surprised to see them, but easily avoided without penalty after discovered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would they have been "just as effective" if you spotted them as soon as you were in LOS? I doubt it. And that is my point when everyone keeps trying to tell me that hidden mines are no more effective than mines on the surface and that in essence is what you and several others have posted.

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

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:

So, you think that it makes no difference if minefield location are know to the enemy too? Hmmm, if everybody thinks this is so then perhaps we can convince Charles to 'fix' CM so that all minefields are visible to all players all the time...

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

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

[John Rainey]

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

Would they have been "just as effective" if you spotted them as soon as you were in LOS? I doubt it. And that is my point when everyone keeps trying to tell me that hidden mines are no more effective than mines on the surface and that in essence is what you and several others have posted.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scott please see the above good nature challenge. I DO BELEIVE THAT SURFACE LAID MINES ARE JUST AS EFFECTIVE. Sorry for the all caps. You are right you don't get points for changing the direction of the enemy, however when I work to change the direction of your movement it is for the higher purpose of killing you more effectively. Therefore I will get more points. I hope you will take up the challenge, I think it will make a fun and interesting game.

Once again please take this as a friendly challenge not in a adverse way.

John

"Those Damned Engineers" J Piper Dec 1944 somewhere in the Ardennes.

[L.Tankersley]

Here's a question that's been floating in my head ever since the notion of burying mines under e.g. cobblestones came up: assuming this was done, how would this affect the effectiveness of the mines?

I'm not sure what kill mechanism(s) were used by AT mines, but it seems to me that putting a relatively substantial rock between the mine and the bottom armor of the vehicle could significantly reduce their effectiveness. Similarly for AP mines, which AFAIK tended to use quite small (comparitively) explosive charges.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Guest Scott Clinton]

John

You got my email.

Make it a nice, big defensive game and take LOTS of mines so it will be a good valid 'test'.

Don't expect more than a turn every night as I am about maxed out on PBEM right now.

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

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

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Scott Clinton wrote:

John Rainey:

So, you think that it makes no difference if minefield location are know to the enemy too? Hmmm, if everybody thinks this is so then perhaps we can convince Charles to 'fix' CM so that all minefields are visible to all players all the time... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scott, I think you are being just a little facetious here. Of course suprise is an important factor but as others have been saying area denial and/or channelling of enemy forces is just as important. You are simply looking at the possible vehicle KO an AT mine may get which a Daisy chain mine won't. The bigger picture is the defensive force and layout as a whole.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Scott, I think you are being just a little facetious here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Well, I thought so too.

But you are the first one so far to at least aknowledge that surpise and a KO'ed enemy vehicle might make buried mines more effective. I am not the one that keeps saying over and over how daisy chain mines are just as effective (thier words not mine).

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

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

[Los]

It seems the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what mines do here. (particularly wrt main force operations as opposed to unconventinal operations) Probably because of how mines are portrayed in war movies (which is the primary source of how people view military matters), or from the fact that there is often not very much detail into the particulars of how and why mines do what they do. After all it's usually just a quick blurb about how the platoon encountered mines and then blammo all hell breaks loose.

Now I called up one of my 18Cs today (18C=MOS # for a Special Operations Engineer Sergeant) just to confirm a few things. Even today, conventional or unconventional, very few if any minefields are ever placed under paved surfaces. My man pretty much echoed what's already been said here, and I would emphasize, quite eloquently by John Rainey.

First, you have X amount of limited engineer assetts. The difference between emplacing a mine obstacle on a paved road by digging up pavement of cobblestone vis a vis stringing a daisy chain or just leaving them out in the open is major. You want your engineers to place ten mines in one hour or a 150 mines in one hour? This is why it isn't common practice then or now wrt how minefields are emplaced. This resource issue is also vital since usually you emplace maines in belts It does no good to lay mines on the road when you can just bypass the road to the left or right. Hence more is better. BTW a more effective etchnique is porbably to leave teh road claer and mine the surrounding area. Then block the road with your first kill or two and then let havoc reign during the enemy's attempt to bypass.

Second, minefields, when integrated within the defense as occurs in CM (After all CM isn't a booby trap simulator it's a game portraying actual force on force over a particular terrain.) are to be covered by fire. Mines are used as was stated above to shape the terrain. If you can see them, big deal, that means you might not go there, you'll go where the enemy wants you to go. Or if you can't see them, and you stumble across them, it's because the enemy wants to stop you up there so he can do his porper killing with whatever DF and IF weapons he's allocated to that sector. If you lay out your daisy chain or other mines out on a road then you select a piece of terrain where is not necessarily observable from miles away. A curve, in restriced terrain etc etc. Because of these reasons there's no purpose to going through the effort of diminishing returns required to dig in mines in pavement and then conceal them. (Unless, of course, you're partisan looking to harass rear area troops.) In teh vast majority of cases there is little differnce to a minefield that is seen either in part or in whole as compared to one buried wrt how you make your defensiev plan. This is why most minefields nowadays when intergrated into a conventional defense (not to be confused with partisan or unconventional type minefields beyond the scope of CM) are NOT EVEN BURIED. And if they are it's only to make lane clearing under fire that much more difficult not because you are trying to mask it's actual location. In fact mine breaching technology has progressed to the point nowadays that whether a minefield is buried or not is pretty much irrelevant. (Sorry for digression).

Anyway enough with the common sense, since that has already been established as having no little effect in this discussion. On to references.

FM 90-13-1 Combined Arms Breifing Operations has a fairly extensive chapter on how the Russians used mines. Much of the chapter covers how they operated in WW2 which changed little in the 60 years since. The relevant section has them laying primarily hasty minefields right on top of the ground. This was normally done when they were making temporary halts. (Since you recover mines when you move out) If they were going to stay for a while they would begin to either dig in the mines or put anti-intrusion devices on the mines above surface. For paved roads the Russians would either crater or rip up the roads, and if necessary mine the craters. In all circumstances the minefield obstacle is covered by fire. Also almost always mines are recovered to be used later on since they don't grow on trees. (Note all this is the same today even in our Army) In fact even today, where most mainlaying is done either mechanically or with the aid of various powertools, there's little in the way of digging up raods and burying mines.

"Small Unit Actions During the German Campaign in Russia" (DA 1953 No. 20-269) has a whole section on engineer operations. It has sketch maps and descriptions similar to the above manual. Minefields are emplaced in large belts, roads are either cratered or ripped up, or better yet intersected by antitank ditches.

"FM 90-10-1 An Infantryman's Guide to Urban Combat" Also has extensive example form WW2 to illustrate the various points. There is a whole chapter devoted to mine warfare in cities. There is no mention of hiding AT mines in paved streets. Illustrations of AT mine placement in streets as them hidden under debris, in craters, under various other mess or right in plain view on the road. Here is also where the above mentioned torn up road lends itself to concealed mines.

WHile it is certain that the occasional mine would have been buried and concealed under pavement it ceratinly doesn't justify adding this capability to the top of the "List" when all of Mister Lewis' "enhancements" still have to be adressed.

I looked up a few other good sources such as "Closing with the Enemy" or "At the Sharp End (by John Ellis). But while there is minefield s covered there's isn't the kind of detail relevant to this discusion. But keep in mind the vast majority of roads back then where un paved, and in villages or cities where battles were about to be fought and major defenses prepared there would have likely have been sufficient damage done either by the attackers before hand or by the defender in preparation to negate the need of burying mines in streets when they could be concealed in all the bull**** laying about if you even needed them.

NOW granted. If when you start a CM scenario you can automaticaly see every minefield that the enemy has placed without actually having to establish LOS to it, well then that's a problem with the software, not a problem with the fact that you can't dig up cobblestones and put mines underneath, that's a bigger issue.

Los

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks to those posting first hand, or first hand through second hand , experience. I think the case is pretty much closed on this question.

Scott, would a burried AT mine in a road be more effective than a daisy chain one? Perhaps, perhaps not. But as the others have said here (and I did to incidentally ) the main purpose of a mine is NOT to destroy but to denny something. And even if a burried mine was more effective, it doesn't appear to have happened because it wasn't practical. For example, the German's had a couple of really nasty squeezebore AT guns. If "effectiveness" were the only considderation they would have been all over the place. But practical conditions meant that they weren't (mostly due to tungsten shortages). Same is true for the lowly mine in the road.

Also... you can NOT disprove a negative. You can cast various doubts opon its validity, but you can't disprove something that isn't directly dealt with. The lack of mention is not the same as a mention about the lack of. In mine terms, simply because we can't find info about putting mines in roads does not mean it wasn't something that was done at least somewhat frequently. On the other hand, some combat engineer report detailing WHY they didn't mine roads would in fact disprove their use. We have made the mistake once or twice about making strong conclusions when the evidence on hand simply didn't mention something. Some of these things are just so pittifully documented you can't "prove" something simply because you can't find some info about it. Such is the reasearch Hell we have found ourselves in from time to time

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Meeks,

This was an example I used to combat the type of person that would say "I read this one example of it happening, so you should simulate it". The basics of it was a US platoon was having a hard time crossing a certain village road due to an MG42 covering it. The US soldiers tried and tried to do something to silence the MG but could not. So one of the men went into a barn and herded about 30 cows into the street. The US soldiers ran behind the cows and got safely to the other side. The cows weren't so lucky

The point of the story is that all sorts of odd things happened in war. And some of these things were quite effective. The most unique of which might have even wound up in a book. But that does not mean they should be simulated. The Bovine MG Sponge example probably happened once or twice in the entire ETO, so there is no justification for adding it no matter how legit or effective that tactic was for that particular platoon.

Steve

[Tiger]

One tactic the Germans used was to bury anti-tank mines some 2-3 feet underground (fields, unpaved roads). The first several allied tanks that ran over them would not set it off, but eventually the tanks and vehicles passing over it would dig into the soft ground to where the mine would go off. The pictures of an allied tank that ran over such a mine says quite a bit why they did this. You could see the entire area had been cordoned off and would be unpassable for fear of more buried mines such as this. There was no way to detect these mines until they went off after several vehicles passed over them (too deep for the mine detectors to detect), thus negating the ability to be certain that you've "cleared" a certain area for safe passage.