MAJOR CHARLES L. BELITZ

Historically, land mines and mine- fields have been regarded by combat troops as mixed blessings. Sure, they can destroy an opponent’s personnel and equipment, they can slow or stop his advance, they can canalize his movements, and they can demoralize his troops. But putting a minefield in place was, and still is, a complex operation, which requires long hours of manual labor and detailed planning. The speed of emplacement of a conventional minefield, for instance, varies from about one minute per mine per man when laid on the surface to about 15 minutes per mine per man when buried.

Once the minefield is in place, of course, it represents almost as much of a barrier to the friendly forces as it does to an opponent’s. Finally, the minefields eventually must be cleared, which can be, and usually is, also a time-consuming operation. During World War II in Europe alone, some 45,000 man-days of labor were required to clear German minefields - 45,000 combat troops effectively removed from the war for one day just to clear mines.

Now, though, with the new family of scatterable mines, our ground combat units should be able to overcome many of the obvious disadvantages of the conventional mines, and benefit from the additional capabilities offered by the new mines.

Scatterable mines are defined as those mines, which are delivered by aircraft, artillery, missile, ground dispenser, or by hand and are laid without regard to a classical pattern.

The M56 Mine Dispensing System, for example, type classified and now in production, consists of two mine dispensers mounted on UH-1 helicopters. When a helicopter crew dispatched on a mine-laying mission reaches a target area, they activate the system, which ejects the mines downward from the dispensers. The mines themselves, fin-stabilized during their fall, arm themselves on the ground, where they can he activated by pressure and can immobilize or destroy either wheeled or tracked vehicles.

Antipersonnel and antitank mines, which are delivered by cannon artillery, are now under development. A large number of either AP or AT mines, or a combination of both, can be packaged in an artillery shell, whose mine laying functioning begins when a time fuze ignites an expulsion charge in the nose of the projectile. Pressure from the expulsion charge then ruptures the base of the projectile and ejects the mines in flight over the target area, while centrifugal force disperses the free mines over a large area on the ground. Where the AP mines deploy trip wire sensors on impact with the ground, the AT mines are sensors, which recognize the unique signature of a particular target.

Also under development is a ground vehicle mine dispenser, which, towed behind a truck or tracked vehicle, will be capable of rapidly dispensing large numbers of AP and AT mines in any mix. The AP mines used with this system will employ self-deploying trip wires, while the AT mines will use appropriate target sensors. Both types of mines, if a simple mechanism is properly set, will be capable of self-destruction at an appointed time.

These various types of mines with pre-determined armed lives are being developed so that our ground combat troops will be able to emplace large numbers of them in the shortest possible time with a minimum man­power and logistic effort to counter a possible assault by an opponent’s massive mechanized and armored forces.

Well, then, how are these powerful new capabilities to be employed? What doctrine will govern their use?

Our current doctrine for mine employment is an outgrowth of our use of conventional mines over the years. Unfortunately, the conventional barrier uses of mines, the conventional characteristics of mines, and the universal understanding of mines seem to limit our thinking to conventional uses for the new scatterable mines.

We all know that mines can enhance the obstacle value of existing terrain and of artificial obstacles. Certainly, the emplacement of conventional mines assists in controlling an op­ponent’s forward movement.

Well, scatterable mines can do those things, too! In fact, in many cases, scatterable mines can do those things better than conventional mines. They can be used when speed or remote delivery is needed to block an avenue of approach or to close lanes and gaps in conventional minefields. What we need today, though, when we consider the use of scatterable mines, is some unconventional thinking, for they can be and should be used in some unconventional ways.

First off, let’s look at a scatterable mine as a target-actuated, terrain-denial device which can be rapidly and remotely delivered.

Over the years, persistent chemical agents have been envisioned as terrain restrictors, and they could be used in numerous ways - for attacks on command posts, on assembly areas, on alternate defensive positions to fix the enemy. Why can’t we use our scatter-able mines to do the same things? In fact, scatterable mines not only have many applications in common with persistent chemicals, they also offer many advantages over them,

Scatterable mines, for example, do not leak in storage; they do not offer downwind vapor hazard to friendly troops; they are not sensitive to wind, temperature, or precipitation; they require fewer artillery rounds to restrict the use of a given piece of terrain; they are capable of restricting the use of terrain for longer times; and they do not carry the stigma and restrictions associated with chemical warfare.

In offensive situations, therefore, we could use our scatterable mines to fix any by-passed opposing forces until we could get back to them. We could not do that so well with chemicals because of the vapor hazards.

Consider the headquarters of that division opposing ours. Certainly in the stress of battle that command post is probably tense and maybe its people a bit confused, but it is a functioning headquarters. Think of the chaos that would ensue if a scatterable minefield were suddenly placed on the command post. And if the chaos were com­pounded by darkness, who knows what the results might be?

Of course, there are other less dramatic uses of scatterable mines in the offense. A friendly division might need to protect its flank with a quickly emplaced minefield, or a gap, which opened between it and a sister division, could be closed with a minefield until units could be repositioned. A scatterable minefield could also be dropped on an opponent’s alternate defensive position to prevent his orderly withdrawal.

In the defense, too, there are countless uses for scatterable mines. An opponent’s divisional or regi­mental command posts and his logistic installations could be mined. A few carefully placed minefields might stop his attack preparations. Think of the damage that could be caused by a minefield placed on a gasoline storage site or on an ammunition supply point.

Scatterable mines could also be employed to contain an opponent’s penetration and force him into areas in which he could be badly damaged.

Minefields could also be emplaced in an opponent’s assembly areas or on his artillery positions and airfields. A minefield placed on an artillery position would be a highly effective, long duration, counter battery wea­pon, for even a self-propelled battery with its armor protection would have difficulty in resupplying ammunition to the guns.

There are probably those among you who are saying to yourselves, “If I knew where the enemy’s command post or his supply points were located, I would just destroy it with artillery fire or with a tactical air strike.” Admit­tedly, those options are available, but perhaps we can look for something less than destruction. As an economy of force measure, for example, is it not wise to employ a minimum number of our combat assets to render such targets as command posts and supply points ineffective and to apply the maximum amount of our firepower to destroying an opponent’s maneuver elements?