Land Mines

[IamCDN]

While the War Diary was down for maintenance I read some of Murphys laws. The one that struck me the most was "the easy way is mined".
Now this question comes to mind. How do Canadians protect themselves, if they can‘t lay mines? Heard on the tube last week that it is against
the law to lay a mine. It went on to say that soldiers who did lay mines could (would) be prosecuted. I‘m not a soldier, but I would feel naked without
taking the proper measures in protecting my base from the bad guys. At least in Afganistan we have the Americans to do lay them for us.

Any Answers, any thoughts?

Iamcdn

 

[McG]

It is only Anti-personnel mines we are prohibited from using. Anti-tank and Anti-helicopter mines are still fully acceptable.

How do we defend ourselves in the absence of AP mines? Trip flares and a well sighted machinegun can be just as effective and a lot more discriminating. The same is true of command detonated explosive deices, like the Claymore.

Minefields are not a means of defeating an enemy. They are obstacles intended to slow, redirect, or disrupt the enemy. All obstacles should be covered by direct or indirect fire, and those are what do the killing. To this effect, barbed wire could do the job of an AP mine.

As far as the Americans laying the mines for us, Canadian soldiers are not even permitted to take part in the planning of an AP minefield. It would be in violation of the agreement if our troops allowed the Americans to lay an AP mine field for us.

 

[Infanteer]

If the **** goes down and Canada is at war, how long do you want to bet the AP-mine ban stays in effect.

 

[rceme_rat]

I guess it depends on how long we want other laws of war to be effective.

As for the laying of AP land mines, the point is correct that we cannot participate in any way - we cannot place them, plan them or even ask for them to be placed. We are not obliged to remove them, however, if laid by someone else.

This may mean that they are "imposed" on our troops if laid by the Americans as part of a larger formation plan. We might have an obligation to argue that they not be used, or only sparingly if they are to be used.

If the higher formation commander tells his pioneers and/or engineers to "lay a mixed AP/AT minefield out in front of those crazy Canucks", you‘ll wake up to see a wire with little triangular signs hanging from it.

 

[Infanteer]

I am just saying that because many soldiers and officers, from Majors to Warrant Officers, have said these same things to me.
Just another example of politicians with an agenda to turn war into a nice, sterile thing.

 

[IamCDN]

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[rceme_rat]

I don‘t know that getting rid of AP mines makes things sterile. Trip flares, razor wire, machine guns, and command-detonated mines will still slow down the enemy.

As for rules - would you rather get hit by a 7.62 or 5.56 jacketed round, or by a .60 cal fragmenting slug (American Civil War vintage)? Would you prefer that no prisoners be taken - and that you not be taken prisoner? How about various forms of gas, bio, etc.?

We do train to defend against unscrupulous enemies, but we should avoid stooping to their level unless we want a race to the bottom.

 

[Marauder]

And **** you very much Komrade Kretchien and High Commander of the Hightest Order of *******s Axworthy.
Yet another example of how much our theives, er politicians care for the wellbeing of current and ex Forces personnel, especially those in the sharp end.

 

[enfield]

If you can‘t figure out what to do with a grenade and a piece of string, your a moron...

I believe that if the s**t ever really hit the fan, something like the Ottawa Treaty would be last thing on Pte Bloggins mind.

I really don‘t think that AP mines are all that significant in warfare, and the long-term consequences are horrible. Remember, mines are to deter the enemy and force them into fields of fire - what can an AP mine do that AT mines, claymores, ingenious boobytraps, signs that say "mine", and other obstacles not do?

Marauder, please keep in mind that half the reason this treaty exits is because the US dropped AP mines like candy over SE Asia. **** , they even dresed the mines up like dolls. Also remember that the UK and France signed the same treaty, as well as most of the world.
When exactly do you expect Canada to deploy AP mines?

Mines are indiscriminate and against all the ethics of modern war.

 

[Infanteer]

I only say this because it is another example of a silly, idealistic treaty that will only strip of us of a potential capability. We are the ones who use land mines as responsibly as possible, so why are we getting rid of them in the hopes that the bad guys do?
Goes to show how far silly treaties like this go. Imagine if Canada, among other nations, would have disbanded all military forces when the Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed? We would all be singing the "Horst Wessel" song right now.

 

[Marauder]

What he ^^^^ said.

Why take away one more usable piece of ordanance out of the arms room when it still has a plausible function in warfare? Next thing you know General Jean is gonna say we don‘t *really* need claymores, and who knows what after that?
Should we get rid of any ordy the Hornets might drop in a CAS mission because it has the potential to cause collateral damage?
I guess I‘m just a moron for questioning the loss of servicable weps system.

I know, I know, shut up and soldier on. Big Brother is always right.

 

[enfield]

80% of landmine victims are civilians. There are 80 million in the ground right now, and 200 million stockpiled around the world.

A minefield has never, and will not stop an army. The greatest minefield in the world surrounded Iraq, and that last for about 30 minutes.

I don‘t see the AP mine as all that necessary a weapon, and history has proven that they kill civilians and kids playing soccer, not soldiers.

A quick check of the list shows that almost the entire world signed the treaty, including most of NATO.
I cannot believe that the fate of western civilization, or Canada, will ever rest on AP mines - in fact, I don‘t believe they have ever played a significant role in Canadian combat.
What we gain from sacrificing them far outweighs what little benefit we might have gotten from having them.
If AT mines don‘t stop the Granovian hordes, AP mines sure as **** won‘t.
And if you really, really want AP mines you can start going around the world pulling up all the American-made mines that blow up kids.

 

[Infanteer]

80% of ALL war casulties since the Second World War have been civilian. I don‘t know if land mines has been the deciding factor in that trend. Since the world is a better place now that Canada has gotten rid of land mines, lets sign a treaty outlawing artillery pieces and irregular death-squads.

By the way, a quick check of the list shows that China, Russia, and the United States are not signatories to the Ottawa Treaty on AP mines. Just goes to show how flimsy that house of cards is....

 

[Gordon Angus Mackinlay]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

have been thinking about this post for a couple of days now. A number of
messages have made the point that Anti-Pers mines do not win wars, and quite
right, they are won by a 19 year old baggy arse with a rifle and bayonet who
occupies the ground that airpower, artillery and all other assorted support
organisations have assisted him in capturing (apologise for being non
correct by saying him) and occupying.

However, if the enemy has laid Anti-Pers mines the effectiveness of that
soldier is dramatically reduced. They are an incrediably insidious weapon
of war, when a mine casualty occurs it slows everything down, it enhances
the fear factor in soldiers, reducing their effectiveness. The effect upon
soldiers when they walk into a mine ambush is devastating, one moment
nothing to fear then a bang, people instinctively move towards the casualty,
and further bangs. It will totally immobilise even the best trained and
motivated of troops.

A mine ambush in Phuoc Tuy, South Viet Nam, resulted in 19 wounded in less
than a minute, the resultant clearance of the wounded took a further seven
casualties. Less than two days later another incident to the same battalion
of the Royal Australian Regiment, caused 17 casualties. Virtually two rifle
companies where hors de combat, requiring a major effort over a number of
weeks to return them to duty. The men of the battalion became extremly
loath to patrol in that area, so much so that dominance of the area was
handed over to the enemy, until a new battalion was moved into the area,
they having mine casualties but, nowhere to the same extent.

The terrible thing about it was, they were mines purchased from the
Americans, for a barricade across the Province to reduce enemy movement,
laid in a very comprehensive minefield with wire barriers, covered in the
approved manner by well laid out fire positions, and the mines then removed
by the North Vietnamese, as the South Vietnamese local defence forces
assigned to prottect the defences were too lazy to do their duty, and in a
number of cases actually bribed to turn the other check.

You cannot say they are only mines, they do inhibit military operations, and
have a quite terrible effect upon the soldiers psyche.

The Ottawa Agreement has nothing to do with the rules of war. All of the
non signatories (and some of the actual signatories) still produce vast
numbers of Anti-Pers mines. In regard to civilian casualties, you will find
that in most countries that have this horrific problem, the mines laid are
done so deliberately to main civilians, Cambodia, Angola, Sudan, the Kurdish
areas of Iraq and Iran are those that come off the top of the head.

In regard to Americans laying mines in SVN disguised as dolls, utter
rubbish.

Yours,
Jock in Sydney