Part II of this series traces the origins of antivehicle mines and countermine equipment. Though it may seem odd, the explosive antivehicle mine predates the appearance of the tank by more than 50 years! The continuous evolution of these weapons is driven by the defender's need to economize his forces while protecting them from attack. This, in turn, drives the development of the countermine equipment that attackers must have to successfully retain their mobility.
One of the earliest antivehicle "mines" was described by military engineer Philo of Byzantium around 120 B.C., when he recommended that "in front of the advanced walls (of a city) empty earthenware jars should be buried. These are placed in an upright position with their mouths upward, stopped up with seaweed or imperishable grass, and covered with earth. Troops may then pass over the jars with impunity, (but) the engines and timber towers brought up by the enemy will sink into them."1 Another early example occurred during the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., when Jewish Zealots dug a tunnel mine under one of the besieger's four massive siege engines (powerful battering rams on wheels), resulting in its destruction and a three-day delay in the battle.2 During the American Civil War, Confederate soldiers developed and employed pressure-fuzed railroad mines that destroyed at least two heavily loaded trains in Tennessee.3 To counteract the railroad mines, the Union Army improvised the first mine-clearing roller, a flatcar pushed slowly in front of a locomotive to detonate any mines ahead of it.4
Table 1. Origin of Mobility Equipment
Antitrack (Pressure-Fuzed) Mines
German pioniere (combat engineers) improvised the first antitank (AT) mines during World War I in response to another innovation in combat engineering--a British-made tank developed in September 1916 by Lieutenant Colonel E. D. Swinton, Royal Engineers (RE). Initially, the Germans buried standard artillery and mortar shells with a sensitive fuze pointed up. They also employed command-detonated mines, which are forerunners of full-width-attack AT mines. Later in World War I, the Germans improvised many types of mines, including a wooden box mine that measured approximately 14 by 16 by 2 inches and weighed about 12 pounds. Twenty 200-gram blocks of explosive were placed in each box, which was normally buried about 10 inches deep. Detonation was initiated by a hand grenade placed inside and against one wall of the box so that the primer passed through the wall. The mines functioned by pressure as tanks passed over them or by command detonation. Electric blasting caps, which first appeared in 1900, greatly facilitated command detonation.5 During World War I, Germans scattered their AT mines at random or in locally created patterns to reinforce wire obstacles and AT ditches in front of trench lines.6
The Germans began to manufacture standard AT mines in 1916 and produced nearly three million before the Armistice of 1918. Regrettably, no information on the characteristics of these factory-produced mines has come to light. German AT mines accounted for a sig-nificant portion of allied tank losses, including about 15 percent of U.S. tank casualties, during the battles of St. Mihiel, Catalet-Bony, Selle, and Meuse/Argonne.7 The British also im-provised AT mines during World War I. Two varieties have been identified: one based on a pipe bomb and the other on a bombard shell.8 In 1929, the Germans introduced the Tellermine 29, the first in a series of modern pressure-fuzed AT mines. This series formed the basis for many of the AT mines used to date, including the U.S. M15.
Antihull (Full-Width-Attack) Mines
The Russian AKS, a tilt-rod-actuated blast AT mine that appeared on the Russian front during World War II, was probably the first true full-width AT mine. However, the Germans developed the first modern full-width-attack mine toward the end of World War II. Called the Hohl-Sprung Mine 4672, it employed a tilt-rod fuze and shaped-charge kill mechanism.9 Although 59,000 of this mine were produced, there are no reports that it was ever used in combat.10 Nevertheless, it represented a significant improvement in mine technology. The French probably were first to field a modern full-width-attack mine when the Model 1948 entered service in 1948.
Another important advance in the evolution of the full-width AT mine was the Russian development of influence fuzing, both seismic (VZ-1) and magnetic, during World War II.11 This combination of a shaped charge with a full-width-attack fuze has proven extremely effective. Its greater coverage enables emplacing units to get the same obstacle effect with significantly fewer mines per kilometer of front. Additionally, this type of mine often produces a K-kill (catastrophic kill), with fatalities to crew members of all vehicles, including tanks and other tracked vehicles. This lethality definitely decreases the willingness of combat vehicle crews to "bull through" a mined area.
Side-Attack Mines. The advent of shoulder-fired AT weapons, beginning with the U.S. bazooka in 1942, led to the development of side-attack AT mines. First employed by the Germans and Soviets during World War II, these mines were based on the Panzerfaust.12 The early Soviet-made LMG reportedly is still being used by North Korea.13 This type of mine is difficult to employ due to its large size and because it must be emplaced aboveground.
Wide-Area Mines. The predecessor of the wide-area landmine--one that sends a munition toward its target without human guidance--is the Russian "dog mine" of World War II.14 Advanced wide-area mines are now emerging in Western Europe and the United States.15
The Italian AR-4 Thermos Bomb (also called Anti-personnel (AP) Bomb Manzolini) was one of the first scatterable mine-laying systems used in combat. Scattered by aircraft, it was used fairly extensively in North Africa from 1940 to 1942).16 Another early scatterable mine was the German SD-2B Schmetterling (butterfly). It was used effectively against the Poles in September 1939. Both types employed antidisturbance and time-delay fuzing. The Germans also developed a cluster-bomb version of the SD-2 that had airburst or impact fuzing. An aircraft-dropped bomb container could carry 24 Thermos bombs as a submunition. The Schmetterling could be carried as submunitions in the following cluster-bomb containers: AB 23 (23 SD-2s), the AB 250-3 (108 SD-2s), the Mk 500 (6 SD-2s), and the AB 24t (24 SD-2s),17 In addition to Poland, the Schmetterling was used in France, North Africa, Italy, England, and Russia.18 It could be dropped by one of 15 Luftwaffe groups equipped with specially modified aircraft (Ju-88s, Do-17s, Me-109s, or Ju-87s).19 The U.S. Air Force copied this mine, called it the M-83, and used it against Germany and later in Korea20 and Vietnam.21 In Germany, Krupp developed (but did not field) the first mechanical mine planter, which was towed behind a Tiger tank.22 The U.S. Marine Corps developed the first air-scatterable AT mine--the Douglas Model 31 from 1952 to 1958. The first one to enter production (in 1975) appears to be the U.S.-made UH-1 helicopter-mounted M-56 system, which used the M-34 AT mine.23
Table 2. Origin of Countermobility Equipment
The original countermines were tunnels dug by besieged defenders to disrupt enemy mining efforts. A countermine was successful when an enemy tunnel was intercepted. Inevitably, a confused, close-quarters fight in the dark followed, as the two sides fought to control the tunnel.24 One example of this occurred during the siege of Barca about 510 B.C. "The Persians excavated underground tunnels that reached the walls. Among the Barcaeans there was a skilled worker in brass who took a brazen shield and, carrying it round within the wall, applied it here and there at places where he thought the workings might be. Where there were no mines the shield was silent, but at places near mining operations the shield made a vibrating sound. By countermining at these points, the Barcaeans broke into the enemy's works and slew the men they found there."25
Explosive Countermines. The first identified use of an explosive countermine was during the siege of Belgrade in 1433, when John Vrano used black powder in a countermine against the Turks.26 In this application, the intent was to dig close to the enemy's mine gallery and emplace and detonate a charge that would collapse the tunnel and kill the miners. This type of explosive countermine was used up to World War I.27 During the Thirty Years War in central Europe (1618-1648), some defenders released poisonous antimony gas into tunnels to kill miners.28
Manual Breaching. The first deliberate breach of a minefield was by Colonel Serrel's 1st New York Volunteer Engineers at Fort Wagner, South Carolina, in August and September 1863 during the Civil War. Union sappers literally dug their way through the minefield using traditional siege warfare techniques.29
Mine Plows, Rakes, and Detectors. In 1918, the French developed the first plow-equipped tank, which was based on a Renault FT-17 tank.30 However, plow tanks were not used in combat until D-Day in 1944, when the British 79th Armored Division employed a "Bullshorn" plow on a Churchill tank at Sword Beach.31 Modern versions used by most countries, including the United States, are based on an Israeli design. The highly successful full-width mine rake was first developed and used by the United States during Operation Desert Storm.
The Germans, French, Russians, and Italians entered World War II with metallic mine detectors, but information on the details of their origin is lacking.32 During the interwar years, the French developed the first vehicle-mounted electronic mine detector on an R-35 tank.33
Bangalore Torpedo. Captain McClintock--an engineer officer in the Bengal, Bombay, and Madras Sappers and Miners--invented the bangalore torpedo in 1912. Its purpose was to counter problems caused by the rise of barbed-wire obstacles during the Boer War (1899-1902) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). The torpedo, which took its name from Bangalore, India, where it was developed, was originally a 5.5-meter length of pipe filled with 27.2 kilograms of dynamite.34 Early in World War II, the torpedo was found to effectively clear a path through minefields, and it remains a standard item in most armies. In 1944, the United States began experimentation for a supplemental system that would use a bullet-trap rifle grenade or small rocket to deploy a length of detonating cord,35 but these devices have not been generally accepted. A more likely successor is the U.S. Antipersonnel Obstacle-Breaching System (APOBS), which is based on the Israeli-developed POMINS.36
Mine Rollers and Assault Bridges. At the end of World War I, the British developed a tank-mounted mine roller as a countermeasure against German AT mines. Major Martel (RE) explored the possibility of producing mine rollers and assault bridges that could be used by armored vehicles. Martel was assisted by Major Inglis from the Engineer-in-Chief's branch at general headquarters. Inglis, an engineering professor at Cambridge, had designed a prefabricated tubular mobile bridge to carry tanks across a clear span of 100 feet. Three special tank battalions, one commanded by Martel, were formed at Christ-church in Hampshire, England, in 1918. Each battalion had Mk V tanks designed to accept either mine rollers or to push/pull mobile bridges. Although the armistice came before the units were operational, Martel continued trials with the one remaining unit, called the Experimental Bridging Company, which was transitioned to the civilian-controlled Experimental Bridging Establishment in 1925.37 The mine roller was first used in combat in 1940, when the Russians used it to help breach Finland's Mannerheim Line.38 The highly successful Russian Mugalev roller, which first saw action in 1942, was developed based on this experience.39 Most rollers currently used by former Warsaw Pact countries, Israel, and the United States are patterned after the Mugalev roller.40
Snake. The demolition "Snake" was first developed by Major MacLean, a Canadian combat engineer from the 11th Field Company, in October 1941. Originally nicknamed the "Worthington Wiggler" after F. F. Worthington, commander of the 1st Canadian Tank Brigade, it was basically an oversized bangalore torpedo. The Snake consisted of sections of 3-inch diameter pipe loaded with explosives, which could be coupled together in lengths up to 400 feet and pushed as a unit across a minefield ahead of a tank. The subsequent detonation would clear a path through the field. The Snake was demonstrated successfully in February and March 1942.41 Although the U.S. Army was equipped with a small number of them during the campaign in North Africa, the Snake was first used in combat by the U.S. 1st Armored Division on 23 May 1944 during the breakout from the Anzio Beachhead.42
Mine-Clearing Line Charge. A British-made, rocket-deployed, flexible line charge called the "Conger" was developed to overcome the shortcomings of the Snake. The Conger was the first modern mine-clearing line charge. Consisting of 330 yards of specially woven 2-inch diameter flexible hose, it was launched across a minefield by a 5-inch rocket. After the hose was deployed, it was filled with 2,500 pounds of a nitroglycerine-based liquid explosive known as 822C. Because it was so dangerous, the Conger was used in combat only once by the British 79th Armored Division during the battle for Calais on 25 September 1944.43 Modern mine-clearing line charges like the U.S. M58 MICLIC and the British Giant Viper evolved from this device.44
Mine-Clearing Flail. Lieutenant Colonel Colman, a South African engineer, got the idea for a mine-clearing flail when he saw a tracked vehicle drive by with a length of wire wrapped around its sprockets. The wire hit the ground hard with each revolution of the sprockets. Colman's idea was developed by Field Marshal Montgomery's 8th Army in the general headquarters workshops in August 1942. Twenty-four of these flails, called "Scorpions," were first used in combat during several British breaching efforts in the Second Battle of El Alamein.45 Eventually, the British consolidated the flail and many other specialized armored vehicles in the famous 79th Armored Division. Commanded by General Hobart, RE, this division--known as Hobart's Funnies--was probably the most advanced combat engineering organization ever de-veloped.46 Modern descendants of the Scorpion are in service in England and are the forerunner of the jointly developed German and Israeli Keiler system.47
Remote-Controlled Breaching Vehicles. The first prototype, remote-controlled breaching vehicles for cutting wire obstacles were developed in Germany and France during World War I.48 The Germans were the first to produce and deploy remote-controlled minefield breaching vehicles by using both an expendable charge-carrying vehicle (the "Goliath") and a nonexpendable vehicle (the B-IV) that was intended to drop its charge and withdraw before the charge detonated. Although these vehicles were used with some success at Sevastopol in 1942 and Kursk in 1943, they were generally considered failures.49
The Chinese first employed sea mines in the 14th century. The oldest known European design for a sea mine was presented by Ralph Rabbards to Queen Elizabeth I in 1574.50 In the West, the first known employment of sea mines occurred in 1777 when Captain David Bushnell, an American Continental Army engineer, attacked British ships on the Delaware River with floating mines. He also made the first submarine attack in the history of warfare and commanded the Company of Sappers and Miners that stormed Redoubt 10 at Yorktown.51 Robert Fulton and Samuel Colt both experimented with sea mines in the early 1800s but lost interest when their efforts were not well received by any government. The term "torpedo" was first applied to Fulton's submarine engine. Floating mines were used by the Russians during the Crimean War in 1855 and at Canton, China, in 1857-58.52 Their first significant employment, however, occurred during the American Civil War, where they were responsible for most of the Union ships sunk.53
This type of mine is still emerging from the technological shadows. The first improvised antihelicopter mines appeared during the Vietnam War and were used by the Viet Cong on potential landing zones.54 During the Cold War, the Russians developed an antiaircraft mine based on their surface-to-air (SA)-7/14 missile for use by their special-purpose forces (SPETZNAZ) against NATO airbases.55 In the 1990s, Britain and the United States had developmental programs for producing "smart" antihelicopter mines that could be deployed to engage low-flying helicopters, but these have been cancelled.56 However, a Russian company is looking for partners to help fund the development and fielding of the "Temp 20," an antihelicopter mine with a lethal range of 200 meters.57 Some of the technologies being developed for the Ballistic Missile Defense Office could even be considered orbiting space mines.
This series of articles has explored the origins of military mines and the ingenuity of the engineers who drove their development. (See Engineer, July 1998, for Part I.) The evolution of these necessary but unglamorous weapons will continue. Antiaircraft/antihelicopter mines and possibly antisatellite "mines" will almost certainly appear in the future. So far, history has shown that whenever a new means of movement appears in the attacker's repertoire, the military engineer responds with a defensive countermeasure.
Major Schneck, a professional engineer, is the Assistant Division Engineer, 29th Light Infantry Division (Virginia Army National Guard), and a senior project engineer in the Countermine Division, Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. A veteran of both the Gulf War and Somalia, he has published numerous papers on mine warfare. Major Schneck is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College and holds a master's degree in mechanical engineering from Catholic University. His e-mail address is: wschneck@nvl.army.mil/.
1 A History of Fortification, From 3000 BC to AD 1700, by Sidney Toy, Heineman, London, 1966, page 31.
3 The Sinking of the USS Cairo, by John C. Wideman, University Press of Mississippi, 1993, page 51.
4 Reminiscences of General Herman Haupt, by Herman Haupt, Arno Press, 1981 edition, page 49.
5 The Fighting Tanks Since 1916, by Ralph Jones, George Rarey, and Robert Icks, The National Publishing Company, Washington, D.C., 1933, page 262. See also FM 20-32 (1976), page 133.
6 "Destruction of Enemy Traps and Mines," by J. Frank Barber. Military Engineer, September-October, 1924, pages 374-377.
7 Ibid. pages 47, & 106-114, also see Treat 'em Rough! The Birth of American Armor,1917-20, by Dale E. Wilson, Presidio, 1989, pages 117, 170, 182, 196, and 204.
8 Mine/Countermine Operations at the Company Level, FM 20-32, Department of Doctrine and Training Development, US Army Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 30 September 1976, page 133.
9 German Mine Warfare Equipment, TM 5-223C, March 1952, pages 118-122. See also pages 89-94.
10 Deutsche Landminen, 1935-1945, by Wolfgang Fleischer, Waffen-Arsenal, Band 164, Podzun-Pallas-Verlag,1997, pages 12 and 43.
11Soviet Mine Warfare Equipment, TM 5-223A, Department of the Army, August 1951, pages 45-52 and 83-89.
13 North Korean People's Army Handbook, FC 100-2-99, Battle Command Training Program, April 1992, page 10-36.
14 Soviet Mine Warfare Equipment, TM 5-223A, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., August 1951, pages 62-63.
15 Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics, 1991-1992, edited by Christopher Foss and Terry Gander, Jane's Defence Data, Great Britain, 1991, pages 199-200 and "Smart Mines Join the Fray," Armed Forces Journal, August 1992, page 14.
16 North Africa, 1940-1943, Landmine and Countermine Warfare, Engineer Agency for Resources Inventories, Washington, D.C., June 1972, pages 15, 20, 30, 50, and 51.
17 Italian and French Explosive Ordnance, TM 9-1985-6, Departments of the Army and the Air Force, March 1953, pages 3, 25, 59-60. And German Explosive Ordnance (Bombs, Fuzes, Rockets, Land Mines, Grenades, and Igniters), TM 9-1985-2, Departments of the Army and the Air Force, Washington, D.C., March 1953, page 34.
18 OP CIT, North Africa, 1940-1943, Landmine and Countermine Warfare, page 15. Luftwaffe Handbook, 1939-1945, by Alfred Price, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, New York, 1997, page 42. Unexploded Bomb, A History of Bomb Disposal, by Arthur Hartley, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1958, pages 132-134, 159-165, and 213.
19German Air Force Operations in Support of the Army, by General der Flieger and. D. Paul Deichmann, USAF Historical Studies: No. 163, USAF Historical Division Research Studies Institute Air University, Arno Press, New York, June 1972, pages 43-44.
20 The 1st Cavalry Division and Their 8th Engineers in Korea, edited by Frank Armstrong, Bull Run of Vermont, South Burlington, Vermont, 1993, page 180.
21 Viet Cong Boobytraps, Mines, and Mine Warfare Techniques, TC 5-31, Headquarters, Department of the Army, December 1969, page 2-11.
22 German Mine Warfare Equipment, TM 5-223C, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., March 1952, page 10. The device proved "impractical." See also a video titled "Great Fighting Machines of WWII." The first fielded mechanical mine planter was probably Russian.
23 OP CIT, Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics, 1991-1992, pages 217-218.
24 Medieval Warfare, by Terrence Wise, Hastings House Publishers, New York, 1976, pages 168-169.
25 OP CIT, A History of Fortification, page 23.
27 War Underground, The Tunnellers of the Great War, by Alexander Barrie, Tom Donovan, London, England, pages 196-206.
28 European Weapons and Warfare, 1618-1648, by Eduard Wagner,Octopus Publishing, page 222.
29 Infernal Machines, The Story of Confederate Submarine and Mine Warfare, by Milton F. Perry, Louisiana State University Press, 1965, pages 58-60.
30 Encyclopedia of Tanks, by Duncan Crow and Robert Icks, Chartwell Books, page 135 and 164.
31 The Story of the 79th Armoured Division, privately published, June 1945, page 45.
32 "Mine and Countermine in Recent History, 1914-1970," by Russel Stolfi, BRL Report 1582, Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, April 1972, page 21.
33 OP CIT, Encyclopedia of Tanks, page 31.
34 Royal Engineers, by Derek Boyd, Leo Cooper Ltd., London, 1975, page 72.
35 Western Europe, World War II, Landmine and Countermine Warfare, Engineer Agency for Resources Inventories, Washington, D.C., July 1973, page 205.
36 OP CIT, Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics, 1991-1992, pages 235 and 249.
37 OP CIT, Royal Engineers, pages 75-76.
38 The Winter War, The Russo-Finnish Conflict, 1939-40, by Eloise Engle and Lauri Paananen, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, page 77.
39 Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, by Steven Zaloga and James Grandsen, Arms and Armour Press, London, pages 62, 81, 84, 85, 190, & 191. See also, Bagration 1944, The Destruction of Army Group Centre, by Steven Zaloga, pages 33, 34, and 49.
40 OP CIT, Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics, 1991-1992, pages 234, 235, 238, and 240.
41 History of the Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers, Volume II, 1936-1946, by A. J. Kerry and W. A. McDill, The Military Engineers Association of Canada, Ottawa, 1966, page 99. However, it is possible that the Germans were first, see German Mine Warfare Equipment, pages 215-216.
42 Cassino to the Alps, The Mediterranean Theater of Operations, by Ernest Fisher, Center of Military History, US Army, Washington, D.C., 1977, 120-128.
43 OP CIT, The Story of the 79th Armored Division, page 136.
44 OP CIT, Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics, 1991-1992, pages 238, 242, 247, & 248.
45 Taming the Landmine, by Peter Stiff, Galago Publishing, Alberton, South Africa, 1986, pages 23-28. Alternatively, the Russians may have been first, see Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, page 62.
46 Vanguard of Victory, The 79th Armored Division, by David Fletcher, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1984.
47 OP CIT, Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics, 1991-1992, page 232.
48 OP CIT, Encyclopedia of Tanks, pages 133 and 143.
49 German Remote-Control Tank Units 1940-1943, by Markus Jaugitz, Schiffer Military, Atglen, Pennsylvania. These devices are arguably related to the much older concept of a "fire ship" from naval warfare.
50 The Genius of China, by Robert Temple, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1986, page 237.
51 Engineers of Independence, A Documentary History of the Army Engineers in the American Revolution, 1775-1783, by Paul K. Walker, Historical Division, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., page 185.
52 Torpedoes: Their Invention and Use, From the First Application to the Art of War to the Present Time, by W. R. King, Washington, 1866, page 34-86.
53 OP CIT, Infernal Machines, The Story of Confederate Submarine and Mine Warfare, page 4.
54 OP CIT, TC 5-31, pages 4-14 and 4-15.
55 On Air Defense, by James D. Crabtree, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, 1994, pages 183-184.
56 OP CIT, Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics, 1991-1992, page 198 and "Anti-Helicopter Mine" Brochure, Ferranti International, undated.
57 "Russia Unveils Anti-Helicopter Mine Project," Jane's International Defense Review, 1/1998, page 16.