Roadside Bombs & IEDs (catch all)

[Stan]

Roller, rake, dozer & flail.

The double extruder idea didn't work properly afaik and magnetic solutions don't work against mechanical mines either. Simple pushing devices (that bend feeling antennas early) are uninteresting in this context as well.

Rake and dozer don't work satisfactorily in hard ground against buried mines. Rollers rarely if ever work satisfactorily.
Flail is terribly slow.

Did I miss one?


Anyway; the point is that mineclearing equipment is a sideshow even though the enemy is extremely weak and thus limited to little else but a mine campaign due to his lack of survivability in combat.

I realize your latest argument with robots didn't go over well, but never thought of you inside an armored vehicle performing mechanical demining Something in the recent past ?

Anyway, the point in this particular thread is some magic set of bags with liquid contents being combined to initiate an explosion (although I have some serious doubts much like the recent Nigerian as to some explosive force being contained in sandwich bags ).

I'm not sure about your point regarding mechanical demining being a sideshow. So quick to eliminate something that has been around for decades and performs its mission without fatalities (even among the most novice of operators in Africa).

I'll bite: You first argued over speed which was way off and now contend nothing works. You got me Fuchs !

[Fuchs]

This sounds like a pile of misunderstandings.

Mechanical mineclearing works - although not every system on all soils.

It's way too slow. It's too slow for patrols, way too slow for convoys and it's also too slow for breakthrough battles. It was used in the latter with relatively good success under special circumstances, though.

The simple "minebreaker vehicle at the head of convoy" concept (as with that South African-inspired vehicle with the trailers) can be used for road sweeps, but it's useless for small unit movements/patrols.


Mechanical mineclearing is a sideshow in part because it doesn't help patrols or convoys much.
It's furthermore a sideshow because 100%, god-like mineclearing would not even come close to winning the war. It would merely take away another tool fromt he enemy, liit him to less options, probably further reducing the intensity fo warfare and thus the likeliness that we run out of steam before they do because it lasts too long and isn't worth the huge costs in comparison even to the best-case victory scenario.



Now if you think that my speeds are off then feel free to tell which system is faster in practical use.


"Both cover a square click in one hour. They are not designed to protect convoys (you know that already), and they do a good job of destroying anything with frequent chain replacements."

I don't know anything short of a nuclear bomb with this kind of capability.

"square click", that would be a square kilometer as far as I know.

A system of great 10m width (way too optimistic) would need to drive 100x1000 m per hour = 100 km/h (62 mph) plus instant turns to achieve that kind of performance.
An armoured combat engineer battalion may be able to clear mines that quickly.

[Stan]

This sounds like a pile of misunderstandings.

Mechanical mineclearing works - although not every system on all soils.

It's way too slow. It's too slow for patrols, way too slow for convoys and it's also too slow for breakthrough battles. It was used in the latter with relatively good success under special circumstances, though.

Precisely my point – mechanical clearing devices were designed for specific tasks and conditions. Operating them out of their intended environment merely reduces their effectiveness and leads some to believe they are useless. A lot more goes into leading a mechanical demining team than just driving or operating robots. The same can be said for choosing the right detector for the soil and target.

The simple "minebreaker vehicle at the head of convoy" concept (as with that South African-inspired vehicle with the trailers) can be used for road sweeps, but it's useless for small unit movements/patrols.

I guess that would depend on the vehicle’s application. I would not pretend to keep up with a convoy. I would however employ the vehicle sufficiently ahead of the convoy in a suspect area. I’m not advocating mechanical demining as a convoy protection vehicle, just another tool in the kit bag that has some proven advantages. Instead of riding around in an MRAP awaiting detonation, I suggest destroying an element that the enemy can no longer use.

Mechanical mineclearing is a sideshow in part because it doesn't help patrols or convoys much.
It's furthermore a sideshow because 100%, god-like mineclearing would not even come close to winning the war. It would merely take away another tool fromt he enemy, liit him to less options, probably further reducing the intensity fo warfare and thus the likeliness that we run out of steam before they do because it lasts too long and isn't worth the huge costs in comparison even to the best-case victory scenario.

Exactly – reduce the enemy’s options and save lives. You then have anecdotal evidence of mechanical demining not helping a patrol or convoy ? I'm unaware of this tactic ever being employed.

Now if you think that my speeds are off then feel free to tell which system is faster in practical use.

As the fastest system is made in Germany and you contend these machines are all slow, I’ll let you do your own homework

"square click", that would be a square kilometer as far as I know.

I don't know anything short of a nuclear bomb with this kind of capability.

"square click", that would be a square kilometer as far as I know.

A system of great 10m width (way too optimistic) would need to drive 100x1000 m per hour = 100 km/h (62 mph) plus instant turns to achieve that kind of performance.
An armoured combat engineer battalion may be able to clear mines that quickly.

Yep, one square kilometer or 1,000 square meters.

It works at a maximum rate of nine meters per minute... at a rate of up to 1,000 square meters per hour under optimum conditions

... destroys mines faster than they can detonate

As you may have feared, it can be remotely operated and, it's been around since 2001.

[Fuchs]

A square click is a square kilometre - and that's 1,000 x 1,000 metres = a million square metres.


There's Keiler. Its operating speed is 1.5 to 4.5 km/h - mediocre walking pace at best. The width is 6.35 m

4.5 km/h * 6.36 m = 4,500 m /h * 6.35 m = 28,575 sq m/h
That's 1/35th of a square klick. That's of course total theory, the upper end of the imaginable given its tech specs. The real performance is more like creating two or three gaps in minefields (few hundred metres deep) during the course of a combat day.

Minebreaker is an even more rare vehicle and its producer claims a performance of 1.5 to 2 ha (Hektar) per day. That's up to 2 x 100 x 100m = 20,000 sq m.
Its width is approx 4m, and a day of work has most likely about 8-10 working hours.

Finally there is the R/C MAK Rhino. A report from Croatia tells about 150,000 sq m cleared in 14 days. That's 15% of a square click in two weeks.
The average was apparently about 10,700 sq m per day of work.


There's a reason for the use of explosives in battlefield demining; mechanical demining is terribly slow.

[Bob's World]

These are not wooden box mines, they probably come in a variety of sizes, but can be a coffee cup sized hollowed out wooden initiator, with a hole in the top that the lid is (gently) set in. flat wooden "pressure plate" with a small pointy stick that goes down into the hole to where the chemicals are (picture a round drink coaster with a sharpened dowel rod in the center). Stepping on this mixes the chemcials triggering the initiating blast. Attached to this are as many jugs of home made explosive as they care to apply buried beneath it.

Something "The Professor" would make to defend Gilligan's Island.

[Firn]

These are not wooden box mines, they probably come in a variety of sizes, but can be a coffee cup sized hollowed out wooden initiator, with a hole in the top that the lid is (gently) set in. flat wooden "pressure plate" with a small pointy stick that goes down into the hole to where the chemicals are (picture a round drink coaster with a sharpened dowel rod in the center). Stepping on this mixes the chemcials triggering the initiating blast. Attached to this are as many jugs of home made explosive as they care to apply buried beneath it.

Something "The Professor" would make to defend Gilligan's Island.

Sounds pretty much like a non-metallic twist on the old pressure plate. It is not particulary new, as far as I understand, but still the human mind at war seems never be still when it comes to harming the enemy.

Firn

[Stan]

A square click is a square kilometre - and that's 1,000 x 1,000 metres = a million square metres.

Ooops - my bad Fuchs. Darn metric system and my Yankee ingenuity these days

Actually the mine breaker 2000 claims 1,000 square meters per hour. No matter, they are much faster than their predecessors and this also brings us back to clearing a "path" wide and long enough that the likelihood of a mine or IED getting a convoy has been substantially reduced.

There's a reason for the use of explosives in battlefield demining; mechanical demining is terribly slow.

Not sure I follow you here. Since we're talking about speed, manual demining or signal sweeping takes hours to cover ground and using explosives for demining "mines" died years ago with the advent of burn out flares. Discovering an IED doesn't always mean it is destroyed using explosives. Most are rendered safe rather than the risk of high order detonations. We also need to perform forensics and post blast forensics are more time consuming. Shooting "it" with frangible ammo or a water cannon retains most of the IED. Got to start somewhere.

Bob's detailed description supports the need for a heavy, purpose-intended vehicle to render such devices safe. Setting off a pressure sensitive IED with a 7-ton roller 3 meters in front of a heavily armored vehicle still translates into survivability.

[Fuchs]

Real minefields (military ones) can be cleared with fuel-air explosives and other explosive means (like line charges). The variety of systems in this area is according to my impression larger (and growing faster) than with mechanical mineclearing.

[Stan]

Real minefields (military ones) can be cleared with fuel-air explosives and other explosive means (like line charges). The variety of systems in this area is according to my impression larger (and growing faster) than with mechanical mineclearing.

The Chinese gave us a demonstration of their so-called surface launched explosive mixture. Quite impressive triggering all the AP mines, but failed to detonate 3 out of 4 AT mines. The idea however was to reduce the time conventional mine clearance currently requires.

If you and I were permitted to test our ideas (which will probably never happen), I'd bet a "C" note that my idea would work out better, but my vehicles would consume mucho diesel doing so

Regards, Stan