"Russian Minefields" Topic

Can somebody explain the Russian Minefield logic if there is any?

US and UK theory says t6o make a blocking minefield you need 4 mines per meter frontage to make the chances of a man or vehicle hitting a mine. Close to 100%. The second bit is you spread those mines in depth as much as you can so that it makes clearing a real pain you have to clear large distances just to get a few mines.

Pictures of Russian minefields in Ukraine at least in in places shows surface laid mines (not the most effective sort generally) laid very densely , it appears more than 4 mines per meter but over very limited depth this make clearing "easier" but by no means easy. Now you could argue for a full blocking minefield i.e. Infantry and Vehicles you needed 8 mines per meter (4 infantry +4 Anti-Vehicle) but the logic for spreading them in depth seems irrefutable.

Secondly it seems that Russians (thankfully) are to incompetent to bury the mines so again making identification easier, thermal imaging or just burning off the grass).

So, has Russia learnt new tricks or is it just Russia squandering resources as it can't do a decent job?

" are to incompetent to bury the mines so again making identification easier,"

In defense of the Russians they might be laying "hasty minefields". When I was in the 82nd we had some training exercises where we had to lay minefields in minutes. We set up M21 anti tank mines, armed them with tilt rod in place, NOT BURIED. It was a timed exercise to deploy the minefield as quickly as possible.

Military forces inconsistently follow their nation's military doctrine. This is due to variety of reasons; among them are time constraints, limited resources or personnel, poor or insufficient training, bad leadership, terrain limitations, or enemy pressure.

Like Dragon Gunner, leaving mines unburied was part of my training as well. Sometimes this was done due to time, maybe difficult terrain, or maybe we buried some to confuse the enemy. The idea was to delay the enemy to give us time to bring to bear fire of some sort onto the enemy as they bunched up on the far side of the obstacle or at the point where they breached the minefield.

A possible Russian tactic would be to allow the Ukrainians to clear lanes through the minefields and then use artillery, rockets, and drone munitions to target those lanes. This may not a Russian "national" tactic, but one developed in theater due to unique limitations and capabilities.

Hasty minefields are surface laid. If you have time you dig them in and record their location. Over time, vegetation can grow up to conceal the mines to the human eye. There was an interview with a Ukrainian sapper that has served since 2014 in the Donbas. He was used to seeing traditional minefields, but, he said that what they have been encountering are minefields that fill hectares of land. Often they may clear a path but the Russians try to close the path with aircraft and artillery delivered mines.
If minefields are done properly and recorded, it helps to make it easier to remove the mines at the end of the shooting. After the end of Vietnam, the US sent people there to remove minefields that we had records of. It appears that the Russians are not concerned about this in Ukraine.

While hasty minefield are a thing as you rightl state. but many of these milefield we set up momths ago so not really a classic hasty minefield.

Maybe russians don't have the kit or folk to plaough mines in.

"set up momths ago so not really a classic hasty minefield."

At the time they were set up it might have been a hasty minefield then left in place, no one came back to bury them.

A possibility…

I could imagine a small group of soldiers detailed to set up the minefield. They are given a 5-minute crash course on laying and arming mines. A convoy of trucks shows up each truck contains hundreds of mines in crates. The commanding officer has orders to lay minefields as quickly as possible since it is the only thing available to stop a potential Ukrainian breakthrough on that date at that time. He orders the men to set up a hasty minefield. He has a dozen more minefields to set up just like this one and he has a deadline.

Russia does not have well trained soldiers or officers. And they do not give a . They more or less drop the mines and off. No maps or coordinates where the minefield is or its composition.

All good posts … But again bottom line IMO the Russian Military is poorly trained, motivated and lead.

The commanding officer has orders to lay minefields as quickly as possible since it is the only thing available to stop a potential Ukrainian breakthrough on that date at that time.

The problem is that the minefields were laid long in advance of any Ukrainian offensive.

I never cease to be amazed at the way some people think…
Casually installed minefields, created by non-professionals without any special training, without any planning or system, from mines of long-outdated designs, are stopping a fairly modern army, which is armed with completely modern mine clearance and reconnaissance systems… Do you really believe in it? ?

Russian mines lie on the surface because they are machine-installed. This is done with the help of specialized engineering and sapper vehicles of various types, of which Russia has a large number, both old Soviet ones (they use old types of mines) and the most modern ones. Minefields can even be laid from helicopters.
Deepening minefields is not of fundamental importance now. It is much more important to provide cover for minefields with artillery fire, preventing the enemy from carrying out mine clearance work. In modern conditions, this is quite easy; reconnaissance drones and night vision devices do not allow such work to be carried out unnoticed.
Moreover, modern Russian remote mining systems (for example, "Zemledelie" (Agriculture)) can remotely set a minefield at a distance of 15 kilometers. This property is often used to destroy advancing Ukrainian columns that fall into a mine trap when a new minefield suddenly appears behind them, while they are being shot at by Russian artillery. The same machines are used to restore minefields that have already been removed.
Conventional Russian heavy multiple launch rocket systems can also lay mines at distances of up to 70 km.
Moreover, modern Russian mines can be turned off remotely. So Russian troops can easily advance through territory where they themselves had previously laid minefields.

The videos have English subtitles:

link

link

Review of Russian mining systems and various combat mines. Alas – only in Russian. Skip the commercial at the beginning of the video. Then – a short story about the sappers, and then there will be information of interest:

link

"Russian mines lie on the surface because they are machine-installed"-Cuprum

Well that settles it, straight from Cuprum's mouth the Russians do not dig in their mines they just lay them on the surface. (Sounds like a Hasty minefield to me but this is deliberate…)

"from mines of long-outdated designs, are stopping a fairly modern army, which is armed with completely modern mine clearance and reconnaissance systems… Do you really believe in it? ?"-Cuprum

The mines are the only thing stopping Ukraine. Mine technology has not had to advance much since its inception. Most are step on it or drive over it and die systems. Granted there are more modern versions.

Forty years ago I had classroom training on a variety of Soviet, Chicom and Warsaw Pact mines. Some were made of metal, ceramic or plastic. The one I recall the most was a giant wooden box packed with explosives, it would leave a crater the size of a house and not a single component of it could be detected by mine detection equipment. Yes they also had artillery delivered butterfly mines.

Russia very well could be laying modern mines with modern delivery systems. We have also seen Russia dust off T-55 and some truly ancient WW2 systems. I would not be surprised stockpiles of old mines have made their way to Ukraine.

Not just mines. The creation of defensive lines is as automated as possible. And this allows you to build new fortifications very quickly. While the enemy is storming the front line, a new defensive line is already being created in the rear.
Here is a machine that creates anti-tank ditches. A rather old Soviet version:

link

And this already ancient machine, removed from conservation, digs trenches perfectly and quickly:

link

It is possible to overcome a modern engineering barrier only by first quickly suppressing or destroying the troops defending it. I don't see any other methods. However, the Ukrainians came up with another method – continuous attacks by small groups of infantry without the support of heavy equipment, with the support of artillery (often insufficient) and UAVs. They call it "meat assault", guess why. This gives some results, but leads to monstrous losses.
However, Russian attacks on Ukrainian fortified areas in the DPR and LPR at the beginning of the war were also not particularly effective for the same reasons. That is why the "artillery tactics" of the First World War were used to break them through. Let's see how the Russians will cope with this task now, when it is their turn to attack. This is where Russian generals have a great temptation to use tactical nuclear weapons, but I think they are unlikely to be allowed to do so for political reasons.

Oh yes, the problem is complicated by the fact that it will be extremely difficult to concentrate significant artillery assets on a small area for a WWI-style war – such accumulations are quickly detected and destroyed by precision weapons and drones.

Not an easy task…

I read about an interesting idea, just suitable for Russian engineering vehicles. The area of the future breakthrough is blocked by remotely installed minefields and the supply of ammunition and reinforcements to it is stopped. And after that the assault begins. In my opinion, it might work.

@Cuprum

Thank you for the videos very informative.

By the way, there are more interesting mine clearance machines based on modern principles.
Here is the Russian car "Listva" (Foliage). Based on the use of microwave radiation. The electronic content of smart mines simply burns out or detonates.

link

"And after that the assault begins. In my opinion, it might work."

In fortification clearance training it was a always a problem, we could only carry so much ammunition food and water with us during an assault. We could breach a defensive line or two and end up stuck unable to advance without a resupply. Then we were vulnerable to a counterattack.

I don't envy either side. I have participated in many training ops where we had to clear a path through a minefield (simulated mines) then breach triple strand concertina wire and finally assault bunkers, fighting positions (i.e., foxholes) and trenches. We used MILES laser tag, and it was always a bloodbath for the attacker.

Yes, that's true. Supplying directly to the battlefield is always a difficult task. And on the modern battlefield, where precision weapons and drones dominate, this is a task on the verge of possibility.

I think that the issue you raised in this case can be resolved by increasing efforts with the help of quickly available reserves with an unspent set of resources.
Very skillful management of dispersed reserves (concentrating them in advance is a problem) will be required…

Everything would be simpler with significant air support, but here, too, there is still a deadlock, where the means of defense are superior to the means of attack. The maximum that the Russians will be capable of now is a massive attack with gliding bombs on the enemy's defense line.

Well our paid Russian commentator has got it wrong as usual. The Ukraines have been moaning for a long time that they have a massive shortfall in mine clearing equipment. If they had sufficent these small dence mainfields would be gone in literally seconds. Mechanical systems using mine plows move abuot 3.6km an hour so a dence minefield (15 mine in 10 sq meters, About the right number (4 mines per me3terfrontage) in as 3m sqare, the mine plow would be through that in just over 3 seconds! But alas the Ukrains do not have decent stuff like Giant Viper, fortunately for the Russiams. However things are looking up, the South Koreans are sending some cleraing kit so hopefully the folly that is going on now will soon end.

Russia is lucky as the Ukrains are having to clear mimes by hand, so the Much Vaunted Russian system is really only delaying an army with eqipmwent as old as Russian tanks.

Mechanical systems using mine plows move abuot 3.6km an hour so a dence minefield (15 mine in 10 sq meters, About the right number (4 mines per me3terfrontage) in as 3m sqare, the mine plow would be through that in just over 3 seconds

Except the minefields are overwatched by strongpoints with ATGM emplacements, drone controllers and FOs for artillery. Remember that failed push the Ukrainians did into a defended minefield where they lost half their available mine clearing equipment that way? This is no longer a war of mobility, they lack of success by the Russian military on offence, combine with limited Ukrainian resources, has turned into a WW1-style defensive emplacement war. Thousands of miles of interlocking trenches and minefield defended by strongpoints and artillery of various kinds, ATGMs and drones.

UshCha, do you receive payment for your comments from Ukrainians or anyone else? Share your contacts – maybe they pay more than Putin. I wouldn't mind earning extra money doing the same thing you do ;-)

How far can your mine clearing vehicles advance under Russian artillery and MANPADS fire?)))

Bottom line – again …

The Ukraine needs more CE mine clearing equipment.

The only way the Ukraine can claim victory is removing all the Russians from their nation. Save for the dead ones buried in mass graves, etc.

So the Russian army considered 3 Mine clearing Vehicles a lot. If they do the Russias days will be far shorter than even we hoped. Have you not seen far more pictures of the Ukraine's clearing by hand?

Does any other army use a trenching machine as shown in the video Cuprum posted?

Clearing mines/IEDs by hand is a slow tedious process. Those clearing the mines normally must be covered by smoke, etc. or even done at night. Once you find a mine, you can't move it. As is probably have an anti-handling device on the bottom of it. Lift it up and BOOOOM! The Best you can do at that point is mark it. So, it can be blown in place by C4, etc. at a later time.

We trained on this frequently when I was in ROTC, '75-'79 and Active Duty '79-'90. With Vietnam still being in mind – booby traps now called IEDs were often seen in use. And we were trained on those as well. And with the Cold War going on. It was well known based on passed history, the USSR would use extensive minefields/IEDs in the defense.

There are a number of mine/obstacle clearing CE devices. That NATO and other nations have or will send to the Ukraine. Too many have not made it there yet. My choices, MICLICs, M1s with mine plows, etc.

However, AFAIK like the US long range ATACMs, the US may be dragging its feet getting the CE vehicles, etc. in country to get the minefields, etc. cleared. E.g. As it is now, with the ATACM's longer range will go deep to destroying Russian supply, C3, etc. But not if the US Gov't is afraid of sending them to the Ukraine. For fear of escalation. That horse has left the barn long ago. Once again, the US Gov't is afraid … not taking dynamic, aggressive, etc. measures to help end the war. With the Russians being the losers.

"Lions being lead by rabbits" …

If the US fails to support the Ukraine. Not only will Russia declare victory in the end. But the CCP is watching US determination, etc. to support the Ukraine. If this fails, this will only embolden Xi. Will Taiwan be on the menu ? Just as the A'stan debacle only emboldened Putin to invade the Ukraine.

Again, Predators sense weakness, fecklessness, confusion, etc. and took advantage of it. And will also do the same in the future.

I expect that people in the US and Ukraine are working on a solution to old fashioned dense minefields -- seems some combination of drones/autonomous mine clearing vehicles, maybe using plows or even EM blasts or directed sonic waves, and even variants of the MICLIC system. So these systems would more cheaply swarm-clear attack lanes through the mines while other drones and artillery try to suppress the defensive positions.

clear attack lanes through the mines while other drones and artillery try to suppress the defensive positions.

Suppressive fires, smoke, etc. would be SOP for this mission.
As well as others.

I too am sure there are places like DARPA, etc. that is working on all sorts of things to clear mines, etc., etc. Much of it is still classified at this time I'd think.

Smoke or night is unlikely to be of much help given the large quantities of thermal imagers and other modern reconnaissance equipment now available in the army.

Everything has long been invented to combat such minefields. In Russia there are engineering-artillery demining vehicles capable of instantly creating a passage in a minefield measuring 6x90 meters. In addition, this vehicle is successfully used in urban battles to clear rubble and destroy buildings.

link

Here's the top view:

link

Application of the machine for demolition of buildings and clearing debris:

link

There is also a small portable version for infantrymen (passage in a minefield 40 cm x 60 meters):

link

As far as I know, Ukraine has such old Soviet weapons, and the West also has its own analogues.

link

The problem is different – how long will these machines survive in the modern realities of war on the battlefield.
The main task now before crossing a minefield is to suppress in advance the troops covering it, including drones and artillery. Moreover, this must be done as soon as possible, and at the same time it is desirable to exclude the possibility of delivering reinforcements to the enemy. It is almost impossible to overcome a minefield under enemy fire, especially considering the ability to quickly restore the barrier by remote means.

Smoke or night is unlikely to be of much help given the large quantities of thermal imagers and other modern reconnaissance equipment now available in the army.

Those and suppressive fires is how it is generally done. Suppressive fires also include CAS & FA hitting Russian positions, etc.

Note: MICLICs limits CE, etc. exposure, etc., … The cover of smoke and/or darkness along with direct & indirect suppressive fires in concert is again how combined arms works. The Russians are incapable it appears to be able to effectively use combined arms.

Everything has long been invented to combat such minefields.

That is not necessarily true … We have no idea what DARPA, etc. are working on.

The problem is different – how long will these machines survive in the modern realities of war on the battlefield.

Again read what I already posted i.e. combined arms …

The main task now before crossing a minefield is to suppress in advance the troops covering it, including drones and artillery. Moreover, this must be done as soon as possible,

Yes again, that is how combined arms works. Drones are generally considered CAS. I.e. they fly and kill things. Besides being used in a recon role.

and at the same time it is desirable to exclude the possibility of delivering reinforcements to the enemy. It is almost impossible to overcome a minefield under enemy fire, especially considering the ability to quickly restore the barrier by remote means.

Long range fires will hit reinforcements, C3, supply points, etc.

It is not impossible to breach minefields. It requires combined arms, well trained troops and firepower … lots of it. Think of breaching minefields like an amphib. invasion …

Even though if possible, it would be better to by-pass enemy minefields and defensive positions, etc. That is the best solution. But in this case … that may not be possible.

So well trained troops with lots of firepower is a good option.

Frankly with all that firepower going in on Russian positions, some may break and run. They are not well trained, motivated and lead. It has been demonstrated since the first day of the invasion ..

In my opinion, regarding the poor training of Russian troops, you are just repeating propaganda theses. The problem is not poor training of the troops, but a radically changed picture on the battlefield, for which no one was prepared…

As for overcoming minefields and generally breaking through defenses. The main problem now for both sides is the extreme difficulty of concentrating troops for a strong strike… As soon as concentrations of troops appear, they are immediately attacked by a missile or artillery strike, leading to heavy losses. As a result, troops are forced to act in small groups, which does not have serious strength to break through the defense.
You cannot concentrate tanks, infantry, or artillery (which is now forced to act according to the principle: shoot and run away). Previously, such problems were solved by traditional aviation, but now it has practically stopped crossing the front line…
Defense systems at this stage surpassed offensive systems, which caused a positional stalemate, similar to the First World War. Now there is an active search for new forms of combat in the current conditions. But so far I don't see any new significant solutions, although various ideas are emerging.

The majority of the Russian troops are poorly trained. The proof comes from several parts.

1. A plethora of short movie clips with russans soldiers who says so. They complain about lack of training, among other things. These clips are too numerous to be a minority.

2. POW:s are in poor shape. Lousy equipment, poor personal hygiene, very demoralized.

3. Huge losses due to poor tactics. Well trained troops do not attack in "human waves".

4. Poor use of cover and concealment. Does not create good fighting positions, do not keep positions "clean". They live in poor sanitary positions. This is bad as it degrades the health of soldiers. All soldiers know that you need to stay as clean as possible and to avoid trash to avoid disease and diarrhea.

5. Soldiers do not help their comrades. Soldiers with good training and morale help their wounded friends. Russians do not. Russian troops live next to dead and decomposing bodies…

6. Some Russians fight hard but not smart. Their whole system is "sluggish" and slow. Well trained troops act faster and more in concert.

7. They have a huge amount of "red on red". they hit their own troops with artillery.
This is proven by numerous movies provide by Russians. That is not a mark of well trained soldiers to hit their own troops.

But in the end how well trained Russians are is a moot point, they are being beaten by Ukraine. Your level of training does not matter if the enemy is better trained and is therefore winning.

Soledad, never trust what a captured soldier says on camera. Because in the overwhelming majority of cases, he will say anything to save his life and improve conditions of detention.
Exactly the same thing that you described is what Ukrainian soldiers in Russian captivity say about the Ukrainian army. I just haven't watched such videos for a very long time… Neither Russian nor Ukrainian. All this is empty propaganda that is not worth any attention.
Just like the mass complaints of soldiers on the Internet when their faces are hidden. It's especially funny when Russian soldiers complain on Ukrainian channels or vice versa)))

This is not what POW:s say. This is what Russian soldiers who show their faces say on Russian channels. And they carry guns. So no way they are POW:s.

Most of what I stated is from russian plattforms.

So to get back to the topic, what is the best source for understanding minefield theory, available without restrictions? The US manual is good in many ways about minefield layouts how to sey up in many ways, all the detail but not so much on how you take an operational requirement in detail and define a minefiled in detail.
They tend (but to be fair not entirely) to be like how to lay bricks for a house but not the subltys of house design. GHow to put windows and dooors in but not so much how to achieve the optimum house design. Perhaps the Classified bit).
In its examples it will show a minefield design, which is great, consisting of areas of mined and unmined reagions and sizes. However it misses things like are all the sections supposed to be at full density (that would equate to the whole being well over the 4 mines per meter, or should they be less and by how much and why.
Now agreed if I had infinite amounts of time you could set up lots of scenarios and monticarlow the results but a good source could help no end.

From our on runs its interesting if you hit a Tactical minefield you did not know about, you could be well in before you hit a mine, the odd vehicle could get through before anybody hit a mine (ONLY ABOUT 25% chance of a hit at tactical level). This can be a real bummer, you are spead through the field before you get succeed.

It does seem a very much ignored part of any real wargame, yet is crucial if you don't want a toytown, implusible game which to me offers not one jot of fun.

soledad +1

Ushcha – I think I addressed your question about clearing mine fields and crossing to assault Russian position, etc. Read some of my posts. Short answer – Tech & firepower …

As for overcoming minefields and generally breaking through defenses. The main problem now for both sides is the extreme difficulty of concentrating troops for a strong strike… As soon as concentrations of troops appear, they are immediately attacked by a missile or artillery strike, leading to heavy losses. As a result, troops are forced to act in small groups, which does not have serious strength to break through the defense.
You cannot concentrate tanks, infantry, or artillery (which is now forced to act according to the principle: shoot and run away). Previously, such problems were solved by traditional aviation, but now it has practically stopped crossing the front line…

Read what I already posted about doing a forced entry of crossing minefields, etc. What you said is somewhat correct to a point in some situations. But again, read what I posted. With the proper tech, equipment, well trained & lead troops with a lot of firepower from all sources of the Combined Arms Tms. It can be done. However, as I said, by passing is a better option if possible.

However, the Ukraine may want to keep the Russians behind their minefields and defensive positions. At the right time cut the Crimean land bridge. Then in turn will cut off supplies, etc. to the Russians in Crimea. As we see Ukrainian missiles can sink Russian Naval vessels. So, trying to use the Russian Navy for resupply will be costly. Wait until they get the US longer range ATACMS … that Would certainly help hitting deep targets.

BTW we learned some lessons from the VC. Small groups can infil, do damage and possibly open up a hole in the line. And/or penetrate into enemy rear areas. Taking out C3, supply points, enemy AFVs, etc. Having been a Rifle Plt Ldr '80-'82 in an Air Assault Co. of the 101 Air Assault Div. We were trained to do dismounted Infantry attacks. Even were issued Mine Clearing devices at times.

We rarely had Armor support but always had our Co. 81mm and 4.2" Bn mortars. Plus, FA support with gunships and CAS at times. However, we were well trained and, in many cases, led by Combat Vets[NCOs & Officers] who were in our Bn/Bde that fought in Vietnam and even some in the Korean War. E.g. my Plt Sgt served in Vietnam. He like many others "knew the deal". I think the Ukraine may doing similar to some of the Russian defenses.

Again, the Ukraine may pull a Sun Tzu … with the Crimean land bridge being a priority. While many of the Russian forces tied up in their defensive positions.

Legion 4,
You indeed did a good job on hopw to clear a minefield. However minefields if laid correctly are not just one large patch of mines but a complex pattern of patches of mines done with what appears to be a lot of thought. Some of the design criteria are in the tesxt but a lot of the underlying theory needed to produce a final "product" is not there.

When would you expect an enemy to twig he is in a turning minefield, what losses would be expected before the penny drops to the enemy that the least worst option may be to go in another direction.

These are quite complex questions, that seem to have little documantation on the why's and wherefores.

Minefields can be a complex pattern of smaller minefields. Some with one or the other or both of AT & APERS. Sown in the fields. Again depending on terrain & situation. Those pretty much dominate the choices Cdrs make. Along with what and how are your units are organized, etc. The minefields should be part of the overall defensive plan. Worked in with terrain, units available, etc.

As you know I had two tours on the ROK DMZ, '84-'85. There were a few old fields scattered about but clearly marked. Were those that way since '53 ? Or some removed and other fields just marked. We avoided those obviously. But if the war got hot again, we'd have to take those in consideration for all types of ops.

As a student and gamer of the WWII NA campaign. The use of large minefields or series of minefields changed the terrain to suit the defender. Both sides laid thousands upon thousands of mines. With many fields have two or more tandem lines, etc.

Some of those mines are still there and at times someone passing through the area finds one the hard way.

The minefields have been placed as A2/AD[anti-access/area denial roles. Stopping or slowing the enemies' advance as well as protecting a friendly flank, etc. However, as was learned and said by the German leaders in NA that to be really effective in many cases the fields should be covered by direct and indirect fires.

Surface laid Minefields can channelize an attack into enemy kill zones.

Tying in terrain where you set up your minefields, is generally a standard. E.g. In WWII NA, the UK tying in the impassable Quatarra Depression as the Southernmost anchor point of their lines in the El Alamein area. Then placing their minefields and defensive positions in the best locations to carry out their eventual counter-attack.

I recommend if you already have not. Read about the Gazala Line/Battle of Bir Hakim and of course again the El Alamein battles.

But as I have said posted already if you can by-pass minefields, obstacles and booby traps do so …

sSo really nobody has a decent traeties on how to lay minefields out. A bit supprising, as I would have thought at say 3mm scale, large battles, these things become the key. Logistics has to feature in largre battles as the timescales become more extended. OH well?

Ukrainian engineers are now repurposing recovered russian mines to use against their former owners.

YouTube link

Ushcha. This is an outstanding book- written by an RE Colonel.

link

Interesting that the russian mines all seem really old school- thankfully they don't seem to have copied the mighty FWA Barmine.

sSo really nobody has a decent traeties on how to lay minefields out.

As I already posted plus read history where minefields were used extensively. I was an Infantry officer, not a CE, but we studied how to use mines, obstacles, etc. We operated with CEs if available …

Again terrain & situation. As tactical Cdrs we were expected to be able to use minefields etc. tied into the terrain and the overall defensive plan. With at times the guidance coming down from Higher HQ. With attached CEs doing the minelaying, etc.

Again, if possible, you avoid them, by-pass, etc.…

From our on runs its interesting if you hit a Tactical minefield you did not know about, you could be well in before you hit a mine, the odd vehicle could get through before anybody hit a mine (ONLY ABOUT 25% chance of a hit at tactical level). This can be a real bummer, you are spead through the field before you get succeed.

To go into a more little detail.

If you hit an unmarked minefield, which happens at times … You have to decide quickly to withdraw or push on. Knowing to push thru you may take more losses.

The other option is to pop smoke from the AFVs' smoke grenade launchers. Calling FA/Mortar smoke to cover your withdrawal. Then suppressive firers on likely enemy positions, CAS if you have it available.

Or as I described before about how to do a forced crossing of a minefield. Calling up CE assets, smoke, firepower, etc. Not my first choice. But sometimes you have no option.

Look at the 2d map of the Battle of Bir Hakim – link

Its probably me not explaining things at all well. So is all else fails back to the books.

FM 20-32 W CH 1-4 MINE/COUNTERMINE OPERATIONS
PDF link

Figure 2-5. Disrupt-effect group

Figure 2-6. Fix-effect group

Figure 2-7. Turn-effect group

This is great but I'm not sure If I was driving into any one of these variations I would be able to detect the difference. How would I detect the difference fast enough that I would for instance Turn. Long before that I may just retreat,just call up clearance Kit and go straight on regardless.

To some extent any one of them works but how the subtly of what I encounter and what I do about or what judgements I make seems to escape me. Yet somebody thinks the subtle layout will impact my judgement.

Could you guys if you hit a minefield, be able to judge what sort it was, early enough for it to influence your subsequent decisions and if so on what grounds would you make that identification.

I think the idea is each of those rectangles is a particularly visible minefield.
With disrupt, you see a minefield ahead but half your unit to your right does not. You react and turn but they do not until they reach the band in front of them.
Net effect is part of the attack slows and looks for a safe way forward whilst part carried on for a while before it then finds another band of mines.
The defender can perhaps fire at side armour as vehicle maneuver and or take on part of the attackers whilst the rest are still out of effective range.

At £5.00 GBPm a pop for your tank, not sure weather you would bother trying to interpret a minefield, better just to clear it regardless of shape.

This manual though recent perhaps does not really keep up with the realities of modern was as seen in Ukraine.

I remember this FM or something similar ?

This is great but I'm not sure If I was driving into any one of these variations I would be able to detect the difference. How would I detect the difference fast enough that I would for instance Turn. Long before that I may just retreat,just call up clearance Kit and go straight on regardless.

If only one mine is hit, then you probably wouldn't know how they were laid out.

Are you taking enemy fires ?

Either way you have to decide to withdraw or push thru. But you better have CE clearing equipment. You better be prepared to fire smoke to cover you either way. Fire HE on suspected or known enemy positions, etc.

To some extent any one of them works but how the subtly of what I encounter and what I do about or what judgements I make seems to escape me. Yet somebody thinks the subtle layout will impact my judgement.

What formation are your units/troops moving in?

Online
Column
Wedge
Hvy Right
Hvy Left

That may indicate how many mines you may hit at the same time. As you reach the minefield. Once one or more mines are hit. You have to decide your next order. Again, withdraw or push thru as I already described.

You don't want to take more losses.

E.g. Online formation – you may hit a number of mines with your vehicles or troops. Wedge, Hvy Left or Right you may be in the same situation. Hitting more than one mine.

Column – one or two of your troops/vehicles may be hit.

What dictates formations ? Again Terrain & Situation …

The mine layout is again, meant to channelize or stop your advance. As well as in some cases cause confusion. You hit one then the rest of the may unit tries to maneuver out of the minefield. And hit more mines. Explosions, confusion, people dying, maimed, etc.

The mines are also laid out again based on terrain, the overall defensive plan, etc. On a tactical level the Co. Cdr or even Plt Ldr may make the choice how to place the mines.

Impact your judgement ? That is what you get paid for as a leader. Part of your unit is hit, other parts are not. Trying to judge what formation the mines are laid, is not a priority. You again, decide to withdraw or advance. In many cases withdrawing before enemy fires become effective/deadly.
Getting out of the minefield is a priority. Going forward may not be the best choice ? Are the mines there to channelize you into a bigger kill zone ?

You have seconds to give orders. That is why as I have said before that training, immediate reaction drills, rehearsals, etc. are important. Well trained troops react with getting little to no orders.

Could you guys if you hit a minefield, be able to judge what sort it was, early enough for it to influence your subsequent decisions and if so on what grounds would you make that identification.

I think I answered those questions. But short answer – Normally getting out of the minefield by withdrawing by following your tracks out, etc.

You probably will never know exactly how the mines are laid. It really does not matter. Priority is not deciding how the mines are laid. Your priorities should be clear Cdr …

Legion 4 – I think you have proved my point, the subtle designs of the various layouts are in the head of the mine layers and not really percieved by the attackers. While personally being a bit of an achedemic, I am all to aware that it's possible to be far too clever to be uesfull. Sadly it looks like this real soldier resouce falls at least in part to the raving Achedemics veiw without the tempering of the real world. This is bad news as it will put off the guy's from reading the mauals if they realise even a bit of it is just BS.

Indeed … I do think you may be over thinking it. Yes, and being a bit of an academic. However, in many case FMs are just "good" guides in some situations. Again, as a Rifle Plt Ldr and later a Mech Co. Cdr. you do what works and, in many cases, you do what you have time for. With the assets you have. Plus, generally CEs do lay & clear minefields, but Infantrymen are also trained as well.

So yes, what pattern mines are laid is generally not cast in stone. If I had to … I'd lay mines in a zig-zag pattern with some other patterns mixed in. Not to become predictable. Sow mine and confusion … Also, again would generally mix both AT & APERS mines. Based intel … and of course, terrain …

Of course, again, my experience is vastly different than yours.

FWIW – We were trained to be very mobile, so we trained for e.g. using/clearing mines as well as MOUT. But to stay mobile … you'd usually try to by-pass both of them. All that being said, if I had a choice MICLICs and mine plows would be at the top of the list. If crossing a minefield was inevitable.

As it says

" A disrupt effect should not be time-, manpower-, or resource-
intensive. It should not be visible at long range but easily detected as the enemy nears it."

An attacker sees the easily detected band and reacts.
They don't run over a mine and then react.

Subtleties of layout are not necessarily obvious to the attacker but a given band in front of them *is visible*. They react to that.

One positive effect of the russians' obsessive minelaying is that it has given massive protection to the flanks of the Ukrainian offensive salient. russian forces seeking to attack its flanks have suffered some direct own-goal casualties but more importantly have had their own progress canalised and halted.
A number of vdv regiments plus their (admittedly) ad hoc tank support have little to show for their efforts and casualties in the last several days.
Karma for the russians. Or, as some might say, 'the d***o of consequence is rarely l****d…………..