Landmine clearance programme

[RF]

The British Foreign Office announced a few days ago that the landmine clearance programme in the Falkland Islands will take another ten years at least to complete. This comes after a substantial clearance programme to remove the ordnance left by Argentine forces during the 1982 conflict. Apparently there are some 16,000 mines left to be cleared.
It is I think remarkable that after some 26 years this problem has not been resolved, particulary as the Argentine forces laid these devices over a period of less than three months - it takes apparently at least 432 months to remove them.

[José M. Rico]

Interesting. A couple of years ago I heard somewhere in the news that there were still thousands of mines from World War II around El Alamein.

[lwd]

Take a look at this thread. It mentions WWII minefields still being cleared in Denmark and France as well as others:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2&t=139780

[RF]

lwd,

Is your reference correct as I am getting an error report and cannot access the article.

[lwd]

Looks like they are having some problems right now. Earlier this week there was an electrical "explosion" and fire where their servers were hosted. The lost power as a result and were off line for a bit. This may be related to that. The message I get is "we working on it". I do get a general error if I try to log in.

[RF]

Oops, I hope they haven't hit a landmine......

[lwd]

They seam to be back now...

[RF]

Interesting thread. A common theme here seems to be the logistical resources and costs involved in mine clearance and the lack of certainty that they will all be cleared no matter how much effort is put into removing them.

[steffen19k]

That stems from the fact that combat is a fast paced, and often uncertain situation.

When you scatter thousands of landmines, the basic premise is to deny the area to the enemy. You don't map it, because then if the enemy does something you weren't expecting, like an airborne assault that passes over said minefield and lands in your GHQ, then the enemy would know where the mines are, and how to deal with them.

In my eyes, the use of so-called strategic mines is shortsighted, useless, and a pathetic means of establishing a defense. It is almost always more practical to ensure that you can meet the enemy on the field in sufficient strength as to deny him what he seeks through a force of arms. Not only is that more honorable (if such a thing exists on the battlefield anymore) but it also prevents needless civilian casualties decades later.

If you're gonna use a mine, use command detonated mines, like the Claymore, or... what ever passes as an equivalent to the claymore.

[lynn1212]

have to disagree about not mapping a field, maybe not done by everyone but most certainly mapping was done major combatants. i have copies of manuals that stress mapping as major importance.

[steffen19k]

have to disagree about not mapping a field, maybe not done by everyone but most certainly mapping was done major combatants. i have copies of manuals that stress mapping as major importance.

If they were mapped properly then why is it so hard to find the minefield? I could see some inaccuracies causing a few mines to be missed, but the absolute grand scale of these "lost" minefields is staggering. We're talking about THOUSANDS of mines, at a minimum. I find it really difficult to believe that they "kind of" mapped the mind field. Now, considering 30 years after the Falklands War, the squirrels have forgotten where the nuts got buried, I'm sure that while they have a rough idea, that's a far cry from the Argentines coughing up a map and going "here they are. Can we borrow some MICLICs?"

[RF]

In the case of the Falklands it may be the case that the urgency in planting mines - considering that the Argentines had not expected a military counterstroke from Britain - led to a lack of proper mapping, especially when you consider that large stretches of the islands have zero population and therefore nothing of significance in setting mines off, at least in terms of human casualties.
No doubt the Argentine commander, Menendez was questioned closely on this by his British captors after he was brought to Britain after he had surrendered.

[steffen19k]

In the case of the Falklands it may be the case that the urgency in planting mines - considering that the Argentines had not expected a military counterstroke from Britain - led to a lack of proper mapping, especially when you consider that large stretches of the islands have zero population and therefore nothing of significance in setting mines off, at least in terms of human casualties.
No doubt the Argentine commander, Menendez was questioned closely on this by his British captors after he was brought to Britain after he had surrendered.

One can only hope.

I had to learn about mine emplacement in the Army, and the one I preferred is the M18 "Claymore" Command Detonated mines.

Pressure plate mines are truly scary weapons, and that's my impression of them as a potential emplacer!

My advice to anyone who wants to wage war is *!#& minefields. There are better ways of denying strategically advantageous territory to the enemy.

[RF]

My advice to anyone who wants to wage war is *!#& minefields. There are better ways of denying strategically advantageous territory to the enemy.

The problem is that minefields tend to be a more effective weapon against civilians - and can be sued to keep civilians under control by an occupier.