Anti-armor mines!

> Yet again, I tell you three times, do NOT use metallic objects to

> weapons, radio antennas, or anything else which might possibly be

> You wrote:

You started it--now I get to pontificate!

> I'd imagine anti-armour mines would be more of a problem for walkers

We'd be seeing the development of an intermediate class of mines. Real
anti-tank mines will have to be directed energy to deal with Grav, GEV,
and simply real tough undersides. A simple blast mine has a hard time doing
anything more than popping tracks nowdays (unless some dumbass drives over it
in a BRDM, in which case he deserves to cook). These will be, with proper
materials (and I am no expert on this, but some of
ya'll seem to be), non-metallic.  Already we are at the point where
only two items need to be metallic--the firing pin and plate.  The
plate is real cooker--the explosive just sets the plate in motion and
it slams through the floor of the tank, ruining the day of anyone
inside.  I'm willing to be a non-ferrous substitute could be found,
maybe even a ceramic? A lot of AT mines do without it, but they can't
K-Kill tanks, just M-Kill.  Firing pin is no sweat to make
non-metallic, again, a good ceramic.  The problem, as I see it, comes
if you want to include neato sensors or IFF in it. Then we'd need
non-metallic electronic components, including radio antennas.  I am not
qualified to have an opinion on the feasability of this in the future.
I can say that mines such as the TC-6 series (Italian, liscence built
by Egypt) have 2.86g of metal in the 6kg mine, the steel striker tip. If the
sensitivity on your metal detector is low enough to detect, the background
noise is going to set it off nearly constantly. But it becomes much easier
with their electronics package allowing remote
activation/deactivation.

This is why, in me house rules, I'm deliberately pointing out that these are
NOT metal detectors, but Ground Peneterating Radars, IRs, chemical sniffers,
and God Alone knows what else..

True AP will either be area effect (M-16&-18 series) or derivations of
the 'Toe Popper' M-14.  To have the ooph to effect PA, Walkers, and
other light armored vehicles will be beyond the toe poppers, but the area
effect ones might do so at close range. You could also have a straight "Heavy
AP" or "Light AT" blast mine mixed in with your AP and AT mines. My bet is
that they would be called Light AT in keeping with
the current political idiodicy associated with "Anti-Personell Mines".

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> This is why, in me house rules, I'm deliberately pointing out that

Possibly the same tech as ultrasonic imagers and MRI machines. Something that
can image map the ground ahead of you.... and thus you can detect mines by
their different density properties which are thus pretty hard to make in such
a way as to fool the detectors.

> True AP will either be area effect (M-16&-18 series) or derivations of

> the 'Toe Popper' M-14. To have the ooph to effect PA, Walkers, and

> AT mines. My bet is that they would be called Light AT in keeping

Or you could use the 'off-track' mines which engage the target with
the equivalent of a LAW/ARMBURST (IAVR or MLP round?). They are good
for M-kills on tanks, kills period on APCs, and would probably do for
an IW rather handily. At least blow a leg off and watch it lie there and kick
with its one good leg.... (and the comment about the pilot
not being able to take the 5-6meter drop well applies here!).

This brings to mind the point that (humor injection on) if I blow a leg off a
soldier, it takes seven to take care of him. If I blow a leg off a walker, do
seven members of the squadron have to stop to take care of it? (humor
injection off). It's just a kind of funny
image "Quick Alpha One-Six, Alpha One-Five has lost a leg at the
knee. Get Alpha One-Four, One-Three, and One-Two and we'll carry him
out of here. Alpha One-One, tourniquet the broken limb - he's leaking
hydraulic fluid and coolant!"

(Sorry, I have a strange sense of the funny sometimes.)

Tom.

Richard spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> On 25 Aug 98 at 11:01, Thomas Barclay wrote:

Well, it occurs to me that you need 1. a case 2. a charge 3. shrapnel or a
penetrator depending on function (could be case related) 4. an initiatior and
trigger 5. potentially, sensors

The idea of being able to make these all of the same density, electrical
characteristics, and appearance as earth or rock strikes me as nigh
impossible. The modern MS gear would have MRI style tech, Ground Penetrating
radar, some sort of EM detector (pick up batteries, currents, etc. in sensors
and actuators), and maybe an integrated chem sniffer. You'd be able to see
through the ground and get a good idea what is up ahead.

Now, the issue (as usual) is when your infantry has to cross a minefield but
no engineers with cool kit like this are around... then we're back to the same
old 'poke in the sand' methods used for time immemorial..... and some mines
will detonate when poked.

Tom.
/************************************************

> You wrote:

> Now, the issue (as usual) is when your infantry has to cross a

This is why we still emphasis proper probing technique, and likely will into
the next century or two. Just please do yourself a favor and don't use a
bayonet. I doubt a little pressure with a wooden or
fiberglass probe will set most mines off--doing it right, mines would
have to be too sensitive to be practical. You get into problems with mines
that sense off of body heat or seismic indicators (footsteps).

But I'd lay loooong odds that there will be enough decent sensors in any
proper minefields that Engineer will be necessary. After the first
couple infantrymen buy it--I've seen Infantry moving such that the
entire platoon is within the danger radius of an M-16A1.  All it takes
is one oops.

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> This is why we still emphasis proper probing technique, and likely

According to the most recent info I have seen (a pam issued this year), there
are mines out there used in Bosnia and other places that will detonate from
the force of a probe supposedly. I'll check out the pam and see what type of
mine it is (I assume AP).

> But I'd lay loooong odds that there will be enough decent sensors in

> is one oops.

And they now have some smart minefields that assess the target (one guy, a
section, whatever) and only detonate an appropriate part of the minefield...
so if you have a section moving in the field, it'll set off a big chunk of the
field and blow the whole section away....

...and of course the anti-helicopter mine is a fun one too....

Tom.
/************************************************

> You wrote:

> According to the most recent info I have seen (a pam issued this

I'd be interested--probably an AHD rather than a mine itself.  Most
mines need at least a kg of pressure.

> And they now have some smart minefields that assess the target (one

Not even that--one mine, properly placed, can kill entire platoons if
they bunch up. There's a reason for that 5m seperation peole rant about. A 30m
kill radius and 183m danger radius is nothing to play with.

> ...and of course the anti-helicopter mine is a fun one too....

Just a logical outgrowth of the WAM--send out a submunition pointed up
instead of down.

> Richard spake thusly upon matters weighty:

Great! Crank up your ground-pen radar. Some of my smart mines
detect it and fire small, HE anti-radar missiles. (They're small,
but there's a bunch of them!) Now you're back to the grunt with the belt
knife.

- Sam

> Now, the issue (as usual) is when your infantry has to cross a

> You wrote:

> Great! Crank up your ground-pen radar. Some of my smart mines

This is why any rules will have to be a bit abstract rather than deal with the
details of which sensors exactally and which countermeasures exactally are
used.

> but there's a bunch of them!) Now you're back to the grunt with

Yet again, I tell you three times, do NOT use metallic objects to probe, do
NOT use metallic objects to probe, do NOT use metallic objects to probe. This
includes knives, bayonets, belt buckles, tanks, weapons, radio antennas, or
anything else which might possibly be ferrous. Go with wood or fiberglass or
anything else which does not influence magnetic fields.

In a message dated 98-09-03 09:22:47 EDT, you write:

<< Great! Crank up your ground-pen radar. Some of my smart mines
 detect it and fire small, HE anti-radar missiles. (They're small,
but there's a bunch of them!) Now you're back to the grunt with the belt
knife. >> Not quite, if you look in a Physics (I know that I spelling that
wrong) book under gravitey you will find that the grater the mass of an objet
the more pull it will have, so you take multiple readings and create a map in
a simular manor to the one below and you ethor find a very dense rock or your
mine.

      (0) (1)(3)(1)(0)
       1   2  3  4  5
(0)1  .   .   .   .   .
(1)2  .   .  #	 .   .
(3)3  .   # #  #    .
(1)4  .   .  #	.     .
(0)5   .  .   .   .    .

#=mine Bye Stephen

> At 05:10 PM 9/3/98 EDT, you wrote:
book
> under gravitey you will find that the grater the mass of an objet the

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that you could devise a gravity meter
that could measure such minute variations in the local field. Current field
gravity meters may be able to detect a salt dome of several thousand metric
tons after many corrections
(usually free-air, Bouguer, topological and tidal). Mines - no way.

If you were to measure such small variations, you would have to get very close
to the mines (probably on the order of centimeters), at which point you would
be in the middle of the mine field...

> (0) (1)(3)(1)(0)

> Tony Christney <acc@questercorp.com> wrote:
Today's gravity meters mounted Los Angeles class submarines can detect
opposing Soviet submarines. See a recent issue of Scientific American, which
discusses declassified US Navy gravitometers and their accuracy.
    Given 100-200 years of rapidly improving technology, and I see no
reason my why mines couldn't be located from outside their burst radius.

Andrew Martin Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
Web Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
Blind See-Saw Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/SEE-SAW/
Dirtside II Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/
Dirtside II FAQ: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/
GZG E-Mail FAQ:
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/Ettiquette.html
FUDGE GM Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/FUDGE/

[quoted original message omitted]

> You wrote:

> John, could you tell me how many types of present day mines are set

They are rare, and primarily Italian in manufacture. However, the
Italians sell mines on a cash-and-carry basis and aren't picky about
end-user certification.  But frankly, even one is enough to ruin MY
day.  There's also the TM-62M anti-tank mine, which is described in FM
20-32 as "The magnetic and seismic fuze have inherent anti-disturbance
features". That's enough to indicate to me that this is Bad Juju.

Besides, give it 200 years in the future, and this stuff will be as
common as pressure-detonated.

> Brad Holden <holden@tokyo-rose.uchicago.edu> wrote:

Scientific American June, 1998 issue. Page 58. Third column. Third paragraph:
"... Because the submarine gradiometer system was still a classified military
technology, much of the work designing the experimental protocols and
assessing the raw data took place behind a door that was closed and barred to
the civilian geologists involved.... "And over the next few months, as
"sanitized" sets of data (ones from which the information presented would not
reveal any military secrets) began to emerge from behind locked doors in
Buffalo, the power of gravity gradiometry became clear."

On page 61, left picture, the pixels depicting gravity gradient appear to be
too smooth!

The article introduction claims "...classified technique used to
navigate ballistic-missile submarines..."

A submarine weighs 1000's of tons. Like under water mountain ridges!

Therefore it is fairly clear to me that US subs could detect the presence of
unknown submarines with the use of gravity gradiometers.

Andrew Martin Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
Web Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
Blind See-Saw Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/SEE-SAW/
Dirtside II Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/
Dirtside II FAQ: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/
GZG E-Mail FAQ:
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/Ettiquette.html
FUDGE GM Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/FUDGE/

[quoted original message omitted]

As a further amendment to gravity gradiometers: In the June 1998 issue of
Scientific American, page 58, third column, first paragraph, I quote: "Some of
the resident engineers had thought of using these sensitive meters to monitor
the LOAD of passing trucks,..." My emphasis added.
    A truck weighs 10 - 100 tons? It's load is 10 - 100 tons? A
submarine
weighs 1000's of tons. A minefield is probably 100Kg to 1 ton. A 10 -
1000 difference. It's not much for 200 years of technology advancement to get
the required accuracy to detect a minefield by it's gravity gradient.

> At 04:15 PM 9/4/98 +1200, you wrote:
Keep in mind that both gravity meter and gravity gradiometer readings are
interpreted to indicate variations in the local densities. The materials used
to build a several thousand ton submarine are far denser than the surrounding
seawater (roughly 7 times as dense, IIRC). The difference in density between a
mine and the surrounding substrate is much less. How could you tell the
difference between a rock and a mine? I'm sure J.A. will correct me if I'm
wrong, but most mines you would be looking for would be less than 10kg.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I just think that the signal to noise
ratio would be extremely low. Avoiding detection would simply be a matter of
matching the densities of the mine and the substrate.
This would make detection by gravimetric means _impossible_ since the
mine would not change the local gravity field.

Cheers,

> You wrote:

> weighs 1000's of tons. A minefield is probably 100Kg to 1 ton. A 10 -

> a rock and a mine? I'm sure J.A. will correct me if I'm wrong, but

I'm staying out of this mostly 'coz I don't have the expertise in modern
sensors to speculate on future sensors. This isn't stopping some people, but I
ain't trying to add to the noise ratio.

But since I've been asked, mines range from 74g(2.37oz) for the PFM-1
Scatterable Antipersonel Mine made by the FSU, to 13.6kg (30lbs) for
the MK-7 Antitank Mine made by the UK and the M-15 Heavy Antitank Mine
made by the US.

Further consideration:  Caseings for the PMD-6 family of AP mines are
wooden. Go ahead and set your detector dohicky to detect stuff the density of
WOOD.

14 kilos for an antitank mine? I would have expected them to be a lot
bigger - but, I've never seen one outside of Twilight 2000.  Thankfully.

Weren't there nuclear landmines, at one point? Or were those just the Atomic
Demolition Munitions?

Noah

[quoted original message omitted]

> You wrote:

> 14 kilos for an antitank mine? I would have expected them to be a lot
Thankfully.

Antitank mines aren't the scary ones (PGMDM Scatterable mines excepted, those
are fscking nuts!). Unless they've got AHDs, of course. Easy to find, mark and
clear. The ones that give me nightmares are the
itsy-bitsy plastic ones with a couple ounces of explosive--just enough
to blow your face off. I'll never forget some of the pictures they showed up
during a mine awareness class. Just to get our attention. This one fellow (I
think the instructor said he was Pakistani?), you could see where the rim of
his helmet was, 'coz from there up he was fine. But his entire face on down
looked like bloody, raw hamburger meat. That one will stick with me my entire
life. The instructor's comment was "Bad probing technique".

Enough with the morbidity... It's 0230 over here.

Anyway, most AT mines are smaller than that--scatterables generally
weigh in at 2-3 kg, blast mines come as small as 3.5kg (VS-2.2, an
Italian mine).  The most effective current AT mine is the M-21 Heavy
Anti-tank mine which weighs 17.25 pounds, and uses a direct-energy
warhead (Miznay-Schardin effect).

> Weren't there nuclear landmines, at one point? Or were those just

Yes, and Yes. Neither are in my purview, thank God. Those were the
responsibility of the 12E MOS, nuclear demolitions specialist. An MOS that
went away sometime in the Early 80s (??)

In a message dated 98-09-05 02:36:38 EDT, you write:

<<  The most effective current AT mine is the M-21 Heavy
 Anti-tank mine which weighs 17.25 pounds, and uses a direct-energy
 warhead (Miznay-Schardin effect).
> [quoted text omitted]

What is the Miznay-Schardin effect? Is this what they're calling the
self-
forging projectile concept or have they renamed the Monroe effect?

> You wrote:

> << The most effective current AT mine is the M-21 Heavy

It's kissing cousins to the Monroe effect, IIRC. I'm not much on the physics
of this, I just listen to the classes and read the manuals. As I understand
it, your Monroe is the conventional shaped charge, with
deep (relatively) indentation in the explosive.  Miznay-Schardin is
just slightly concave and sends the steel plate into motion without being
compressed into a thin jet like a TOW warhead. Of course, that's
just my understanding--I could be way off on this.

In a message dated 9/5/98 8:33:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
IronLimper@AOL.COM writes:

> What is the Miznay-Schardin effect? Is this what they're calling the

Yes, a Miznay-Schardin warhead is a self-forging fragment.  Shallow
concave
plate to form a metal bolt as opposed to a HEAT (Monroe-effect)
warhead's thinner 'jet'.

> Noah Doyle wrote:
Thankfully.
> Weren't there nuclear landmines, at one point? Or were those just
Noah, It is not necessary for the mine to 'destroy' the tank to be
effective.   Any anti-tank mine than can 'lift' 60 tons 10 feet
will effectively remove a tank from combat, even is the tank is not deatroyed.
(Tanks that have gone 'turtle on the back' are not considered a threat.

Bye for now,

In a message dated 98-09-06 00:35:43 EDT, you write:

<< > 14 kilos for an antitank mine? I would have expected them to be a lot
> bigger - but, I've never seen one outside of Twilight 2000.
Thankfully.
> Weren't there nuclear landmines, at one point? Or were those just
Noah, It is not necessary for the mine to 'destroy' the tank to be
 effective.   Any anti-tank mine than can 'lift' 60 tons 10 feet
will effectively remove a tank from combat, even is the tank is
 not deatroyed.   (Tanks that have gone 'turtle on the back' are not
considered a threat. >>

Hi, I have done some work on Land Mines for MUN and there not that big,
afterall they just have to blow a hole in the week under side of a tank,
unless you use
the missile-mines....
On the subject of mine detechion in SciAm (or is it PopSci) there is an
artical (spelling is not my strong point) on mine detection and it talks about
bacteria feeding on explosive resadue, when it does this it glow in the
infrared spectrum. Other points to cositer: 1) disarmorment, this won't affect
short games, but in long games and campagins it will be imported, no civi
wants land mines laying around. 2) Comination mines, most new AT mines have an
AP charge to "protect" the AT
mine, this would play a major part in de-mining.
Bye $.40 Stephen

> Richard Slattery wrote:
Similarly with mines, while a mine could be made to be of a similar density to
earth, parts of it would be of higher density. Thus a mine could be located
using a gravity gradiometer.

> [Gravity gradiometers] will also detect rocks, gophers, roots, baked
Sure a gravity gradiometer will detect dense rocks, bolts, and other things
that are denser than water or soil (gophers and roots have a similar density
to water and soil). In conjunction with other sensors, computer power and
algorithms, I think that false indications will be minimal. After all, the
baked bean can problem would have been extensively studied in earlier trials!
Baked bean tins and a whole variety of other common dense items would have
their signatures recorded so that they can be eliminated from consideration.

> Tony Christney <acc@questercorp.com> wrote:

Naturally the effectiveness of sensors, and things designed to be hidden, will
change over time and with advances in technology. Much like stealth aircraft
hiding from radar. Now with bistatic radars, and with liberal computing power,
stealth vehicles can be located. Not easily and not as cheaply as standard
radar. Stealth manufacturers will then find another way to keep their craft
hidden. I don't think mines will be 'stealthed' against gravity detection or
other sensors. I think they will be made in whatever way is cheapest. After
all, they're used in quantity and are disposable. Therefore, employing
expensive stealth measures is counterproductive to sales. Would you buy one
stealth mine, or 1000 mines that can be easily located when time is taken?
After all the purpose of mines isn't to kill people or vehicles. They're there
to injure people and immobilise tanks. They're there to slow or block an
advance through the minefield. One stealth mine can only injure one or two
squads, or immobilise one tank at most. The remainder can carry on and come to
no harm. The position is over run. Therefore the expensive stealth mine is
ineffective! 1000 mines that are easily located. Well, the infantry platoon
stops as their leading guys get shredded, the tank platoon comes to a halt as
their tracks are blown away. Both platoons realise they're in a mine field and
retreat. Mine disposal engineers are brought up, and check their gravity
gradiometers, metal detectors, magnetic anomaly detectors, ground penetrating
radars, thermal vision and other sensors. Their computers correlate all the
info, together with the historical satellite photos, and the conclusion is
that there is about 990 mines, located there, there, there and there! An hour
or two later, the engineers have carefully cleared the mine field. The attack
proceeds several hours later. The minefield has stopped many times it's own
value in enemy equipment and personnel, used up time, and consumed mine
disposal resources. Also, mine manufacturers would be concerned about future
disposability. They would be actively looking for ways that their mines could
be easily located and disposed of. Why? Think of lawsuits by civilians! Even
though these mines would be easily located and easily disposed of, they would
be dangerous in their active state and take some time to disable and dispose
of them. One could quite easily imagine future mines that emit a creaking
noise and a flash of firefly light every 100 seconds, being powered, say, by
heat changes from day to night. This would keep civilians and most animals
away. Every one knows that the minefield is there.

> You wrote:

> I have done some work on Land Mines for MUN and there not that big,

Actually, most AT mines are track-width only, and just break track and
maybe blow off a road wheel.

> 1) disarmorment, this won't affect short games, but in long games and

Any civilized country marks minefields, maps the fields, and takes their mines
home with them when they win the war. The real issue is the looser's mines,
and since they lost, they don't care.

> 2) Comination mines, most new AT mines have an AP charge to "protect"
the AT >mine, this would play a major part in de-mining.

Actually, the correct term is 'AHD', or Anti-Handling Device.  There
are fuze wells for these nasty buggers on most AT mines, but they are only
installed in certain circumstances. Some of the more
sophisticated AT mine fuzes have inherent anti-lift capabilities.  So
demining is not going to be an option unless you have really damn good
intelligence and a lot of time, and aren't under fire when trying to do it.
Most militaries train to blow enemy mines in place most of the time. Your own
you can disarm, but only with maps and the cotter pins, which should be buried
at a landmark noted on the maps.

In a message dated 98-09-06 09:11:22 EDT, you write:

<< Actually, most AT mines are track-width only, and just break track
and maybe blow off a road wheel.

Another valid approach, although the mines that blast a hole in the bottom of
a tank not only get a "mobility" kill but a total kill.

> On 6 Sep 98, at 21:39, Andrew Martin wrote:

> Richard Slattery wrote:
Similarly
> with mines, while a mine could be made to be of a similar density to

Odd.. I thought I said that;)

> >[Gravity gradiometers] will also detect rocks, gophers, roots,

I thought I said that too;)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> You wrote:

> Another valid approach, although the mines that blast a hole in the

In our parlance, a K-Kill vs an M-Kill.  I have no idea how K-Kill was
created as an acronym for a "Catastrophic Kill".

In a message dated 98-09-06 18:50:56 EDT, you write:

<< As mines? Or as mineclearing. Mineclearing, I'd probably bet they'll
 clear them out in the area of effect--I understand the pressure is far
greater than a MICLIC creates. Although I'm not 100% sure about the
 effects on mine with non-pressure fuzes. >>

They are most efective agents mines with pressure fuzes, they might also work
on non-pressure fuzes, if they could compress the explosives.
Bye Stephen

> You wrote:

> After which mines are made to have signatures that conform as closely

Methinks this will basically come down to:

Mines come in three 'stealth levels', basic, enhanced, superior. Detection
equipment will be in three levels, basic, enhanced, superior.

Detection will be determined by opposed roll, with the quality of the
engineers using the detection gear granting a die shift up or down for veteran
or green.

> But throw a couple of 'stealth' mines into that mix, and they will

Note: That was the opinion of Field Marshal Zhukov, who was fortunate enough
to have several million easily disposable conscripts and a political system
which didn't care if he blew them all up. Realistically, in a system which
gives a rat's ass about the troops, minefields will have to be either breached
or bypassed. My vision of of future warfare involves relatively small units
spread over relatively large areas. You can't waste the troops clearing mines
the Russian way, and you will often have the option to bypass.

> Richard Slattery wrote:
After
> all, the baked bean can problem would have been extensively studied in

After which mines are made to have signatures that conform as closely as
possible to a can of baked beans, etc...

> I don't think mines will be 'stealthed' against gravity detection
After
> all, they're used in quantity and are disposable. Therefore, employing
They're
> there to injure people and immobilise tanks. They're there to slow or
The
> attack proceeds several hours later. The minefield has stopped many

But throw a couple of 'stealth' mines into that mix, and they will slow down
even more, as a presumed 'cleared' area erupts in their face. John Atkinson
once shared the opinion of a commander that suggested that there would be
fewer casualties in the end by just plowing through the minefield, rather than
trying to remove it (but I believe that was trying to remove it under fire).
I'm not sure this idea will remain true with the
ever-increasing lethality of mines.

I fall into the category of those who believe that mines are best described
by their role - Anti-personnel, anti-armor, etc. and then say, as many
here
have -

1) there are mines with these game capabilities.... 2) There are detection
systems with these capabilities....

Discussions like this one could be useful for fiction writers, but the game
should remain abstracted to preserve playability. IMHO anyway...

> Jared E Noble <JNOBLE2@mail.aai.arco.com> wrote:
Mine manufacturers aim to increase mine wounding power, not necessarily
lethality, to save costs and to make their mines cheaper.

> But throw a couple of 'stealth' mines into that mix, and they will slow
Yes, you could do this, but a second and third minefield beyond the
first would have a similar function (which is stopping non-engineers and
slowing engineers) and would be far, far cheaper. The function of a mine
field is to stop infantry (AP) or Tanks (AT) or both (AT/AP), until
engineers can be brought up. The mine is an expendable piece of ordinance much
like a bullet. The ultimate stealth mine field is a fence and large, clearly
marked signs, marked "Danger: Minefield!" with no mines. It's extremely cheap
and stops infantry and tanks.

> John Atkinson <jatkins6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Stealth minefield points cost multiplier: Bas, *2?; Enh, *3?; Sup,
*4?;
on standard DSII minefield costs. No stealth - DSII standard rules
apply. Stealth mines can only be placed before game starts, not during game.
Each stealth minefield marker purchased comes with a hidden marker. Place the
hidden marker on top of the mine marker, so that the mine marker is hidden.
Place the two markers together where you desire on the table.
    If a non-engineer element/unit attempts to cross a stealth
minefield, inflict appropriate damage and the unit carries on, after making
appropriate confidence checks for under fire, damage etc. Note that the unit
doesn't necessarily stop as the unit may not realize that it's in a stealth
minefield! Particularly if it takes no damage!

> Detection equipment will be in three levels, basic, enhanced, superior.
Assume that engineers and engineering vehicles carry appropriate detection
equipment automatically and at no extra points cost. For engineers to detect a
stealth minefield, engineers nominate a hidden marker nearby (withing 2"),
they roll unit quality dice vs leadership rating for each engineer element
within 2" of the hidden mine marker. Opponent rolls minefield stealth rating.
If the Engineers roll higher than opponent, the hidden marker is removed. The
engineers can work on removing the minefield in their next activation.

Dummy minefields: Available at the rate of one per minefield purchased,
whether stealth or regular. For example, buy four minefield markers, get up to
four dummy markers. Hide the dummy and real minefield markers from your
opponent and carefully place the dummy and minefield markers as you desire on
the battlefield, upside down. Your opponent knows that the minefields are
there but can't be sure whether they're real or not as they are carefully
marked for all to see.
    Any non-engineer unit that wants to cross the dummy/real minefield
has
to make a confidence check to proceed. TL+0, say? Failure means losing
confidence levels. Success allows crossing. Crossing the minefield causes the
marker to be flipped. If it's dummy, it is removed. If it's real, inflict
standard minefield damage on the unit.

Any comments, suggestions, improvements, etc?