G'day guys,
I read an article in New Scientist recently about a proposed mine type that
rearranges itself so it can't be cleared. This set me to wondering about
whether you could use an air-burst to clear minefields. Is it plausible?
The Daleks have taken to using mines laid by ortillery as a means of slowing
their opponents down so I was wondering if this was actually a plausible way
for my opponents to clear the minefields (which means I'll
have to think up another way of slowing them down, drat!).
Cheers
Beth
***
The Daleks have taken to using mines laid by ortillery as a means of slowing
their opponents down so I was wondering if this was actually a plausible way
for my opponents to clear the minefields (which means I'll have to think up
another way of slowing them down, drat!).
***
Before the actual weapons experts show, I thought I'd offer a suggestion
towards playability. You can assume the mines are in some sense 'hardened'.
Whatever they use to clear it would have to be plenty powerful, perhaps even
destructive to the terrain.
Claim they will be slowed by the morass of the 'ground' or whathaveyou,
debris/dust-in-the-air, and the like. I'm reminded of barages that were
planned to clear the way for advances, then turned out to chew up dirt and
slow the troops so badly that the enemy was able to reinforce and redeploy.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
PS Duck! Incoming!
It depends on the type of clearing you want to do. I'd assume in the realms of
"a game" you'd want the standard field and situation expedient methods of
"clearing" minefields which in reality is only clearing a path through the
field. MICLC systems do the trick quite nicely, as do plows (less reliable) as
well as rollers and flails (even less reliable). It would make sense that
either an air-burst, thermobaric (fuel-air explosive) or cluster bomb
would be able to make a field expedient path through the minefield. IIRC, the
above senarios are not currently suported by the DS/SG rules. A basic
modification to existing DFO or tube/rocket artillery/ortillery rules
should do the trick.
As for the mines mentioned in the article, I'd bet they're discussing a type
of mine that physically moves itself every so often to attempt to thwart more
persistent forms of mine clearance. I did some writing on these types of mine
clearing when I was with SFOR in Bosnia. Highly effective, but exceptionally
slow way to clear mines (men on all fours searching for them with fiberglass
rods).
Do you have a URL for this article, or was it hard copy? Jay
----------
> From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>
> G'day guys,
G'day Jay,
> As for the mines mentioned in the article,
Yep, based on grasshoppers. They are (or were said to be) in the conceptual
stage at present, but they're aiming for a minefield that can reorg itself
in under 10 secs. Basically as they can't use anti-personnel mines
anymore the US were after tank mines that wouldn't allow infantry to clear
them
easily now the "protective outer-ring" anti-personnel had been removed.
The article gave the impression that the designers believed that would be
impossible to clear, it just started me pondering other possibilities (with
no background/knowledge I wasn't sure whether the methods actually
already existed or not though).
> Do you have a URL for this article, or was it hard copy?
Mine was a hardcopy from a recent New Scientist and if you're not subscribed
you won't be able to access it on their site. I've got a copy of the webpage
if anyone is interested though.
Cheers
Beth
On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 11:11:35 +1100 Beth Fulton
<beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> <snip>
> >Do you have a URL for this article, or was it hard copy?
> From a professional angle, I am VERY interested. Could you give the
> Cheers
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
G'day Glenn,
> From a professional angle, I am VERY interested. Could you give the
I'd love to tell you, but my free subscription expired while I was at lunch
(blast!!!), so here's the article (sorry for the long post guys)
Cheers
Beth
> [quoted text omitted]
Scorched earth 30 Sep 00 Clearing minefields is terrifying enough, but mines
that move around will make it virtually impossible LANDMINES that hop around
to foil the crews that clear minefields are under
development in the US. The so-called "self-healing" minefield can detect
when a path is being cleared through it and instruct the remaining mines to
plug any gaps. Ironically, the technology is being developed because the US
plans to sign up to the Ottawa Convention, which bans antipersonnel landmines.
Anti-tank minefields are usually protected by small antipersonnel mines.
These are meant to hinder soldiers who try to clear a route through the
minefield. But antipersonnel mines are banned under the Ottawa
Convention-already signed by more than 135 countries-which the US will
sign
up to in 2006. To make future anti-tank minefields tougher to cross
without antipersonnel mines, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) has committed $13 million to the development of "intelligent"
minefields. At Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Rush
Robinett and
his colleagues are developing robotic anti-tank mines that can plug gaps
in a minefield by hopping about. "I was catching grasshoppers to go trout
fishing when I noticed that they jump around in a random fashion, hit the
ground in an arbitrary orientation, then right themselves and jump again," he
says. "I said to myself: `I can build a robot that can do that.'" Hopping has
a distinct advantage over more conventional means of getting
about, says Robinett. "Robots with wheels and tracks can't crawl over things
more than a fraction of the dimension of their body. A hopping robot can clear
things that are ten to one hundred times its body dimension." The
mines will have a powerful piston-driven foot attached to their base
that should propel them more than 10 metres into the air.
The self-righting mines will detect the distance to their neighbours
using ultrasonic sensors and communicate with each other by radio. If some of
the mines are removed or destroyed to make a path through the minefield, the
remaining mines will sense that they are missing and hop around until they
form a regular pattern again. DARPA wants the minefield to reorganise itself
within 10 seconds. "The advantage of mines is that they are cheap, simple and
effective," says Tony Howgate of the Battlefield Engineering Wing at Britain's
Ministry of Defence. "This isn't going to be cheap or simple, and the more
complicated it gets, the more unreliable it'll be," he says. He also wonders
what will stop the hopping mines going astray. "How are you going to know
where they've hopped to?" he asks. Mark Hiznay of the pressure group Human
Rights Watch in Washington DC says that the hopping mines must not be capable
of inadvertent, accidental
detonation by a person-a key tenet of the Ottawa Convention. "If the
system meets the definition of the treaty, this could be a good alternative,"
he says. "The main concern we have is how sensitive the device's fuses are to
the unintentional acts of a person. We're asking governments to clarify what
physical forces are necessary to set off all types of mines."
The self-healing minefield
Ian Sample
From New Scientist magazine, vol 167 issue 2258, 30/09/2000, page 4
© Copyright New Scientist, RBI Ltd 2000
Nevermind.
If these things are 'in communications' with their chums, either by
ultrasound or radio, they sound like self-painting targets to moi.
I know, I know: NANOBOTS. *sigh*
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
Can we say "Electro-Magnetic Pulse?" As for the self-painting targets,
don't
forget the commo could be uni-directional. That would tend to help
somewhat. Also since the signals would at most have to go about 20 meters, the
signal strength could be so low as to be semi safe. Just a thought.
> Nevermind.
***
Can we say "Electro-Magnetic Pulse?"
***
Don't you know that all logic in the future will be fluid? ;->= Ok, you
CAN harden against EMP also, but I don't think it's easy on bouncing betty's.
However, that's only one 'ecm' available. U(ltra)S(ound)P and simple radio
jamming are possibilities.
***
As for the self-painting targets, don't forget the commo could be
uni-directional. That would tend to help somewhat.
Also since the signals would at most have to go about 20 meters, the signal
strength could be so low as to be semi safe. Just a thought.
***
These babies are in a swarm, moving back and forth to keep a certain density.
I'm assuming the air is going to be humming as you approach.
However, as even my simple high school physics and engineering are decades
old, I'll hush and let a real scientist/engineer speak. ;->=
The_Beast (who's breaking out his zimmer-frame)
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
My comments between tildes.
~~~~~
Like this.
~~~~~
> ***
~~~~~
EMP hardening is too heavy, too hard and too expensive to put on something
that has to be light, relatively simple and cheap.
~~~~~
> As for the self-painting targets, don't forget the commo could be
~~~~~
Keep in mind, it may be humming, but it will be low, barely audible hum. Kinda
like a bunch of gamers grumbling about the technicalities of things they do
not necessarily understand...;P
~~~~~
> However, as even my simple high school physics and engineering are
> I read an article in New Scientist recently about a proposed mine type
Try looking at the Metal Storm 40mm system being investigated by our very own
DSTO. Produdly made in Australia, so the concept will be sold
> Joseph Arnold wrote:
Difficult to generate on a precise scale.
> As for the self-painting targets, don't
And it would know which direction to send it in how?
> That would tend to help somewhat.
Yup. Make the signal strength so low you have to be in the minefield to detect
it. Nasty.
Strikes me that, if you've got landmines jumping 10 meters in the air, what
you actually need is to make sure each platoon has someone with a shotgun and
that they do regular skeetshooting practice:). Drop a mortar shell in the
middle to start the ball rolling. "pull!"
TTFN
Jon
Beth asked:
> I read an article in New Scientist recently about a proposed mine type
Today's combat mineclearing techniques only clear "safe lanes" through the
minefield, usually by pushing them aside (mineplows) or by rolling out a long
explosive charge on the ground and detonating it (MICLC). (Note to Doug: Yes,
MICLCs *are* destructive to the terrain...) As long
as you can fire your mine-clearing artillery rounds with enough
precision, there's no reason why you couldn't use them in the same way as an
MICLC.
"Hopping mines" will be able to move so as to close the lanes again,
unless you destroy just about every mine in the entire field - DARPA's
requirement that the minefield "self-heals" within 10 seconds indicates
that the hopping is intended to defeat lane-clearing, not what Jay
calls "persistent" clearing. Destroying all mines in the field with
airbursts will take a *LOT* of artillery fire to do - think WW1
artillery barrages, and of *their* effect on the terrain. Don't use such
methods in Flanders unless you've got grav or hover tanks <g>
The question is - which is more expensive and complicated: enough
"hopping" mines to make an effective barrier, or a bunch of Hornets which
detect and engage their targets up to some 300 meters away?
Later,
> Beth asked:
[snip]
> that the hopping is intended to defeat lane-clearing, not what Jay
How much of WWI artillery was airburst?
I thought much of it was ground-burst to dig out entrenched troops.
What damage will air-bursts do to the ground ?
They sure will wreck havoc with vegetation and the flimsier buildings,
but I thought earth-moving would be limited.
Questions for the more expert among you ;-)
Cheers Karl Heinz
> -----Original Message-----
------------End Original Message-----------
EMP also sounds like a dangerous proposition on the future battlefield unless
all of your equipment is EMP hardened. This would make the Personal Battle
System each soldier carries (comm gear, GPS, computer link to
command, multi-spectrum sensors, targeting link to weapon, etc.) quite
heavy
and/or expensive. OR inexpensive/light weight EMP protection will make
the clearing method ineffective.
As for the minefield being self-painting... Yes and no. I would think
that the minefield would be set to communicate with micro burst, channel
hopping, low power communication and would only bother to communication if its
sensors detected certain conditions (EMP, pressure wave, IR signature,
etc.)
or at long intervals (8 hours). Also, don't forget that mine fields are meant
to delay or channel the enemy. So if the "buzzing" of a minefield would slow
the enemy (so that they clear the minefield) or encourage them to take a
different route, then the minefield has done its job. Also, you could then
place "fake" minefields much cheaper that mimics the radio traffic of the real
minefields. Or better yet, mix fake mines and real mines to increase the area
of the minefield cheaply and keep the enemy guessing as to how strong is a
particular minefield.
---
Hi Beth,
I've heard that, if the weather is right and the need is there (and if people
you don't want to hurt aren't too close), you can drop a huge FAE and use the
overpressure to generate a clear zone. But I don't think they use the
procedure on a regular basis, because the bang can be really big and hard to
predict, and the conditions have to be just right for it to work well (for
example, FAEs are very sensitive to wind conditions.)
As for airburst shells -- I suppose it depends on what the payload
of the shells are, if anything. I don't think conventional HE, airburst, would
do much unless the mines were pretty sensitive.
JGH
> Beth Fulton wrote:
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Oh sure, PETA(1) is all up in arms because we apparently use dolphins to
find mines and frogmen - using hornets to protect mine fields ought to
really tick them off.
Thanks, I forwarded it to work