Wire Obstacles

Wire may be old hat, super strength mono-molecular fibre, which is
invisible and cuts through steel, a very nasty obstacle. Its been used in a
few novels, one by Drake where there are guardians of a long dead super
scientists house, held in stasis.

As its fictional I don't know what you'd use to counter it?

> In a message dated 98-05-07 12:46:43 EDT, Tim writes:

<< Wire may be old hat, super strength mono-molecular fibre, which is
invisible and cuts through steel, a very nasty obstacle. Its been used in a
few novels, one by Drake where there are guardians of a long dead super
scientists house, held in stasis.

As its fictional I don't know what you'd use to counter it?

tim jones >>

Um...for detection, penal units.  For removal, micronukes (.01 - .05 kt)

Tim spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Wire may be old hat, super strength mono-molecular fibre, which is

1. You'd obviously need tools and a lot of care to deploy it (it's a risk). It
might hack you up just as easily during deployment (anybody who's laid
concertina knows you can write off gloves and boots easy with wire). 2. If you
have those tools, presumably sweeping tools exist (maybe harnessing
electromagnetic or gravitic forces). 3. It might be expensive, and hence not
deployed on frontiers. (Or maybe not).

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

> Tim Jones wrote:

In a message dated 98-05-07 18:35:00 EDT, you write:

<< > Wire may be old hat, super strength mono-molecular fibre, which is
> invisible and cuts through steel, a very nasty obstacle. >>

> Not a problem, gravity pulls it down to the center of the planet.

[peals and peals of hyena-like laughter]

"Sir, the wire's finally been laid and - hell, not again!  Smebody pick
up Griff's limbs and get some real concertina over here!"

> You wrote:

> I don't know why but that struck me as really funny. Sick, da?

'Nother Ruskie... Grr...:)

Da, is sick.

I think monomolecular wire would be treated same as other wire, but 1)Infantry
can't breach it at all (You can't body breach it, and wire cutters are
useless. If you infantry carries satchel charges or bangalores then disregard)
2)If you trip over it, you're fokked.

> You wrote:

> 1. You'd obviously need tools and a lot of care to deploy it (it's a

I see Monofilament as a case of setting up the dispenser, standing way the
hell back, pressing a button, and a whole mess of it shoots out. I can't think
of how you'd work with it. And don't forget that it's damn near impossible to
clear totally, so you can't use it on real estate you plan to own after the
war.

> 2. If you have those tools, presumably sweeping tools exist (maybe

Someone suggested the grav minesweeper, which might work on this stuff too. Or
a big explosion.

> 3. It might be expensive, and hence not deployed on frontiers. (Or

That's like saying Size 4 Grav tanks with MDC/5s and superior systems
'might' be expensive and hence not deployed on frontiers. IOW, only where
there are regular troops expecting conflict.

Having never worked with monofilament.......

Would it be invisible? Would an explosion damage it as much as normal wire? If
its one molecule thick would it even catch the shock wave?

I just had a horrific vision of a soldier on point suddenly falling to the
ground in several chunks.

[quoted original message omitted]

> Jon wrote:
I see Monofilament as a case of setting up the dispenser, standing way the
hell back, pressing a button, and a whole mess of it shoots out. I can't think
of how you'd work with it. And don't forget that it's damn near impossible to
clear totally, so you can't use it on real estate you plan to own after the
war.

Actually the problem with MF is that it requires tension and force to work.
Concentina Wire has tension and strength and sharpness. The shapness is the
efficiency at which the wire reflects energy back (the rest going into
compressing and stretching the wire). The surface that the CW works against
must be firm (like a limb or a steel pole) so that it can easily reflect the
energy back and it must have a surface strength that is less than the energy
reflected back (like a limb but not like a steel pole).

Now then, the problem with MF is that is is sharp enough that it can cut
through a steel pole, but unless it is perfectly efficient, which it won't be
because it is manufactured and there are bound to be imperfections, some of
the energy is going to go back into the wire. The wire isn't very thick so you
are relying on the strength between the molocules to hold it together. this
means that if you repeatedly beat on it it will break. (You might end up with
a pile of neatly cut steel pipe, but eventually it will break.)

The best way to clear it would be to roll a big steam roller over it that had
a sticky surface. Perhaps you could have a glue dispenser over the roller as
it went across. You could even use a hand pushed roller. Alternatively you
could just dig it up with a front end loader or bulldozer or apply fire to it
(remember it is very thin and will melt and burn
easily) and render it a non-military obstacle. (hell, the first rain you
get will ruin a good portion of it and if there is wind involved and you
haven't anchored it properly there is probably a court martial involved.)

OK, so it is easy to remove if you have the right equipment. The major
advantage it has is it is relatively invisible if laced into bushes and
underbrush. Talk about slowing an advance - just use the spray dispenser
to cover your retreat. I'd be scared shitless about going into any sort of
wooded cover if I even thought someone might have placed that wire in there!

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Having never worked with monofilament.......

Probably hard to see. You might need a good roll to notice it with the Mk I
eyeball. With metal detectors, no problem.

> Would an explosion damage it as much as normal wire?

Probably would take damage, but not as much.

> I just had a horrific vision of a soldier on point suddenly falling to

Yep.

/************************************************

Peter spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Now then, the problem with MF is that is is sharp enough that it can
(You
> might end up with a pile of neatly cut steel pipe, but eventually it

Assuming of course that the monofilaments atomic bonds are week enough to
permit such stretching. If it was a 'powered' obstacle, it might be harder to
stretch, as the field strengthened the integrity
(a la star trek - Cap'n, the structural integrity field is
weakening!) but then that would make it detectable with EM scanners I'd guess.

> The best way to clear it would be to roll a big steam roller over it

Which of course wouldn't stick to the ground surface or suck it up? Hmm. Or
are you thinking of a giant lint roller?

You could even use a hand pushed roller.

Ah... you are thinking of a giant lint roller.... (grin).

> Alternatively you could just dig it up with a front end loader or

Sorry, if it also happens to be nearly thermally superconductive for example,
it may well merely transfer the heat and radiate it. Disipation of heat in an
object is a funciton of its thermal resistance. If the wire does not exhibit a
large thermal resistance, not much heat will be internally disipated. Hence it
may not melt and burn very easily (you may end up needing a plasma torch).

 and render it a non-military obstacle. (hell, the first rain you
> get will ruin a good portion of it and if there is wind involved and

Which brings to mind the assumption that it isn't anchored correctly.
Maybe your dispenser is something that lets you run it from pre-layed
post to post. Or you have a vehicle dispenser which sets the posts and wires
to them. Maybe the posts are something resistant to monofilament. If the
monofilament is anchored, it will be a deadly obstacle, but perhaps easier to
detect (you can see the anchors). And the anchors may be the part you target
in removal operations. And The method of laying from a vehicle above requires
expensive high tech gear.

> OK, so it is easy to remove if you have the right equipment. The major

Except it might cut through trees as easily (or more easily) than PA. Let's
also consider the possibility that PA plates have a molecular alignment and
bonding process that makes the atoms align and pack really tightly... it might
well make it immune to (except for entanglement) the effects of monofilament.
Or if I have this stuff in trees, and either burn down the trees or plow
through them with some sort of standoff device like a bushbar made of a
superdense metal on my vehicle, that may be sufficient to push the stuff out
of the way (since it'll go through trees like butter).

This does introduce many interesting issues about monofilament. I think I'd
make it 1. Hard to lay by hand, expensive to lay by machine 2. Expensive on a
per foot basis 3. Hard to detect by infantry, not too hard by PA with enhanced
vision systems or by engineers 4. Dangeorus to unshielded infantry (deadly)
but only moderately dangerous to PA and not dangerous to vehicles (based on my
arguments about the types of armours in play on the vehicles and PA). 5. If
anchored, easier to detect, but hard to clear. If not anchored, not too hard
to clear. Especially by engineers (doubly so if they have CEVs).

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

It wouldn't have to be made of metal (we are talking about a hypothetical
object here). I know this is going to raise some eye brows but, in the
Warhammer 40k universe there are some units that use this. I believe they are
called Warp Spiders or something, they shoot clouds of monofilament.

[quoted original message omitted]

I'm beginning to get the feeling that monomolecular filament wire (Niven's
variable sword, shadow square wire, various cyberpunk stories, etc.) is so
dangerous and yucky (SIr, point's gone chunky again! Next!) that it would fall
under the category of something not often used by states who like to say
that they are civilized.  Like mines/bombs shaped like kid's toys, laser
blinding weapons, biochem in it's more virulent forms, etc. It would probably
be as hazardous to the users as the enemy - there is very little room to
screw up with an infinitely sharp cutting tool, and recovery might very much
be a
problem.  Also, DS/SG are meant to simulate good military SF, not
necessarily
the nasty, not-fun realities we seem to keep coming up with.  If future
war will consist of laserblinders, monomol wire and flesheating nanites, no
thanks.

I think some people are forgetting that unless the governments involved are
fighting with a scorched earth policy then the ground has to be "tidied up"
afterwards. Think about the largest motivating factor behind
the drive to ban land-mines - the indiscrimante laying of non-ferrous
mines that are hard to detect and; being mad of plastic, have tended to float
away in the rain and monsoons of Cambodia, Burma etc, to lodge in agricultural
areas and cause horrific damage to civilians years after.

So by deploying mono-filament obstacles we are assuming that either you
are fighting a war with armies that are not in the least concerned about
what will happen to the ground afterwards I'd probably use tac-nukes in
that case) OR that the sides have developed a fairly easy means of recovering
the obstacle. Now if they have developed a recovery method it is fairly
reasonable to assume that a similar method or technique may be used to breach
or neutralise it.

I think the detail you get into with the technical apsects of the obstacle is
more in the realms of SG or probably more likely a skirmish level.

Can't we just accept that there is a requirement for field defences and
obstacles and therefore detail a proprtion of your force to engineering tasks.
DSII has fairly generic concepts and engineering should be one of them.

Let's clear the bottleneck and get the assault moving again.

Cheers,

Owen G

[quoted original message omitted]

> You wrote:

> Would it be invisible?

Yeah.

> Would an explosion damage it as much as normal wire? If its one

Dunno.

> I just had a horrific vision of a soldier on point suddenly falling to

You want to know what I've got a horrific vision of? Some poor damn Engineer
dropping this crap on his boots and amputating his feet. No thanks.[1]

> You wrote:

> Actually the problem with MF is that it requires tension and force to

> Now then, the problem with MF is that is is sharp enough that it can

So what do you string it on? Can't tie it to a steel pole, or you'd chop the
pole in half. More so for vegetation and other crap. IMHO "monomolecular wire"
is a cheezy plot device introduced by SciFi (as opposed to SF) writers who
havn't done their homework. Then we have the question as to what idiot you're
going to talk into tying it to our steel pole and how you'll keep him from
accidentally removing his own apendages.

> You wrote:

> Let's clear the bottleneck and get the assault moving again.

You must have an infantry background...

> At 10:46 PM 5/8/98 -0500, you wrote:

> steel pole and how you'll keep him from accidentally removing his own

Or...you create a wire about as thick as say, modern fishing line, with a
monomolecular core surrounded by plastic or something. You string the
resulting wire up, in whatever positions you like, and glue it in place with
blobs of epoxy. You then spray the area with a chemical that eats away the
outer material, leaving the core of molywire. The eopxy blobs will be
uneffected by this chemical, and will serve to anchor the whole thing in
place, since the sections of wire within them will be untouched by said
chemical, and will remain as thick as fishing line. Voila. Seems workable to
me. Still a nasty way to die, though....

> You wrote:

> Or...you create a wire about as thick as say, modern fishing
You string the >resulting wire up, in whatever positions you like, and glue it
in place >with blobs of epoxy. You then spray the area with a chemical that
eats >away the outer material, leaving the core of molywire. The eopxy blobs
>will be uneffected by this chemical, and will serve to anchor the whole
>thing in place, since the sections of wire within them will be untouched by
>said chemical, and will remain as thick as fishing line. Voila. Seems
>workable to me. Still a nasty way to die, though....

The epoxy is bonded to the plastic which just fell apart--epoxy can't
'stick' to a monowire. And any pressure is as likely to sever whatever you're
attaching it to as it is to slice the guy who walks into it.

> Which brings to mind the assumption that it isn't anchored correctly.
Or when you manufacture it you extrude it from one molecule thick to X
molecules thick (enough to be handled) every 20m. This way you have points at
which to anchor the monowire.

As pointed out, the worst thing about monowire is setting it up. The best
method would be a portable extruder. This way the engineer would be able to
extrude the wire at the spot it would be used. This way there are no messy
problems with transporting a wire that can cut just about anything. However,
this might be beyond the tech level presented in
DSII/SGII.

Nasty thought: Nanites who's sole function is to extrude monowire. Air drop
them or deliver them by artilery shell. Aaaagh!

> In a message dated 98-05-10 19:28:19 EDT, Beth writes:

<< G'day,
Just a dumb question. You may have covered this already as I haven't been
following very closely. But what kind of molecules are we talking about? What
kind of molecular bonds? If they're only joined by the kind of
 molecular bonds I know about wouldn't appropriate electric/magnetic
fields break it up (by exciting the electrons in the bonds enough so that they
 jump out of that orbital thereby breaking the bond - if they're not in
a lattice of some kind I would have thought this was a strong possibility)?
Sorry if this really dumb, >>

Not a dumb question at all, Beth. In fact, I don't think that anybody knows
what kind of molecule would be used for that - maybe something in the
'island of stability' predicted a few numbers out in the periodic table. Most
sci-fi
writers use the ubiquitous 'force field' to grant the necessary strength. As
far as I can tell, it's not really feasible - but I could be wrong.  I
hope not. Nasty stuff. Since it's a single, loooooooong molecule, atomic bonds
would hold the nuclei together, right? Would the strong nuclear force, the one
that holds stuff together on that level, be resistent to the forces exerted by
it's
environment?  My chemistry/physics is lacking in this department, so
somebody more knowledgeable than me should take over here.

G'day, Just a dumb question. You may have covered this already as I haven't
been following very closely. But what kind of molecules are we talking about?
What kind of molecular bonds? If they're only joined by the kind of
molecular bonds I know about wouldn't appropriate electric/magnetic
fields break it up (by exciting the electrons in the bonds enough so that they
jump out of that orbital thereby breaking the bond - if they're not in a
lattice of some kind I would have thought this was a strong possibility)?
Sorry if this really dumb,

Beth

> At 09:28 8/05/98 -0400, you wrote:
(You
> might end up with a pile of neatly cut steel pipe, but eventually it

> On Fri, 8 May 1998, John Atkinson wrote:

> So what do you string it on? Can't tie it to a steel pole, or you'd

I agree. Even ignoring that it may not be feasible to produce at all, monowire
presents problems.

You can think of a way to anchor it (perhaps the wire widens at the ends), but
then you can attack the anchor points. And the anchor points can't be all that
flimsy (see below).

As for unanchored wire... if it could cut through (nearly) anything with

a minimal force, it should sink into the ground. Gravity is also a force

and dirt is considerably softer than tank armor.

If there's a minimum force, all you have to do is handle carefully enough
(i.e. with less force than the minimum to cut your handling tool). Unlike
concertina wire, monowire doesn't get stuck to foliage that much (if it can't
cut through a random bush, it fails in its primary purpose).

Consider the following: a loop of monowire, with a person with a steel prybar
and a tree post inside. The guy starts to push on the wire with the prybar.
What happens?

The wire tightens and the force against the bar and the tree increases. With
the force the pressure against each item increases. Guess which the wire
starts cutting first?

> Brian Bell wrote:

Or for "2000AD" fans: Bio wire

(For those who don't know: It's living barbed/razor wire that can roam
around looking for victims - very nasty stuff)

> Jon wrote:
So what do you string it on? Can't tie it to a steel pole, or you'd chop the
pole in half. More so for vegetation and other crap. IMHO

Actually, I disagree with this. Just wrapping it around a steel pole will not
cut the pole. It takes a lot of force to cut the steel. The sharpness of the
wire approaches infinity but is not infinite (and in fact could never be
infinite). It still requires force. Now then, are the molecular bonds that
hold steel together stronger than the bonds that hold the wire
together? If not then the wire just won't cut - the weak link breaks
first in every case. If you wrap it around a pair of trees now you have to ask
what is stronger: the bonds that hold a uniform and body together or the bonds
that hold a tree together. How many bodies do you need to pile up before you
stop an entire column of men in woods? My guess is 'One'.

The real point of Monomolocular Filiament is that it is a dirty weapon. My
thinking on it has completely changed since this discussion began. In the
Mercenary campaign I plan to run the mercs will have the opportunity to use
'dirty tricks'. It's in the literature and it's in real life so why avoid it?
Now then, if you deploy something as nasty as land mines or MF as one
of your 'dirty tricks' then you risk - something. Right now I am working
along the lines of some sort of political quotient. Each side (multiple
factions in this game) will have a political measure. As they get dirtier
things begin to happen. If the Rebels get too dirty, they lose the support of
the people and their cell system falls apart. If the mercs get too dirty they
risk sparking intervention from a Super Power or a Major Power (Amnesty
Interplanetary observers?). If the local government gets too despotic they
risk strengthening the rebel movement!

MF really falls into the realm of Nova Cannons and so forth - things
only the power gamer would really want to use all the time. But, taking a risk
and strategically using it might have a high payoff (then again it could be
the Exploding Cigar you Willingly Smoke!)

Most of the campaigns I've been in emphasis men & materials. Some have even
bothered to track morale from battle to battle as well as fatigue. However,
there is a whole other dimension that always seems to be left behind and that
is the ramifications of war. I think I've seen one board game (5th Fleet I
think) that had a political measure (it was possible for your government to
sue for peace before you had time to win!) I think that a solution to
powergaming is to allow it, but in campaign settings designed to punish its
abuse. Eh, who am I kidding. Powergamers don't have the patience for
campaigns! Anyway, the above is why I am interested in understanding how
things like this might work. I think the further we get from assuming Total
War in our games, the more realistic they will become.

Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Nasty thought: Nanites who's sole function is to extrude monowire. Air

Or nanites whose function is to rapidly eat it producing some harmless
byproduct. Spray them on suspect areas.....

> --
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
     http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/

> At 01:29 PM 5/9/98 +1000, you wrote:
[snip]
Yup, during Vietnam, the US was, for a while anyway, air dropping roughly $1
million worth of AP landmines into Laos...every day. It doesn't take a genius
to figure this is roughly 3 million mines every month...

Ummm...someone correct me if I'm wrong here (I can't believe I just invited
the abuse!) but I believe that the strong nuclear force only holds the nucleus
of individual atoms together. The attraction between nucleus and electrons is
pretty much simple electromagnetic, and the bonds holding atom
to atom within the molecule is some kind of electron interaction - but
not the strong nuclear force. While these bonds may be significantly tough,
they are several orders of magnitude weaker that the strong force.

So what does this mean? I dunno, but there may be some virtue to the thought
of cooking the monowire electrically or just through plain heat. How much heat
could a monowire be subjected to before the absorbed energy became too strong
for the bonds to hold the the monowire breaks down? Is
there a large number of suitable mono-molecules that could be deployed,
or only a few? If it is only a few, or you know what molecular composition the
opponent uses, tune a laser to the proper wavelength to excite the
electrons in the bonds, then sweep the suspect area with it - Again, if
you excite a suffecient number of the electrons, you could effectively boil
off
the bonds and then march through the gap - It wouldn't have to be a
particularly strong laser, either.

I also tend to believe that monowire is a fairly cheesy Sci-Fi idea that
makes for an interesting thought experiment, but impractical in execution.
Poor pplot device IMHO. (but if feel that way about the majority of the
'way-out-super-nanites from hell' as well - and if that doesn't make me
flame-bait on this list, I don't know what will!)

NVDoyle@aol.com on 05/10/98 03:02:27 PM

Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk

To:   FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc:    (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject:  Re: Wire Obstacles

> In a message dated 98-05-10 19:28:19 EDT, Beth writes:
<< G'day,
Just a dumb question. You may have covered this already as I haven't been
following very closely. But what kind of molecules are we talking about? What
kind of molecular bonds? If they're only joined by the kind of
 molecular bonds I know about wouldn't appropriate electric/magnetic
fields break it up (by exciting the electrons in the bonds enough so that they
 jump out of that orbital thereby breaking the bond - if they're not in
a lattice of some kind I would have thought this was a strong possibility)?
Sorry if this really dumb, >> Not a dumb question at all, Beth. In fact, I
don't think that anybody knows
what kind of molecule would be used for that - maybe something in the
'island of stability' predicted a few numbers out in the periodic table. Most
sci-fi
writers use the ubiquitous 'force field' to grant the necessary strength. As
far as I can tell, it's not really feasible - but I could be wrong.  I
hope not. Nasty stuff. Since it's a single, loooooooong molecule, atomic bonds
would hold the nuclei together, right? Would the strong nuclear force, the one
that holds stuff together on that level, be resistent to the forces exerted by
it's
environment?  My chemistry/physics is lacking in this department, so
somebody more knowledgeable than me should take over here. Noah V. Doyle

> You wrote:

> The real point of Monomolocular Filiament is that it is a dirty

*SNX* I realize I havn't put out my post on mines yet, but to classify
*properly utilized* mines as a 'dirty trick' is... how to say this without
insulting someone's intelligence... a little pathetic?
Speaks of someone buying into a lot of poorly thought-out propaganda
put out by people who have the luxury of knowing they'll never come near a
combat zone. An unmarked land mine next to a villiage's only well is a terror
weapon, a properly laid out AT minefield with proper
AP mines and Anti-handling devices is a militarily useful and legally
and morally acceptable weapon.

> things begin to happen. If the Rebels get too dirty, they lose the

If the rebels get too dirty and the Mercs can utilize that effectively in
their propaganda, then the power supporting the Rebels (no such thing as a
dangerous rebellion without outside support) kisses them off.

> MF really falls into the realm of Nova Cannons and so forth - things

I agree. The PSB factor on it is way too high.

> understanding how things like this might work. I think the further we

Sounds like someone's been reading Clausewitz and actually understanding it,
which is a pleasant change.

Very Good! Actually I think I have read something like this in a
non-fiction setting. They said any reasonably hot torch (propane,
butane, etc.) let alone acetylene would destroy it. The stuff has a very low
heat capacity before it melts or goes through a change of state. [ The subject
was micro fine carbon strands I believe. The nearest real thing to the SF
wire.]

On Mon, 11 May 1998 10:02:53 -0900 "Jared E Noble"
> <JNOBLE2@mail.aai.arco.com> writes:

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> You wrote:

> real life so why avoid >it? Now then, if you deploy something as nasty

> as land mines or MF as one >of your 'dirty tricks' then you risk -

To make a point: One does not even need to step on a mine to have one's
mobility impaired. If one sees an area that looks like it might be mined (with
minefield signs posted), one must avoid it or try to sweep it, as the
minefield might well be real. A friend used this to great effect defending a
town when he didn't have enough mines to defend it all....

> If the rebels get too dirty and the Mercs can utilize that effectively

> in their propaganda, then the power supporting the Rebels (no such

Hmmm. I'm not sure the Tsars of Russia would agree. There are home grown
rebellions which are quite dangerous. But for the most part, they are
exacerbated by external forces.

> >understanding how things like this might work. I think the further we

> get >from assuming Total War in our games, the more realistic they

Interestingly enough, the Traveller universe revolved around continuous small
wars as a way to avoid the big ones.

Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
     http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/

> You wrote:

> To make a point: One does not even need to step on a mine to have

Depends--I'm willing to take a bit of a risk unless it looks real
convincing. Of course, that comes of long hours practicing the whole sordid
mess in MILES. I've yet to get across even a short minefield without that
MILES making that damned beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.[1] You take less
casualties rushing it than you do trying to breach under fire.

> Hmmm. I'm not sure the Tsars of Russia would agree. There are home

Dunno. Didn't the Germans kinda encourage Lenin to make trouble? Those
firearms the Bolshies came up with didn't come from nowhere.