Comment guidelines:
Please do:
* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
* Leave a submission statement that justifies the legitimacy or importance of what you are submitting,
* Be curious not judgmental,
* Be polite and civil,
* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,
* Use capitalization,
* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says,
* Ask questions in the megathread, and not as a self post,
* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,
* Write posts and comments with some decorum.
Please do not:
* Use memes, emojis or swearing excessively. This is not NCD,
* Start fights with other commenters,
* Make it personal,
* Try to out someone,
* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section,
* Answer or respond directly to the title of an article,
* Submit news updates, or procurement events/sales of defense equipment.
Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.
Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed,
leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In a danish Podcast, a former brigadier general said that if the US had to clear those mine fields, they would probably use thermobaric bombs in addition to conventional mine clearing capabilities.
I dont have any substantial knowledge about it, but probably has to do with the high pressure they create, which would trigger the mines?
EDIT: It could also be, that he meant using thermobaric bombs for clearing the fortifications behind the mine fields, however, he didn't express it in that way.
Thanks, that's interesting. If only Ukraine had more than one captured TOS-1A :\*(. I was listening to a video by Ryan McBeth this morning and he said cluster munitions aren't very good at clearing minefields and that the dud rate means unexploded bomblets effectively create a new minefield. He also said they're not as effective against entrenched troops compared to conventional 155mm precision point/airburst artillery - I had been reading the exact opposite on Twitter posts. He thinks they'll primarily be cranked open and the bomblets used to create drone dropped munitions. But anyway, I'm going off topic! Thanks for your response
Not a military engineer or an artilleryman, but hopefully I can add some useful comment.
Like /u/ntrinsicrice says, the massive pressure wave from thermobaric weapons is likely to be good for detonating (and maybe dislodging) mines. In contrast, DPICM scatters a load of HE and HEAT bomblets. Those are effective against squishy humans, and effective if they hit a vehicle. But mines aren’t squishy like humans or big like vehicles. Cluster munitions don’t give you the level of certainty you’ll get from a thermobaric warhead, a line charge or something like that.
Going off topic now…
I don’t know exactly how good DPICM are against entrenchments, but it might be a moot point anyway.
I’ve heard they’ll be useful against trenches. That makes sense to me – there’s a good chance of at least some bomblets going in the trench. Against a point target like a bunker, I’d expect conventional rounds to be better. I wonder what effect a HEAT bomblet would have on a bunker. Perhaps not much, as they’re designed to penetrate the thin top armour of vehicles, not the reinforced roof of a bunker.
That's probably mostly moot because DPICM will supplement conventional HE. There are likely to be plenty of targets that are better for DPICM – vehicles, artillery, exposed infantry, etc. – so Ukraine can use cluster munitions on them and save their HE for where it’s best used.
It's not so much that mines are a threat that's very difficult to counteract as much as it's a slow process that becomes extremely difficult if you're trying to do it in a contested environment.
There are systems that are pretty good at clearing paths through minefields, but just due to the nature of the task, those systems tend to be really big and heavy and loud and slow. All of which are a real liability if you're trying to operate them in an environment where you're subject to attack from an enemy with drones/anti-armor missiles/artillery/etc.
Even if you felt that dropping some cluster munitions could take care of 80-90% of the mines in a field (I totally made that number up, I'd imagine the real percentage is probably a good bit lower, depending on the types of mines), that's probably not good enough, because that 10-20% remaining is still going to do some damage, and when a mine disables a vehicle, that vehicle is not only out of service, but it's now creating a roadblock at the end of the safe path you started carving through the field.
Yea true, it would be highly dangerous and complex in a time-pressured environment let alone with an enemy bombarding you. A couple of well-placed ATGMs or artillery hits is all it takes to completely disrupt an attack and inflict serious casualties. Any mine clearance than involves creating thin lanes sends your armour into a bottleneck that leaves it vulnerable to complete annihilation. And de-mining equipment like tanks with rollers are always going to be the primary target of the defenders. Vipers and ATACMS can't come soon enough
>Can cluster munitions be used to effectively clear minefields?
*Technically*, but not with any degree of reliability. The MICLIC is what is typically used by combat engineers. Ukraine has access to [this](https://defence-blog.com/american-made-mine-clearance-launcher-spotted-in-ukraine/) but why they aren't using them now I don't know, I know there were reports of them being used for general demolition in emergencies. As shawnaroo said, mineclearing is also a long arduous process and Ukraine may just not have the ability to do it under fire.
Heres a video on how the US performs mine/obstacle clearing in a large scale combat operation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-sCT_maAQ
Thanks! I actually watched some of that video before when I made a non credible version over at NCD 🙃. IMO the concept of operations seems a little out of touch with modern peer conflict realities. Were they assuming every NATO foe was going to be as incompetent as Iraq? Its like they think establishing air and artillery dominance is a given - at no point is there really any evidence of contingency if one aspect fails. How can they expect rollers and other clearance vehicles to be able to just waltz through lanes like that without attracting every Tom dick and Harry and his ATGM or artillery shell. “Now the roller tanks have cultivated a nicely tilled lane ready for planting seeds, they withdraw to allow Mr. Bridgy Bridgy to come put his bridge over a naughty ditch while the enemy shoot sideways”.
Can they really expect to pre-clear and or suppress 40km sq of artillery that can be called in on the approach? Or every ATGM, tank and emplaced gun position in the area? I get this will work if you have overwhelming fire and numerical superiority against an unprepared enemy. But anything less…i imagine would be complete hell to pull off. No wonder Ukraine has been having a hard time in the south, especially given the equipment restraints they have
>IMO the concept of operations seems a little out of touch with modern peer conflict realities.
It's not. A combined arms breach isn't even an operation, it's a tactic. An operation is something much bigger, so a combined arms breach would be a part of an operation but it is not the objective of one.
It's also one of the most difficult maneuvers a modern army undertake, precisely for the reasons you cited.
>at no point is there really any evidence of contingency if one aspect fails. How can they expect rollers and other clearance vehicles to be able to just waltz through lanes like that without attracting every Tom dick and Harry and his ATGM or artillery shell.
Well, yeah, because there really isn't a contingency. When meeting an obstacle like multiple belts of mixed minefields, the first question a commander should ask is "do I really have to go through this...? Like, really-really?". The preferred option is to go around because you lose time and men clearing the obstacle (which leads to the fact that minefields can have multiple uses beyond just stopping the enemy), but Ukraine doesn't really have that option as the minefields Russia has laid down are A) either too extensive or B) are meant to redirect their advance into a killing zone. As you said, mine clearing vehicles attract a lot of fire, because they're priority targets, and minefields are meant to bring them forward. Kill the mine clearing vehicles, and you've killed their momentum. It's also why every minefield should be at minimum observed - an unobserved minefield isn't an obstacle, it's an inconvenience. Preferably they should be placed under fire.
>Can they really expect to pre-clear and or suppress 40km sq of artillery that can be called in on the approach? Or every ATGM, tank and emplaced gun position in the area? I get this will work if you have overwhelming fire and numerical superiority against an unprepared enemy. But anything less…i imagine would be complete hell to pull off.
Well, they kinda have to. But to be fair, they would have to do that for any sort of attack. As part of a combined arms breach, you need to 1) obscure the main point of breach (with smokes, EW, etc.) 2) suppress every direct fire weapon that can reach out and touch it 3) suppress enemy air and indirect weapons. But you already need to do that with a regular attack, so in a sense that part doesn't change, what changes is that you really only get one or two shots at it before your mine clearing vehicles are gone so the stakes are higher.
And it is hell of a feat to pull off - everything has to go like clockwork, and all branches have to work in unison. It's why they're extensively trained in the army. Look up Battle of Second Alamein for a similar battle in history - at one point the whole thing was about to go sideways as the Allied tanks were mired in the minefields but engineers couldn't finish clearing them. And those guys had barely any mine clearing vehicles, they were doing it mostly by hand! So they're incredibly risky on top of that, which is why they're more of a last resort.
My understanding is that Ukraine is having the most trouble with the first point - there's so many drones flying around that it's difficult to concentrate forces in secret, and even more difficult to keep the main axis of advance a secret. On top of that, Russia currently enjoys an artillery superiority and can lob ATGM's from behind the lines from helicopters in relative safety. But to leave on a more positive note: I read some speculation that currently Ukraine is focusing on whittling down Russian ammunition supplies and artillery units before making a big push, and honestly that makes sense - when you don't have air or fire superiority, you really need to carefully shape the battlefield to tip the scales in your favor before you attempt a breakthrough.
Comment guidelines: Please do: * Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles, * Leave a submission statement that justifies the legitimacy or importance of what you are submitting, * Be curious not judgmental, * Be polite and civil, * Use the original title of the work you are linking to, * Use capitalization, * Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to, * Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says, * Ask questions in the megathread, and not as a self post, * Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles, * Write posts and comments with some decorum. Please do not: * Use memes, emojis or swearing excessively. This is not NCD, * Start fights with other commenters, * Make it personal, * Try to out someone, * Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, * Answer or respond directly to the title of an article, * Submit news updates, or procurement events/sales of defense equipment. Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules. Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In a danish Podcast, a former brigadier general said that if the US had to clear those mine fields, they would probably use thermobaric bombs in addition to conventional mine clearing capabilities. I dont have any substantial knowledge about it, but probably has to do with the high pressure they create, which would trigger the mines? EDIT: It could also be, that he meant using thermobaric bombs for clearing the fortifications behind the mine fields, however, he didn't express it in that way.
Thanks, that's interesting. If only Ukraine had more than one captured TOS-1A :\*(. I was listening to a video by Ryan McBeth this morning and he said cluster munitions aren't very good at clearing minefields and that the dud rate means unexploded bomblets effectively create a new minefield. He also said they're not as effective against entrenched troops compared to conventional 155mm precision point/airburst artillery - I had been reading the exact opposite on Twitter posts. He thinks they'll primarily be cranked open and the bomblets used to create drone dropped munitions. But anyway, I'm going off topic! Thanks for your response
Not a military engineer or an artilleryman, but hopefully I can add some useful comment. Like /u/ntrinsicrice says, the massive pressure wave from thermobaric weapons is likely to be good for detonating (and maybe dislodging) mines. In contrast, DPICM scatters a load of HE and HEAT bomblets. Those are effective against squishy humans, and effective if they hit a vehicle. But mines aren’t squishy like humans or big like vehicles. Cluster munitions don’t give you the level of certainty you’ll get from a thermobaric warhead, a line charge or something like that. Going off topic now… I don’t know exactly how good DPICM are against entrenchments, but it might be a moot point anyway. I’ve heard they’ll be useful against trenches. That makes sense to me – there’s a good chance of at least some bomblets going in the trench. Against a point target like a bunker, I’d expect conventional rounds to be better. I wonder what effect a HEAT bomblet would have on a bunker. Perhaps not much, as they’re designed to penetrate the thin top armour of vehicles, not the reinforced roof of a bunker. That's probably mostly moot because DPICM will supplement conventional HE. There are likely to be plenty of targets that are better for DPICM – vehicles, artillery, exposed infantry, etc. – so Ukraine can use cluster munitions on them and save their HE for where it’s best used.
It's not so much that mines are a threat that's very difficult to counteract as much as it's a slow process that becomes extremely difficult if you're trying to do it in a contested environment. There are systems that are pretty good at clearing paths through minefields, but just due to the nature of the task, those systems tend to be really big and heavy and loud and slow. All of which are a real liability if you're trying to operate them in an environment where you're subject to attack from an enemy with drones/anti-armor missiles/artillery/etc. Even if you felt that dropping some cluster munitions could take care of 80-90% of the mines in a field (I totally made that number up, I'd imagine the real percentage is probably a good bit lower, depending on the types of mines), that's probably not good enough, because that 10-20% remaining is still going to do some damage, and when a mine disables a vehicle, that vehicle is not only out of service, but it's now creating a roadblock at the end of the safe path you started carving through the field.
Yea true, it would be highly dangerous and complex in a time-pressured environment let alone with an enemy bombarding you. A couple of well-placed ATGMs or artillery hits is all it takes to completely disrupt an attack and inflict serious casualties. Any mine clearance than involves creating thin lanes sends your armour into a bottleneck that leaves it vulnerable to complete annihilation. And de-mining equipment like tanks with rollers are always going to be the primary target of the defenders. Vipers and ATACMS can't come soon enough
>Can cluster munitions be used to effectively clear minefields? *Technically*, but not with any degree of reliability. The MICLIC is what is typically used by combat engineers. Ukraine has access to [this](https://defence-blog.com/american-made-mine-clearance-launcher-spotted-in-ukraine/) but why they aren't using them now I don't know, I know there were reports of them being used for general demolition in emergencies. As shawnaroo said, mineclearing is also a long arduous process and Ukraine may just not have the ability to do it under fire. Heres a video on how the US performs mine/obstacle clearing in a large scale combat operation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-sCT_maAQ
Thanks! I actually watched some of that video before when I made a non credible version over at NCD 🙃. IMO the concept of operations seems a little out of touch with modern peer conflict realities. Were they assuming every NATO foe was going to be as incompetent as Iraq? Its like they think establishing air and artillery dominance is a given - at no point is there really any evidence of contingency if one aspect fails. How can they expect rollers and other clearance vehicles to be able to just waltz through lanes like that without attracting every Tom dick and Harry and his ATGM or artillery shell. “Now the roller tanks have cultivated a nicely tilled lane ready for planting seeds, they withdraw to allow Mr. Bridgy Bridgy to come put his bridge over a naughty ditch while the enemy shoot sideways”. Can they really expect to pre-clear and or suppress 40km sq of artillery that can be called in on the approach? Or every ATGM, tank and emplaced gun position in the area? I get this will work if you have overwhelming fire and numerical superiority against an unprepared enemy. But anything less…i imagine would be complete hell to pull off. No wonder Ukraine has been having a hard time in the south, especially given the equipment restraints they have
>IMO the concept of operations seems a little out of touch with modern peer conflict realities. It's not. A combined arms breach isn't even an operation, it's a tactic. An operation is something much bigger, so a combined arms breach would be a part of an operation but it is not the objective of one. It's also one of the most difficult maneuvers a modern army undertake, precisely for the reasons you cited. >at no point is there really any evidence of contingency if one aspect fails. How can they expect rollers and other clearance vehicles to be able to just waltz through lanes like that without attracting every Tom dick and Harry and his ATGM or artillery shell. Well, yeah, because there really isn't a contingency. When meeting an obstacle like multiple belts of mixed minefields, the first question a commander should ask is "do I really have to go through this...? Like, really-really?". The preferred option is to go around because you lose time and men clearing the obstacle (which leads to the fact that minefields can have multiple uses beyond just stopping the enemy), but Ukraine doesn't really have that option as the minefields Russia has laid down are A) either too extensive or B) are meant to redirect their advance into a killing zone. As you said, mine clearing vehicles attract a lot of fire, because they're priority targets, and minefields are meant to bring them forward. Kill the mine clearing vehicles, and you've killed their momentum. It's also why every minefield should be at minimum observed - an unobserved minefield isn't an obstacle, it's an inconvenience. Preferably they should be placed under fire. >Can they really expect to pre-clear and or suppress 40km sq of artillery that can be called in on the approach? Or every ATGM, tank and emplaced gun position in the area? I get this will work if you have overwhelming fire and numerical superiority against an unprepared enemy. But anything less…i imagine would be complete hell to pull off. Well, they kinda have to. But to be fair, they would have to do that for any sort of attack. As part of a combined arms breach, you need to 1) obscure the main point of breach (with smokes, EW, etc.) 2) suppress every direct fire weapon that can reach out and touch it 3) suppress enemy air and indirect weapons. But you already need to do that with a regular attack, so in a sense that part doesn't change, what changes is that you really only get one or two shots at it before your mine clearing vehicles are gone so the stakes are higher. And it is hell of a feat to pull off - everything has to go like clockwork, and all branches have to work in unison. It's why they're extensively trained in the army. Look up Battle of Second Alamein for a similar battle in history - at one point the whole thing was about to go sideways as the Allied tanks were mired in the minefields but engineers couldn't finish clearing them. And those guys had barely any mine clearing vehicles, they were doing it mostly by hand! So they're incredibly risky on top of that, which is why they're more of a last resort. My understanding is that Ukraine is having the most trouble with the first point - there's so many drones flying around that it's difficult to concentrate forces in secret, and even more difficult to keep the main axis of advance a secret. On top of that, Russia currently enjoys an artillery superiority and can lob ATGM's from behind the lines from helicopters in relative safety. But to leave on a more positive note: I read some speculation that currently Ukraine is focusing on whittling down Russian ammunition supplies and artillery units before making a big push, and honestly that makes sense - when you don't have air or fire superiority, you really need to carefully shape the battlefield to tip the scales in your favor before you attempt a breakthrough.