Anti-tank mine
At the Battle of Kursk, Soviet combat engineers laid 503,663 anti-tank mines. That meant 1500 mines per kilometer, four times the density seen at the Battle of Moscow. An anti-tank mine is a concealed explosive built to damage or destroy tanks and other armored fighting vehicles. Its charge is far larger than that of an anti-personnel mine. Its fuze is meant to answer to vehicles, and some designs also respond to remote command or to tampering.
How did improvised weapons from the First World War grow into something laid by the hundreds of thousands? What changed the minds of tank crews who had once been willing to drive straight through a minefield? And what remains in the ground long after the armies have gone home?
The British introduced the first tanks towards the end of the First World War, and the first anti-tank mines were improvised as a countermeasure. Early versions were nothing more than a buried high-explosive shell or mortar bomb with its fuze pointing upward. Purpose-built designs soon followed. The Flachmine 17 was a wooden box packed with explosives, set off remotely or by a pressure fuze. By the war's end the Germans had developed row mining techniques. Mines accounted for 15% of U.S. tank casualties across four actions: the Battle of Saint-Mihiel, the Third Battle of the Aisne, the Battle of Selle and the Meuse-Argonne Offensive.
The Soviet Union began developing mines in the early 1920s. In 1924 it produced its first anti-tank mine, the EZ, designed by Yegorov and Zelinskiy. Its 1 kg charge was enough to break the tracks of the tanks of that era. In Germany, defeat itself spurred development. The Tellermine 29 entered service in 1929 and is described as the first truly modern mine. It was a disc about 30 cm across, filled with roughly 5 kg of high explosive. A second model, the Tellermine 35, arrived in 1935.
The Spanish Civil War saw anti-tank mines used by both sides. Republican forces lifted mines that Nationalist forces had placed and turned them against their own makers. That episode spurred the development of anti-handling devices.
The Winter War between the Soviet Union and Finland also saw widespread mining. Finnish forces faced a general shortage of anti-tank weapons. Yet difficult terrain and harsh weather pushed motorized units into predictable movements, and mines could exploit exactly that.
The Tellermine became the pattern that later mines such as the Pignone P-1, the NR 25 and the M6 copied. Its casing was only a container for the explosive and the fuze. It was never meant to throw shrapnel. Its fuze needed high pressure to fire, so a vehicle had to pass directly overhead. Tracks make up only about 20% of a tank's width, which left the fuze a narrow target. Mines of this kind mostly wrecked treads. The crew stayed unharmed and the guns still worked, but the stranded tank was exposed to aircraft and anti-tank weapons.
During the Second World War the Wehrmacht began using a tilt-rod fuze. A thin rod stood roughly two feet above the center of the charge and was nearly impossible to see once the mine was buried. A passing tank pushed the rod forward, and the charge fired directly beneath it. The blast often killed the crew and sometimes set off the ammunition on board. One account sums up the shift: "Now that tank crews were directly at risk, they were less likely to plow through a minefield."
Bar mines took a different route from dinner plate designs like the Tellermine. The German Riegel mine 43 and the Italian B-2 were long, which raised the chance that a vehicle would trigger them. The B-2 held several small shaped charges along its length, intended to destroy tracks and guarantee a mobility kill. Britain's L9 bar mine drew its inspiration from this form.
The British Hawkins mine was more versatile. It could be laid on a road surface for a tank to crush, setting off a crush fuze. It could also be thrown at a tank, in which case a timer fuze was used. Satchel charges, sticky bombs and magnetic bombs were developed too. They are not buried and are not fired by pressure or remote command, so they fall outside the category of land mines.
Germany later built shaped charge devices such as the Hohl-Sprung mine 4672, though these saw little widespread use. Its most advanced anti-tank mine of the war was the Topfmine, which contained minimal metal.
On the Eastern Front, Soviet troops used anti-tank mines in huge quantities. The most common types were the TM-41, TM-44, TMSB, YAM-5 and AKS. Mobile detachments laid still more mines directly in the path of advancing enemy tanks.
A January 1943 report on Russian anti-tank tactics in the American Intelligence Bulletin quotes an unnamed Soviet intelligence officer. Each artillery battalion, and in some cases each battery, kept a mobile reserve of 5-8 combat engineers with 4-5 mines apiece. They mined unguarded tank approaches once the direction of the enemy attack was certain. In the officer's words: "These mines proved highly effective in stopping and even in destroying many enemy tanks."
In the west, the Wehrmacht leaned on mines to defend the Atlantic Wall. It planted six million mines of all types in Northern France alone. They were usually laid in staggered rows about 500 yards (460 meters) deep. Anti-personnel types mixed with several models of Tellermine, Topfmine and Riegel mine.
On the Western front, anti-tank mines were responsible for 20-22% of Allied tank losses. The great majority of these mines carried pressure fuzes rather than tilt-rods.
Modern anti-tank mines pack explosives such as RDX, and many add shaped charges to raise their armor-piercing effect. Most modern casings are plastic, chosen so that detectors struggle to find them. Their fuzes combine pressure with magnetic activation so that only vehicles set them off. Some respond to magnetic and seismic effects, which makes the mine blast resistant. Others ignore the first vehicle to roll over them, which makes them useful against convoys or mine rollers. Sophisticated anti-handling devices discourage anyone from tampering with or removing them.
Soldiers no longer need to place every mine by hand. Cluster bombs carry several mines each, sometimes mixed with anti-personnel types, and release them over a wide area at a preset altitude. Some anti-tank mines are fired by artillery and arm themselves on impact.
Off-route mines work from the side rather than from below. They suit ground that is unsuitable for burying or concealing a mine. They normally use a Misnay-Schardin shaped charge to fire a penetrating slug through the target's armor. French and Soviet off-route mines use this self-forging projectile principle, and it earned infamy as an improvised explosive device technique in Israel and especially Iraq.
Mines using the Munroe effect are now rarer. They need a critical standoff distance, and standoff neutralization technologies have been developed against them. The British, French and German ARGES mine, with its tandem warhead, is among the more successful examples.
The term off-route mine covers only purpose-designed, factory-made weapons. Explosively Formed Projectiles were one type of IED used in Iraq, but most home-made IEDs are not employed in this manner.
The Giant Viper and the SADF Plofadder 160 AT belong to the explosive family of mine clearing. Charges are laid across a minefield, either carried over by rockets or dropped from aircraft. Detonating them opens a path through the field. Clearing, by explosive or mechanical means, is the most effective countermeasure against mine fields.
Mechanical methods start with the plow. A specially designed blade on the front of a heavily armored tank pushes aside the earth and any mines in it. The cleared lane is as wide as the tank itself. Pressure-forced detonation is the other approach. A heavily armored tank shoves a heavy spherical or cylindrical solid metal roller ahead of it, and the mines explode under the roller.
On Iwo Jima, close combat brought a different threat. A Japanese soldier could run up from a concealed foxhole and try to stick a magnetic mine to a tank. Some tanks were therefore sheathed in wooden planks along their sides, which left nothing for the magnet to grip.
Police and military forces can also use a robot to remove mines from an area, keeping people out of reach of the fuze.
Anti-tank mines have played an important role in most wars fought since they were first used. During the Vietnam War, both regular NVA and Viet Cong forces employed them. The mines were of Soviet, Chinese or local manufacture.
They were also used extensively in Cambodia and along the Thai border. Pol Pot's Maoist guerrillas planted them, and so did the Vietnamese army, which invaded Cambodia in 1979 to topple the Khmer Rouge. Millions of these mines remain in the area despite clearing efforts. They are estimated to cause hundreds of deaths each year.
Conflicts in southern Africa since the 1960s have often involved irregular armies backed by the Soviet Union, the United States or South Africa. Anti-tank mines were widely used there in unconventional roles. Both Angola and Mozambique are littered with such devices to this day.
In the Angolan Civil War and the South African Border War, fighting spread across a vast, sparsely populated area of southern Angola and northern Namibia. Small groups could slip in and mine roads, often escaping without ever being detected. The mines most often lay on public roads used by civilians and soldiers alike, and their psychological effect was great.
Mines were laid in complex arrangements. One tactic stacked several mines on top of each other to increase the blast. Another linked mines placed within a few metres of one another, so that all of them detonated when any one was triggered.
This threat led South African military and police forces to build some of the first successful mine-protected vehicles. The Buffel and Casspir armoured personnel carriers and the Ratel armoured fighting vehicle used V-shaped hulls to deflect blast force away from the occupants. Usually the occupants survived a detonation with only minor injuries. Wheels and some drive train parts were modular and replaceable, so damaged vehicles could often be repaired.
Other protections grew from the same problem. Filling the tires of a wheeled vehicle with water absorbs and deflects blast energy. Angled steel plates between cabin and wheels deflect it further. The Casspir adds distance between wheels and cabin, though that brings mobility and driving problems. Seats mounted from the sides or roof avoid shocks through the floor, and a four-point harness guards against a vehicle being flung onto its side or roof. A mine may throw a vehicle 5-10 m from the detonation point.
The lessons carried far beyond southern Africa. Most countries involved in Middle Eastern military missions now deploy modern developments of these vehicles, such as the RG-31 used by Canada, the United Arab Emirates and the United States, and the RG-32 used by Sweden.
Up next
Updated
Common questions
What is an anti-tank mine?
It is a type of land mine designed to damage or destroy vehicles, including tanks and armored fighting vehicles. It has a much larger explosive charge than an anti-personnel mine and a fuze meant to be triggered by vehicles.
Why did early anti-tank mines mostly damage tank treads rather than destroy tanks?
Early pressure-fuzed mines such as the Tellermine needed a vehicle to pass directly overhead. Tracks make up only about 20% of a tank's width, so these mines mostly broke treads and left the crew unharmed.
What did the tilt-rod fuze change?
The tilt-rod fuze used a thin rod standing about two feet above the charge. A passing tank pushed it forward, so the charge fired directly beneath the vehicle. The blast often killed the crew, which made tank crews less willing to plow through minefields.
What are off-route mines?
They are designed to work beside a vehicle rather than beneath it. They are useful where the ground cannot be used for burying or hiding a mine. They normally use a Misnay-Schardin shaped charge to fire a penetrating slug through armor.
How do armies clear minefields?
Explosive methods such as the Giant Viper and the Plofadder 160 AT lay charges across a field and detonate them to open a path. Mechanical methods include plows pushed ahead of armored tanks and heavy metal rollers that force mines to detonate.
How are vehicles protected against mines?
Methods include V-shaped hulls, water-filled tires, angled steel plates, more distance between wheels and cabin, seats mounted from the sides or roof, and four-point harnesses. The Buffel, Casspir and Ratel were among the first successful mine-protected vehicles.
All sources
9 references cited across the entry
- 1BookField Guide to Appropriate TechnologyBarrett Hazeltine et al. — Academic Press — 2003
- 2Leckie, Robert, The Battle for Iwo Jima, Random House, New York, copyright 1967, page 142.
- 3JournalA Study of Mechanical Application in DeminingGeneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining — 2004
- 5JournalSoviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk, July 1943David M. Glantz — U.S. Army Command and General Staff College — 1986
- 6RUSSIAN ANTITANK TACTICS, January 1943Lone Sentry — 2007-05-10
- 7BookThe Allied Invasion Of EuropePeter Darman — Rosen Publishing Group — 2012