Re: Anti-armor mines!

You wrote: 

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

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 
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.

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.

John M. Atkinson