Re: Anti-armor mines!

Richard Slattery wrote:
>>[Gravity gradiometers] will also detect rocks, gophers, roots, baked
bean
>>cans....
>    Sure a gravity gradiometer will detect dense rocks, bolts, and
other
>things that are denser than water or soil (gophers and roots have a
similar
>density to water and soil). In conjunction with other sensors, computer
>power and algorithms, I think that false indications will be minimal.
After
>all, the baked bean can problem would have been extensively studied in
>earlier trials! Baked bean tins and a whole variety of other common
dense
>items would have their signatures recorded so that they can be
eliminated
>from consideration.

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

>    I don't think mines will be 'stealthed' against gravity detection
or
>other sensors. I think they will be made in whatever way is cheapest.
After
>all, they're used in quantity and are disposable. Therefore, employing
>expensive stealth measures is counterproductive to sales. Would you buy
one
>stealth mine, or 1000 mines that can be easily located when time is
taken?
>After all the purpose of mines isn't to kill people or vehicles.
They're
>there to injure people and immobilise tanks. They're there to slow or
block
>an advance through the minefield.
>    One stealth mine can only injure one or two squads, or immobilise
one
>tank at most. The remainder can carry on and come to no harm. The
position
>is over run. Therefore the expensive stealth mine is ineffective!
>    1000 mines that are easily located. Well, the infantry platoon
stops
as
>their leading guys get shredded, the tank platoon comes to a halt as
their
>tracks are blown away. Both platoons realise they're in a mine field
and
>retreat.
>  Mine disposal engineers are brought up, and check their gravity
>gradiometers, metal detectors, magnetic anomaly detectors, ground
>penetrating radars, thermal vision and other sensors. Their computers
>correlate all the info, together with the historical satellite photos,
and
>the conclusion is that there is about 990 mines, located there, there,
there
>and there! An
>hour or two later, the engineers have carefully cleared the mine field.
The
>attack proceeds several hours later. The minefield has stopped many
times
>it's own value in enemy equipment and personnel, used up time, and
consumed
>mine disposal resources.

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.

I fall into the category of those who believe that mines are best
described
by their role - Anti-personnel, anti-armor, etc. and then say, as many
here
have -

1) there are mines with these game capabilities ....
2) There are detection systems with these capabilities....

Discussions like this one could be useful for fiction writers, but the
game
should remain abstracted to preserve playability.  IMHO anyway...

Jared