Mobility/Counter Mobility

I did search and either I am not using the proper search terms or nothing exists or what does exist is buried in other topics.

Were landmines , Anti-Personell or Anti-Armor, a significant player in the Allied advance accross Europe, through Italy or in North Africa?

Did the Germans employ them effectively enough to halt an advance or change the outcome of a battle or campaign?

Did they play a role in delaying XXX Corps advance to Arnhem?

 

They were significant enough for the UK to spend a lot of time and effort on developing an effective flail tank, with eventually a full Armd Bde (30 Bde) of three Armd Regts operating in Northwest Europe. The numbers in Italy were smaller, my understanding being a Scorpion Regt initially (coming over from the Middle East) that declined to a single Sqn in early 1944.

US efforts were much reduced in some respects, with just two Tank Bns equipped with specialised AFVs for the whole of the US committment in the ETO, plus a few 'odds and sods' used occasionally by Armd Divs.

I don't know any major advance ever deliberately side-stepped mine fields. The drive was to find ways to breach them at reduced costs, but never nil cost. The numbers and types of mines employed by the Germans are staggering, but if you can punch through the belt and get your troops through and behind it, it's largely neutralised, until you hit the next one. And the bypassed fields still have to be dealt with.

 

I don't know any major advance ever deliberately side-stepped mine fields. The drive was to find ways to breach them at reduced costs, but never nil cost. The numbers and types of mines employed by the Germans are staggering, but if you can punch through the belt and get your troops through and behind it, it's largely neutralised, until you hit the next one. And the bypassed fields still have to be dealt with.

That's the thing, if a unit is unable to bypass a minefield and are forced to breach it they are then vulnerable to pre planned fire support wether by direct fire (Machineguns) or Indirect Fire (Artillery).

The Clearing of by passed and breached fields, once secure, was a necessity; but, did any of the delays result in a shift on the battlefield and what role did mines play in the push to Arnhem?

 

In the most basic terms, yes, a minefield could always provide the potential for an assault to be delayed or disrupt the timetable. That's what they were there for. In isolation they couldn't prevent an enemy from advancing, but as you say they were to operate as part of a broader defensive system, hanging the attacker up and allowing (ideally pre-registered) fires to be brought to bear as they slowed to clear a path through. In that respect the 'butterfly effect' of a single Coy or Bn failing to make the anticipated headway could cause a ripple effect through a much larger scheme, so you can argue that minefields were able to affect battles.

Drawing further out to the use of mines to alter the course of an entire campaign, I'm not sure I can see the same impact. Arguably at Kursk the Germans ran into far more substantial and deeper defences than they had reckoned on (seem to recall that mines added to the woes of the Panthers at their debut), but there werea lot more things occuring across the battlefield.

Re the specifics of Arnhem there are no doubt people with a more detailed knowledge who can chime in here more constructively than I have. However from memory Guards Armd had more trouble due to the constraints on the route of advance rather than mines, but the flanking formations may have experienced them.

 

In the desert, extensive minefields were sown to create obstacles where none existed. Generally these would have been identified before an attack and breaching them would have been part of the plan.

Deliberate defences like the Atlantikwall aside, there were plenty of topographical restrictions on movement in Europe so relatively small amounts of mines could be used to 'enhance' choke points and defiles, or as a nuisance on verges.

 

Re the specifics of Arnhem there are no doubt people with a more detailed knowledge who can chime in here more constructively than I have. However from memory Guards Armd had more trouble due to the constraints on the route of advance rather than mines, but the flanking formations may have experienced them.

That's what I am hoping for.


In the desert, extensive minefields were sown to create obstacles where none existed. Generally these would have been identified before an attack and breaching them would have been part of the plan.

Deliberate defences like the Atlantikwall aside, there were plenty of topographical restrictions on movement in Europe so relatively small amounts of mines could be used to 'enhance' choke points and defiles, or as a nuisance on verges.

I am not looking for information on how mines are used or what their advantages were. I spent 6 years as a Sapper Team Leader in a Combat Engineer Unit; so I have a pretty firm grasp.

What I do not know is wether or not the Germans employed mines in conjunction with an Integrated Fire Support Plan, meaning: did the Germans tend to dump artillery on troops once they were tangled up with a mined obstacle?

As far as XXXCorps and Arnhem are concerned were mines employed on the objective routes to the Bridge or were they more concerened with blowing the bridges? it seems to me that any type of defense in depth or delaying action would have been more formidable had they used mines, as roads are easier to reapir than bridges.

 

HyperWar: Handbook on German Military Forces (Chapter 4)

 

HyperWar: Handbook on German Military Forces (Chapter 4)

From that is :

The Germans learned that dense minefields in front of their positions were an inadequate tank obstacle, because the enemy usually neutralized them by massed artillery fire or by concentrated air bombardment before launching a large-scale attack. Now German minefields normally are laid within the main battle position, and only single mines are dispersed in pattern at wide intervals in front of the main line of resistance. Particular stress is placed on the mining of roads. Routes of withdrawal which have to be left open are prepared for mining, and, if time does not permit placing of actual mines, dummy mines are installed. (HyperWar: Handbook on German Military Forces (Chapter 4))


It seems that mines were most effective in channeling attacking forces and delaying their advance when German forces were in retrograde. Thanks you very much. Hopefully Sapper or Tom Canning can shed some more light on the issue.
I am going to guess that the "squeeze was not worth the juice" ?

 

Formerjughead-
there are hundreds of examples of minefields delaying attacks - on both sides - in which the German was excellent- and being covered by both m.g's and Artillery - one of the prime examples was at the battle of Alum el Halfa - Monty's first defensive battle on taking over 8th Army - he ordered that everyone stayed where they were and not chase after Rommel....

Then at the point where he thought that Rommel would come through to attack Monty's rear - two minefields were laid - January and February which did the job in delaying the panzers allowing the air force to them hit both on the way in - and on the way out - the artillery had a field day as well .... Sapper wasn't
there so he can't be blamed !!

There is an interactive map of that Battle by the BBC somewhere

Cheers

 

Formerjughead-
there are hundreds of examples of minefields delaying attacks - on both sides - in which the German was excellent- and being covered by both m.g's and Artillery - one of the prime examples was at the battle of Alum el Halfa - Monty's first defensive battle on taking over 8th Army - he ordered that everyone stayed where they were and not chase after Rommel....

Then at the point where he thought that Rommel would come through to attack Monty's rear - two minefields were laid - January and February which did the job in delaying the panzers allowing the air force to them hit both on the way in - and on the way out - the artillery had a field day as well .... Sapper wasn't
there so he can't be blamed !!

There is an interactive map of that Battle by the BBC somewhere

Cheers

So it's not something that was unique to one side over the other? Which is what I had suspected. Contemporary knowledge is always the best; I'll take an anecdote over documentary every time.

Thank You Tom.

 

Mines were used extensively in France during 1939/40. The war diaries from this period show lots of training being given to troops regarding the use of French mines and IIRC there are even some diagrams which I posted including one or two on new types of German mines. The BEF and French were very much on the mindset in my opinion of defence rather than offence in the early days regarding tactics so little had changed since WW1.

Like Andrew (Idler) mentions though blowing bridges and useing natural defences like rivers were far more effective, quicker and easier to use than laying large quantities of mines.

 

In retreat the Germans were very adept at using booby traps, mining buildings likely to be used as HQs etc

 

The Germans learned that dense minefields in front of their positions were an inadequate tank obstacle, because the enemy usually neutralized them by massed artillery fire or by concentrated air bombardment before launching a large-scale attack.

Maybe I'm reading this wrongly, but that implies that minefields themselves were neutralised by artillery or bombing.

Taking Alamein as an example, wasn't the Commonwealth bombardment (and specifically counter-bombardment) aimed at the forces covering the obstacle in order to minimise the defensive fire while it was breached? It was accepted that artillery or air bombardments could disrupt minefields but they'd still need to be gapped. The Germans certainly understood the principle that 'an obstacle's not an obstacle unless it's covered by fire'; we understood that it was helpful to reduce the fire before the obstacle.

What I've read of the Allied experience of German mines in NW Europe comes across as mostly booby-trap/nuisance mines (not covered by fire), rather than 'fire-supported' minefields. Sapper's opinion would be interesting...

 

I believe a gent named Major - General Sir Percy Cleghorn Stanley Hobart KBE CB DSO MC invented one or two pieces of armour to breach minefileds and so bring back a bit of mobility prior to the D-Day Landings. Along with Flail tanks and Giant Vipers, it still forces you into defile crossing but you choose where to make the defile and are not channeled into defile of the enemies choosing.

All war is deception - Tzun Tsu

 

Moden forces are able to, in full scale general war, use such weapons as fuel air devices which when dropped from planes and then detonated cause great ground pressures, setting off the mines, partially used in GW1. However, these devices were not available in the tims we are discussing and area bombing in WWII was not always accurate enough to set off enough mines in a minefield to give a positive safe route, although they did manage to bomb large areas!

 

MINES Oh Dear! what a kettle of fish that subject is.

I can tell you a great deal about the mines from Sword onwards. Yes they played a major role in halting our advances. But often, we would go out at night in front of everyone and lift the enemy mines from under their noses. Captain Edwards RE said this; He was absolutely amazed how men could lift enemy mines at night. and out in front of the leading forces, And laying minefields in the dark without a word being said.

All bogus field have to be investigated. Most mine fields have a variety of anti personnel mines scattered to make lifting more difficult. The greatest number of mines were Tellers. The anti handling were Schu mines, and S mines, both of which are pretty lethal.

They thoroughly zeroed in their artillery on the mine fileds, before retreating so that they could make lifting difficult

The Germans used the Bogus minefields extensively. They had the usual red skull and crossbones with "Achtung Minen"

There is no doubt that they used mines as major weapon to slow,and detroy the enemies armour. We lifted (he RE that is!)250,00 mines in Holland,mostly by prodding because of the etensive use of Schu mines.

We later came across the "R mine" or bar mine. This is a description of lifting:

It was at this time, right in the middle of the battles for Overloon and Venraij, that we first encountered a new type of German anti-tank mine, we called them Rigler mines, or something like that. Long rectangular boxes, sandy coloured, with a lid that fitted snugly over the top. One of our officers called me in and told me to get a motor bike and give him a lift down the sandy tracks, through the pine woods, to where an officer, two sergeants and a squad of Sappers were lifting these mines in a corner of Overloon.

Setting off through the woods with the officer on the pillion there were deep furrows in the sandy soil that the bike wheel could not get climb out of, on the way, I had to run over a recently dead German lying in the centre of the deep rut , I just could not avoid him, nor could I get past him. Squelch!

In the corner of Overloon, hundreds of these mines had been lifted and stacked "criss-cross" everywhere, in ditches, on top the ground, all over the place. While we were there a certain amount of Enemy fire was coming down, very dangerous, the place was infested with mines.

The officer with me told the other officer to send a reliable man off on his own to try and take this new mine apart, we had no idea if they were booby trapped, or if they had any ' anti-handling devices' that the mines might have been armed with.

After talking the matter over for a while, we set off back through the pine woods and had just run over the dead German again. "Squelch" When, from behind us there was a huge explosion. We dragged the bike round and set off back, only to find that all the mines had blown up and everyone with it.

We did not know if the officer and NCOs had decided to investigate the mines themselves, or if they had been hit with a mortar bomb, when we arrived at the scene there was nothing, absolutely nothing, one would not have known that anyone had ever existed there before. They were all killed.

Later we went through the futile procedure of placing crosses with the names of those that we thought were there. Futile in that there would be no proper burial of these men at some time in the future. I suppose they would eventually be classed as "Missing in action" like so many, who have no known grave.

Holland was infested with mines. And it was an S mine that stopped me, on the Vire Vaudrey Ridge near the Norman town of Vire and I styillhave a bot og it buried in my skull today. So yes the mines p-layeda major role in thr war if asked the most dangerous and that held up the advance it would be the Schu mine and then the S mine.
Sapper

 

....What I've read of the Allied experience of German mines in NW Europe comes across as mostly booby-trap/nuisance mines (not covered by fire), rather than 'fire-supported' minefields. Sapper's opinion would be interesting...

That's certainly what I took from it

MINES Oh Dear! what a kettle of fish that subject is.

....... So yes the mines p-layeda major role in thr war if asked the most dangerous and that held up the advance it would be the Schu mine and then the S mine.
Sapper

Aside from the shrapnel in your head did they affect anything or were they an inconvienience? Meaning: in your opinion were they ever responsible for changing the course of the battle?

 

They certainly slowed the advance, that is for sure. But for every move in weapons, there is a counter move. The Sappers became very adept at finding and removing mines. Helped at times by Mine dogs. The mine dog handlers swore by them, and said they were very effective.
Except for the time when a large black Labrador by the name of The Colonel, pulled his handler outside the tapes and got his leg blown off.

Great areas of Holland were prodded! Did they alter the course of the war. No. The sappers soon found ways round the problems.. But they certainly slowed the progress. later in the campaign the enemy used aerial bombs, and even sea mines.
Sapper

 

Were any other units trained to clear mines or was it just the Royal Engineers?

 

They certainly slowed the advance, that is for sure. But for every move in weapons, there is a counter move. The Sappers became very adept at finding and removing mines. Helped at times by Mine dogs. The mine dog handlers swore by them, and said they were very effective.
Except for the time when a large black Labrador by the name of The Colonel, pulled his handler outside the tapes and got his leg blown off.

Great areas of Holland were prodded! Did they alter the course of the war. No. The sappers soon found ways round the problems.. But they certainly slowed the progress. later in the campaign the enemy used aerial bombs, and even sea mines.
Sapper

That's what I was looking for.