Employing Tank Mine Rollers and Ploughs

NATO forces can initially expect to conduct defensive operations against large numbers of Warsaw Pact (WP) MBTs. As the only kinetic energy tank-killing system presently available, tanks have a key tactical function in the crucial antiarmor battle. Tanks will be employed in two main roles: First, they will provide the kinetic energy (KE) antitank fire of the positional antiarmor framework required to blunt enemy attacks and hold ground. Secondly, tanks will form the basis of the mobile antiarmor element held in depth to block or counterattack. Both of these tasks will require great mobility on the part of NATO's greatly outnumbered tank force. The Soviets, on the other hand, intend to deny our tanks this needed mobility through, among other tactics, massive offensive mining operations. Hasty minefields will be used to stop or slow NATO tanks positioning for defense or attack. Mobile obstacle detachments (POZ) are found at both divisional and regimental levels (see Figure 1). The main tasks of these detachments are to defeat counterattacks, seal off flanks of moving opposing formations, and to assist in the defense of objectives already taken. Since disruption is the main purpose, only small minefields - up to 150 mines - are laid. Each engineer vehicle of the POZ carries at least 20 to 30 mines, regardless of task. The tracked minelayers of the division POZ carry 208 mines and can lay them in about 20 minutes. The Soviets also have the technology to deliver scatterable mines, although the W P is thought to prefer to do this by aircraft, helicop ters, or rockets (MIUS) rather than artillery. It is obvious that the Soviets have the means to delay or stop NATO tanks through the use of either hasty or scatterable minefields. To ensure the mobility of MBTs, Canada and the U. S. have equipped tanks with mine-rollers such as that shown in Figure 3. Canada has also adopted use of the mine ploughs to be used in conjunction with mine-rollers. The intended scale for Canadian units is twc mine-rollers per tank squadron (company) and one plough per tank troop (platoon). Normally, only individual tanks will wear this mine-clearing apparatus unless a particular tank is embedded in the positional antitank framework. Mine-rollers are DIV Pot Fiqure 1. a -I-' septembersctober 1985 heavy' and MBTs are probably the only currently available vehicle that can carry a set and still maintain cross-country mobility. Moreover, attempts to marry up minerollers held separately from the tanks at times when these breaching devices are urgently needed will invariably be subject to all the factors that cause foul-ups on the battlefield. Tank commanders can't afford to wait for the arrival of whatever vehicle is carrying the rollers or whatever unloads the nine tons or so! Some tanks in any armoured force expecting to encounter mines, that is, at least once a day, must wear mine-rollers perma nently. The question is then, which I 1 --- tank will carry the extra ten tons in a squadron (company) sub-unit? A compromise solution has been adopted in Canada which puts one mine-roller on a tank in squadron headquarters (SHQ) and one mineroller on a tank in a troop (platoon). While I agree that all tanks of the squadron can carry the mine-rollers, I think that for command reasons the squadron commander (OC) must have this vital equipment under his direct control. Moreover, the mine-roller can restrict use of the main armament. If the firepower of any element is to be restricted, it should be the tanks of squadron headquarters. Troop firepower units should not be reduced to three tanks from four through technical limitations on the use of their main armament or because of employment. Therefore, I consider the two mine-rollers in each squadron to be additional MBTs added to squadron headquarters to carry theserol-lers. Mine ploughs do not affect the use of the tank weapon system, so they can be distributed to each troop for assignment by the troop leader to a tank in his troop. F- 2.4 Tvpical Sovia M i l d (CLAMS).

‘N. Gass, and P. O’Connor, Effectiuenessof Plow/Roller Combinations Against Mixed Minefields, DREV 3621R-050 October 1983. Bibliography Backofen, Joseph, and Williams, Larry W., “Antitank Mines - Part I,” ARMOR, July-August 1981. Backofen, Joseph, and Williams, Larry W., “Antitank Mines - Part 11,” ARMOR, September-October 1981. Backofen, Joseph, and Williams, Larry W., “Antitank Mines - Part 111,” ARMOR, November-December 1981. Gass, N. and O’Connor P., Effectiveness of Plow /Roller Combinations Against Mixed Minefields, DREV 3621B-050 October 1983. Hewitt, William D., “Thoughts on Counterattacks,” ARMOR, September-October 1984. Tesdahl, Michael R., “Probing for a Solu. tion,” ARMOR, MayJune 1977. Williams, Ronald N., “Finding and Clearing Mines,” ARMOR, November-December 1979. MAJOR ROY THOMAS, a member of the 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise’s), is presently serving as a staff officer in the Exercise section of Canada’s National Defence Headquarters. He was recently employed for two and a half years as an armoured doctrine author. His postings have included tours in Canada, Cyprus, Syria, Israel, the United Kingdom and West Germany. Major Thomas holds Canadian and German parachute qualifications. Among the military courses he hascomp1etedaretheU. K. Long Armor Course at Bovington and the Canadian Land Forces Command and Staff Course. Major Thomas has been nominated for the 1986 Pakistan Army Staff College Course. He has had two articles previously published in

ARMOR.