Anti-Personel Mines In WW1

AP Mines In WW1


I have as many have been reading a lot more about WW1 with 2018 being the centenary year, and a thought struck me I had heard very little in regards to Mine warfare, by that I mean the small AP type not the tunnelled type as at Messines.

I had a thought that a Claymore type device could provide increased defensive fire power in the defence, either for defenders or for attackers facing counter attacks.

So my question is what impact would the use of AP mines have had in WW1 for either side, and were they technically feasible?
 
The Germans used Bouncing Betties / S-mines extensively.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-mine
Copies of this AP mine are still produced today.

Claymore style mines were being developed in late WW2 by Hungary and those inital designs led to various directional mines.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misznay–Schardin_effect


Thanks I was aware that the Germans used S mines in the WW2 , I was asking about WW1 and the possible impacts mine warefare would have on the that war.

Regards
 
AP Mines In WW1


I have as many have been reading a lot more about WW1 with 2018 being the centenary year, and a thought struck me I had heard very little in regards to Mine warfare, by that I mean the small AP type not the tunnelled type as at Messines.

I had a thought that a Claymore type device could provide increased defensive fire power in the defence, either for defenders or for attackers facing counter attacks.

So my question is what impact would the use of AP mines have had in WW1 for either side, and were they technically feasible?
Land mines were little used in WW1, except for improvised anti-tank devices made from buried artillery shells (quite similar to mines from the ACW).
 

nbcman

Donor
What about modifying bangalore torpedoes? They could be prepositioned or pushed out as attackers approach.
 
Folks

Thanks for your responses, what effect would a more common widespread use of AP mines have on trench warfare if any?

I would imagine that moving across no mans land in the knowledge that your next step could take your leg off would be horrendous, plus there would be little chance of getting a stretcher bearer to you either.

Take a mass infantry charge over the top into the face the usual horrors plus claymore type mines being fired off. That said once you have siezed your trench set them up and that will protect your flanks from enemy counter attack.

Or am I over thinking the effectiveness of AP mines, and in reality they would have been another nasty little danger on the battlefield?

Regards
 
You can't lay them on the front line because... snipers and lots of machine guns. Mines are an area denial system, the only real use would be to secure rear areas. Unlike WW2 there was no real problem with commando or resistance forces infiltrating bases or other facilities so that leaves what exactly. The only place you could do justify doing it would be on coastlines to prevent conventional attacks and landings.
 
The barrages that precede attacks over the top would tend to detonate any mines out in no man's land. Leaving a few here and there at other times, for enemy trench raids to find, might accomplish something--but can you keep track of where they are?
 
The barrages that precede attacks over the top would tend to detonate any mines out in no man's land. Leaving a few here and there at other times, for enemy trench raids to find, might accomplish something--but can you keep track of where they are?

Artillery is not a very effective clearance method, you may detonate some through sympathetic detonation/impact but some are just going to get buried or moved which makes attacking over an area you had mined previously an issue, also when all the landmarks are being trashed it is really hard to precisely work out where the safe lanes were or used to be.
 
In the OTL trench system you have to think of how you will be able to clear a way through your own mines as well as the enemy ones and do so on a large enough front/s and manage this without signalling your intensions. Not to mention the variable effects of your and your enemy's artillery fire which will displace as well as destroy some mines and render others too sensitive to clear by hand. I wonder if the Germans, having failed to seize France in 1914, had decided to simply hold the west defensively to clear troops etc. for the east then extensive mine fields would have been ideal for them. A tight mine/wire complex covered by indirect MMGfire and counter battery artillery would release light artillery to the east. A stable line would allow their entrenched troops to settle better living conditions for their lengthy periods in the line. For the allies such a stalemate would raise the profile of other fronts. A BEF/FEF to Russia? A fleet action could be on the cards if the route is via the Arctic Ocean. An ATL thread opens.......
 
I have considered whether it might be possible to have one side or another develope something akin to the German WW2 SD-2 Mines (Butterfly Mines) that were dropped as an area denial weapon on places like airfields ect. I wondered if a WW1 equivelant might cause some logistical problems for either side, not so much on the trench systems, however a few airdropped on logistical routes at night when supply columns were moved up might be productive?
 
Top