Why did simple non explosive traps go out of style?
Do they even teach them any more?
Because mildly annoying someone isn't the same as blowing them up with twenty kilos of HME
>>29823733
>punji sticks are mildly annoying
>>29823726
Because modern militaries aren't guerillas fighting insurgencies.
>>29823726
Only SF gets taught this stuff anymore.
>>29823733
I feel that multiple impalement on the lower leg is more than just an annoyance.
Because planting explosive device is a lot easier then digging a fucking pit filled with sticks.
>>29823740
>I feel that multiple impalement on the lower leg is more than just an annoyance.
If you were to put a mine there, you'd now have an enemy fireteam with their crotches torn to shreds by shrapnel.
>>29823752
Kill/wound radius of a single antipersonnel mine isn't going to get an entire fireteam if they are using proper spacing.
Mines aren't always available. Mantrapping doesn't take a high level of intelligence or a lot of resources.
>>29823726
>Takes more time to emplace
>Situational, rather than neatly portable like an explosive
>The enemy often needs to directly touch it
>Only affects one enemy
>Usually merely wounds an enemy rather than kill them
>Can't easily double as a counter vehicle weapon
Why use something less effective and more niche when you can tape together an RCIED, disguise it in a plastic bag, and emplace it in a drive by off of your motorcycle?
>>29823769
Not to mention that seriously wounding an enemy is often better than killing them. You take them out of the fight but they still consume resources and are a drain on the enemy's logistical systems.
>>29823726
Where the fuck are you going to put this shit unless you expect the enemy to stomping around through the woods?
>>29823740
>>29823738
As opposed to losing both your legs, the arm that's over the leg that initiated the IED, your genitals and having grit driven so far into your body cavity the surgeons are picking it out of your lungs?
Yes, yes it is.
>>29823769
Mantrapping doesn't really have any real uses. In what situation would you use it? Fixed defence is outdated doctrine and engineers exist for this reason. Special forces themselves use specific munitions designed for their usage.
in our modern military, i can only see such skills applying to a SERE scenario. and even then, learning anything above what it would take to entrap an animal is probably frivolous. mechanical anti-personnel even in that scenario would be used to defend an area, which defeats the evasion portion outside of defending a place to sleep. extremely marginal skills that are better spent elsewhere i would think. not to mention, highly intuitive skills if you have any mechanical background
>>29823738
>inna nam
>on patrol, tryin to find sum commie jungle gooks
>fantasizing about dinner, Petermann is making his world famous spaghetti later
>about to turn around near a FOB and loop back towards HQ
>step forward and feel my foot fly through a hole
>shidd.exe
>impaled by punji sticks
>no feeces this time because gooks might be commies, but theyre courteous commies
>rookies panic, staring firing volleys into the jungle
>medic runs over, asks if im okay
>"this is mildly annoying"
![original[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/sYuskPa.jpg "original[1].jpg")
Because this.
Mines are simply much more effective and easy to use.
>>29823733
Point of traps and antipersonel mines isn't to kill but to injure and wound enemy fighters. One wounded man takes two to four additional fighters away from the action as they are required to treat and move him. Dead can be picked off later wounded need immediate attention or you risk losing the morale of your troops.
TL;DR: wounding is strategically more efficient than killing.
>>29823726
also only works if you can directly anticipate where the enemy is going,and needs to be in an area that can conceal your trap,which is hard
>>29823995
>also only works if you can directly anticipate where the enemy is going
Defensive planning 101.
>>29823974
IED's aren't "built to injure"
>>29823726
It's easier to lay and conceal a fucking mine as opposed to constructing looney-tunes ACME tier trigger mechanisms for mantraps.
Also try digging mantraps in an urban environment.
>>29824127
somebody as obtuse as you is irrelevant to the question at hand anyway. every machine, acme or not, relies on the fundamental machines, barring chemical reactions. acme or otherwise. your mechanical mine is going to rely on the same, albeit more precisely created, mechanisms as the so-called acme mechanism
>>29824165
put 'acme or otherwise' twice accidentally
>>29824171
What are you fucking talking about?
>>29823726
in the time it takes to build that thing you could lay several mines which have a much greater chance of permanently neutralizing an enemy (or several) either by killing or crippling them.
This type of trap would also not be possible to build unless you had some dirt to dig into and some grass to cover up your digging.
These are also much easier to disarm. The point of a minefield isn't actually to kill the enemy, but to either dissuade them from using a certain route or trap them. If a group of soldiers are walking and one guy steps on this, his friends would be alerted to the presence of traps and would have to poke holes in the ground in front of them before they step down. In a minefield they would have to get on their bellies and slowly check every inch of ground in front of them, and probably wouldn't be able to risk disarming mines they find since they could be boobytrapped.
Finally, check out Kilo Two Bravo and see the psychological impact mines have. It would absolutely suck to get your foot torn to shreds in a punji pit, but being blown up, or even being near an explosion, could easily break your nerves and cause panic. Not only that, but the knowledge that each boom will likely alert enemies in the area that you're there and in trouble would put an additional time limit on you, on top of getting the wounded to a hospital.
These traps work well and are cheap, but mines are more functional and we have the money to spend on them.
>>29824079
IEDs are offensive weapons not defensive
>>29823909
Underrated post.
>>29823909
Kek
>>29824165
>somebody as obtuse as you is irrelevant to the question at hand anyway
don't use words you don't know how to use.
>>29824165
>Your post
>Coherence and legibility
Pick one
Mantraps have to be built on the spot. A fucking mine is already manufactured for your use. Usually on thing you had to set up is a trigger mechanism.
>>29824302
Airdrop them and you don't have to do anything.
>>29824289
i am a bona fide wordsmith friend
>>29824302
nobody carries mines. call of duty taught you wrong
>>29823746
only correct answer
>>29823792
I bet you think that's the justification behind switching to 5.56 as well
>>29824244
>we have money to spend on them
t. 19 trillion dollars in debt
Because American soldiers are 100% reliant on air support and artillery.
Without it they would not stand a chance in war.
>>29824393
thats stupid. its actually why i switched to 22
>>29823909
>>29824079
IEDs are like the name implies improvised. Usually by people who don't really have the know-how to build actual mines. Also they're mostly meant to destroy vehicles. If you step on an antitank mine you can be assured to die by blowing up to little pieces.
Devices like IED are meant to kill and inflict terror on enemy force while traditional mines are a area denial weapon meant to slow down advancing enemy force.
I could try to explain this in more details but I'm actually at work for the moment and really don't have the time right now. If this thread is still alive once I get home I can try to explain the strategic and tactical difference between using mines in a traditional warfare and IEDs in Afganistan and Iraq.
>>29823965
not entirely sure what I'm looking at here anon.
>>29824431
Nigger if you step on an AT mine it won't go off 9 times out of 10, they have weight triggers (most of them, some are rod activated). You don't waste 50lbs of explosives on a person.
The reason they do go off on people sometimes is because the mine is buried too deep, vehicles drive over it, people step on it, and the soil compacts and puts constant pressure on top of the mine. Then, unlucky bumblefuck steps on it, puts that last 30lbs of pressure it needs down, and gets turned into a mist.
t. Combat Engineer, ask me whatever about mines
>>29824679
>Finnish TM65 AT blast mine
>dig hole
>place mine
>remove cap
>insert weight trigger
>don't insert the cap back on
You now have a 10kg AP blast mine.
>>29824264
Depends if they're being used offensively or defensively
>>29824358
Well besides British, American and Russian soldiers that I've seen personally with them huh
>>29823909
kek
>>29824731
Why would you waste an AT mine on a person? I'm fully aware that's possible, but why would you waste time doing that? In the traditional sense of placing mines, of course, not using it as an offensive device.
>>29824752
Because you want your enemies to explode into gorey bits, that's why.
>>29823726
Yes and no. When I was in 25th we went to the phillipines and got taught a god awful amount of jungle oriented death machines by the phils. So situation dependant you can be taught but it's not a normal thing they teach. It would serve a light infantry company well to know simple booby traps in a jungle setting as long as the documentation of said traps and SOP for marking them was efficient.
Why do none of you realise you aren't carrying around a bag of fucking mines. At best you get a claymore or two for your platoon. Makeing use of what's around you to disuade a perusing adversary is an effective skill the light infantry soldier should know.
>>29824762
There are plenty of AP mines that are fully capable of that. Though you could go the Taliban route and stack an AP mine on top of 155s and hope for sympathetic detonation but, again, that's more of an offensive weapon.
>>29823909
>british'civillianadvisor'.txt
Since so many countries have outlawed production of mines, I hope they'll make a comeback.
>>29824806
Because modern armies don't do that shit anymore, is the short answer. They teach the techniques for some booby traps, like tanglefoots, but it's just not done anymore.
Also, take into consideration the current area of operations for current conflicts. Flat as fuck desert, or mountainous as fuck high desert. It's hard to build, and hide, in that type of terrain.
And another thing, we aren't allowed to use mines for their intended purpose anymore. Even claymores, which we can use, must have positive identification and manual control. No tripwires, no AP mines funneling the enemy, no punji pits, nothing that can't be manually controlled by a human.
It's a bit silly, honestly.
>>29824857
4 da chilluns senpai
>>29824665
A squad of 6 Azeirbajani SF's walking into a 5 OZM-72 NVU-P set-up.
>>29823782
>Takes more time
Not really. You dig a hole, you put something that isn't a mine in the hole, then you cover it.
>situational
Sure. But who cares?
>Enemy needs to directly touch it
That's usually how mines work.
>One enemy
>usually wounds
Yeah, the wounded, screaming/dismembered fuck now needs several buddies to carry him AWAY from your position.
>can't be ant-vehicle
Usually you set up traps in places that vehicles can't go in the first place.
>>29824358
Post that russian guy
>>29825821
He is finnish.
They are AT mines.
>>29823782
this
>>29824752
>Why would you waste an AT mine on a person?
Because Finns have a lot of them. More than enough to make Korean DMZ look like a picnic location. Well maybe not that much but enough to make the whole border into a minefield and we'd still have enough to spare.
Everyone drives
>>29826076
I guess it's just a difference in philosophy. To the US, it's an area denial and movement disruption technique, rather than a deterrent. One person mine strike=one casualty, and sending the engineers to clear a lane. One vehicle mine strike=several casualties, vehicle recovery, and THEN clearing a lane.
Or going around it, which is what you want them to do because you have a designated artillery point and a nasty kill zone set up. It's called funnelling and is usually done in conjunction with wire obstacles. All of this is theory, of course, we don't use mines anymore and barely train on them. I just like being an Engineer and knowing all this stuff.
>>29826805
Actually, air dropped naval mineing is having a resurgence.
Quickstrike (basically a mk 82 dumb bomb turned into a naval mine) just got an upgrade package that basically turns it into a jdam gps guided mine, and an SDB GPD guided glide mine.
https://news.usni.org/2016/04/26/essay-navy-air-force-reviving-offensive-mining-with-new-quickstrikes
>>29826805
>I guess it's just a difference in philosophy.
Worse than that... politics.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/finland_to_give_up_anti-personnel_landmines/5405311
>>29825861
Still doe
