Achtung Minen III. [Conclusion]

This is coolbert:

Hobart’s Funnies, to some extent, are still alive and well.

Being used in de-mining operations, the world over.

But with mixed results.

In previous blog entries, I have touched upon some of the unique and unconventional methods being used the world-over in de-mining operations. Methods to include:

* The giant Gambian rat. [to sniff out land mines.]

* Genetically modified water-cress. [cress growing directly over a mine will turn purple in color, other cress remaining green!]

De-mining POPULATED areas in the aftermath of a war is NOT an easy business.

Expensive, time consuming, and DANGEROUS!!

There seems to be no magic or silver bullet to the difficulties posed by de-mining.

Landmines, implanted by various warring factions, are an acute problem. Again, is a worldwide problem.

Most pronounced in such nations as:

* Angola.

* Mozambique.

* Afghanistan.

* Cambodia.

* Columbia.

Land mines, designed to main, causing loss of multiple limbs among victims but not necessarily death, are an enormous strain on poverty stricken countries that cannot afford first class medical care, to include prosthesis for the crippled.

[Worst of all in countries that are by nature agrarian. An adult man in an agricultural society that is crippled in such a manner is an ABSOLUTE LIABILITY on the rest of the populace. Sad, but true!]

Large portions of arable cropland are rendered unusable by the indiscriminate and wanton sowing of land mine, by all factions. Often used AS A TECHNIQUE OF TERROR!!

Land mines, designed also to be more or less undetectable by CONVENTIONAL MEANS!! Very difficult to locate and even more dangerous to remove. AND WILL STAY ACTIVE AND LETHAL FOR DECADES!!

"many anti-personnel mines and some anti-tank mines have a very low metal content and are much more challenging to locate. The process is typically slow, expensive, and dangerous"

[in northern France, live munitions from World War One are uncovered every year. And with annual regularity, a French farmer is blown to pieces when his plow strikes and detonates buried but still deadly ordnance brought to the surface by heaving caused from the spring thaw.]

Civilian variations of Hobart’s Funnies are in operation in those parts of the world most afflicted by the land mine “disease”. Machines working in conjunction with other land mine clearing methods in an exhaustive effort to remove the “menace”.

Machines to include mine rollers, mine plows, and mine flails.

The civilian version of the tank flail is the Hydrema 910.



"the vehicle was first put into service with the US military at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, in order to clear dangerous areas"

These devices are effective, but as could well be expected with any endeavor of this type, NOT 100 % effective.

"Neither system [flails or rollers] is completely reliable and both will leave undetonated mines, requiring the minefield to be rechecked by another method. Mine flails may only be 80% effective; often good enough for military mine clearance, but well below the 99.6% standard set by the United Nations for humanitarian demining."

[when a military “clears” a minefield, they create a gap, a breach, through which units can advance. They NEVER intend to clear the entire minefield, only an OPENING. And, if during the breaching operation, casualties are incurred, that is considered a “cost of doing business”!]

"In the combat zone, the process is referred to as mine clearance. The priority is to breach the minefield quickly to create a safe path for troops . . . it is accepted that mine clearance will be imperfect and there may be casualties from undiscovered mines."

And NOT liked to a large degree by those organizations conducting the land mine clearing operation.

Cost prohibitive in many cases. All these machines require fuel, maintenance, spare parts, trained operators, etc.

AND, destructive of the land in a manner not acceptable.

Well, NO ONE ever said that land mine clearing was going to be easy.

Civilian versions of Hobart’s Funnies are useful. But not entirely so! Are parts of a total solution! I know some pretty significant thinkers and engineers are at work on a HOLISTIC approach to land mine clearing. Using a multitude of devices and ideas to accomplish the goal!

Hey, again, NO ONE EVER said this was going to be easy.

coolbert.

Achtung, Minen II.

This is coolbert:

"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon"

Hobart’s Funnies!!

In the aftermath of the disastrous Dieppe landing [1942], it was realized by those planning the Normandy invasion [1944] that SPECIAL equipment would be required to breach German beach defenses and then subsequently when the allied forces moved inland.

[D-Day at Normandy was just the beginning of a ninety-day campaign to defeat German forces in Normandy. A defeat that hopefully would result [it did too] it a precipitous Nazi retreat to the Rhine. D-Day was only the start of the battle to liberate France!]

The use of tanks [armor] was seen as being essential for the landings at Normandy to be successful. Infantry wading ashore needed fire support to overcome German defenses.

Hobart’s’ Funnies were developed as an answer to the beach landing problem. Tanks that were modified with a variety of “apparatus”, each designed to solve a particular problem associated with amphibious invasion and tank assault.

An amphibious version of the Sherman tank [DD] was developed. A tank that had the capability to “wade” ashore and support that initial wave of troops landing at Normandy.



An additional tank, combat engineering modified, was developed that sported a “bobbin” mechanism on the front. Ungainly looking but having great utility for the amphibious assault.



"A reel of 10 foot wide canvas cloth reinforced with steel poles carried in front of the tank and unrolled onto the ground to form a 'path', so that following vehicles (and itself) would not sink into the soft ground of the beaches"

Again, the landings at Normandy on June 6 would only be the beginning of the Normandy campaign. A campaign that would rely heavily on allied armor movements. Armor movements that needed to proceed without impediment.

It was also well understood by allied planners that a rapid tank advance by American and British tankers would be contested by German forces which were adept at employing anti-tank “stop lines”.

Anti-tank “stop lines” that were intended to slow down and delay further forward advance by tank units. Lines of defense that posed serious difficulties for allied commanders who desired a quick resolution to the Normandy campaign.

Anti-tank “stop lines” that would consist of the following, from front to rear, as viewed by the attacker:

A minefield consisting of anti-personnel and anti-tank mines both.

An anti-tank ditch.

Above ground anti-tank obstacles, such as dragon's teeth, hedgehogs, concrete blocks, steel beam apparatus of varying designs, vertical steel piping [concrete filled] and wooden posts [telephone pole sized] anchored by concrete into the ground.



Prepared defensive fortifications, bunkers, pillboxes and anti-tank gun positions, pre-sighted and positioned to guard the “stop line”.

[an anti-tank “stop line”, like all other barriers, is no good unless guarded to some degree!! Modern anti-tank “stop lines” would include a tank-firing ramp. A wedge of earth from which a defending tank could fire by depressing it’s gun, presenting only the heaviest and thickest portion of frontal armor to the attacker. Israeli tanks defending the Golan Heights in 1973 utilized such ramps with great success!]

Beach defenses to stop tanks would have included a “tank wall”. An impressive concrete structure too difficult for tanks to scale. Sometimes being six feet in thickness. Allied tanks at Dieppe encountered such a wall? It seems that the wall at Dieppe was a sea wall, and not an anti-tank wall.

"Those tanks that did cross the sea wall were stopped by concrete roadblocks

.... the bogged-down vehicles became sitting ducks for the anti-tank guns."

[to defeat a "tank wall", the "Ark" could be employed.]



"Ark - Armoured Ramp Carrier was a Churchill tank without a turret that had extend able ramps at each end; other vehicles could drive up ramps and over the vehicle to scale obstacles."

These anti-tank “stop lines” sometimes measured tens of miles long [or even greater??] and were often arrayed in depth by the defender.

SOVIET FORCES, WHILE ON THE OFFENSIVE, CONSTRUCTED SUCH STOP LINES TO A DEPTH OF FIFTY MILES. ALL THAT OCCURRING WHILE ON THE OFFENSIVE!

[this to defend against any possible German counter-attack!]

These “stop lines” posed a significant dilemma to advancing tank units. A problem that conventional combat engineering units of the time did not have a ready answer to.

[it would have been suggested at the time that conventional combat engineering units did possess a know-how and ability to breach these anti-tank “stop lines”. Existing units did have the wherewithal to do so, yes, but only with a large expenditure of time and manpower. Time is of the essence in an armored advance. Tank units pursuing an enemy could not wait for a laborious process to take place prior to resuming the advance!]

Hobart’s Funnies, once again, in a variety of manifestations, did offer a solution for combat engineering units attempting to breach the “stop lines”.

Ingenious and clever solutions WERE FOUND that allowed combat engineers to defeat the various elements comprising the anti-tank “stop lines”.

To defeat the minefields, tank plows ["bullshorn"], mine rollers, and tank flails were all employed.



To defeat the anti-tank ditch, tank-borne bridging equipment or fascines could be employed.



"Small Box Girder was an assault bridge that was carried in front of the tank and could be dropped to span a 30 foot gap in 30 seconds."

To defeat above ground anti-tank obstacles or pillboxes, a tank firing a petard spigot mortar demolition charge could be used.



"A petard mortar was the demolition weapon fitted to the Churchill AVRE tank. It was a mortar of a 290 mm bore, known to its crews as the 'flying dustbin' due to the characteristics of its projectile: an unaerodynamic 20 kg charge, sufficient to demolish many bunkers and earthworks."

A further weapon to defeat enemy bunkers and pillboxes was the flame-throwing tank [Crocodile].



"Crocodile - A Churchill tank modified by the fitting of a flame-thrower in place of the hull machine gun. An armoured trailer, towed behind the tank, carried 400 Imperial gallons (1,800 litres) of fuel. The flamethrower had a range of over 120 yards (110 metres)."

There was available several versions of armored all-purpose bulldozers that had a multiplicity of applications, employed at the discretion of the combat engineers.

"Armoured Bulldozer - A conventional Caterpillar D8 bulldozer fitted with armour to protect the driver and the engine. Their job was to clear the invasion beaches of obstacles and to make roads accessible by clearing rubble and filling in bomb craters."



"Centaur Bulldozer, a Cromwell tank with the turret removed and fitted with a simple, winch operated, bulldozer blade. These were produced because of a need for a well-armoured, obstacle clearing vehicle that, unlike a conventional bulldozer, would also be fast enough to keep up with tank formations."



There was even a "Canal Defence Light" which could be used to blind and dazzle defenders at a crucial crossing point.

"It was based upon the use of a powerful carbon-arc searchlight to dazzle and confuse enemy troops."

"its true purpose was to blind the defenders during a night attack and so help obscure attacking forces."

Combinations of these combat engineering vehicles [CEV] working in concert could be used to breach with speed and relative ease existing tank “stop lines”, facilitating further rapid advance by allied tank units.

Hobart’s Funnies are generally recognized as the forerunner of the modern CEV.

Necessity was the mother of invention. In large part also to the strong character of General Sir Percy Cleghorn Hobart.

coolbert.

Achtung - - Minen!! I.

This is coolbert:

Once more to the subject of the famous [?] British General Sir Percy Cleghorn Hobart.

[I must apologize to the General. In a previous blog entry I had referred to him as Claghorn. Correctly the name is Cleghorn.]

An imaginative British armor officer of World War Two [WW2].

Having been retired from active military service prior to 1939, was serving as a corporal [!!!] in the British Home Guard before being recalled to active service.

Is the type of slightly eccentric but brilliant military officer the British seem to produce. In the same mold as Wingate, Lawrence, etc.

Played a very crucial role in the D-Day invasion and in the subsequent ninety day Normandy campaign.

Hobart was instrumental in developing and bringing onto the battlefield a whole range of combat engineering vehicles of the most innovative designs. Primarily designed to defeat beach [Normandy] and anti-tank defenses, but, also being applicable in other combat engineering situations.

[the term combat engineering vehicle [CEV] would not have been used during the WW2 era. The various engineering vehicles as promoted by Hobart and used by the British in WW2 were called for the lack of a better name "funnies"!!]

coolbert.