Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Learned about these in basic training at fort Knox a long time ago in tanker basic.
The tilt rod is pretty nasty. Hide these in tall grass or fields and when a tank hits the rod it explodes underneath the belly of the tank where armor is thin.
Jagga jagga. Big badda boom.
Wonder if there's a video out there with a mine hit under the tank that initiates a catastrophic cook off / turret toss.
So, I see the 14-85, which could indicate 1985, but also this crate says "Loaded 8-53", which could indicate August 1953.
I got curious and tried searching the web for production dates for this mine, and didn't see anything definite, but:
The M15 was used in the Korean conflict (so 1953 would make sense), and
The M19 was adopted in the 1960s as a replacement, so I would be surprised if they were still making the M15 in the 1980s.
I'll also add my entirely unscientific opinion that the stencil on the crate "feels" 1950s to me, rather than 1980s.
So... I suppose my friendly question to you is: If 14-85 indicates 1985 production, then what does "Loaded 8-53" mean?
Could be less/more depending on the composition of the explosives tbh.
Edit: More, I guess, if the wiki is any accurate, TNT in a TM62 has a Detonation velocity of 6900m/s, while Comp B that's used in the M15 has a Detonation velocity of 8050m/s.
So, more explody, while having more of said explody compount.
I don't understand mines.
How come soft explosive inside could penetrate a tank's thick armor?
Its so flat and no shape charge, how to punch through?
Experts please explain.
Tanks don't tend to have exceptionally thick armor on the underside (too much surface area, would add too much weight). A large amount of high explosive going off between the tank and the ground doesn't have much room to escape, so most of that energy is going to go into the tank itself. Maybe it breaks through into the hull, maybe it just twists the frame, tears off the track, and breaks all the breakable stuff in the hull (including the crew). Either way, the tank is out of the fight.
I always imagined even if the explosion didn't compromise the hull, the compacted force was enough to suddenly lift the tank off the ground with enough force to disable the squishy crew inside. I can't imagine any human walking away uninjured after having a tank explosively shoved up their ass
At least one of the russian T-series tanks has been given an extra support strut for the driver after a bunch were killed by mines.
They were squashed when the floor slammed up into the glacis after the mine detonated.
The additional strut supposedly prevents this.
Modern armored vehicles tend to place the driver in a fabric seat hanging from the ceiling for that reason.
So that the vehicle can lift, without throwing you up.
There are tons of videos from Ukraine with crew exiting tanks after they blow up. Some are really crazy, one would think there is no chance of surviving this, yet they do.
There was an early 2022 video where a mine *briefly lifted a T-series tank into the air*. Afterwards, a crew member scrabbled out of the hatch, sat down with his back to the tank's wall and started calling somebody on a cell phone... despite blood pouring out of his ears.
I could not ever find the link to this video again - pity!
A T82 has 20mm floor armor, compared to 80mm on the hull side, and 290 mm on the turret sides. The front of the hull and turret are thicker them the siden. The engine deck has only 20mm armor too.
Turret tops are quite thin if flat but thicker if curved because of the risk of getting hit at a glance by large caliber shells.
Anti-tank mines like that are primarily designed to take out the track, the common detonators are pressure-based on only exposure if you run the track over them. They will not explode if they pass between the tracks. There are detonator will arms that stick up that will detonate then too but they are a lot easier to spot.
So a mine like the one in the image will likely only destroy the track of a tank if it is run over. That is a mobility kill, a tank that can move combat effectiveness is very limited. Artillery, FPV-drones, etc can take it out. The tank will likely be abandoned. If you see drone drop grenades into the hatch of a tank it is most of the time a tank that was abandoned because it was damage and could no move. For some reason, the hatch is often left open. It might be intentional by the crew so the enemy destroys it and you are not order later to help in recovering the damaged tank. It might be a very good survival move,
Mined that are design to detonate below the hull will typically have a magnetic trigger. They tend to have less, explosive around 2- 3 kg of explosives, but have a shaped charge. This means you have a metal layer to, something similar to copper, that the explosive forms into a jet that penetrates the armor. This is what anit tank missiles and rockets use too
FWIW, the M15 does have a standard tilt rod fuze available for full width attack, and assuming they are hand emplaced and the route isn’t manually cleared ahead of time, spotting a thin stick in a field of sticks from a moving tank is almost impossible.
Not an expert, but I think it's just the chemical detonation reaction. RDX in this mine detonates at 8.55 kilometers per second, while reaching temperatures of around 3600°K. It also creates a massive shock front. Not many materials can withstand such a combination.
Basically, the explosive material turns to very hot gas so fast, it tries to expand insanely fast in all directions, it breaks shit.
It dosnt have to.
The Mine explodes If the Tank Drive over it -> the track goes by-by.
-> Mobility kill.
Then you have the other Things Like "squishi Crew", spalling, and so on.
If we are talking about mines designed to detonate directly under the bottom (floor) of the tank, there are several factors that help it:
\- Tanks have thinner armor on the bottom, in general around 20-40mm armor steel. Much less then the turret and hull armors that are sloped and many times thicker. And it's flat, straight flat armor with no ERA or any other defense against mines.
\- The amount of explosive. Typical RPG-7 warhead has some 0.4kg of explosive (twice an average hand grenade) while this mine has 10.5kg.
\- The mines do have a small shaped form as the detonators and mechanics are in the center, leaving "empty" space in the middle. Visible in the 4th picture. Not a huge effect but does contribute to the penetration.
\- The mine is in a hole in the ground, backed by firm ground, forcing the pressure upwards in *one* direction. Where HEAT and other shaped charges lose pressure to the outside air that offers no resistance, mine is surrounded heavy dirt. There is a reason why soldiers are trained to dig deep enough hole as mines on the surface are less effective (also easier to spot).
\- The floor of the tank is quite close to the ground, getting most of the pressure effect.
It's from several factors relying and proven to be effective. There are also magnetic-sensing mines that are dug deeper and have copper lining and they punch through literally any tank they are under (example: [Finnish Pohjamiina-87](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Pohjamiina_87_94_r%C3%A4j%C3%A4hdysvaikutus_Lippujuhlan_p%C3%A4iv%C3%A4n_2017_kalustoesittely_1.JPG)).
That's not entirely correct the pressure wave starts from the centre. It will be s bell shaped gas expansion. Center would touch the underside of the armour first. Then the outside detonation areas would slap it. But yes there is more on the outside so you would get the effect of kinda like slapping with s cupped hand. That pressure would burst any flat panels
Do you know if the Tilt Rod Fuze requires 135kg of pressure as well to set off the charge like the pressure plate? Seems like use of the tilt rod would obviate the need for heavy weight.
You do not use the same fuze.
Look at [https://www.bulletpicker.com/pdf/TM-43-0001-36.pdf](https://www.bulletpicker.com/pdf/TM-43-0001-36.pdf) and look a the M624 fuze it detonates if you have a force greater the 3.75 pound and at 20 degrees, it will shatter a plastic collar.
It can also detonate from a vertical force of 290 pounds.
The common pressure fuze is M603 which require 350 to 750 pound of force in a M15 mine
It's not a shaped charge but 7-10 kg of explosives is A LOT. That's around the same amount as in a 155mm shell. From what we see in Ukraine though, mines usually destroy the track, but the crew stays alive(but concussed) and the tank is salvageable(unless the drones finish it). But they do sometimes destroy the tank completely, especially if there are multiple mines.
If a track sets one of these off then the track will get destroyed, no track effectively neutralises the tank stopping it moving, so it's a tank kill.
The really sneaky tank mines are the ones that count; they don't go off on the first, second, whatever hit, but will count to a predetermined amount of tanks then explode.
This effectively means that a whole area can allow a mass of tanks through, then start blowing them up with the crews having no idea what's safe.
If you hit a tank with enough high explosive its going to cause damage, the soviets hit German Panthers and Tigers during world war 2 with 152mm HE from their assault guns (less HE content than these mines) and it was enough to crack welds between armour plates and blow turrets off their mounts.
Mines are detonating under tracks so at the bare minimum the running gear is completely wrecked and the tank becomes immobile.
Armored vehicles are generally more vulnerable on the bottom, not to mention the more delicate tracks/wheels which are often damaged resulting in a mobility kill.
It is a shaped charge, the ground forces all the explosives force upwards, like a torpedo going off under a ship.
If you were to suspend a tank in the air, the same load going off under it won't do much damage.
It only lacks the explosively formed penetrator.
No, some mines use a shape-charge (also known as "hollow charge", "Monroe effect", "H.E.A.T."), but not this mine. It is simply a blast mine; the primary function is to destroy the track, immobilising the tank. It may also cause some other damage.
The soil it is in does have some role in "tamping" or directing where the blast goes, but this mine is not expected to penetrate armour.
At those velocities the Tanks armour "becomes the shaped charge" it's like jumping out an airplane and hitting water it's like concrete at high speed similarly if you go slowly in you slip into the water.
A large explosion taking off the tracks of a vehicle can make it combat ineffective, depending on the situation. That explosion could also cave in the bottom of the tank since the armor isn't thick.
You know when you see orcs self terminate with grenades, the ones that lay on the grenade are way more mangled and for sure dead vs the ones that don't and seem to survive for a short time.
Same principle.
elefants dont jump, because they have a hard time landing. if a tank hits one of those it will jump. thats the diffference to recieving a blast from above.
Put simply, it isn't thick armor on the bottom. The thickest armor on most western MBT's is over 2 feet thick. The armor on the bottom of a tank is usually less than an inch thick.
From what I understand of AT mines they aren't meant to try and blow a hole in the bottom of the tank. Their main role is to disable the tank by knocking the tracks off. Your not going to have a mine explode under the middle of the tank you need a track to run it over and detonate it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes you can have a mine explode under a tank. They have tip fuzes which will tip if the tank drives over the mine between the tracks Also the artillery delivered mines have magnetic fuzes that will explode the money under a tank.
There are different types of anti-tank mine. As Legitimate\_Access289 points out, some are designed to explode under the middle of the tank, and penetrate upwards through the hull. They sometimes have a wire - like an antenna - which sticks up and will trigger the mine when the vehicle touches it (but is intended to be difficult for the driver to see, especially if the mine is in long grass).
There are also "off-route" mines, which the tank doesn't even need to drive over. They can be set up metres away, and will explode and penetrate the tank from the side. These often have sophisticated fuses which can explode when the tank is near enough, but not touching the mine.
But this M15 mine isn't that type - it is, as you say, a simple blast mine which explodes when the pressure from the track presses down on it.
We haven't seen many of the newer mines that do have a shape charge that hits from the side. I remember seeing a few kills towards the beginning of the war but not really since then. Those I understand have a fiber optic cable that runs across the ground and when the vehicle breaks it the mine goes off. Unless the mine is remotely detonated correct?
Yes, there aren't many videos of off-route mines in action. I think the main reason is simply that the Ukrainians have more of the blast mines.
As for fusing, I think there are various sensors in use - it varies between different models of mine.
"They contain 10.5kg of explosive, compared to 7.5kg for the Russian TM-62M mines."
Is that why the russians occasionally stack multiple mines right on top of each-other? Their mines dont have enough explosives to penetrate and damage?
AT mines are designed to destroy soft skin vehicles and immobilize armored vehicles. They are nowhere heavy enough to actually destroy a tank or IFV. It usually does nothing more than blowing off one track with a wheel or two. Fixable damage by the crew.
They have been stacked/combined to increase damage since WWII. In Iraq, they were usually combined into a IED with remote detonator to maximize damage. That was what most Abrams crewmen got killed/injured from.
It’s generally enough to disable 90% of what would drive over it. iirc training doctrine for the M15 and its replacement the M19 demonstrated stacking the mines for knocking out heavier targets, or as a booby-trap like shown in one photo of this post.
The M19 was actually designed to be easily stacked and contains a smaller charge of ~9 kg explosives.
Crates in the photo are stencilled: "Loaded 8/53". I assume that means they were filled with explosives then.
Also – interesting to see a US-made weapon in a wooden crate similar to the ones we've seen Russians hauling around and stacking in Ukraine.
Yes, that's my interpretation of the photo as well; that the mine in the picture dates to August 1953. I'm not sure though if that image is a recent picture from Ukraine of the actual mines received, or if it's just a stock image from the internet used to illustrate the type of mine.
Either way, we know that properly stored explosives can have long shelf-lives, so these mines from 1953 should still be useful.
Most US munitions are in wooden crates or crates of similar material. It's only the larger items like 155mm shells that are palletized with out crates.
I think they meant that most US munitions these days come in metal or poly cases, not wood. Which makes sense; metal/poly is more space efficient, easier to seal/waterproof, don’t have to worry about rot/insects, often more durable, etc, etc.
I'm reading it as meaning that they come in some kind of case instead of being packed by the pallet without additional packaging. Because all these cases whether made from poly or metal will still be palletized. And shipped as close to the front as practical before breaking down the pallet
We don't use these mines anymore except for the Korean dmz, but we also don't use cluster atacms anymore either and we still had those kicking around just in case.
Edit: Jesus Christ I meant we just don't just 'dumb' mines like this. xD
Didn't know id trigger a pesantism mine.
Is that not just anti-personnel mines?
The Ottawa Treaty more exactly called the " Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction". This is the treaty the US has not signed but say they will follow outside of the Korean Peninsula.
The key phrase is " Anti-Personnel Mines " because that is what is about. It is not about anti-anke mine like that. Even countries that signed the Ottawa Treaty keep stockpiling and intend to use anti-tank mines.
US might not use mines outside the Korean Peninsula right now. For the simple reason there is not any other location where deploying anti-tank mines make sense. There is not conflict or risk of conflict when putting out anti-tank mines in peacetime is needed. But that does not mean US does not stockpile, train, and intend to use anti-tank mines in future conflict if needed..
Per Wiki: "The U.S.A holds a large inventory of this mine. In 1984 it had approximately 1,904,000 M15 mines in storage, of which around 70% were serviceable."
Not sure if the "lmao" comment was sarcasm or you're looking forward to seeing, but there have definitely been drone videos dropping anti tank mines. I assume the babba-yaga variants can handle the extra weight of these mines.
The US believe 10.5 kg is needed to destroy a Soviet tank. The USSR believed 7.5 kg is needed to destroy an American tank.
Is this an indication of the resistance of each country's tank to mines, or the confidence of each party in their knowledge of their enemy's tanks - or something else?
That makes sense, thank you. I saw the pressure release fuze and figured that meant antihandling "booby-trap." I wasn't sure if pull fuze was a remote way to trigger it or something else. Looking at the diagrams again I think it was just the choice of wording from the era that threw me off.
I can tell ya, the TM-62 ain't nothing to ignore. Unfortunately, I drove over one in Kosovo back in '98. The (KVM's) up-armored Chevy Suburban's right rear wheel was blown completely off of the axle, and the back hatch door glass (projectile resistant) crystallized. The vehicle did a half flip, landing on its side in a ditch. Basically, the Kevlar floor blanket saved our asses. Our Kosovar translator in the back seat got a pretty bad concussion, but apart from that, we skated with no injuries. Interestingly, a JNA tank retriever showed up (!) and dragged that Suburban, *on its roof* back to our compound at Kosovo Polje. After I removed the Motorola radio and a 'sensitive' USG bit of kit, the Suburban was shipped back to the States for analysis by the company that fitted the armor. If it'd been a US M15 mine or equivalent, ---> mucho no bueno/vrno malo!
The funniest thing is that the United States built these in 1985 probably expecting them to be used against Russia even back then, and now after all these years they get to fulfill their duty lol
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From USA with love 🇺🇸
To Russian with love
For ruzzia... with love 🤗
Learned about these in basic training at fort Knox a long time ago in tanker basic. The tilt rod is pretty nasty. Hide these in tall grass or fields and when a tank hits the rod it explodes underneath the belly of the tank where armor is thin. Jagga jagga. Big badda boom. Wonder if there's a video out there with a mine hit under the tank that initiates a catastrophic cook off / turret toss.
My partner was born A week before these were made
Where does it say the date?
14th week of 1985 LOP= Lot production date
So, I see the 14-85, which could indicate 1985, but also this crate says "Loaded 8-53", which could indicate August 1953. I got curious and tried searching the web for production dates for this mine, and didn't see anything definite, but: The M15 was used in the Korean conflict (so 1953 would make sense), and The M19 was adopted in the 1960s as a replacement, so I would be surprised if they were still making the M15 in the 1980s. I'll also add my entirely unscientific opinion that the stencil on the crate "feels" 1950s to me, rather than 1980s. So... I suppose my friendly question to you is: If 14-85 indicates 1985 production, then what does "Loaded 8-53" mean?
Can’t wait till they start dropping these from drones.
They already do
Well, TM-62s so far but these will do the same eventually. Love those old wooden ammo crates and 80s stenciling!
Holy shiet
Nice. Bigger boom, hence greater liftoff.
Exactly what I was thinking, though not sure what the cargo/bomb capacity of the drone big enough to carry it.
25% more pain
40% more to be precise.
Accurate not precise. They mean different things.
pre·cise \[prēˈsīs\] adjective 1. marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail
Could be less/more depending on the composition of the explosives tbh. Edit: More, I guess, if the wiki is any accurate, TNT in a TM62 has a Detonation velocity of 6900m/s, while Comp B that's used in the M15 has a Detonation velocity of 8050m/s. So, more explody, while having more of said explody compount.
I’d say 25% less pain, since you’re 25% more dead 😝
I don't understand mines. How come soft explosive inside could penetrate a tank's thick armor? Its so flat and no shape charge, how to punch through? Experts please explain.
Tanks don't tend to have exceptionally thick armor on the underside (too much surface area, would add too much weight). A large amount of high explosive going off between the tank and the ground doesn't have much room to escape, so most of that energy is going to go into the tank itself. Maybe it breaks through into the hull, maybe it just twists the frame, tears off the track, and breaks all the breakable stuff in the hull (including the crew). Either way, the tank is out of the fight.
I always imagined even if the explosion didn't compromise the hull, the compacted force was enough to suddenly lift the tank off the ground with enough force to disable the squishy crew inside. I can't imagine any human walking away uninjured after having a tank explosively shoved up their ass
At least one of the russian T-series tanks has been given an extra support strut for the driver after a bunch were killed by mines. They were squashed when the floor slammed up into the glacis after the mine detonated. The additional strut supposedly prevents this.
Modern armored vehicles tend to place the driver in a fabric seat hanging from the ceiling for that reason. So that the vehicle can lift, without throwing you up.
Doesn't really help when the driver's space vanishes and he becomes red Jell-O.
Yes, even without penetration, physics is still in play. Hammer a hollow metal box with enough force and the crew inside is going to be incapacitated.
That's what a HESH round does, too, I believe. Ring their bells, create spall, etc.
There are tons of videos from Ukraine with crew exiting tanks after they blow up. Some are really crazy, one would think there is no chance of surviving this, yet they do.
There was an early 2022 video where a mine *briefly lifted a T-series tank into the air*. Afterwards, a crew member scrabbled out of the hatch, sat down with his back to the tank's wall and started calling somebody on a cell phone... despite blood pouring out of his ears. I could not ever find the link to this video again - pity!
A T82 has 20mm floor armor, compared to 80mm on the hull side, and 290 mm on the turret sides. The front of the hull and turret are thicker them the siden. The engine deck has only 20mm armor too. Turret tops are quite thin if flat but thicker if curved because of the risk of getting hit at a glance by large caliber shells. Anti-tank mines like that are primarily designed to take out the track, the common detonators are pressure-based on only exposure if you run the track over them. They will not explode if they pass between the tracks. There are detonator will arms that stick up that will detonate then too but they are a lot easier to spot. So a mine like the one in the image will likely only destroy the track of a tank if it is run over. That is a mobility kill, a tank that can move combat effectiveness is very limited. Artillery, FPV-drones, etc can take it out. The tank will likely be abandoned. If you see drone drop grenades into the hatch of a tank it is most of the time a tank that was abandoned because it was damage and could no move. For some reason, the hatch is often left open. It might be intentional by the crew so the enemy destroys it and you are not order later to help in recovering the damaged tank. It might be a very good survival move, Mined that are design to detonate below the hull will typically have a magnetic trigger. They tend to have less, explosive around 2- 3 kg of explosives, but have a shaped charge. This means you have a metal layer to, something similar to copper, that the explosive forms into a jet that penetrates the armor. This is what anit tank missiles and rockets use too
FWIW, the M15 does have a standard tilt rod fuze available for full width attack, and assuming they are hand emplaced and the route isn’t manually cleared ahead of time, spotting a thin stick in a field of sticks from a moving tank is almost impossible.
And the crew won't fare too well either.
Not an expert, but I think it's just the chemical detonation reaction. RDX in this mine detonates at 8.55 kilometers per second, while reaching temperatures of around 3600°K. It also creates a massive shock front. Not many materials can withstand such a combination. Basically, the explosive material turns to very hot gas so fast, it tries to expand insanely fast in all directions, it breaks shit.
It dosnt have to. The Mine explodes If the Tank Drive over it -> the track goes by-by. -> Mobility kill. Then you have the other Things Like "squishi Crew", spalling, and so on.
If we are talking about mines designed to detonate directly under the bottom (floor) of the tank, there are several factors that help it: \- Tanks have thinner armor on the bottom, in general around 20-40mm armor steel. Much less then the turret and hull armors that are sloped and many times thicker. And it's flat, straight flat armor with no ERA or any other defense against mines. \- The amount of explosive. Typical RPG-7 warhead has some 0.4kg of explosive (twice an average hand grenade) while this mine has 10.5kg. \- The mines do have a small shaped form as the detonators and mechanics are in the center, leaving "empty" space in the middle. Visible in the 4th picture. Not a huge effect but does contribute to the penetration. \- The mine is in a hole in the ground, backed by firm ground, forcing the pressure upwards in *one* direction. Where HEAT and other shaped charges lose pressure to the outside air that offers no resistance, mine is surrounded heavy dirt. There is a reason why soldiers are trained to dig deep enough hole as mines on the surface are less effective (also easier to spot). \- The floor of the tank is quite close to the ground, getting most of the pressure effect. It's from several factors relying and proven to be effective. There are also magnetic-sensing mines that are dug deeper and have copper lining and they punch through literally any tank they are under (example: [Finnish Pohjamiina-87](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Pohjamiina_87_94_r%C3%A4j%C3%A4hdysvaikutus_Lippujuhlan_p%C3%A4iv%C3%A4n_2017_kalustoesittely_1.JPG)).
That's not entirely correct the pressure wave starts from the centre. It will be s bell shaped gas expansion. Center would touch the underside of the armour first. Then the outside detonation areas would slap it. But yes there is more on the outside so you would get the effect of kinda like slapping with s cupped hand. That pressure would burst any flat panels
Do you know if the Tilt Rod Fuze requires 135kg of pressure as well to set off the charge like the pressure plate? Seems like use of the tilt rod would obviate the need for heavy weight.
I think I read elsewhere that the tilt rod fuze only requires ~3.5kg of force to tilt the rod 20 degrees, at which point it goes off.
You do not use the same fuze. Look at [https://www.bulletpicker.com/pdf/TM-43-0001-36.pdf](https://www.bulletpicker.com/pdf/TM-43-0001-36.pdf) and look a the M624 fuze it detonates if you have a force greater the 3.75 pound and at 20 degrees, it will shatter a plastic collar. It can also detonate from a vertical force of 290 pounds. The common pressure fuze is M603 which require 350 to 750 pound of force in a M15 mine
Thanks!
It's not a shaped charge but 7-10 kg of explosives is A LOT. That's around the same amount as in a 155mm shell. From what we see in Ukraine though, mines usually destroy the track, but the crew stays alive(but concussed) and the tank is salvageable(unless the drones finish it). But they do sometimes destroy the tank completely, especially if there are multiple mines.
If a track sets one of these off then the track will get destroyed, no track effectively neutralises the tank stopping it moving, so it's a tank kill. The really sneaky tank mines are the ones that count; they don't go off on the first, second, whatever hit, but will count to a predetermined amount of tanks then explode. This effectively means that a whole area can allow a mass of tanks through, then start blowing them up with the crews having no idea what's safe.
If you hit a tank with enough high explosive its going to cause damage, the soviets hit German Panthers and Tigers during world war 2 with 152mm HE from their assault guns (less HE content than these mines) and it was enough to crack welds between armour plates and blow turrets off their mounts. Mines are detonating under tracks so at the bare minimum the running gear is completely wrecked and the tank becomes immobile.
Armored vehicles are generally more vulnerable on the bottom, not to mention the more delicate tracks/wheels which are often damaged resulting in a mobility kill.
It is a shaped charge, the ground forces all the explosives force upwards, like a torpedo going off under a ship. If you were to suspend a tank in the air, the same load going off under it won't do much damage. It only lacks the explosively formed penetrator.
No, some mines use a shape-charge (also known as "hollow charge", "Monroe effect", "H.E.A.T."), but not this mine. It is simply a blast mine; the primary function is to destroy the track, immobilising the tank. It may also cause some other damage. The soil it is in does have some role in "tamping" or directing where the blast goes, but this mine is not expected to penetrate armour.
At those velocities the Tanks armour "becomes the shaped charge" it's like jumping out an airplane and hitting water it's like concrete at high speed similarly if you go slowly in you slip into the water.
Same question. Or maybe the dirt underneath basically becomes part of the shape charge?
A large explosion taking off the tracks of a vehicle can make it combat ineffective, depending on the situation. That explosion could also cave in the bottom of the tank since the armor isn't thick.
That's exactly how I looked at it, the dirt forces the energy towards the target.
You know when you see orcs self terminate with grenades, the ones that lay on the grenade are way more mangled and for sure dead vs the ones that don't and seem to survive for a short time. Same principle.
elefants dont jump, because they have a hard time landing. if a tank hits one of those it will jump. thats the diffference to recieving a blast from above.
Put simply, it isn't thick armor on the bottom. The thickest armor on most western MBT's is over 2 feet thick. The armor on the bottom of a tank is usually less than an inch thick.
They tend to destroy the tracks not the tank
They tend to destroy the tracks not the tank
You have google and YouTube
From what I understand of AT mines they aren't meant to try and blow a hole in the bottom of the tank. Their main role is to disable the tank by knocking the tracks off. Your not going to have a mine explode under the middle of the tank you need a track to run it over and detonate it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes you can have a mine explode under a tank. They have tip fuzes which will tip if the tank drives over the mine between the tracks Also the artillery delivered mines have magnetic fuzes that will explode the money under a tank.
There are different types of anti-tank mine. As Legitimate\_Access289 points out, some are designed to explode under the middle of the tank, and penetrate upwards through the hull. They sometimes have a wire - like an antenna - which sticks up and will trigger the mine when the vehicle touches it (but is intended to be difficult for the driver to see, especially if the mine is in long grass). There are also "off-route" mines, which the tank doesn't even need to drive over. They can be set up metres away, and will explode and penetrate the tank from the side. These often have sophisticated fuses which can explode when the tank is near enough, but not touching the mine. But this M15 mine isn't that type - it is, as you say, a simple blast mine which explodes when the pressure from the track presses down on it.
We haven't seen many of the newer mines that do have a shape charge that hits from the side. I remember seeing a few kills towards the beginning of the war but not really since then. Those I understand have a fiber optic cable that runs across the ground and when the vehicle breaks it the mine goes off. Unless the mine is remotely detonated correct?
Yes, there aren't many videos of off-route mines in action. I think the main reason is simply that the Ukrainians have more of the blast mines. As for fusing, I think there are various sensors in use - it varies between different models of mine.
Is there ever a delay built into these to get a better hit instead of a glancing blow, or does it work better to just blow up instantly?
There is a delay. Funny Thing: If you Drive 120km/h+ the delay is Long enough to let it Go boom after you are already over it.
Well officer ,you see, I was speeding incase I hit an antitank mine.
Tailgaters hate this one simple trick.
yeah... i guess :D
"They contain 10.5kg of explosive, compared to 7.5kg for the Russian TM-62M mines." Is that why the russians occasionally stack multiple mines right on top of each-other? Their mines dont have enough explosives to penetrate and damage?
AT mines are designed to destroy soft skin vehicles and immobilize armored vehicles. They are nowhere heavy enough to actually destroy a tank or IFV. It usually does nothing more than blowing off one track with a wheel or two. Fixable damage by the crew. They have been stacked/combined to increase damage since WWII. In Iraq, they were usually combined into a IED with remote detonator to maximize damage. That was what most Abrams crewmen got killed/injured from.
And this is now done by drones, crazy.
Except with the tilt fuze it will destroy a tank because that allows it to explode under the actual hull of the tank.
It’s generally enough to disable 90% of what would drive over it. iirc training doctrine for the M15 and its replacement the M19 demonstrated stacking the mines for knocking out heavier targets, or as a booby-trap like shown in one photo of this post. The M19 was actually designed to be easily stacked and contains a smaller charge of ~9 kg explosives.
Wasn’t aware the US still used hand deployed mines. Thought they were all remote deployed systems by now.
Pretty sure these are Korean War era, probably dug up out of the back of the deepest of DOD warehouses.
By all means, sweep out the back of the cupboards.
Crates in the photo are stencilled: "Loaded 8/53". I assume that means they were filled with explosives then. Also – interesting to see a US-made weapon in a wooden crate similar to the ones we've seen Russians hauling around and stacking in Ukraine.
Yes, that's my interpretation of the photo as well; that the mine in the picture dates to August 1953. I'm not sure though if that image is a recent picture from Ukraine of the actual mines received, or if it's just a stock image from the internet used to illustrate the type of mine. Either way, we know that properly stored explosives can have long shelf-lives, so these mines from 1953 should still be useful.
Most US munitions are in wooden crates or crates of similar material. It's only the larger items like 155mm shells that are palletized with out crates.
I think they meant that most US munitions these days come in metal or poly cases, not wood. Which makes sense; metal/poly is more space efficient, easier to seal/waterproof, don’t have to worry about rot/insects, often more durable, etc, etc.
I'm reading it as meaning that they come in some kind of case instead of being packed by the pallet without additional packaging. Because all these cases whether made from poly or metal will still be palletized. And shipped as close to the front as practical before breaking down the pallet
We don't use these mines anymore except for the Korean dmz, but we also don't use cluster atacms anymore either and we still had those kicking around just in case. Edit: Jesus Christ I meant we just don't just 'dumb' mines like this. xD Didn't know id trigger a pesantism mine.
Is that not just anti-personnel mines? The Ottawa Treaty more exactly called the " Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction". This is the treaty the US has not signed but say they will follow outside of the Korean Peninsula. The key phrase is " Anti-Personnel Mines " because that is what is about. It is not about anti-anke mine like that. Even countries that signed the Ottawa Treaty keep stockpiling and intend to use anti-tank mines. US might not use mines outside the Korean Peninsula right now. For the simple reason there is not any other location where deploying anti-tank mines make sense. There is not conflict or risk of conflict when putting out anti-tank mines in peacetime is needed. But that does not mean US does not stockpile, train, and intend to use anti-tank mines in future conflict if needed..
If you're US, then you do still use mines, the Claymore, for example.
This is old school. We also have them remote and directional AT mines.
Per Wiki: "The U.S.A holds a large inventory of this mine. In 1984 it had approximately 1,904,000 M15 mines in storage, of which around 70% were serviceable."
yea they def gonna drop one from a drone lmao
Watching these clear trenches is gonna be epic.
Not sure if the "lmao" comment was sarcasm or you're looking forward to seeing, but there have definitely been drone videos dropping anti tank mines. I assume the babba-yaga variants can handle the extra weight of these mines.
oh yea those vids are great hope we get more with these one!
'Ours go to eleven'
*the forbidden tuna*
Spicy Roomba
The US believe 10.5 kg is needed to destroy a Soviet tank. The USSR believed 7.5 kg is needed to destroy an American tank. Is this an indication of the resistance of each country's tank to mines, or the confidence of each party in their knowledge of their enemy's tanks - or something else?
Or good enough vs we really want to make sure it works and we can afford those extra kg of explosives.
It’s about costs. Less explosive= cheaper mine
Also weight. Infantary carries the mines
Why would the US over-engineer their mines, in that case?
To not be the #2 Army in the world?
Now i understand the saying' More bang for your Buck's
Looks good
Why does one of the pics show rocks placed between the charges?
Looks like the rocks make vertical space for the (optional) pull fuse which is installed in this configuration as part of a booby trap.
That makes sense, thank you. I saw the pressure release fuze and figured that meant antihandling "booby-trap." I wasn't sure if pull fuze was a remote way to trigger it or something else. Looking at the diagrams again I think it was just the choice of wording from the era that threw me off.
Pictures show a few different “anti lift “ versions of these bastard things. Designed to take out mine lifting engineers and the like.
Double the boom.
KAAAAABOOOOOM!🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
More Dakka!
💪🇺🇸🇺🇦🌻❤️
Big Badda Boom!
Yea baby let those f\*ckers rip. Hey Putin - a present from USA - GTFO of Ukraine
Will that result in a tank toss as opposed to a toss?
War on the rocks have interviews with Ukrainians and apparently Russia will often triple and double mines up to target western tanks
ah yes, fuse rod springs and tilt rods and all that... i know what that is!
[удалено]
sure, there are enough for free, but you have to collect them for yourself...
BADA-BOOM!
Feels like a boxed cake... Bon appetite!
I do enjoy me a big Bada boom when it comes to Russian shit exploding.
Looking forward for some dope-as-fuck drone footage in the coming days!
Wow image #5 shows how you can rig it to have anti-tamper capabilities! That pressure release fuse looks so sketchy though haha.
The wood case is stenciled with LOADED, 8-53. I am assuming these mines were manufactured in the early 1950's. Pretty old supply.
What’s the TNT equivalent between them?
Any reason why every illustration from the field manual gets included in this post?
I would choose American hardware 100% of the time over the old Soviet crap
No gamechanger just toys
Are there even that many heavy armored vehicles left to destroy in Russia’s army?
It will make your tank - Jump! Jump!
It's an education every day on this sub Reddit. 😁
I can tell ya, the TM-62 ain't nothing to ignore. Unfortunately, I drove over one in Kosovo back in '98. The (KVM's) up-armored Chevy Suburban's right rear wheel was blown completely off of the axle, and the back hatch door glass (projectile resistant) crystallized. The vehicle did a half flip, landing on its side in a ditch. Basically, the Kevlar floor blanket saved our asses. Our Kosovar translator in the back seat got a pretty bad concussion, but apart from that, we skated with no injuries. Interestingly, a JNA tank retriever showed up (!) and dragged that Suburban, *on its roof* back to our compound at Kosovo Polje. After I removed the Motorola radio and a 'sensitive' USG bit of kit, the Suburban was shipped back to the States for analysis by the company that fitted the armor. If it'd been a US M15 mine or equivalent, ---> mucho no bueno/vrno malo!
wouldn't pull fuse allow for an easier integration into drone drop system? I know with TM62 they had to do some drilling and whatnot.
Nice drone ammo.
A beautiful work of art, and the odds are better that they will work.
Yeah they will lift up any Russian tank off the ground.
The funniest thing is that the United States built these in 1985 probably expecting them to be used against Russia even back then, and now after all these years they get to fulfill their duty lol
Do you think the cheap bastards only wanted to pay for the 62 digits when printing materials?
Because whatever muzha ruzzia got, Uncle Sam’s is twice that. Except espionage. Ivan’s got that on lock…
Common American W
Are these what the IDF was using to demolish buildings in gaza?
No that would be the 10,000+ 2,000 lb bombs the US has sent since October - 100 times larger than these.