Make naval mine warfare glamorous post ww2

M

Monk78

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
13 March 2024
Messages
85
Reaction score
23
I think post ww2 more ships have been damaged and sunk by mines than any other weapon
Yet it’s barely talked about and most navies devote proportionally less resources to it
What can be done to change that post ww2 ?
 
There's no glory in it. It doesn't look cool, it's usually Airedales dropping mines and then the MCM gang cleaning them up after the fighting is over. (Friend of mine was an engineman on a minesweeper during Vietnam, his Minesweeper was one of the ships assigned to clean up Haiphong Harbor after 1972. Many mines they hauled up to the ship, some they had to blow in place. The EOD guys chain-smoked...)
 
Monk78 said:
I think post ww2 more ships have been damaged and sunk by mines than any other weapon
Yet it’s barely talked about and most navies devote proportionally less resources to it
What can be done to change that post ww2 ?
Click to expand...

I spent a couple of years working MCM budget issues for USN. It's just an impossible sell within the service. There are several reasons, I think.

1) It's slow-acting, both offensive and defensive. Mines are delayed action and their effects are difficult to predict in advance. Clearance is even slower and less predictable.

2) Minelaying can consume a huge amount of resources before it has an impact. When the alternative was indiscriminate area bombing, minelaying could be resource efficient (see Operation Starvation) but compared to a direct strike with PGMs, it can seem very resource-intensive and uncertain.

3) Minelaying isn't as versatile as other weapons. With a few exceptions (like CAPTOR) it is mainly useful for relatively indiscriminate shipping interdiction.
 
TomS said:
I spent a couple of years working MCM budget issues for USN. It's just an impossible sell within the service. There are several reasons, I think.

1) It's slow-acting, both offensive and defensive. Mines are delayed action and their effects are difficult to predict in advance. Clearance is even slower and less predictable.

2) Minelaying can consume a huge amount of resources before it has an impact. When the alternative was indiscriminate area bombing, minelaying could be resource efficient (see Operation Starvation) but compared to a direct strike with PGMs, it can seem very resource-intensive and uncertain.

3) Minelaying isn't as versatile as other weapons. With a few exceptions (like CAPTOR) it is mainly useful for relatively indiscriminate shipping interdiction.
Click to expand...
For a power that wants sea dominance yes they are not the ideal weapon
But for a mostly land power that needs to exert only sea denial they can be a godsend , force multiplier and cheap way of protecting your neighboring seas
 
Last edited:
Is it possible that Soviet Union and communist China could have utilize mine, warfare more extensively?
As in having custom built surface and submarine platforms for minelaying
Better technology, including better homing, and rocket, assisted mines ? Like CAPTOR
Also, is there a way to sow mines in the deep ocean waters?
And maybe specialized tactics for attacking the minesweeping forces of the NATO navies
 
Monk78 said:
Is it possible that Soviet Union and communist China could have utilize mine, warfare more extensively?
As in having custom built surface and submarine platforms for minelaying
Better technology, including better homing, and rocket, assisted mines ? Like CAPTOR
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I'm surprised that we haven't seen China in particular testing some of that.


Monk78 said:
Also, is there a way to sow mines in the deep ocean waters?
And maybe specialized tactics for attacking the minesweeping forces of the NATO navies
Click to expand...
There's no good way to put mines in water over 2000ft/600m deep. 1000-2000ft/300-600m, you'd need long cables and good anchors, and those long cables mean that your mines will move around a lot more.

The best way to do mines is the old Mk67 Submarine Launched Mobile Mines, basically Mk37 torpedoes with an inertial navigation system to drive to a location with shallow water (~200ft or less!), settle to the bottom, and wait.

The other option is the non-subtle way, dumping a pile of JDAM-ERs with Quickstrike fuzes installed out the back of a cargo plane Rapid Dragon style, and having them fly to that place with shallow water where they sit and wait.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Absolutely. I'm surprised that we haven't seen China in particular testing some of that.



There's no good way to put mines in water over 2000ft/600m deep. 1000-2000ft/300-600m, you'd need long cables and good anchors, and those long cables mean that your mines will move around a lot more.

The best way to do mines is the old Mk67 Submarine Launched Mobile Mines, basically Mk37 torpedoes with an inertial navigation system to drive to a location with shallow water (~200ft or less!), settle to the bottom, and wait.
Click to expand...

China has extensive mine forces, reported a decade ago to be on the order of 50-100,000 mines, including rising mines designed for laying in deep water. The Russian PMK-2 can be laid as deep as 2000 ft (with the case floating around 400). China makes its own EM-52 family designed with a case depth around 200 feet but the anchor depth isn't reported anywhere.
Couple of interesting, if depressing, sources:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26397286?seq=3 (again, full disclosure, I worked for Dr. Truver when I worked on mine warfare issues)

 
Thank you, @TomS !

Guess I need to add a bit more basic theory.

Old school mines blew up when you physically ran into them. They'd slowly sink a ship because they'd knock a big hole in the side of the ship and let water into the people tank. Depending on the damage, you might be able to patch the hole and keep going, or at least stay afloat long enough to rescue all the crew.

In WW2, people figured out that if you have an explosion below the keel, you can do a lot more damage because you can break the ship in half. (ship flexes up, and then is only supported at the ends of the hull so it snaps in half into the bubble that the explosion made.) So newer mines are down about 100-200ft or so and blow up well below a ship, catching them in the bubble and breaking the keel. Torpedoes do the same thing.

This means you need a different way of setting off newer mines, since you're not making the ship bump into the physical mine anymore. Things like magnetic influence, engine sound, or even just the pressure from your ship moving through the water. And you can do tricks involving counting how many ships go past that mine before it blows up. And multiples of those triggers, so you're listening for the sounds of a Kresta-2 and going for a random delay count for good measure: that mine will now blow up after the (rolls dice) 6th Kresta-2 it detects.
 
I suspect as with land minefields the reluctance to use mines reflects the difficulty of clearing up afterwards and risks to your own side.
Defensive minefields in the approaches to key facilities or at choke points like the Gap were a feature of the Cold War.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Thank you, @TomS !

Guess I need to add a bit more basic theory.

Old school mines blew up when you physically ran into them. They'd slowly sink a ship because they'd knock a big hole in the side of the ship and let water into the people tank. Depending on the damage, you might be able to patch the hole and keep going, or at least stay afloat long enough to rescue all the crew.

In WW2, people figured out that if you have an explosion below the keel, you can do a lot more damage because you can break the ship in half. (ship flexes up, and then is only supported at the ends of the hull so it snaps in half into the bubble that the explosion made.) So newer mines are down about 100-200ft or so and blow up well below a ship, catching them in the bubble and breaking the keel. Torpedoes do the same thing.

This means you need a different way of setting off newer mines, since you're not making the ship bump into the physical mine anymore. Things like magnetic influence, engine sound, or even just the pressure from your ship moving through the water. And you can do tricks involving counting how many ships go past that mine before it blows up. And multiples of those triggers, so you're listening for the sounds of a Kresta-2 and going for a random delay count for good measure: that mine will now blow up after the (rolls dice) 6th Kresta-2 it detects.
Click to expand...
It was Britain that first developed and deployed an influence mine - the Mark I (M) magnetic mine first deployed in August 1918. New development of magnetic triggers in Britain began again in 1936 with the first being laid in April 1940 about 6 months after the Germans began laying such weapons.

Acoustic triggers followed about 1940. The Germans were the first to deploy pressure mines (off Normandy in 1944) usually combined with a magnetic or acoustic trigger. Britain had been working on methods of countering these for some time in preparation for their appearance, and had built two displacement sweepers in anticipation.

Cybele-class mine destructor vessel - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Limiting ship speed according to water depth was really the only effective countermeasure to pressure mines in the WW2 era. The US laid many pressure mines in Japanese waters in 1945 as part of Operation Starvation.

The increasing complexity of the weapons and the near impossibility, at least in the WW2 era, of sweeping pressure mines, saw the move from minesweeping to minehunting in the post WW2 period using divers and then remote controlled ROV to place explosive charges to destroy them. This is the latest such vehicle in RN use.
en.m.wikipedia.org

Seafox drone - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

If you want to read more about allied minesweeping in WW2 I would recommend this book.

Edit:- There has a history of RN minelaying in WW2 here, to which must be added the mine laying effort by aircraft of the RAF Bomber and Coastal Commands and the FAA.

Note the effort in 1943-45 in laying "deep" anti-submarine minefields in the various choke points around Britain.
 
Last edited:
There is a renewed interest in mining in the USN. I think the Clandestine Deployed Mine incr 1 entered service in the last couple years. It seems more or less like a Stonefish analog, though presumably with more advanced fusing options. A budget doc I saw indicated incr 2 would have an acoustic modem to allow remote activation, which hypothetically allows for emplacement in peacetime. A mk 67 replacement is also in the works - MEDUSA, which is 21” electrically driven body that would carry two CDMs. A new CAPTOR is in the works in the form of Hammerhead, which also appears to have acoustic communications and a nk54. One could easily see the CRAW
light weight torpedo as an alternate payload that would allow the mine to fire more than once. The Quickstrike ERs have been mentioned.
 
There were so many destroyers post ww2 , can they be turned into fast minelayers?
 
Nothing left of them now, plus you need crews, plus they would just be targets. Mine laying is the primary mission the USN sees XLUUVs providing. Orca could probably carry about a couple dozen CDMs, or four CAPTORs. The latter ideally could also be air deployed.
 
EwenS said:
Acoustic triggers followed about 1940. The Germans were the first to deploy pressure mines (off Normandy in 1944) usually combined with a magnetic or acoustic trigger. Britain had been working on methods of countering these for some time in preparation for their appearance, and had built two displacement sweepers in anticipation.

Cybele-class mine destructor vessel - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Despite looking for many years I have yet to ever see a photo or even a diagramme of the Cybele Class. Allegedly it was classified until the late 60's.

Josh_TN said:
There is a renewed interest in mining in the USN. I think the Clandestine Deployed Mine incr 1 entered service in the last couple years. It seems more or less like a Stonefish analog, though presumably with more advanced fusing options.
Click to expand...

Similar story with Stonefish...I've never seen any photograph or diagramme of it.
 
timmymagic said:
Despite looking for many years I have yet to ever see a photo or even a diagramme of the Cybele Class. Allegedly it was classified until the late 60's.

Similar story with Stonefish...I've never seen any photograph or diagramme of it.
Click to expand...

There is only one picture of CDM and only some budget docs to even indicate it exists.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And multiples of those triggers, so you're listening for the sounds of a Kresta-2 and going for a random delay count for good measure: that mine will now blow up after the (rolls dice) 6th Kresta-2 it detects.
Click to expand...
You can get cleverer than that if you really want... count blade rate and doppler on the acoustic signature, or other characteristics of other signatures to judge speed and course. Use time delays - either before arming, or even after some other trigter. And all sorts of other things I'm sure.

A programmable computerised mine could be configured to activate on the 1st May, wait until the third Kresta-2 had passed over heading east, then wait 48 hours, then detonate under the second ship making in excess of 21 knots eastwards. Or something equally convoluted, if there was a reason to do so.
timmymagic said:
Despite looking for many years I have yet to ever see a photo or even a diagramme of the Cybele Class. Allegedly it was classified until the late 60's.
Click to expand...
Try Diary of a Wartime Naval Constructor, by Sir Stanley Goodall (ed. Ian Buxton), published by Seaforth in 2021. It's not a great photo, but it is a photo!
 
I always thought mk82 Quick strike ER kits (“Flounder”) would be a great payload for a B-2 raid, either on a landing beach once it was identified or else on the load up points across the straight. You probably could not fit the wing kits, but suddenly creating a field 80 mines deep out of no where would be rather effective and fall short of actually dropping weapons on the mainland, were that a ROE consideration.
 
Last edited:
Yellow Palace said:
Try Diary of a Wartime Naval Constructor, by Sir Stanley Goodall (ed. Ian Buxton), published by Seaforth in 2021. It's not a great photo, but it is a photo!
Click to expand...

There's also an article by George Moore in the appendix of Warship 2005, complete with three sketches and photograph of one of them under construction.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom