previous post next post  

Last but not least on Canadian stuff today: Elsie

The Canadians have signed on to the Landmine Treaty, known as the Ottawa Convention in recognition of their strong support, and in my experience in planning sessions, they are pretty up front and aggressive about it (though they are willing to position themselves behind minefields provided by us... because we are Bad People and didn't sign on. It's all Bush's fault, of course. Even if Clinton was in office.

Perhaps this is one reason they are so into it. They developed a pretty nasty little bugger of their own, the Elsie.

I have two, shown with a rifle bullet for scale:

Not large at all, just big enough to blow off your foot. Exactly the kind of thing that so annoyed the people who wrote the treaty. Small, hard-to-detect, easy to emplace mines that look a lot like toys to small children (though service mines (vice the training ones shown here) are not quite as attractive a color!

Before any Canadians get huffy - they are/were also produced by the US and Japan as the M25 and Type 67 respectively. They are very simple.

The C3A2 (Elsie) is a plastic bodied cone shaped A pers mine which is designed to wound or kill by blast effect. The mine has two components; the body and charge. The body resembles an arrow head, it has a smooth finish and contains the firing mechanism. The charge is a seperate component which fits inside the body, it contains a shaped explosive charge and has camouflage material on its exterior. When delivered, the body has a dust cover to protect the internal cocked striker mechanism/detonator. After the body is placed in the ground, the dust cover is removed and replaced by the charge. The mine is water resistant and it can be laid in wet ground. The C3A2 contains 7.8 g of Comp A5 while the older C3A1 version contained Tetryl. The mine is difficult to locate using metal detectors under most field conditions. Due to its small surface area the C3A2 has limited resistance to blast overpressure from explosive breaching systems like the Giant Viper and MICLIC. The Elsie is also produced in the US as the M25, and in Japan as the Type 67.

The designers were curiously respectful of the victims buddies:

The C3A2 "Elsie" is difficult to locate using metal detectors in areas that have high metal content in the ground such as artillery shell fragments. On detonation the mine will cause immediate blast injury to the victim as well as hearing damage to anyone within a 5 meter radius. Due to its shaped charge the mine concentrates all of its explosive force upward. The secondary fragmentation hazard is thus greatly reduced.

Wouldn't want to hurt anyone with that secondary fragmentation hazard...

Here's a picture of the mines and their component parts, less the safety clip. I haven't found a clip yet... The mine on the left has the shipping plug with it. The little black bit in the center is the explosive charge (inert trainer in this case) that is inserted into the mine to make it live. In this photo, you can see that it is in fact a shaped charge, albeit a wee one.

If you'd like all the dirty details, they're all laid out here.

Still to come: The german glass and shuh mines.

11 Comments

As a member of the armed forces, what is your opinion of the attempts to prohibit land mines? I waver between the attitude of "if you're going to fight, use every weapon available" and "weapons that maim are inhumane". As Sherman said, "War is Hell." And even better to recall, Lee said, "It is good that war is so terrrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
 
Leave it to you, Jack, to ask a question that requires a book-length answer! Lessee if I can keep it shorter than that. I have no problems with mines, if everyone is doing what they are supposed to do - which is record the locations, types, etc. For the express purpose of post-conflict clearance. Of course, many users, especially irregular forces, don't get those Geneva Convention briefings and don't do what they are supposed to do. What it really comes down to is, mines are a weapon used mostly as an economy-of-force measure. You use them to augment defenses, cover gaps, etc. Those usages I just don't have a problem with. The Canadians were able to sign on to the treaty with a straight and earnest face because they simply don't envision a military situation arising where they will need them. And, as long as the US exists to cover their national survival needs, they are correct. And that isn't meant to be insulting to the Canadians. It's just hard to envision a situation where the Canadians are going to find their forces in the kind of situation that make mines so useful. Reality is, any weapon can maim. If I shoot a guy in the foot, simply because I'm hosing the area down in combat, I'm going to maim him with my rifle. That said, anything you can do to make mines less dangerous after the period of their use is a good thing. Self-destructs, etc. And making mines (as the Soviets reputedly did for Afghanistan) that resemble toys, etc is just pointless cruelty. Mines have a place. Most, not all, but most, of the nations that signed on to the convention either had no intent to abide by it or, taking a good look at their near-mid-even long term military situations simply didn't see where mines were a critical component of their defense policy and were thus able to do the feel-good thing with little to no additional risks to themselves. The real thing is who has quit making mines, and are mines no longer being openly transferred. That's a little murkier. I'm not sure that answered your question, Jack, but there it is. Mines are a double-edged sword, they have their place, efforts to make them less dangerous in post-conflict situations are on-going, and there it sits.
 
Shaped charge? Up through one's tootsie? Eeeyew Gross! On the other hand, we have WAY too many golf courses in this county (over 120 now and more every month), and all these lazy DY geezers ride instead of walking. Betcha it would take care of their tires. Sorry, I don't like what my recently arrived neighbors have done to this part of Florida. Owhell, now that the bald eagles are coming back, maybe I'll get to see their annoying Yorkshire terriers grabbed and eaten by vicious birds.
 
Hmmm. They do look a little bit like sprinkler heads. But I won't endorse it. Nope. Not even for damyankees. It *is* one word, right?
 
Oh, wait. That would be damnyankee. A damyankee is from the Corps of Engineers.
 
Thanks, John, you did answer my question. I was a little simplistic when I said "weapons that maim are inhumane" and you reminded me of that when you pointed out that ANY weapon can maim. You are correct. Using mines is a good "economy of force" measure that if we track where they are located and ensure the mines are removed when they are no longer needed have no bigger negative moral implications than any other weapon of war.
 
Jack is right. I had a good time camping and touristing (Is that a word? No.) at the Lake Allatoona facility in North Ga. When people asked me where I was staying, I would say "...with the dead technicians." That is, corps(e) of Engineers. Now do you understand why I don't show my real name here? (It ain't John Smith)
 
Aw, shoot! I do wish all of these blog-people would use the same conventions in their comments! After my comment displayed, and only then, did I notice that the name and link of the commenter show up at the top of his remarks. Some people do it the other way. Very sorry. When I wrote "Jack" above I should have written "John" the site owner. I think. Can we please have an easy-to-remember, universally observed convention in all of these here blog thingies?
 
What? Each of us do it the same way? How Eu-ish! How, how, how, anti-quaint! Besides - we gotta keep you guys guessing! My real name ain't John Smith either... But John is correct! Most of us use the default comment templates for our various software packages. It's kinda like cars... everything around the driver is kinda laid out the same from model to model... but not quite.
 
I haven't said anything in this thread, yet. But I do accept being correct. Cheers JMH
 
Groan. Gad, John. Your cavalry-ego is intact today, I see. OH - btw, tell the webmaster of the society of your favorite regiment that it's Cavalry, not Calvary... But what should we expect from Cavalrymen who play with pink pistols?
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.