Talk:Claymore mine

message: Regarding the question below, the name Claymore came from Norman MacLeod, the inventor of the mine, who was a Scot. He named the mine after the popular Scottish weapon, the Claymore.
----
Does anyone know the origin of the name "Claymore" ?  Who was Claymore ?  And what was his contribution ?
:Yes. Not "who," "what." Many dead sassenachs. (See the article.)
Claymore is the celtic scottish longsword see german article--78.48.0.194 (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: To wrap up:
	A landmine is a landmine because of what it is, and how it is used.
* The key, critical point of a landmine, which gives it different properties to any other weapon, is that it is victim activated. This means landmines remain effective weapons even when not attended by troops, but also means they continue to remain dangerous after the troops have gone, and cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians. The claymore does not have those features. -- Securiger
	 The claymore is the requisite explosive device and is used in the same purpose as any other landmine.
* A claymore is a simple, flexible weapon that is used in a variety of roles that are unrelated to landmines. A very, very tiny fraction of claymores are used for the same purpose as landmines, but only after modification which entails complete replacement of the firing system--a process that can just as easily be applied to numerous other non-mines, from artillery shells to small arms, and even including civilian explosives. -- Securiger
	  The claymore (as designed and as used) even meets the definition of a (land)mine, as defined by its 'producer', the USA mil.
* The claymore clearly does not meet the US military, or any other, definition of a landmine because it is a direct fire, operator controlled weapon. It also fails the definitions used in International Law (Ottawa Treaty, Protocol on Prohibitions..., etc.) -- Securiger 20:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Acording to Department of the Army Technical Manual TM 9-1300-200 Ammunition, General (change 4) (October 1969) the Claymore is illustrated as and stated to be a "Fixed directional APERS mine".  Additionally, the US has defined it as a mine for many, many years.  What's the issue about it?  As issued, it is command detonated.  Several manuals oriented toward the American soldier have also included instructions on how to improvise a target inititiation system.  Similar types, such as the MON-series of russian mines, have also been classed as mines by the US military,  The advent of calling them "munitions: is likely because of the ban and related PR needs or the testing/adoption of the special operations PDM's that use a more complex onboard fuzing system.  As far as a claymore is concerned, it can be whatever type of explosive device you want depending on what the blasting cap you put in it is tied into. Deathbunny 06:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, the Claymore is a Dirivative weapon. It is based on the "Bouncing Betty" grenade that was introduced by the Germans in World War II. Bouncing Betty was a Shaped Charge Grenade which was packed with Ball Bearings, and then spring loaded into a tube. It was fired by either a lanyard across the path of the enemy, which fired the striker when it was pulled, or else by a Pressure Plate that released the lanyard when stepped on. When released, it would bound up to a height of 6 to 8 feet, and explode. When it exploded, it would shower a circular area with ball bearings. It was an area weapon, and the user had to be clear of the kill radius.
Bouncing Bettey is still in production - by the Russians and other former Warsaw Pact nations and the Chinese. We decided to improve on the idea with a directed weapon - hence the Claymore. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ===================

message: I heard at a military history museum that "claymore" could be written backwards as an acronym for "enemy reversal of mine, you are lost cause." I was told that in the Vietnam or Korean War or something, enemy soldiers would sneak to the American camps, turn the mines around, and sneak back the night before an attack. Then, when they set off the claymores, they hit themselves with it. I don't have any sources on this though. Does anybody else know of this? (Ghostofgauss 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acronym?

message: The manual is NOT a product of Global Security - it is a product of the US Army, and is in the Public Domain. You do NOT have to credit Global Security at all. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CLAYMORE FIELD MANUAL 

message: I've had a go, but I'll leave the tag on for now. FiggyBee 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: I have heard that this message was printed on the Claymore mine.  Is this true?  If so could it be mentioned in the article? Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about that. The amusingly obvious "FRONT TOWARD ENEMY" text might merit a greater mention, though. 71.203.209.0 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Inhowfar "amusing"? You have a flat box that fires shrapnell in one direction. You are in lethal battle and have to hasten to set it up. Quick, which one is the "business end" of the mine? I sure prefer large embossed letters over more "subtle" means to avoid being blown up by my own weapon. 212.149.48.43 06:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is the combination of "FRONT" and "TOWARD ENEMY" that is amusing. Either one alone would not be. It is also a moot point, since being BEHIND a Claymore is only marginally less lethal. The proper manner to deploy them is in a "swastika" pattern. Visualize a swastika where the arms end in arrows and you are standing at the very center. You deploy the claymores around you at each "elbow" and face it in the direction of the arrow. That way, none of the back-blast comes towards YOU.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.32.249 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

text: That "Front towards enemy" sign is gonna get someone killed one day. Its a minor trope in movies that people strap one of these to their chest as a way to blow up a bad dude without killing yourself. Unfortunately some poor GI that didnt pay attention in bootcamp is gonna try this one day and get returned home to the parents in a compact paste format Duckmonster (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "Do not eat"?

message: Is there a special reason that the choke is made of a radioactive material or is this a typo for ferrite choke?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.100.100.5 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mistake in the source propagated by myself - Occam's razor would suggest ferrite - good catch. Megapixie 12:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thorite Choke 

message: In the last paragraph with the discussion (above) of a ferrite choke, there is a mention of 'tinfoil': "A layer of tinfoil...". Am I to assume this is aluminum foil? Thanks, Karanne (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennedy, Thompson et.al 

message: When in reference to a specific nation's troops, the word soldier should be capitalized. The reference says "U.S. Soldiers", meaning the word should be capitalized. If you were talking about soldiers in general and not specific ones then there would be no need to capitalize.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.206.99 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: The Description says the Claymore use C-4, however the Development section always says C-3 all they way through later modifications. I'm assuming that they switched explosives at some point, but it has not bee clearly identified.Larek (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  C3 -> C4 

message: The "Kennedy, Throner, Bledsoe, and Kincheloe at Aerojet" section lists a set of requirements (although no citation for them).  One of them is listed as "a velocity of 4,000 feet (1,200 m) per second".  4000 ft/s is 1219 m/s.  This is particularly confusing, because later it is stated that "the velocity improved to 3,995 feet (1,218 m) per second".  Depending on which units you look at this either did or did not meet the requirements, 3995<4000, but 1218>1200.  I'm guessing given the time and place that the requirement was in ft/s, but without a reference I'm not sure and don't want to make things worse by making a bad edit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheiss (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development Specs 

message: A Claymore can be rigged with a tripwire. The technique I was taught was a wooden clothespin, a battery and a white c-ration (yes, c-ration) spoon. That being said, there is no 'official' way to detonate a Claymore with a tripwire, nor a timer, nor a laser, nor an IR sensor, nor a lit fuse. I wish there was. Please provide a cite for any mention of tripwire detonation of a Claymore. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also you can use a safety pin and some nails. In 'Nam we were also taught to set it up so that this device would be blown up if tripped. Supposedly, Bobby trapping a claymore was a violation of some convention, so we didn't want evidence left. BTW, when we did things like this, there were "mechanical ambushes"; when the other side did it, they were Bobby traps.Wschart (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tripwires

message: The article is currently heavy on design and development, which is good; but it currently lacks any discussion of how much it has been used in combat, in what conflicts, under what circumstances, how many casualties are attributed to its use, etc.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage in combat - history 

message: Rambo (IV)--Timtak (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Use in fiction?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on M18 Claymore mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/2003/MAR_APR_2003/MAR_APR_2003_PAGES_10_12.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on M18 Claymore mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017193103/http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=5452 to http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=5452
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017193108/http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=7544 to http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=7544
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017193113/http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=7545 to http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=7545
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Front toward enemy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24#Front toward enemy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Front toward enemy" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Claymore mine. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: M18 Claymore mine →  – Name of mine is "M18A1 Claymore". Eurohunter (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 May 2022