Talk:Anti-tank mine

message: The history section needs rewriting, for three reasons:
# It is mainly about other antitank weapons (some of which are misleadingly called mines!), with very little information about the history of AT mines;
# Some of what it does say is false. Specifically, it claims that "anti-tank mines were developed at the start of the Second World War." I don't know enough about the history of AT mines to rewrite this section, but I do know that the Tellermine started production in 1935, and several years before the start of WW2 several nations already had extensive stockpiles with several models to choose from. For example Finland started producing its own designs from 1936, and already at the start of the Winter War was manufacturing over 2,000 per month; and
# The statement The majority of anti-tank mines were not used actively against vehicles but buried in minefields as either a deterrent or a trap. is confusing. If it is supposed to mean that in WW2 most AT mines were converted to antipersonnel traps, I find that very unlikely to be true and want to see a reference. But if it is meant to mean that mines laid in minefields are not "used actively", then it is nothing to do with history, but rather is very strange phrasing to describe an inherent property of mines.
-- Securiger 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further information: This reference, which is one of the best resources on the history of mines that I have seen, notes that anti-vehicle (anti-train) mines were used during the US Civil War, and that anti-tank mines were used in World War One from 1916 on--improvised at first, but 3 million facotry produced ones by Armistice. Lots more info. I will use this as a basis for the rewrite unless someone beats me to it. -- Securiger 05:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously some of my intent has slipped along the way in typing it up. It was my intent to state that the development of the thrown mine was chiefly at the start of the war - by mid war the PIAT, Bazooka etc mean the risky business of throwing charges is avoided. "Actively" also meant putting them under tanks at the last minute rather thna letting the tanks come to them. Never mentioned AP use. GraemeLeggett 09:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I've added this section to get the ball rolling as it obviously requires much more information. Deon Steyn 12:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Design

message: I think the "History" section's name could be changed to "Development" and then it could include WWI, WWII and perhaps "Cold War" and/or "Modern". Then this section can track the changes and technological development of the mine as opposed to every historical instance it was used in, I don't for instance think the mines themselves differed much from one war to the next and I don't think we should clutter it up by having a separate section for each war, because then we should really also add many others wars besides "vietnam", "afghanistan" and "gulf war(s)"... ("angola", "korea" etc. etc.) besides there is some overlap with "cold war". Perhaps these wars can be listed in a section called "Service" or "Deployment" or "Combat use" or something? 
Deon Steyn 06:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll flesh it out a bit this evening - you'll see where I'm going with it (no references to hand). Megapixie 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, this article needs a lot of help, it was pretty much a stub until only recently I also started fleshing it out. I have moved the list of conflicts out to it's own section and added a new one with (southern africa) with lots of info relevant to mines and then also expanded the original "history". I think keep the "development history" and "combat use" separate works quite well, because even though the development is tied into history at first (factor of being born out of war) the development is then outside of wars. It's just one idea, see if it makes sense or if we should take it in a different direction. --Deon Steyn 07:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - I'll expand as the structure is now, and we'll see how we get on. Megapixie 09:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking good. Nice "interwar" section you added in "history". We can now remove some the first bits of information from "WWII" section (like tellermine 29) that is covered by this new section? Deon Steyn 06:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History