Inert Claymore Arrived Today

[commachio]

And very nice it is too. All the way from the good old USA although a bit of friction with customs - managed to get it through though.

Came with the bag, instructions, clacker, wire, test kit. One of the side walls is a little cracked but will be doing some light remedial work on this just to strengthen it. Otherwise in very good condition.

I may have 2 or 3 more on the way if anyone was interested.:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

 

[gijunkman]

If the plastic body is cracked good old model glue will work to put it back together. I glued mine then used rubber bands to hold the pieces in place while it set up.:tinysmile_twink_t:

 

[Dave83]

techical questions about this mine

hello
i have no idear how this mine works i have heard a lot about it but since i am collection only ww1 stuff i am not involved in this new kind of weapons ! can anyone tell me how this mine works and what was coming out of it steel balls or fletches or only because of the explosive inside the enemy was killed ??
And how it was activated with an wire or how ??

thanks

very interesting for me

 

[pointblank0]

hello
i have no idear how this mine works i have heard a lot about it but since i am collection only ww1 stuff i am not involved in this new kind of weapons ! can anyone tell me how this mine works and what was coming out of it steel balls or fletches or only because of the explosive inside the enemy was killed ??
And how it was activated with an wire or how ??

thanks

very interesting for me

I'm no expert, but claymores have been around since probably the late 50s maybe early 60s? I think they can be triggered by all means now including IR beam. The clacker that is mentioned that came with the mine is a hand held, originally hard wired detonator so the mine can be remote detonated. I assume that these are fitted with radio detonators now. I believe they can also be used with trip fuzes too. The front curved plate has loads of round steel balls behing rather than fletchetts.
May I say, what a fantastic looking find. I may have to look out for one myself.

 

[commachio]

Yep.....the claymore has been around for a while now. Used in Vietnam all the way through to Afghanistan. They are still current and have changed little over the years.

Current versions contain a C4 explosive bed (approx 0.5KG) with about 1KG of steel ball bearings (700-1000 of them). The shape of the mine is the important part - the convex (including internal plate) forces the blast in an arc forward rather than backward. They have a range of approx 100m (safe zone outside of this). Despite this, debris caught up in the blast creates a bigger kill zone.

The mines came (and still come) in a should satchel containing a clacker (electronic firing handle), text kit (that attached between the clacker and wire) to test for a complete circuit, 30m of fuse wire and a number of blasting caps.

The fuse wire is attached to the front legs with approx 6 inches "spare" and then unravalled to a secure area. A test is then completed to ensure the cirsuit works. Once happy the blasting cap is then inserted into the internal cavity (on the top) and the wires attached. The device is then 'Live' and ready for use. During conflicts however, the wires and blasting caps are usually set up straight away.

There are also trip-devices that can be added, time delay fuses (which also came with this unit) and IR/VHF detonators.

 

[US-Subs]

The earliest versions were a bit different, slightly different dimensions and three legs.

 

[commachio]

Wow.....never seen one of them.....looks like some sort of science fiction tripod :tinysmile_hmm_t:

Does it use C3 rather than C4 or some completely different explosive. C3 was used in the early Vietnam versions as far as I am aware......

 

[US-Subs]

I don't recall. Its in a couple manuals, so shouldn't be too hard to reference. I'm at work and away from my books at the moment, so someone else may be able to look it up?

 

[US-Subs]

Ever see this one before? Maybe if we ask real nice Ordnance will tell the story.

- Sorry Rick, but I've got to get back to work, and maybe you have a picture with the cover off?

 

[inertordnance]

A newer Claymore Type System, The US M5 MCCM "Modular Crowd Control Munition".

"The M5 MCCM is a non lethal rubber ball device housed in rubber a casing similar to the Claymore mine. It will stop, confuse, disorient and/or temporarily incapacitate area targets or personnel at close range. This weapon is intended to be direct-fire, low-hazard device that will produce an anti-personnel non lethal effect on impact. It serves as a force multiplier, providing field commanders and soldiers with greater flexibility in the application of non lethal force and increasing their effectiveness during military operations."

 

[pointblank0]

That one was on the news recently. Apparently one had been set off by an intruder in the grounds of the White House?

 

[V40]

SOG could make It's own claymores called soap dish claymores.

Also, I have a book about claymores with their complete history, development thru todyas model. It is written by Larry Grupp.

 

[Mikey25]

Was the whole claymore idea (the curving, the remote detonation) a US design? I've seen Russian "claymore-style" mines. Always makes me wonder who had them first.

 

[EODGUY]

Cover off and More

OK, Jeff, nice XM-215 gun unit in the photo. I do not have one of these (did at one time), but do have some photos. The XM-55 Counter Ambush System was introduced in Vietnam as part of Project ENSURE. Basically it was a module that contained electrically fired cal. .22 or cal. .30 ball cartridges. I do not think the cal. .30 ones ever made theater. The XM-215 gun (that is what they called it!) was placed on the XM-169 mount and in the case of the photos on an M35A2 cargo truck. They were curved so they would spread into a wide pattern when fired. The XM-3 fire control was connected to a cable that ran into the cab of the vehicle. The idea was that when they encountered a roadside ambush they could fire one or more of these "guns" and the resulting onslaught off bullets would drive the enemy off. As usual in "good ideas", this one had enough problems that it never was adopted. The biggest problem was it wasn't effective. It did spawn some interesting field expedients though. I remember responding to an incident near Pleiku where the truck crew had mounted several claymores on the side of their truck in a similar fashion. Their unit was one that had done a field evaluation of the XM-55 so they "knew" the concept. They couldn't understand what went wrong when they fired the first Claymore when they were attacked. Luckily it was a supply vehicle and no one was in the bed of the truck. They couldn't grasp the concept that high explosive waves went in all directions, not just where you pointed the ordnance.

 

[EODGUY]

Who Was the First Curved Mine Designer?

Good question and one I do not totally know the answer to. I do not have any access to when the Soviets actually started their design program for the MON-50 and other similar mines. My feeling is though that it was after the US design effort.
The US Claymore design effort began late in 1955, when Picatinny Arsenal awarded a contract to Aerojet General Corp. for an improved antipersonnel landmine. Aerojet could only afford to assign one engineer to the project at the time and that was John D. Bledsoe. The design requirements of the mine were it weigh not more than 3 pounds, be about 3.5 x 10 inches in size, have a vertical fragment distributuion of 6 feet at a 100 foot range, a horizontal distribution of fragments over a 60 degree angle, have at least one fragment per square foot at a 100 foot range, and penetrate a 1-inch pine board at 100 feet.
At least 630 fragments are required to ensure 1 frag per square foot over the target pattern required. This number and the weight requirement then limited the size of the fragments. Of course, with smaller fragments you didn't have the mass and velocity to penetrate the pine board at the required distance. The first design tried was with cubed fragments in a fiberglass matrix and a flat faced mine. It showed that the air drag on cubes was not acceptable and the flat face did not provide the spread so they switched to balls and curved the face. To get the required minimum 630 fragments, the maximum diameter of each ball could be 7/32" (0.21875 inch). They first tried case-hardened ball bearings, but found they fractured under the stress of the explosion. They then found that burnishing balls were not case hardened and they worked fine so they ordered a large number of what became known around Aerojet as "Bledsoe's Balls". They used an expoxy filled with iron powder as the matrix beause regular epoxy was found to allow too much of the explosive gas to escape around the balls thus reducing their velocity.
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that after numerous design attempts they finalized on what has become one of the most copied and fielded antipersonnel mine designs ever made. Even the anti-coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are making their own copies of the Claymore. Of course, now the trend is to ban landmines, because someone found out they can actually kill or hurt someone. The Claymore is exempt from the ban at this point however, as long as it retains a "man in the firing loop". In other words it has to be fired manually not by a trip wire or other victim operated device.

 

[US-Subs]

Bob, excellent info and some interesting photos I hadn't seen on the setup for the XM215. I've got a xerox copy of the manual for setting it up, but the photos are great. It would be great to find an old test video of a full set firing...

In regard to the claymore and it being "excempt from the ban on landmines" I think I would argue the language/terms a little - as I understand it, the claymore itself isn't exempt. Last I saw, the US isn't a signatory, so its mines cannot be exempt, or anything else. For the other countries using "claymore type" devices, my understanding is that they simply have been re-designated as something other than landmines - i.e. "directional weapons". I don't think that the treaty has any clauses for exemptions.

 

[EODGUY]

Claymore Exemption

Jeff,

You have me at a slight disadvanage. The US is not a signatory as you state and therefore all our mines are not covered by the treaty. I have not worked directly with the UN/government, but those in my office who have attended the conferences here and in Switzerland have continually used the word "exempt" when discussing the Claymore type mines around the office and meetings back here. I have spent years trying to get all the rest of the mines of the Claymore design around the world called Directed Fragmentation mines. There is only one Claymore. All the rest are copies. Claymore has become a universal term like Xerox, etc. I understand why people do it, but technically it is not correct. Finally convinced my old agency and they use directed frag now. Bottom line though is regardless of the terminology, nations under the treaty can retain and used Claymore-like mine systems if they are manually fired.

 

[HAZORD]

One thing about the Claymore that hasn't been mentioned is how it got it's name. What could be a more appropriate name for a directional mine that cuts a wide swath out of the enemy, than being named after a rather large English sword that was also known for cutting a wide swath out of the enemy.

The Russian copies of the claymore and directional mine family are designated MON-50, MON-90, MON-100 and MON-200. The MON-100 and MON-200 are of a circular Miznay Shardin style design. The designation numbers in their names refers to the kill distance in meters that they are rated for. The shrapnel pieces used in the MON-200 are approximately 2 inch long sections of steel reinforcing bar as is used in concrete construction. MON-200 mines were used very effectively most recently against armored vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[US-Subs]

Jeff,

You have me at a slight disadvanage. The US is not a signatory as you state and therefore all our mines are not covered by the treaty. I have not worked directly with the UN/government, but those in my office who have attended the conferences here and in Switzerland have continually used the word "exempt" when discussing the Claymore type mines around the office and meetings back here. I have spent years trying to get all the rest of the mines of the Claymore design around the world called Directed Fragmentation mines. There is only one Claymore. All the rest are copies. Claymore has become a universal term like Xerox, etc. I understand why people do it, but technically it is not correct. Finally convinced my old agency and they use directed frag now. Bottom line though is regardless of the terminology, nations under the treaty can retain and used Claymore-like mine systems if they are manually fired.

Thankfully I work(ed) the CW side of the house and don't have to deal with the mine folks. I had an inspection in Canada a couple years back and one of our escort team had been a player in the mine treaty, it was all he could talk about. We deal with a lot of the NGOs however, and that remains one of their favorite topics if they get a chance to preach. Let some of them get started and they go on like the energizer bunny. Lately they have been moving more toward the submunition area and now riot control type agents (incapacitants). Most of these people have really good intentions, but many don't know squat about their subject beyond political soundbites. Landmines = Bad

 

[pzgr40]

Here a picture of the Russian counterpart of the Claymore, the MON-50
Regards , DJH