Hubbry Logo
Mine rollerMine rollerMain
Open search
Mine roller
Community hub
Mine roller
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mine roller
Mine roller
Mine roller
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A US Army Panther mine-clearing variant of the M60 tank. It is fitted with mine rollers and operated by remote control.

A mine roller or mine trawl is a demining device mounted on a tank or armoured personnel carrier, designed to detonate anti-tank mines. It allows combat engineers to clear a lane through a minefield which is protected by enemy fire.

The device is usually composed of a fork or two push arm assemblies fitted to the front of a tank hull, with two banks of rollers that can be lowered in front of the tank's tracks. Each roller bank has several heavy wheels studded with short projecting steel girders, which apply a higher ground pressure than the tank's tracks. This ensures the explosion of pressure-fused anti-tank mines, which would otherwise explode under the track itself.[1]

History

[edit]

During the interwar period, the British were the first to work on mine clearing devices.[2] After being removed from the Dover Patrol and joining the newly created Tank Board, Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon designed the Invicta Roller, which was a pair of steamrollers rigged in front of a Mark V tank.[3] It was a cumbersome design and the rollers had to be re-rigged every time a mine detonated beneath them, making the clearing process slower and more complicated than "crawling along the ground with a bayonet".[4]

In 1937, the concept was revived with sprung rollers mounted in front of a Covenanter tank. When the rollers detonated a mine, the explosion simply pushed the rollers up against the spring and then rebounded back to the ground, allowing the tank to continue mine clearing without interruptions. This design would become the AMRA (Anti-Mine Roller Attachment),[5] which would be used in their Matilda II, Valentine, and Crusader tanks in the North African campaign during World War II. The rollers only covered the width of each track rather than clearing a tank-width path for subsequent vehicles and troops. To these were added a Churchill tank with the evocatively named Canadian Indestructible Roller Device (CIRD). The British used mine rollers to detect the presence of minefields and then used mine flails for the clearance.[6]

After great difficulties caused by minefields in the Winter War against Finland, the Soviet Red Army assigned P. M. Mugalev at the Dormashina Factory in Nikolayev to design a mine-clearing vehicle. Prototypes were tested based on the T-28 medium tank in 1940. Development was interrupted by the start of World War II, but resumed in 1942. T-60 and KV tank chassis underwent trials, but only the T-34 was deemed to have a sufficiently robust transmission and clutch.

Experimental detachments of PT-34 mine roller tanks were formed in May 1942, and saw action at Voronezh in August. The first Independent Engineer Tank Regiment with eighteen mine rollers was fielded in October 1943. At least five regiments were formed during the war.

The PT-34's huge roller fork was semi-permanently mounted on a T-34 or T-34-85 tank. The rollers were usually removed for travel, and only installed for mine clearing operations. Adaptations for later tanks consisted of two lighter arms. The Mugalev system was adopted by U.S. and Israeli forces in the 1980s.

The Germans worked on several designs mounted on different tanks, but none ever entered service before the end of WWII. As early as of 1939, they worked on a radio-controlled miniature tank with a set of toothed rollers mounted behind it. While prototypes were tested, development took a different turn and it ended up becoming the Goliath tracked mine. Another German prototype was the Räumer S: a 130 tonne articulated vehicle with two pairs of 2.7 m (8 ft 10 in) diameter roller wheels, each one powered by a Maybach engine to cover as much ground as possible. Heavily armoured, it was impervious to any anti-tank mine, but it was too heavy to cross most bridges. The prototype was captured by the Allies at a Krupp testing ground at the end of the war.[7]

Throughout 1942 and 1943, the United States Army Ordnance Department experimented with several mine roller designs. Their limitations were excessive weight, slow speeds, and frequent breakdowns. After testing over 15 different designs, the US Army adopted the T1E3 Mine Exploder, which was first fielded by early 1944.[8] It was attached to the M4 Sherman medium tank and was nicknamed Aunt Jemima because of its pancake-like appearance. It had two sets of five disc rollers, 10 feet (3.0 meters) in diameter each.[9]

Post-WWII

[edit]
During the Vietnam War, the United States tried mounting Ensure 202 expendable mine rollers on an M48 tank.

Since 1945, a number of countries have developed mine rollers including:

  • Russia
  • United Kingdom
    • Armtrac Limited – Armtrac Roller: capable of operating at 50 km/h.[11]
    • Pearson Engineering – Light Weight Mine Roller (LWMR).[12]
  • United States
    • Ensure 202: Vietnam-War-era mine roller for M48 Patton tank.
    • Axion Corporation: fits to M1 Abrams tank.[13]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mine roller

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A mine roller is a mechanical device mounted on the front of tanks, armored personnel carriers, or other tactical , consisting of heavy rollers or wheels that detonate anti-tank landmines and improvised devices (IEDs) by applying pressure ahead of the 's path, thereby clearing a safe lane for the and protecting its crew from threats. The rollers, often connected by chains or rigid arms and hydraulically powered, simulate the weight and pressure of a passing to trigger pressure-fuse mechanisms, exploding mines at a safe distance while following terrain contours for effective coverage. Mine rollers trace their origins to improvised designs during the , where Union forces used flatcars to trigger Confederate railroad mines, but systematic development began toward the end of when the experimented with tank-mounted rollers under Major Giffard Le Quesne Martel and Major Charles Inglis to counter trench minefields. Although initial prototypes were tested in 1918 but not deployed before the armistice, the concept evolved rapidly; the first combat use occurred in 1940 when Soviet forces attached rollers to tanks to breach Finland's during the . By , rollers saw widespread adoption, with the Soviet Mugalev design introduced in 1942 influencing post-war systems used by nations, , and the , often featuring detachable arms for improved maneuverability. In contemporary operations, mine rollers have proven essential for route clearance against IEDs, particularly in asymmetric conflicts; the U.S. Army fielded its current generation of mine rollers in 2007 to safeguard vehicles in and , with models like the Lightweight Mine Roller (LWMR) providing modular, battle-proven protection through rapid deployment and minimal impact on vehicle mobility. These systems, weighing around 1,500 to 2,500 kg depending on configuration, offer clearance widths of approximately 2.3 meters for track protection and are controlled from within the , enhancing operator . While effective against pressure-activated threats, mine rollers have limitations, such as narrower sweep paths compared to plows or flails and reduced efficacy on soft soil or against non-contact mines, prompting ongoing innovations in hybrid designs for humanitarian and .

Purpose and Design

Definition and Role

A mine roller is a mechanical breaching device mounted on tanks or , designed to detonate anti-tank mines by simulating the pressure of a passing through heavy weighted rollers that roll ahead of the host platform. These devices typically consist of segmented discs or bars attached to an , which apply force via their combined weight—often exceeding several tons—and forward motion to trigger pressure-fused explosives in the ground. The rollers detonate mines on contact, absorbing the blast while protecting the and crew behind them. The primary role of a mine roller is to enable the safe passage of forces through minefields during operations, particularly allowing engineers to breach obstacles under without exposing personnel to immediate danger. By clearing lanes ahead of advancing units, mine rollers facilitate rapid maneuver and reduce casualties from improvised devices or conventional mines, serving as a key tool in countermine tactics integrated with efforts. This capability is especially vital in high-threat environments where speed and protection are paramount for follow-on and armor. Mine rollers differ from other demining methods such as plows, which displace soil and mines to the sides without , or trawls, which may use dragged chains for similar triggering but lack the rigid roller structure for terrain conformity. The roller approach emphasizes direct mechanical triggering through weight and motion rather than excavation or line charges, making it suitable for proofing cleared but less effective against deeply buried or non-pressure mines.

Key Components

A mine roller system typically consists of roller drums or wheels mounted in banks to trigger anti-tank mines ahead of the host . These rollers are often constructed from heavy discs or solid wheels, with configurations ranging from three to five units per bank to ensure adequate ground coverage. For instance, early designs like the Soviet PT-34 featured multi-wheeled with starfish-shaped wheels, each comprising a solid center disc reinforced by radiating H-beam girders for structural integrity. In other variants, such as the U.S. Model Ia, six tank road wheels were arranged on a central per assembly, providing a width of approximately 47.5 inches to overlap the vehicle's tracks. Mounting arms, usually in fork or push configurations, secure the roller banks to the front of the vehicle hull. These arms, such as the extension arms in the Model Ia, attach the wheel assemblies to the main frame using bolts and incorporate break-away features to allow detachment upon mine detonation, minimizing damage to the primary structure. The frame itself serves as the core structural element, often pivoting on a shaft mounted to the vehicle's and supported by turnbuckles and pins for stability. Suspension systems integrated into the frame, including rubber torsion springs or hydraulic mechanisms, enable the rollers to maintain consistent ground contact while absorbing shock from explosions; for example, adjustable roller chains with pins allow fine-tuning of the suspension in systems like the Model Ia. Modern examples, such as the Light Weight Mine Roller (LWMR), employ modular frames with hydraulic lift cylinders for deployment, featuring individually articulating wheels that follow contours in stowed, pushdown, or float positions. Integration with the vehicle chassis occurs through hydraulic or mechanical linkages that facilitate raising and lowering the assembly. These linkages often require hull modifications, such as nesting blocks or towing eye pins on tanks like the M-48A2/A3, to ensure secure attachment without compromising mobility. The Self-Protection Adaptive Roller Kit (SPARK), for instance, uses three unique brackets tailored for vehicles like the HMMWV or M900 truck series, allowing rapid modular installation. Materials emphasize durability against blast forces, predominantly reinforced for frames, arms, and rollers to withstand repeated detonations. Components like torsion springs may incorporate neoprene rubber for flexibility, with elements often cadmium-plated to resist . Typical weights for WWII-era systems ranged from 2 to 5 tons, as seen in the Model Ia's total assembly of about 10,000 pounds including the mounting frame, while lighter contemporary designs like the LWMR weigh 1,500 to 2,500 kg for enhanced vehicle maneuverability.

Operational Mechanism

Mine rollers function by deploying heavy, rotating or wheels ahead of a to apply targeted , triggering the fuzes of pressure-sensitive anti-tank mines. These rollers, often constructed from and weighing several tons, concentrate force on the surface to simulate or surpass the ground exerted by a tank's tracks, typically in the range of 10-20 psi depending on the system's design and adjustments. This activates the mine's , leading to detonation without direct contact from the itself. During operation, the equipped vehicle—such as a or armored personnel carrier—advances at a controlled speed of 5-10 km/h to ensure reliable detection and . The rollers extend typically 2-3 meters forward, rolling over potential mine locations and causing explosions in advance of the main ; this process clears a path typically 3-4 meters wide per pass. If the minefield density is high or coverage is incomplete, multiple passes along the same lane may be required to achieve full clearance, with from initial runs potentially affecting subsequent effectiveness. The design accommodates detonations by positioning the explosion point beneath or adjacent to the rollers, where the blast's is dissipated without compromising the vehicle's integrity. A key standoff distance provided by the extended roller arms protects the crew and from the primary shockwave and fragmentation. Rollers are engineered to absorb multiple blasts, often with modular components that can be replaced if damaged. Variations in the mechanism include fixed roller assemblies, which are rigidly mounted for heavy-duty, prolonged use on tanks, and detachable systems that enhance mobility by allowing quick attachment to various wheeled or tracked vehicles for diverse terrains. These options balance operational persistence with tactical flexibility, such as rapid deployment in dynamic environments.

History

Pre-World War II Developments

The origins of mine rollers trace back to the final months of , when the sought solutions to counter German trench mines and that threatened advancing tanks. In 1918, Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon of the Tank Board designed the Invicta Roller, a rudimentary device consisting of the front rolls from two steamrollers mounted on long wooden beams attached to the front of a . This heavy, flail-like apparatus was intended to trigger mines by rolling over them ahead of the vehicle, allowing safer passage through contaminated terrain during static warfare. Trials were conducted at Claremont, , in , but the design proved cumbersome, with the rollers failing to withstand detonations and requiring frequent re-rigging after steering maneuvers. During the interwar period, interest in mine-clearing attachments waned as tank designs shifted toward greater mobility and lighter armor, reducing the emphasis on heavy, static battlefield threats like anti-tank mines. However, by the mid-1930s, escalating global tensions prompted renewed experimentation, leading to the development of the Armoured Mine Roller Attachment (AMRA) in 1937 by John Fowler & Company. Initially trialed on a Dragon Medium Mk III gun , the AMRA featured a frame projecting ahead of the vehicle, supporting four heavy sprung roller banks to detect and detonate mines while adapting to uneven ground. It was later adapted for use on emerging cruiser tanks, including the Covenanter, to address potential minefields in anticipated conflicts. Early challenges with these devices centered on their excessive weight, which significantly reduced vehicle speed and maneuverability, making them impractical for the faster, more agile tanks of the era. The focus remained on countering anti-tank mines from trench-based defenses, reflecting lessons from World War I's immobile fronts rather than mobile warfare doctrines. As a result, adoption was limited, with only prototypes and small-scale tests conducted before 1939, and no widespread deployment occurred until the escalation of World War II. Although Western development remained experimental, the achieved the first combat use of mine rollers during the against in 1939–1940, attaching rudimentary rollers to tanks to detonate mines along the and facilitate breakthroughs in fortified positions.

World War II Applications

During , the deployed the Anti-Mine Roller Attachment (AMRA) on , Valentine, and Crusader tanks to counter extensive Axis minefields in from 1941 to 1943. This device consisted of heavy roller drums towed ahead of the tank to detonate anti-tank mines under pressure, allowing armored advances in operations such as Crusader and the subsequent push toward . The AMRA proved valuable in the desert terrain, where it cleared paths for and follow-on forces, though its coverage was limited to the tank's track width, requiring multiple passes for wider lanes. At the Second in October-November 1942, such rollers contributed to breaching the "Devil's Gardens"—dense mine belts laid by German and Italian forces—enabling Montgomery's Eighth Army to outflank Axis positions and secure a pivotal victory. By 1944, British innovations extended to the Indestructible Roller Device (CIRD), a robust roller system mounted on Churchill AVRE tanks for the on D-Day. Developed collaboratively with Canadian engineers, the CIRD featured articulated arms supporting heavy steel rollers designed to withstand multiple detonations while simulating vehicle weight to trigger mines. Although adopted on a limited scale due to production constraints and testing preferences for flail alternatives, it supported beach obstacle clearance on sectors like and , helping open exit routes for follow-on troops despite high attrition from enemy fire. The device's durability influenced post-invasion adaptations, emphasizing mechanical reliability in assaults. The fielded the PT-3 mine roller on tanks starting with experimental units in 1942, rapidly scaling to five Engineer Tank Regiments by mid-1943 for Eastern Front operations. Each regiment included 22 s equipped with 18 PT-3 units, featuring multi-wheeled roller forks protruding ahead to detonate mines during breakthroughs. These were instrumental in the Orel offensive following the in July-August 1943, where they cleared dense Soviet-laid and German minefields, allowing armored spearheads to exploit gaps and contribute to the Red Army's counteroffensive momentum. The PT-3's design prioritized simplicity and tank survivability, enduring repeated blasts to facilitate advances in heavily fortified sectors. In the United States, the T1E3 Mine Exploder—consisting of paired roller banks with ten 2,100-pound steel discs driven by the tank's tracks—was standardized on tanks in early 1944 for anticipated hedgerow and beach mine threats. Deployed by specialized battalions like the 738th , it supported the invasion from onward, clearing paths through German obstacles during and later Roer River crossings, where it complemented dozer and flail variants to reduce breakthrough times. While primarily European-focused, similar roller concepts informed Pacific adaptations, though direct T1E3 use there was limited by island-hopping tactics emphasizing naval bombardment over mechanized clearance. The device's adoption marked a shift toward integrated armor, enhancing speeds but highlighting vulnerabilities to in open fields. Germany prototyped the Räumer S, a 130-ton articulated mine-clearing vehicle with massive 2.7-meter wheels intended to roll over and detonate entire minefields without halting advances. Developed by in 1944 as a response to Allied gains, the single prototype underwent testing but was never fielded operationally due to persistent mechanical unreliability, including articulation failures and excessive weight straining mobility. This contrasted with earlier German reliance on remote devices like the during , where mine defenses stalled panzer thrusts; the Räumer S's absence underscored resource strains late in the war, limiting Axis countermeasures to infantry-laid obstacles.

Post-World War II Evolution

Following , mine roller technology evolved to address the demands of conflicts, with the focusing on adaptable systems for environments like . In the late 1960s, the U.S. Army developed the ENSURE 202 expendable mine-clearing roller, mounted on tanks to facilitate rapid route clearance in jungle terrain. This device, weighing approximately pounds (about 4.5 metric tons), used six articulating wheels per side to transmit the tank's weight and detonate pressure-activated anti-tank and anti-personnel mines ahead of the vehicle. Deployed starting in 1970 with units like the and the 4th Engineer Battalion, it proved effective in operations along routes such as Highway 19, where it cleared minefields without damaging infrastructure, though it was less reliable against command-detonated devices. Evaluations in highlighted its utility for secondary sweeps after manual detection, but limitations in durability and swept area led to recommendations for design improvements rather than widespread adoption beyond the conflict. Soviet developments maintained continuity from wartime T-34-based systems, refining mine rollers for integration with post-war main battle tanks during the . Research in the built on earlier designs, culminating in the KMT-5 series introduced in , which was specifically engineered for T-55 tanks and later adapted for and variants. The KMT-5M, a mechanical trawl weighing around 5 metric tons, featured plow-like tines and rollers to mechanically trigger or deflect mines, allowing tanks to breach fields at speeds up to 10-15 km/h. By the 1970s, these systems evolved into the KMT-6 for tanks, incorporating hydraulic controls for quicker attachment and detachment, enhancing operational flexibility in potential NATO-Warsaw Pact confrontations. This progression emphasized robust, tank-integrated solutions suited to massed armored advances, with over a thousand units produced for export to allies. Western innovations during the era prioritized lighter, more mobile designs for training and limited combat roles, though practical constraints often restricted deployment. In the (1950-1953), mine rollers saw minimal use due to the conflict's dynamic minefields, steep terrain, and rapid tactical shifts, which favored infantry-led clearance over heavy vehicle-mounted systems. British efforts focused on reducing system weight for European exercises, adapting hydraulically raised rollers to improve deployability on tanks without compromising mobility. Key evolutions across designs included advanced for faster setup times and overall weight reductions from wartime levels, enhancing transportability while maintaining pressure. These refinements, tested in maneuvers, addressed post-war logistical needs but were not extensively combat-proven until later conflicts.

Modern Variants and Usage

Contemporary Models

Contemporary mine rollers, developed primarily since the , incorporate advanced materials and modular designs to counter improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and anti-tank mines, with a focus on compatibility with modern armored vehicles for enhanced route clearance. In the , the Armtrac Counter-IED Mine Roller System, introduced in the 2000s, is tailored for main battle tanks, featuring self-weight configurations with additional masses up to 3 tons to trigger pressure-fused explosives. This system supports operational speeds ranging from 0 to 50 km/h, enabling efficient proving of routes ahead of armored columns. Another British innovation is the Pearson Engineering Lightweight Mine Roller (LWMR), weighing approximately 1,580 kg for swift attachment and detachment on medium-weight vehicles. Comprising two gangs of four puncture-resistant rollers each on swing-arm suspensions, the LWMR facilitates rapid deployment in dynamic environments while maintaining vehicle mobility. United States models emphasize adaptability to evolving IED threats. Axion Corporation's mine rollers, fielded in the 2010s for the tank, utilize a modular framework that allows quick reconfiguration for different mission profiles, prioritizing protection against buried and command-detonated devices. The Rhino mine roller, integrated on Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles such as the M-ATV, provides front-mounted pre-detonation capability through heavy-duty wheel assemblies designed for high-mobility operations in contested terrains. Russian contemporary systems include the , derived from the chassis, and the IMR-3, derived from the chassis, upgraded since the 1990s with integrated mine trawls—roller-like chain systems—for breaching minefields during urban clearance tasks. These vehicles combine the trawl with dozer blades to clear obstacles in built-up areas, supporting mechanized advances. Among other nations, the Israeli Defense Forces utilize the Nochri-Kal mine roller variant on tanks to detonate threats.

Applications in Recent Conflicts

In the 1991 , U.S. Marine Corps and units deployed mine rollers and plows to breach Iraqi obstacle belts, enabling rapid advances despite occasional losses to mines. For instance, an M60A1 tank equipped with a mine roller was detonated during the initial breach, but overall operations cleared multiple lanes efficiently, with the first minefield breached in 24 minutes and the second in 15 minutes by the . Similarly, the VII Corps used armored bulldozers and tank-mounted plows to open 16 lanes in 80 minutes, minimizing delays in the ground campaign. During the , U.S. and British forces continued employing mechanical mine-clearing systems, including rollers, to navigate defended routes, where these efforts showed limited success against Iraqi scatterable mines, which were delivered by and , complicating detection and due to their unpredictable placement and mechanisms. In the and conflicts of the 2000s and 2010s, mine rollers integrated with Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles played a key role in against improvised explosive devices (IEDs), particularly pressure-plate variants along routes. Systems like the Self-Protection Adaptive Roller Kit (SPARKS), mountable on Humvees and RG-31 MRAPs, pre-detonated IEDs by scraping the ground to reduce blast impacts and protect personnel. These adaptations contributed to MRAPs saving thousands of lives by enhancing survivability in IED-heavy environments, though operational speeds were constrained to 1-2 km per hour in contested terrain to ensure thorough clearance. Russian forces utilized mine rollers in the Chechen Wars of the 1990s and early 2000s, with vehicles like the BMR-3 employing drum-type rollers to clear urban and rural paths amid guerrilla ambushes. In the ongoing conflict since 2014, Russia has deployed advanced mine-clearing systems such as the BMR-3M and UR-77, fitted with rollers and trawl mechanisms, to breach Ukrainian minefields in the and other fronts, though heavy losses to drones and artillery have highlighted vulnerabilities in these operations as of 2025. Post-1990s humanitarian in the , including Bosnia-Herzegovina and , incorporated mine rollers and similar flail systems to prepare contaminated sites by detonating or disrupting fuzes in vegetation-covered areas. For example, mini-flails effectively reduced fatalities from bounding mines by initiating explosions at a safe distance, allowing manual teams to follow and clear remnants, though evolving threats like smart mines—equipped with sensors and anti-handling devices—have diminished roller efficacy by resisting mechanical triggering.

Advantages and Limitations

Operational Benefits

Mine rollers provide critical safety enhancements in minefield clearance operations by detonating pressure-activated and other victim-operated explosives at a distance from the host vehicle and its crew, thereby minimizing the risk of casualties and vehicle damage. In controlled testing, systems like the SCAMP roller demonstrated up to 96% effectiveness in triggering mines buried up to 10 cm deep across various soil types, including 100% success rates for certain simulants. This remote detonation capability protects not only the operating personnel but also trailing forces and civilians by creating verified safe passages through hazardous areas. In terms of speed and efficiency, mine rollers facilitate the rapid creation of cleared lanes, typically spanning the full width of the vehicle's tracks—around 3 to 4 meters—while operating at speeds of 5 to 15 km/h, far surpassing the pace of manual or handheld detection methods. For example, the SCAMP roller maintained high performance at these velocities in and , enabling hasty route clearance without significant loss in reliability. This mechanical approach reduces the time required for tasks and allows for repeated passes over the same area to ensure thorough verification, optimizing operational tempo in dynamic environments. Mine rollers exhibit strong versatility, adapting to diverse terrains such as open fields, , and mixed soils, and can be integrated with complementary systems like mine plows or flails for enhanced clearance in complex scenarios. Their modular designs support operations in varied conditions, including those requiring moderate maneuvering, and allow rollers to be raised or detached for improved vehicle mobility when not in use. This adaptability extends to both deliberate and hasty clearance missions, making them suitable for integration into armored or mechanized units across different tactical contexts. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, mine rollers feature reusable and replaceable components, such as modular roller banks, which minimize downtime and long-term expenses compared to disposable explosive-based breaching methods. Their simple construction and low maintenance requirements result in reduced operating costs, while preventing costly damage to primary vehicles further enhances economic value in sustained operations. These attributes make mine rollers a practical choice for repeated efforts without prohibitive resource demands.

Drawbacks and Challenges

Mine rollers impose significant mobility constraints on the vehicles they are mounted on, primarily due to their added weight ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 tons for systems to approximately 9 tons for heavy tank-mounted models, which can reduce operational speeds to between 5 and 15 km/h and place additional strain on the vehicle's engine and suspension systems, particularly in heavier configurations. This weight also limits the vehicle's ability to perform tight turns or navigate uneven effectively, increasing the risk of immobilization in combat scenarios where rapid maneuvering is essential. The systems are particularly vulnerable to damage from mine detonations, as multiple explosions can destroy the roller assembly entirely, rendering it inoperable and potentially compromising the host vehicle. Rollers are prone to entanglement or failure when encountering tilted or (AHD)-equipped mines, which can trigger secondary explosions that damage the roller without fully clearing the path. Furthermore, they are ineffective against mines employing magnetic or seismic fuzes, as these do not rely on direct pressure from the roller to activate, allowing the devices to bypass mechanical triggering mechanisms. Maintenance of mine rollers presents ongoing challenges, especially in harsh operational environments, where mounting and dismounting the assembly requires 30 to 60 minutes and specialized heavy-lift equipment like the M88 recovery vehicle, often leading to frequent on-site repairs amid dust, mud, or debris. Harsh conditions exacerbate breakdowns, such as failures or chain entanglements, necessitating immediate field interventions that delay breaching operations. Evolving mine threats have further diminished the reliability of rollers, as modern designs incorporate time delays, multiple fuzes, or deeper burial to evade -based detection. For instance, multiple-impulse fuzes resist single-pass roller , requiring repeated traversals that heighten exposure to enemy fire.

References

  1. https://www.army-technology.com/products/lightweight-mine-roller/
  2. https://www.army.mil/article/70741/mine_rollers_designed_to_blow_up_save_lives
  3. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/docs/981100-schneck.htm
  4. https://armtrac.net/landmine-clearing-equipment/mine-roller-a-historic-journey/
  5. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170321-the-deadly-danger-you-cant-see
  6. https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/uploads/gichd/Media/GICHD-resources/rec-documents/Mechanical_study_complete.pdf
  7. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32/change2.pdf
  8. https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/uploads/gichd/Publications/MechDem-Handbook-2009.pdf
  9. https://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/pt_34.php
  10. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD0737723.pdf
  11. https://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2008/1_JanFebMar/articles/50_The_Self_Protection_Adaptive_Roller_Kit_%28SPARK%29_--_Negating_the_Improvised_Explosive_Device_%28IED%29_Threat_for_Soldiers_and_Vehicles_200801.pdf
  12. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mcrs.htm
  13. https://www.mathscinotes.com/2016/06/tank-track-ground-pressure-examples/
  14. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA103772.pdf
  15. https://www.astrj.com/pdf-195451-119646?filename=Simulations%20of%20the%20ground.pdf
  16. https://armtrac.net/mine-roller/the-unsung-heroes-of-mine-clearing-a-closer-look-at-mine-rollers/
  17. https://tankmuseum.org/article/experimental-tanks-part-two
  18. https://erenow.org/ww/british-tanks-the-second-world-war/8.php
  19. http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/afv_weapons_profile_pack/afv_weapons_profile_06__valentine_tank.pdf
  20. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA430906.pdf
  21. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA377291.pdf
  22. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D114-PURL-gpo107841/pdf/GOVPUB-D114-PURL-gpo107841.pdf
  23. https://mikesresearch.com/2020/11/29/patton-tanks-in-vietnam/
  24. http://www.missing-lynx.com/reviews/russia/miniart37076reviewcs_1.html
  25. https://armtrac.net/mine-clearing-roller/the-armtrac-counter-ied-mine-roller-system/
  26. https://armtrac.net/mine-clearing-roller/the-transformative-power-of-armtracs-c-ied-mine-roller-systems/
  27. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product5013.html
  28. https://www.armedconflicts.com/Light-Weight-Mine-Roller-t181900
  29. http://axion-corp.com/project-details/m1a1-abrams-mine-rollers/
  30. https://www.super-hobby.co.uk/products/Modern-US-M-ATV-MRAP-Rhino-Anti-IED-Device-sets.html
  31. https://www.blast-models.eu/en/modern/131-bl35135k-humvee-rhino-ied-pre-detonation-device.html
  32. https://en.topwar.ru/45388-universalnyy-boec-inzhenernyh-voysk.html
  33. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/01/05/russias-armored-mine-clearer-can-flatten-entire-city-streets-its-happened-before/
  34. https://armyrecognition.com/military-products/army/engineer-maintenance-vehicles/engineer-vehicles/imr-2-russia-uk
  35. https://armorama.com/news/merkava-mk-4-4-lic-with-nochri-kal-mine-roller-system
  36. http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/pdf/m-4minesgulfwar.pdf
  37. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-02-1003.pdf
  38. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2008/10/1/2008october-to-defeat-bombs-armored-vehicles-get-rollers-and-arms
  39. https://www.army.mil/article/103351/vehicles_to_serve_as_reminder_of_mrap_legacy
  40. https://dok-ing.hr/defence-security/mv-4/
  41. https://modellers.gr/en/tanks/2596-russian-bmr-3m-armored-mine-clearing-vehicle-.html
  42. https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russian-ur-77-meteorit-mine-clearing-vehicle-destroyed-in-the-kharkiv-region/
  43. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-tank-imr-3m-2133513
  44. https://nolandmines.com/Area_preparation_machines_for%20HD.html
  45. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA550122.pdf
  46. https://armtrac.net/mine-rollers/mine-rollers-demining-operations/
  47. http://mindex-center.ir/en/products/mine-clearing-roller-tank-mechanized-mine-clearing-equipment
  48. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32/chap10b.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.