# The Claymore is no more.



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Apr 2006)

Be advised that the Claymore Mine has been renamed to the "Defensive Command Detonated Weapon (DCDW) C19" to fall in line with Canada's policy on Mines.  As such, all old stock of claymore mines which are labelled "Mine" are to be issued for trg purposes in an effort to eliminate stocks containing the label "Mine".


----------



## Sapper41 (24 Apr 2006)

This information is at least four years old.


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Apr 2006)

Dang,

I thought this was a thread about swords...

dileas

tess


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Apr 2006)

Sapper41 that maybe true but it seems it has just made its way to the unwashed masses.


----------



## Gino (24 Apr 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Dang,
> 
> I thought this was a thread about swords...
> 
> ...


Me too.  I was all prepared to point out that what Scottish regiments carry are actually basket-hilted broadswords, not claymores.


----------



## Gunnar (24 Apr 2006)

In other news, we are eliminating food from the Army.  All items formerly referred to as food will now be called biological energy producing comestibles, or BEPC for short.  Further, the "rifle" and the "bayonet" will now be eliminated, to be replaced with interpersonal negotiation tools (hostile), or INT(H).  Lastly, we will be replacing the "artillery" with high-efficacity misguided opposition instructional tools, or HEMOITs.

There are no weapons any more.  Wow.  The most peaceful nation on earth.  Someone should tell the UN.


----------



## medicineman (24 Apr 2006)

I remember getting my buttocks reamed out by some student of mine at PSTC for calling a Claymore a mine back in 01 or 02 while teaching blast trauma.  Hmm - you can plant it, wire it,  command it or booby it - like a duck, it must be one.  :

MM


----------



## couchcommander (24 Apr 2006)

I wonder if we can then look foward to the development of pressure activated explosive devices?


----------



## Chimo (24 Apr 2006)

The claymore was renamed to meet the requirements of the Ottawa Accord. More then a name change, the mine can no longer be set up with a trip wire or other method other then command detonated.

"The Mine Ban Treaty permits Claymore-type mines (directional fragmentation) used in command-detonated mode. However, the treaty prohibits Claymore-type mines used in a victim-activated mode because the weapon meets the definition of an antipersonnel mine". More info available at : 

http://www.icbl.org/content/download/20094/387686/file/art2_feb_2004.pdf

Like it or not that's the way it is.


----------



## NL_engineer (24 Apr 2006)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I remember getting my buttocks reamed out by some student of mine at PSTC for calling a Claymore a mine back in 01 or 02 while teaching blast trauma.  Hmm - you can plant it, wire it,  command it or booby it - like a duck, it must be one.  :



The C19 CAN NOT I say again CAN NOT be used as a non-command detonated mine (ie. set to a trip wire)  :threat:.  It can only be comman detonated, which in turn makes it a weapon, not a mine.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Apr 2006)

Nl_Engineer in Canada yes, but anywhere else no you can set it for whatever you want.


----------



## COBRA-6 (24 Apr 2006)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> The C19 CAN NOT I say again CAN NOT be used as a non-command detonated mine (ie. set to a trip wire)  :threat:.  It can only be comman detonated, which in turn makes it a weapon, not a mine.



Are you talking physically or legally?? Has the C19 been modified in some way to prevent the use of a trip wire??


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Apr 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Are you talking physically or legally?? Has the C19 been modified in some way to prevent the use of a trip wire??



I think he is talking legally only Mike.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (24 Apr 2006)

Nfld_Sapper said:
			
		

> Nl_Engineer in Canada yes, but anywhere else no you can set it for whatever you want.



No, you cant.  Saying that is the same as saying, "You cant murder someone in Canada, but you can outside the Canada."  Canadian soldiers cannot employ weapons banned by the Ottawa convention, especially overseas.  The fact you are physically able to do something does not give you permission to do something.

Give your head a shake.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Apr 2006)

Ok that didn't come out the way I was thinking. What I meant to say was that Canadian Doctrin is that we don't use the C-19 in no other way than Command Det. I meant anyone else will use the Claymore in other manners i.e trip wire, etc.


----------



## COBRA-6 (24 Apr 2006)

roger that, thanks


----------



## NL_engineer (24 Apr 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Are you talking physically or legally?? Has the C19 been modified in some way to prevent the use of a trip wire??



No, it is the same old weapon, but our doctern stats that it has to be command detonated, no exceptions.  If you want one set up for a trip wire, it is the same as getting an AP mine field set up; call the US Army Core of Engineers.

_*edited to remove information*_


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Apr 2006)

Read a few posts above NL_Engineer, I clarified my statement.


----------



## medicineman (24 Apr 2006)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> No, it is the same old weapon, but our doctern stats that it has to be command detonated, no exceptions.



So as I stated previously then...

Is it just me or does this sound like semantics?  If that is the case, perhaps they should in fact produce said weapon without the abillity to do other than command detonate then.  Or was it left like that so that our allies that aren't party to the Ottawa Accord can, shall we say, provide some extra measure of defence in our area without us actually doing the dirty work ourselves?  No sarcasm intended BTW (well, maybe a little), it's a serious question.

MM


----------



## AmmoTech90 (25 Apr 2006)

Unless we deploy with the US to Korea they won't be setting up any non-command det Claymores for us either.  The only place they deploy persistent AP mines is Korea.  In fact they need Presidential authority to deploy persistent AT mines anywhere.

Dont count on help you wont get. 

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/30044.htm

Medman,

CDS direction:

Canada may participate in combined operations with a state that is not Party to the Convention. Canadian contingents may not, however, use anti-personnel mines and the Canadian Forces may not request, even indirectly, the protection of anti-personnel mines or encourage the use of anti-personnel mines by others.

D

PS NL_engineer PM sent.


----------



## COBRA-6 (25 Apr 2006)

[rant]

As well meaning as the land-mine treaty is, IMHO it won't be worth the paper it's printed on when the next major conflict breaks out... 

[/rant]


----------



## foerestedwarrior (25 Apr 2006)

I may well be wrong, but I was told on the last mine awarness class I had that the fuses that come with our "defensive weapon" are command det only. So if you want to make it non command det, you need to liberate an american fuse(s)....


----------



## medicineman (25 Apr 2006)

Thanks AmmoTech.

MM


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Apr 2006)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> I may well be wrong, but I was told on the last mine awarness class I had that the fuses that come with our "defensive weapon" are command det only. So if you want to make it non command det, you need to liberate an american fuse(s)....


Some string, a clothes pin, two thumb tacks and a battery would change that pretty quickly. >


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Apr 2006)

.....or so I heard, somewhere.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Apr 2006)

So the gist of this thread is to explain that we do not use scottish swords anymore, however, with the adaptation of devices used to hang our wet kilts we may be able to lay our enemy waste.

hmmm...

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Apr 2006)

Well, in most of the situations discussed of late at Army.ca, if a man in a skirt if going to bring a knife to a gunfight, he'd better fight like a bloody demon. And I'll welcome him on my left, or on my right.

Dileas Gu Brath
The 15th, 92nd and 134th Battalions, Canadian Expeditionary Force, and the 48th Highlanders of Canada


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Apr 2006)

Pro Patria,

We had to learn a few things from the good royal troops at paaderberg...

dileas

tess


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Apr 2006)

Its still an M18A1 Claymore here  

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## COBRA-6 (27 Apr 2006)

as long as I can still do this with it...


----------



## Chimo (5 May 2006)

The picture looks pretty "gung-ho" but in my opinion, that vehicle would be totally FUBAR after detonating that mine.

Also, modify this mine at your own peril. There are lots of stories and tribal knowledge about how to improvise this mine, however, as Canadian Soldiers we fall under all restrictions and regulations to all laws and treaties that Canada has signed.


----------



## COBRA-6 (5 May 2006)

That's why this came out...


----------



## armybuck041 (4 Jun 2006)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> The only place they deploy persistent AP mines is Korea.  In fact they need Presidential authority to deploy persistent AT mines anywhere.



What is a Persistant landmine? Is there a Non-Persistant one?

I've been in the landmine business for some time now and have never heard reference to this before.

Persistant or Non-Persistant Nerve Agents do however ring a bell.

Not trying to be an ass.... Just curious.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (4 Jun 2006)

armybuck041 said:
			
		

> What is a Persistant landmine? Is there a Non-Persistant one?
> 
> Scotty



Not my terminology, it's taken directly from the US Dept of State Policy.  I would say a persistant landmine is one that has no self-neutralization or self-destruct built in.
Check my link, thats where its taken from.

D


----------



## Trooper Hale (16 Jun 2006)

Its all just smoke and mirrors though isnt it? I mean i say "tamarto", you say "toeMato". A mine is a mine, a bomb is a bomb and a rifle is a rifle. Its the public perception that counts, "Land mines are awful, but i cant find a problem with an anti-personale device"! Its the same with WP in the artillery. Phos can only be used to "Mark enemy troops", but according to an Arty mate of mine, "Marking" could include every gun they've got landing phospherous on the bad guys and burning them up. As long as you've got a nice friendly name (as someone has already said) you could do anything without people complaining.
How about we rename the persistant mine a "Care bear Super Care device for feet, legs and lower body"? I wanna see some hippy complaining about that!


----------



## McG (16 Jun 2006)

Sapper41 said:
			
		

> This information is at least four years old.





			
				Quagmire said:
			
		

> Sapper41 that maybe true but it seems it has just made its way to the unwashed masses.


I belive this was made as a public announcment when media spin tried to make excitment about the C-19 being used in East Timor (a few years back).


----------



## Red 6 (5 Jul 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> That's why this came out...



I don't know what those guys were thinking about. The Claymore has a backblast area that would wreck the vehicle if they detonated the mine. I never heard of persistent/non-persistent minefields. We have point and area minefields. If a platoon, say, lays a minefield to block a road or something like that, it's a point minefield. Engineers (for the most part) lay area minefields. To the best of my knowledge, the Army and Marine Corps are going to keep mines in the inventory, which is a good thing.


----------



## geo (5 Jul 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> I don't know what those guys were thinking about.


That's the problem - they weren't thinking........... and that's a bad thing !


----------



## Red 6 (5 Jul 2006)

Roger that, Geo.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (29 Jul 2006)

Well, the whole thing about mines not being allowed anymore is pointless as far as i see it. The only countries that are going to follow these new laws are countries like Canada Germany France US, UK....... and all of these countries have the same thing in common. They arent fighting any major wars that have front lines that require mines. Iraq and Afghanistan dont need mines planted by these countries because there is no frontline where you know your enemy is going to hit the mine before your own men.
  The countries that actually have the problems with the mines andthe countries that caused this to become law are all countries who have a government who cant control everything that goes on. The countries are all involved in or recovering from a major war in which mines were useful. 
   I personally think that if Canada and all the other countries I mentioned above want to have claymores named claymores, let them. They are only going to be used when they are needed, and only if there is minimal risk to civilians. The same goes for the other mines that are planted underground... but only if they are used for a certain operation and are all disposed of after the operation is completed.
  This is just another rule that is only going to be followed by countries that dont need the rule. And the ones that do need it , wont follow it.


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Jul 2006)

If that Claymore went off, it would have killed the guys in the front, no problems!

Vehicles can be replaced. Lives cannot.

I've banked 4 of these on my operators/instructor course back in 2003. Awesome, and the blast out the back of it is intense to say the least!

Regards,

Wes


----------



## McG (29 Jul 2006)

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> Well, the whole thing about mines not being allowed anymore is pointless as far as i see it.


Mines are sill permitted.  Anti-personnel mines are banned.

There is no prohibition on calling the area-defence weapon a claymore, but it is no longer an anti-personnel mine.


----------



## NL_engineer (2 Aug 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> There is no prohibition on calling the area-defence weapon a claymore, but it is no longer an anti-personnel mine.



Have you been to lovely CFSME lately?  Calling the C19 a Claymore does not go over to well.


----------

