Land Mines & Demining

in the 20th Century:

A Bibliography

Compiled by

Greta E. Marlatt&

Michaele Lee Huygen

Dudley Knox LibraryNaval Postgraduate School

March 1998

Prepared in support of3rd International Symposium on Technology and the Mine Problem

held at the Naval Postgraduate School, 6-9 April 1998.Also available at http://web.nps.navy.mil/~library/bibs/land20thtoc.htm

Table of Contents

1

Please note: not all these resources are available in the Dudley KnoxLibrary but they can be requested through Interlibrary Loan.

BOOKS

Banks, Eddie. Anti-Personnel mines: How to Recognize and Defuse. Washington, DC:Brassey’s, 1997.

Bigl, Susan R. Change in Orientation of Artillery-Delivered Anti-Tank Mines in Snow.[Hanover, N.H.]: US Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research & EngineeringLaboratory, [1984]. CRREL report; 84-20. 20 p.

Bingham, Price T. Air Power and the Defeat of a Warsaw Pact Offensive: Taking aDifferent Approach to Air Interdiction in NATO . Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama:Air University Press, 1987. AU-ARI-CP; 87-2. 41 p.

Bottoms, Albert, James N. Eagle, and Howard Bayless (eds.). Proceedings of the AutonomousVehicles in Mine Countermeasures Symposium, 1995. Monterey, CA: NavalPostgraduate School, 1995.

Bottoms, Albert M., Ellis A. Johnson and Barbara Honegger (eds.). Proceedings of theTechnology and the Mine Problem Symposium. 2 vols. Monterey, CA: NavalPostgraduate School, 1996.

Cahill, Kevin M. (ed.) Clearing the Fields: Solutions to the Global Land Mines Crisis.New York: Basic Books, 1995. 237 p.

Cahill, Kevin M and Thomas Roma. Silent witnesses. [New York?]: United Nations: Center forInternational Health and Cooperation: Worldwide distribution by HarperCollins, c1995.91p.

Canada. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Non-Proliferation, Arms Controland Disarmament Division. Anti-Personnel Land-Mines, An Annotated Bibliography.Ottawa: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1996. 114p.

Chan, Philemon C. et al. “Acceleration Threat to Truck Occupants Due to Land MineExplosions.” In: SAFE Association (U.S.). Symposium. Proceedings of the AnnualSymposium, SAFE Association. 33rd (1995), p. 447-460.

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (1980)Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional

2

Weapons: Message From the President of the United States Transmitting theConvention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use. [Corr. print.]. Washington,DC: U.S. G.P.O., 1995. Treaty doc.; 103-25. 23 p.

Cooper, Andrew. Exposing the Source: U.S. Companies and the Production ofAntipersonnel Mines. Human Rights Watch Project Report, v. 9, no. 2, April 1997. NewYork: Human Rights Watch, 1997. 47p.

Cornish, Paul. Anti-Personnel Mines: Controlling the Plague of ‘Butterflies’. London: RoyalInstitute of International Affairs, c1994. 38 p.

Davies, Paul. War of the Mines: Cambodia, Landmines and the Impoverishment of aNation. London [England]; Boulder, CO: Pluto Press, 1994. 172 p.

De Waal, Alexander. Violent Deeds Live On: Landmines in Somalia and Somaliland.Cockermouth, Cumbria [England]: Mines Advisory Group; London African Rights,[1993]. 82p.

Dickey, Thomas S. and Peter C. George. Field Artillery Projectiles of the American CivilWar; Including a Selection of Navy Projectiles, Hand Grenades, Rockets and LandMines. Atlanta, GA: Arsenel Press, 1980. 505 p.

Disarmament Week Symposium (1994: United Nations) Disarmament: Ending Reliance onNuclear and Conventional Arms. New York: United Nations, c1995. 155 p.

Dubey, Abinash C. et al (eds.) Detection and Remediation Technologies for Mines andMinelike Targets. 9-12 April 1996, Orlando, Florida; sponsored by SPIE--theInternational Society for... Bellingham, Wash.: SPIE, c1996. Proceedings of SPIE--theInternational Society for Optical Engineering; v. 2765. 588 p.

Dubey, Abinash C. et al (eds.) Detection and Remediation Technologies for Mines andMinelike Targets II . 21-24 April 1997, Orlando, Florida; sponsored by SPIE--theInternational Society for... Bellingham, Wash.: SPIE, c1997. Proceedings of SPIE--theInternational Society for Optical Engineering; v. 3079. 842 p.

Dubey, Abinash C. et al (eds.) Detection Technologies for Mines and Minelike Targets.17-21 April 1995, Orlando, Florida; sponsored and published by SPIE--the InternationalSociety for... Bellingham, Wash., USA: SPIE, c1995. Proceedings of SPIE--theInternational Society for Optical Engineering; v. 2496. 1036 p.

EUREL International Conference on the Detection of Abandoned Land Mines. The Detection ofAbandoned Land Mines: A Humanitarian Imperative Seeking Solution. EUREL

3

International Conference, 7-9th October 1996. London: Institution of Electrical Engineers,1996. 192p.

Fine, Jonathan E. Hidden Enemies: Land Mines in Northern Somalia: A Report. Boston,MA: Physicians for Human Rights, 1992. 51 p.

Gerken, Louis. Mine Warfare Technology. American Scientific Group, 1989.

Geyer, Richard G. Magnetostatic Measurements for Mine Detection. Boulder, CO: NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1988. NISTIR ;88-3098.

Goad, K.J.W. and D.H.J. Halsey. Ammunition (Including Grenades and Mines). Oxford, NewYork: Brassey’s Publishers Limited, 1982. 289p.

Handbook of Employment Concepts for Mine Warfare Systems. Fort Belvoir, VA.: U.S.Army Engineer Center and School, [1986]. 155 p.

Hampson, Francoise J. Long Shadows: Landmines and the Law of Armed Conflict.Colchester: University of Essex: human Rights Centre, 1995. 64p.

Harber, David. Improvised Land Mines: Their Employment and Destructive Capabilities.Boulder, CO: Paladin Press, 1992. 80 p.

Heyman, Charles. Trends in Land Mine Warfare . Coulsdon, Surrey, [England]; Alexandria,VA: Jane’s Information Group, 1995. 161p.

Hidden Death: Landmines and Civilian Casualties in Iraqi Kurdistan. Middle East Watch. New York: Human Rights Watch, [1992]. 67 p.

Horowtiz, P., et al. New Technological Approaches to Humanitarian Demining. McLean,VA: Mitre Corporation, 1996. 91p.

Jane's Combat Support Equipment. Coulsdon, Surry, U.K.; Alexandria, VA: Jane'sInformation Group, 1978- [annual]

Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics. Coulsdon, Surry, U.K.; Alexandria, VA: Jane'sInformation Group, 1991- [annual]

Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance. Coulsdon, Surry, U.K.; Alexandria, VA: Jane's InformationGroup, 1996- [annual]

4

King, Colin. Legislation and the Landmine. Jane’s Intelligence Review, Special Report, no. 16.Coulsdon, [England]: Jane’s Information group, 1997. 22p.

King, Colin. The Mine Conundrum: The Threat to Mine-Clearance Operations. Jane’sIntelligence Review, Special Report, no. 8. Coulsdon, [England]: Jane’s Informationgroup, 1995. 23p.

Land Mines in Angola. New York: Human Rights Watch, 1993. 69p.

Land Mines in Cambodia: The Coward's War, September 1991. Asia Watch, Physicians forHuman Rights. [New York]: Asia Watch: Human Rights Watch, 1991. 129 p.

Land Mines in El Salvador and Nicaragua: The Civilian Victims. New York, NY: AmericasWatch Committee, c1986. 117 p.

Landmines: A Deadly Legacy. The Arms Project of Human Rights Watch & Physicians forHuman Rights. New York: Human Rights Watch, c1993. 510 p.

Landmines: A Global Health Crisis. IPPNW Global Health Watch Report No. 2. Cambridge,MA: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, 1997. 100p.

Landmines and Demining: A Global Problem. [CD-ROM] Charlottesville, VA: NationalGround Intelligence Center, 1996?

Landmines in Mozambique. Human Rights Watch Arms Project [and] Human RightsWatch/Africa (formerly Africa Watch). New York: Human Rights Watch, c1994. 119 p.

Lucas, Guy. “Mine Clearance” (p. 81-84) in Defence Systems International: The InternationalReview of Land Systems. London: Sterling Publications Limited, 1996. 268p.

McGrath, Rae. Land Mines in Angola: An Africa Watch Report. New York: Human RightsWatch, c1993. 69 p.

Mine Warfare . Peking, Foreign Languages Press, 1971. 6 p. [178 p. of illustrations]

Morris, Michael et al. Limpet-Mine Sabotage in South Africa: Weapon Data, SaboteurTactics, Incident List. Cape Town, S.A.: Terrorism Research Centre, c1982. 54 p.

Omaar, Rakiya et al. Violent Deeds Live on: Land Mines in Somalia and Somaliland.London: African Rights and Mines Advisory Group, [1993] 82 p.

Pena Gomez, Manuel Vicente. Un Pueblo Mutilado: El Carmen de Chucuri. [Bogota,Colombia]: Fundacion para los Deberes Humanos, [1994?]. 75 p.

5

Prokosch, Eric. The Technology of Killing: A Military and Political History ofAntipersonnel Weapons. London; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Zed Books, c1995. 224 p.

Rauch, Elmar. “The Protection of the Civilian Population in International Armed Conflicts andthe Use of Landmines [inconsistencies Between the Mines Protocol and OtherConventions].” In German Yearbook of International Law, 1981, p. 262-287. 1982.

Reports of El Salvador: Mines. [San Salvador]: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, El Salvador,1988. 40 p.

Roberts, Shawn and Jody Williams. After the Guns Fall Silent: The Enduring Legacy ofLandmines. 1st. ed. Washington, DC: Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, 1995.554 p.

Ruel, Susan. The Scourge of Land Mines: UN Tackles Hidden Peacetime Killers. New York:United Nations, Department of Public Information, [1993]. 5p.

Shropshire, Steve. Controlling Anti Personnel Mines: The Inhumane Weapons ConventionReview Conference and Beyond. 1995. 16p.

Sloan, C. E. E. Mine Warfare on Land. London; Washington, D.C.: Brassey's DefencePublishers, 1986. 153 p.

Smith, Christopher. “Anti-Personnel Mines: The Arguments Over Military Utility.” pgs. 273-285In Brassey's Defence Yearbook. London: Brassey's, Center for Defence Studies, 1996.

Steindl, K.H. “The General Status of Land-Mines” (p. 79) In Defence Systems International:The International Review of Land Systems. London: Sterling Publications Limited,1996. 268p.

Stiff, Peter. Taming the landmine. Alberton, RSA: Galago, 1986. 128 p.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Anti-Personnel Weapons. [Chapter 7.Delayed-Action Weapons]. New York: Crane, Russak & Company, Inc., 1978. 299p.

Stolfi, Russel, H.S. Mine and Countermine Warfare in Recent History, 1914-1970. BRLReport no. 1582. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Ballistic Research Laboratories, 1972.166 p.

Thompson, John. “Mine Warfare” (p. 97-100) In Defence Systems International: TheInternational Review of Land Systems. London: Sterling Publications Limited, 1996.268p.

6

Towle, Philip. Limiting the Use of Conventional Weapons: Prospects for the 1979 UNConference: The Future of Incendiaries, Cluster Bombs, High Velocity Rifles,Fuel-Air Explosives and Land Mines. Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies,Australian National University, [1979] 22 p. [Working paper / Strategic and DefenceStudies Centre; no. 9]

United Nations. Office of Conference and Support Services, Translation and Editorial Division,Documentation, Reference and Terminology Section. Humanitarian Demining.ST/CS/SER.F/349. New York: United Nations, 1997. 256p.

United Nations. Department of Humanitarian Affairs. Land Mines: From Words to Action.Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations, Dept. of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA), 1995. 24p.

United States. Army Engineer Center and School of Fort Belvior. Handbook of EmploymentConcepts for Mine Warfare Systems. Ft. Belvior, VA: U.S. Army Engineer Center andSchool, 1986. 155p.

United States. Congress. House. Committee on National Security. Subcommittee on MilitaryResearch and Development. Response to the Landmine Threat in Bosnia. OneHundred fourth Congress, Second Session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O., 1996. 162 p.

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on ForeignOperations, Export Financing, and Related Programs. The Global Landmine Crisis:hearing before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United StatesSenate, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, special hearing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O., 1994. 137 p.

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Convention on Prohibitionsor Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons: Report (toAccompany Treaty Doc. 103-25) [Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O., 1995]. SenateExecutive report; 104-1. 31 p.

United States. Department of State. The Global Landmine Crisis: 1994 Report to the U.S.Congress on the Problem with Uncleared Landmines and the United States Strategyfor Demining and Landmine Control. [Washington, D.C.]: United States. Departmentof State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of International Security Operations.[1994]. [27] p. [“Hidden Killers 1994: the Global Landmine Crisis.”]

_____. Hidden Killers: The Global Problem With Uncleared Landmines: A Report onInternational Demining. [Washington, D.C.]: United States. Department of State, Political-Military Affairs Bureau, Office of International Security Operations., [1993].185 p.

7

United States. Dept. of the Army. Boobytraps. Washington DC: Department of the Army, 1965.Field manual; FM 5-31. 132 p.

______. Employment of Land Mines. Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1955. Fieldmanual; FM 20-32. 146p.

______. Field Artillery Delivered Scatterable Mines: RAAMS (Remote Antiarmor Minesystem), ADAM (Aerial Denial Artillery Munition) . Washington, DC: Department ofthe Army, 1982. Training Circular; TC 6-20-5. 62p.

______. Land Mine Warfare . Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1949. Field manual ;FM 5-31. 218 p.

______. Mine/Countermine Operations. [Washington, DC]: Headquarters, Dept. of the Army,1986- Field manual; FM 20-32.

United States. General Accounting Office. Cambodia: Limited Progress on Free Elections,Human Rights, and Mine Clearing. Washington, DC: The Office, 1996. GAO/NSIAD-96-158BR. 44p.

______. Mine Detection: Army Detector's Ability to Find Low-Metal Mines not ClearlyDemonstrated. Washington, DC: The Office, 1996. GAO/NSIAD-96-198. 22p.

______. Mine Warfare: Consolidation at Ingleside has not been Justified . Washington, DC:The Office, 1993. GAO/NSIAD-93-147. 10 p.

______. Mine Warfare: Ingleside, Texas, May not be the Best Location for Consolidation. Washington, DC: The Office, 1991. GAO/NSIAD-92-63. 7p.

______. Mission Area Analyses Conducted by the Army Training and Doctrine Command. Washington, DC: The Office, 1983. GAO/MASAD-83-20. 4p.

______. Unexploded Ordnance: A Coordinated Approach to Detection and Clearance isNeeded. Washington, DC: The Office, 1983. GAO/NSIAD-95-197. 30p.

United States. General Staff. Military Intelligence Division. German Traps and Land Mines.Translation of captured German Document. Washington, 1919.

United States. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Joint Doctrine for Barriers, Obstacles, and MineWarfare . Washington, DC: Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1993- Joint pub ; 3-15.

8

United States. War Department. Land Mines and Booby Traps. War Department [Corps ofEngineers], 1 November 1943. Washington, D.C.: United States Government PrintingOff., 1943. War Department Field Manual; FM 5-325.

Victimas civiles del uso de Minas Sembradas en Tierra en El Salvador y Nicaragua. NewYork, NY: Americas Watch Committee, 1987. 97 p.

Vines, Alex. Killers in the Commonwealth: Antipersonnel Landmine Policies of theCommonwealth Nations. New York: Human Rights Watch, 1997. 17p.

______. Still Killing: Landmines in Southern Africa . New York: Human Rights Watch, 1997.204p.

Voldman, Daniele. Attention Mines -- 1944-1947. Paris: Editions France-Empire, c1985. 190 p.

Walker, John K., Jr. Air Scatterable Land Mines as an Air Force Munition. Santa Monica,CA: Rand Corporation, 1978. 19 p.

Winslow, Philip C. Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Land Mines and the Global Legacy of War.Boston: Beacon Press, 1997. 167p.

PERIODICALS

Aakre, Keith E. “Volcano -- Providing Army Aviation With a UH-60 Scatterable MiningCapability.” USA Aviation Digest, November 1986, v. 32, no. 11, p. 40-45.

Abbott, J.M. and Logan Cassedy. “Land Mines - Past and Present.” Military Engineer ,September-October 1962, v. 54, p. 367-368.

______. “A Look at (Russian and U.S.) Land Mines.” Marine Corps Gazette, December 1963,v. 47, no. 12, p. 14.

“Adapter Kit Adds Mine-Clearing Roller to M1.” Armor , January-February 1995, no. 1, p. 50.

“Aerial Mine Field Guards Against Plane Raids.” Popular Mechanics, December 1939, v. 72, p.855.

“After the Storm: Special Report.” Jane's Defence Weekly, April 6, 1991, v. 15, no. 14, p. 529-532+

9

“Air Force Developing Mine Warfare Detection for U.S. Special Operations Command.”Electronic Warfare Digest, January 1997, v. 20, no. 1, p. 3-4.

“Airborne Detection of Buried Minefields.” Energy and Technology Review, December 1991,p. 9-21.

“AJAX/APILAS Off-Route Mine Demonstrates Its Punch.” Asian Defence Journal, November1987, no. 11, p. 68-69.

Akins, Frank T. “Mine-Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC): Avoiding an Engineer's Nightmare.”Engineer, December 1994, v. 24, no. 4, p. 18-24.

Albright, Madeleine K. “Agenda for Dignity.” US Department of State Dispatch, November22, 1993, v. 4, no. 22, p. 803-806.

Alder, Konrad. “Modern Land Mine Warfare.” Armada International, November-December1980, v. 4, p. 6-8+

______. “The Use of Intelligent Ammunition in AT Defence.” Armada International , October1983, v. 7, no. 5, p. 70+

Alexander, David R. “Antihelicopter Mines: The Emerging Threat to Helicopter Operations.” U.S. Army Aviation Digest, May-June 1993, no. 3, p. 37-43.

Allison, John. “Israeli Countermine System Puts M1 Tank to the Blade.” Military Engineer ,September-October 1989, v. 81, p. 34-35.

Anderson, Ian. “Heat and Destroy.” New Scientist, August 2, 1997, v. 155, p. 13.

Anderson, Kenneth and Monica Schurtman. “The United Nations Response to the Crisis ofLandmines in the Developing World.” Harvard International Law Journal , Spring1995, v. 36, no. 2, p. 359-371.

Anderson, Mary-Anne. “Taking Action: the War on Landmines.” Red Cross, Red Crescent,1997, no. 2, p. 2-9.

Andersson, Neil et al. “Social Cost of Land Mines in Four Countries: Afghanistan, Bosnia,Cambodia, and Mozambique.” British Medical Journal, September 16, 1995, v. 311,no. 7007, p. 718-721.

Andrews, Michael A. “Tank-Delivered Scatterable Mines.” Military Review, December 1978, v.58, p. 34-39.

10

“AN/PSS-12 Handheld Metallic Mine Detector.” Army, March 1992, v. 42, no. 3, p. 54-55.

“AN-19/2 -- The 'Finale' Mine Detector.” Asian Defence Journal, September 1994, no. 9, p. 68-69.

Anrys, Henri. “Mine-Sweeping: An Unmentioned Service.” NATO Letter , September 1965, v.13, p. 10-17.

“Anti-Helicopter Minefield -- A New Industry Concept.” Air Defense Magazine, October-December 1982, p. 41.

“Anti-Tank Mines.” Military Technology and Economics, July 1981, v. 5, p. 90+

“Anti-Tank Mines and Countermeasures.” Asian Defence Journal, April 1983, no. 4, p. 26+

“Anti-Tank Mines of the Second Generation.” Armada International , February 1984, v. 8, no.1, p. 26-30.

“Antipersonnel Mines, the All-Too-Conventional Weapon.” Lancet, September 16, 1995, v. 346,no. 8977, p. 715.

Araujo, R.J. “Anti-Personnel Mines and Peremptory Norms of International Law: Argument andCatalyst.” Vanderbuilt Journal of Transportation Law , January 1997, v. 30, p. 1+

“Area Defence By Mine Deployment.” Asian Defence Journal, February 983, no. 2, p. 64-65.

Armbruster, Francis E., Jr. “Tandem Vehicle Clears Minefields.” Military Engineer, November-December 1989, v. 81, p. 68-71.

Armstrong, Charles L. “Mines & Boobytraps -- A Primer.” Marine Corps Gazette, June 1990,v. 74, no. 6, p. 23-24.

“Army Completing Field, Flight Tests of Volcano Mine Dispensing System.” Aviation Week &Space Technology, February 15, 1988, v. 128, p. 93.

“Army Tests New Mine Scattering System.” Army RD&A Bulletin , September-October 1984,v. 25,no. 5, p. 29-30.

“Army's Armor Acquisition Hub Adapts to New Market.” National Defense, January 1995, v.79, no. 504, p. 32-33.

“The Army’s Helkath: A Hybrid Craft for an Exotic Weapon.” Defense Week, July 11, 1983, v.4, p. 1+

11

“Army’s Pet Snake.” Newsweek, January 28, 1946, v. 27, p. 72.

Ary, Vaughn A. “Concluding Hostilities: Humanitarian Provision in Cease-Fire Agreements.”Military Law Review, Spring 1995, v. 148, p. 186-273.

Ascherio, A. et al. “Deaths and Injuries Caused by Land Mines in Mozambique.” Lancet,September 16, 1995, v. 346, p. 721-724.

Ashley, Steven. “Flushing Out Land Mines.” Mechanical Engineering, March 1992, v.114,p.122.

______. “Searching for Land Mines; Sophisticated Mine Detectors.” Mechanical Engineering-CIME, April 1996, v.118, no. 4, p. 62-67

Askin, Steven and Stephen Goose. “The Market For Anti-Personnel Landmines -- A GlobalSurvey.” Jane's Intelligence Review, September 1994, v. 6, no. 9, p. 425-431.

Backofen, Joseph, Jr. and Larry W. Williams. “Antitank Mines.” Armor, pt 1., July-August1981, v. 90, p. 26-30; pt.2, September-October 1981, v. 90, p. 35-37; pt. 3, November-December 1981, v. 90, p. 34-39.

Bailes, Alyson J and Lord Deedes. “British Policy and the Landmine Debate.” RUSI Journal,December 1995, v. 140, no. 6, p. 35-37.

Bailey, Tom. “Boobytrap Training Teaches that Charlie’s Calling Card is Only a Step Away.”Army Digest, March 1971, v. 26, no. 3, p. 64-65.

______. “Only a Step Away.” Army Digest, March 1971, v. 26, p. 64-65.

Baker, Brian L. “Standoff Minefield Detection System.” Engineer, March 1989, v.18, p. 11.

Bannerman-Phillips, H. “Mining the Air with Balloon Torpedoes.” Scientific American, June14, 1913, v. 108, p. 538.

Barclay, T. “Floating Mines Curse.” Living Age, December 19, 1914, v. 283, p. 715-720.

Barcomb, Paul J. “The Explosive Broom.” Military Engineer , July-August 1968, v. 60, p. 261.

Baumann, Bruce W. “Minefield Approximate Grid Indicator Coordinates” Engineer, Spring1980, v. 10, no. 1, p. 18-19.

12

Baxter, Laurence J. “Towards a Ban on Anti-Personnel Landmines.” Peacekeeping &International Relations, March/April 1997, v. 26, no. 2, p. 14-16.

Baxter, William P. “Soviet Mine Warfare: Army's 'Silent Death'.” Army, July 1982, v. 32, p..42-44.

Beardsley, Tim. “War Without End?” Scientific American, June 1997, v. 276, p. 20+

Beaver, Paul. “New Mines Spark Call for Vehicle Standards.” Jane’s Defence Weekly,September 4, 1966, v. 26, no. 10, p. 53-54.

Becker, Jack G. “Gazing Through the Crystal Ball.” Engineer, Summer 1971, v. 1, no. 2, p. 10-13.

Belitz, Charles L. “Scatterable Mines.” Infantry , January-February 1976, v. 66, p. 45-46.

Bellero, Luciano. “The New Generation of Land Mines: Requirements and Materiel for the 90s”Military Technology , 1985, v. 9, no. 7, p. 50+

Belov, M. “Remote Mining.” Soviet Military Review, June 1977, no. 6, p. 26-27.

Bennett, Drew A. “Minefield Breaching: Doing the Job Right.” Armor, July-August 1992, v.101, no. 4, p. 19-21.

Bennett, Stephen H. “Multipurpose Mine Probe.” Marine Corps Gazette, September 1989,v.73, p. 43.

Berg, Robert. “Evaluating Robotics Systems [for Combat Engineering Uses].” Engineer, August1994, v. 24, no. 3, p. 10-13.

Berhow, James. E. “Operating a Mine Detector: Proficiency Through Practice.” Engineer,August 1994, v. 24, no. 3, p. 22-24.

Berk, Walter L. “Mine Clearance Abetted by Enhanced Technology.” National Defense, October1994, v. 79, no. 501, p. 32-33.

Biass, Eric H. “Demining: The Finnish Line.” Armada International, December-January 1994-1995, v. 18, no. 6, p. 30-31.

Birch, Stuart. “How They Build the Spider Mine.” The Engineer, November 21, 1985, v. 261, p.36.

13

Birchmeier, Joe. “Maintaining the MICLIC [Mine-Clearing Line Charge].” Engineer, August1996, v. 26, no. 3, p. 43-47.

Blakeley, H.W. “Mines Might Make a Difference.” Combat Forces, May 1955, v. 5, p. 29-31.

Blagden, P.M. “Kuwait: Mine Clearing After Iraqi Invasion.” Army Quarterly & DefenceJournal, Pt. 1, January 1996, v. 126, no. 1, p. 4-12.

Blish, Nelson A. “The User-Friendly Mine.” Armed Forces Journal International, October1985, v. 123, p. 42.

Blot, Andre. “Mine Warfare: A Comprehensive Panoply.” Heracles, March-April 1983, no. 15,p. 18-20.

“Blowing Up the Enemy: Large Scale Mining Operations as a Weapon of Offensive Warfare.”Scientific American, February 23, 1918, v. 118, p. 165.

Boatman, John. “Sweep Up After the Storm (US Involvement in Mine and Munitions Clearancein Kuwait).” Jane's Defence Weekly, May 9, 1992, v.17, no. 19, p. 821-822.

Bonsignore, Ezio. “Land Mines -- No More?” Military Technology, April 1994, v. 18, no. 4, p.68-69+

______. “Of Presidents, Mines and Guts.” Military Technology , November 1997, v. 21, no. 11,p. 5.

Borland, H. “How Axis Land Mines Work.” Popular Science, April 1944, v. 144, p. 128+

Boschmann, Peter. “Mobile Barrier -- Land Mine Warfare in the 90s.” NATO's Sixteen Nations,July 1986, v. 31, p. 54-56+

“Bosnia: After the Troops Leave.” The Washington Quarterly, Summer 1996, v. 19, no. 3, p.59+

Boulden, Laurie H. “Harvest Season.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, September/October 1997,v. 53, no. 5, p. 30-34.

Boutro-Ghali, Boutros. “The Land Mine Crisis: A Humanitarian Disaster.” Foreign Affairs,September-October 1994, v. 73, no. 5, p. 8-13.

Bowles, John L. and Steven C. Sparling. “EOD: An Integral Element of BG/ARG Operations[Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Battle Group/Amphibious Ready Group].” SurfaceWarfare , January/February 1996, v. 21, no. 1, p. 12-15.

14

Braham, James. “Scottish ‘Anteater’ Claws Up Land Mines.” Machine Design, August 7, 1997,v. 69, no. 15, p. 29.

“Britain Digs Up Her Beach Mines.” Popular Science, May 1945, v. 146, p. 116-117.

Buchanan, Nancy. “Bofors Demining Vehicle Demonstration.” Armada International,February-March 1996, v. 20, no. 1, p. 56-57.

______. “Mine Detection: In Search of the Ideal System.” Armada International , August-September 1996, v. 20, no. 4, p. 20+

______. “Mine Warfare from a Different Perspective.” Armada International, February-March1995, v. 19, no. 1, p. 20+

Bunce, Peter L. “Soviet Reaction to a Flank Threat.” Armor , November-December 1994, v. 6, p.28-31.

Bunten, Kathleen. “Mines in Bosnia: A Lethal Legacy.” Jane's Defence Weekly, May 29, 1996,v. 25, no. 22, p. 16-17.

Burkhalter, Holly. “Landmines: Time for a Ban.” Lancet, July 5, 1997, v. 350, p. 63.

______. “Phantom Pain: Banning Landmines.” World Policy Journal , Summer 1997, v. 14, no.2, p. 30-34.

Burns, William C. et al. “Engineer Doctrine for the AirLand Battle.” Engineer, Spring 1984, v.14, no. 1, p. 11-19.

Caires, Greg. “Army Looks to South Africa for Bosnia Countermine Effort.” Defense Daily,May 29, 1996, v. 191, no. 42.

“Cambodia: Recent Developments.” US Department of State Dispatch, May 23, 1994, v. 5, no.21, p. 343-344.

Campbell, J.G. and A.M. Jacobs. “Detection of Buried Land Mines by Compton BackscatterImaging.” Nuclear Science and Engineering, April 1992, v. 110, no. 4, p. 417-424.

Campbell, James L. and John Moser. “The Commander Has Less Mobility Than He Thinks.”Infantry, March-April 1973, v. 63, p. 52-54.

“Canada Develops Minefield Breaching System.” International Defense Review, July 1997, v.30, no. 7, p. 15.

15

Capellaro, Catherine and Anne-Marie Cusac. “Meeting the People Who Make Land Mines.” TheProgressive, November 1997, v. 61, no. 11, p. 18+

Carnahan, Burris M. “The Law of Land Mine Warfare: Protocol II to the United NationsConvention on Certain Conventional Weapons.” Military Law Review, Summer 1984,no. 105, p. 73-95.

Carr, Matthew T. “Demining in Laos.” Asia-Pacific Defence Forum, Fall 1997, v. 22, no. 3, p.36-40.

Carruthers, A.R. and J.E. McFee. “Landmine Detection: An Old Problem Requiring NewSolutions.” Canadian Defence Quarterly, June 1996, v. 25, no. 4, p. 16-18.

Castella, Paul. “Operation Salam--Mine Clearance for the Mujahideen.” International DefenseReview, February 1990, v. 23, no. 2, p. 141-142.

Castillon, Michel L. “Low-Intensity Conflict in the 1980s: the French Experience.” MilitaryReview, January 1986, v. 66, no. 1, p. 68-77.

Cauderay, G.C. “Anti-Personnel Mines.” International Review of the Red Cross, July-August1993, no. 295, p. 273-287.

Chadwick, Auston. “Teamwork, Streamlining Speed Fielding of Mine Detector.” Army RD&ABulletin , September/October 1993, no. 5, p. 29-31.

Chaloner, E.J. and S.J. Mannion. “Antipersonnel Mines: The Global Epidemic.” Annals of theRoyal College of Surgeons of England, 1996, v. 78, p. 1-4.

Chandra, Nayan. “War’s Aftermath: Tough Row to Hoe: Cambodia has more Landmines thanPeople.” Far Eastern Economic Review, May 29, 1995, v. 158, no. 26, p. 50-51.

Chappell, C. “Mine Locators: Problems Encountered in Providing an Effective Electrical MineDetector.” Radio Newsletter, March 1944, v. 31, p. 34+

Chase, F., Jr. “Eight Million Hot Acres.” Saturday Evening Post, March 2, 1946, no. 218, p. 6.

Chase, Martin B. “Unique New Capability: Scatterable Mines.” Army RD&A , March-April1980, v. 21, no. 2, p. 6-9.

Cherrie, Stanley F. “Multinational Mine-Strike Recovery Operation [Demining and CasualtyRecovery in Bosnia].” Engineer, August 1997, v. 27, no. 3, p. 6-11.

16

Chignell, R. J. et al. “Early Development in Ground-Probing Radar at ERA Technology Ltd.”IEE Proceedings. Part F, Communications, Radar and Signal Processing, August1988, v. 135, p. 362-370.

Chirio, Lawrence M. “Lessons Learned: Kuwaiti Demining Operations [of CommercialMunitions Systems International Procedures and Experience with AN/PSS-12 MineDetector].” Engineer, August 1994, v. 24, no. 3, p. 25-28.

Christopher, Warren M. “Cambodian Mine Action Center [Phnom Penh, Cambodia, August 4,1995].” US Department of State Dispatch, August 14, 1995, v. 6, no. 33, p. 635.

______. “Hidden Killers: U.S. Policy on Anti-Personnel Landmines.” Remarks Upon Release,State Dept Report Hidden Killers: The Global Landmine Crisis 1994. DISAM Journal,Summer 1995, v. 17, no. 4, p. 81-84; US Department of State Dispatch, February 6,1995, v. 6, no, 6, p. 71.

______. “Luanda Demining [Luanda, Angola, October 14, 1996].” US Department of StateDispatch, October 14, 1996, v. 7, no. 42, p. 516.

“Clearing Minefields Takes Time and Money.” CQ Researcher, August 8, 1997, v. 7, no. 30, p.708.

“Clinton Opts Out of Oslo Landmine Ban Treaty.” Jane’s Defence Weekly, September 24,1997, v. 28, no. 12, p. 3.

“Clinton Renews Initiative on Global Ban of Anti-Personnel Landmines.” Foreign PolicyBulletin , March/April 1997, v. 8, no. 2, p. 54-57.

Clinton, William J. “Addressing Security Threats Through International Cooperation [UNGeneral Assembly, New York City, September 23, 1996].” US Department of StateDispatch, September 23, 1996, v. 7, no. 39, p. 469-471.

______. “New U.S. Land Mine Policy.” Statement by President Clinton Following a PressBriefing Old Executive Office Building, Washington, May 16, 1996. Defense Issues,1996, v. 11, no. 40, p. 1-6. [http://defenselink.mil/pubs/di96/di1140.html]

______. “Remarks on Landmines and an Exchange with Reporters.” Weekly Compilation ofPresidential Documents.” September 22 1997, v. 33, no. 38, p. 1356-1363.

______. “Remarks on the Antipersonnel Landmines Initiative.” Weekly Compilation ofPresidential Documents.” May 20 1996, v. 32, no. 20, p. 869-870.

17

______. “Statement on the United States Demining Initiative in Bosnia.” Weekly Compilationof Presidential Documents.” July 8, 1996, v. 32, p. 1159-1160.

Clinton, William J. and Robert Bell. “U.S. Leads in Land Mine Removals While Others Talk.”Remarks by President Clinton and Robert Bell during a White House Press Conference,September 17, 1997. Defense Issues, 1997, v. 12, no. 47, p. 1-7.[http://defenselink.mil:80/pubs/di97/di1247.html]]

Coghlan, Andy. “Institute Ploughs Ahead in Search for Mine Solution.” New Scientist, January8, 1994, v. 141, p. 19.

Coisplet, Michel. “Stopping the Tank -- A European Project: MACPED/ACEATM.” NATO'sSixteen Nations, December 1990, v. 35, no. 7, p. 36-37+; Military Technology, April1991, v. 15, no. 4, p.71+

Collins, Joseph J. “Soviet-Afghan War: The First Four Years.” Parameters, Summer 1984, v.14, no. 2, p. 46-62.

“Combat Engineering: Minefield Breaching -- Soviet Style.” Defense Update International,1985, no. 63, p. 37-41.

Compart, Andrew. “Mines Injure Peacekeepers.” Army Times, December 6, 1993, p. 16.

“Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use ofCertain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or toHave Indiscriminate Effects: Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use ofMines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II) as Amended, and Protocol onBlinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV), (Adopted at Geneva, May 3, 1996 and October13, 1995).” International Legal Materials , September 1996, v. 35, p. 1206-1218.

Connor, Steve. “Ground Wars.” New Scientist, July 23, 1987, v.115, p.44-49.

“Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and Their Destruction.” Arms Control Today, September 1997, v. 27,no. 6, p. 13-18.

Cook, J.S. “Ice Mine Fields.” Military Engineer , November-December 1957, v. 49, p. 436-437.

Cooper, Mary. “Banning Land Mines: Should the U.S. Support a Total Global Ban?” CQResearcher, August 8, 1997, v. 7, p. 697, 699-719.

Cooper, Pat. “Combatants Embrace Mines Despite Ban Efforts.” Defense News, July 8, 1996,p.10+

18

______. “Countermine Technologies Flow From Increased Threat.” Defense News, July 8, 1996,p. 10+

Cormier, Ken. “Joint Countermine Demo Features Nine systems.” Journal of ElectronicDefense, October 1997, v. 20, no. 10, p. 33-34.

“Countermine Operations: Thwarting the Patient Assassin.” International Defense Review,October 1995, v. 28, no. 10, p. 38+

Coupland, Robin M. “Abhorrent Weapons and ‘Superfluous Injury or Unnecessary Suffering’:From Field Surgery to Law.” British Medical Journal, November 29, 1997, v. 315, no.7120, p. 1450-1452.

______. “Effect of Weapons: Defining Superfluous Injury & Unnecessary Suffering.” Medicine& Global Survival , 1996, v. 3, p. A1.

Coupland, Robin M. and Adriaan Korver. “Injuries from Antipersonnel Mines: The Experienceof the International Committee of the Red Cross.” British Medical Journal, December14, 1991, v. 303, no. 6816, p. 1509-1512.

Coupland, Robin M and R. Russbach. “Victims of Antipersonnel Mines: What is Being Done?” Medicine & Global Survival , March 1994, v. 1, no. 1, p. 18-22.

Covington, Henry H. “Stop Burying Mines.” Military Engineer , July-August 1965, v. 57, p.242-243.

Crawford,Kenneth J. and James E. Brooks. “Engineer Battle Tracking.” Engineer, December1995, v. 24, no. 4, p. 35-40.

“Crevassi Detector and Mine Layer – Hidden Barriers Are Their Business.” Army InformationDigest, August 1957 [inside back cover].

Crevecoeur, Pierre. “Anti-Tank Defence.” Armada International, May-June 1982, v.6, p. 57+

______. “Anti-Tank Mines of the Second Generation.” Armada International, January-February 1984, v. 8, p. 26+

______. “The FFV 028 Anti-Tank Mine.” International Defense Review, June 1977, v. 10, p.529-530.

______. “Second-Generation AT Ground Mines.” Armada International, July 1985, v. 9, p.45+

19

______. “Vertical Anti-Tank Defence.” Armada International , May-June 1982, v. 6, p. 57+

Cross, M.L. “Demolitions and Mine-Laying – Some German Methods.” Military Review ,October 1952, v. 32, no. 7, p. 76-82.

“Current and Past Producers and Exporters of Anti-Personnel Landmines.” Arms ControlToday, July 1996, v. 26, no. 32-34.

Curtis, Ian G.S. “Today's Battlefield Mobility Gives New Importance to Battlefield Engineering.”Defense and Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, December 1990, v. 18, no. 12, p. 22-24.

______. “War Clean-Up, So Popular in Kuwait, Shares Skills with ‘National Salvage.’” Defense& Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, April 1992, v. 20, p. 6-7.

Cushman, J.H. “Better Minefields.” Combat Forces, October 1951, v. 2, no. 3, p. 31-33.

Danckwerts, P.V. “Objects of Enemy Origin; My Experiences in London Getting Rid of Bombsand Mines.” Blackwood’s Magazine, December 1945, v. 258, p. 361-368.

Daniels, David. “Hide and Seek.” IEE Review, September 18, 1997, v. 43, p. 193-196.

“Danish Conference Heightens Landmine Awareness.” Defense Week, July 22, 1996, v. 17, no.30.

Daugherty, William F. “Maintain to Fight.” Armor , November-December 1967, v. 76, p. 22-28.

Davis, E.O. “The Vehicular Mounted Metallic Mine Detector AN/VRS-2.” Armor , November-December 1956, v. 65, p. 10-11.

de Somer, G.J. “Landmines: Weapons that Cause Unnecessary Suffering.” Australian DefenseForce Journal, November/December 1997, no. 127, p. 16-24.

Deacon, Kenneth J. “Mine Warfare in Manila.” Military Engineer , September-October 1965, v.57, p. 348.

Deedes, W.F. “Killing Fields: The Anti-Personnel Mine is Not a Weapon, It is a Crime AgainstHumanity. Why is it Still Used?” National Review, December 23, 1996, v. 48, no. 24, p.46-47.

Deen, Thalif. “Anti-Mine Accord Set to be Finalised in Norway.” Jane’s Defence Weekly,August 13, 1997, v. 28, no. 6, p. 5.

20

______. “Divided Nations Delay UN Mine Ban Decision.” Jane’s Defence Weekly, June 4,1997, v. 27, no. 22, p. 5.

Degel, John. “FAESHED Countermine System.” Engineer, Fall 1975, v. 5, no. 3, p. 34-35.

______. “UN Peacekeepers Latest Victims in Landmine War.” Jane's Defence Weekly, January24, 1996, v. 25, no. 4, p. 5.

______. “UN Urges Demining Army as Economic Priority.” Jane’s Defence Weekly, December17, 1997, v. 28, no. 24/25, p. 7.

DeLisle, Frederick C. “Ice Mining – Army Style.” Infantry , November-December 1961, v. 51, p.26-27.

delle Capre, Enrico. “Barrage Rockets.” Asian Defence Journal, July-August 1980, no. 4, p.61-62+

“Demining Honduras.” Soldiers, May 1, 1996, v. 51, no. 5, p. 21.

Dennis, James A. “MERDC Demonstrates A Fuel Air Explosive mine NeutralizationCapabilities.” Army Research & Development, January-February 1975, v. 16, no. 1, p.12-13.

______. “SULFAE: Long-Range Minefield Breaching System Tested.” Army Research &Development, May-June 1976, v. 17, no. 3, p. 14-15.

“Detector Spots Buried Mines.” Popular Science, May 1943, v. 142, p. 93.

Dickey, Alan. “Anger as Mine-Hunter Order Goes to US-France Consortium.” Engineer, July10, 1986, v. 263, p. 6.

“Digging the Mushrooms of War.” Popular Mechanics, July 1945, v. 84, p. 44+

Disney, Henry. “Seek and Destroy.” (Discussion of Heat and Destroy by Ian Anderson). NewScientist, August 30, 1997, v. 155, p. 49.

“Documentation Relating to Disarmament and International Security.” [Text of Treaty]Disarmament (U.N.), 1996, v. 19, no. 2, p. 105-124.

Dodd, Norman L. “Mines and Mine Clearance.” Asian Defence Journal, December 1983, no.12, p. 74-76+

21

______. “New Off-Route Mine Will Destroy Any Tank.” Pacific Defense Reporter, February1988, v. 14, p. 42.

Dodds, Henry. “MTK Mine Clearing Systems.” Jane's Intelligence Review, October 1991, v. 3,no. 10, p. 478-480.

Donnelly, John. “GAO, Army Differ on Effectiveness of Top Mine Detector.” Defense Week,September 16, 1996, v. 17, no. 37.

Donohue, John T. “Countermine Warfare: Another Challenge for MPs.” Military PoliceJournal, Winter 1980-1981, v. 7, p. 44-47.

Dorris, Albert F. “Engineer Support for the Combined Arms Team.” Armor, September-October1980, v. 89, p. 39-43.

Doswald, Beck, Louise and Peter Herby. “Land Mines: A Critical Examination of Existing LegalInstruments.” UNIDIR Newsletter, December 1994/May 1995, nos. 28/29, p. 5-7.

Douchet, Ian. “The Cowards’ War: Landmines and Civilians.” Medicine and War,October/December 1993, v. 9, p. 304-316.

Draper, Stephen E. “Mobility/Countermobility in Winter Warfare.” Defense UpdateInternational, 1984, no. 45, p. 55-63.

Drew, Debbie. “Twelve Bush Combat Engineer.” Engineer, Fall 1984, v. 14, no. 3, p. 8-9.

Dunham, Steven R. and Richard G. Rhett. “REMIDS (Remote Minefield Detection System).”Engineer, March 1989, v. 18, p. 12-13.

“Durable, Deadly and Hard to Detect.” CQ Researcher, August 8, 1997, v. 7, no. 30, p. 704+

Duval-Destin, Marc and Michel Thomas. “Mine Clearance: A Key Factor in Resolving FutureCrises.” Military Technology, September 1994, v. 18, no. 9, p. 62-65.

Eberharter, Steven. “Mine Awareness.” Engineer, March 1996, v. 26, no. 1, p. 11-15.

Edwards, H.W. “Danger! Mines.” Marine Corps Gazette, April 1952, v. 36, no. 4, p. 38-41.

Edwards, Rob. “Dervish Dancers Through Killing Fields.” New Scientist, March 9, 1996, v.149, no. 2020, p. 25.

Ekberg, Peter J. “Remotely Delivered Landmines and International Law.” Columbia Journal ofTransnational Law, 1995, v. 33, no. 1, p. 149-178.

22

“Engineers Show 2 Mine Planters.” Army Times, July 4, 1959, v. 19, p. 4.

Epstein, Alan. “Smart Mines and Remote Control Technology.” Army RD&A Bulletin ,March/April 1994, p. 39-41.

Eshel, Tamir. “End to Static Deterences? Mine Warfare in the 1980s and Beyond.” DefenseUpdate International, November 1988, no. 91, p. 42-49.

______. “Engineers Have Key Role in Cracking Iraqi Ground Defenses.” Armed ForcesJournal International , February 1991, p. 18+

Eubanks, Catherine. “Schiebel AN19/2 Hand-Held Mine Detector: A Canadian's View; includesan interview with LtCol Normand Levert.” Engineer, August 1994, v. 24, p. 29-31.

Evers, Stacy. “Plough (De-Mining Device) May Face Bosnia Test.” Jane's Defence Weekly,January 31, 1996, v. 25, no. 5, p. 82.

“Exploding a Mine.” Literary Digest, February 26, 1916, v. 52, p. 515+

“Explosion in the Market (For Mines)?” International Defense Review, 1986, v. 19, no. 3, p.294-299.

“Fact Sheet: Ratification of the Convention on Conventional Weapons [March 6, 1995].” USDepartment of State Dispatch, March 13, 1995, v. 6, no. 11, p. 193-194.

“Fact Sheet: U.S. Initiative for Demining and Landmine Control.” US Department of StateDispatch, May 30, 1994, v. 5, no. 22, p. 362.

“Fact Sheet: U.S. Initiatives for Demining and Landmine Control.” US Department of StateDispatch, February 6, 1995, v. 6, no. 6, p. 72.

“Fact Sheet: U.S. Policy on a Landmine Control Regime.” US Department of State Dispatch,September 26, 1994, v. 5, no. 39, p. 637.

“Fact Sheet: U.S. Proposals to Improve the Landmines Protocol of the Convention onConventional Weapons.” US Department of State Dispatch, September 25, 1995, v. 6,no. 39, p. 710.

Fastabend, David A. and Ralph H. Graves. “Maneuver, synchronization and ObstacleOperations.” Military Review , February 1986, v. 66, no. 2, p. 36-48.

23

Faulkner, Frank. “Anti-Personnel Landmines: A Necessary Evil?” International Relations,April 1997, v. 8, no. 4, p. 41-56.

______. “The Most Pernicious Weapon: Landmines.” Contemporary Review, March 1997, v.270, p. 136-142.

Fedarko, Kevin. “Land Mines: Cheap, Deadly and Cruel.” Time, May 13, 1996, v. 147, p. 54-55.

Ferrer, Mary A. “Affirming Our Common Humanity: Regulating Landmines to Protect Civiliansand Children in the Developing World.” Hastings International and Comparative LawReview, Fall 1996, v. 20, p. 135-182.

“The FFV 013 Area Defense Mine.” Ground Defence International, September-October 1979,no. 57, p. 39.

“Field Kit Adds Mine Cleaner to M1 Tank.” Army RD&A , November-December 1985, v. 26,no. 6, p. 28-29.

Finnegan, Philip. “Kuwaiti Ordnance Clearing Hits Bureaucratic Sand Trap.” Defense News,April 25-May 1, 1994, v. 9, p. 26.

Fisher, Robert E., Jr. “Joint Operational Concept and Procedures for Coordination ofEmployment of Air Delivered Mines.” Air Land Bulletin , May 13, 1983, no. 83-1, p. 4-6.

Flamm, Don. “Critical Need for Army Non-Metallic Mine Detectors.” Asian Defence Journal,November 1990, no. 11, p. 52+

Flamm, Mikel. “‘Hidden Shadows’ -- Landmines and Misery in Cambodia.” Asian DefenceJournal, October 1993, no. 10, p. 23+

______. “Land Mines in Cambodia -- The Most Heavily Mined Country in the World.” AsianDefence Journal, May 1993, no. 5, p. 27-28.

Fleming, W. “Military Moles -- How They Sap the German Lines.” World , October 1918, v. 30,p. 211-216.

Foek, Anton. “Deadly Relics: The Global Land Mine Plague.” Humanist, July/August 1996, v.56, no. 4, p. 15-19.

Forbes, Gordon J. “Mine Warfare Capability for Canada.” Canadian Defense Quarterly, April1989, v. 18, p. 34-36+

24

Ford, H.D. “Mines – A Major Weapon.” Ordnance, March-April 1958, v. 42, p. 907-909.

Ford, Max B. “TEXS (Tactical Explosive System) Neutralizes Mines.” Military Engineer,August 1985, v. 77, p. 456-457.

Foss, Christopher F. “Designing a Path to Safety (A New Mineclearing System Developed ByIsrael).” Jane's Defence Weekly, February 5, 1994, v. 21, no. 5, p. 20.

______. “US Army Buys Mine Roller for IFOR (Implementation Force) Role.” Jane’s DefenceWeekly, August 14, 1996, v. 26, no. 7, p. 24.

Fowler, Will. “Mine Warfare, Laying, Detecting and Neutralising.” Asian Defence Journal,February 1995, no. 2, p. 46+

“France (Weapon Systems).” Armed Forces Journal International, December 1983, v. 121, p.55+

Fredenburg, Paul. “The Military Utility of Anti-Personnel Landmines.” Canadian DefenceQuarterly , Summer 1997, v. 26, no. 4, p. 38.

Friedman, Avner. “Detection of Mines by Electric Measurements.” SIAM Journal on AppliedMathematics, February 1987, v. 47, p. 201-212.

Frost, Roger. “Italy’s Mine Makers.” International Defense Review, 1986, v. 19, no. 5, p. 655-660.

Fruchtbaum, Harold. “A Campaign Against ‘Blind Terrorism.’” UN Chronicle, March 1994, v.31, p. 77.

Fuentes, Gidget. “Clearing Gitmo’s Mines.” Navy Times (Marine Corps Edition), June 2,1997, no. 35, p. 16.

Fuhrman, Russell L. “Counter Mine for the AirLand Battle.” Engineer, 1983, v. 13, no. 1, p. 22-24.

Fullerton, John. “Mine Warfare: NATO Directions.” Defense & Foreign Affairs Digest, 1979,v. 7, no. 3, p. 42-43.

“Funds for Demining in Cambodia.” Insight, March 14, 1994, v. 3, no. 3, p. 10.

Furlong, R.D.M. “WAAM (Wide Area Anti-Armour Munitions) -- the U.S. Air Force's NextGeneration of Anti-Armour Weapons.” International Defense Review, 1978, v. 11, no.9, p. 1378-1379.

25

Fursdon, Edward. “Bosnia’s Lethal Legacy (Mines).” Army Quarterly & Defence Journal ,1997, v. 127, no. 1, p. 5-12+

Fursdon, Edward. “Mobile Minefields (Laying Mines by Helicopter).” Military Engineer ,September-October 1959, v. 51, p. 357-359.

______. “Saving Afghans From Lethal Litter.” Pacific Defence Reporter, March 1990, v. 16,no. 9, p. 31-32+

Galitsky, Y. “Mine Obstructions in Mountains and Deserts.” Soviet Military Review, January1971, no. 1, p. 24-26.

Gander, Terry J. “Iraq’s Bicycle Wheel Mine.” Jane's Intelligence Review, August 1991, v. 3,no. 8, p. 355.

______. “Land Mine Warfare -- The British Position.” Jane’s Defence Review, 1983, v. 4, no. 6,p. 597+

______. “Mines: A Growing Potency.” Jane’s Defence Weekly, December 13, 1986, v. 6, p.1401-1403.

______. “MON Mines.” Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review, January 1990, v. 2, no. 1, p. 44.[pictorial only].

______. “MVN-72 Magnetic Fuze.” Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review, November 1989, v. 1,p. 501.

______. “MVZ-62 Anti-Tank Land Mine Fuze for TM-62 Mines.” Jane's Soviet IntelligenceReview, June 1990, v. 2, no. 6, p. 258-259.

______. “OZM Bounding Anti-Personnel Mine Series.” Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review, May1989, v. 1, p. 213.

______. “PGMDM Scatterable Anti-Tank Mine.” Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review, April1989, v. 1, p. 153.

______. “POM-K Scatterable Anti-Personnel Mine.” Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review, March1991, v. 3, no. 3, p. 128-130.

______. “Soviet Mine-Clearing Ploughs and Rollers.” Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review,March 1989, v. 1, p. 138-143.

26

______. “TM-83 Off-Route Mine.” Jane's Intelligence Review, September 1993, v. 5, no. 9, p.389.

Gander, Terry J. et al. “Disposing of the Threat.” International Defense Review, October 1995,v. 28, no. 10, p. 47-48+

Garelik, Glenn. “Russia’s Legacy of Death.” National Wildlife , June/July 1996, v. 34, p. 36-41.

Geisenheyner, Stefan. “Landmines for Offence and Defence.” Asian Defence Journal, April1983, no. 4, p. 12-15+

______. “Some Observations on Mine Warfare.” Asian Defence Journal, July-August 1980,no. 4, p.72-74+

Giannou, Chris. “Antipersonnel Landmines: Facts, Fictions and Priorities.” British MedicalJournal, November 29, 1997, v. 315, no. 7120, p. 1453-1454.

______. “The War Surgeon.” New Internationalist, September 1, 1997, n. 294, p. 18-21.

Gill, Clair F. “Clear the Way (U.S. Anti-Personnel Landmine Policy).” Engineer, December1996, v. 26, front cover.

Girodet, Jean and Michel Saint-Setiers. “14; The Anti-Tank Mine: An Increasingly EffectiveWeapon.” Defense & Armament Heracles International, January 1990, p. 62+

______. “Minelaying: More Effective Systems -- Mine Clearance: A Need for Improvements.”Defense & Armament Heracles International, February 1990, p. 54-61.

Glass, Jim. “STRAC (Standards in Training Commission): A Training Strategy That Works.”Engineer, October 1990, v. 20, p. 22-26.

“Global Landmine Center.” U.N. Observer & International Report, January 1, 1998, n. 20, no.1, p. 4+

Goodman, Glenn, Jr. “From the Boardroom: Frank P. Ragano, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, CMS (Conventional Munitions Systems) Inc., Interview.” Armed ForcesJournal International, August 1992, v. 130, no. 11, p. 56.

Goodman, Glenn, Jr. “From the Boardroom: Harold K. McCard, President, Textron DefenseSystems, Wilmington, MA.” Armed Forces Journal International, October 1993, v.131, no. 3, p. 66.

27

Gordon, Martin K. “R&D in Wartime: The Tank Dozer.” Military Engineer, June-July 1994, v.86, no. 564, p. 88.

Gourley, Scott R. “Countermine Programs for US Light Forces.” International Defense Review,April 1991, v. 24, no. 4, p. 323-324.

Gradenwitz, A. “Fighting with Dynamite and Electricity.” Scientific American, December 27,1913, v. 109, p. 488+

Graham, Don W. “Area Denial Munitions.” Ordnance, Summer 1986, v. 4, no. 3, p. 37-39.

Grant, Randall L. “Minerollers: Mobility for the Armor Task Force.” Armor, May-June 1986, v.95, no. 3, p. 30-35.

Grant, Richard B. “Mines Come of Age.” Marine Corps Gazette, August 1978, v. 62, p. 35-38.

Graves, Ralph H. “AVLB (Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge) + MICLIC (Mine-Clearing LineCharge) = AVLM or, How the AVLM Was Born.” Military Engineer, March-April1992, v. 84, no. 548, p. 9-12.

Green, Brian M. and William C. Schneck, Jr. “A Road Fraught with Danger: Lessons in MineClearance.” International Defense Review, November 1997, v. 30, p. 66-69.

Green, Bryan. “Alternatives to Antipersonnel Mines.” Engineer, December 1996, v. 26, no. 4, p.11-13.

Greene, Harry. “Grizzly and the Wolverine: Alternatives to an Orchestrated Ballet of FarmImplements.” Engineer, August 1996, v. 26, p. 2-6.

Greene, Wallace M., III. “C ountermeasures Against Mines and Booby Traps.” Marine CorpsGazette, December 1969, v. 53, no. 12, p. 31-37.

Greenwalt, Robert and Brigid Ockrassa. “Countermine: It’s More Than In-Stride and DeliberateBreaches.” The Engineer, December 1996, v. 26, no. 4, p. 2-6

Greville, P.J. “International Law Needed for Control of Mines.” Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter,August-September 1993, v. 20, no. 2-3, p. 40.

Gribble, W.C., Jr. “Mine Warfare Problems.” Ordnance, September-October 1971, v. 56, p.151.

Griebling, Alfred L. “The Mechanical Mine Layer.” Military Engineer , July-August 1958, v.50, p. 262-263.

28

Gruhn, I.V. “Land Mines: African Strategy.” Journal of Modern African Studies, December1996, v. 34, no. 4, p. 687-699.

Grupp, Larry. “Named After a Large, Two-Edged Scottish Sword, the Claymore Mine Could Cuta Wide Swath of its Own.” Military History , June 1996, v. 13, no. 2, p. 17+

Guest, Tim. “‘Dealing’ with Minefields.” Military Technology, August 1987, v. 11, p. 82-85+

______. “European Programme with an Off-Route Solution.” Military Technology, July 1989,v. 13, no. 7, p. 48+

______. “Intelligence Beneath the Surface: the HPD2 2nd-Generation, Anti-Tank Mine.”Military Technology, April 1989, v. 13, p. 110+

Hackworth, David, H. “Automatic Ambush.” Infantry, May-June 1970, v. 60, p. 53-54.

______. “One Weapon We Don’t Need.” Newsweek, April 8, 1996, v. 127, no. 15, p. 29.

Hall, Keneth G. et al. “Standoff Minefield Detection Systems (STAMIDS) AdvancedTechnology Transition Demonstration (ATTD).” Military Engineer, August 1991, v. 83,no. 544, p. 16-17.

Hallatshek, Josef R. “Infantry Breach Kits.” Infantry, September-October 1992, v. 82, no. 5, p.36-37.

Halloran, Bernard F. “Soviet Land Mine Warfare.” Military Engineer , March-April 1972, v. 64,p. 115-118.

Hambric, Harry N. and Edwin L. Booth. “A New Way to Breach Minefields.” Engineer, Fall1984, v. 14, no. 3, p. 26-29.

Hammick, Murray and Gerard Turbe. “Going Deep -- Countermining Ops Dig Beneath theThreat.” International Defense Review, April 1991, v. 24, no. 4, p. 316+

Hammick, Murray et al. “Gulf War in Review.” International Defense Review, Pt. 1. May1991, v. 24, no. 5, p. 451-453+; Pt. 2. July 1991, v. 24, no. 7, p. 735-738+; Pt.3.September 1991, v. 24, no. 9, p. 979-980+

Hanne, William G. “AirLand Battle: Doctrine, Not Dogma.” Military Review , June 1983, v. 63,no. 6, p. 11-25.

29

Hansen, John V.E. “Mine Games: Serious Business.” Military Engineer, June-July 1994, v. 86,no. 564, p. 32-34.

Hanshaw, Terilee. “AMIDARS (Airborne Minefield Detection and Reconnaissance System).”Engineer, March 1989, v. 18, p. 14-15+

Harpviken, Kristian Berg. “Anti-Personnel Landmines: A Just Means of War?” SecurityDialogue, September 1997, v. 28, no. 3, p. 271-285.

______. “Landmines in Southern Africa: Regional Initiatives for Clearance and Control.”Contemporary Security Policy, April 1997, v. 18, no. 1, p. 83-108.

Harpviken, K., L. Doyle and R. Block. “Weapon That Keeps on Killing.” World Press Review,September 1994, v. 41, no. 9, p. 48.

Harpviken, K.P. and M. Fixdal. “Antipersonnel Landmines: A Just Means of War?” SecurityDialogue, September 1997, v. 28, no. 3, p. 271-285.

Harshbarger, Kenneth A. “Dismounted Complex Obstacle Breach Course.” Engineer, Spring1985, v. 15, no. 1, p. 36-37.

Hasenauer, Heike. “Counting Mines [Technologies for Detecting Land Mines in Bosnia].”Soldiers, June 1996, v. 51, no. 6, p. 22-25.

Heck, Robert. “Mines on the Battlefield.” Armada International, January-February 1980, v. 4,p. 70-72+

Heiberg, E.R. “Readiness... Preserves Peace.” Military Engineer, January-February 1988, v. 80,p. 14-19.

Henderson, Breck W. “DARPA Directs Development of Mine to Detect, Destroy Helicopters.”Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 24, 1991, v. 134, p. 59+

Herteleer, W. “Mine Warfare in Peacekeeping Operations.” NATO’s Sixteen Nations, 1994, v.39. no. 1, 14-16.

Hesler, Stephen R. and Ronald N. Light. “Bullet Trap: Hastening the In-Stride Breach.”Engineer, April 1992, p. 47-49.

Hewish, Mark. “Land Mines -- Cheap and Effective Area Denial.” International DefenseReview, 1986, v. 19, no. 8, p. 1085-1091.

30

______. “Robots on the March.” International Defense Review, Extra , August 1, 1996, v. 1,no. 8, p. 1+

______. “The British Army's New Mine Plough.” International Defense Review, 1984, v. 17,no. 5, p. 617-618.

______. “Thick Skin: Up-Armoring Utility Vehicles.” International Defense Review, April1997, v. 30, no. 4, p. 36-38.

Hewish, Mark and Leland Ness. “Mine-Detection Technologies.” International DefenseReview, October 1995, v. 28, no. 10, p. 40+

“Hidden Killers: U.S. Policy On Anti-Personnel Landmines.” US Department of StateDispatch, February 6, 1995, v. 6, no. 6, p.71.

Hiemstra, Michael A. “CMTC (Combat Maneuver Training Center): Stability OperationsTraining.” Field Artillery, March-April 1996, p. 20-21.

Hill, Robert L. “Robotics-Technology Insertion Activity [Army Corps of Engineers].” TheEngineer, August 1994, v. 24, no. 3, p. 9.

Hindman, Edward R. “Engineer Combat Effectiveness: Electronics on the Battlefield.” MilitaryEngineer, January-February 1963, v. 55, p. 5-9.

Hocke, Reinhold and Michael S. Humphreys. “Demining Germany's Borders.” The Engineer,August 1994, v. 24, no. 3, p. 14-19.

Holmes, H. Allen. “Military Operations in the Post-Cold War Era; Remarks at the Intelligence inPartnership Conference, Joint Military Intelligence College, Andrews Air Force Base,MD, June 26, 1997.” Defense Issues, 1997, no. 12, no. 34, p. 1-5.

Holt, David H. “The Anguish of Normandy.” Military Review , June 1965, v. 45, p. 56-62.

Holzer, Robert. “Report: Rogue Nations with Smart Mines Growing Threat.” Navy Times(Marine Corps Edition) January 12, 1998, no. 14, p. 45.

Hoover, Reynold N. “Landmine Liability: Holding Manufacturers Responsible for the Cost ofVictim Compensation.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Fall1997, v. 10, no. 1, p. 121-146.

Horrock, N. “Why the Death Toll: Land Mines and Booby Traps in Vietnam.” Newsweek,August 31, 1970, v. 76, p. 32.

31

House, Kevin A. “Making Technology Work for the Soldier: Bosnia Technology Integration CellSupports Operations Other Than War.” Army RD&A Bulletin , September/October1996, v. 96, no. 5, p. 4-6.

Howard,Lucy and Carla Koehl. “Trying to Make a Safer War.” Newsweek, April 1, 1996, v. 127,no. 14, p. 6.

Howell, Milton L. Jr. “Scatterable Mines.” Military Engineer, November-December 1977, v.69, p. 396-399.

Huisking, P.V. “Afghanistan and the Soviet Press.” Military Intelligence , January-March 1985,v. 11, no. 1, p. 40-45.

Hull, E.W. Seabrook. “Asleep in the Deep?” Ordnance, September-October 1964, v. 49, p. 158-161.

Hylander, W.R., Jr. “Mine-Countermine Training.” Engineer, Summer 1973, v. 3, no. 2, p. 36-39.

Ibragimov, N. “A New System of Remote Control Mine Laying.” Military Herald , July 1988, v.7, p. 161-163.

Ide, Douglas. “Demining Honduras [Special Forces Soldiers Train International Mine-ClearingCadre].” Soldiers May 1996 v. 51, no. 5. p. 21.

“An Improved Mine-Clearing ‘Snake.’” National Guardsman, March 1959, v. 13, p. 20.

“Infernal Machines: Land Mines.” Time, January 4, 1943, v. 41, p. 70.

Isaacs, John. “The New Congress -- Kinda Good, Kinda Bad.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,January/February 1997, v. 53, no. 1, p. 12.

______. “Playing to Win.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October 1997, v. 53,no. 5, p. 17-18.

“Israeli Mine Plough.” International Defense Review, 1985, v. 18, no. 5, p. 795.

Jacobs, Madeleine. “Eliminating a Human Scourge.” Chemical & Engineering News, March10, 1997, v. 75, no. 10, p. 5+

Janzon, Bo. “Humanitarian Demining: A Technological Challenge to the World’s ScientificCommunity.” Military Technology , September 1997, v. 21, no. 9, p. 45+

32

Jasper, Ron and Mary Ball. “Testing at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground’s Mine, Countermine,and Demolitions Complex.” Army RD&A Bulletin , March/April 1995, v. 95, no. 2, p.33-34.

Jean, Barbara. “Clearing the Perilous Road to Peace.” International Defense Review, Extra,February 1, 1996, v. 1, no. 2, p. 1+

“Jeep Mine Detector.” Military Review , February 1957, v. 36, p. 64.

“Jeep Mounted Detector Automatically Stops the Vehicle When It Locates a Land Mine.”National Guard, January 1957, v. 11, p. 34.

“Jeep Mounted Detector (Land Mine).” All Hands, September 1957, no. 488, p. 26.

“Jeep Mounted Mine Detector.” Army , January 1957, v. 7, p. 14.

“Jeep-Mounted Mine Detector.” Infantry School Quarterly, January 1957, v. 47, p. 102.

Jefferson, Paul. “Soviet Directional Anti-Personnel Mines.” Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review,August 1990, v. 2, no. 8, p. 346-350.

Jenish, D’Arcy. “The Lady With a Cause [Princess Diana].” Maclean’s, September 15, 1997, v.110, p. 55.

Johnson, Fred W. “Establishing a Zone of Separation.” Infantry , May-June 1996, v. 86, no. 3, p.31-38.

Johnson, Richard H. “Lethal Legacy of Land Mines.” Army, January 1994, v. 44, no. 1, p. 34-39.

Jones, Glenwood E., Jr. “Minefield Reconnaissance.” Infantry , July-August 1962, v. 52, p. 36.

Jones, Mel R. “Mine Warfare Preparedness Begins Recovery after Years of Neglect.” DefenseSystems Review and Military Communications, July-August 1984, v. 2, p. 37-39.

Jones, William L. “Training the Effective Sapper.” Engineer, Summer 1973, v. 3, no.2, p. 16-18.

Kaasmann, Bernard A. “Mine Warfare Training.” Marine Corps Gazette, April 1965, v. 49, no.4, p. 47-49.

Kanda, Richard. “Man: Key to Countermine Warfare.” Engineer, Spring 1974, v. 4, no. 1, p. 14-15.

33

Karnoil, Robert. “Asia Resisting UN Efforts to Extend Landmine Treaty.” Jane's DefenceWeekly, June 17, 1995, v. 23, no. 24, p. 25.

______. “Clearing a Path to Peace (Disposing of Millions of Mines Laid in Cambodia).” Jane'sDefence Weekly, May 16, 1992, v. 17, no. 20, p. 856+

Kauffman, John V. “Forget the Standard Pattern.” Engineer, Fall 1975, v. 5, no. 3, p. 34-35.

Kauffman, Sheldon S. “ Operation Continue Hope: An Update on the Sapper Effort in Somalia[Combat Engineering Mission].” Engineer, February 1994, v. 24, no. 1, p. 2-7.

Kearney, Jack. “Gator Mine.” USAF Fighter Weapons Review, Fall 1986, v. 34, p. 6-9.

Kelch, William J. “Canine Soldiers.” Military Review , October 1982, v. 62, no. 10, p. 33-41.

Kervin, Frank W. “The M-56 Scatterable Mine System.” USA Aviation Digest, April 1978, v.24, no. 4, p. 44-46.

Kiernan, Vincent. “Detecting Forgotten Land Mines.” Technology Review,November/December 1994, v. 97, p. 18-20.

______. “Mapping the Mines that Maim.” New Scientist, April 26, 1997, v. 154, p. 24.

King, Colin. “Former Yugoslav Booby Traps.” Jane's Intelligence Review, February 1995, v. 7,no. 2, p. 57-60.

______. “Former Yugoslav Land Mines.” Jane's Intelligence Review, January 1995, v. 7, no. 1,p. 15-18.

______. “Land Mines in Cambodia.” Jane's Intelligence Review, Pt. 2, July 1995, v. 7, no. 7, p.311-314; Pt. 1, June 1995, v. 7, no. 6, p. 273-276.

______. “The Mine Conundrum: The Threat to Mine-Clearance Operations.” Jane's IntelligenceReview -- Special Report No. 8, 1995, Entire issue.

Kitching, John. “Land Mine Warfare.” International Defense Review, October 1975, v. 8, p.691-694.

______. “Minefield Breaching.” International Defense Review, June 1977, v. 10, p. 523-525.

Kitfield, James. “Holding Out For ‘Smart’ Land Mines.” National Journal, October 4, 1997, v.29, no. 40, p. 1980-1981.

34

Kleiner, Kurt. “Robotic Insects Tread Where Humans Fear to Go.” New Scientist February 24,1996, v. 149, p. 14.

Knyazkov, Viktor. “Mine Dectectors.” Soviet Military Review, March 1986, no. 3, p. 26-27.

______. “Mines.” Soviet Military Review, May 1987, no. 5, p. 21-22.

Kolcum, Edward H. “GPS, Other New Technologies Help Clear Ordnance From KuwaitiDesert.” Aviation Week & Space Technology, April 27, 1992, v. 136, p. 54-55.

Kowadlo, Keith. “Visualizing Mine/Countermine Operations as Part of Synchronization.” TheEngineer, February 1994, v. 24, no. 1, p. 18-20.

Kratman, Thomas P. “Concerning ‘Safety.’” Infantry , May-June 1985, v.75, no. 3, p. 10-12.

Kreh, W. “Most Dangerous Job in Vietnam: Disarming Vietcong Bombs and Booby Traps.”Popular Mechanics, May 1967, v. 127, p. 81+

Kula, Thomas W. “How to Breach a Scatterable Minefield.” Army Trainer , Fall 1991, v. 11, p.46-47.

Kuster, Thomas J., Jr. “Lost Art of Patrolling.” Infantry , May-June 1987, v. 77, no. 3, p. 21-25.

“Kuwait -- Cleaning Up After The Storm.” Armada International, June-July 1992, v. 16, no. 3,p. 60+

Lamb, Christina. “Love Among the Land Mines: How Diana Captured even the Most Hard-Bitten.” New Statesman, September 5, 1997, v. 126, p. 9-10.

“Land Forces Update.” Jane's Defence Weekly, June 3, 1995, v. 23, no. 22, p. 33.

“Land Mine Disposal in the Falklands.” Defence, June 1983, v. 14, no. 6, p. 363-365.

“Land Mine Warfare and Conventional Deterrence.” NATO’s Sixteen Nations, October 1984, v.29, no. 5, p. 75-82.

“Land Mine Warfare: Detection and Clearance.” The DTIC Review, March 1996, v.2, no. 1,entire issue. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/review/review2.html#papers.

“Land Mine Warfare -- The British Position.” Jane’s Defence Review, 1983, v. 4, no. 6, p. 597+

“Land Mines.” Life , May 3, 1943, v. 14, p. 39+

35

“Landmines and Countermeasures.” Military Technology and Economics, 1980, v. 4, no. 14, p.37-41.

“Landmines: The Real Weapons of Mass Destruction.” The Defense Monitor, July 1996, v. 25,no. 5, p.1-7.

“Landmine-Related Injuries, 1993-1996.” MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ,August 8, 1997, v. 46, no. 31, p. 724-726.

Lane, Larry. “Mapping Bosnian Minefields.” Soldiers, April 1996, v. 51, no. 4, p. 18-21.

______. “One Step at A Time [Land Mine Warfare Class at Fort Leonard Wood].” Soldiers,March 1995, v. 50, no. 3, p. 18-20.

______. “Robots Out Front [for Mine-Clearing Operations].” Soldiers, April 1995, v. 50, no. 4,p. 13-16.

Lardner, J. “Trouble in Cans: Axis-Planted Booby Traps in Tunisia and How They Are Sprung.”Collier’s , June 13, 1943, v. 111, p. 28.

Lareau, Andre G. “Flight Performance of an Airborne Minefield Detection and ReconnaissanceSystem.” Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, February 1991, v. 57,no. 2, p. 173-178.

Lathan, Andrew. “The Military Case Against Anti-Personnel Mines.” Canadian DefenceQuarterly , Spring 1997, v. 26, no. 3, p. 30-31.

Lawson, Commo Max. “Tending the Mine Field: Sowing and Sweeping: The U.K. is Working toUpdate Its Capabilities.” Journal of Defense and Diplomacy, November 1986, v. 4, p.53-55.

Leahy, Patrick. “The CCW Review Conference: An Opportunity for U.S. Leadership.” ArmsControl Today, September 1995, v. 25, no. 7, p. 20-24.

______. “December in Ottawa.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, September/October 1997, v. 53,no. 5, p. 4.

______. “Landmine Moratorium: A Strategy for Stronger International Limits.” Arms ControlToday, January/February 1993, v. 23, no. 1, p. 11-14.

______. “Toward a Global Ban on Landmines.” MIT’s Technology Review, October 1997, v.100, no. 7, p. 45.

36

Ledbetter, Homer, M. “A Tank Killer -- A Field Plough!” Armor, March-April 1972, v. 81, p.50-51.

Lee, Harry B.J. “USA Warrant Officers Had Start as Mine Planters.” Officer, August 1982, v.58, p. 34-35.

Lehman, M. “Booby Traps.” Infantry Journal , July 1943, v. 53, p. 37.

Leighow, John K. “Route Clearance Operations.” Center for Army Lessons Learned Bulletin,January 1996, no. 96-1, p. 1-17.

______. “Route Clearance Operations [Minefield and Ambush Countermeasures].” Infantry,September-October 1995, v. 85, no. 5, p. 16-22.

______. “Route-Clearance Operations (Countermine Capabilities).” Engineer, August 1995, v.25, p. 54-61.

Leklem, Eric J. “U.S. to Join ‘Ottawa Process’; Will Seek Changes to Treaty.” Arms ControlToday, no. 5, p. 23.

Levert, Normand. “Schiebel AN19/2 Hand-Held Mine Detector: A Canadian View.” Engineer,August 1994, v. 24, no. 3, p. 29-31.

Levin, V. “Combat Engineers Train to Clear the Way.” Soviet Military Review, November1971, no. 1, p. 18-19.

Lewis, Mark R. “JRTC (Joint Readiness Training Center) Lessons Learned: An Airborne Platoonin the Defense.” Infantry, September-October 1993, v. 83, no. 5, p. 42-44.

Lewis, Robert W. “Army Applications of Composite Materials.” Army RD&A , January-February 1980, v. 21, no. 1, p. 1-4.

Lightfoot, Paul J. “The Landmine Review Conference: Will the Revised Landmine ProtocolProtect Civilians?” Fordham International Law Review, April 1995, v. 18, no. 4, p.1526+

“A Lightweight Mine Detector.” Armor , March-April 1958, v. 67, p. 60.

Linnell, Frank R. “Foot a Day in Company A.” Infantry , March-April 1986, v. 76, no. 2, p. 32-34.

“Little Boxes: Hungarian Mines Washed Over to Austria.” Time, May 20, 1966, v. 87, p. 41.

37

Lok, Joris Janssen. “Getting the Full Picture (Detect-Control-Engage Capability).” Jane'sDefence Weekly, June 10, 1995, v. 23, no. 23, p. 63-65+

______.“Mineclearing Making Progress in Sweden.” Jane’s Defence Weekly, April 2, 1997, v.27, no. 13, p. 21.

______. “Upgrade for NATO Mine School.” Jane's Defence Weekly, January 29, 1994, v. 21,no. 4, p. 25-26.

Lord, Janet E. “Legal Restraints in the Use of Landmines: Humanitarian and EnvironmentalCrisis.” California Western International Law Journal , Spring 1995, v. 25, no. 2, p.311-356.

Loretti, Alessandro. “Landmines: Dragon's Teeth: Cause Injury and Death In The World.” WorldHealth, September 1995, v. 48, no. 5, p. 14+

Lovely, Bob. “Soviet Engineer Support [Mine Warfare].” Military Intelligence , October-December 1983, v. 9, no. 4, p. 44.

Lowry, Robert. “Uganda's Three-Sided War of Attrition.” Jane's Defence Weekly, September25, 1996, v. 26, no. 13, p. 41+

Lyon, Harold C., Jr. “Do It With Napalm.” Infantry , May-June 1962, v. 52, p. 29-31.

Machmud, Benjamin. “FASCAM (Family of Scatterable Mines) -- The Force Multiplier.” AsianDefence Journal, July 1991, no. 7, p. 32-36.

Mack, R.E. “Minotrap.” (Unorthodox Mine Warfare, a Deadly Concept by Which GuerrillaForces Employ Mines, Devices and Explosives in Booby-Trap Fashion Against theUnsuspecting.) Marine Corps Gazette, July 1967, v. 51, p. 39-42.

Madsen, Peter T. “After a Year in Somalia: A Battalion Commander’s View.” Engineer,February 1994, v. 24, no. 1, p. 8-9.

Manners, Geoffrey. “Mines Still Prevent Return to Normality in Falklands.” Jane’s DefenceWeekly, February 25, 1984, v. 1, p. 276-277.

Marapoti, James A. “Tactical Mobility and Minefield Breaching.” Marine Corps Gazette,January 1988, v. 72, p. 56-62.

Marsden, James N. “Defeat of Tactical Mine Fields.” National Defense, September-October1975, v. 60, p. 127-129.

38

Marshall, Eliot. “To Stop Kuwait’s Fires, First Clear the Mines.” Science, June 21, 1991, v. 252,p. 1609.

Martin, Steve. “Counter Obstacle Vehicle Test-Bed Program.” Army RD&A Bulletin ,November-December 1984, v. 25, no. 6, p. 26-29.

Marubbio, Arthur A. “Realistic Training on a Budget: The Device Solution.” The Engineer,November 1988, v. 19, p. 24-26.

Masland,T and J. Barry. Buried Terror.” Newsweek, April 8, 1996, v. 127, no. 15, p. 24-27.

Matheson, Michael J. “New Landmine Protocol is Vital Step Toward Ban.” Arms ControlToday, July 1996, v. 26, no. 5, p. 9-13.

______. “The Revision of the Mines Protocol.” American Journal of International Law ,January 1997, v. 91, no. 1, p. 158-166.

Matheson, Michael J. and Stephen D. Goose. “In Pursuit of a Global Ban on Landmines.” ArmsControl Today, July 1996, v. 26, p. 9-17.

Matthews, Carey. “Ban the Production of Land Mines.” Army Times, May 20, 1996, v. 56, no.43, p. 54.

Matthews, Thomas E. “Combat Engineer and Topographic Engineer Missions Intertwine.”Engineer, Fall-Winter 1986, v, 16, no. 3, p. 13-16.

Matthews, William. “Allied War on Mines Proves Slow and Risky.” Air Force Times, February12, 1996, v. 56, no. 28, p. 18.

______.“Bosnia Files Looks at Mines.” Air Force Times, February 26, 1996, no. 30, p. 21.

______. “Mines Get Tougher to Find.” Army Times, February 12, 1996, no. 29, p. 18.

______. “Spring Brings Worries About Mines (in Bosnia).” Air Force Times, April 8, 1996, v.56, no. 36, p. 8.

McCall, Jack H, Jr. “Infernal Machines and Hidden Death: International Law and Limits on theIndiscriminate Use of Land Mine Warfare.” The Georgia Journal of International andComparative Law, 1994, v. 24, no. 2, p. 229-280.

McCarthy, Terry. “Crusade Against Mines.” Time, September 1, 1997, v. 150, p. 46.

39

McDavitt, Peter W. “Scatterable Mines: Superweapon?” National Defense, September-October1979, v. 64, p. 33-37.

McDiarmid, J.G.M. “Deaths and Injuries Caused by Landmines in Mozambique.” Lancet, 1995,v. 346, p. 1167-1168.

McDray, H.S. “Antitank Mine Simulator.” Armor , March-April 1957, v. 66, p. 42-43.

McGee, H.W. “Preparing for Mine Warfare (Exercise Palm Tree).” Marine Corps Gazette,August 1978, v. 62, p. 12.

McGoldrick, Paul. “Delegates from 21 Countries Merge as One.” (EUREL Conference on theDetection of Abandoned Land Mines, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 7-9, 1996).Electronic Design, December 2, 1996, v. 44, p. 74+

______. “Humanitarian Conference Looks at Technology to Solve Abandoned Land MineProblem.” (EUREL Conference on the Detection of Abandoned Land Mines, Edinburgh,Scotland, October 7-9, 1996). Electronic Design, October 1, 1996, v. 44, p. 31-32

McGuire, D.J. “Demining Operations – Pandora’s Box or Treasure Chest?” Australian DefenceForce Journal, July/August 1997, no. 125, p. 16-24.

McHugh, Jane. “New BASIC (Body Armor Set, Individual Countermine) Outfit May ShieldTroops From Bosnia Mines.” Army Times, January 29, 1996, v. 56, no. 27, p. 16.

McNamara, Thomas E. “The U.S. Role in Solving the World Landmine Problem.” U.S.Department of State Dispatch, December 2, 1996, v. 7, no. 49, p. 594-596.

Meadows, Sandra I. “Defense Technologists Engineer Blitz Against Global, Buried, SilentKillers (Land-Mines).” National Defense, November 1997, v. 82, no. 532, p. 16-19.

Meddings, D.R. “Weapons Injuries During and After Periods of Conflict.” British MedicalJournal, November 29, 1997, v. 315, p. 1417-1420.

Meier, Billy J. “Mine Detector Dogs in Bosnia-Herzegovina.” Military Police Journal , Summer1996, v. 96, no. 1, p. 24-25.

Meldrum, Andrew. “Landmines: The Maiming Machines.” Africa Report , May/June 1995, v.40, no. 3, p. 18-21.

______. “On Deadly Ground: Some 2 Million Landmines Were Strewn Around Mozambique’sLandscape During the Vicious Civil War.” Africa Report , July/August 1994, v. 39, no.4, p. 55-59.

40

Menzel, Sewall H. “Automatic Ambush.” Armor, November-December 1970, v. 79, p. 34-35.

“MERADCOM Improves Army’s Mobility via Vast RD Programs.” Army Research,Development & Acquisition, February 1982, v. 23, no. 1, p. 30-32.

Mercer, David C. “Engineer Mine Sweepers.” Military Engineer , January-February 1969, v. 61,p. 16-17.

Merchant, Julie M. “Threat Weapons and Weapons Technologies: Implications for Army SOF(Special Operations Forces).” Special Warfare, July 1994, v. 7, no. 3, p. 32-39.

Meyer, Deborah G. “Countermine Warfare: Deadly Game of ‘Hide and Seek’ Using World WarII Technology.” Armed Forces Journal International, March 1982, v. 119, no. 7, p. 22+

Meyer, Gerd. “Long-Range Deployable Mine System.” Military Technology, October 1988, v.12, p. 127-128+

“Military Need Limits US Support for Mine Ban.” Jane’s Defence Weekly, August 27, 1997, v.28, no. 8, p. 5.

Miller, David. “Mine Countermeasures Marketplace Awash with Choices.” InternationalDefense Review, January 1994, v. 27, no. 1, p. 44-50.

Miller, Guy E. “Beating Murphy’s Law.” Engineer, Spring 1974, v. 4, no. 1, p. 14-15.

Miller, Marion C. “New Countermine Capabilities Emerging in 1980s.” Engineer, Summer1981, v.11, no. 2, p. 24-26.

Milling, James S. “Mines & Booby Traps.” Infantry , January-February 1969, v. 59, p. 39-40.

“Mine Clearance an ‘Absolute Necessity.’” UN Chronicle, December 1995, v. 32, no. 4, p. 28.

“Mine, Metal and Explosive Detector.” Ground Defence International, 1980, v. 7, no. 62, p.17-19.

“Mine Simulator Undergoing Tests.” Army Navy Air Force Register, November 17, 1956, v.77, p. 2.

“Mine Terror.” Military Review , May 1951, v. 31, no. 2, p. 94-95.

“Mine Warfare.” Military Review , May 1955, v. 35, p. 67.

41

“Mine Warfare (1) -- The Lessons of Two World Wars.” Defense Update International,January 1986, no. 67, p. 12-15+

“Mine Warfare Plane.” Military Review , March 1955, v. 34, p. 65.

“Mine Warfare School Opens in Vietnam (at Da Nang).” Journal of Armed Forces, September4, 1965, v. 103, p. 11.

“The Mined Obstacle in American Tactical Doctrine.” Defence Today, April 1983, v. 7, no. 60,p. 152-159.

“Mines and Mine Clearance in Land Warfare.” March 1985, no. 55, p. 70+

“Mines as War Munitions.” World , October 1917, v. 28, p. 312.

“Mines; How British Sappers Clear a Way Through the German Mine Fields.” Newsweek,November 9, 1942, v. 20, p. 22-23.

“Mining and Countermining of Fortifications.” Scientific American, December 5, 1914, v. 111,p. 464-465.

“Mining and Countermining: Paths to the Future.” Defence Attache, 1982, no. 1, p. 9-20.

Mitchell, Donald W. “Russian Mine Warfare: The Historical Record.” Royal United ServicesInstitution Journal , February 1964, v. 109, p. 32-39.

“MLRS Phase II AT2 Anti-Tank Mine.” NATO's Sixteen Nations, Special Edition, 1990,MLRS Sup 22-23.

Moore, Alan. “Serious Scenarios [Minefield, Media and Checkpoint Training at HohenfelsBefore Deployment to Bosnia].” Soldiers, March 1998, v. 52, no. 3, p. 19-20.

Moore, Mike. “Land Mine Ban Close.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, September/October 1997,v. 53, no. 5, p. 33.

Morningstar, James K. “Points of Attack: Lessons From the Breach.” Armor , January/February1998, v. 107, no. 1, p. 7-13.

Morris, N. “Hidden Killers: Canada Steps Up the Fight for a Global Ban on Land Mines.”Maclean’s, June 3, 1996, v. 109, no. 23, p. 22-23.

Morrison, Phillip and Kosta Tsipis. “New Hope in the Minefields.” MIT’s Technology Review,October 1997, v. 100, no. 7, p. 38-47.

42

Moszynski, Peter. “Landmines: The Curse of Africa.” New Africa, May 1995, p. 11-14.

______. “Mining Strike [Worldwide There are Estimated to be 110 Million Land Mines Alreadyin the Ground; Meanwhile, the UK is Still Cynically Supporting the Mine Industry].”New Statesman & Society, August 4, 1995, v. 8, no. 364, p. 24.

“Mozambique: Overmined.” Economist, June 11, 1994, v. 331, no. 7867, p. 40-41.

Muir, H.J. “Mines Bursting in the Air; Hydrogen-Filled Balloons Supporting Small Bombs on aLength of Fine Wire and Set Adrift.” Living Age, October 1939, v. 357, p. 165-167.

Mulliner, N. “Cambodia: UK’s Substantial Contribution.” Army Quarterly & DefenceJournal, January 1995, v. 125, no. 1, p. 20-29.

Mullins, Justin. “Mine Smasher.” New Scientist, October 18, 1997, v. 156, no. 2104, p. 11+

Mullins, Justin. “One False Step…. And You’re Dead.” New Scientist, May 4, 1996, v. 150, no.2028, p. 32-37.

Mullins, Lawrence E. “The Mines at Messines.” Military Review , April 1965, v. 45, p. 18-24.

Munro, Neil. “U.S. Army Accelerates Antimine Research.” Defense News, April 13-19, 1992. p.3+

Murphy, James L. “More on Claymore.” Marine Corps Gazette, September 1966, v. 50, no. 9,p. 42-44.

Murray, Michael. “EOD Group Two: Rendering Safe.” Faceplate, Summer 1984, v. 15, no. 2, p.16-20.

Myer, Steven E. and Jefferson J. Irwin. “Eighteenth Century Fortress Design Principles: AntitankDitch Systems.” Engineer, Summer 1985, v. 15, no. 2, p. 40-42.

______. “History and Military Engineering Design: An 18th Century Example.” Engineer,Spring 1985, v. 15, no. 1, p. 40-43.

Nash, Trevor. “RO (Royal Ordnance) in Kuwait: The Big Clean-Up.” Military Technology, July1991, v. 15, no. 7, p. 59+

“NATO Revives Mines to Counter New Tank Armour.” Jane’s Defence Weekly, July 16, 1988,p. 72.

43

Naylor, Sean D. “The Bosnia Mission.” Army Times, March 4, 1996, p. 12-13.

______. “Mine-Clearing Job (in Bosnia) Has Successful Start.” Army Times, January 22, 1996,v. 56, no. 26, p. 12-14.

______. “Mine Incident Seals Army’s Worst Fears.” Army Times, January 15, 1996, v. 56, no.25, p. 21-22.

______. “Putting the WAM-my on Enemy Tanks.” Army Times, November 23, 1992, p. 25.

______. “Still No Easy Road Through Mine Country.” Navy Times, January 15, 1996, no. 15, p.6.

N’Dormadjingar, Dillah. “The Scourge of Land-Mines in Africa: Africa Battles a Plague.”Disarmament, 1996, v. 19, no. 1, p. 95-106.

Nelson, Carl W., et al. “Robotic Mobile Mines Facilitate AirLand Battle 2000 Tactics.” DefenseSystems Review and Military Communications, November 1983, v. 1, p. 18-22.

Nelson, Denny R. “Soviet Air Power: Tactics and Weapons Used in Afghanistan.” AirUniversity Review, January-February 1985, v. 36, no. 2, p. 30-44.

“New Army Smart Weapon.” Ordnance, November 1992, p. 37.

“New Equipment Demonstrated.” Military Review , July 1957, v. 37, p. 67.

“The New Generation of Land Mines: Requirements and Material for the 90s.” MilitaryTechnology, July 1985, v. 9, no. 7, p. 50+

“New Land Mine Countermeasures in Mill.” Armed Forces Journal International, August1974, v. 111, p. 18+

“New Mine Detector Developed.” Army Navy Air Force Register, February 1, 1958, v. 79, p.9.

“New Mine Killer in the Wings.” Armor , July-August 1986, v. 95, no. 4, p. 49.

“New Training Aids Help Soldiers Recognize Dangerous Ordnance.” Armor , November-December 1996, v. 105, no. 6, p. 41.

“New U.S. Land Mine Policy; Statement by President Clinton Followed by a Press Briefing OldExecutive Office Building, Washington, May 16, 1996.” Defense Issues, 1996, v. 11, no.40, p. 1-6.

44

Newbern, Pam. “EOD Support to Intrinsic Action 93 [Removal of Unexploded Ordnance inKuwait].” Ordnance, February 1994, p. 12-13.

Newman, Richard J. “How to Reduce Land Mine Casualties: Fast New Gizmos Can UnearthThem Safely.” U.S. News & World Report, December 29, 1997-January 5, 1998, v. 123,no. 25, p. 60.

Nicoud, J.D. “Vehicles and Robots for Humanitarian Demining.” The Industrial Robot, 1997,v. 24, no. 2, p. 164-168.

“Nobel Committee Awards Peace Prize to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.”Foreign Policy Bulletin, November/December 1997, v. 8, no. 6, p. 17-23.

Nordwall, Bruce D. “New SAR Images of Bosnia Show Accurate Elevations.” Aviation Weekand Space Technology, September 9, 1996, v. 145, no. 11, p. 67+

Nowicki, John C. “Mines From the Sky.” Armor, January-February 1974, v. 83, p. 16-17;Military Engineer, May-June 1974, v. 66, p. 169.

“Now’s Time to Compensate For Years of Neglect -- Mine Countermeasures-Modernization Is AMust.” Officer, January 1988, v. 64, p. 18-21.

Noyes, Harry F., III. “Aerial Mines: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?” Army , September 1982,v. 32, p. 44-46.

Nunes-Vais, Allan R. “Aggressive Development Program Improves (Land) Mine WarfareCapability.” Defense Management Journal, October 1974, v. 10, p. 26-29; Adaptation.National Defense, November-December 1974, v. 59, p. 240-242.

______. “A New Dimension in Land Mine Warfare.” Armed Forces Journal International,June 1974, v. 111, p. 18; Army Research and Development News Magazine, July-August 1974, v. 15, no. 4, p.22-23.

O’Balance, “Nuclear Land Mine.” Ordnance, September-October 1966, v. 41, p. 165-166.

O’Brien, Eoin. “Walk in Peace: Banish Landmines from Our Globe.” British Medical Journal ,November 29,1997, v. 315, no. 7120, p. 1456-1458.

O’Connell, Robert L. “Arms and Men: The Worst Weapon.” Military History Quarterly ,Winter 1992, v.4, no. 2, p. 56-57.

45

O’Donnell, Edwin T. “Combat Engineer Equipment.” Military Engineer , September-October1969, v. 61, p. 320-325.

O'Malley, T.J. “Land Mines and Countermeasures -- the Continuing Duel.” ArmadaInternational, December-January 1990-1991, v. 14, no. 2, p. 42+

______. “Seek and Destroy -- Clearing Mined Land.” Armada International, February-March1993, v. 17, no. 1, p. 6-8+

Ogorkiewicz, Richard M. “Improved Mine Protection Shields Armored Vehicles: OffsettingVehicle Vulnerability to Mine Blast.” International Defense Review, April 1997, v. 30,no. 4, p. 33+

Olivia, Mark D. “Lanes of Death.” Marines, March 1996, v. 25, no. 3, p. 7.

“Oslo Conference Adopts Treaty Banning Anti-Personnel Landmines.” Foreign Policy Bulletin,November/December 1997, v. 8, no. 6, p. 2-16.

“Ottawa Landmine Treaty: Analysis and Text.” Arms Control Today, September 1997, v. 27,no. 6, p. 11-18.

Owsley, Brian. “Landmines and Human Rights: Holding Producers Accountable.” SyracuseJournal of International Law and Commerce, Spring 1995, v, 21, p. 203-228.

Ozolek, David J. “Barrier Planning.” Armor , November-December 1985, v. 6, no. 14-18.

Padwick, Alan. “Mineclearance Operations in the Middle East.” NATO’s Sixteen Nations, June1998, v. 33, no. 3, p. 43-46.

Palmer, Bruce, Jr. “New Battle Lessons on Reconnaissance.” Armor , May-June 1985, v. 94, no.3, p. 22-23.

Paloczi-Horvath, George. “Ferranti Plans Airborne Mine to Attack Helicopters.” The Engineer,January 26, 1989, v. 268, p. 56.

Papapietro, Joseph G. “Training Mine Improvements Underway.” Engineer, Fall 1983, v. 13, no.3, p. 11-12.

Parker, Frederick E. “Soviet Countermobility Operations.” Engineer, 1987, v. 17, no. 1, p. 14-15.

Parker, James M. “Modern AT (Anti-Tank) Mines -- A Real and Lethal Threat.” Armor, May-June 1994, v. 103, no. 3, p. 48-49.

46

Parr, Arthur ., Jr. “Soviet Engineer Equipment.” Engineer, Fall 1979, v. 9, p. 34-38.

Pawson, Lara. “Doctor Detonator.” African Business, June 1996, p. 23.

Pawulak, Joh D. “Mines as a Combat Multiplier.” Engineer, 1983, v. 13, no. 1, p. 18-21.

Pearn, John. “Landmines: Time For An International Ban, The United Nations Must End ThisIndiscriminate Killing and Maiming of Civilians.” British Medical Journal, April 20,1996, v. 312, no. 7037, p. 990-991.

Pearson, Willard. “More on Mines & Booby Traps.” Infantry , May-June 1969, v. 59, p. 26-27.

Peebles, Alec A. “British View on American ADSM (Artillery Delivered Scatterable Mines).”Engineer, July 1990, v. 20, p. 38-45.

Pendreigh, Kim. “Assistance for Demining in Cambodia.” Insight: Australian Foreign Affairsand Trade, March 21, 1995, v. 4, no. 3, p. 17.

Pengelley, Rupert. “MEDDS (Mechem Explosives and Drug Detection System): Detecting the‘Undetectable’ Mine.” International Defense Review, February 1993, v. 26, no. 2, p.131-132.

______. “South Africa Hones Land-Mine Sweeping and Disposal Techniques.” InternationalDefense Review, February 1993, v. 26, no. 2, p. 134-135.

Pengelley, Rupert and Mark Hewish. “Treading a Fine Line: Mine Detection and Clearance --Combating Mines: Tactical and Humanitarian Efforts.” International Defense Review,November 1997, v. 30, p. 30+

Percori, Peter M. “Army Solves Desert Mine Detector Problem.” Army Research, Development& Acquisition Magazine, March-April 1981, v. 22, no. 2, p. 18-19.

Peters, Ann. “Landmines in the 21st Century.” International Relations, August 1996, v. 13, p.37-50.

Peterson, Gayle. “Belvoir Developing Countermine Technologies.” Army Research,Development & Acquisition Bulletin, September-October 1988, p. 20-21.

Petrarca, Alicia H. “An Impetus of Human Wreckage?: The 1996 Amended Landmine Proposal.”California Western International Law Journal , Fall 1996, v. 27, no. 1, p. 205+

47

Pina, L. Edgar. “Mines and Treaties -- the DOD/White House View Goes Unreported.” SeaPower, November 1997, v. 40, no. 11, p. 35-36.

Pochhacker, Christian. “PAP 104 Mine Hunter.” Defense Update International, November1988, no. 91, p. 50-53.

Pohling-Brown, Pamela. “CMS Goes Clean and Green (in Ordnance and Explosive WasteDisposal).” International Defense Review, February 1993, v. 26, no. 2, p. 132-133.

“Policy on Landmines and U.S.-Russia Arms Control Agreements.” Foreign Policy Bulletin,November/December 1994, v. 5, no. 3, p. 67-68.

Porter, Michael D. “LAVs (Light Armored Vehicles), Snowshoes, and Mine Detectors (USMC'sProactive Focus On Future Combat Needs).” Sea Power, April 1994, v. 37, no. 4, p. 59-60+

Powers, Mary Buckner. “Cleaning Up Buried Bombs May Bust Environmental Budget.” ENR,March 6, 1995, v. 234, p. 50-2+

Pranger, Stephen A. and Kenneth G. Hall. “Demonstrating SMD (Standoff Minefield Detection)Technology.” Engineer, March 1989, v. 18, p. 16-17.

Pratt, Joseph. “Mines in Mechanized Warfare.” The Engineer, October-December 1975, v. 5,no. 4, p. 28-29.

Prehar, Bohdan. “Artillery Scatterable Mines.” Field Artillery Journal , September-October1979, v. 47, p. 8-11.

Preston, Antony. “Mine Warfare.” Asian Defence Journal December 1988 no. 12. p. 60-62+

“Protection of War Victims.” US Department of State Dispatch, September 6, 1993, v. 4, no.36, p. 615-616.

Pugliese, David. “Canada Pursues Projects to Remove Land Mines.” Defense News, June 9-15,1997, v. 12, no. 23, p. 47.

Purdy, Phil. “AN/PSS-12 Mine Detector: A Proven Performer.” The Engineer, August 1994, v.24, no. 3, p. 20-21.

Puttre, Micheal. “CAD Clears the Mine Field.” Design News, March 3, 1997, v. 52 [i.e. 53], p.112-114.

48

“Q & A: The Chairman (of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) on Modernization; an Exclusive Interviewwith DEFENSE 96 Magazine.” Defense, 1996, no. 3, p. 15-18.

Quinn, Woodrow L., Jr. “Dogs in Countermine Warfare.” Infantry, July-August 1971, v. 61, p.16-18.

Ragano, Frank P. “Operation Desert Sweep Ousts Battlefield Waste.” National Defense, March1994, v. 78, no. 496, p. 30-31.

______. “Operation Desert Sweep (Minesweeping in Kuwait After the Gulf War).” MilitaryEngineer, October 1994, v. 86, no. 566, p. 29-30.

Ramdass, Prem. “Attention! Mines!” Asian Defence Journal, December 1986. no. 12, p. 48+

Raphel, R. and R. McMullen. “Mired in Conflict: Effects of Protracted Struggle in Afghanistan.”Harvard International Review , Winter 1996-1996, v. 18, no. 1, p. 40-43.

“Reaffirming U.S. Commitment to Democracy and Reconstruction in Cambodia.” USDepartment of State Dispatch, August 14, 1995, v. 6, no. 33, p. 632-635.

Reed, Anthony G. “Slavonski Brod Crossing Site: A Multinational Effort in Bosnia [Deminingand Sava River Bridging Operations].” Engineer, August 1997, v. 27, no. 3, p. 21+

Reed, Philip L. “One-Hour Minefield -- A Rapid Drill for Combat Engineers or MechanizedInfantry.” Engineer, 1987, v. 17, no. 1, p. 22-25.

Reese, Thomas J. “Bishops Discuss Land Mines and Liturgy.” America, July 15-22, 1995, v.173, p. 8-9.

Regner, William J. “Achtung Minen!” Infantry , October-November 1959, v. 49, p. 21-22.

“Report From Italy.” Asian Defence Journal, March-April 1980, p. 104-106.

Reposa, Wayne F. “Aircraft Mine Delivery.” USA Aviation Digest, December 1972, v. 18, p.28-29.

Ressler, Stephen J. “Tank Bumps: A New Concept in Obstacle Employment.” Armor ,September-October 1986, v. 95, no. 5, p. 25-29.

Rhyne, David W. “War in the Lithosphere.” Army, August 1986, v. 36, p. 60-64+

Richards, Seth. “Below the Surface: The Technology of Landmine Removal.” HarvardInternational Review, Summer 1996, v. 18,no. 3, p. 68+

49

Rider, Bruce. “Obstacle Breaching and Marking For Squads.” Engineer, October 1990, v. 20, p.29-33.

Rivera, Jay. “Batteries Not Included [Robots for Mine-Clearing Operations].” Soldiers, April1995, v. 50, no. 4, p. 16.

Roach, J. Ashley. “Certain Conventional Weapons Convention: Arms Control or HumanitarianLaw?” Military Law Review, Summer 1984, no. 105, p. 3-72.

Robblee, Paul A., Jr. “Legitimacy of Modern Conventional Weaponry.” Military Law Review ,Winter 1976, no. 71, p. 95-148.

Robinson, Richard. “Mine Countermeasures: How Much Is Enough?” Defense System Review,1985, v. 3, no. 6, p. 37-40.

______. “Mine Warfare: A Non-Nuclear Strategic Deterrent.” Defense System Review,November 1984, no. 2, p. 34-35+

“Robotics Under Study.” Defense Management Journal, 1st Quarter 1982, v. 18, p. 48.

Robson, George L., Jr. “Claymore (Directional Fragmentation Weapon).” Infantry , January1960, v. 50, p. 14-16.

______. “Star-Spangled Land Mines (Use in Civil War).” Military Engineer , September-October 1957, v. 49, p. 354.

Roos, John G. “Deadly Pursuit: Are US Landmine-Hunting Units Properly Equipped for theJob?” Armed Forces Journal International, February 1997, p. 18-19.

______. “Hunting Hidden Killers: Most Promising Mine-Detecting Technologies Now on FastTrack.” Armed Forces Journal International, June 1996, v. 133, no. 11, p. 18-19.

______. “The Unending Menace: Military Countermine Efforts Are No Solution.” ArmedForces Journal International, July 1994, v. 131, no. 12, p. 15-16.

Rouhi, A. Maureen. “Gutsy Journey to a Land Mine Treaty.” Chemical & Engineering News,December 8, 1997, v. 75, no. 49, p. 21-22.

______. “Land Mine Dance: One Step Forward, One Back.” Chemical & Engineering News,June 23, 1997, v. 75, p. 12.

50

______. “Land Mines: Horrors Begging Solutions.” Chemical & Engineering News, March 10,1997, v. 75, p. 14-22.

Runions, Bradley and Roy, Richard. “The Mine Threat in Peace Operations, Part One: ExistingMine Intelligence Sources.” Peacekeeping & International Relations, January/February1997, v. 26, no. 1, p. 8-10.

______. “A Proposed Mine Information Net.” Peacekeeping & International Relations,May/June 1997, v. 26, no. 3, p. 6-9.

Rupiah, Martin R. “A Historical Study of Land-Mines in Zimbabwe, 1963-1995.” Zambezia,1995, v. 22, no. 1, p. 63-78.

“Russian Mines and Fuzes.” Combat Forces, May 1955, v. 5, p. 32-33.

Ryan, John T. et al. “Maintaining the Tank Mine-Clearing Plow.” Engineer, August 1995, v. 24,p. 52-53.

______. “Tank Mine Clearing Blade: Eagle or Albatross?” Armor, July-August 1994, v. 103, no.4, p. 26-30.

Rybicki, John F. “Emerging Mine Warfare Capabilities.” Military Engineer, November-December 1987, v. 79, p. 574-578.

______. “Land Mine Warfare and Conventional Deterrence.” NATO's Sixteen Nations,September-October 1984, v. 29, p. 75+

Ryle, J. “Invisible Enemy.” New Yorker, November 29, 1993, v. 69, no. 40, p. 120-135.

Saft, Ulrich. “Minefields – East, a Deficit in Instruction and Training.” Current ThreatArticles, July-September 1983, p. 29-35.

Sargent, H.L. “Nuisance Mining.” Army , September 1957, v. 8, p. 44-47.

“Savage Injuries to the Poorest of the Poor.” CQ Researcher, August 8, 1997, v. 7, no. 30, p.710.

“Schiebel AN 19/2 Detector – Helping to Make Cambodia a Safer Place.” Asian DefenceJournal, March 1997, no. 3, p. 30-31.

Schmidt, William G. “Conventional Weapons Convention: Implication for the AmericanSoldier.” Air Force Law Review, 1984, v. 24, no. 4, p. 279-346.

51

Schneck, William. “Desert Storm Countermine Improvisations.” Engineer, July 1992, v. 22, p.2-7.

Schneck, William C. et al. “Advances in Mine Warfare: Antitank Weapons.” Pt. 3, Engineer, November 1993, v. 23, no. 4, p. 38-45; Pt. 1, “An Overview.” April 1993, v. 23, p. 2-7;Pt. 2, “Antipersonnel Mines.” August 1993, v. 23, p. 26-33.

Schneck, William C., Jr. and Brian M. Green. “Tactics for Route Clearance [Mine ClearanceOperations].” Engineer, April 1995, v. 25, p. 46-52.

______. “Techniques and Procedures for Route Clearance [Mine-Sweeping Operations].”Engineer, March 1996, v. 26, no. 1, p. 3-10.

Schneider, Wolfgang. “MTK-2 Mine-Clearing Tank.” International Defense Review,September 1990, v. 23, no. 9, p. 939.

______. “New Soviet Tank Minesweeping Equipment.” International Defense Review, April1991, v. 24, p. 322.

Scott-Moncrieff, G.K. “Mining and Demolition in War.” Blackwood’s Magazine, October1915, v. 198, p. 551-563.

“Secret Weapons: Viet Cong Booby Traps.” Newsweek, June 12, 1967, v. 69, p.36.

Seffers, George I. “Land Mine Removal Could Take A Century.” Defense News, June 2-8, 1997,v. 12, no. 22, p. 16+

______. “Legislation Would Prod United States to Sign Land Mine Ban.” Defense News, June16-22, 1997, v. 12, o. 24, p. 64.

______. “Pentagon May Resist Effort to Ban Antipersonnel Mines.” Defense News, June 30-July6, 1997, v. 12, no. 28, p. 11.

______. “Pentagon Plan for Mixed System Mines Draws Criticism.” Defense News, November3-9, 1997, v. 12, no. 44, p. 12.

______. “Price of Options to Mines May Tilt U.S. View.” Defense News, August 18-24, 1997, v.12, no. 33, p. 4.

Selyavin, V. “Artillery Breaches Obstacles.” Soviet Military Review, August 1975, no. 8, p. 28-29.

52

Sengupta, Prasun K. “Combating the Scourge of Mines.” Asian Defence Journal, December1997, p. 92-94.

Shalikashvili, John M. and David C. Jones. “At Issue: Would a total Ban on Anti-PersonnelMines Undermine U.S. Military Strategy?” CQ Researcher, August 8, 1997, v. 7, no. 30,p. 713.

Shelkin, Michael and J. Philip Purdy. “Counterobstacle Vehicle: An Enhancement to BattlefieldMobility.” Military Engineer, July 1986, v. 78, p. 362-364.

Shumilov, Pyotr. “Mine-Detection and Clearance Party.” Soviet Military Review, August 1987,no. 8, p. 22-23.

Sickler, Robert A. “Future Land-Mine Warfare.” Engineer, March 1989, v. 18, p. 9-10+

______. “Mine Warfare for AirLand Battle-Future.” Military Review, October 1989, v. 69, p.42-51.

______. “Projecting Robotics Technology in Operations Other Than War.” Engineer, August1994, v. 24, no. 3, p. 2-9.

Silverberg, David. “Lifesaving Technology: One Big Drawback Impedes US Adoption of SomeSouth African Systems.” Armed Forces Journal International, December 1996, v. 134,no. 5, p. 24.

Sinclair, Wayne A. “Answering the Landmine.” Marine Corps Gazette, July 1996, v. 80, no. 7,p. 37-40.

Singleton, T.J. et al. “Eval/Demo Planning for the Joint Countermine ACTD.” ProgramManager, January/February 1998, v. 27, no. 1, p. 70-80.

Siuru, William D., Jr. “Technology That is Available Now.” Marine Corps Gazette, January1997, v. 81, no. 1, p. 29-33.

Skerrett, R.G. “Bombs Via Pipe Line.” World , November 1917, v. 28, p. 328-331.

Skolnick, Andrew A. “Physician Group Declares War on Land Mine Injuries.” JAMA, theJournal of the American Medical Association, August 6, 1997, v. 278, no. 5, p. 375-376.

Sloan, Cedric. “Land Mines -- An Appraisal.” Military Technology , February 1986, v. 10, p.74+

53

______. “Mines -- An Appraisal -- Anti-Tank Mines and Beyond.” Military Technology , March1986, v. 9, p. 30+

“S-Minen; Soldiers in Italy Take the Bounce out of Bouncing Betty.” Infantry Journal , June1944, v. 54,p. 48.

“Smart Weapons Define Tomorrow's Battlefield.” Machine Design, October 26, 1995, v. 67, p.20+

Smith, Harry C. “Tactical Air and Surface Mining.” Military Engineer , September-October1964, v. 56, p. 322-323.

Smith, George F. “FASCAM in Defense of Cities.” Engineer, Winter 1978-1979, v. 8, no. 4, p.12-15.

Smith, Jim. “Mine Detection Sensors.” Engineer, December 1996, v. 26, no. 4, p.7-10.

Smith, Norman, B. “A Plea for the Total Ban of Land Mines by International Treaty.” Loyola ofLos Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal, April 1995, v. 17, no. 3, p.507-534.

Smith, R.W. “Nobody’s Favorite Weapon.” Marine Corps Gazette, October 1954, v. 38, no, 10,p. 54-55.

“Snake Blows Up Mines to Aid Tank Charges.” Popular Mechanics, March 1946, v. 85, p. 95.

“Snake Destroys Mine-Fields.” Science Digest, May 1945, v. 17, p. 95.

“Snakes Cleared Trails on Mines for Allied tanks.” Science News Letter, January 26, 1946, v.49, p. 52-53.

“Solving Problems in Hazardous Environments.” Defense System Review, 1985, v. 3, no. 6, p.45-47.

Sommaruga, Cornelio. “Land-Mines: From global Negotiations to National and RegionalInitiatives.” Disarmament (U.N.), 1996, v. 19, no. 2, p. 18-29.

Sommerville, K. “Angola: Reaping a Deadly Harvest.” World Today, August-September 1995,v. 51, no. 8-9, p. 157-159.

Sommerville, Roger J. “Mobile Obstacle Detachment.” Military Engineer, pt. 2, March-April1989, v. 81, p. 38-40.

54

“Soviet Landmine Operations.” Infantry, pt.1, May-June 1988, v.78, p. 27-31; pt. 2, July-August1988, v. 78, p. 22-25.

“Soviet Military Expert Discusses the Trettner Minefield Plan: Bundewehr Inspector-GeneralTrettner’s Plan for a Nuclear Minefield in the Heart of Europe [Interview with S. N.Kozlov]. New Times (Moscow), December 28, 1964, p. 5-7.

“Speeding Planting of Mines.” Armor , November-December 1957, v. 66, p. 52.

Spillman, Markus. “The Unresolved Problem of Land Mines.” Swiss Review of World Affairs,August 1997, no. 8, p. 6-7.

Spooner, G.R. “Minewarfare -- Policy or Palsy?” RUSI Journal of Defense Studies, March1978, v. 123, p. 52-57.

Stanley, A.T. “Barriers -- Past, Present, Future.” Military Engineer, May-June 1974, v. 66, p.167-168.

Starr, Barbara. “Defuzing the World Landmine Threat.” Jane's Defence Weekly, February 14,1996, v. 25, no. 7, p. 19-21.

______. “A Joint Approach to the Hidden Threat.” Jane's Defence Weekly, February 14, 1996,v. 25, no. 7, p. 20+

______. “USA Declares War on Land Mines in Bosnia.” Jane's Defence Weekly, January 3,1996, v. 25, no. 1, p. 27.

Starr, Douglas H. “This Land Is Mined Land -- Or Should Be!” Armor, May-June 1977, v. 86, p.44-48.

Steegmuller, F. “Deauville Beach.” New Yorker, September 8, 1945, v. 21, p. 60+

Stegner, Gary. “Jefferson Proving Ground: The Ordnance Tradition Continues.” Ordnance,Spring 1986, v. 4, no. 2, p. 18-21.

Steinmetz, J.A. and C. Dienstbach. “Air Bomb: A New Method of Mining the Air.” ScientificAmerican, August 15, 1914, v. 111, p. 113-114.

Sterk, Richard J. “Airbourne Mine Countermeasures.” Naval Forces, 1996, v. 17, no. 4, p. 28-31.

Stewart, Chandler. “Research on Detection of Non-Metallic Mines.” Signal, February 1959, v.13, p. 38-39.

55

Stiff, Peter and Cedric E.E. Sloan. “Taming the Landmine.” Military Review , July 1987, v. 67,no. 7, p. 90-91.

Stinson, David L. et al. “Terrain and Weather Affect Countermobility.” Military Engineer,August 1987, v. 79, p. 445-446.

Stobbs, Emmett E., Jr. and James E. Alty Jr. “Engineering at DNA (Defense Nuclear Agency).”Military Engineer, October 1994, v. 86, no. 566, p. 5-6.

Stover, Eric and Dan Charles. “The Killing Minefields of Cambodia.” New Scientist, October19, 1991, v. 132, no. 1791, p.26-30.

Stover, Eric et al. “The Medical and Social Consequences of Land Mines in Cambodia.” JAMA ,August 3, 1994, v. 272, no. 5.

Strada, Gino. “The Horror of Land Mines.” Scientific American, May 1996, v. 274, no. 5, p.40-45.

Stuart, A.J. “The Beach Mine.” Marine Corps Gazette, October 1950, v. 34, no. 10, p. 58-64.

“Surface Mining Makes Comeback.” Surface Warfare, October 1983, v. 8, no. 5, p. 16-17.

Swan, Guy C. “Countering the Daring Thrust.” Military Review , September 1986, v. 66, no. 9,p. 42-53.

Swanson, K.C. “Pentagon’s Fighting a Ban on Mines.” National Journal, February 17, 1996, v.28, no. 7, p. 370-371.

Sweeney, Patrick C. “Artillery-Delivery Mines.” Infantry, November-December 1981, v. 71, p.42-43.

Taylor, Carolyn. “Land Mine Warfare Section Provides International Support.” Inscom Journal,September 1, 1994, v. 17, no. 9, p. 9.

Taylor, Edward B. “Building a Minefield Database System [Lessons Learned From Bosnia].”Engineer, December 1996, v. 26, no. 4, p. 14+

Taylor, Kate and Terry L. Gander. “Mine Clearance in Cambodia.” International DefenseReview –Extra, February 1, 1996, v. 1, no. 2, p. 5+

“Technology Brings Better Ways to Find Mines.” Machine Design, August 11, 1988, v. 60, p.24-25.

56

“Ten Favorite, and Deadly Booby Traps of the Viet Cong.” U.S. News and World Report,March 13, 1967, v. 62, p. 40-41.

Tesdahl, R. Michael. “Probing for a Solution.” Armor, May-June 1977, v. 86, p. 54-57.

‘They Call It Schiebel.” [Advertising Supplement] International Defense Review, October1995, v. 28, no. 10, p. 53-56.

“Thin Green Lines.” Military Review , February 1954, v. 33, p. 97-104.

Thomas, Daniel L. “CBU-89 ‘Gator’ Minefield.” Infantry, January-February 1992, v. 82, no. 1,p.18-19.

Thomas, F.R. “Employing Tank Mine Rollers and Ploughs.” Armor, September-October 1985,v. 94, no. 5, p. 16-17.

Thompson, Paul E., Jr. “Enhanced Mine Detection for Limited Visibility Operations[Survivability of Mine Rollers].” Armor , November-December 1996, v. 105, no. 6, p.42-43.

Thorp, Anson F. “Countermining.” Military Engineer, March-April 1971, v. 63, p. 89-90.

______. “This’ll Blow Your Mind.” Engineer, Spring 1971, v. 1, no. 1, p. 10-13.

“Thread of Death: Viet Cong Booby Traps.” Time, October 28, 1966, v. 88, p. 36.

Tierney, Larry and Richard Funk. “NAVEODTECHCEN Supports EOB Minehunting.”Faceplate, Summer 1984, v. 15, no. 2p. 6-8.

Tigner, Brooks. “Minefields Galore Pockmark Hazardous Bosnian Landscape.” Army Times,December 25, 1995, no. 22, p. 15.

Tillery, G.C. and R.M. Bankey. “Countermine Operations.” Field Artillery, October 1987, p. 35-38.

Tippett, David F. “The BLU-31 Mine.” USAF Fighter Weapons Newsletter, March 1970, no.1, p. 24-26.

Tomsen, Peter. “Cambodia: Recent Developments [Statements Before House Subcommittee onAsia and the Pacific, May 11, 1994].” US Department of State Dispatch, May 23, 1994,v. 5, no. 21, p. 343-344.

57

Towell, Pat. “Backers of Global Land Mine Ban Gain Ground in Oslo.” CongressionalQuarterly Weekly Report, September 13, 1997, v. 55, no. 36, p. 2161-2162.

______. “Supporters of Land Mine Ban Up Pressure on Clinton.” Congressional QuarterlyWeekly Report, August 30, 1997, v. 55, no. 34, p. 2045-2047.

Townsend, James J. “Battlefield Electronics: a Western Edge.” Military Technology, May 1988,v. 12, p. 31-33+

“Tractors Take On Mine Clearing.” Jane's Defence Weekly, September 7, 1991, v. 16, no. 10, p.428.

Treleaven, David L. “Engineers in Bosnia: An Overview.” Engineer, March 1996, v. 26, no. 1,p. 18-22.

“Trenching and Mining Operations.” Scientific American Supplement, January 22, 1916, v. 81,p. 52.

Trevelyan, James. “Robots and Landmines.” The Industrial Robot, 1997, v. 24, no. 2, p. 114-125.

Trinkaus, Hanns Peter. “METEX and FEREX -- State-of-the-Art Hand-Held Mine Detectors.”International Defense Review, 1978, v. 11, no. 9, p. 1482-1484.

Trounce, H.D. “Fighting Under the Ground; Work of Sappers and Miners in the Great War.”Scribners Magazine, September 1918, v. 64, p. 323-334.

Turbe, Gerard. “GIAT's Rapid Minelaying System.” International Defense Review, February1990, v. 23, no. 2, p. 201-202.

______. “MACPED Mine Program (Joint Program For An Off-Route Horizontal-Action Anti-Tank Mine).” International Defense Review, March 1990, v. 23, no. 3, p. 311.

Turner, Howard D. “Combat Notes: Road Clearing.” Infantry , May-June 1969, v. 59, p. 45-46.

Tusa, Francis. “Lessons From the Gulf War.” Armed Forces Journal International, June 1994,v. 131, no. 11, p. 45.

“U.N. Conference Fails to Achieve Agreement on Land-Mine Control: Ban on Laser WeaponsApproved.” Foreign Policy Bulletin, November/December 1995, v. 6, p. 48-52.

58

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Landmine-Related Injuries, 1993-1996.”JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, August 27, 1997, v. 278,no. 8, p. 621.

“U.S. Continues Push for Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Landmines.” Foreign Policy Bulletin,July/August 1997, v. 8, no. 4, p. 65-67.

“U.S. Initiatives for Demining and Landmine Control.” Defense Trade News, July 1, 1994, v. 5,no. 3, p. 4.

“UH-60A Tested With Volcano Multiple Delivery Mine System.” Aviation Week & SpaceTechnology, March 2, 1987, v. 126, p. 73.

“Under Pressure, U.S. Agrees to Join Ottawa Talks on Landmine Ban: Administration Continuesto Press for Korea Exception.” Foreign Policy Bulletin, September/October 1997, v. 8,no. 5, p. 53-58.

“US Seeks Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines.” International Defense Review, March 1997,v. 30, p. 6.

“USA Will Continue to Use Land Mines in Korea in Face of a Ban.” Jane’s Defence Weekly,September 10, 1997, v. 28, no. 10, p. 6.

Usui, Naoaki. “Japan Mine Debate Continues.” Defense News, November 24-30, 1997, v. 12,no. 47, p. 16.

Utter, Leon, N. “Soviet Land Mine Warfare.” Infantry , October-November 1960, v. 50, p. 54-55.

“UXO Deaths [Unexploded Ordnance Detection Training in Bosnia].” NCO Journal, Summer1996, v. 6, no. 3, p.8-9.

Van Nortwick, John. “Endsweep.” Marine Corps Gazette, May 1974, v. 58, p. 29-36.

Vanderkolk, B.J. “The Helicopter Versus Land Mines.” USA Aviation Digest, July 1960, v. 6, p.12-13.

Varma, R.P. “Mine Warfare in Featureless Terrain.” United Service Institution of IndiaJournal, July-September 1956, v. 86, p. 269-272.

Vaughn, Skip. “Ammunition Training.” Ordnance, Spring 1986, v. 4, no. 2, p. 53.

59

Vehnekamp, Billy. “Explosive Ordnance Disposal.” Military Engineer, September-October1970, v. 62, p. 308-309.

Versi, Anver. “Landmines and Lazy Diplomats.” African Business, November 1997, no. 226, p.6.

Wagner, Robert E. “Converting Force Operations.” Armor , March-April 1980, v. 89, no. 2, p. 9-12.

Walker, J.H. “Mechanized War’s No. 1 Peril.” Science Digest, April 1943, v. 13, p. 39-42.

Walker, Paulette V. “Buried Danger: Mines a Problem in 62 Countries.” Army Times, April 1,1996, v. 56, no. 36, p. 23.

Walking, Sarah. “111States Consider Draft Treaty Banning Anti-Personnel Landmines.” ArmsControl Today, March 1997, v. 27, no. 1, p. 23.

______. “Congressmen Seek Clinton Support for Stronger Landmine Prohibitions.” ArmsControl Today, May 1995, v. 25, no. 4, p. 29.

______. “U.S. Favors CD Negotiations to Achieve Ban on Landmines.” Arms Control Today,January/February 1997, v. 26, no. 10, p. 20.

Walters, Brian. “LIDARS (Light Detection and Ranging System) -- A New Way to Deal WithMines.” Asian Defence Journal, December 1995, no. 12, p. 122-123.

Wallace, Bruce. “The Battle to Ban Land Mines.” Maclean’s, July 1, 1997, v. 110, p. 34.

Wandi, Jiang. “Why Didn’t China go to Ottawa?” Beijing Review, January 5-11, 1998, v. 41,no. 1, p. 17-18.

Wandke, Richard D. “TEMAWS (Tactical Effectiveness of Minefields in the AntiarmorWeapons System).” Armor, March-April 1981, v. 90, p. 24-26.

Ward, Olivia. “Landmines – The Facts.” New Internationalist, September 1, 1997, n. 294, p.22-23.

Ware, Walter A. “Mounted Breach -- Making It Work.” Armor, January-February 1992, v. 101,no. 1, p. 19-23.

Washecheck, David W. “Operation Salam.” Army, January 1991, v. 41, no. 1, p. 37-38.

60

Watanabe, Yoichi et al. “Computational Methods for Shape Restoration of Buried Objects inCompton Backscatter Imaging.” Nuclear Science and Engineering, January 1996, v.122, no. 1, p. 55-67.

Waters, James K. “Countermine Operations in El Salvador.” Engineer, 1987, v. 17, no. 1, p. 29-31.

Waters, K.L. “The Army Planter Service.” Warship International , 1985, v. 22, no. 4, p. 400-411.

Watson, F.M. and B.R. Bridges. “Who Are We Fooling? Mines are Valuable Weapons in OurHands and the Enemy’s.” Infantry School Quarterly , July 1955, v. 45, p. 17-22.

Watson, Mark S. “Underground Warfare (Discusses Mines, Mine Laying, Detection andElimination).” Ordnance, May-June 1961, v. 45, p. 770-774.

Watts, Anthony J. “The Mine -- A Weapon ‘In Being’.” Armada International, November-December 1982, v. 6, p. 33+

Weaver, Richard. “Bosnia...Mines: Real Problems, Real Solutions.” Army RD&A Bulletin ,July-August 1997, p. 20-22.

Weise, David G. “Striped Road for Mine Detection.” Military Engineer , January-February1969, v. 61, p. 17.

Welling, W.B. “Minelaying by Aircraft.” Ordnance, November-December 1956, v. 41, p. 415-418.

Werner, Henry. “Landmines: New Equipment Demonstrates Will.” Armada International ,August-September 1997, v. 21, no. 4, p. 40+

West, Harold W. “Mine/Countermine Research.” Military Engineer, August 1985, v. 77, p.472-474.

Wettern, Desmond. “Mine Countermeasures: Sounding on a Growth Industry.” MilitaryTechnology, February 1991, v. 15, no. 2, p. 41-42+

______. “Mine Countermeasures: Forgotten Lessons.” Journal of Defense & Diplomacy,November 1988, v. 6, p. 18-21.

Whaley, Wayne. “Revising the Standard Pattern Minefield.” Engineer, 1987, v. 17, no. 2, p. 37-39.

61

Whitelaw, Kevin. “Minefields, Literal and Metaphoric.” U.S. News & World Report, February3, 1997, v. 122, p. 39-40.

Wildrick, Edward W., III. “Mines and Booby Traps in Vietnam.” Military Engineer , January-February 1969, v. 61, p. 7-8.

Wilke, Klaus. “German Combat Engineer Support in the Combined Arms Battle.” Engineer,July 1989, v. 19, p. 18-21.

Williams, Byron J. “Mine Warfare Training.” Infantry, July-August 1973, v. 63, p. 42-45.

Williams, E.S. “Only Two Mistakes -- Mine Warfare in Afghanistan.” Armed Forces, October1988, v. 7, p. 451-452.

Williams, Jody. “Landmines: A Global Socioeconomic Crisis.” Social Justice, Winter 1995, v.22, no. 4, p. 97-113.

Williams, R.C. “Jap Mines.” Infantry Journal , June 1945, v. 56, p. 11-14.

Williams, Robert H. “President Clinton Made Right Decision in Rejecting Ban on AntipersonnelMines.” National Defense, November 1997, v. 82, no. 532, p. 4.

______. “Savvy Mine, Countermine Systems Near Production.” National Defense, January1996, v. 80, no. 514, p. 20-22.

Williford, James R. “Mine Warfare: Too Cost Effective to Keep.” Armed Forces JournalInternational, June 1974, v. 111, p. 20-22.

Wilson, George C. “Anti-Mine Backers Push for Spending Ban.” Air Force Times, October 6,1997, no. 9, p. 29.

______. “In Exercise, Land Mines Contribute to Fratricide: Troops ‘Killed’ During Test of High-Tech Unit.” Air Force Times, October 20, 1997, v. 58, no. 11, p. 20.

______. “Fratricide in U.S. Army Exercise May Bolster Land Mine Debate.” Defense News,October 13-19, 1997, v. 12, no. 41, p. 32.

______. “No Victors Yet in Land-Mine Battle.” Navy Times, October 13, 1997, no. 1, p. 28.

______.“U.S. Supporters Will Keep Fighting for Land Ban.” Defense News, October 13-19,1997, v. 12, no. 41, p. 32.

62

Winslow, Phillip C. “The Case Against Landmines.” Red Cross, Red Crescent, 1997, no. 2, p.10-11.

“With the Soldiers Who Fight Underground.” Scientific American, June 9, 1917, v. 116, p. 579.

Witt, Mike. “Seeking the Hidden Killers (Mine Clearance).” Asian Defence Journal, November1996, no. 11, p. 40-44.

Wolford, Kathryn. “Deadly Harvest.” Christian Century , April 24, 1996, v. 113, no. 14, p. 444-445.

Wood, J.R.T. “‘Pookie’ Mine Detector.” Marine Corps Gazette, January 1997, v. 81, no. 1, p.25.

Woosley, Scott. “A Deadly Fact of Life.” Marines, March 1997, v. 26, no. 3, p. 12.

“Wounded Speak; Achtung! Minen!” Infantry Journal , November 1943, v. 53, p. 13-14.

Wright, James M. “Minex.” Combat Crew, October 1983, v. 33, p. 12-13.

Wright, Thomas. “Mobile Obstacles for a Mobile Defence.” NATO's Sixteen Nations,December 1989, v. 34, no. 7, p. 52-55.

Wurst, Jim. “Closing in on a Landmine Ban: the Ottawa Process and U.S. Interests.” ArmsControl Today, June/July 1997, v. 27, no. 4, p. 14-18.

______. “Inching Toward a Ban.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, March/April 1996, v. 52, no. 2,p. 10-11.

______. “Land Mines: Bobbled Ban.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, September/October 1996,v. 52, no. 5, p. 11-14. [http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1996/so96/so96Wurst.html]

______. “Land Mines: Still Killing.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, May/June 1994, v. 50, p.12-13. [http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1994/mj94/mj94Wurst.html]

______. “Ten Million Tragedies, One Step at a Time.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,July/August 1993, v. 49, no. 6, p. 14-21. [http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1993/ja93/ja93Wurst.html]

Wyatt, J.R. “Land Minewarfare -- Recent Lessons and Future Trends.” International DefenseReview, November 1989, v. 22, p. 1499-1500+

63

Yaffee, M.L. “Helicopter-Dropped Mine Developed.” Aviation Week & Space Technology,April 28, 1975, v. 102, p. 65+

Yarovoi, G. “Antimine Defence.” Soviet Military Review, September 1974, no. 9, p. 24-25.

Zacks, S. “Survival Distributions in Crossing Fields Containing Clusters of Mines With PossibleDetection and Uncertain Activation or Kill.” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly,September 1979, v. 26, no. 3, p. 423-435.

Zhuravlyov, A. “Breaching Obstacles.” Soviet Military Review, October 1974, no. 10, p. 42-43.

Zumbro, Ralph. “Mine Resistant Tracks [for Tanks].” Armor , March/April 1997, v. 97, no. 2, p.16-20.

DOCUMENTS, THESES & TECHNICAL REPORTS

Although there are a number of very relevant reports which have been issued with distributionlimitations (e.g., DOD only or FOUO), due to the public nature of this bibliography, this sectionincludes unclassified/unlimited distribution reference only. Abstracts were taken from the DTIC[Defense Technical Information Center] and NTIS [National Technical Information Service]databases and were written by the authors of the documents cited or by the abstracting servicefrom which the citations were generated not by the authors of this bibliography.

Adams, M.S. In-Minefield Effectiveness Measure for Breaching Vehicles. Army MobilityEquipment Research and Development Command, Fort Belvoir, VA: June 1983. 36p.[This article is from ‘Proceedings of the Conference on the Design of Experiments inArmy Research Development and Testing (28th) Held at Monterey, California on 20-22October 1982,’ AD-A130 826. p109-144.]

ABSTRACT: The development of realistic models is required to assess the military worth of countermine systemsin mine warfare scenarios. Explicit closed form solutions of delineating countermine equipmenteffectiveness are being developed to become modular components of a more complex war game modellingmine warfare. This report develops a closed solution to measure the effectiveness of armored vehiclesproceeding through cleared lanes. An equation is derived to determine the expected number of mines avehicle will encounter in a scenario. The expected number of mine encounters is used to calculate ameasure to compare the value of changes in tactical methods and countermine materiel. A discussion of theapplicability of the effectiveness measure to support mine and countermine studies is also presented. A setof mine warfare situations are formulated as an example of the ease of using the expression derived in thisreport.

64

Addor, Eugene E. and Edward E. Garrett. Description of Terrain to be Used in Evaluating theLofted Mine Concept. Vicksburg, MS: Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,September 1977. 343p.

ABSTRACT: This report contains road and roadside terrain data pertinent to the evaluation of the Lofted MineConcept for a portion of West Germany. Appendix A presents the profile data sheets representing 104 sites,29 of which are accompanied by one or two sheets of on-site photographs. The information on the profiledata sheets has been inferred from available topographic and soil maps and air photos. The data arepresented on profile diagrams representing transects intercepting the road at right angles and extending200 m to the right and left from the road center line. The data include a topographic profile along thetransect line, slope orientation of the profile, and vegetation, soil, and roadway characteristics to the extentthat the relevant data were inferable from the available data sources or from on-site inspection. Selectionof the terrain characteristics for description was based on their presumed interactions with variousfunctional phases of the proposed lofted mined system. The data constitute information exhibiting theconsiderable variation found within the study area. Analysis of the data in terms of performance of theproposed mine systems can be made by inference or more adequately by use of quantitative performanceprediction models.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A046 157

Adolf, Frank H. and Robert E. Ainslie. T51 Aerial Emplaced Mine-Clearing Device (Cresset).Dover, NJ: Picatinny Arsenal, December 1960. 140p.

ABSTRACT: None available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 321 375

Advanced Distribution Simulation Technology II (ADST II). Countermine Experiment#0016. Final report. Orlando, FL: Lockheed Martin Information Systems, November1996. 32p.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this final report is to document the Advanced Distributed Simulation Technology II(ADST II) effort which supported the Countermine Experiment and specifically capture experimentconfigurations, results, observations, and lessons learned. This document does not address the operationaleffectiveness of the various systems or specific results of the data collected as this effort was conducted aspart of a larger activity. Analysis of overall Countermine experiment efforts and results is being performedby the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA).

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A327 090

Advanced Planning Briefing for Industry Proceedings, 15-16 September 1987. Dover, NJ:Army Armament Research and Development Center, Requirements and Analysis Office,September 1987. 176p.

ABSTRACT: Partial Contents: Soviet Military Power; Mission Area Materiel Plan (MAMP); Technology Trendsin Artillery Weapons; Electromagnetic Launch Technology; The Advanced Field Artillery System (AFAS);Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) Applied To Future Artillery; Regenerative LiquidPropellant Gun Technology; Advanced Solid Propellants; Shoot-To-Kill/Smart Munitions; Warheads(Including More Powerful Explosives); Mine Warfare - A Significant Combat Multiplier; VHSICProcessor For Fire Control/Battlefield Management System; Artificial Intelligence.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A192 152

Albert, Donald G. Review of the Propagation of Inelastic Pressure Waves in Snow. Hanover,NH: Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, April 1983. 33p.

65

ABSTRACT: A review on past experimental and theoretical work indicates a need for additional experimentationto characterize the response of snow to inelastic pressure waves. Pressure data from previously conductedexplosion tests are analyzed to estimate the elastic limit of snow of 400 -kg/cu m density to be about 36kPa. This pressure corresponds to a scaled distance of 1.6 m/cu.rt.kg for charges fired beneath the surfaceof the snow, and to a scaled distance of 1.2 m/cu.rt.kg for charges fired in the air. The effects of a snowcover on the method of clearing a minefield by using an explosive charge fired in the air above the snowsurface are also discussed and recommendations are given for further work in this area. Explosivepressure data are used to estimate the maximum effective scaled radius for detonating buried mines atshallow depth to be 0.8 m/cu.rt.kg. Fuel-air explosive will increase this effective radius significantlybecause of the increase in the size of the source region.

REPORT NUMBER: CRREL-83-13ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A128 714

______. Use of an Artificial Snow Platform for WAM Tests. Special report. Hanover, NH:Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, January 1992. 16p.

ABSTRACT: Because of the lack of a deep snow cover at the February 1991 Wide Area Mine (WAM) groundsensor tests held in Grayling, Michigan, an attempt was made there to simulate the effects of a deeper snowcover by making a pile of snow, compacting it and placing the WAM ground sensor prototype packageupon the resulting platform. Recordings of moving military vehicles were then obtained with these sensors.To investigate the effects of this approach, a test was conducted in Hanover, New Hampshire, a few dayslater under similar snow conditions, but using a simple acoustic source (a pistol firing blank shots) ratherthan moving vehicles. The Hanover tests are described and reported here. The results show that the use ofa small snow platform has little effect on the sensor response, and that the Grayling test procedure wouldbe unsuccessful in simulating the effects of a deeper snow cover. The underlying cause of this failure is thatthe acoustic effect of a snow cover arises over a large areal extent and cannot be simulated by changingthe snow properties in a small area near the sensors.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A247 868

Anderson, Alan A. Methodologies for the High Resolution Modeling of Minefield Dynamics.Master’s thesis. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, September. 1991. 182p.

ABSTRACT: Landmines are a continuing threat to the mobility required by the modern army. Efforts to developsolutions for the problems presented by mines are hampered by a lack of useful, realistic, high resolutionmodels. To assist in developing the needed modeling capabilities, several methodologies are proposed.Methodologies for modeling vehicle navigation error, mine encounters, plow displacement of mines, bypassing obstructions and the presence of overwatching direct fires are developed and explained. Thesemethodologies are then implemented using simscript and simgraphics into a minefield breaching model.The model will run in a graphics mode, allowing a visual validation of the model algorithms. The problemof plow width versus breaching force casualty rates is examined as an example of the potential utility of themodel.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A247 255

Anderson, M.S. Land Mine Warfare - Applying the Principles. Student essay. CarlisleBarracks, PA: Army War College, 23 March 1987. 45p.

ABSTRACT: A historical analysis of land mine warfare repeatedly demonstrated certain principles which whencorrectly applied yield decisive results. this essay begins by examining the employment of mines in fourbattles - Alam Halfa, El Alamein, the Golan and the Falklands. It then assess how well our current landmine warfare doctrine, organization and equipment facilitate the timely and sound application of thefundamentals demonstrated by history to today's Airland Battlefield. Areas in which we must improve orchange are identified and some new ideas are proposed.

66

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A182 849

Archambeau, Charles, Arden Buck and Jeffery Orrey. Array Beam Imaging for HighResolution Stand-Off Mine Detection. Final report 1 June-31 July 1997. Boulder, CO:Technology and Resource Assessment Corporation, August 1997. 19p.

ABSTRACT: Array Beam Imaging (ABI) software has been developed and tested using both radar and seismicwave fields for imaging based on backscattered (reflected) wave pulses from target objects. The ABIsoftware is designed to produce high resolution target images showing internal structure of reflectingobjects as well as external surface features. The images obtained are quantitatively proportional to thereflectivity (impedance contrasts) at target surfaces that produce reflections of incident waves. Therefore,reflectivity images using seismic and electromagnetic waves produce sets of images that measure quitedifferent physical properties of the targets. These independent images can be compared (correlated) withthe corresponding images of standard mine types for identification purposes using external and internalboundary shapes and other special reflectivity differences between mines and miscellaneous clutter. Thisreport covers the period of the extended Phase 1 study, which includes the interim funding period prior toPhase 2.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A330 092

Archambeau, Charles, Arden Buck, and Jeffery Orrey. Array Beam Imaging for HighResolution Stand-Off Mine Detection. Final report. 1 December 1996-31 May 1997.Boulder, CO: Technology and Resource Assessment Corporation, June1997. 18p.

ABSTRACT: ‘Array Beam Imaging’ (ABI) software has been developed and tested using both radar and seismicwave fields for imaging based on backscattered (reflected) wave pulses from target objects. The ABIsoftware is designed to produce high resolution target images showing internal structure of reflectingobjects as well as external surface features. The images obtained are quantitatively proportional to thereflectivity (impedance contrasts) at target surfaces that produce reflections of incident waves. Therefore,reflectivity images using seismic and electromagnetic waves produce sets of images that measure quitedifferent physical properties of the targets. These independent images can be compared (correlated) withthe corresponding images of standard mine types for identification purposes using external and internalboundary shapes and other special reflectivity differences between mines and miscellaneous clutter.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A328 367

Army Study Highlights . Volume 8. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Staff (Army),Study Management Office, October 1987. 17p. [See also Volume 1, AD-A103 349]

ABSTRACT: The Principal Findings: (1) The divisional engineer battalion, working alone, can successfullysupport the Light Infantry Division (LID) during the initial phase of a short-duration, low-intensityconflict. However, the LID needs immediate Echelon-Above-Division (EAD) augmentation to supportextended low-intensity situations and all mid- to high-intensity conflicts. Specific recommendations fortheater augmentation units are detailed in the study. (2) The mix of engineer equipment in the currentdivisional battalion needs to be changed to better align capabilities with the most vital combatrequirements. Equipment mix and density recommendations were made that do not increase the C-141deployment profiles of the LID engineer battalion. (3) The LID will greatly benefit from the fielding ofadvanced land mining systems. New scatterable and improved conventional mine systems will bothincrease the range of mobility and countermobility tasks the division can undertake, and substantiallyreduce the Class IV and V transportation requirements.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A189 213

67

Assessment of Chemical and Biological Sensor Technologies. Washington, DC: NationalResearch, Committee on Chemical and Biological Sensor Technologies, 1984. 125p.

ABSTRACT: Chemical and biological warfare agents are divided into three categories: chemical (syntheticcompounds), biological (live organisms), and toxins (biologically derived chemical substances). Chemicalagents may be subclassified by persistency, degree of toxicity, and physiological effect. Chemical agentscan be delivered via rockets, missiles, bombs, artillery shells, sprays, and land mines. Biological agentsmay be delivered by similar means but may also be used clandestinely. They could be conveniently used topoison water or food supplies, for example. To defend against these agents, sophisticated sensors arerequired that quickly detect, identify, and monitor very small concentrations. Detection of a chemical agentrequires a short response time in order to minimize casualties and a low false alarm rate to maintaincredibility. Because the detector will be exposed to high initial concentrations, high sensitivity is relativelyless important. Following detection, identification of the agent is essential to deciding what course ofaction to take. In general, it takes longer to identify than to detect an agent.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A143 408

Avrami, Louis and M.S. Kirshenbaum. The Giant Viper Mine Clearing Line Charge:Characterization of Energetic Materials. Technical report. Dover, NJ: ArmyArmament Research and Development Command, Large Caliber Weapon Systems,Laboratory, September 1981. 53p.

ABSTRACT: Mandatory safety and characterization tests have been conducted on the following four energeticmaterials which are integral parts of the United Kingdom (UK) Giant Viper/Mine Clearing Line Charge.The materials tested were PE-4 Explosive (Booster), PE-6/A1 Explosive (Main Charge), EU Propellant,and S.R. 371C Pyrotechnic Composition (Igniter). The tests included composition analysis, Blasting captest, DTA/TGA, explosion temperature test, electrostatic sensitivity, friction sensitivity, impact sensitivity,small and large scale gap test, detonation velocity, closed bomb, and burning rate statement. In mostinstances, the test data agreed with the available data supplied by the UK. Most of the data show that thesensitivity of the explosive materials is between that of RDX and TNT. Therefore, it can be concluded thatwhen handled with the proper precautions and procedures, the UK energetic materials, PE-4, PE-6/A1,EU propellant, and SR 371C igniter composition, do not present any undue safety hazards. Interimqualification of these materials for US military use was, therefore, requested.

REPORT NUMBER: ARLCD-TR-81018ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A106 434

Azevedo, S.G.; et al. Landmine Detection and Imaging Using Micropower Impulse Radar(MIR) . Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA, 7 August 1995. 8p.

ABSTRACT: The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has developed radar and imagingtechnologies with potential applications in mine detection by the armed forces and other agencies involvedin determining efforts. These new technologies use a patented ultra-wideband (impulse) radar technologythat is compact, low-cost, and low power. Designated as Micropower hnpulse Radar, these compact,self-contained radars can easily be assembled into arrays to form complete ground penetrating radarimaging systems. LLNL has also developed tomographic reconstruction and signal processing softwarecapable of producing high-resolution 2-D and 3-D images of objects buried in materials like soil orconcrete from radar data. Preliminary test results have shown that a radar imaging system using thesetechnologies has the ability to image both metallic and plastic land mine surrogate targets buried in 5 to10 cm of moist soil. In dry soil, the system can detect buried objects to a depth of 30 cm and more. Thisreport describes our initial test results and plans for future work.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLID121669ACCESSION NUMBER: DE96000870

68

______. Statement of Capabilities: Micropower Impulse Radar (MIR) Technology Appliedto Mine Detection and Imaging. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA, 13March 1995. 14p.

ABSTRACT: The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has developed radar and imagingtechnologies with potential applications in mine detection by the armed forces and other agencies involvedin demining efforts. These new technologies use a patented ultra-wideband (impulse) radar technology thatis compact, low-cost, and low power. Designated as Micropower Impulse Radar, these compact,self-contained radars can easily be assembled into arrays to form complete ground penetrating radarimaging systems. LLNL has also developed tomographic reconstruction and signal processing softwarecapable of producing high-resolution 2-D and 3-D images of objects buried in materials like soil orconcrete from radar data. Preliminary test results have shown that a radar imaging system using thesetechnologies has the ability to image both metallic and plastic land mine surrogate targets buried in 5 to10 cm of moist soil. In dry soil, the system can detect buried objects to a depth of 30 cm and more. Thisreport describes LLNL's unique capabilities and technologies that can be applied to the demining problem.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLID120801ACCESSION NUMBER: DE95-017714

Balck, H. Translation of Taped Conversation with General Hermann Balck, 12 January1979 and Brief Biographical Sketch. Special report. Battelle Columbus Labs., OH:Tactical Technology Center, January 1979. 64p.

ABSTRACT: This document is a transcript of an interview conducted in 1979 with General Hermann Balck, whoserved as a Commander of German Panzer Divisions during World War II. The question-and-answersession includes such topics as effectiveness of the U.S., German, and Russian air forces, air-groundtactics, use of mines, German military tradition, armored tactics, armored division organization,reconnaissance, and artillery.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A160 703

Ballistic Tests of Armor Materials. Final Report on Test Operations Procedure. AberdeenProving Ground, MD: Army Test and Evaluation Command, 7 February 1984. 58p.

ABSTRACT: This report describes methods available for assessing the ability of armored vehicle armor toprovide protection against attacking projectiles and land mines. Tests of the basic armor rather than testsof the vehicle are emphasized.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A137 873

Bekas, Alexander J. Wireless Communications for a Multiple Robot System. Master’s thesis.Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, March 1997. 116p

ABSTRACT: A multi-disciplinary research project is being undertaken at NPS to develop a semi-autonomousrobotic system to detect and clear land mines and Unexploded Ordnance (UXO). The robotic system underdevelopment consists of a land vehicle, an aerial vehicle, and a ground-based control station. Reliablecommunication between these three stations is needed. A traditional wire-based network requires that thevehicles be tethered and severely limits the mobility of the vehicles. A wireless Local Area Network (LAN)is proposed to provide communications between the control station and the vehicles. The objective of thisthesis is to develop the physical (hardware) and logical (software) architecture of a wireless LAN thataccommodates the needs of the mine/UXO project. Through an analysis of wireless modulation techniques,a market survey of wireless devices, and a field testing of wireless devices, a wireless LAN is designed tomeet the technological, performance, regulation, interference, and mobility requirements of the mine/UXOproject. Finally, the wireless communication protocols and the development of an error-free application

69

protocol (specified by a FSM model and implemented in ANSI C code using Windows socket networkprogramming) completes the wireless LAN implementation.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A331 876

Bernhardt, R. and R. Chesney. Description of the DRES (Defence Research EstablishmentSuffield) Practice Mine Hardware. Defence Research Establishment Suffield, Ralston(Alberta), July 1988. 91p.

ABSTRACT: The development of scatterable mines and intelligent mine fuzes featuring full width attackcapabilities has dramatically changed mine warfare. Unfortunately, not all mine training devices have keptpace with these developments. A distinction must be made at this point between those training minesclassified as drill mines and those classified as practice mines. Drill mines are used to train engineertroops to correctly handle mines, while practice mines are used to train non-engineer combat troops aboutmine warfare. Drill mines therefore simply have to mimic the arming and disarming procedures of thenewer types of mines; they do not have to offer all the features of these advanced mines to have sometraining value. The practice type of training mine, because of its different training role, must emulate allfeatures of the newer mines. However, existing practice mines do not do this; they are, for the most part,unrealistic in form, activation mechanism, and result. Because of this, these devices have little trainingvalue, and consequently the troops who encounter them do not fully appreciate the problems associatedwith mine warfare. Canada.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A197 999

Biddle, Stephen D., et al. Landmine Arms Control . Final report. Alexandria, VA: Institute forDefence Analyses, May 1996. 55p.

ABSTRACT: Perhaps 80 to 110 million unexploded mines are now scattered over 64 countries worldwide. Thesemines kill or maim as many as 2,000 people a month most of them civilians, many of them children. Thepurpose of the paper is to evaluate the pros and cons of addressing this problem via negotiated armscontrol agreements to ban the production, stockpiling, export and/or use of mines. Our principal findingsare that neither the costs nor the benefits are likely to be as great as many have argued. Because costs andbenefits are incommensurate, landmine arms control could not be an open and shut case either for oragainst on its analytical merits, but the value judgment required to reach a conclusion is likely to be acloser call than many in the current debate would suggest.

REPORT NUMBER: IDA-P-3001ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A315 050

Biddle, S.D., J. Klare, and J. Rosenfeld. Military Utility of Landmines: Implications for ArmsControl. Final report. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, June 1994. 76p.

ABSTRACT: This briefing evaluates the military utility of landmines in high intensity, mechanized land warfareand draws implications from this for landmine arms control. While military utility is clearly only one ofwide range of issues bearing on the advisability of any particular arms control proposal, it hasnevertheless played an unusually important role in the debate to date. While IDA is continuing a broaderassessment of this issue, it is hoped that this more narrowly focused analysis will shed some important, ifnecessary partial, light on that broader debate. The basic conclusion of the briefing is that issues ofmilitary utility in high intensity conflict need not preclude further consideration of landmine arms control.A rather demanding set of assumptions and preconditions is required for the military utility of landmines insuch conflicts to be so high as to make arms control unworthy of further consideration requires asespecially demanding set of assumptions about the nature of future warfare. It is far from obvious that therequired assumptions can be sustained.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A283 061

70

BM 1000 Mines Developed by the German Air Force. Technical report. Naval TechnicalMission in Europe, October 45. 38p.

ABSTRACT: No abstract available.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A953 474

Bottoms, Albert M., Ellis A. Johnson, and Barbara Honegger. Proceedings of the Technologyand the Mine Problem Symposium, 18-21 November 1996, Naval PostgraduateSchool, Monterey, California. 2 volumes. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School,November 1996. 954p.

ABSTRACT: Major topics of this symposium are (1) The Challenge, (2) Operational Requirements andPerspectives, (3) Operational Environments and Threats, (4) Landmines and Humanitarian Demining, (5)Progress in Autonomous Systems for Mine Warfare, and (6) Countering Mines on Land.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A326 694 – v. 1ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A327 338 – v. 2

Breland, Marian and Robert E. Bailey. Specialized Mine Detector Dog. Hot Springs, AR:Animal Behavior Enterprises, Inc., December 1971. 23p.

ABSTRACT: Two Golden Labrador Retrievers were trained by operant conditioning methods to detect modifiedtype M14 antipersonnel mines buried at varying depths in an open field. On detection of a buried mine, thedog was required to sit near the mine and remain until verification could be made. At the home trainingarea the dogs experienced difficulty in making detections at depths greater than two inches. Compactedsoil, grass, stubble, and heat proved handicapping. One mine was detected at a depth of four inches.During tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground under simulated field conditions, mines buried two years weredetected at depths of one-half inch.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 736 860

Briggs, B.D. General Computer Program for Use in Determining Track WidthPlow-Minefield Effectiveness Criteria. Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Mobility EquipmentResearch and Development Command, 1973. 11p. [This article is from ‘Proceedings ofthe Annual U.S. Army Operations Research Symposium (12th), 2-5 October 1973.Volume I,’ AD-A125 989.]

ABSTRACT: The U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center (USAMERDC) hasdeveloped a computer program for use in assessing the effectiveness of a track width mine clearing plowmoving through an area containing mixed mine types/fuze mechanisms. This program includes importantmodifications and extensions of some of the methods currently used for obtainingcountermeasure-minefield effectiveness criteria and yields statistical information that cannot bedetermined from other existing models. The approach to this problem makes use of a Monte Carlocomputer simulation technique developed at the USAMERDC. Because of a need to investigate current andfuture threats for ascertaining mine-target interactions within a minefield, the computer program has beenwritten in such a way that the only additional coding required is the so-called threat subroutine, againstwhich the countermeasure effectiveness of the target can be determined.

Buc, Steven M. and George C. Tillery. Cost and Effectiveness Analysis Modeling forDemining Operations. Final report. Arlington, VA: System Planning Corp, January1996. 91p.

71

ABSTRACT: This study's objectives were to assess the cost and operational effectiveness of state-of-the-art andemerging demining technologies, and to quantify the remaining challenges and potential benefits ofdeveloping new technologies. Its goals were to: (1) understand current demining operations andtechniques; (2) identify the key cost and operational parameters which affect demining; (3) modeldemining operations and quantify the current methods in terms of these parameters; and (4) using thismodeling tool, identify shortcomings and project potential improvements which could be provided byvarious new systems and technologies. All study objectives were met. A detailed tradeoff analysis wasperformed on a Mozambique demining scenario, using a variety of demining techniques and processes.Computer modeling results were in close agreement with reported field experiences, in terms of mineclearance rates, costs, and casualties. The computer model source code listing is provided.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A303 257

Buhl, M.R. et al. Dual-Band, Infrared Buried Mine Detection Using a Statistical PatternRecognition Approach. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA, August 1993.39p.

ABSTRACT: The main objective of this work was to detect surrogate land mines, which were buried in clay andsand, using dual-band, infrared images. A statistical pattern recognition approach was used to achieve thisobjective. This approach is discussed and results of applying it to real images are given.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLID114838ACCESSION NUMBER: DE93-041279

Campbell, J.G. Landmine Detection by Scatter Radiation Radiography. Final report.Alexandria, VA: Army Military Personnel Center, 2 July 1987. 564p.

ABSTRACT: The application of scatter radiation radiography to the detection of buried nonmetallic antitanklandmines is examined. A combination of calculations and measurements is used to address the problem.The primary calculation tool is a Monte Carlo photon transport code. Measurements are made with anx-ray source, sodium iodide detector, and soil box positioning system. The soil box containing a model of anonmetallic antitank mine is moved beneath the x-ray source to simulate both the forward motion of avehicle transporting the detection system and raster of the beam to search a path of sufficient width toallow safe passage. Measurements are used to validate the calculation results for a small detector andproduce images of buried mines. The calculations are extended to large area detectors which are requiredto provide path searches of approximately three widths. Environmental parameters, such as heightsensitivity, soil density and moisture content, and inhomogeneities are examined in both calculations andmeasurements. Calculations are used to suggest mine detection mechanisms and to optimize geometricparameters and x-ray beam quality. Power requirements are also addressed.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A182 227

Carpenter, R.D., and G.N. Romstedt. Counterobstacle Vehicle (COV) Utility Study. Volume1. Final technical report. January-April 1986. McLean Research Center, Inc., VA, May1986. 127p.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to identify and evaluate the utility of a single, multi-purposecounterobstacle system on the future battlefield. The study is accomplished by conducting a time-phasedanalysis of the interrelationship between counterobstacle equipment, missions, and threats over a 30 yearperiod, extending from 20 years ago to 10 years in the future (1965-1995). The analysis involved isolatingthe counterobstacle mission, by identifying, in priority, the functions performed in accomplishing thatmission. A data base was then established listing US Counterobstacle equipment developed and used overthe time period, together with the opposing threat capability over the same period. These capabilities werethen compared in light of the counterobstacle mission. Wargame analysis was used to show the utility of

72

the counterobstacle system over the timeframe, and to evaluate the utility of a single, multicapable system,called a counterobstacle vehicle (COV) for the future. The findings of the study include the following: - TheCOV is able to reduce the extra losses that accrue to an attacker from a minefield by one-third. - The COVcan improve the chance of successful mission accomplishment of an attacking force by ten percent. .

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A169 309

Carr-Harris, E. and R. Thal. Mine, Booby-Trap, Tripwire and Tunnel Detection. Raleigh, ND:Behavior Systems, Inc., January 1970. 73p.

ABSTRACT: Reports from the field indicated that German Shepherd scout dogs had been observed to alert onmines, tripwires and other man-made artifacts. The purpose of the present program was to explore thefeasibility of training such animals specifically to the tasks of detecting mine/tripwires and tunnels, bymeans of techniques that were sufficiently objective to permit instruction of military handlers in their use. Asix month feasibility study was conducted . Procedures and practices derived from the formal study ofanimal behavior were used throughout the program. Because of the success of the first phase of theproblem, a second six months of work was initiated with the objective of training an army scout dogplatoon for the capability of mine/tripwire and tunnel detection. The platoon was judged ready anddeployed to Vietnam April 20, 1969. An additional 3 month program was undertaken to study thefeasibility of cross-training tunnel and personnel detection dogs. The results of this work were ambiguous.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 867 404

Carroll, P.W. Mine and Boobytrap Warfare: Lessons Forgotten. Study project. CarlisleBarracks, PA: Army War College, 29 February 1988. 27p.

ABSTRACT: Low-intensity conflict has brought with it many new training opportunities in the methods ofwarfare. Considering the probability of involvement at this end of the spectrum of conflict, we must revisitsome of the lessons learned over the past wars and take advantage of the experience gained by our friendsand allies. This study examines the experience of U.S. forces in three conflicts and tracks the changes in theuse of mines and boobytraps in terms of casualties. The experiences of the Thai and Malaysian armies incurrent hostilities involving mines and boobytraps is also studied. The purpose is to highlight a potentialshortfall in our current training emphasis through an examination of history, probability of intensity andcurrent training emphasis.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A194 094

Carts, Stanley L. Jr. Feasibility of Non-Metallic Mine Detection by Earth’s Magnetic FieldDistortion . Washington, DC: Army Research Office, December 1962.

ABSTRACT: An investigation to determine the worldwide feasibility of a passive magnetic method for detection ofnonmetallic land mines is discussed. The work included ascertaining the natural restrictions imposed upona passive magnetic detection system by the magnetic properties of soil containing buried mines. A specialmeasuring system was developed by USAERDL for these studies. The report concludes that: (a) Use of apassive magnetic mine detection system as a sole means of detection is not feasible in 74 of the world'sland surface; in 12 because of insufficient mine-soil susceptibility contrast alone; in 40% because ofexcessive magnetic anomalous (false) signal effects alone; and in 22% because of both insufficient contrastand excessive anomalies. (b) More sensitive instrumentation will not improve the world-wide feasibility ofpassive magnetic mine detection systems because severe restrictions are imposed on the use of passivemagnetic phenomenon by natural magnetic soil properties, and not by inadequate instrument sensitivity.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 286 664

Carts, Stanley L., Jr. and Donald G. Orr and Jack R. Maccormac. Effects of Soil MagneticProperties and Natural Magnetic Micro-Anomalies of Typical Tropical Soils on

73

Passive Magnetic Land Mine-Detection Methods. Technical report. Fort Belvoir, VA:Army Research and Development Laboratories, February 1961. 63p.

ABSTRACT: Measurements were made of micro-distortions in the earth's magnetic field at the soil surface of 24test sites in the Panama Canal Zone. The test sites were chosen as representative of typical humid tropicalsoils. Magnetic properties of the soil were measured both in the field and in the laboratory. Correlationwas found between soil magnetic properties (including natural magnetic micro-anomalies) and passivemagnetic mine detection feasibility. It was concluded that: (1) the use of a passive magnetic system fordetection of nonmetallic 50-cubic-inch mines (AP size) is generally not feasible in the Panama Canal Zoneand is not expected to be feasible in any similar humid tropical region; (2) Anomalous signals produced bynatural causes are the most detrimental factor to passive magnetic methods in humid tropical regions; (3)The most common causes of anomalous response due to natural effects are buried stones and pieces ofrock; and (4) The detection method may be fair in areas of stone-free homogeneous magnetic sand. Theseareas, however, represent less than 1 percent of the land area of the Panama Canal Zone.

REPORT NUMBER: AERDL-1665ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 255 994

Chang, Shu-Kong Scattering by Buried Finite Cylindrical Dielectric Land Mines. Finalreport. Berkeley, CA: EMTEC Engineering, Inc., March 1979. 52p.

ABSTRACT: The unimoment method is applied to solve the electromagnetic scattering by a buried dielectricfinite cylinder simulating a land mine. The computational results are reported at 700 MHz, 800 MHz, 900MHz, and 1000 MHz. The fields are presented in graphical form including parametric studies. The resultswill greatly enhance the ability of engineers in designing and improving effective land mine detectionsystems.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A070 896

Charles F.J. Combat Engineer Equipment: Achilles Heel in the Offense. Student essay.Carlisle Barracks, PA: Army War College, 7 April 1986. 31p.

ABSTRACT: There is some question whether or not US Army combat engineers have the equipment necessary toprovide mobility support to offensive operations as would be found in Air Land Battle. The current status ofengineer equipment and its shortcomings are described. Recent trends in research, development andacquisition of engineer equipment to provide counterobstacle and countermine support on the battlefieldare discussed. The inability of engineers to obtain the priority and funds needed to modernize theirequipment is attributed to a general lack of understanding and appreciation of the necessity of engineersupport in the offense. To counter this condition the need to retain the initiative in the offense, the nature ofthe Soviet threat, and weaknesses in realistic combat engineer combined arms training are cited. Theconclusion is that weaknesses in combat engineering equipment can be overcome only with support of theother combat arms who must carefully weight the risks incurred during offensive operations if engineerequipment does not complement the modernize systems of the combined arms team.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A170 235

Chotiros, Nicholas P. High Frequency Buried Target Imaging. Austin, TX: University ofTexas, Austin, Applied Research Laboratories, October 1997. 27p.

ABSTRACT: Acoustical imaging can potentially provide a buried object classification capability. The imagequality is expected to be a function of sediment type, burial depth, and grazing angle. Image degradation iscaused by propagation and scattering processes that can be modeled and experimentally measured. Threephysical mechanisms were investigated: ghosting, warping, and fogging. Fogging, caused bybackscattering from the sediment, is expected to be the limiting factor. A laboratory experiment wasconducted to test the findings but the results were inconclusive.

74

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A330 065

Chotiros, Nicholas P., et al. Physics of Buried Mine Detection and Classification. Finaltechnical report. Texas Univ. at Austin. Applied Research Labs.,12 May 1995. 15p.

ABSTRACT: The physics of buried mine detection in offshore sediments and in the surf zone was investigated.Optical techniques are useless because they cannot penetrate sediments while magnetic techniques are oflow value because of low resolution, short range, and the introduction of non-magnetic mines. For buriedmine detection in the off-shore sediment acoustic penetration at shallow grazing angles was explored. Anexperiment was conducted jointly with SACLANTCEN to measure sound propagation into a sediment in the500 Hz to 2 kHz band, and a theoretical fast field model was developed to model the penetration. In thesurf zone, where bubble clouds are expected to render acoustic methods unreliable, seismic sonar methodswere explored as a means to echo range off buried targets. Tests with controlled pulses revealed that thefar-field response was dominated by two interface waves. The results have been very encouraging.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A294 394

Clark,G.A.; et al. Computer Vision and Sensor Fusion for Detecting Buried Objects.Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA, October 1992. 7p. [Annual AsilomarConference on Signals, Systems, and Computers (26th), Pacific Grove, CA, 25-30October 1992.]

ABSTRACT: Given multiple images of the surface of the earth from dual-band infrared sensors, our system fusesinformation from the sensors to reduce the effects of clutter and improve the ability to detect buried orsurface target sites. Supervised learning pattern classifiers (including neural networks,) are used. Wepresent results of experiments to detect buried land mines from real data, and evaluate the usefulness offusing information from multiple sensor types. The novelty of the work lies mostly in the combination of thealgorithms and their application to the very important and currently unsolved problem of detecting buriedland mines from an airborne standoff platform.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC112103, CONF92102314ACCESSION NUMBER: DE93-012605

______. Computer Vision for Locating Buried Objects. Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, CA, November 1991. 7p. [Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems andComputers, Pacific Grove, CA, 4-6 November 1991.]

ABSTRACT: Given two registered images of the earth, measured with aerial dual-band infrared (IR) sensors, weuse advanced computer vision/automatic target recognition techniques to estimate the positions of buriedland mines. The images are very difficult to interpret, because of large amounts of clutter. Conventionaltechniques use single-band imagery and simple correlations. They rely heavily on the judgment of thehuman doing the interpretation, and give unsatisfactory results with difficult data sets of the type weanalyzed. Our automatic algorithms are able to eliminate most of the clutter and give greatly improvedindications of regions in the image that could be interpreted as mines. The novelty of our approach lies inthe following aspects: (1) a patented data fusion technique using two IR images and physical principlesbased on Planck's law, (2) a new region-based texture segmentation algorithm using Gabor Transformfeatures and a clustering/thresholding algorithm based on a neural network (Self-Organizing FeatureMap), (3) Prior knowledge of measured feasible temperatures and emissivities, and (4) results with realdata using buried surrogate mines.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC107626, CONF91111012ACCESSION NUMBER: DE92-013979

75

______. Data Fusion for the Detection of Buried Land Mines. Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, CA, October 1993. 13p. [International Symposium on SubstanceIdentification Technologies, Innsbruck (Austria), 4-8 October 1993.]

ABSTRACT: The authors conducted experiments to demonstrate the enhanced delectability of buried land minesusing sensor fusion techniques. Multiple sensors, including imagery, infrared imagery, and groundpenetrating radar, have been used to acquire data on a number of buried mines and mine surrogates. Theauthors present this data along with a discussion of the application of sensor fusion techniques for thisparticular detection problem. The authors describe the data fusion architecture and discuss some relevantresults of these classification methods.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC114623, CONF93101649ACCESSION NUMBER: DE94-006189

______. Detection of Buried Objects by Fusing Dual-Band Infrared Images. LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, CA, November 1993. 13p. [Institute of Electrical andElectronic Engineers (IEEE) Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers,Pacific Grove, CA, 1-3 November 1993.]

ABSTRACT: We have conducted experiments to demonstrate the enhanced detectability of buried land minesusing sensor fusion techniques. Multiple sensors, including visible imagery, infrared imagery, and groundpenetrating radar (GPR), have been used to acquire data on a number of buried mines and minesurrogates because the visible wavelength and GPR data are currently incomplete. This paper focuses onthe fusion of two-band infrared images. We use feature-level fusion and supervised learning with theprobabilistic neural network (PNN) to evaluate detection performance. The novelty of the work lies in theapplication of advanced target recognition algorithms, the fusion of dual-band infrared images andevaluation of the techniques using two real data sets.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC114321, CONF93111355ACCESSION NUMBER: DE94-008286

______. Land Mine Detection Using Multispectral Image Fusion. Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, CA, 29 March 1995. 12p. [Symposium on Autonomous Vehicles inMine Countermeasures, Monterey, CA, 3-7 April 1995.]

ABSTRACT: Our system fuses information contained in registered images from multiple sensors to reduce theeffects of clutter and improve the ability to detect surface and buried land mines. The sensor suite currentlyconsists of a camera that acquires images in six bands (400nm, 500nm, 600nm, 700nm, 800nm and900nm). Past research has shown that it is extremely difficult to distinguish land mines from backgroundclutter in images obtained from a single sensor. It is hypothesized, however, that information fused from asuite of various sensors is likely to provide better detection reliability, because the suite of sensors detects avariety of physical properties that are more separable in feature space. The materials surrounding themines can include natural materials (soil, rocks, foliage, water, etc.) and some artifacts. We use asupervised learning pattern recognition approach to detecting the metal and plastic land mines. Theoverall process consists of four main parts: Preprocessing, feature extraction, feature selection, andclassification. These parts are used in a two step process to classify a subimage. We extract features fromthe images, and use feature selection algorithms to select only the most important features according totheir contribution to correct detections. This allows us to save computational complexity and determinewhich of the spectral bands add value to the detection system. The most important features from thevarious sensors are fused using a supervised learning pattern classifier (the probabilistic neural network).We present results of experiments to detect land mines from real data collected from an airborne platform,and evaluate the usefulness of fusing feature information from multiple spectral bands.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC120710, CONF95041544

76

ACCESSION NUMBER: DE95-017825

______. Multispectral Image Fusion for Detecting Land Mines. Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, CA, April 1995. 17p. [SPIE International Symposium onAerospace/Defense Sensing and Dual-Use Photonics, Orlando, FL, 17-21 April 1995.]

ABSTRACT: This report details a system which fuses information contained in registered images from multiplesensors to reduce the effects of clutter and improve the ability to detect surface and buried land mines. Thesensor suite currently consists of a camera that acquires images in six bands (400nm, 500nm, 600nm,700nm, 800nm and 900nm). Past research has shown that it is extremely difficult to distinguish land minesfrom background clutter in images obtained from a single sensor. It is hypothesized, however, thatinformation fused from a suite of various sensors is likely to provide better detection reliability, becausethe suite of sensors detects a variety of physical properties that are more separable in feature space. Thematerials surrounding the mines can include natural materials (soil, rocks, foliage, water, etc.) and someartifacts.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC120319, CONF95047222ACCESSION NUMBER: DE96-002641

______. Sensor Feature Fusion for Detecting Buried Objects. Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, CA, April 1993. 13p. [Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers(SPIE) OE/Aerospace science and Sensing Meeting, Orlando, FL, 11-16 April 1993.]

ABSTRACT: Given multiple registered images of the earth's surface from dual-band sensors, our system fusesinformation from the sensors to reduce the effects of clutter and improve the ability to detect buried orsurface target sites. The sensor suite currently includes two sensors (5 micron and 10 micron wavelengths)and one ground penetrating radar (GPR) of the wide-band pulsed synthetic aperture type. We use asupervised teaming pattern recognition approach to detect metal and plastic land mines buried in soil. Theoverall process consists of four main parts: Preprocessing, feature extraction, feature selection, andclassification. These parts are used in a two step process to classify a sub-image. The first step, referred toas feature selection, determines the features of sub-images which result in the greatest separability amongthe classes. The second step, image labeling, uses the selected features and the decisions from a patternclassifier to label the regions in the image which are likely to correspond to buried mines. We extractfeatures from the images, and use feature selection algorithms to select only the most important featuresaccording to their contribution to correct detections. This allows us to save computational complexity anddetermine which of the sensors add value to the detection system. The most important features from thevarious sensors are fused using supervised teaming pattern classifiers (including neural networks). Wepresent results of experiments to detect buried land mines from real data, and evaluate the usefulness offusing feature information from multiple sensor types, including dual-band infrared and groundpenetrating radar. The novelty of the work lies mostly in the combination of the algorithms and theirapplication to the very important and currently unsolved operational problem of detecting buried landmines from an airborne standoff platform.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC113727, CONF93044522ACCESSION NUMBER: DE93-01866

Countermine Warfare Analysis. Hopkins, MN: Honeywell, Inc., Mission Analysis Group, June1981.

ABSTRACT: The specific objectives of the Countermine Warfare Analysis were: To identify the principles,precepts, and trends in mining and countermining warfare that were established in World War II combatand assess their relevance to contemporary warfare, and to determine the potential impact ofcountermining operations on the modern battlefield.

77

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A103 772

Curl, Terry Winslow. Measuring the Effectiveness of Scatterable Mines in the ArmorCombat Environment. Master’s thesis. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School,September 1976. 69p.

ABSTRACT: Scatterable mines are currently being evaluated in the material acquisition process. This newconcept of landmines will be examined by an analysis of field experiment data provided by the CombatDevelopments Experimentation Command (CDEC), Fort Ord, California. An experimental design andanalysis plan is presented to measure the effectiveness of scatterable mines. The experimental designconsidered two models. A normal model is designed without considering CDEC's instrumentation,equipment, and personnel, and a 'modified' model which takes into consideration CDEC's limitations. Theexperimental design, analysis methodology, and a hypothetical example are presented to indicateimplementation of the 'modified' model. Finally, a comparison of the 'modified' model is made withCDEC's 'Tactical Effectiveness of Mines in the Armor Weapons System' model design. Dynamic measuresof effectiveness are used to discriminate between levels of five factors (e.g., location of minefield, type ofminefield, threat tactic, minefield density, defensive force mix) and to determine if there is a synergisticeffect with employment of scatterable mines.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A032 295

Dashcund, D. IRAAM Wind Tunnel Test. Task III. Final technical report. Wilmington, MA:Avco Systems Div., 30 August 1983. 63p.

ABSTRACT: A deceleration, orientation and stabilization system for the deployment of the anti-armor mine(IRAAM) submunition was developed and tested at the Wright-Patterson vertical wind tunnel facility. Thesystem employs a flexible samara airfoil with a tip mass arranged to provide the proper spin rate, descentrate and coning angle. Samara wings of KEVLAR material were fabricated using a flat webbingconstruction and also a construction consisting of KEVLAR cords enclosed in a nylon envelope. Bladesvaried in both area and platform aspect ratio. Blade spans ranged from 2.5 to 10.0 inches. Blade widthsvaried from 2 to 4 inches. All of the IRAAM models used for testing were dimensionally full scale. Onemodel of the nominal configuration was full weight. The other two models were half weight. The tip weightvaried up to 5% of the model weight. The test program is outlined. All test procedures and equipment aredescribed. The test results are analyzed and recommendations are made for future developmental studies.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A135 256

Dean, A.M., and C.R. Martinson. Mine Detection Using Non-Sinusoidal Radar. Part 1.Spatial Analysis of Laboratory Test Data. Special report. Hanover, NH: Cold RegionsResearch and Engineering Laboratory, August 1984. 105p.

ABSTRACT: The interaction among UHF radiation, winter roadway conditions and buried mines wasinvestigated in a refrigerated facility. The near-field spatial return from each target was unique. When thetarget was not in the near field the spatial return was not at all unique. Cobbles in the medium had littleeffect, but surface-thawed conditions significantly affected the spatial return, and the reflected signalstrength and frequency content. The primary frequency content of the returned signal was either spreadover a band broader than that of the transmitted primary frequencies, or completely outside of the primarydetection band. We conclude that the complexity of winter roadway conditions requires (1) a much broaderfrequency band than is currently being considered, and (2) a more complex and adaptivebackground-removal, signal-enhancement scheme than is currently used. Further, more data are requireddescribing the interaction of the winter media, UHF radiation, and buried mines so that adequate detectioninstrumentation can be developed.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A150 471

78

Dean, K.J., and J.A. Christians. Battlefield Related Evaluation and Analysis of CountermineHardware (BREACH) . Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Mobility Equipment Research andDevelopment Command, 1973. 11p. [This article is from ‘Proceedings of the Annual U.S.Army Operations Research Symposium (12th), 2-5 October 1973. Volume I,’ AD-A125989. ]

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the methodology being used at MERDC to describe and evaluate theeffectiveness of the integrated family of countermine equipment. The scenarios and hierarchy of modelsused to determine systems effectiveness and operational feasibilities are described. The essentialcountermine missions of the Army are examined along with a comparative evaluation of a typical baselinesystem.

Deeds, F. E., Flix W. Fleming, and Robert K. Stump. Mine-Field Clearance by NuclearWeapons. Kansas City, MO: Midwest Research Institute, August 1960. 112p.

ABSTRACT: The objective of the project was to investigate the behavior of pressure-activated antitank minesunder air-blast loading from a nuclear detonation. Of particular interest were the reliability of currentmethods for predicting probability of land-mine actuation from nuclear detonations, the effect of burialdepth on mine actuation, and the effect of sympathetic actuation in extending the range of mine clearance.In addition, a study was initiated to determine if special methods were needed for prediction of mineactuation at particular ranges of transition in the pressure-wave shape. Fifteen mine types, both UnitedStates and foreign, were employed. Test results indicated: (1) the procedures for predicting mine actuationunder nuclear detonations were reasonably accurate; (2) in the live mine fields, sympathetic actuationoccurred among mines; (3) the response of the Universal Indicator Mines (UIM) increased with burialdepths to a maximum value between 6 and 9 in.; and (4) the reliability of the actuation curves can beimproved by laboratory testing of adequate sampling mines.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 358 121

Del Grande, N. Sensor Fusion Methodology for Remote Detection of Buried Land Mines.Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA, April 1990. 20p. [National Symposium onSensor Fusion (3rd), Orlando, FL, 16-20 April 1990.]

ABSTRACT: We are investigation a sensor fusion methodology for remote detection of buried land mines. Ourprimary approach is sensor intrafusion. Our dual-channel passive IR methodology decouples true(corrected) surface temperature variations of 0.2(degree)C from spatially dependent surface emissivitynoise. It produces surface temperature maps showing patterns of conducted heat from buried objects whichheat and cool differently from their surroundings. Our methodology exploits Planck's radiation law. Itproduces separate maps of surface emissivity variations which allow us to reduce false alarms. Oursecondary approach is sensor interfusion using other methodologies. For example, an active IR CO(sub 2)laser reflectance channel helps distinguish surface targets unrelated to buried land mines at night whenphotographic methods are ineffective. Also, the interfusion of ground penetrating radar provides depthinformation for confirming the site of buried objects. Together with EG&G in Las Vegas, we flew a missionat Nellis AFB using the Daedalus dual-channel (5 and 10 micron) IR scanner mounted on a helicopterplatform at an elevation of 60 m above the desert sand. We detected surface temperature patternsassociated with buried (inert) land mines covered by as much as 10 cm of dry sand. The respective spatial,spectral, thermal, emissivity and temporal signatures associated with buried targets differed from thoseassociated with surface vegetation, rocks and manmade objects. Our results were consistent withpredictions based on the annual Temperature Wave Model. They were confirmed by field measurements.The dual-channel sensor fusion methodology is expected to enhance the capabilities of the military andindustrial community for standoff mine detection. Other important potential applications are open skies,drug traffic control and environmental restoration at waste burial sites. 11 figs.

79

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC103626, CONF90041881ACCESSION NUMBER: DE90-010633

______. Temperature Evaluated Mine Position Survey (TEMPS) Application of Dual-BandInfrared Methodology. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA, March 1990.20p. [ IRIS Specialty Group Meeting on Passive Sensors and Atmospheric Physics,Laurel, MD, 13 March 1990. ]

ABSTRACT: We are investigating a temperature evaluated mine position survey (TEMPS) for remote detection ofburied land mines. The TEMPS methodology uses two passive IR channels peaked near 5 and 10 micronsto decouple temperature from emissivity related effects. The true (corrected) temperature maps showsurface temperature variations of 0.2(degree)C. Corrections are made for air-path interference andreflected sky radiation. We exploit a property of Planck's radiation law which applies for smalltemperature excursions from 288 K. The radiant emittance is proportional to emissivity times absolutetemperature to the power of (50/wavelength in microns). Our corrected temperature maps show patterns ofconducted heat generated by buried objects which heat and cool at different rates than the surroundingmaterials. These patterns are distinguished from the patterns produced by surface objects. Their respectivespatial, spectral, thermal, emissivity and temporal signatures differ. EG & G flew a dual-band IR scannerat 60 m for our demonstration of the TEMPS methodology at Nellis AFB. We detected simulated minetargets covered by 10 cm of dry sand. Optimization of this technology is expected to enhance thecapabilities of the military community for standoff mine detection and other applications. 9 refs., 11 figs., 1tab.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC103264, CONF9003963ACCESSION NUMBER: DE90-009182

Del Grande, N.K. et al. Buried Object Remote Detection Technology for Law Enforcement.Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA, March 1991. 28p. [SPIE InternationalSymposium on Optical Engineering and Photonics in Aerospace Sensing, Orlando, FL,1-5 April 1991.]

ABSTRACT: We have developed a precise airborne temperature-sensing technology to detect buried objects foruse by law enforcement. Demonstrations have imaged the sites of buried foundations, walls and trenches;mapped underground waterways and aquifers; and been used to locate underground military objects. Ourpatented methodology is incorporated in a commercially available, high signal-to-noise, dual-bandinfrared scanner with real-time, 12-bit digital image processing software and display. Our method createscolor-coded images based on surface temperature variations of 0.2 (degrees)C. Unlike other less-sensitivemethods, it maps true (corrected) temperatures by removing the (decoupled) surface emissivity maskequivalent to 1(degrees)C or 2(degrees)C; this mask hinders interpretation of apparent (blackbody)temperatures. Once removed, were are able to identify surface temperature patterns from small diffusivitychanges at buried object sites which heat and cool differently from their surroundings. Objects made ofdifferent materials and buried at different depths are identified by their unique spectra, spatial, thermal,temporal, emissivity and diffusivity signatures. We have successfully located the sites of buried (inert)simulated land mines 0.1 to 0.2 m deep; sod-covered rock pathways alongside dry ditches, deeper than 0.2m; pavement covered burial trenches and cemetery structures as deep as 0.8 m; and aquifers more than 6m and less 60 m deep. Our technology could be adapted for drug interdiction and pollution control..

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC104637, CONF91045013ACCESSION NUMBER: DE91-013587

Delaney, J.E. Apparatus for Clearing Mines. Patent. Washington, DC: Department of theNavy, filed 4 June 1992, patented 29 June 1993. 15p.

80

ABSTRACT: An abstract is provided which is capable of clearing encased explosives such as land mines. Thisapparatus combines a shaped charge jet with a plate penetrator. A depression is formed in a column of afirst explosive material. The depression is provided with a metal liner such that detonation of the firstexplosive material forms a shaped charge jet. The shaped charge jet passes through a hole in a platepenetrator and exits the device without detonating a second explosive material. The shaped charge jetstrikes the ground and imparts kinetic energy. As the energy in the shaped charge jet is consumed, thesecond explosive material detonates and drives the plate penetrator to supersonic velocities. Since shapedcharge jet velocity exceeds the detonation velocity of the second explosive material, the shaped charge jetclears a path ahead of the plate penetrator. This results in higher velocity when the plate penetratorimpacts the encased explosive, and consequently a greater chance of inducing explosion andneutralization.

REPORT NUMBER: PATENT 5,223,666

DeLony, J.W. Tactical Mobility and the In-Stride Obstacle Breach: Impossible, Probable,Futuristic . Fort Leavenworth, KS: Army Command and General Staff College, School ofAdvanced Military Studies, 29 November 1988. 72p.

ABSTRACT: This monograph analyzes the concept of an in-stride breach of an obstacle by a tactical maneuverforce. Its focus is on a historical and current review of the tactical doctrines of the U.S. and Soviet armies’development of tactics, equipment, and force structure to execute an in-stride breach of an obstacleconcurrent to sustaining the momentum of a maneuver force. Given the friction of terrain and combinedarms operations, the paper seeks to answer whether the in-stride obstacle breach is possible for eitherforce on today's battlefield. The study begins with a discussion of tactical mobility theory associated withan in-stride obstacle breach. Historical experiences and doctrine for breaching obstacles from World WarII are presented for the U.S. and the Soviets. Current doctrine, equipment, and force structure for the twoarmies are reviewed for analysis and comparisons. Conclusions as to the strengths and weaknesses of eacharmy's capability to conduct an in-stride obstacle breach are made. A final section of recommendations forfuture U.S. AirLand Battle in-stride obstacle breach operations is presented.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A221 445

Department of the Army Staff Study Estimating Land Mine Operational Requirements forMobilization Planning. (revised). Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Engineers(Army), August 1958. 47p.

ABSTRACT: None available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 389 668

Detection of Land Mines and Sound Ranging. Washington, DC: Office of Scientific Researchand Development, September 1946.

ABSTRACT: None Available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 221 602

Detection of Remote Minefields Project Plan I. Ann Arbor, MI: Environmental ResearchInstitute of Michigan, 15 December 78. 124p.

ABSTRACT: The objective of the minefield detection project is to determine the effectiveness of remote sensingsystems and other methods of detecting and identifying mines, minefields, minelaying equipment, orminelaying operations, and to recommend continuing effort on the most promising this research anddevelopment program. This first project plan (Plan I) defines the work to be performed during the contractperiod with primary emphasis on the first years' effort. The project effort will concentrate on the EuropeanTheater of Operations. The terrain of interest is the West German border areas which are generally

81

exemplified by flat plains to the north and rolling terrain to the south. Primary emphasis will be placed ondetecting and identifying anti-tank (AT) and anti-vehicular (AV) mines, and will be directed toward hastymining and minefields associated with tactical offensive operations (i.e., surface mines). Minefields may bedetected by both direct observation or by inferential observations, and both approaches will beinvestigated. Work under the project concerned with each of the concepts to be investigated will beperformed in a sequence of four major tasks: (1) identification and screening of promising techniques; (2)preliminary systems analysis and definition of experimental or other data acquisitions systems; (3)acquisition of critical data through experiment, literature survey, or access to SCI; and (4) evaluation ofconceptual systems for technical and military usefulness. Four major scenarios for Soviet mine warfareoperations have been adopted for analytical purposes.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A172 476

Dillencourt, M.B., et al. Expert System for Minefield Site Prediction. Phase 1. Annualtechnical report. February 1987-January 1988. Reston, VA: PAR Government SystemsCorp., February 1988. 46p.

ABSTRACT: The software design of the prototype Minefield Site Prediction Expert Systems (MSPES) isdescribed. The ultimate goal of the system is to emulate the role of a terrain analyst in predicting likelymine sites. The major components of the system are the inference system, the geographic informationsystem, and the user interface. The inference system is driven by a goal-directed backward chainingmechanisms. The geographic information system is based on quadtrees. The user interface is menu-driven,and is based on an object-oriented graphics package. This report describes the implementation of theprototype system. It also contains recommendations for the operational system, based on an evaluation ofthe prototype system. Descriptions of data format conversion capabilities, a detailed description of thegeographic processing algorithms, and a complete listing of the rulebase are included as appendices.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A192 990

Disposal of Chemical Munitions and Agents. Washington, DC: National Research Council,Committee on Demilitarizing Chemical Munitions and Agents, 1984. 234p.

ABSTRACT: For more than half a century, the United States has maintained a stockpile of highly toxic chemicalagents and munitions for possible use in a wartime situation. The United States maintains its stockpileprincipally to deter other countries from using such munitions against U.S. forces. Four basic chemicalsare kept. These are the nerve agents VX, which is persistent in its effects, and sarin (GB),* which isnonpersistent; the mustard agents H, HD, and HT, which are usually referred to simply as H; and thehallucinogenic agent BZ. These chemical agents are stored at eight U.S. Army depots in the ContinentalUnited States as well as on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The latter depot was not a part of thisstudy. Each depot varies in size, in the type and number of agents and munitions in storage, and in itsproximity to off-site civilian populations. Moreover, the agents are kept in a variety of containers andmunitions--rockets, land mines, artillery and mortar shells, bombs and spray tanks, and bulk containers.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A148 584

Edwards, David C. Expendable Mine-Clearing Roller (ENSURE 202.1). Fort Belvoir, VA:Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development, January 1972, 106p.

ABSTRACT: The report covers the development, testing, and field use in South Viet Nam of the expendable, mine-clearing roller. The data developed and the present status of the roller regarding type classification arealso discussed. The period of time actually covered by this report is from September 1969 through August1971 and, most specifically, is related to ENSURE 202.1. Appendices include an installation, operation,and maintenance manual prepared by the contractor; the report of the contractor's field engineer whileserving as part of the NET team; and a statement of the operational suitability message from USARV. AFinal Evaluation Report dated 26 July 1971 is also included.

82

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 737 723

Evaluation of Individual Demonstrator Performance at the Unexploded OrdnanceAdvanced Technology Demonstration Program at Jefferson Proving Ground (Phase1). Report for August 1993-December 1994. Indian Head, MD: Naval ExplosiveOrdnance Disposal Technology Center, Indian Head, March 1995. 194p.

ABSTRACT: The data contained in this report is a supplement to report SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-94120, "UnexplodedOrdnance Advanced Technology Demonstration Program at Jefferson Proving Ground (Phase I)." Thisreport provides a further analysis of the individual demonstrators and the performance of their systemswhen used to detect, identify and/or remedy buried unexploded ordnance under realistic, controlledconditions.

ACCESSION NUMBER AD-A295 074

Evaluation of the Locally Fabricated Belche Minesweep. Army Concept Team in Vietnam,December 1968. 10p.

ABSTRACT: None available. ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 850 760

Evans, Giles L., Jr. Evaluation of Minefield Clearing Devices. Fort Belvoir, VA: EngineerBoard, September 1945. 71p

ABSTRACT: None Available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 156 854

Expert System to Help Assess Tactical Air Readiness and Capability. Phase 1 Report.Washington, DC: Synergy, Inc., 30 May 1986. 97p. [See also Appendices, AD-A173 698- AD-A173 700. Prepared in cooperation with Systems Research and Applications Corp.,Arlington, VA.]

ABSTRACT: Being built is a demonstration expert system that allows users to ask questions in English aboutmajor resources and their effects on U.S. tactical aircraft sorties in central Europe. The system will handletwo types of questions. The first are those that require understanding the request, knowing what data bases(if any) to search, searching those data bases, selecting the right piece of information, and presenting theanswer to a user in a format he wants. The second type are those questions that require substantiveexpertise and thinking to answer (i.e., those that require both an intelligent search for information andexpert analysis of that information). The demonstration system will answer questions drawing on 6 types ofinformation: 1) Characteristics of U.S. tactical aircraft in Europe; 2) The specific missions those aircraftsfly; 3) The number and type of conventional munitions associated with U.S. tactical aircraft; 4) Availabilityof and POL requirements for U.S. tactical aircraft; 5) Aircrew status and availability; and 6) Status anddescriptions of 4 U.S. tactical airfields (Spangdahlem, Bitburg, Hahn, Ramstein).

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A173 697

Falls, Robert A. and Louis Mittelman. Forecasting of the Electromagnetic and ThermalProperties of Soils by the Study of Their Climatological Environment. Final report.September 1974-September 1977. Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Mobility Equipment Researchand Development Command, September 1978. 104p.

ABSTRACT: For a number of years, efforts have been made to accumulate data on soil - particularly,electromagnetic and thermal properties. The ultimate purpose being a better understanding of the

83

interaction of land mine detectors and the soil. Conventional field and laboratory efforts, up to the present,have not been able to develop sufficient confidence in estimating these properties over wide geographicareas and seasons of the year. This report evaluates the efforts to develop an innovative technique utilizingthe available laboratory/field data with a climatological concept that estimates seasonal, soil-moisturebehavior. Once the yearly variation of the moisture is established for an area, all other soil propertiesrelated to moisture can be predicted. Currently, the probability of success using this predictive technique isapproaching 0.75.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A069 283

Filling Apparatuses, Chemical Land Mine. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Test andEvaluation Command, February 1970. 24p.

ABSTRACT: This Engineering Test Procedure describes test methods and techniques for evaluating technicalperformance and characteristics of Chemical Land Mine Filling Apparatuses. The evaluation is related tocriteria established by applicable Qualitative Materiel Requirements (QMR), Small DevelopmentRequirements (SDR), Technical Characteristics (TC), or other appropriate design requirements andspecifications.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 868 257

Fitch, V.L., and L. Lederman. Air-Sown Mines for the Massive Barrier. Research paper.Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, Jason Division, May 67. 7p.

ABSTRACT: A discussion of a series of air-sown mines designed to complement the use of gravel mines and to besown densely along wider trails and roads is presented. The basic design is a pencil-shaped, fin-stabilizeddevice which would be capable of soil penetration to a predetermined depth, so that a plunger-activatorprojects just slightly above the trail surface. The objective is to produce a system of cheap, small devicesthat would present a formidable barrier to infiltration and would be difficult to counter.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 383 442

Fitzsimmons, F. FASCOM Soldering Process Control Evaluation. Final report. ColumbusLabs., OH: Battelle, 31 December 1982. 18p.

ABSTRACT: Based upon observations of the manufacturing processes at Honeywell, Inc., New Brighton, MN andAerojet Corp., Downey, CA, the writer feels that certain major activities must be performed to ensureminimum risk and maximum reliability of the finished product. The recommendations contained in thisreport will promote similarity in FASCAM products. ADAM and RAAM are both delivered to target inbasically the same manner; both are expected to face the same stress conditions in storage and in use.Therefore, there should be a single, unified standard of workmanship for FASCAM products.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A164 194

Fleischer, Peter. Evaluation and Selection of Test Sites for BURMMS. Technical note. NSTLMS: Naval Ocean Research and Development Activity, January 1981. 26p.

ABSTRACT: This report develops a procedure for selection, identification, and evaluation of test sites to be usedin the development of BURMMS (Buried Mine Minehunting System). Potential test sites are evaluated andranked by this procedure. Panama City, Florida, Norfolk, Virginia, and New Orleans, Louisiana, areproposed as the primary BURMMS test sites. The site selection rationale is based on three categories oftest site attributes: (1) environmental parameters of the bottom that influence mine burial prediction; (2)physical setting at the test sites in which operations will be performed; and (3) logistical aspects of utilizingthe test sites.

84

REPORT NUMBER: NORDA-TN-90ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A098 907

Fleischer, Peter and Dawn L. Lavoie. Ground-Truth Area Selection and Characterization forMine Countermeasures Tactical Environmental Data System. Final report. StennisSpace Center, MS: Naval Research Laboratory, Geoacoustics/Geotechnical Section, June1996. 107p.

ABSTRACT: Three candidate sites were selected that are suitable as analogs for a variety of forward areas forMine Countermeasures Tactical Environmental Data System development and testing. From an initialevaluation of 13 areas in U.S. waters and from comparison to certain forward areas, two sites (1) theMississippi Gulf Coast/Chandeleur Island and (2) Key West, FL, and surrounding areas were chosen as themost suitable ground-truth areas. A third site, offshore of Panama City, FL, was added to take advantageof an ongoing research program, the Coastal Benthic Boundary Layer research program. For each of thethree ground-truth areas, the following is presented: (1) a summary of salient characteristics, (2) a listingof existing data bases, and (3) an annotated bibliography.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A311 448

Gambiez, G. Should We Fear Mine Warfare. Study project. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Army WarCollege, 30 March 1989. 44p.

ABSTRACT: Mines are weapons. Thanks to the improvements allowed by electronics they become more and moreefficient and cost effective. On land as well as at sea, they would be widely used at theater level by allbelligerents in all types of conflicts. Unfortunately improvements in mine countermeasures are moredifficult to realize and to use on the field. The nations of the free world should increase their efforts in thedomain of those countermeasure systems, or they risk being the first victims of the increasing advances inmines and mine delivery systems. The problem is as difficult as urgent.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A209 180

Garland, M.W. KHAFJI: A Combat Simulation. Master’s thesis. Monterey, CA: NavalPostgraduate School, September 1991. 137p.

ABSTRACT: This thesis presents a high resolution, discrete event driven combat simulation. This model wasdeveloped to facilitate the analysis of tactical options available to a small unit (company/platoon)commander using artillery and multiple lanes in overcoming a minefield obstacle. KHAFJI is a highfidelity combat simulation written in SIMSCRIPT 11.5 with SIMGRAPHICS I. Employing user inputparameters which define a minefield scenario, the model generates output which enables the user tocompare various tactical options available to maneuver commander in crossing a minefield. By usingmenu driven input screens, the user has a choice of multiple crossing lanes, size of crossing force,distribution of forces upon crossing lanes, multiple mine belts, and use of indirect fires against theminefield. Using SIMGRAPHICS I software, KHAFJI displays the minefield and the unit as it crosses theminefield. KHAFJI depicts each mine, each member of the crossing unit, and each impacting artilleryround. The graphics provided by KHAFJI allows the user to see the crossing as it unfolds, thereby,reinforcing user confidence in the resultant data. When running multiple replications, graphics can beturned off to speed processing. An example of the type of analysis that can be performed with KHAFJI ispresented in Chapter IV.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A245 170

85

Gavel, D.T. et al. Impulse Radar Array for Detecting Land Mines. Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, CA, 3 April 1995. 12p. [Symposium on Autonomous Vehicles inMine Countermeasures, Monterey, CA, 3-7 April 1995.]

ABSTRACT: The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has developed radar and imaging technologies withpotential application in demining efforts. A patented wideband (impulse) radar that is very compact, verylow cost, and very low power, has been demonstrated in test fields to be able to detect and imagenonmetallic land mines buried in 2-10 cm of soil. The scheme takes advantage of the very short radarimpulses and the ability to form a large synthetic aperture with many small individual units, to generatehigh resolution 2-D or 3-D tomographic images of the mine and surrounding ground. Radar rangecalculations predict that a vehicle-mounted or man-carried system is quite feasible using this technology.This paper presents the results of field tests using a prototype unit and describes practical mine detectionsystem concepts. Predicted capabilities in terms of stand-off range and radiated power requirements arediscussed.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC120550, CONF95041543ACCESSION NUMBER: DE95-017847

Goodnight, Curtis J. Design and Evaluation of Mine and UXO Detectors for AutonomousMobile Robots. Master’s thesis. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, September1996. 65p.

ABSTRACT: This study focuses on the development of a light weight metal detector to be used for the purpose ofmine Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) detection. The detector was developed based upon a twin oscillatordesign, and the performance of this design was tested with respect to diameter of the sensing coil,operating frequency, and the number of turns of the sensing coil. The results of this study provide a fieldtunable, light weight, low power mine UXO detector with significant range. The ability to equip a robotwith this device and send it into the field will prove to be an invaluable asset to ongoing mine sweepingoperations.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A320 169

Graham, W.J. Focused Synthetic Microwave Array for Mine Detection and Imaging. Finalreport. 3 June-3 December 1991. Bensalem, PA: Graham Research, 3 December 1991.85p.

ABSTRACT: This report presents the results of a feasibility study of a proposed focused synthetic rectangulararray for microwave detection and imaging of mines. The proposed techniques uses a bistatic antennasystem with transmitter and receiver located at the angles of incidence and reflection, respectively of theradiation illuminating the ground. These angles are equal to the Brewster angle of the ground medium sothat ground reflections are minimized for vertical polarization. The transmit antenna has a broad beamwhich illuminates the field of view on the ground. The receiver antenna is a horizontal line array, whichforms a rectangular synthetic array by the forward motion of the system. The results of an analytical studyare presented, and experimental results are described which give high resolution three-dimensional imagesof various types of buried anti-tank mines. A system design for a focused rectangular synthetic counterminearray is also given. A design of an experimental system for Phase II and a test plan is described.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A245 850

Granuzzo, J.P. Performance Oriented Packaging (POP) Testing Packaging for GroundEmplaced Mines (i.e., M74, M75 and M79 Mines). Final report. DoD PerformanceOriented Packaging of Hazardous Materials, Washington, DC, 24 March 1994. 6p.

86

ABSTRACT: This report contains the tests performed and test results on the Ground. Emplaced Mines (i.e., M74,M75 and M79 Mines) that are packed 40 mines per metal ammunition container IAW drawing number9243805 for Performance Oriented Packaging Certification.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A277 849

Graves, Steven M. Internetworking: Airborne Mine Countermeasures C4I InformationSystems. Master’s thesis. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, December 1996.106p.

ABSTRACT: Airborne Mine Countermeasures (AMCM) Command Control Communication Computer andIntelligence (C4I) baseline currently consists of stand-alone tactical decision aids. Information such asaircraft position, equipment status, and abbreviated mine-like contact reports cannot be transferred in anyform other than voice from/to the MH-53E helicopters while conducting Airborne Mine Countermeasuresoperations. There are currently no methods to transfer sonar video or single-frame imagery of mine-likeobjects between any Mine Warfare (MIW) units in a near-real-time manner. Delays lasting several hoursare frequently encountered before the results of a 'rapid reconnaissance' airborne mine-hunting missionare made available to the rest of the fleet and/or MIW community. In order to improve command andcontrol, the AMCM Mine Warfare community must integrate all of its C4I assets onto a tactical internet.This thesis presents a tactical internet for AMCM with an open, standards-based modular architecture. It isbased on the TCP/IP network model using common protocols and interfaces. Command and control willsignificantly improve as this network will provide a methodology to transfer critical information betweenAMCM C41 assets and tactical networks world-wide.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A328 259

Gravitte, Dwight L. and Charles N. Johnson, Jr. Seasonal Moisture-TemperatureDistributions in Mined Podzolic Soil. Research report, August 1962-June 1963. FortBelvoir, VA: Army Engineer Research and Development Laboratories, June 1965. 68p.

ABSTRACT: This investigation is part of a continuing study of soil moisture-temperature properties andphenomena significant to the detection of buried mines and explosives. The report concludes: In a heavyclay podzolic soil in a midlatitude humid zone: (1) The moisture distribution in the soil around a minediffers from that in undisturbed soil. In the soil above the mine, there is normally a moisture deficiency,except during conditions of saturation. (2) During late spring, summer, and early fall, and when themoisture content approaches saturation, the temperatures in the soil above the mine and in undisturbedsoil at the same depth are generally about the same, day or night. When the moisture content of the soilabove the mine is lower than in undisturbed soil at the same depth, the temperature of the soil above themine rises more rapidly during daylight hours than in undisturbed soils at the same depth, reaching ahigher peak temperature than undisturbed soil in the early afternoon. During night hours, the soil abovethe mine cools more rapidly and may drop to a lower temperature than will undisturbed soil at the samedepth. (3) When the soil moisture content approaches saturation during late fall, winter, and early springconditions, the temperatures are about the same or lower in the soil above the mine relative to undisturbedsoil at the same depth.

REPORT NUMBER: AERDL-1809ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 466 168

Griffith, Douglas and Yuji Morita. MIDURA (Minefield Detection Using ReconnaissanceAssets) 1982-1983 Experimental Test Plan. Technical report. Ann Arbor, MI:Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, April 1982. 72p.

ABSTRACT: This report is an experimental test plan, designed for use in exploring the utility of existing assets todetect the presence of both surface-laid and buried anti-tank mines and minefields and to aid in designing

87

and specifying future minefield detection systems. Flights are to be made by the Oregon National GuardOV-1D's using the AN/AAS-24 infrared scanner and KA-76 camera for a period of a year over a minefieldarray at Camp Adair, Oregon. Other flights are to be made by the OV-1D's and Idaho Air National GuardRF-4's (AN/AAD-5 infrared scanner and the KS-87 camera) over selected areas representing otherenvironments such as snow conditions and semi-arid and agricultural lands. Flight schedules are arrangedto match a matrix of parameter levels, parameters such as time of day, flight altitudes, mine type, weatherconditions, etc. Instrumentation required for measuring the several variables and for calibrating thesensors are specified. Data obtained in the tests are to be used for assessing image interpreterperformance, for validating, revising and/or generating system models and for adding information to aminefield detection data base. A description of the image interpreter evaluation test to be conducted ingiven.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A172 410

Groot, J.S. and Y.H. Janssen. Remote Land Mine (Field) Detection: An Overview ofTechniques. Physics and Electronics Laboratory RVO-TNO, The Hague (Netherlands),September 1994. 52p.

ABSTRACT: A near real time land mine (field) detection system is essential for military commanders to enablethem to circumvent the mines, or to allocate/employ mine neutralization/breaching assist to clear a saferoute through a minefield. Basic principles and strengths and weaknesses of such a system with visual,near infrared, midwave infrared, longwave infrared, microwave radiometric and radar sensors arepresented. Recommendations for a vehicle mounted multi-sensor demonstrator system are given since theGenie expressed its interest in such a system, it is cheaper than an aircraft mounted system and becausesensor fusion can be tested and applied relatively easy on such a system. Promising techniques for avehicle mounted detection system are: (1) passive and active infrared imaging, (2) microwave radiometry,(3) passive and active visual and near infrared wavelength discrimination, (4) radar ground and vegetationpenetration. Proposed steps in the development of a vehicle mounted mine detection demonstration systemare a feasibility study, tower measurements and design, construction and testing of the demonstrator.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A288 635INTERNET http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/review/a288635.pdf

Ground Penetrating Radar for Ordnance Contaminated Site Restoration. Indian Head, MD:Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Center, March 1995. 348p.

ABSTRACT: The main purpose of this document is to apply ground penetrating radar (GPR) technology to theproblem of locating and identifying buried ordnance at military sites. The emphasis of the research appliedGPR technology to an airborne system that will allow very large parcels of land to be processed. Thiscontract represents one portion of an overall U.S Government program to clear former and presentmilitary ordnance ranges of all unexploded ordnance and other buried devices that pose a threat to thepublic.

ACCESSION NUMBER AD-A295 153

Guadagno, J., et al. Radiation Protection Safety Protocol for Industrial X-Ray BackscatterRadiography Experiments. Final report. Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Belvoir ResearchDevelopment and Engineering Center, November 1990. 30p.

ABSTRACT: Scattered radiation has been used in medical and engineering applications to determine propertiesand form images or irradiated objects. Scattered radiation is ideally suited to the geometry of minedetection which depends upon differences between the number of photons scattered from mines and soil toproduce an image as opposed to conventional radiography which uses the transmission of photons throughan irradiated object to produce an image. Mine detection through backscatter radiation measures theamount of radiation that is backscattered from the ground to a NaI detector which is mounted next to the

88

x-ray source. To generate sufficient backscatter radiation to image buried land mines, an industrial x-rayunit must be operated continuously at or above 150 k Vp for 2 to 3 hours. Operating an industrial x-rayunit at this level and duration for the purpose of mine detection requires a complete radiological review ofboth the exposure room and the x-ray unit itself. (JS)

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A229 740

Gupta, A.D. Structural Analysis of a Mine with Two Viscoelastic Explosive Fills. AberdeenProving Ground, MD: Army Armament Research and Development Command, BallisticResearch Laboratory, February 1983. 25p. [This article is from ‘Transactions of theConference of Army Mathematicians (28th) Held at Bethesda, Maryland on 28-30 June1982,’ AD-A128 683.]

ABSTRACT: The structural response of a Soviet TM-46 land mine with two viscoelastic explosive fills subjectedto an externally applied pressure wave has been analyzed with the ADINA finite element code. The maincharge consists of 5.72 kg TNT while the booster charge in the fuze contains .04 kg Tetryl in the fuze well.The finite element model of the mine uses the axisymmetric two-dimensional mesh configuration with arigid base support boundary condition. Both implicit and explicit time integration schemes have been usedfor this analysis.

Haas, Gary A. et al. An Unmanned Ground Vehicle for Mine Detection: Systems IntegrationIssues and Recommendations. Final report. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: ArmyResearch Laboratory, March 1997. 43p.

ABSTRACT: The U.S. Army Research Laboratory performed a series of pilot studies for the CountermineDivision at the Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate concerning how a mine detection sensorsuite might be implemented on a teleoperated unmanned ground vehicle (UGV). The studies addressed fiveareas: mobility, human factors, radio communications, the use of infrared cameras for remote driving, andoptions for attaching the sensor array to the UGV. This report describes the proposed countermine system,the issues identified by the studies, and recommendations concerning how such a system might beimplemented.

REPORT NUMBER: ARL-TR-1256ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A324 035

Haas, Gary A., Phillip David, and Bailey T. Haug. Target Acquisition and Engagement froman Unmanned Ground Vehicle: The Robotics Test Bed of Demo 1. Final report.Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory, March 1996. 69p.

ABSTRACT: The capability of robotic technology to perform dangerous military missions without exposingtroops to hazard has been of significant interest to the U.S. Army. Much of this interest has focused onunmanned ground vehicles (UGVs). Perceived benefits include force multiplication, reduction of militaryhazard, and operation in nuclear/biological/chemical environments. UGVs have been discussed for anumber of missions, including antitank, mine neutralization, physical security, smoke generation, scout,sentry, forward observer, and others. This report describes and discusses one of the first military UGVs,the robotics test bed (RTB). The RTB is a teleoperated vehicle with on-board automatic target acquisitionsystem and turret-mounted weapon surrogate. The perspective of this report is primarily on robotic targetengagement, with other aspects of the program and equipment being covered as context. The history of theprogram provides context for system design. Major subsystems of the vehicle are described, with detaileddescription of the target acquisition and engagement subsystems. A description of the use of the system in arecent demonstration of the capabilities of military robotics illustrates how such a system might be used inwar fighting. Issues in robotic target engagement are discussed and further work is proposed.

89

REPORT NUMBER: ARL-TR-1063ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A308 459

Haberman, J. R. Prediction of Target Casualties from Minefield Penetration Using MarkovProcesses. Technical publication. China Lake, CA: Naval Weapons Center, May 1971.158p.

ABSTRACT: The theory of Markov processes, a branch of probability theory, is used in this publication for theprediction of target casualties resulting from minefield penetration by unfriendly forces. The mathematicalmodels an computer programming in this report are valid for a wide range of applications. The computerprograms in this publication calculate the probability density function for the number of targets surviving abreach attempt; also the mean number of surviving targets is calculated. For specialized applications theseprograms can be used to the greatest advantage by altering them slightly to yield the type of outputneeded.

REPORT NUMBER: NWC-TP-5121ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 886 548

Hanson, J.V. et al. Mine Detection in Dry Soils Using Radar. Fort Belvoir, VA: ArmyTopographic Engineering Center, 17 March 1992. 16p.

ABSTRACT: The detection of mines and subsurface ordnance continues to present a challenging problem for boththe Army and U.S. Marine Corps. An initiative was launched by the Army's Topographic EngineeringCenter (TEC) to determine the feasibility of using penetrating radars to detect subsurface objects in verydry soils. A test site was selected at Twenty-nine Palms, CA, and soil samples were collected and analyzed.The soils were very dry, containing on average less than 2 percent moisture, and consist mainly of finesand with some gravel. An analysis of soils collected in the Middle East showed they were sufficientlycomparable for the demonstration. A minefield test site was constructed reflecting known doctrine andcombat engineering practices. Metallic and nonmetallic mines were emplaced on the surface and atvarying depths. Corner reflectors were placed around the test site, both on the surface as well asunderground. Overflights were conducted utilizing X-, C- and L- band radars. ground-penetrating radar,arid regions, mines, minefields, synthetic aperture radar (SAR).

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A254 259

Hartmann,Gregory K. Mine Warfare History and Technology. Silver Springs, MD: NavalSurface Weapons, Center, White Oak Laboratory, July 1975. 43p.

ABSTRACT: The history of mine warfare is traced. Technological advances applied to mine development and usehave demonstrated an increasing effectiveness at modest cost. The effficacy of mines, if fully exploited,should have an important deterrent effect on conventional wars.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A017 318

Healey, Anthony J., and William T. Webber. Sensors for the Detection of Land-BasedMunitions . Technical report. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, Dept. ofMechanical Engineering, 18 September 1995. 29p.

ABSTRACT: This report provides a summary of current land based munition detection sensor development.Sensors are categorized based upon the principle of their operation: electromagnetic, conductive,mechanical, optical, acoustic, and chemical. Each category is subdivided into particular operationalsensor types. Theory of operation for each particular sensor type is provided, as well as a discussion ofadvantages and disadvantages of each. A discussion of sensor performance is included. The final section of

90

the report is a survey of commercially available munition detection sensors along with commentsconcerning their performance.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A300 930INTERNET http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/review/a300930.pdf

Heberlein, David C. Hardening of Countermine Structures. Fort Belvoir, VA: Army MobilityEquipment Research and Development Command, June 1978. 15p.

ABSTRACT: Mines have long been recognized and used as effective barriers to retard or restrict the advance ofenemy forces. Mines contain a sensor for target acquisition and an explosive kill mechanism that isdirected towards a vulnerable area of an acceptable target. Mine explosive kill mechanisms include blastdamage to armored vehicle tracks, wheels and suspension systems, shrapnel damage to personnel or non-armored vehicles, and shape charge damage to the 'belly' of armored vehicles. Mine terminal effects canbe defeated through the use of high strength, light weight composite materials. Vehicle components andcountermine structures can be made from composite materials that will retain their functionality afterbeing exposed to blast loading or high velocity fragments. Although these components are damaged by themine, the retention of functionality permits the completion of mission. It is in this sense that vehicles andcountermine structures are hardened against mine blast and shrapnel damage.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A056 445

Held, M. Anti Tank Mines . Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm G.m.b.H., Munich (Germany,F.R.). Information und Dokumentati, 1984. 21p. [ International Seminar on DefenceTechnology, Rawalpindi (Pakistan), 28 November 1984. ]

ABSTRACT: According to the method of deployment and to the mechanism of performance types of anti-Tankmines are reviewed. There is given an overview about 3 generations of mines. According to the mode ofaction and to the principle of function the mines are classified. Examples of modern anti-tank mines andpictures are presented.

ACCESSION NUMBER: TIBB8680835

Huat, Lim C. Experimental Investigation of a High Resolution Sonar. Master’s thesis.Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, March 1996. 91p.

ABSTRACT: This thesis investigated a laboratory synthetic aperture sonar designed to test the algorithms andtechniques needed to detect, classify and identify minelike objects. Previous synthetic aperture sonar workat NPS achieved 5 cm range resolution and 1 cm azimuth resolution. This thesis developed a pulsed,frequency modulated, synthetic aperture sonar that achieved range and azimuth resolutions of about 1 cm.The processed images clearly reveal targets with a high degree of certainty. However, the ability to classifyand identify mines and rocks is less certain because of speckle and glint effects. The high resolutionalgorithms improved the detection and overall image quality of targets, and achieved a signal to noiseratio of 35 dB. The 2:1 frequency spread of the FM chirp increased the signal to noise ratio by 20 dBcompared to an unfocused synthetic aperture system. However, a significant finding is that resolutionalone is not sufficient to classify and identify minelike targets in complex backgrounds. Resolution of thisproblem will require a different approach such as utilizing adaptive acoustic daylight to avoid the speckleand glint problems inherent with coherent illumination. To achieve a classification and identificationcapability, a completely different approach to acoustic illumination and signal processing is needed.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A308 086

Hudler, Dennis W. and Kermit O. Taylor. Remote Controlled Vehicle Mounted MinefieldDetector System. Final report. February-August 1982. Dallas, TX: Standard Mfg., Co.,November 1982. 123p.

91

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and optimum design concept for a remotelycontrolled ground vehicle to locate mines and minefields. Evaluation was to be based on currenttechnology, equipment and mission considerations, and threat assessment. The envisioned vehicleutilization indicated the need for a lightweight, highly maneuverable vehicle equipped with radio controls,television monitor, minefield marking device, and a very good detection system. These features arenecessary to insure system survival, reliable operation, and provide standoff distance for operator safety.Addition of other equipment is also envisioned for use on special purpose missions, thereby increasingsystem utility and value. All these pieces of equipment exist and can be operated using a remote controlsystem. Vehicle mobility, maintainability, and cost factors indicate that the optimum vehicle configurationbe a 6-wheeled all terrain unit utilizing hydrostatic drive and skid steering. Vehicle will be powered by adiesel engine for maintenance, efficiency, and logistical interface with current Army units. These systemsare also readily adapted to remote control applications.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A122 001

Humanitarian Demining Equipment Catalog. Taming the Demon ... Solving the GlobalProblem of Uncleared Landmines and Unexploded Ordnance. Interagency WorkingGroup on Humanitarian Demining, 1997. 63p.

ABSTRACT: Since the mid 19th century, landmines have been an important and prolific weapon of war.Although a long-standing and accepted part of warfare between military forces, world events have evolvedto an era where innocent civilians are now the primary victims of landmines. The proliferation oflandmines throughout the world is the most significant cause of the high number of civilian casualties.They are a prominent weapon in these regions because they are so effective, yet so inexpensive and easy tomake. Landmines are frightening residual weapons of war that retard resettlement and economic renewal.This menace denies access to roadways and other lines of communication, villages and urban areas,agricultural fields and other rural areas long after the declaration of peace. Their numbers and thedevastation they exact are staggering. When published in early 1995, the Department of State reportHidden Killers, the Global Landmine Crisis estimated that some 85-110 million mines in 62 countriesmaim and kill approximately 26,000 people a year. The problem is most acute in underdeveloped nationsalready ravaged by conflict and lacking the resources and the infrastructure needed to deal with theirlandmine problems. The removal and destruction of all forms of dangerous battlefield debris, particularlyland mines and other unexploded ordnance (UXO) are vital pre-requisites for a country to recover fromthe aftermath of a war.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A328 869

Iberall, A., S. Cardon, and A. Schindler. Application of Cybernetics to Decision Making forPattern Generation Displays. Report for 1 July-28 September 1973. Darby, PA: GeneralTechnical Services, Inc., September 1973. 45p.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to learn what methodology cybernetics might have to offer minedetection. Namely, given a variety of sensor inputs from the changing images of a mine field beingscanned, how might one augment the character of a display system in a cybernetic sense so as to enhancethe capability of a man to detect mines. The report provides both a survey of pertinent cybernetic literatureand an outline of relevant cybernetic principles drawn from the contractor's expertise in this field.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 767 318

Inselmann, Edmund H. The Generalized Zacks Model. Fort Leavenworth, KS: ArmyCombined Arms Combat Developments Activity, September 1977. 12p. See also AD-A026 218.

92

ABSTRACT: This paper generalizes the Zacks model for minefield crossings. Zacks computes in his model theprobability of the Nth vehicle crossing a minefield and also the distribution of the number of vehiclescrossing the field. Zacks' computations are made under the assumptions that all the vehicles are of thesame type and only one kind of mine is present in the field. This paper removes both these restrictions.

REPORT NUMBER: CACDA-TP-12-77ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A046 958

Isbell, Richard A. Evaluation of Remotely Operated Mine Detector. Army Concept Team inVietnam. October 1969. 10p.

ABSTRACT: The Army Concept Team in Vietnam evaluated the Remotely Operated Mine Detector to determinethe effectiveness, suitability and, if appropriate, a basis of issue. The evaluation started on 12 May 1969and continued through 21 July 1969. The four Remotely Operated Mine Detectors were used on minesweeping operations of main supply routes.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 861 954

Jacobs,P. A. A Model for the Defense of a Mine Field. Technical report. Monterey, CA: NavalPostgraduate School, December 1979. 18p.

ABSTRACT: This paper presents and analyzes a simple stochastic model for defense against an attacking force oftanks; the defense is made up of a mine field and a single defending tank. The approach of the paper makesuse of classical applied probability notions and techniques and explicit algebraic solutions are derived thatcan easily yield numerical results and hence interpretable insights into the value of various tactics.

REPORT NUMBER: NPS55-79-032ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A081 609

Jakosky, John J., Jr. and John J. Jakosky. Method and Means for Predicting Contents ofContainers. Patent. Washington, DC: Department of the Navy, March 1980. 8p.

ABSTRACT: A method for detecting and differentiating between containers of submerged junk and explosive-filled mines in demolition operations, comprising the steps of subjecting an unknown submerged containerunder surveillance to a gamma radiation source, traversing said submerged container with said sourcealong a standard diagnostic path, detecting the changes in intensity of the radiation penetrating thesubmerged container, and recording the variations of intensity of said radiation penetrating the submergedcontainer along said path to obtain a density signature of said submerged container.

REPORT NUMBER: PATENT 4,259,577

Janzon, B. International Workshop of Technical Experts on Ordnance Recovery andDisposal in the Framework of International Demining Operations. Held inStockholm, Sweden on June 8-10, 1994. Foersvarets Forskningsanstalt, Stockholm(Sweden). Dept. of Weapons and Protection, September 1994. 46p.

ABSTRACT: The Workshop was arranged by FOA, the National Defence Research Establishment of Sweden, as aresult of discussions with the United Nation's Under-Secretary General for Human Affairs, with the UNCoordinator for Demining Operations, and with the Government of Sweden. The purpose of this workshopwas to be a forum for the exchange of information, identification of problems and possible means ofsolving them, and specification of principle requirements on new systems and methods, within the generalareas of mine and other ordnance detection, recovery and disposal, particularly in connection withdemining operations.

ACCESSION NUMBER: PB95-222907

93

Jenkins, T. F., et al. Detection of Cyclohexanone in the Atmosphere Above EmplacedAntitank Mines . Special report. Hanover, NH: Cold Regions Research and EngineeringLaboratory, April 1974. 20p.

ABSTRACT: Atmospheric samples were taken at the soil surface above field-emplaced M-15 and M-19 antitankmines and military explosive Composition-B. These samples were analyzed to determine if trace chemicalsgenerated by the explosive material are detectable. Cyclohexanone was positively identified and isattributable to the explosive. Calculations were made, based on the amount of cyclohexanone found, toapproximate its flux rate through the surface.

REPORT NUMBER: CRREL-SR-203ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 778 741

Jessl, P. and W. Koeppel. Development of Environmental Support on Mine DetectionTechniques. Special report. no. 1, June-July 1983. Battelle-Inst. e.V., Frankfurt am Main(Germany, F.R.), July 1983. 17p.

ABSTRACT: Terrain factor maps have been established for the following data: land-use (basic information); croptype; crop/vegetation height; and crop/vegetation condition. A continuous flight line map at the scale1:2.500 (600' flight height) plus single overlays (M=1:500, 300' flight height) were prepared in detail. Asthe meteorological data and also interviews clearly indicate, 1982 had extremely dry summer conditions.Thus, all beef-raising crops (pastures, rape, etc.) and also truck crops yielded quite good crops. It wassometimes difficult to identify characteristic differences between beef-raising crops and meadows/pasturesbecause of the extremely poor crop conditions of these areas (which resulted in untypical colours andtextures).

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A132 761

Johnson, Charles N. and Dwight L. Gravitte. Microwave Radiometric Studies in Relation toMine Detection. Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Engineer Research and DevelopmentLaboratories, November 1966. 89p.

ABSTRACT: Field investigations over clay-type soils of the Fort Belvoir area indicated that microwaveradiometry is highly unsuitable for mine detection for the following reasons: (1) Numerous strong andhighly variable radiation signals from soils almost completely mask mine detection signals even under themost favorable summer conditions. (During moist soil and thermally neutral conditions which prevailduring much of the spring, fall, and winter, detection performance can be expected to deteriorate evenmore.) (2) Microwave radiation originates in upper 2 in. to 4 in. of soil of moderate moisture content (13 to20 percent) because of soil attenuation. When soil moisture approaches saturation conditions (30 to 40percent), emitted radiation is confined to surface. (3) Strong similarity exists between thermal responses ofmicrowave radiometer and typical infrared detector to mine signals. Infrared detector offers greaterpotential promise because of image-forming capability obtainable with high inherent resolution of infraredcompared to microwave frequencies.

REPORT NUMBER: AERDL-1875ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 646 730

Johnson, J.H., et al. Oxalate Ester Chemiluminescence, Improved Low TemperatureFormulations. Final technical report. July 1983-September 1984. China Lake, CA: NavalWeapons Center.

ABSTRACT: The objective of the program was to develop and test new chemiluminescent formulations whichwere usable at lower temperatures than the systems currently in use. The visibility requirements included a

94

minimum visual range of 10 meters for 30 minutes at -25 degrees F or lower. The oxalate ester-hydrogenperoxide chemiluminescent system was used. A series of new formulations were developed which offerreduced temperature sensitivity in a variety of colors. The formulations were tested at Ft. Greely, Alaska,where the program objectives were met and exceeded. (Mine clearance).

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A157 899

Johnson, John V., et al. Project Ostrich, A Feasibility Study: Detecting Buried Mines in DrySoils Using Synthetic Aperture Radar. Technical Report, September 1990-May 1993.Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Topographic Engineering Center, September 1993. 108p.

ABSTRACT: Metallic and nonmetallic mines were utilized to construct a mine field in arid soil at Twenty-ninePalms, California to assess the extent to which long-wavelength radar could be used to detect buried minesby remote sensing. Surface and subsurface mines were placed in accordance with known enemy doctrine,and the site was imaged with X_J C_ and L-band radar from a Navy P-3 aircraft. This report describes theconstruction and physical characteristics of the test sites, and presents and discusses the results of imageryanalysis.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A274 141

Kemp, Maryland D. Survey of Bioluminescence Research Pertinent to Explosives Detection.Technical report. June 1970-June 1975. Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Mobility EquipmentResearch and Development Command, November 1976. 66p.

ABSTRACT: Bioluminescence has been offered as a means of detection for mines. In this instance, luminousmicrobiological specimens when exposed to explosives vapors characteristic of mines would change lightlevels, sometimes increasing light intensity and sometimes decreasing light intensity. The amount of changerelated to the concentration of the vapors present. This report presents a literature review of aspects ofbioluminescence pertinent to explosives detection including the origins of the bioluminescent property, itsgeneration, growth, and the effects of environmental parameters such as temperature, pressure, pH, andprevious history. The structure of the bioluminescent species is discussed including the form contributoryto the bioluminescent phenomenon; spectroscopic and chemical observations are included. An appendixdetailing MERADCOM's efforts in bioluminescent detection is included which illustrates the sensitivity andspecificity of the specific micro-organisms developed for TNT vapor detection. The responses to variouschemicals both like and unlike TNT and ways and means of increasing the sensitivity and specificity werepart of the MERADCOM efforts. The cost of the MERADCOM effort from 1970 to 1974 included.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A047 275

Kieft, L.J., and D.L. Bowman. Sensitivity Evaluation of M15 and Analog Mines. Final report.October 1989-June 1990. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Ballistic ResearchLaboratory, September 1990. 27p.

ABSTRACT: This study analyzes the explosive destruction or deactivation of land mines. Computer modeling wasused extensively to calculate and predict mine initiation. In order to facilitate comparisons betweenmodeling predictions and experimental data, mine analogs were made. These analogs were intended torepresent actual mines in their sensitivity to initiation by explosive countermeasures. In reality, the analogmines were found to be somewhat more sensitive than had been predicted by computer modeling, and thusmight not accurately represent the M15 mine. To determine the reasons for this discrepancy in sensitivity,four analog mines and one M15 mine were sawed open and their contents analyzed. It was found that thereare definite physical differences between the analog mines and the M15 which could account for thissensitivity difference. The differences are metal thickness, void structure, interfacial voids, and variationsexcept void structure were in the direction of causing an increase in sensitivity of the analog mines ascompared with that of the M15 mine.

95

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A226 489

Kimmitt, M.T. Rethinking FASCAM (Family of Scatterable Mines) Principles for the Use ofArtillery Delivered Mines . Fort Leavenworth, KS: Army Command and General StaffCollege, School of Advanced Military Studies, 18 November 1988. 65p.

ABSTRACT: This monograph addresses existing shortcomings in the principles for employment of scatterableand remotely delivered mines. Such mines, part of an overall revolution in the conduct of land minewarfare, are an integral component of the deep, close and rear battlefields. Yet, the doctrine and principlesof these mines has not kept pace with the advances in land mine technology. One area in which this isabundantly clear is in the use of Field Artillery weapon systems to deliver scatterable mines. While theField Artillery has made great advances in the development and integration of such systems as precisionguided munitions and advanced artillery data technology, the RAAM (Remote Anti-Armor Mine) andADAM (Area Denial Artillery Munition) systems lack adequate doctrine and principles to fully exploit theirpotential on the battlefield. In schoolhouse exercises, and FTX's worldwide, the lack of such doctrine isreflected in ad hoc, highly personal approaches to FASCAM (Family of Scatterable Mines) employment.While the lack of any wartime testing of these systems precludes definitive doctrine on the subject, mostoften these systems are employed without fully understanding their potential or shortcomings. The authorargues for the development of thorough and consistent doctrine for the use of artillery scatterable mines.As one component in a 'Triad' of delivery systems, the artillery may be the most responsive and flexible legof that triad, but it is also the most vulnerable.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A210 973

King, A.B. External Configuration of an Air Droppable Land Mine . El Segundo, CA:Douglas Aircraft, Co., January 1953.

ABSTRACT: None available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 129 981

King, A.B. and L.E. Sattler. Wind Tunnel Tests on an Air Droppable Land Mine. ElSegundo, CA: Douglas Aircraft, Co., January 1953.

ABSTRACT: None available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 129 982

Korjack, T.A. Two-Dimensional Finite Difference Time Domain (FD-TD) Model ofElectromagnetic (EM) Scattering From a Buried Rectangular Object. Final report.June 1993-June 1994. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory,February 1995. 36p.

ABSTRACT: A two-dimensional transverse-magnetic (TM) electromagnetic (EM) scattering problem from burieddielectric objects due to a Gaussian pulse is numerically solved using the Finite Difference Time Domain(FD-TD) method with absorbing boundary conditions via Maxwell's equations. The scatterers arerectangular cross sections in a multilayer media; the Gaussian pulse is reflected into a lossy earth by afinite, 450 plate that is part of the detector that receives the EM signal. Spatial distributions of electric fieldcomponents are calculated over time for single and multiple land scatterers (mines). The scattered fieldsgradually diminish with time and are then eventually dissipated. Carpet plots are illustrated to depict thespatial distributions of the scattered field component at comparative time steps for one, two, and threedistinct scatterers or land mines within the lossy media. Results clearly illustrate the typical wave patternsexpected under the simulated conditions as presented in this report - i.e., conductivity (s) for the air is 0,conductivity for the earth is 0.01, conductivity for the grass is 0.005, and conductivity for the mines are 0,0.02, and 0.008; permeability values ranged from 1 for air, 9 for earth, 5.5 for grass, and 2.3, 5.6, and

96

23.0 for the mines, respectively. Numerical analysis indicates that the difference of scattered signalsbetween single and multiple scatterers are considerably obvious from the point of view of both time domainand frequency domain. (AN).

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A293 685

Kovel, Steven, and John Brand. Research Support for the Depth and Simultaneous AttackBattle Laboratory. Final report. January-December 1994. Adelphi, MD: Army ResearchLaboratory, January 1995. 68p.

ABSTRACT: We performed an assessment of the 6.1/6.2 sensor technology programs that support four of theoperational capability requirements (OCRs) related to real-time targeting, formulated by the Depth andSimultaneous Attack Battle Lab. The assessment focused on (1) how the research programs support theOCRs and (2) which research programs are required to support each OCR. Four programs were found tohave the greatest potential for supporting the OCRs: Automatic Target Detection-Recognition-Identification, Radar Sensor and Signature Research, Smart Mines Sensor System, and Ultra-WidebandFoliage-Penetrating Synthetic Aperture Radar. These programs were selected based on the informationgenerated by these sensor technologies. In addition, we identified the need for realistic war gamesimulations that incorporate these sensor program concepts, in order to quantitatively evaluate theconcepts. In assessing the support required by the OCRs, we found that automatic target recognition wasleast mature link, and we recommend that the greatest effort be in developing this technology. Finally, wefound that the battlefield damage assessment OCR requires a clearer definition before a technologyassessment can be performed.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A289 874

Lastnik, Abraham L. A History of the Development of an Armor Ensemble for MineClearance Personnel. Technical report. Army Natick Laboratories, MA: Clothing andPersonal Life Laboratory, October 1970. 40p.

ABSTRACT: Mine clearance teams have always tried to adapt available armor clothing to their operations withvarying degrees of success. The report is concerned with the history of the development of a full bodycoverage armor for mine clearance personnel to satisfy military requirements. Discussions are concernedwith the hazards of mine clearance vulnerable body areas, operational concepts, design, protectivecharacteristics and fabrication of the ensemble, and its evaluation. A summary of recent armor materialdevelopments and typical applications is included. These materials may be applied to any future conceptsfor full body armor.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 729 353

Lawson, A. and Yuji Morita. A Characterization of West German Terrain and Land Use inConnection with Minefield Detection. Ann Arbor, MI: Environmental ResearchInstitute of Michigan, Radar and Optics Division, August 1980. 49p.

ABSTRACT: This report is intended to provide an overview of terrain and land use features in West Germanywith the intent of generally delineating and characterizing in a gross sense areas which logically could beused for the emplacement of anti-vehicular minefields. The primary invasion routes from the east, theNorthern German Plain, the Fulda Gap and the Hof-Nurnberg Corridor, are described and typical tank-trafficable areas suitable for minefield employment are selected. These typical areas are analyzed in termsof land use, vegetation, and surface geometry. This analysis is particularly oriented to the development ofparameters useful in determining the detectability of minefields by remote sensor systems.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A092 681

97

Lehowicz, L.G., et al. Analysis of Scatterable Mine Doctrine. Study project. Carlisle Barracks,PA: Army War College, 2 June 1983. 73p.

ABSTRACT: This study summarizes the capabilities, strengths, and limitations of scatterable mine systems;analyzes the doctrine concerning scatterable mine battlefield employment, command, and control;establishes some proposed guidelines for the employment of scatterable mines in support of a main battlearea defense against a Soviet/Warsaw Pact attack into Western Europe; and provides some broadconclusions on the integration of scatterable mines onto the modern battlefield. Scatterable mines offer theArmy and Air Force a powerful means to counter the battlefield mobility of any potential armored ormechanized enemy. However, the maneuver doctrine described in the Airland Battle concept reinforces therequirement to preserve the full freedom of movement for friendly forces. A balance must be struck betweenthese two competing demands. That balance can be attained by viewing scatterable mines as severaldistinct munitions, which are emplaced by different delivery systems and have unique strengths andweakness.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A131 659

Lester, Craig. Protection of Light Skinned Vehicles Against Landmines - A Review.Canberra, Australia: Defence Science and Technology Organisation, June 1997. 33p.

ABSTRACT: The Australian Army currently fields Landrover vehicles, Unimog troop transports and Mack trucksthat do not include any form of armour protection, known generically as Class B' vehicles. This documentis a review and summary of the state-of-the-art in protection of this family of vehicles against the threatfrom landmines. The approach taken has been to focus on the experience of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) andSouth Africa, primarily during the Rhodesian Bush War of 1972-80. This has the advantages of extensivecombat data, it is from a scenario similar to that which the Australian Army could experience during shortwarning conflict or UN missions, and vehicles common with the Australian fleet (Landrover, Unimog) wereemployed. Limited data is drawn from other sources where appropriate. depending on the degree ofprotection pursued. Body modification whereby a mine resistant hull is added to the chassis of existingvehicles. Though the cost of this measure is moderate for the level of protection attainable, someinvestment and plaruting would be necessary prior to field deployment. Monocoque construction in whicha chassis-less mine resistant body is used to maximise blast dissipation and deflection - high to very highlevel protection is attainable. High volume production runs are necessary to offset manufacturingequipment costs if the monocoque is based on composite materials.

REPORT NUMBER: DSTO-TR-0310ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A329 952

Lindsey, G.R. Battlefield of the 1990s. Memorandum report. Ottawa (Ontario): OperationalResearch and Analysis Establishment, December 1982. 19p.

ABSTRACT: While the new weapons likely to appear on the battlefields of the 1990s will add formidablecapabilities, some will be offset by direct countermeasures and others by the effects of properly integratedcombined arms tactics. There will be important improvements to ground-based air defence weapons, toair-to-ground weapons, to anti-tank guided missiles, to land mines, and to anti-personnel weapons.Dominant features of the 1990s will be electronic warfare, fast movement, and the rapid expenditure ofammunition.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A126 587

Lunardini, Virgil. Mine/Countermine Problems During Winter Warfare . Final report.Hanover, NH: cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, September 1981. 53p.

ABSTRACT: The possibility of modern warfare being waged under cold weather conditions has raised questionsabout the effectiveness of conventional and new mine systems during the winter. A workshop on

98

mine/countermine winter warfare was held at the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and EngineeringLaboratory, 21-23 October 1980, to define problems related to cold climates. The designer, developer anduser communities sent 22 representatives from 16 organizations outside of CRREL. Discussion papers wereprepared by four groups, covering emplacement of mines, mine performance, detection of mines, andneutralization of mines. The emphasis was on the unique problems of the winter environment. It appearsthat the U.S. has the capability to conduct defensive warfare during the summer but is not adequatelyprepared for mine/countermine winter warfare. Test and research programs are called for to compensatefor the prior lack of consideration of the winter environment, to adequately winterize newmine/countermine systems, and to formulate appropriate doctrine for defensive winter warfare.

REPORT NUMBER: CRREL-SR-81-20ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A107 047

Maes, Reed. Test Array Number 1 for Mine Detection Experiments. Technical report. AnnArbor, MI: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, January 1980. 89p.

ABSTRACT: To provide for the conduct of remote mine detection tests, a test array was established on a twenty-acre site in Washtenaw County, MI approximately one mile west of Ann Arbor Airport. The topography,soil, and vegetation of the site is representative of the North German Plain. The total area, roughly 200 mby 400 m, was divided into 16 rectangular areas or elements, each 50 m by 100 m in size. Each of theelements was used for installation of dummy mines, either surface or buried, in specific configurations, forthe location of various ancillary military items, as an undisturbed control area, or for the location ofspecial instrumentation or calibration units. Configurations of each element are documented, and data arepresented on test site vegetation, soil conditions, and soil moisture content, also on meteorologicalconditions during periods when overflights were made for mine detection tests of various sensors.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A086 142

Magner, George J. Detection and Avoidance of Mines and Boobytraps in South Vietnam.Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Organization, June 1968. 87p.

ABSTRACT: None available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A951 572

Mahoney, Daniel P., III. Goalie Without a Mask? The Effect of the Anti-Personnel LandMine Ban on US Army Countermobility Operations. Fort Leavenworth, KS: ArmyCommand and General Staff College, School of Advanced Military Studies, December1996. 57p.

ABSTRACT: This monograph examines whether the United States’ unilateral ban on conventional anti-personnel mines will significantly impair the effectiveness of US Army countermobility operation. Landmines and mine warfare play critical roles in US countermobility doctrine, and the loss of one entirecategory of mines could constrain the Army's ability to successfully perform countermobility missions. Theprospect of such failure is alarming since successful mine warfare has often been the difference betweenlife and death for hard pressed defenders. This monograph attempts to anticipate both the nature andseverity of such consequences. The monograph begins by exploring the origins and nature of the anti-personnel mine ban. It does this by tracing the history of mines and mine warfare, and the global problemsthat this history has created. Next, the paper covers the current US inventory of anti-personnel mines todetermine which mines (and capabilities) the ban eliminates. The monograph then examines the tasks thatland mines serve under countermobility doctrine. This section is particularly important since it introducesthe concepts that the paper later uses in the analysis. The monograph completes its fact gathering focuswith a treatment of the countermine measures available to modem armies. Once the background knowledgeset is complete, the monograph turns to analyzing the ban’s effects. The monograph's analysis portionbegins with a brief discussion of the Second Battle of El Alamein. The monograph uses this action as its

99

historical laboratory because land mines played a central role in the battle, but very few of the mines (onlythree percent) were of the anti-personnel variety. For this (and other) reasons therefore, Alameinapproximates battle under the ban.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A324323

Maxey, Jeffery L. et al. Investigations of the Human Factors Involved in Mine Detection inVarying Operational Environments. Technical report. Alexandria, VA: HumanResources Organization, August 1974. 102p.

ABSTRACT: The report summarizes findings from the four research tasks comprising Project IDENTIFY for FY74. During FY 73 research into the identification of the individual differences involved in mine detectionproduced a body of human factors data relevant to the mine detection problem. A major purpose of the FY74 research was to continue gathering and analyzing human factors data in the area of unaided minedetection. This research was designed not only to gather additional human factors data for an unpopulatedfield environment, but also to gather it for a built-up area environment. In addition, it was designed toidentify the human factors involved in vehicular operations, both along an established road and in a cross-country setting.

REPORT NUMBER: HumRRO-TR-74-18ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 784 201

Maxey, Jeffery L.and George J. Magner. A Study of Factors Affecting Mine and BoobytrapDetection: Subject Variables and Operational Considerations. Alexandria, VA:Human Resources Research Organization, June 1973. 54p.

ABSTRACT: Antipersonnel weapons, Military tactics, Detection, Performance (Human), Military training, Dogs,Methodology Tests were administered to and interviews conducted with military personnel identified asexpert mine and boobytrap detectors, in exploratory research designed to develop methodology foridentifying the characteristics of and describing the techniques used by such personnel. Only two of thepsychological, ability, aptitude, and interest variables studied were significantly related to rated expertisein detection, so these variables may not play an important role in detection performance. None of thebackground information variables had any apparent relationship to expertise. Identifying highly proficientdetectors on the basis of non-experiential variables is not likely to be successful, but it may be possible toidentify these individuals on the basis of experience-oriented data.

REPORT NUMBER: HumRRO-TR-73-12ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 769 635

McIntosh, A.C., Jr. MIL-STD-1660 Test of XM87 and XM8 Volcano Mine Pallet. Savanna,IL: Army Defense Ammunition Center and School, Evaluation Div., March 1987. 20p.

ABSTRACT: The U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center and School (USADACS), Evaluation Division(SMCAC-DEV, has been tasked by the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and EngineeringCenter (SMCAR-AEP), Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, to design, fabricated, and test a metal pallet for the PA113Volcano Mine Cannister. This engineering report contains the results of the MIL-STD-1660 pallet testingsequence of the palletized PA113 Volcano Mine Cannister. As a result of these tests, recommendations tostrengthen the pallet and modify the PA113 bundling procedure evolved.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A207 182

Mei, K.K. Electromagnetic Wave Scattering by Partially-Buried Metallic and DielectricObjects. Final report. Berkeley, CA: California University, Berkeley, ElectronicsResearch Laboratory, March 1984. 20p.

100

ABSTRACT: The objective of this research is to study the feasibility of computing electromagnetic wavescattering by objects which are buried or partially buried in a lossy ground. The datas obtained throughcomputer solutions of the related Maxwell's Equations can be applied to detection of plastic land mines,tunnels and natural resources. The method used in this investigation is based on the Unimoment method, aunique hybrid of analytical and numerical methods. The extension of the method to include lossy groundhalf-space was made possible by the development of special eigenfunctions which include the continuity ofthe air-ground interface. Results were obtained for scattering by buried body of revolution, buried body ofrevolution with arbitrary orientation and two-body scattering.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A140 109

Mei, K.K., and T.M. Kvam. Numerical Parametric Study of Electromagnetic WaveScattering by Buried Dielectric Land Mines. Final report. Berkeley, CA: GeoElectromagnetics, Inc., 1983. 95p.

ABSTRACT: The unimoment method is applied to solve the electromagnetic scattering by a buried dielectric finitecylinder simulating a land mine. Computed results are reported at frequencies from 400 MHz to 1400 MHzat 100 MHz intervals. The dielectric constants of the ground are considered to be dispersive whichsimulates soil with 5%, 10% and 20% water content. Results are computed for the scattered electric andmagnetic fields which are presented in terms of the cylindrical components of E and noH at a distance of 1in. to 4 in. above the ground at 1 in. intervals. The numerical results are computed along the positive x-axisfor each azimuthal mode. The fields at points on the positive x-axis may be obtained by summing the modalfields directly. Fields at points other than the positive x-axis may be obtained by summing the modal fieldsmultiplied by the proper azimuthal function. Sample results are given in the report and the complete dataare stored on magnetic tape. This report include documentation for the tapes.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A124 980

Mei, K. K., W.C. Kuo and S. K. Chang. Scattering by Buried Obstacles. Final report. 20 April1971-31 July 1974. Berkeley, CA: California University, Berkeley Electronics ResearchLaboratory, November 1974. 119p.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this investigation is to find theoretical solutions to scattering of electromagneticfields by buried obstacles. The first part of the investigation is primarily concerned with the sourceproblem of the scattering phenomena. It enables us to find the near fields of an antenna above a lossyground and the near fields penetration into the ground, which are the primary fields to be scattered by theobstacles. In order to study that problem the Sommerfeld's integrals are extensively studied. The secondpart of the investigation involves some practical application of the results of the first part which have directbearing on the 'detectability' of buried obstacles. The third part of the investigation contains thepreliminary work of scattering by buried dielectric obstacles. Since the final objective of this research isthe detection of buried dielectric bodies, the technique of computing dielectric scattering is of primaryimportance. The application of the 'Uni-moment method' to 2-dimensional scattering problems ispresented.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A005 237

Messinger, Martin. Mixed Minefield Modeling . Dover, NJ: Picatinny Arsenal, 1973. 17p. [Thisarticle is from ‘Proceedings of the Annual U.S. Army Operations Research Symposium(12th), 2-5 October 1973. Volume I,’ AD-A125 989.]

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this section is to present a model for analyzing the effectiveness of mine clearingplows mounted in front of the tracks of a tank in a AM minefield. The plow's function is to sweep AM minesaway from the path of the tank's tracks thereby preventing a track - AM mine contact, thus increasing thetank's survivability. The minefield to be considered consists of a mixture of AM munitions with three

101

different types of fuzes; anti-handling (AH), pressure (PR), long impulse (LI). AH munitions will almostcertainly be detonated upon contact with the plow whereas PR and LI munitions will usually be pushedaside without detonation. A major purpose of employing AH munitions in the minefield is tocountermeasure plows.

Metz, C.D., et al. Recent Developments in Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicles. San Diego,CA: Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division, June1993. 9p. [In Proceedings AUVS-92, 19th Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition,22 June 1992.]

ABSTRACT: Unmanned ground vehicles have long been envisioned in battlefield support roles involvingreconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisitions and NBC and mine detection. Appropriate utilization ofrobotic vehicles for these tasks can be an effective force multiplier and an enhancement to soldiersurvivability. Over the past six years there has been substantial progress in the development of prototypeunmanned ground vehicles for use by the Army and the Marine Corps. This paper looks at several versionsof tactical unmanned ground vehicles and discusses technical issues with respect to remote platforms,mission modules and control units.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A266 171

Mine Detectors. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Test and Evaluation Command, July1971. 19p.

ABSTRACT: Methods and techniques are described for evaluating the performance and characteristics of mine

detectors, and for determining their suitability for service use by the U. S. Army.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 729 633

Minefield Clearance. Washington, DC: Reed Research, Inc., June 1953.ABSTRACT: Discussions are presented of the following methods for emplacing charges for clearing mine fields:

(1) propulsion from 10 guns or throwing devices: (2) propulsion from a single throwing device; (3) verticalemplacement of individual charges from a projecting boom; (4) vertical emplacement from a reciprocatingbeam; (5) positive transverse spacing of charges; (6) charges mechanically positioned and held duringdetonation; and (7) simulataneous detonation of a blanket of physically connected charges. The evaluationof the methods is to include the consideration of accuracy and speed of emplacement, vulnerability to mineexplosion and enemy fire, reliability simplicity, and time required for reloading. (See also AD- 012 601)

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 015 577

Mines and Demolitions. Final report. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Test andEvaluation Command, 29 April 1983. 24p. [Supersedes report dated 22 April 74,AD-A031 850.]

ABSTRACT: Provides tests for evaluating the performance characteristics of mines and demolitions. Describessafety evaluation, supplementary environmental and shock tests, and tests for weathering, fuze functioning,mine/fuze compatibility, effectiveness, bullet impact, blast sensitivity, sympathetic detonation, andparachute delivery. Discusses reliability, human factors and maintenance evaluations. Describesequipment and technique for determining burst height of bounding mines. Tabulates mine types andapplications and physical characteristics of explosives. Not applicable to chemical mines.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A127 777

102

Mitchell, Daniel S. Selection of Dogs for Land Mine and Booby Trap Detection Training.Volume I. Final technical report. San Antonio, TX: Southwest Research Institute,September 1976. 61p. [see also volume 2, AD-A031 981]

ABSTRACT: It is imperative that all dogs considered for enrollment in a land mine/booby trap detection trainingprogram be submitted to a thorough screening process prior to acceptance. Only those animals which meetthe criteria herein specified are selected for formal training. Numerous physical and behavioraldimensions must be weighed during the course of selection, and, unfortunately, many aspects of thedecision-making process remain largely subjective in nature.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A031 980

Mitchell, Daniel S. Training and Employment of Land Mine and Booby Trap DetectorDogs. Volume II. Final technical report. San Antonio, TX: Southwest Research Institute,September 1976. 247p. [see also volume 3, AD-A031 982]

ABSTRACT: The present document is intended as a procedures manual and reference text to be used during thetraining of initially naive canines for land mine and booby trap detection service. No directly relatedexperience on the part of the handler/trainer personnel is assumed. Each successive phase of training istreated in detail, and all specialized training aids and facilities are described and/or illustrated. Commonlyencountered training difficulties are discussed and appropriate solutions indicated. Techniques of servicedeployment are described in the concluding chapter. Chapter II presents a discussion of those concepts ofoperant and classical conditioning which are relevant to land mine and explosive booby trap detectiontraining and has been included to provide handler/trainer personnel with a basic knowledge of theunderlying behavioral principles.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A031 981

Mitchell, Daniel S. User's Guide: Land Mine and Booby Trap Detector Dogs. Volume III.Final technical report. San Antonio, TX: Southwest Research Institute, September 1976.61p. [see also volume 1, AD-A031 980]

ABSTRACT: While the capabilities of land mine/booby trap canines have been well documented, several years ofcarefully-controlled studies have shown that the successful utilization of such animals requires aknowledgeable, dedicated handler with proper training and experience. This manual is intended as a fieldguide for use by personnel who meet these qualifications. Its purpose is to provide a 'field-portable'summary of the important procedures and considerations involved in the deployment of land mine/boobytrap detector dogs.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A031 982

Moler, Robert B. Nuclear and Atomic Methods of Mine Detection. Technical report. FortBelvoir, VA: Army Belvoir Research Development and Engineering Center, 1 November1991. 40p.

ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the results of a project to provide technical review and analysis,developmental assessments, and studies of current and new technology applicable to the detection oflandmines using nuclear and atomic techniques. Additionally, technical support for new researchinitiatives was provided in the form of independent analytical studies that sought to verify expectations andpredictions for a range of techniques, including neutron capture, gamma ray induced reactions on nitrogen(an important element in military explosives), neutron elastic and inelastic scatter, gamma ray nuclearresonance scattering on nitrogen, x-ray backscatter imaging, dual energy x-ray Compton scattering, andnuclear magnetic resonance. For relatively mature technologies such as x-ray backscatter imaging,thermal neutron capture, and the reaction of nitrogen with 13.6 MeV gamma-rays, plans for laboratory

103

testing were reviewed and plans for field tests were developed. The project had its principal focus on x-raybackscatter imaging, particularly the optimization of the technique, the development of appropriate x raysources capable of scanning a 3 meter wide search path, and the development of detectors and collimatorscapable of withstanding the field environment. A unique type of x ray generator was proposed that couldmeet the scan rate requirements. It consisted of a single 3 m long cylindrical anode with 150 gridcontrolled cathodes. The technical specification of this tube were developed. A laboratory demonstration ofthe feasibility of this concept was carried out by an associate contractor.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A243 332

______. Workshop Report: Nuclear Techniques for Mine Detection Research, July 22-25,1985, Lake Luzerne, New York. Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Belvoir Research andDevelopment Center, July 1985. 74p.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this workshop was to investigate the use of ionizing radiation techniques fordetecting land mines and, in particular, to identify technological advancements that would alter theassessment of the prior workshop held on March 1973. Although emphasis was placed on application ofdeveloped or emerging technology to the problem of the detection of buried land mines, detection ofconcealed explosives in the context of security was also considered. Automatic detection of explosives inluggage and hand-carried items received the greatest attention. Lesser attention was given to detectingexplosives concealed within a building's structure. Three particular explosives detection scenarios wereconsidered, and the requirements for each were explicitly discussed by panel members. The first of these,the detection of buried, nonmetallic, anti-vehicular mines, was the area of greatest concern and was giventhe greatest emphasis by the panel. The other two, detection of anti-personnel mines and detection ofexplosives in luggage and packages, were considered in less detail.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A167 968

Morgan, M.A. Scattering of Radar Waves by Mine Fields. Final report. Berkeley, CA: GeoElectromagnetics, Inc., 1980. 65p.

ABSTRACT: Radar scattering by an array of surface land mines is studied. The array is considered to be arandom perturbation of a uniform array. The analytical evaluation of the expectation is performed for thisproblem under specified, but realistic, assumptions. The analytic expression for the expectation containscoherent and incoherent array factors, each of which are summations of terms that are weighted by theeffect of the antenna pattern. By curve fitting the antenna gain pattern with exponential functions inelevation and azimuth the resultant series are summable. The resultant expression for normalized signal toclutter ratio displays the coherent contributions from the radar system parameters (such as, beamwidths,frequencies, depression angle and pulse width) in conjunction with the randomness of mine placement andthe clutter distribution.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A129 693

Morita, Allen M. Land Mine Detection System. Final report. 1 April 1972-15 February 1973.Redondo Beach, CA: TRW Systems Group, February 1973. 82p.

ABSTRACT: The objective of this contract was to determine the feasibility of using acoustic waves for thedetection of metallic and nonmetallic land mines. It was found that a 3 KHz pulse burst could detect all ofthe simulated mines at burial depths exceeding 12 inches. The mine reflected signals exhibited a signaturesignificantly different from those obtained with no mine present and with small soil inhomogeneitiespresent. Rock reflected signals generally exhibited irregular axes of reflection. Mine reflected acousticsignals can be detected and imaged from both nonmetallic and metallic mines at the burial depths mostlikely occurring in a field situation.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- A908 713

104

Morita, Y., et al. Identification and Screening of Remote Mine Detection Techniques.Technical report. Ann Arbor, MI: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, June1979. 103p.

ABSTRACT: This report documents the technical effort and results achieved for the task of identification andscreening of promising remote sensing systems and other methods of detecting and identifying mines,minefields, minelaying equipment or minelaying operations and recommends continuing effort on the mostpromising methods. Systems considered under this task include systems presently in use, systems on whichresearch and development is currently being conducted, and systems with potential for future development.Emphasis in the study was placed on detecting surface-laid minefields in the European theater with shortdetection reaction times. Continued effort is recommended on aerial photography, with particular attentionpaid to rapid processing and delivery of imagery to the local commander. Field tests of the Spotlight radar,being conducted under another task of this project, may give quantitative information of its mine detectioncapability, on the basis of which further effort on this type of radar can be planned. Of the electro-opticalscanners, the active scanner most nearly approaches a 24-hour data collection capability, withmultispectral scanners and passive infrared scanners having more restricted capability.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A086 944

Morita, Yuji and Henry McKenney. An Assessment of Technical Factors Influencing thePotential Use of RPVs for Minefield Detection. Ann Arbor, MI: EnvironmentalResearch Institute of Michigan, Radar and Optics Division, July 1980. 65p

ABSTRACT: An assessment is made of the use of television and FLIR sensors carried on RPVs as remoteminefield detection systems, based on four major scenarios for Soviet mine warfare operations involvingthe use of TM-46 metallic and PM-60 plastic anti-vehicular mines. The RPV system minefield detectioncapability, response time and search rate are functions of the sensor resolution, field of view and sensitivitycapabilities; the obscuration due to vegetation, atmospheric attenuation, terrain and weather; the radiancecontrast existing between mines and background; the airborne platform characteristics; data linkcharacteristics; the man/machine interface; and command, control and communication systemcharacteristics. These factors are considered in this study to initially define the minefield detectioncapability of currently planned RPVs, to indicate areas where additional data is needed to provide a betterdefinition of RPV minefield detection capabilities and to indicate parameters for an improved nextgeneration sensor system.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A092 682

Morris, Bruce L. Evaluation of Nonexpendable Mine Clearing Roller Wheels Under BlastAttack . Final report. October 1970-January 1971. Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Mobilityequipment Research and Development Center, April 1971. 64p.

ABSTRACT: The project experimentally evaluated configurations and materials for mine clearing roller wheelsrequired to withstand the effects of three detonations of 30 pounds of explosives each. The tests wereconducted using one-fourth geometric scale-model wheels and suitably scaled explosive charges. 4340, T-1, HY-100, and 4330 steels were tested in a flat-rimmed and two curved-rim wheel configurations, and theimpulse imparted to these wheels was experimentally determined.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 728 158

Needham, Charles E. and Joseph E. Crepeau. Calculational Investigation for Mine-ClearanceExperiments. Final report. Albuquerque, NM: Systems Science and Software, Inc.,August 1981. 70p.

ABSTRACT: The detonation of military line charges is being considered as a means to clear battlefields ofimplanted pressure-sensitive antitank mines. Such charges have an undesirable characteristic, however, in

105

that, for distances less than about 1 m from the line charge, phase duration of the positive overpressure istoo short to detonate the mines. This region in which mine clearance may not occur is called the skipzone.... Line-Charge Effects, Mine Clearance, Skip Zone, Airblast, Hydrodynamic Computer Calculations,High Explosive Experiments, Line Charge Experiments, Line-Charge Calculations, and ChargeConfiguration Improvement.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A259 255

Nelson, John D. Clearing the Paths to Peace: Humanitarian Demining in Peace Operations.Fort Leavenworth, KS: Army Command and General Staff College, School of AdvancedMilitary Studies, December 1996. 60p.

ABSTRACT: This monograph discusses the necessity for conducting humanitarian demining during the initialstages of a peace operation in a region contaminated with landmines. The removal of landmines will be anessential task as part of a peace operation in order to return a region to peace and stability. Thismonograph explores how landmines affect all aspects life within a region and demonstrates that for apeace operation to be successful removal of mines must be planned for early. The monograph firstexamines the nature of the mine threat in regions that have emerged from conflict, and how the landminehas affected the economic life, repatriation of refugees, protection of humanitarian aid, and protection ofpeace forces. Next, the doctrine of peace operations was examined in light of this landmine threat. Fromthis an essential task early in peace operations was determined to be demining. Next, landmine removalpolicy and doctrine, for the U.S. military, and U.S. Army specifically, was examined. A possible deminingdoctrine for U.S. Forces was proposed as a result of this examination. The role of Non-GovernmentalOrganizations (NGOs) and Private Volunteer Organizations (PVOs) involved in demining was explored.Finally, a case study was examined from Somalia. The criteria that was used to examine the case was thatdeveloped in the previous sections. Somalia demonstrated that peace operations, conducted in a regioncontaminated with landmines, will have to remove landmines as an essential task to ensure the success inthe early stages.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A324396

Nelson, John D. Ending the Legacy of War: Long-Term Solutions to HumanitarianDemining in Peace Operations. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Army Command and GeneralStaff College, School of Advanced Military Studies, May 1997. 57p.

ABSTRACT: This monograph discusses the importance of planning for long-term demining in the early stages ofa peace operation. Planning and coordinating for the long-term demining of a nation emerging fromconflict will be critical to the success of the rebirth of that society economically, politically, socially, andpsychologically. Unless there is a long-term self-sustaining solution to deal with the legacy of war, thelandmine, all efforts involved with redevelopment may be wasted. The monograph explores how landminespresent a complex multi-faceted problem to the nation emerging from conflict. The landmine will effect theredevelopment of the nation economically. This will be especially true for nations that have agrarian basedeconomies. The landmine will affect the psychosocial healing of a nation, meaning that for a nation to healitself psychologically from war the threat to personal security must be removed. As long as landminesremain under the lands of a nation rebuilding a shattered society cannot fully take place. United States andUnited Nations policy concerning humanitarian demining was examined. The United States to provideassistance to nations involved in demining their nations. The nation must be willing to help itself and mustaccept United States assistance. The United Nations policy regarding humanitarian demining has been toinclude this as a task in the mandate of the peacekeeping forces. However, the United Nations does nothave policy in place to ensure the success of long-term demining. The requirements to secure internationalresources, both financial and technical was developed. Many International Organizations will be involvedin raising capital to demine a nation, to include the World Bank.

106

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A331 393

Nikolaidis, Dimitrios. Detection of Mines Using Hyperspectral Analysis. Master’s thesis.Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, June 1996. 63p.

ABSTRACT: This study focuses on the development of computer algorithms that can be used for automatic minedetection using hyperspectral imagery. These algorithms perform a pixel-by-pixel comparison of the scenespectra with the spectrum of a mine. The goal is to assign to every pixel a scale factor which gives therelative probability of finding a mine. Algorithms were tested on simulated data taken from the NPS MiddleUltraviolet Spectrograph (MUSTANG). Three computer methods are tested and relative results werecompared. This analysis suggests that the potential exists to use these methods in military applications. Theability to identify features in an image based solely on their spectral signature provides a new dimension toimagery interpretation.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A311 744

Nolan, R. V. and D.L. Gravitte. Mine-Detecting Canines. Summary report. 1975-1976. FortBelvoir, VA: Army Mobility equipment Research and Development Command,September 1977. 83p.

ABSTRACT: This report describes the rationale, protocol, and results of a series of four field tests designed todetermine the merits of canines as mine/booby-trap/explosives detection systems. The report begins with adiscussion of the factors which led to selection of the dog as the optimum choice for detection service. Thisis followed by discussion of factors pertinent to an understanding of the results; i.e., the use of the full-reinforcement and partial-reinforcement operant conditioning regimens used to train the animals; theanticipated tactical operational environments and the choice of test site analogs to these areas; the natureof the test lanes and of the test protocol. Results are presented in several formats so that every significantfinding will be evident to the reader. The report concludes with the general statement that, based upon themost objective test and data analysis possible at this time, canines are the most effective and versatilemine/booby-trap/explosives detection systems available for immediate use in either military or civilianapplications.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A048 748

Novikov, M. Clearing Mines in Algeria. Washington, DC: Army Foreign Science andTechnology Center, July 1965. 6p. Translation from SMENA, SSSR, No. 4, pp. 1-3,1965.

ABSTRACT: None available.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 469 167

Offenberg, Jerome William. Marginal Oscillator for a Modified Free PrecessionMagnetometer. Master’s thesis. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, June 1969.41p.

ABSTRACT: The primary interest concerns the use of a magnetometer for mine detection, anti-submarinewarfare, salvaging and other related naval operations. The original concept of a modified free precessionmagnetometer using the Overhauser Effect was formulated by A. Abragam. The objective of this thesis wasto develop an improved marginal oscillator for the magnetometer.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 705 083

Olness, D.U., and A.S. Warshawsky. Representation of the MON-50 Antipersonnel Mine forApplication in SEES. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA, August 1992. 6p.

107

ABSTRACT: The Security Exercise Evaluation Simulation (SEES) was used to study an ambush of a traincarrying soldiers. An integral part of the analysis required that directional, antipersonnel mines (similar toClaymore mines) be included in the scenario. SEES does not have a capability to model the effects of sucha weapon explicitly. It was possible, however, to approximate the effect of the mines, albeit crudely, in away that was judged adequate for the specific study at hand. This report describes that approximation.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLID111813ACCESSION NUMBER: DE93-007397

Pieper, G.F., A.A. Evett, and A. Patterson, Jr. An Electromagnetic System for Mine Detection.New Haven, CT: Yale University, Laboratory of Marine Physics, January 1955.

ABSTRACT: None available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 063 622

Performance Oriented Packaging (POP) Testing and Packaging for Ground EmplacedMines (i.e. M74, M75 and M79 Mines). Final report. Dover, NJ: Army ArmamentResearch, Development and Engineering Center, 24 March 1994. 6p.

ABSTRACT: This Performance Oriented Packaging (POP) report is for the Ground Emplaced Mines (M74, M75,M79 Mines) packed 40 per metal ammunition container IAW drawing 12624514. This report describesresults of testing conducted on a similar packaging which is used as an analogy for this item.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A277 845

Pijor, T.D. Mine/Countermine Basis of Issue Optimization Plan. Master’s thesis. Monterey,CA: Naval Postgraduate School, June 1988. 161p.

ABSTRACT: The mobility and effective employment of tanks in a future conflict may be seriously threatened byenemy land mines. This thesis presents a high resolution stochastically based simulation to be used in theevaluation of measures of effectiveness to determine the optimal basis of issue of mine/countermineequipment. A discussion of the types of breaching equipment and the tactics involved is used to providebackground for the simulation. Several measures of effectiveness are used to determine how the variousconfigurations of breaching equipment affect the battle and battle outcome.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A200 117

Printz, J. Pursuit Deterrent Munition Reserve-Cell Ammonia Battery Redesign Analysis.Final report. 1986-1990. Dover, NJ: Army Armament Research and Development Center,Fire Support Armament Center, April 1991. 42p.

ABSTRACT: The M86 pursuit deterrent munition (PDM) went into full-scale production in early 1989. At thistime a serious design flaw was discovered in the electronics system of the mine. the reserve ammoniabattery in the system had a serious performance problem at cold temperatures. This performance problemhad not been apparent on the M692/M731 area denial artillery munition (ADAM), a ballistically-launchedantipersonnel land mine that was later adapted for hand-emplacement (and subsequently evolved intoPDM). A thorough engineering analysis, involving a Taguchi design of experiments, was necessary todetermine how the battery could be improved to solve the performance problems encountered. This reportdiscusses this engineering analysis, in detail, from the development of the PDM until the incorporation ofthe corrective fix for the system.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A234 943

108

______. RAAM Integrated Circuit Source Change Analysis. Final report. 1989-1990. Dover,NJ: Army Armament Research and Development Center, Fire Support Armament Center,September 1990. 38p.

ABSTRACT: This report prepared to provide an analysis of the change from gold eutectic die attach integratedcircuits (I.C.) to sliver-glass die attach I.C. for the M718/M741 remote antiarmor mine (RAAM). Anoverview of the contract history of the present RAAM electronic lens assembly (ELA) contractor, AccudyneCorporation of Janesville, WI, is presented. An outline of both the gold eutectic die attached process andthe silver-glass die attach process is also given. The Government test plan for the die attach change wasanalyzed and the results and conclusions of the tests listed in the plan are provided.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A227 325

Proceedings of the Panel on the Tactical Aspects of Mine Warfare and Evaluation of theResearch and Development Program. Fort Belvoir, VA: Mine Warfare Panel EngineerCenter, February 1952. 32p.

ABSTRACT: None Available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 012 466

Progress report. 1 July-30 September 1953. (Harbor Protection Project). New Haven CT:Yale University, Laboratory of Marine Physics, September 1953.

ABSTRACT: Mine-spotting tests with the temporaty X-band radar showed that mine splashes are easily detectedand that low-flying planes and falling mines are trackable in some cases. Sound-ranging tests showed thatthe low-frequency component of long duration, which always follows a mine splash, is also observed whenthe mine is dropped from rest while wholly submerged. Progress is reported on the medium-range andshort-range location of planted mines. Tests of Raydist equipment indicated that much lighter gear(perhaps a set designed for helicopters) would be more suitable for small boat work. Laboratory tests oninducing vortex flow (by towing suitably shaped baffles) indicated the feasibility of this method as a meansof pressure mine sweeping. The special television chain for the underwater identification of mines operatedsatisfactorily.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 022 747

Radevich, P. G. and V.V. Zhuravlev, and I.V. Volkov. Manual on the Laying and Clearing ofMinefields. Charlottesville, VA: Army foreign Science and Technology Center,November 1965. 138p. Translation from Posobiye Po Ustroystvu I PreodoleniyuMinno-Vzryvnykh Zagrazhdeniy , 1965.

ABSTRACT: This book describes the designs and operating principles of antitank and antipersonnel mines of theSoviet Army and the armies of the capitalist states. The fundamentals of laying, reconnaissance andclearing of minefields, as well as recommendations for their recording and simulation, are also covered.Methods of organizing the training of personnel are described along with the safety rules that must beobserved in laying and clearing mines. The book may be used as an aid by officers in all branches of thearmed forces, by cadets in military schools, and by non-commissioned officers and soldiers of the SovietArmy. The book will also be useful to reserve officer affiliated with engineer units.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 474 792

Report of the Committee on Doctrine and Training. Fort Belvoir, VA: Mine Warfare PanelEngineer Center, February 1952. 69p.

ABSTRACT: None Available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 012 467

109

Report of the Committee on Research and Development. Fort Belvoir, VA: Mine WarfarePanel Engineer Center, February 1952. 65p.

ABSTRACT: None Available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 012 469

Report on the Committee on Technique. Fort Belvoir, VA: Mine Warfare Panel EngineerCenter, February 1952.

ABSTRACT: None Available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 012 468

Required Operational Capability (ROC) Number LOG 1.59 for a Mine Clearing PlowSystem. Washington, DC: Marine Corps, 1 April 1983. 12p.

ABSTRACT: A system, device or combination of devices which can be temporarily mounted to the front of astandard armored tracked vehicle (tank) chassis or other tracked vehicle and controlled by an operatorinside the vehicle is required to clear land mines and explosive devices from the path of the vehicle. Itshould be capable of physically extracting or removing any land mine and/or explosive device which islaying on the surface or buried under up to four inches (10.6cm) of soil cover from the area in front of eachtrack. An Initial Operational Capability of 1985 is desired.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A127 475/AD-A129 447

Required Operational Capability (ROC) Number LOG 1.63 for the Trailer Mounted MineClearing Line Charge (MICLIC) System. Washington, DC: Marine Corps, 7 April1983. 13p.

ABSTRACT: The U.S. Marine Corps requires an easily transportable, rapidly deployable mine clearingcapability which can be employed without modification or permanent attachment to tactical wheeled andtracked vehicles. A trailer mounted mine clearing line charge would provide a surface-launched capabilitywhich could be rapidly employed by mechanized infantry, armored and combat engineer units. A MICLICsystem is needed to create a vehicle-width cleared lane for tracked and wheeled vehicles through minefieldobstacles. The M58A1 Linear Demolition Charge is a standard Marine Corps ordnance item and willsatisfy safety and explosive clearing requirements. This line charge will create a breach pathapproximately 100m long and 10-16m wide against tactically laid, single-impulse pressure mines. The MK22 rocket used to deploy the M58A1 line charge is in the Marine Corps ordnance inventory. The M353general purpose, 3 1/2-ton, chassis trailer is an existing asset that can easily be adapted to carry theM58A1 line charge. A launch rail and framework will be required to launch the MK22 rocket and carry theM58A1 line charge pallet on the M353 trailer chassis. The adaptation of existing ordnance and trailerassets will satisfy many of the basic requirements.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A129 426

Required Operational Capability, USMC-ROC-213.3.5 for Amphibious ContinuousBreach Land Mine Countermeasure System. Washington, DC: Marine Corps, 20 May1987. 23p.

ABSTRACT: The Marine Corps has a requirement for a mobile mine countermeasure system (hereafter referredto as the system) capable of breaching enemy minefields in very shallow water and from the highwatermark inland in conjunction with lead echelons of the amphibious assault. The system will beemployed by assault amphibious vehicle (AAV) units to provide a highly mobile, quick response capabilityfor the assault breaching of single impulse pressure and tilt-rod antitank and antipersonnel minefield. A

110

preplanned product improvement (P3I) goal will be the neutralization of magnetically fuzed, blasthardened and multiple impulse mines. The initial operational capability (IOC) for the system is FY91. Thedate for full operational capability (FOC) is scheduled for FY94.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A183 962

Resnick,W.V. Investigation of the Resistance of 1-inch Rolled Homogeneous Armor Plate ofVarious Hardnesses to Antitank Mine Attack. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, May1959.

ABSTRACT: None available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 307 752

Richmond, Owen. Operation SNAPPER, Project 3.4. Minefield Clearance. Washington, DC:Atomic Energy Commission, February 1953. 75p.

ABSTRACT: None available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A995 044

Riggs, Lloyd S., and Charles A. Amazeen. Measurements in Moist and Wet Soils with theWaveguide Beyond Cutoff or Separated Aperture Dielectric Anomaly DetectionTechnique. Final report. Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Belvoir Research Development andEngineering Center, June 1991. 38p.

ABSTRACT: This report present experimental results concerning the separated aperture (or waveguide beyondcutoff) buried mine detection scheme. More specifically, the experimental data presented describes theability of the separated aperture sensor to detect buried dielectric anomalies under moist or saturated (wet)soil conditions. This data was collected during June - August 1990 at the Fort Belvoir Experimental MineLanes Facility, Fort Belvoir, Va. This report is part of ongoing research to build an engineering databaseto be used in a long-term research program directed toward the development of a complete understandingof the fundamental electromagnetic principles underlying the separated aperture mine detection techniqueand to assess the general feasibility of separated aperture mine detectors. The moist and wet soilexperiments described in this report should be viewed as a continuation of earlier experimental effortsdescribed in BRDEC Technical Report No. 2497, August 1990, (AD-A227008).

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A239 409

______. Research with the Waveguide Beyond Cutoff or Separated Aperture AnomalyDetection Scheme. Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Belvoir Research Development andEngineering Center, August. 1990. 67p.

ABSTRACT: This report presents experimental results concerning the separated aperture (or waveguide beyondcutoff) buried mine detection scheme. The primary purpose of this research effort is to contribute to anengineering database to be used in a long term research program directed toward the development of acomplete understanding of the fundamental electromagnetic principles underlying the separated aperturemine detection technique and to assess the general feasibility of separated aperture mine detectors.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A227 008

Roder, Fredrick L. and Richard A. Van Konynenburg. Theory and Application of X-Ray andGamma-Ray Backscatter to Landmine Detection. Research report. 1968-1973. Fort

111

Belvoir, VA: Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center, March 1975.153p.

ABSTRACT: This report discusses the theory and application of X-ray and gamma-ray backscatter to theproblem of nonmetallic landmine detection. The fundamental interactions of X and gamma radiation withmatter, including photoelectric absorption, Compton scattering, and pair production, are reviewed. Thebackscatter spectrum is analyzed in terms of the components due to single and multiple scattering. Thevariation of the backscatter spectrum with changes in the average atomic number of the scattering materialand with changes in source energy is explained. Four different source/detector geometries are compared interms of countrate for a given source strength, target-present-to-target-absent ratio, sensitivity to heightvariations above the scatterer, and sensitivity to scatter density. Theoretical and practical factors in theselection of sources and detectors are considered. Three techniques for compensating for height variationsare discussed, the most promising of which is a K-edge-filter method.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A015 541

Romba, John J. A Study in Training Methodology of Mine Dogs. Final report. AberdeenProving Ground, MD: Army Land Warfare Laboratory, June 1974. 14p.

ABSTRACT: An attempt was made to organize the training of mine dogs into logical learning segments: objectdiscrimination, outgoing excursion, and search. The procedure for object discrimination learning alonefailed to produce the desired result. A possible alternative method is suggested and briefly described.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 784 048

______. Tactics in the Development of Mine Detector Dogs. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD:Army Land Warfare Laboratory, 1970. 8p.

ABSTRACT: The paper describes the development and characteristics of two U. S. mine dog systems. The MineDetection Dog was recently made operational and has undergone a 6 month evaluation in RVN. TheSpecialized Mine Detection Dog is currently in development. The training procedures for both have beenbased on the reward or approach principle of learning.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 713 577

Romberger, David D. Optimization Methods for Mixed Minefield Clearance. Master’s thesis.Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, September 1996. 84p.

ABSTRACT: This thesis describes the development and implementation of an improved optimization feature forthe minefield clearance TDA MIXER. A constrained form of MIXER's original local optimal search methodis proposed, followed by an exhaustive search method, and then a simulated annealing method.Computational efficiency and program run times are examined for the exhaustive search method. Also, aperformance comparison of "optimal" solutions for the local search and simulated annealing methods isgiven. A final version of the optimization feature incorporates all three search methods.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A319 531

Romstedt, G.N. CSS/EMW/SOF (Combat Service Support/Engineering and MineWarfare/Special Operations Forces) Mission Area Materiel Plan (MAMP) Software.Final report. February-September 1986. McLean Research Center, Inc., VA, September1986. 343p.

ABSTRACT: This report documents the status of the Combat Service Support (Database ManagementSystems)/Engineering and Mine Warfare (EMW)/Special Operations Forces (SOF) Mission Area MaterialPlan (MAMP) Software. This software is used for program planning and resource allocation AMC RDT&E

112

initiatives. It also presents an analysis of some of the system aspects of the automated MAMP as it isinstituted throughout AMC, and of the program prioritization methods used.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A172 652

Sabol, B., and T. Berry. Effects of Microtopographic Features on Tilt of the Wide Area MineGround Platform. Final report. Vicksburg, MS: Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation, Environmental Laboratory, May 1991. 25p.

ABSTRACT: Under the Proof of Principle Program for development of the Wide Area Mine (WAM), the US ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station was responsible for characterizing terrain features expected toaffect the WAM performance. The off-vertical angle of the WAM ground platform (tilt) erected on theterrain surface will affect several critical functions of candidate WAM systems. Digital terrain elevationdata of adequate spatial resolution (2-ft horizontal spacing) was not available to accurately estimate thedistribution of tilt angles for the WAM ground platforms. Actual tilt measurements were therefore made onpre-erected (legs locked in pulse) WAM surrogates (mass models) on four terrain surface typesrepresenting managed and agricultural lands. Mean tilt angles ranged from 2 deg for meadowland toalmost 11 deg for a freshly plowed and rowed field. The Textron Defense System WAM exhibited a slightlylarger mean and standard deviation of tilt angle than the Honeywell, Inc., WAM for each terrain surfacetype; however, this difference was statistically significant in only one of the four cases. Because this studydid not consider the ground platform erection process, these data should not be interpreted as tilt anglesresulting from realistic deployment of WAMs.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A237 421

Sabol, B.M.; et al. Environmental Site Characterization for the Wide Area Mine SensorDemonstration, Aberdeen Proving Ground, October 1988. Final report. Vicksburg,MS: Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory, May1991. 43p.

ABSTRACT: Under the proof-of-principle program for the development of a wide area mine (WAM), the US ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station was responsible for characterization of the temperatureenvironment in which WAM developmental tests would be conducted. The principal temperate area forWAM testing was designated to be the US Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. This report presentsdata that characterize terrain and environmental factors expected to affect WAM sensor performance.Field measurements were made before and during the conduct of WAM captive flight tests and groundsensor data acquisition exercises. Measurements included soil and seismic tests, a quantitative vegetationsurvey, thermal terrain characterization measurements, and the collection of onsite meteorological data.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A237 045

Sanz, G.M. Countermine Combat Systems Analysis (Mine Plow Evaluation Module).Technical report. February-September 1985. Vienna, VA: BDM Corp., 15 September1985. 70p.

ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the results of tasks conducted to provide the Engineer Support Laboratorywith a low cost evaluation model to be used in the assessment of countermine concept alternatives. Themodel is microcomputer-based and supported by a commercial software package which provides ease ofuse, rapid computational abilities, and useful graphics features.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A159 444

113

Sargis, P.D. Buried Mine Detection Using Ground-Penetrating Impulse Radar. LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, CA, March 1995. 13p. [Symposium on AutonomousVehicles in Mine Countermeasures, Monterey, CA (United States), 3-7 April 1995.]

ABSTRACT: LLNL is developing a side-looking, ground-penetrating impulse radar system that can eventually bemounted on a robotic vehicle or an airborne platform to locate buried land mines. The system is describedand results from field experiments are presented.

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC119069, CONF95041541ACCESSION NUMBER: DE95-01144

Sattinger, I. J. Record of First Meeting of Expert Working Group on Minefield DetectionTechnology. Ann Arbor, MI: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, February1979. 30p.

ABSTRACT: The first meeting of the Expert Working Group on Minefield Detection Technology was held atMERADCOM on 7-8 December 1978. Briefings were given by representatives of MERADCOM, theEnvironmental Research institute of Michigan (ERIM), and Braddock, Dunn, and McDonald (BDM) on thegoals of a project being performed under Contract DAAK70-78-C-0198 to identify, screen, analyze, test,and evaluate methods of minefield detection, with primary emphasis on the European Theater ofOperations. ERIM presented, a Project Plan I for accomplishment of project tasks, which would includeearly effort devoted to identification and screening of new technical opportunities, and experimentalcollection of critical data on spotlight radar and active IR scanner systems. Suggestions were made by theEWG members and other participants concerning specific techniques to be screened, analyticalmethodology, and experimental tests. After review and discussion of the Project Plan in an open meetingfollowed by an Executive session, the Expert Working Group made the following recommendations.MERADCOM, ERIM, and BDM should prepare a comprehensive work plan which more fully coordinatesthe objectives and activities of ERIM and BDM. The program plan should specify technical opportunitiesin terms of (1) present systems, (2) IOC 1985 systems, and (3) IOC 1990 technologies. The resultingcoordinated plan should be ready for review by the EWG by the end of February 1979.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A088 670

Sattinger, Irvin J. Record of Second Meeting of Expert Working Group on MinefieldDetection Technology. Technical report. Ann Arbor, MI: Environmental ResearchInstitute of Michigan, March 1979. 34p.

ABSTRACT: The second meeting of the Expert Working Group on Minefield Detection Technology was held atMERADCOM, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia on 27-28 February 1979. Presentations were made by MERADCOM,the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan and Braddock, Dunn, and McDonald to the ExpertWorking Group on the current status and future plans for the project. At the end of the presentations, anExecutive session of the Expert Working Group was held. Major conclusions and recommendations of themeeting included the following. The study is to exclude considerations of sensors emplaced in advance ofhostilities and scatterable mines. The potential of multispectral scanners, passive IR sensors, wet chemistryphotography, SIGINT, and mine neutralization was discussed. Recommendations were made for furtherreview by MERADCOM and by individual members of the EWG of the overall coordination of theprogram, details of the analytical methodology being developed by BDM, and data on the RF-4Cphotographic system for use as a technical example in operational analysis.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A088 290

Schwartz, Richard E. and Dennis F. DeRiggi. SIMNET-Based Tests of Antihelicopter Mines.Final Report. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, January 1994. 58p.

114

ABSTRACT: This report describes a series of SIMNET Semi-automated forced armor engagements in whichantihelicopter mines are deployed. The impact of two types of antihelicopter mines on armor exchangeratios and other combat measures is presented. Learning effects are analyzed for both types of mines.Antihelicopter mines can have a significant effect on small unit engagements when used in conjunctionwith an effective air defense system. Direct fire and sublet launched antihelicopter mines, when properlydeployed are capable of depriving attack helicopters safe ingress routes and firing positions.

ACCESSION NUMBER AD-A281 162

Schwartz, Richard E. et al. The Smart Mine Simulator User's Guide and AlgorithmDescription. Final Report. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, 1 December1993. 74p.

ABSTRACT: The Smart Mine Simulator (SMS) is a computer simulation that runs on two UNIX workstations andoperates in the SIMNET/BDS-D distributed simulation environment. It simulates smart antiarmor mines,two variations of smart antihelicopter mines, and conventional antiarmor mines, enabling these mines toparticipate in SIMNET exercises for analytic, training, demonstration, or other purposes. This documentdescribes the SMS structure, its algorithms for simulating mines, and how to install and use it. Thedocument is intended to support both the planning of distributed simulation exercises and the installationand operation of the SMS on simulation networks.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A277 803

Semi-Annual Performance Report on Physics of Buried Mine Detection and Classification.Technical Letter Report, 1 March-31 August 1994. Austin, TX: Texas University atAustin Applied Research Labs, January 1995. 8p.

ABSTRACT: A better understanding of the science and engineering of buried mine detection in (1) offshore and(2) surf zone sediments, leading to safe, standoff detection technologies. This project is part of a leveragedinvestment program for ONR and APPA offices, which involves SPECWAR and USMC interests, to pursuemajor research thrusts already begun by the authors, that will lead the way to systems development. Thework is further leveraged by the cooperation of the SACLANT Undersea Research Center (SACLANTCEN)which will provide cooperating seafloor scientists, research tools and research vessels in a joint effort toresearch the basic physics of the governing processes.

ACCESSION NUMBER AD-A289 786

Shoenfelt, N.M. Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition Operating Component of the GateArray . Technical report. Dover, NJ: Army Armament Research and Development Center,Fire Support Armament Center, April 1991. 26p.

ABSTRACT: The selectable lightweight attack munition (SLAM) is a small explosive armament. It can be usedsimilarly to a mine where it can be placed on the ground to detonate when the magnetic signature of thedesired target is detected. It can also be used with a tripline or to detonate after a set period of time. Theoperation of the SLAM is controlled by electronics with the majority of functions on a gate array. Thefunctions of the gate array that control the operation of the SLAM are described in this report.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A233 926

Simard, Jean-Robert. Experimental Evaluation of the Apparent Temperature ContrastCreated by Buried Mines as Seen by an IR Imager. Defence Research EstablishmentSuffield, Ralston (Alberta), November 1994. 35p.

ABSTRACT: The detection of buried mines is a problem of prime interest internationally. One potential method tosucceed in this task is to use passive IR imaging to form thermal images of the soil surface. Even though

115

this technique has been intensively investigated for the last 15 years, only few publicly reported studiesshow quantitative measures of the apparent temperature contrast at the soil surface above buried mines.This document aims to improve this situation. Apparent temperature contrasts are measured for differentmine-soil combinations over 24 hour periods with a camera sensitive to long wave infrared (8-12micrometer). The effect of the variation of burial depth is investigated and special attention is taken todifferentiate the thermal effects associated with the soil disturbance from the mine itself. A maximumaverage of 2 degrees C in apparent thermal contrast disappears when the burial depth exceeds 8 cm for thecase where the thermal disturbance is related to the buried mine only. A 50% increase (-3 degrees C) isobserved when the thermal effect of the soil disturbance is present. Furthermore, this last apparent thermalcontrast shows little dependency with the burial depth. These results are promising for the detection ofmines buried in compacted soil. However, serious reservations about an acceptable false alarm rate andthe duration of the thermal effected created by the soil disturbance are expressed.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A289 856INTERNET http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/review/a289856.pdf

Sinn, J.L. Land Mine Options in Future Crisis and Conflicts. Student essay. CarlisleBarracks, PA: Army War College., 9 March 1987. 33p.

ABSTRACT: Newly developed land mine barrier and obstacle systems play a significant role in AIRLAND battletactical concepts. However, little has been written regarding the use of these systems at the operational andstrategic levels of war. This paper examines the potential impact of land mine systems on the range ofmilitary, political, and socio-psychological options available to American decision-makers in future crisisand conflicts. It deliberately avoids questions concerning system cost, the number and mix of systems toprocure, and the possible limitations involved. Rather, its purpose is to stimulate thinking about ways inwhich land mine systems may contribute to crisis bargaining, deterrence of conflict, and termination of thesame.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A182 782

Smith, F.G. History of the Army Ground Forces. Study Number 17. Washington, DC: Historyof the Third Army, Army Ground Forces, Historical Section, 1985. 152p.

ABSTRACT: The History of the Third Army, 1932-1944, (from organization to combat), was started with the otherthree field armies on 9 August 1932, by direction by the Army Chief of Staff, General Douglas MacArthur.Third Army was assigned the area formerly administered by the Fourth and Eighth Corps, with its missioncoverage the area the Gulf of Mexico and the southern frontier. The Commander had a dual hat as theCorps Area Commander. With the change of command 30 September 1940, the Army HQ was moved fromAtlanta to Fort Sam Houston. The Army continued with large scale maneuvers to develop and test doctrineand personnel. Its mission of training and preparation continued until its was alerted and sent overseas forcombat deployment. The mission and command was taken over by the Fourth Army.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A166 409

Squire, Derek H. Potential Technology Transfer to the DoD Unmanned Ground VehicleProgram. Final report. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, October 1996.51p.

ABSTRACT: The Joint Robotics Program (JRP), managed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, isdeveloping unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) for a number of military applications. These applicationscurrently include scout vehicles, engineer vehicles for mine detection and clearing, security robots,explosive ordnance disposal, and construction-type robots for detecting and removing unexplodedordnance. Future applications may include convoys and other logistic applications, both nonlethal andlethal weapons platforms, and a variety of other applications, such as firefighting, painting, and munitionshandlers. A significant amount of development in the civil sector may be applicable or adaptable to

116

military UGVs. The purpose of this paper is to identify and describe some of the robotics-related researchbeing conducted outside of the JRP that may be relevant to future programs. This paper focuses on twoareas of current research. One is the Automated Highway System (AHS) under development by the FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) (see Chapter II). The second is microrobotics being pursued bynumerous organizations for diverse purposes (see Chapter III). In addition to these two areas, a variety ofactivities of narrower scope are of interest. A few are described briefly in Chapter IV. The informationcontained in these chapters is largely descriptive. Although suggestions on the potential relevance of theseactivities are made, those directly involved in JRP developments are in a better position to evaluate thepotential of technology transfer from other programs.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A317 789

Steinberg, Bernard D and Donald Carlson. Research in Ground-to-Air Microwave Imaging.Philadelphia, PA: Moore School of Electrical Engineering, March 1995. 29p.

ABSTRACT: Many potential applications exist for high resolution radar such as direction finding, high accuracytracing, target counting, and high resolution radar imaging. All of these applications require the use oflarge, thinned, random or periodic antenna arrays. Many uncertainties exist in such large antenna systems.For example, exact element positions are generally not known because of surveying problems or flexing ofthe large antenna structure. Adaptive beanforming (ABF) is the solution to the unusual design thatachieves these objectives. It deduces the errors in the locations of the receivers that are distributed aroundthe airport or on the air frame and automatically compensates for them in the image processing. Thisyear's work concentrated on three tasks. The first was to develop a generalized ABF theory for the class ofspatial correlation algorithms. The second was to extend the resolution of a microwave leading radar to 15cm, and the third was to study enhanced target detection sensitivity and target recognition.

ACCESSION NUMBER AD-A292 907

Stewart, William F. Buried Object Detection Using Surface Waves. Master’s thesis. Monterey,CA: Naval Postgraduate School, September 1995. 64p.

ABSTRACT: The goals of this thesis is to evaluate the use of surface waves to detect buried objects. The sourceused to generate the surface waves was a three element phased array controlled by LabVIEW visualinstruments. This research included developing a source and receiver, evaluating attenuation andazimuthal dependence of the surface wave propagation, detection using scattering within a tank of sand,and using the three element array to beamform surface waves. It was successfully demostrated that targetlocalization using surface wave scattering and beamforming with a phased array is possible.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A305 744

Steinway, W. J. and J.A. Fuller. Antenna Considerations and Signal Processing Techniquesfor the Identification of Buried Non-Metallic Objects. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Instituteof Technology, Engineering Experiment Station, June 1981. 112p.

ABSTRACT: The U. S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command (MERADCOM) hasbeen involved in a program for the development of an off-road mine detection system. In 1978, the GeorgiaInstitute of Technology Engineering Experiment Station (GIT/EES) began a 36 month contract to gatherand analyze radar data and investigate antenna designs with the goal of improving the ability to detect,discriminate and classify buried targets. The project included tasks of initial data analysis, antenna designand fabrication, extensive data collection, and algorithm development. Section 2 describes the datacollection methods used with both the NBS measurement equipment and the MERADCOM short-pulseradar and a preliminary analysis of the data. Section 3 deals with the survey of candidate antennas, thedesign and fabrication of the 'best' choices, and the testing of those antennas. Test results for a cavity-backed spiral, and a broadband horn are presented and compared with a dipole antenna. Section 4develops the discrimination concept using frequency spectra data and spatial correlation. Both FFT and

117

MEM were used to obtain spectral data for comparison. The results of the discrimination algorithms aregiven.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A107 752

Sullivan, J.D., and C.N. Kingery. JUGFAE (Jug-Contained Fuel-Air Explosive) Concept.Final report. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, April1988. 51p.

ABSTRACT: Uncontested minefields, ones without covering enemy fire, are cleared cautiously but still causecasualties. The Jug-Contained Fuel-Air-Explosive (JUGFAE) concept does not send men into theminefield, but lets them proceed methodically from the minefield boundary. Safety and thoroughness areinherent in the setup process. The concept prescribes crane emplaced rows of plastic jugs containingdetonable fuel. When fueled jugs are in place, a single large fuel-air explosion is triggered. The explosionwill neutralize susceptible land mines. The 'don't cross' repeats line is moved across the neutralized areaand the setup operation is repeated. The cycle repeats until the mined area is cleared. The errors inplacing jugs and overlapping fuel-air clouds can be reduced so that a long line of clouds explodes. Basedon 55 liters of fuel per jug, the needs are 92 jugs per km of front and a cost of about $1 per square meter.In very large minefields, jub numbers and costs are daunting. Increased cloud radius (6.2m presently)significantly reduces the needs.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A195 794

System/Design Trade Study Report for the Navigation of the Airborne, Ground Vehicularand Man-Portable Platforms and Support of the Buried Ordnance Detection,Identification, and Remediation Technology. Indian Head, MD: PRC, Inc., March1995. 79p.

ABSTRACT: This document contains a System Design Trade Study on the optimum navigation systems forairborne, ground-vehicle and man-portable Unexploded Ordnance detection platforms. This study will beused by Unexploded Ordnance Advanced Technology Demonstration decision-makers to make informedtechnical and programmatic decisions concerning the use of new navigation and location technologies inthe detection, identification and remediation of Unexploded Ordnance.

ACCESSION NUMBER AD-A295 740INTERNET http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/review/a295760.pdf

Test Operations Procedure Safety Evaluation of Mines and Demolitions. Final report.Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Test and Evaluation Command, May 1978. 12p.

ABSTRACT: This paper provides a method of evaluating the safety of mines and demolitions during developmenttesting. Covers inspections and tests for adequacy of safety features; confirmation of functioning loads;sensitivity to accidental detonation during emplacement, arming, disarming, and recovery; safety duringtransportation including secured cargo vibration, rough handling, and 12.2-meter drop; and effects ofhigh- and low-temperature storage on functioning. Not applicable to chemical mines.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A055 107

Thurston, R. D. and Thomas Bardeen. Minefield Clearance. Fort Belvoir: Army EngineerResearch and Development Laboratories, March 1952. 97p

ABSTRACT: The methods for using Universal indicator mines to determine probabilities of detonation of anti-tank mines when subjected to blast are discussed. Scaling laws for normal bombs and atomic weapons aredevised and methods for computing probabilities of detonation are given. An outline of the instrumentationand field procedure used in obtaining data during Operation BUSTER is given. The results show that, in

118

addition to obtaining data for minefield clearance, estimates can be made of yield of the weapon and ofpeak pressure as a function of distance from ground zero. A rather radius of clearance was obtained in theBUSTER shots primarily because of a skip effect (abnormally low readings) occurring at a radius aboutequal to the height of burst. It is recommended that the Universal indicator mines with closer control beused in future atomic tests to study in detail the skip effect due to ground shock, terrain, and obstructionsand that further studies be made on the mine as a peak pressure gage.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 374 623

Tricoles, G., et al. Nearfield Electromagnetic Detection of Mines. Final report. San Diego, CA:General Dynamics Corp. December 1987. 140p.

ABSTRACT: Experimental and analytical research on mine detection is described. The objectives were the designof measurement system for evaluating mine detection ideas and a plan for investigation. The approach waselectromagnetic waves for ranges less than 3 meters. The report has three parts. Part I representsanalytical and experimental data, describes equipment and reviews identification; it is the basis for designof a measurement system and the technical plan. Part II describes system design; Part II the technical plan.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A314 152

Tsang, Leung. Microwave and Millimeter Wave Remote Sensing of Snow and Detection ofBuried Objects in Snow Environment. Final report. 1 June 1993-31 December 1996.Seattle, WA: Washington University, March 1997. 9p.

ABSTRACT: Understanding and predicting the snow conditions in snow terrain is important to the US Army inthe transportation of military vehicles, equipment, and personnel and for monitoring battlefieldenvironment in snow terrain. The snow parameters that characterize snow conditions are snow wetness,snow depth, snow density, and snow grain size and layering. These parameters describe the hydrologicaland mechanical states of the snow pack. Remote sensing of snow conditions using microwave andmillimeters waves are useful techniques. The microwaves and millimeter waves interact with the snowrough surface and volume scattering to produce the bistatic and monostatic radar return. Detection ofmines in snow terrain environment is an important problem. The scattering of wave by the mine can beobscured by the scattering of snow clutter. A newly developed technique based on angular correlationfunction can be used to suppress the scattering by clutter and relatively enhance the scattering by the mine.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A324 646

Tsang, Leung, Gulfu Zhang, and Kyung Pak. Detection of a Buried Object Under a SingleRandom Rough Surface with Angular Correlation Function in EM WaveScattering. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Department of ElectricalEngineering, April 1996. 6p.

ABSTRACT: Detection of a buried object with an electromagnetic rough surface above the buried object. Recentstudies show that by taking statistical averages, the angular correlation function of scattering by randomrough surfaces is small except along the memory line governed by the incident and scattered angles. In thisarticle we study the angular correlation junction of the scattering of electromagnetic waves by a buriedobject under a single random rough surface. Because the buried object is positioned under a singlerandom rough surface, the angular correlation junction is calculated with frequency averaging. Numericalresults show that the frequency averaged angular correlation junction still exhibits the memory line. It isalso shown that the angular correlation function away from the memory line will suppress the roughsurface scattering and make the buried object scattering more conspicuous by a relative magnitude of aslarge as 23 dB. Thus, the use of the angular correlation function will give better detection of a buriedobject than scattering intensity.

119

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A308 230

Unexploded Ordnance Clearance: A Coordinated Approach to Requirements andTechnology Development. Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense(Acquisition and Technology), March 1997. 109p.

ABSTRACT: The Department of Defense (DoD) is in the process of establishing an effective, fully-coordinated,requirements-driven research and development program for Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Clearancetechnology. This program will coordinate and leverage technology advancements across the five DoDUXO Clearance mission areas: Countermine, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Humanitarian Demining,Active Range Clearance, and UXO Environmental Remediation. An integral component of DoD'stechnology plan for UXO Clearance and detection is the development of private sector capabilities toperform these functions-for Active Range Clearance and Environmental Remediation. The vast acreage atclosing and active bases that require UXO clearance will require industry to play a leading role indeveloping improved detection and clearance technologies for these important missions. The need for sucha program has emerged over the past few years as U.S. involvement in operations other than war and postconflict humanitarian concerns have gained importance and as DoD has undertaken the closure ofinstallations contaminated with UXO. As requirements for UXO clearance have increased, it has becomeapparent that similar technologies may be applied to UXO clearance activities in each of these areas. Sucha coordinated technology development approach would not only be beneficial to the multiple usercommunities, but also to DoD to make efficient use of resources.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A326 965

US Government Interagency Humanitarian Demining Strategic Plan. The InteragencyWorking Group on Humanitarian Demining, 1996. 70p.

ABSTRACT: This document contains the United States Government (USG) Interagency Humanitarian DeminingStrategic Plan. The plan was developed, coordinated, and approved by the Interagency working Group(IWG) on Humanitarian Demining. It provides the strategy and implementing methodology to develop amore effective and better integrated humanitarian demining program that helps selected countries relievehuman suffering and develop indigenous demining capability, while promoting U.S. political, security, andeconomic interests. The Strategic Plan lays the foundation for improving Interagency coordination andsynergy by formally documenting: (1) vision, goals, and objectives of the USG humanitarian deminingprogram and the means employed to achieve them; (2) roles and responsibilities of the IWG and those ofits member and participating departments and agencies; and (3) methodology and planning timeline tocoordinate and implement interagency activities within the context of the USG humanitarian deminingprogram. The appendices: (1) supplement the plan and detail the process for selecting, developing, andmanaging assistance efforts for countries included in the U.S. program; (2) provide an overview ofhumanitarian demining program funding; (3) contain a glossary and selected bibliography; and (4)include copies of the White House press release announcing the President's anti-personnel landminepolicy, the Secretary of Defense memorandum for implementation of the President's decision on anti-personnel landmines, and the current IWG Charter.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A322 291

The United States Viewpoint on Minefield Policy. Fort Belvoir, VA: Mine Warfare PanelEngineer Center, February 1952. 30p.

ABSTRACT: None Available.ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 012 470

120

Varenysgev, B. Reconnaissance of Mines and Explosive Obstacles. Charlottesville, VA: ArmyForeign Science and Technology Center, November 1973, 9p. Translation of VoennyeZnaniya (USSR) n10 p40-41 Oct 72, by Markowitz.

ABSTRACT: In view of the wide use of mines and explosive obstacles by the forces of the NATO powers, Soviettroops are equipped with a wide range of devices for detecting, marking and eliminating antitank andantipersonel mines. These include roller and plow type mine sweepers mounted on tanks, the RoadInduction Mine Detector (DIM) mounted in a GAZ-69 light truck, and a hand-operated mine detector andMine Reconnaissance and Clearance Set (KR) for foot soldiers. Various types of engineer equipment areprovided for locating hidden delayed-action mines and demolition charges, and a magnetometer bomb-detector has been developed.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 784 756

Von Tresckow, Arnold. Land Mines (Landminen). Translation of Soldat und Technik (WestGermany) no. 8 1975. Washington, DC: Naval Intelligence Support Center, TranslationDivision, February 1978. 43p.

ABSTRACT: Long before World War I, the term 'Mine Warfare' was well known. The term was used to denotetunnels, advanced towards enemy positions and usually filled with large amounts of explosives which,when initiated, were to bury enemy positions or destroy them, in order to make possible the breakthroughof friendly forces. Also covered by this term was combat against ships with naval mines. While this articleis entitled 'landmines', its discussion is limited to antitank mines and mines used against other groundvehicles, as well as mines used against live targets on the ground. Both types of mines had their origin as aresult of the conditions prevailing during World War I.

ACCESSION NUMBER AD-A053 305

Walczak, J., and K.J. Bathe. Nonlinear Analysis of a TM-46 Soviet Land Mine. Final report.25 March 1986-March 1988. Watertown, MA: Adina Engineering, Inc., 29 March 1988.55p.

ABSTRACT: A static and dynamic analysis of a TM-46 land mine is presented. The objective of this study was toestablish a finite element analysis of the mine including an accurate modeling of the contact conditions.The report presents the finite element modeling and solution results for the static buckling response and thedynamic response under blast pressure loading.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A206 986

Walker, John K., Jr. Air Scatterable Land Mines as an Air Force Munition. Santa Monica,CA: Rand Corporation, March 1978. 20p. Presented at the Air University AirpowerSymposium, Battlefield Support in the 1980's, Air War College, Maxwell AFB, AL, 14February 1978.

ABSTRACT: This discussion has touched upon some aspects of the following hypotheses: The extensive array ofmine countermeasure gear in Warsaw Pact ground forces formations suggests considerable respect for thepotential of mines to impede armored vehicle mobility. In the absence of some delaying influence, Pactcombat power can build up at a faster rate than a defender can cope with or maneuver to counter.Disruption may be viewed as a combination of vehicle destruction, formation delay and diversion, andinterruption of orderly command and control. A number of related interactions that are subtle and not wellunderstood currently cannot be defined or measured. A number of opportunities appear to exist for usefulemployment of air scatterable land mines by tactical aircraft. But there are some problems, as well, severalof which may be reduced through joint service understanding, testing, and cooperation. An initial step in

121

this direction might be an appreciation of countermobility as an attack objective, using disruption as theeffect to be sought rather than destruction of discrete target elements.

REPORT NUMBER: RAND/P-5955ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A086 583

Wallace, Robert R., Richard K. Young and Robert Felts. Countermine Systems Study: PartIA: Baseline System Description. Fort Belvoir, VA: Army Mobility EquipmentResearch and Development Center, September 1972. 136p.

ABSTRACT: The study determines the range of time, labor, materiel dollars, weight, volume, energy, casualties,and vehicles associated with breaching a 1-4-8 minefield using selected doctrine and materiel as of 1September 1971. It is intended that this system description serve as a baseline for the comparison ofalternative conceptual countermine systems.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 755 105

Washburn, Alan. Katz Distributions, with Applications to Minefield Clearance. Technicalreport. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, Department of Operations Research,March 1996. 27 p.

ABSTRACT: At the end of a mine clearance operation, some judgment must be made about the number of minesthat remain uncleared. A Bayesian analysis will require a prior distribution for the number of mines. Thisreport describes some desirable properties of Katz distributions for that purpose. The Katz class consists ofbinomial, Poisson, and negative binomial distributions.

REPORT NUMBER: NPS-CR-96-003ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A307 317

Wegman, Edward J., Jeffery L. Solka, and Wendy L. Poston. Immersive Methods for MineWarfare . Technical report. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Center forComputational Statistics, April 1996. 28p.

ABSTRACT: We are developing a synthetic environment to be used in combination with real environments for thepurpose of mine counter measures. Two examples of our work involve applications to land-basedminefields and an application to submarine defense. In the former application, imaging is done with sixspectral bands. It has been shown empirically that a sequence of images taken in six spectral bands whenviewed sequentially will allow one to distinguish between real mines, partially buried real mines, decoys,other metallic objects, and other manner of debris. The image can be viewed as a 2-dimensional imagewith an 6-dimensional vector attached to each pixel location. We use the grand-tour technique (Wegmanand Shen, 1993) to find an optimal discrimant between real mines and other objects. We then use a head-mounted display (HMD) which is semitransparent so that the real-world objects can be seen through it.After processing the scene, the suspected sites of real mines are superimposed on the visual field so that thesoldier wearing the HMD is alerted to the presence of mines. The submarine application is similar. We useCrystal Eyes technology and Silicon Graphics Onyx systems in our laboratory.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A313 514

Wenzel, A. B. and L.R. Garza. A Preliminary Report of the Technical Objectives andAnticipated Functional Requirements of the Nonexpendable Mine Roller System.San Antonio,TX: Southwest Research Institute, September 1970. 31p.

ABSTRACT: The program objective is to furnish all the engineering technology and facilities necessary to design,fabricate, test, and deliver components for the development of a nonexpendable vehicle mine clearingroller. It is to incorporate a command wire cutter. The roller will be used for assault minefield breaching

122

and route clearing operations and is designed to detonate single impulse, pressure-activated mines buriedunder soil, sand, or water up to 6 inches deep. A command wire cutter will be developed as an integralpart of the Vehicle Mine Clearing Roller.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 728 123

White, Ben O., Jr. 60th Infantry Platoon (Scout Dog) (Mine/Tunnel Detector Dog). ArmyConcept Team in Vietnam, December 1969. 42p.

ABSTRACT: The Army Concept Team in Vietnam evaluated the 60th Infantry Platoon (Scout Dog) (Mine/Tunnel)(60th IPSD) to determine its suitability for tactical employment with US Army units in RVN. The 28-manplatoon had 14 mine and 14 tunnel dogs. The mine dogs were trained to detect explosive artifacts and tripwires. The tunnel dogs were trained to detect open and camouflaged holes and trip wires.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD- 869 383

Wichmann, Guenter. Research and Development on the Field of Mine Detection. Finaltechnical report. Heidelberg, Germany: Development Office for Microwave ImpulseTechniques, October 1996, 29p.

ABSTRACT: Due to the experience made over several decades in the field of mine detection it became obviousthat the identification or at least the classification of detected objects will be indispensable because of thefalse alarm rate which would nullify the success of any mine detection system. This meant for a minedetector based on microwave technology that additional information had to be gained by exploitingconsiderably higher frequencies than had been used in the past. Since in wet soil high frequencies aresubject to an extreme attenuation, a pulse radar system with an extremely clean pulse on an extremelyclean baseline had to be built. By introducing a completely unconventional method for diminishing theradar cross section of the antenna, this clutter could be reduced by almost two orders of magnitude, thusachieving a cleanliness of the pulse which had never been reached before. Thus it became evident that thesystem internal clutter can be reduced to a level which possibly will allow the future identification orclassification of mines. As for a final mine detector, an antenna line array is unavoidable and the antennainternal clutter as well as the clutter generated by the multiple reflections between soil and antenna willincrease due to the larger number of antenna elements involved, an additional improvement has to beachieved in order to at least maintain or even increase the performance now achieved when using acomplete line array.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A325 260

Williamson, Roger L. Modeling Visual Detectability and Avoidance of Scatterable AntitankMines. Final report. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Human Engineering Laboratory,December 1977. 18p.

ABSTRACT: When comparing the effectiveness of scatterable antitank mine systems, the countermeasure ofvisual detection and avoidance is a significant aspect. The probability of detecting and avoiding antitankmines emplaced on the surface of the ground varies as a function of the height of the mine, the height ofvegetation on the ground, the running mode of the tank (open versus closed hatch), and tank speed. Thosefour parameters were combined into a geometrically derived model to produce a point estimate of theprobability of detecting and avoiding a mine system. Additional parameters needing investigation aspossibly significant additions to the model are mine color, mine camouflageability with natural debris, thepresence of parachutes or mine antennas, diurnal effects, sun angle, and psychological/physiologicalcondition of the tank crew.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A049 635

123

Wirtz, David P. Preliminary Design and Accuracy Analysis of a Ground-Launched MultipleRocket System for Breaching Mine Fields. China Lake, CA: Naval Weapons Center,January 1973. 55p.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is to design and evaluate the accuracy of a proposed multiple rocketsystem. This implies a preliminary baseline design for which the accuracy is evaluated. Accuracy impliesthe basic deviations resulting from an attempt to place the rockets in a pattern required to breach theminefield.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A061 672

Wissler, J.E. Anti-Mechanized Defense: A Computerized Simulation for Squad LeaderTraining . Master’s thesis. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Air Force Inst. of Tech., Schoolof Systems and Logistics, September 1983. 359p.

ABSTRACT: Marine Corps doctrine requires deployment of one combat engineer platoon with each BLT.Engineer squad leaders provide anti-mechanized defense expertise to Battalion Landing Team riflecompany commanders. This expertise includes the effective use of barriers and obstacles in conjunctionwith organic direct fire antimech weapons and combined arms support. Current squad leader training inthese areas is limited due to budget, equipment, and training area constraints during both shipboard andashore periods. Gaming has proven a satisfactory approach in supplying this training. This researchdeveloped a two-player, Pascal-based, computerized simulation incorporating USMC and Soviet directand indirect fire weapons, standard barriers and obstacles, and appropriate Soviet tactics. Development ofthe game included initial verification and validation testing through comparison of game responses toMCCRES standards and interpretation of actual Marine enlisted playtesting. The completed prototype wargame was shown to provide realistic and enjoyable training on the squad leader level.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A134 962

Wortman, Donald E. Mine Detector System. Patent. Washington, DC: Department of the Navy,January 1977. 4p.

ABSTRACT: A mine detector system that utilizes an explosive comparator to increase the sensitivity andselectivity. The system utilizes a generator to transmit a signal simultaneously toward the area to bescanned for mines and towards a sample of the explosive sought. Detectors are positioned within the deviceto receive the reflected signals from both the area to be scanned and the sample explosive. The outputsfrom both detectors are fed to preferably a null type comparator for correlation. When the two signalscorrelate, mine presence is indicated.

REPORT NUMBER: PATENT 4,004,212

Wright, Susan J. Tactical Effectiveness of Minefields in the Antiarmor Weapon SystemMine Detection Side Test (TEMAWS II). Final report. February-April 1977. FortLeavenworth, KS: Army Combined Arms Combat Developments Activity, September1977.

ABSTRACT: This paper contains an analysis of the data collected during the Mine Detection Side Test of theTactical Effectiveness of Minefields in the Antiarmor Weapon System (TEMAWS) field experiment. Thepurpose of the test was to collect data on the ability of tank drivers to detect and avoid scatterable mines asa function of varying levels of vehicle speed, minefield density and mine detectability. A trial consisted ofone tank, manned only with a driver, traversing a course of four minefields of different densities. Thedrivers were not task loaded beyond the objective to detect and avoid all mines. Results of the analysisinclude probabilities of mine detection, detection and avoidance, and mine encounter. Distances traveled

124

to first detection and between subsequent encounters are also provided. Analysis of variance conducted onthe independent variables identified significant factors and interacting factor effects.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A045 519

Wuest, C.R. Energetic Charged Particle Beams for Disablement of Mines. LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, CA, 27 March 1995. 11p. [Autonomous Vehicles inMine Countermeasures Symposium, Monterey, CA, 5 May 1995.]

ABSTRACT: LLNL has an ongoing program of weapons disablement using energetic charged particle beams; thisprogram combines theoretical and experimental expertise in accelerators, high-energy and nuclearphysics, plasma physics and hydrodynamics to simulate/measure effects of electron and proton beams onweapons. This paper reviews work by LLNL, LANL and NSWC on detonating sensitive and insensitive highexplosives and land mines using high-current electron beams. Computer simulations are given. 20--160MeV electron beams incident on wet/dry soils are being studied, along with electron beam propagation inair. Compact high current, high-energy accelerators are being developed for mine clearing. Counterminemissions of interest are discussed. .

REPORT NUMBER: UCRLJC120594, CONF95051972ACCESSION NUMBER: DE95-009669

Yates, Donald R. The Landmine Dilemma and the Role of the U.S. Government. CarlisleBarracks, PA: Army War College, March 1996. 32p.

ABSTRACT: The proliferation of antipersonnel landmine use has created problems world-wide. This studyidentifies and clarifies the complex issues that have created the current landmine dilemma. In addition,this research discusses international and congressional attempts to regulate antipersonnel landmineuse and critically analyzes these efforts. This paper also proposes recommendations as to what therole of the United States should be in resolving the landmine dilemma.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A308 534

Yue, O., G. Tricoles and E.L. Rope. Monostatic Microwave Imaging of Buried Objects.Volume I. San Diego, CA: General Dynamics, October 1974. 49p.

ABSTRACT: High quality microwave images of realistic objects in damp soil were formed, and correlated to thestructure of the objects using the monostatic measurement technique. Moreover, they compared very wellwith other images made in dry smooth soil. Effect of polarization and changes in frequency on themicrowave image was investigated. A new way of displaying the scanned data was introduced to facilitatedetection of buried objects.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A004 861

Zacks, S. Survival Distributions in Crossing Fields Containing Clusters of AbsorptionPoints with Possible Detection and Uncertain Activation or Absorption. Technicalreport. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University, Department of Mathematicsand Statistics, June 1976. 36p.

ABSTRACT: The present paper presents an algorithm for the exact determination of survival distributions incrossing fields containing absorption points (mines). The model under consideration considers clusters ofabsorption points, scattered at random in the field around specified aim points. The scatter distributions ofthe various clusters are assumed to be known. The encounter process between the particles (objects) andthe absorption points allows for a possible detection and destruction of the points, for inactivation of thepoints and for the possibility that an activated point will not absorb the particle. Recursive formulae for thedetermination of the survival probabilities of each particle in a column of n crossing a the same path are

125

given. The distribution of the number of survivors out of n particles in a column is also determined.Computer programs in Fortran are provided as well as numerical examples.

ACCESSION NUMBER: AD-A026 218

INTERNET SITES

Anti-Personnel Land Mines Ban Project [Physicians for Global Survival, Canada]

URL : http://www.pgs.ca/pages/ldmn0.htmlfor their Landmine Links and WWWsURL : http://www.pgs.ca/pages/lm/ldwwwlst.html

Berserkistan Travel Advisories

URL : http://www.linder.com/berserk/mines.htmlLandmine Awareness and Survival Techniques � adapted from the manuals of theMine Clearance Training Unit (UNTAC) UN Forces, Cambodia. Includesdescriptions as well as links to other sites

Canada and the Global Land Mine Crisis

URL : http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/english/foreignp/disarm/mines.htmCanada’s approach to the land mine crisis.

Canadian Association for Mine and Explosive Ordnance Security (CAMEO Security)

URL : http://www.cameo.org/The Canadian Association for Mine and Explosive Ordnance Security (CAMEO Security)is a non-profit charitable Society which has as its mission to provide safe, professional,and cost-effective humanitarian land mine clearance and explosive ordnance disposal(EOD) services in war-torn societies.

Canadian Disarmament Digest

URL : http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/english/foreignp/disarm/cddhome1.htmThe CANADIAN DISARMAMENT DIGEST provides a summary of developmentsconcerning non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament issues from a Canadianperspective. It is produced by the Non-proliferation, Arms Control and DisarmamentDivision of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

126

Canadian International Demining Centre: Land Mines

URL : http://eagle.uccb.ns.ca/demine/index.htmlCanadian International Demining Centre homepage.

Demining Research at University of Western Australia

URL: http://www.mech.uwa.edu/au/jpt/demining/Default.html\

DeTeC HOMEPAGE – the Demining Technology Center at the EPFL(Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne � Swiss Federal Institute of Technology)

URL : http://diwww.epfl.ch/w3lami/detec/Provides a lot of good links

Human Rights and Landmines

URL : http://www.engagedpage.com/landmines.html

Humanitarian DeminingSponsored by the U.S. Army communications Electronics Command, Night Vision andElectronic Sensors Directorate, Countermine Division

URL : http://www.demining.brtrc.com/ This site provides some great links including to a world map showing mine infestationareas, other links and most usefully, a mine identification guide database which identifiesmines based on their characteristics. Pictures are included.

Humanitarian Demining Project – James Madison University

URL : http://library.jmu.edu/libliaison/camerosl/demine.htmIncludes bibliography, links, and search strategy.

ICRC: International Red Committee of the Red Cross

URL : http://www.icrc.ch/unicc/icrcnews.nsf/DocIndex/home_eng?OpenDocumentThis location contains basic facts and information about landmines, a bibliography, pressreleases and news items on antipersonnel weapons.

JAYCOR: Standoff Mine Detection Radar System

URL : http://www.jaycor.com/eme/smdr.html

127

Describes the JAYCOR standoff mine detection system which can detect and identifyboth surface and buried mines.

The Journal of Humanitarian Demining – James Madison University

URL : http://www.hdic.jmu.edu/hdic/journal/2.1/index.htmPresented by the Humanitarian Demining Information Center (HDIC).

Land Mine Warfare: Detection and ClearanceThe DTIC Review, vol. 2, no. 1 (entire issue) and includes a list of electronic references.

URL : http://www.dtic.mil:80/stinet/dticrev/vol2-number1.html

Land Mines

URL : http://www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/peace/mines.htmlLinks under Peace and disarmament, from the Information Resource Centre, CanadianForces College, Department of Defence (Canada).

Landmines Special Report Top Page

URL : http://www.oneworld.org/guides/landmines/front.htmlONEWORLD ONLINE and its partners gives the facts about landmines, examine thearguments for banning them, report on the UN review conferences.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Landmine Bibliography

URL : http://www.llnl.gov/landmine/landmine_bibliography.html

Links to Conventional Arms Trade and Other Relevant SitesCenter for Defense Information

URL : http://www.cdi.org/atdb/atdblink.htmlArms Transfer Working Group (ATWG), from the Arms Trade Database. This siteincludes links to many other land mine sites.

Links to Landmine sites, Warchild Landmine Project

URL : http://www.warchild.org/news/links.htmlThis provides a number of good links.

A Mechanical Means of Land Mine Detection. [University of Alberta MechanicalEngineering]

128

URL : http://www.mece.ualberta.ca/landmine.html

Mennonite Central Committee Peace Program

URL : http://www.mennonitecc.ca/mcc/programs/peace/land-mines.htmlNews and links.

MineFacts

URL : http://204.7.227.67/infonet/minecd.htmlAn interactive database program developed by the U.S. Department of Defense. Itcontains information and graphics on over 675 landmines from around the world.

MINERATS: Anti-personnel Mine Clearance Robots

URL : http://fourmilab.ch/documents/mineratsCommon anti-personnel mines (with pictures).URL : http://fourmilab.ch/documents/minerats/figures/mines.html

Minrapport

URL : http://www.rb.se/kampanj/mine1.htmlSweden's Landmine Defence (full text document).

MINWARA � The Mine Warfare Association

URL : http://www.minwara.org/Includes copies of the Association newsletter and reports online.

North Atlantic Assembly (of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

URL : http://xs4all.freenet.kiev.ua/NATO/related/naa/research.htmIndex of documents including Landmines.

Norwegian Campaign to Ban Landmines

URL : http://www.interpost.no/folkehjelp/english/mines/index.htmlNorwegian People's Aid - International de-mining activities. The Menace of Mines.Obstacle and Challenge in Development. Map of solidarity and mine-clearing activity.

Pacific Talk Virtual Library Index

129

URL : http://www.pactok.net.au/docs/landmine/landmine.htmProvides documents on/by the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (CCC), theDocumentation Center for Cambodia (DCCAM), and LANDMINES, under theConvention on Conventional Weapons (CCW).

Summary of Land Mine WWW Pages

URL : http://lenti.med.umn.edu/~mwd/landmines.html

UNICEF

URL : http://www.unicef.org/sowc96pk/mines.htm

The United Nations Demining Database

URL : http://www.un.org/Depts/Landmine/Includes demining programme reports, country and area reports and casualties andincidents as well as links to other Landmine sites.

U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville – Ordnance and Explosives Centerof Expertise (CX) and Design Center.

URL : http://w2.hnd.usace.army.mil/oew/index.htmIncludes: fact sheets, and presentations and technical papers etc.

U.S. Army�s Mines, Countermine and Demolitions� Web site

URL : http://www.pica.army.mil/orgs/pm-mcd/

U.S. European Command – Humanitarian Demining Operations

URL : http://www.eucom.mil/operations/demining/

U.S. Information Service – Demining

URL : http://www.isis-canada.usia.gov/demining.htmGood source for US policy on demining – links, statements and resources

Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation – Landmine Library

URL : http://www.vvaf.org/library/resource_list.html

130

Includes: facts, accomplishments and maps, a chronology, a resource list and links toInternational and U.S. Campaigns to Ban Landmines.

World Health Organization Land Mine Report

URL : http://www.pgs.ca/pages/lm/ldmnwho.htmlDirect and Indirect Consequences of Landmines on Public Health by Faiz Kakar, Ph.D,Consultant, Division of Emergency and Humanitarian Action, WHO, July 1995.

YAHOO – Landmine Debate

URL : http://headlines.yahoo.com/Full_Coverage/World/Landmine_Treaty/

GOOD SITES FOR SEARCHING(should be used along with the standard web searchers)

CALL - Center for Army Lessons Learned database

URL : http://call.army.mil:1100/cgi-bin/webinatorThis searches the following sites: CALL, Warfighter XXI, JVCAAT, FMSO, MilitaryReview, Soldiers Magazine Online, Ft Leonard Wood, Armor Magazine and Ft Knoxweb sites.

DTIC's STINET

URL : http://www.dtic.mil/stinet/public-stinet/all/DTIC�s Scientific and Technical Reports Collection. This allows you to searchsimultaneously the following sites: DoD Index of Specifications and Standards; DOEOPENNET Database; DOE Reports Biliographic Database; DTIC U2 Technical ReportDatabase; DoD Directives; DoD Instructions; NASA Technical Reports Database; NASAOpen Literature Database; NASA NACA Technical Reports Database and NASAGoddard Technical Reports Database.

GovBot Database of Government Web sites

URL : http://pardoo.cs.umass.edu/GovBot/GovBot has gathered over 185,000 web pages from U.S. Government and Military sitesaround the country.