An array of specialist AFVs can be used to break through a front line where the enemy has laid down extensive antitank minefields and other obstacles. What are the best options? As ever, it depends on the circumstances…

Until the major incursion into Russia in early August, which was still ongoing in early September, the war in Ukraine had settled down into a stalemate with the long front line marked by deep minefields, anti-tank ditches, fortifications and other obstacles... Continues below

This analysis article originally appeared in September's Decisive Edge Land Warfare Newsletter.

Newsletter Sponsors:

In 2023 Kyiv attempted a major counter-offensive to try and push Russian forces back, but this was stopped in its tracks by a dense antitank minefield covered by multiple direct-fire weapons.

Ukraine lost valuable assets including three heavy mine breaching vehicles based on a Leopard 2 hull and several US-supplied Bradley M2 series IFVs.

This time round, in August, Kyiv’s forces found a weak spot in the Russian lines that was only lightly defended and rapidly pushed towards Kursk, using a variety of Western-supplied equipment.

Threat-Sense provides military vehicles and UAVs with the ability to detect and positively identify surface laid mines, even in adverse environmental conditions.

As I write this Ukraine has continued to advance but it is uncertain whether it intends to retain hold of the ground taken or if this an effort to relieve pressure on other parts of the front where Russia has started to make significant gains, such as Donbas.

Russia’s ‘tradition’, born during the Second World War, is that it always prepares defences in depth with antitank mines, obstacles and two or three lines of deep ditches.

The Russian Army is well equipped with a variety of tracked trench-digging machines and by late August had also started to prepare defences on the approaches to Kursk.

Breaching antitank minefields is a time-consuming and difficult process as the fields have first to be located. Mines can in theory be detected and removed by hand, but this is a painstaking and hazardous operation at the best of times, never mind under fire.

The most common technique in Western armies is to find the minefield and then send in specialist clearance equipment, usually a combat engineer vehicle (CEV) fitted with a wide range of useful devices.

These can include a rocket-propelled system which is launched over the minefield, with the explosive line falling to the ground, hopefully in a direct path.

It is operated by remote control when on the ground, with the blast overpressure neutralising the mines. If there is a wind it does not always fall straight.

Dynamit Nobel Defence: Technology Leader for shoulder-fired weapons, explosive reactive armor, counter-mobility solutions and digitization of the battlefield

Typical examples of this type of system are the UK’s Python, the US MICLiC (MIne Clearing LIne Charge) and South Africa’s Rheinmetall Denel Munition Ploffader.

The Python is normally mounted in a trailer towed by a CEV or other platform, while MICLIC and Ploffader are usually mounted on the rear of the CEV and launched over the front. South Africa has also deployed Plofadder installed in the rear of a Casspir 4x4 mine-protected vehicle and fired through open roof hatches.

According to Denel the Ploffader will clear a path on at least 160m in length and at least 9m wide, with the stand-off distance being 80m.

Once a line-clearing charge has been detonated, the CEV enters the minefield and deals with the remaining mines by using front-mounted rollers to detonate them or the more common plough which pushes them to one side.

Both attachments can be track-width or full-width, with the latter preferred as it provides a wider path for following vehicles.

As the CEV moves through, pole-type devices with a flag are fired into the ground so that operators of other vehicles and equipment can see the cleared lane ahead.

Variations on this theme exist. The Israel Defense Forces uses a variety of specialised vehicles including the Puma, a modified Centurion tank with turret removed and new superstructure, which can be fitted with a dozer blade or mine rollers.

Experience global collaboration at SAHA EXPO 2024. Engage with a vibrant community, witness cutting-edge technologies, and unlock growth avenues. Join us today.

Mounted on the rear of the platform is a pod of rockets fitted with a fuel-air explosive which are fired in succession over the minefield to clear a path. This system, called Carpet, has also been sold to France.

Flail-type clearance systems are also still used. These are often based on a modified surplus tank chassis and move slowly through the minefield with the flails detonating or simply destroying any mines.

For example, the German Army took delivery of 24 Keiler vehicles based on the M48 tank with flail-type mine-clearing systems at the front. The M48 was used rather than the more widely available Leopard 1 as the hull of the former is boat-shaped rather than flat-bottomed and the driver is seated in the middle of the hull rather than to the side. These two factors increase crew survivability.

ST Engineering also developed a specialised flail system for the Singapore Army called Trailblazer which uses components from the Bionix tracked IFV.

When on roads this is driven as normal with the crew in a well-protected cabin at the front with the flail in travelling position to the rear. When carrying out clearing operations the flail is traversed rearwards and dischargers for the line marking pennants extend to the side. The Trailblazer then ‘reverses’ through the minefield.

So much for mines. Antitank ditches need different solutions. They can be overcome using CEVs with a front-mounted dozer blade, but this can take time which is always in short supply during combat operations.

The UK Royal Engineers (RE) use pipe fascines which are dropped from the front of a Terrier CEV into the ditch, with the number required depending on depth and width. Once the ditch is ‘full’ vehicles can start to cross.

Another alternative is to use an armoured vehicle-launched bridge (AVLB) to lay over the ditch in a matter of minutes.

AVLBs are typically based on a MBT chassis with the turret removed and replaced by a bridge system on the top with a dozer/stabiliser blade at the front which can also be used for other missions. The bridge can be of scissors-type or horizontally laid over the gap and may be picked up from either end.

Wide water gaps formed by lakes or rivers are often integrated into man-made defences and are difficult to cross. Nonetheless this can be accomplished by using a ferry, pontoons or more specialised vehicles.

Pontoons are normally carried on the rear of a 6x6 or 8x8 truck and launched over the rear into the water where they automatically unfold and are then linked up and held in place by bridging boats. If one pontoon is damaged it can be replaced.

Russia has deployed PP-series pontoon bridges and the tracked GSP ferry. The latter can also be linked together to form a bridge across a wet gap and this technique has been seen during operations in Ukraine.

Western systems that can be used as a bridge or ferry include the General Dynamics M3 Amphibious Bridging and Ferry System and the Turkish FNSS Armoured Amphibious Assault Bridge.

Entry and exit points of a bridge normally must be prepared for ease of access. This can be done by a CEV’s dozer blade or dedicated vehicles such as the US M9 Armored Combat Earthmover or FNSS’s Kunduz. The latter is fully amphibious and can be used for other roles such as preparing a fire position.

As can be seen, CEVs are multirole platforms that can be fitted with various types of so-called front-end equipment.

The previously mentioned UK Terrier has a front-mounted bucket which can be used for clearing roads or digging trenches and fire positions. It also has a crane which can be mounted with various attachments such as an auger to dig holes in the ground or a pincer grab to remove obstacles such as trees.

Some CEVs such as the French Army’s EBG based on the AMX-30 tank had a 142mm weapon for launching demolition charges to neutralise fortifications such as pillboxes, but this has been removed from remaining in-service vehicles, as has the ability to lay antitank mines. Operations in Ukraine may cause developers to think about the return of such capabilities, and possibly some new ones.

In an ideal world your CEV and AVLB should be based on the same chassis as your MBT, so all platforms have the same level of cross-country mobility and protection.

This is not always so, but a positive example (for once) is the British Army which has a common heavy fleet of Challenger 2 MBTs, Titan AVLBs, Trojan CEVs and Challenger Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicles.

Germany still deploys the elderly Dachs CEV based on the Leopard 1 but in future will take delivery of a new model based on the contemporary Leopard 2 with the Rheinmetall as prime contractor.

The French Army has now moved to a fleet of mainly wheeled armoured vehicles alongside a few tracked ARVs and EBG CEVs, with these latter eventually expected to be replaced by 8x8 equivalents. It will be interesting to see how these fare in a combat scenario on difficult terrain.

The US Army phased out its dedicated M728 CEV based on the M60 MBT many years ago. A new CEV called Grizzly was developed by General Dynamics Land Systems but following trials with prototypes this project was cancelled.

The army has now deployed the Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) which was originally developed for the USMC and is based on the M1 Abrams.

Front-end equipment is supplied by the UK’s Pearson Engineering and mounted on the rear is the MICLIC mine clearing rocket system. Pearson also supplies similar equipment for the 8x8 Stryker M1132 Engineer Squad Vehicle.

Some of these CEVs are fitted with a remote-control capability for use in high threat areas.

As is clear from the above, CEVs and other specialised vehicles are highly complicated and have to be able to continue to operate in harsh conditions so new models continue to be developed. Converting an old tank may not always be the best answer and eventually you will run out of them.

For example, at Eurosatory in mid-2024 Rheinmetall unveiled its latest Keiler New Generation (NG) which it has developed as a private venture.

And as noted above the German Army will take delivery of 44 Leopard 2-based Kodiak AEVs from Rheinmetall. This was originally developed in conjunction with RUAG with the Swiss Army being first customer with 12 units. Sales have been made since to the Netherlands (ten), Singapore (14) and Sweden (six).

FFG of Germany developed the Wisent Armoured Support Vehicle (ASV), also based on a Leopard 2 chassis, and this has been sold to an increasing number of countries including Canada (18), Hungary (five ARVs and two AEV kits), Norway (12), Qatar (six) and the UAE (four plus four CEV kits, three ARV kits and four breacher kits).

A key feature of the Wisent is that it can be re-roled from a CEV to an ARV in less than five hours.

In the past these Leopard 2-based CEVs used surplus MBT chassis but as these have been used up most recent CEVs have been built with new hulls.

While a degree of modularity is possible, most of these vehicles deployed for breaching enemy antitank defences are still bespoke assets and often not available in quantity. The exact combination of specialist platforms needed for a (counter) attack will depend on the exact terrain and obstacle mix but one thing is certain – they must be deployed carefully with the aim of keeping losses to an absolute minimum.

Don't want to miss out on future Decisive Edge content? Make sure you are signed up to our email newsletters.