From: "George Sherwood" 

"Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote in message
news:44abfb9e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> Humm.. Minefield are such buggers to clear even when the damn things are
> stationery that most fail/don't. This could well create a very tricky
> option esp coz most AT mine fields are protected via AP mines.

I think this is much less likely under the Mine Ban Treaty.  I will be
working with some of the Humanitarian Demining here.  One is especially a
mess where the Soviets tried to blow up some ammo.  One more of many messes
they left here.

> It was discontinued in part because of the land mine treaty etc which is
> where my legal comment came from. Active mine with a claymore or with a
> shaped charge...simply a different fitting.

Of course you can come up with a completely different use that would be
illegal.  Pretty much any weapon can fall into this category.

> But again...the only diff twixt AP & AT would be the
"software"/orders
> given to the beastie.
>
> e.g. in Iraq is an IED AT/AV or AP?

Great queston.  Guess I would lean toward them being AT/AV.  But that is
really only because it is where they are planted and being used for the
most part.  Though, I would guess the enemy would be just as likely when a
squadron of troops marched by as when a Hummer goes by.


>> It was interesting.  My first celebration of the Queen's Birthday.
>> Most likely since I was one of the only people in uniform he came over
>> and
>> wondered what a Navy person was doing here.   Have to see how the
>> picture came out.
>
> Was he in civies or naval uniform too?

Civies.  British DCM was supposed to send the pictures today, but I never
received them.

George

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5