The war in Ukraine serves as a stark reminder that the strategic environment can shift rapidly, and policy and military doctrine must adapt accordingly. The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine demonstrates how anti-tank mines can be effectively employed to slow enemy advances, protect key terrain and serve as a potent deterrent against aggression.
Both Ukrainians and Russians are emplacing mines in the hundreds of thousands, and those mines arguably are having a bigger impact on the war’s outcome than drones. So, why aren’t U.S. Army leaders and U.S. policymakers talking about mines?
The modern military landscape is evolving, and there is growing recognition that the Army lacks necessary capabilities to shape terrain on the scale required for large-scale ground combat. This shortfall could prove catastrophic in future conflicts. The Army is attempting to fill the capability gap with emerging technologies, such as smart mines and munitions. However, these technologies have been in development for decades and still aren’t available in mass, and their costs are expected to be exponentially higher than those of conventional anti-tank mines.
In the face of these realities, the U.S. and its civilian and military leadership must consider reintroduction of anti-tank mines into its policy and arsenal. This is not merely a suggestion but a call to action—one that should be taken up by citizens and policymakers alike.
The U.S. military officially ceased the regular use of and training with anti-tank mines in the late 1990s and early 2000s. These decisions were driven by a combination of humanitarian concerns, international pressure and a shift in military priorities following the end of the Cold War. The U.S. no longer faced a near-peer competitor, and the focus of military operations shifted toward asymmetric warfare, counterterrorism operations and peacekeeping missions. In this context, the use of anti-tank mines, with their potential for long-term harm to civilian populations, seemed increasingly out of place.
The assumptions of a world without conventional enemies have proven overly optimistic. The resurgence of great-power competition, most notably exemplified by the Russia-Ukraine war, has highlighted the enduring relevance of traditional military tools, including anti-tank mines.
Strategic Examples
The Russia-Ukraine war provides numerous examples of the strategic utility of anti-tank mines. One of the most notable instances is the disruption of Russian armored columns during the initial stages of the invasion. Ukrainian forces, recognizing the importance of controlling key supply routes, deployed anti-tank mines along major roads and logistical corridors frequently used by Russian tanks and armored vehicles.
According to daily reports by the Institute for the Study of War, a nonprofit public policy research organization based in Washington, D.C., these mines were instrumental in forcing Russian units to alter their routes, navigate around mined areas and slow their advance. The resulting delays had a cascading effect, disrupting the overall operational effectiveness of Russian forces. By compelling the enemy to abandon its original plans and adapt to the presence of mines, Ukrainian forces were able to buy valuable time and space to reinforce their positions and plan counterattacks.
The prolonged stalemate in the Donbas region provides another example of the strategic utility of anti-tank mines. The region, characterized by its complex terrain and network of fortifications, has seen extensive use of mines to create defensive perimeters and deny key terrain to advancing Russian forces. Forbes reported online on Oct. 20, 2023, that the presence of anti-tank mines in the Donbas significantly reduced the mobility of Russian armored units, forcing them to engage in costly and time-consuming mine-clearing operations before attempting significant advances. The Forbes article is headlined “The Russians May Have Lost 55 Tanks In One Day Trying, And Failing, To Capture Avdiivka.”
The strategic placement of mines also has allowed Ukrainian forces to channel Russian units into kill zones, where they can be more easily targeted by artillery, anti-tank guided missiles and other defensive systems. The use of anti-tank mines in the Donbas has contributed to a grinding war of attrition, where neither side has been able to achieve a decisive advantage.
Protection Role
Anti-tank mines also have played a critical role in protecting key infrastructure in Ukraine. The protection of bridges, supply depots and other critical nodes has been essential to maintaining the flow of logistics and preventing Russian forces from achieving operational freedom of movement.
The Ukrainian government has publicly acknowledged the importance of these mines in maintaining control over critical infrastructure. By denying Russian forces access to key crossing points, Ukrainian forces have been able to prevent the enemy from achieving its objectives of encirclement and isolation. This has allowed Ukrainian forces to maintain their defensive positions and continue to contest control of key terrain, even in the face of overwhelming firepower.
Psychological Impact
Beyond their physical effects, anti-tank mines have a significant psychological impact on enemy forces. The fear of encountering mines can slow an enemy’s advance, increase caution and force the enemy to divert resources to mine-clearing operations. In the Russia-Ukraine war, the psychological impact of mines has been evident in the cautious behavior of Russian forces, which have often chosen to advance more slowly and methodically in areas suspected to be mined.
An April 7, 2022, report by Reuters highlighted the psychological toll that mines have taken on Russian forces. The constant threat of mines has forced Russian commanders to adopt more conservative tactics, limiting the speed and aggressiveness of their operations. This, in turn, has allowed Ukrainian forces to exploit these slower, more deliberate movements, launching ambushes and counterattacks against Russian units that have been delayed or channeled by mines.
While the military utility of anti-tank mines is clear, it is also important to consider the long-term humanitarian implications of their use. The presence of unexploded mines poses a significant risk to civilian populations, both during and after the conflict. This has been a key concern for international organizations and governments, leading to widespread efforts to ban or limit the use of anti-personnel mines through treaties such as the 1997 Ottawa Convention, which bans anti-personnel land mines.
However, it is important to differentiate between anti-personnel mines, which are indiscriminate in their effects, and anti-tank mines, which are specifically designed to target armored vehicles. The question that military planners and policymakers must grapple with is whether the benefits of using anti-tank mines outweigh the potential long-term risks.
Clear Answer
In some cases, the answer may be clear. The use of mines to prevent an enemy from capturing and occupying territory may be justified, particularly if the alternative is the loss of strategic terrain or the risk of civilian casualties due to enemy occupation. In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, the Ukrainian government has made efforts to balance the military necessity of using mines with the need to protect civilians.
The Russia-Ukraine war offers valuable lessons on the strategic utility of anti-tank mines in modern warfare. Their effectiveness in disrupting enemy advances, protecting key terrain and imposing psychological costs on adversaries underscores their continued relevance as a military tool. The case studies from Ukraine highlight the importance of maintaining a robust inventory of anti-tank mines and ensuring that military forces are trained in their effective use.
Lessons from Ukraine make it clear that the U.S. and its allies must reassess their approach to mine warfare. This includes not only considering the reintroduction of anti-tank mines, but also developing comprehensive strategies for their use, including plans for clearance and mitigation of civilian harm.
The stakes are too high to ignore this issue any longer. The time to act is now—before the next major conflict forces us to confront the consequences of our inaction.
Lt. Col. William Murray is the deputy engineer for U.S. European Command, Germany. Previously, he was commander of the 2nd Regimental Engineer Squadron, 2nd Cavalry Regiment. He deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, including as commander of an explosives clearance company. He graduated in 2005 from the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York. He has two master’s degrees: one in geological engineering from Missouri University of Science and Technology, and one in operational art and science from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.