Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 99/397

200

ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Responsibility and Usages An early problem, which required an acceptable solution, was the allocation of responsibility for both the laying and clearance of minefields. It had been generally agreed under peacetime conditions, before practical experience had been gained, that whilst the laying of formal minefields would lie with Sappers, all arms must understand their use and be able to lay them for local defence or for delaying action in a withdrawal. It was further agreed that those who laid mines were responsible for recording and reporting their location. Such a policy, while sound in theory, demanded a very precise ‘drill’ to be thoroughly known and practised by all arms if it were to function properly. In practice in the Middle East, and later in other theatres, it became accepted that the major share both in the laying and in the clearance of mines fell to the Sappers. This was so that proper recording could be ensured, and that in clearance, expert knowledge of the various types of enemy mines and their ancillaries should be available. At the same time, it was recognised that, as Sappers could not be everywhere, all arms must be prepared to do sufficient clearance for themselves to prevent serious delays to any forward advance . 17 With the increased employment of mines in desert warfare, by both combatants, the work of mine laying and clearance absorbed more and more of the total engineer effort until the later stages of the campaign. In fact, this work became the heaviest of all Engineer tasks. Nevertheless, in the New Zealand Division, much more of the responsibility for laying and clearing mines was imposed on other arms, thus freeing the Engineers for other required tasking. Earlier in the war, minefields had been used to a limited extent and really only in two ways: firstly to form a prepared obstacle around defended localities or boxes, and secondly, owing to the length and depth of the area held, these ‘boxes’ tended to get farther and farther apart, such that ‘mine marshes’ were used to fill the spaces in between. However, these ‘mine marshes’ did not fulfil one of the principles of an efficient obstacle. They were neither under observation nor covered by artillery or machine-gun fire. Consequently, when they were encountered by the enemy, there was nothing to prevent tank crews from dismounting and clearing one or more lanes with a degree of impunity. This widespread use of minefields in ever increasing numbers highlighted the importance of accurate recording of location, lay-out, and extent, coupled with the dissemination of this information to our own mobile forces. Standard forms for recording mine-laying were formulated and their usage was imposed on all arms that might be called on to lay mines. The development of instruments as ‘detectors’ to locate buried mines became of great importance. This problem was already engaging the attention of technicians and scientists in the United Kingdom, but the urgency of the problem

17 Ibid., pp. 368-369.