How well would a claymore mine field fare against troopers of a late medieval army (say, Swiss halberdiers in half armor)? How far away do the troopers need to be in order to have a good chance at survival? And how would a medieval army like that react to their leader hitting a landmine and getting blown up? Would they turn back and flee? Disperse away from the road? Or would they freeze up and lose unit cohesion?
In the words of the esteemed Dr. Farnsworth, “to shreds you say?”
So, for those unfamiliar, claymore mines use a shape charge to propel the shrapnel in a fixed cone (most the shrapnel is propelled in a roughly 45 degree arc, with almost all of it landing within a 90 degree arc of where it's pointed.) These can be rigged up with tripwires, or remote detonators. This is achieved by placing a fairly heavy plate behind the explosive, while the primary payload of eventual shrapnel is placed in front of it.
You don't technically hit a claymore mine. Again, these are shape charges, and designed to propel the destructive force (mostly) horizontally, so, you'd hit the tripwire, or a sentry with a detonator would activate it, possibly without even being detected by the people in the mine's kill zone.
Claymores have an optimal range of about 50 meters, with a maximum range of ~250 meters. So, “exactly how good do you consider your odds?” Because at 50m, the chances of being hit by fatal amounts of shrapnel is estimated to be about ~30%. (Obviously, in other circumstances, such as if you've got claymores set up in a confined concrete bunker, they're going to get a lot more dangerous.)
Also, we don't generally keep tight marching formations the way that early modern troops used, because modern weapons are horrifically effective against them. That Futurama quote is on the nose, because against a densely packed group of soldiers in early modern armor, the blast will likely hit almost all of them, and will, quite literally, blow many, if not most, of them apart. To put this more simply, using early modern military doctrine, they'd all be in the mine's kill zone when it went off, and their armor would do absolutely nothing to help them. In fact, this might be a case where their armor would further contribute to the shrapnel.
As for how they would react? I suspect most of them would take the ignoble option of dying almost instantly in the initial blast or shortly after from blood loss and extreme trauma. Would the survivors who could break and flee? Quite possibly. They also, quite likely, wouldn't even really understand what happened, simply because they'd never seen destructive force on that kind of scale before. “Would they lose cohesion?” My brother in Alfred Nobel's exploding cocktail lounge; they'd be losing biological cohesion with themselves. There wouldn't be a surviving unit.
There was a paradigm shift in the first World War. The stage had been set in the late 19th century, but most European armies didn't realize what had happened (and in fact, military leadership of the time stayed willfully ignorant) until after it came home.
Before this point, there was a concept of being able to “trade hits.” The halberdiers were expected to march into melee combat against other melee forces. This even survived the introduction of gunpowder units, and was still dominant military doctrine through the 19th century, where soldiers were expected to march in rank and file out onto the battlefield before shooting at each other in tightly packed formations.
What happened in the late 19th century was the development of weapons that were able to deal death with such speed and efficiency that getting into melee combat was no longer possible. The old, tightly packed, formations went from being an effective way to get troops into combat, to an effective way to see your troops completely eliminated by a single conscript's heavy machinegun fire.
The effective paradigm of infantry combat is now that your foes have the ability to end your existence, so you need to avoid their weapons (and preferably their detection) completely, until you can end them. (Yes, armor still exists, yes, it does work, but it's contingency you hope you don't need, rather than protection you expect to use.) Combat today is about controlling line of sight. Marching a squad of troops out onto the battlefield in tight formation wouldn't work, because a couple snipers with mediocre positioning could decimate them.
The claymore is part of this new paradigm. If you're in the kill range, unless you're in some radically more advanced armor than it was designed to deal with, you're going to have a bad day when it goes off.
We don't wear the same kinds of armor that those halberdiers used, because modern handgun rounds will perforate those. Modern armor does, sometimes, use steel plates (or, Kevlar, ceramic, or some polymers), as inserts but, the kind of steel used is significantly more resistant to modern bullets than what those early modern soldiers wore.
This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.
