• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Using the results of predictive intelligence and then conducting integrated staff planning are only a portion of the tasks necessary to plan, prepare and then execute route clearance/countermine operations. Decisions must be made about the best route clearance method to use.

Linear Route Clearance

Currently only one method is discussed in doctrine or employed by units. It is the linear route clearance method. Sweep and security teams begin their route clearance from point "A" and complete it at point "B" (see figure 1). This method is widely practiced by all units and does provide route coverage. However, many units fail to specify an identifiable start and end point on the route which ultimately results in confusion between the planners and the executors. While linear route clearance can be effective, it is not the most secure method to use in a hostile environment.

Linear Route Clearance(5k)

Two other methods, combat clearance, and combination clearance can be used based on the METT-T analysis.

Combat Clearance

The combat clearance method focuses on specific areas, rather than focusing on a specific route. When predictive intelligence products identify high threat areas for mines and/or ambushes, these NAIs become objectives for the elements conducting combat clearance missions.

This method (see Figure 2) takes a route and divides it into sections according to the number and size of the high threat areas.

Combat Clearance(11k)

Technique:
1. Sweep force, consisting of a mixture of maneuver and engineer forces, sweeps and secures the high threat areas.
2. After the areas are secured, the route is considered secure.
3. Follow-on combat forces must then patrol the route from these objectives to confirm the route security.
4. The combat forces can then also sweep the surrounding areas for caches, if the earlier securing effort had discovered a minefield.

Risk Assessment: The commander must assume the moderate risk that the S2 has correctly identified the high threat areas. The additional risk involves the minefields potential outside the designated high threat areas. This threat would be faced by the combat elements conducting the route patrolling subsequent to the danger area clearing and securing.

Method Suitability and Advantages: Combat clearance is best suited for light forces, since it makes maximum use of surprise, stealth, and concealment, rather than subjecting a force to the constant threat of exposure along a linear danger area. This method also focuses the task force on opening and securing a route for follow-on forces, and moving into the countryside to find the enemy.

Combination Clearance

The combination clearance method combines aspects of both the linear and the combat clearance methods. (See Figure 3)

Combination Clearance(4k)

Technique:
1. Designate high threat NAIs identified through predictive intelligence as objectives.
2. Phase I: combat forces secure and clear these objectives of any obstacles and enemy forces prior to the movement of any sweep teams.
3. Phase II: sweep teams, then clear the route of any other obstacles not previously cleared or identified.

Risk Assessment: Again, the commander must assume the S2 has correctly identified the high threat areas. Additionally, the amount of combat power involved is greatest using this method. This provides greater firepower and security, but exposes more elements to potential dangers in clearing. The mass required to execute this method implies economy of force elsewhere while this mission is being completed.

Method Suitability and Advantages: More force intensive to execute, the combination clearance may take a battalion/task force-level effort depending upon the length of the route and the number of identified high threat areas. The primary advantage is time saved. A task force commander can immediately secure his main supply routes, for example, and then push out to find the enemy possessing a high degree of confidence that follow-on forces will be safer, and not required to conduct their own sweep efforts in the same areas. Therefore, the assets needed up front can be released for other missions when the clearance is complete with less likelihood they will be recommitted to clearance again.

Current doctrine specifies two minesweep techniques: hasty and deliberate. Doctrine does not describe these techniques in any detail, and units consistently struggle to successfully plan and execute route clearance/countermine operations.

Techniques: Use the following four techniques, Levels 1-4, in conjunction with the most appropriate method described above. (See Figure 4.)

These Levels fill in the current gaps existing when units try to determine whether to use the hasty or deliberate technique by doubling the options and by specifying identifiable decision criteria. These expanded criteria allow commanders to weigh potential risks and effort against the expected results.

Levels 1 and 2 are really modifications of the hasty technique, and Levels 3 and 4 are modifications of the deliberate technique.

Decisions about what Level to use primarily apply to the linear route clearance and the combination methods already described.

NOTE: The combat clearance method automatically would require using the Level 4 technique, since this method requires deliberate clearance of specified objective area, previously identified as high threat.

Six criteria distinguish the four Levels:

1. METT-T analysis
2. Risk: Both before and after the clearance operation
3. Rate: The lower the Level, the faster the rate
4. Task Organization: The higher the Level, the greater the troop requirement
5. Detection Methods: The higher the Level, the more equipment used
6. Route Areas: The higher the Level, the greater the area surrounding the route covered

Level One Route Sweep(3k)

Level One Sweep(3k)

NOTE: Each figure labeled ROUTE SWEEP depicts the expanded view. The accompanying figure shows a more detailed "blow up."

1. Fastest and riskiest technique.

2. Suitability: best suited for armor/mech forces.

3. Relies primarily on visual detection for minefield detection: thermal sights; infrared sights; naked eye.

4. Follow visual detection with mechanical detection system: mine-clearing rollers (MCRs).