Mine warfare has long been a staple in the Gulf.  In Gulf one - the Iraqi mine fields were intended to stop an US amphib assault (faked).  Still, the Iraqi mines did damage the USS Princeton.

 

The Iranians have used mines to harrass warships and oil tankers.  The Straits of Hormuz and Malacca are prime candidates for mine warfare.  The US used mines against North Vietnam and with great effect against Japan during WWII.

 

Mine warfare is still quite active and even the classic moored WWI mine is still a threat.

The Otranto Barrage was a series of mines, anti-submarine nets and trawlers that created a sort of "Maginot Line" in the Adriatic Sea in WW1.

Although German subs penetrated the defences with little effort, it was successful in stopping surface vessels from passing through the Otranto Straits and reaching the Mediterranean.

My question is, would such a "jeune ecole" approach work today in an ongoing conflict or military situation?

Pakistan/India came to mind right away, though other posters may have other ideas pertaining to how this defence strategy could work/or why it would not work.

thx

 

Offensive mine warfare is deadly and efficient.

 

Herald

 

The Otranto Barrage was more than simply a minefiled though: it also had surface elements and a series of nets to ward off submarines. I know very little about Naval Warfare, so I wonder if such a sea-based "Maginot Line" is still feasibnle in our day and age. What do you think, H?

 

I don't doubt the effectiveness of mines, but i wonder about the possiblilty of creating a surface blockade. I'm thinking of the Iranians, for example, creating a Barrage in the Hormuz Straits or between Qeshm and the mainland.

You're quite right in mentioning the Malacca Straits.... would be very effective.

 

The llesson from Otranto was that the area was simply too large to close: to close the Adriatic to the Germans required a blockade of 150 kilometers of so.... Now I wonder how Pakistan could use this sort of strategy. In a war with India, Pakistan wouldn't have a chance at sea, and the gap between their naval forces is growly constantly in favor of India. I assume India would immediately make a blockade off Karachi and simply wait for Pakistan's couple months of fuel and food supplies to dwindle. In such a lopsided conflict, it would be in Pakistan's interests to adopt assymetric combat at sea.

 

However, the area is simply too large perhaps..... ideally though, the Paks could make a Barrage that would let them out but not the Indians in.... what do you think?

First of all I would be using shore based anti-ship cruise missiles under the protection of the best SAM belt I could mount.

 

That substitutes for the old style coast artillery naval guns that used to close off the straits of the world to commerical shipping.

 

The I would sow the straits with drift mines and shallow bottom mines that are both acoustic and wake influence types.

 

 

Attend:

 

http://cpmwsrender02.cp.prod.mappoint.net/render-30/getmap.aspx?key=C918AD21CEDE1A3088C9" width="575" height="470" /> 

 

 

You can't ask for a better choke-point.

-The area is small enough to be covered by a modest SAM belt.

-The water is shallow enough for bottom influence mones to work anywhere in that one tight restrictive channel.

-The width of the strait is well within the MER of a CS 801.

-One or two oil tankers SUNK and not only do you have a global economic disaster on your hands, bit you have majpr problem for the United States in TWO wars as our logistics planning goes to hell in very short order.

Bad as it is for Uncle, you'd see the EU in PANIC mode as their primary energy lifeline is cut.

 

Not smart for Iran to try, as it practically guiarantees we invade to open the sea route again.

 

Bit in the six months that they could keep the Persian Gulf closed, they could raise a lot of hell with just few dozens of missiles and a few hundred very cheap mines. 

 

That is what I mean by offensive mine warfare.

 

Herald

 

 

. 

I can think of a couple of things I could do.